Talk:Mohonk Preserve

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

The page Mohonk Mountain House was created on March 9, 2005, and is now it pretty good shape, IMHO. When I worked on it, I was unaware that the Mohonk Preserve link redirected here. I can see no useful purpose for combining the two, so I am proposing that this article be renamed simply Mohonk Preserve. I will continue to work on expanding it. Mwanner 23:35, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 23:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"See Six States"[edit]

Every locale has an interest (historical, cultural, or economic) in describing itself as interesting.

Nevertheless, Mohonk Mountain's highest point, the top of the tower at Sky Top, is geographically interesting: you can see six states from up there on a clear day, goes the claim. Is it true? Can anyone verify?

The six are NY (you're in it), CT (closest to E.), MA (CT's not that big), NJ (far side of NYC? Dubious), PA (closer than parts of NJ), and whichever of Vermont or New Hampshire is on the west, I always forget.  :)

For comparison, note the claim discussed in Metropulse about "seeing seven states" - and the problem of smog, and of distances approaching and even beyond 100 miles.

If anyone can verify the Mohonk claim using NPOV sources, please say so. The NYTimes, among other sources, agrees with the claim (and it's Vermont, not New Hampshire, that is west of the other, and just north of Connecticut). See this article.

Eh Nonymous 10:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Vermont is just north of MA. (Directly north of CT, yes; just north, no.) --75.69.176.225 (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Land Grab" ?[edit]

Paragraph states: The Mohonk Preserve has been involved in numerous land disputes with their neighbors. The confrontational land grab tactics of the Mohonk Preserve, which includes the use of adverse possession, has led to the formation of the Mohonk Neighbors Association.

The bolded words are not backed up by any information justifying the claims. I have searched for the "Mohonk Neighbors Association" and the only reference I find is this page.

I am deleting the referenced paragraph. If someone has facts that back this up, I would appreciate input.

--BrianJ48 (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That fact that a single individual cannot find a topic with a web search is not sufficient evidence to prove its non-existence. Many organizations (perhaps most smaller ones) do not have a distinct web presence.

In the interest of keeping the Wiki a reliable secondary source, here is some of the research that was formerly lacking:

MPNA: http://gunks.com/ubbthreads7/ubbthreads.php/topics/16281/An_Open_Letter_to_The_Mohonk_P?PHPSESSID=51305c8ce9cf9a7836e5e529bc245eea

The above link does not constitute a reliable source as this is merely an append to an open forum. In addition, the open letter referenced never mentions a formal group called Mohonk Preserve Neighbors Association. Prairienut (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable land acquisition tactics: Ulster County Supreme Court Civil Actions: 03-1717, 04-525, 05-1722, 09-2747. Map #9595. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.143.33 (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of the negative additions about "land grab" and the Mohonk Preserve Neighbors Association are biased and should be reverted. The IP address(es) adding them should be blocked from tampering with the page. The changes are added by a disgruntled neighbor (Chris Ullrich) who has an injunction against him for cutting standing trees and lighting fires on Mohonk Preserve property (court document copied below). He is also the "Mohonk Preserve Neighbors Association" and is trying to make it sound like it is more of a formal organization than some guy with an axe to grind.

Court decision: 09-2747 RJI No. 55-09-0162 HON. MARY M. WORK Assigned Justice Plaintiff. MP Defendant. MP neighbors The Court finds that plaintiff has established the elements required to entitle it to a preliminary injunction: a likelihood of success on the merits, a potential for irreparable harm, and a balance of the equities in their favor (Aetna Ins. Co. v. Capasso, 75 NY2d 860,862 [1990]). With respect to the merits, as the Court's lengthy recitation of defendants' unfulfilled promises to obtain a survey demonstrates, defendants have had since at least 2005 to produce a survey demonstrating their ownership of the disputed parcel. It took plaintiffs surveyor only three months to produce a survey. The fact that defendants have failed to secure a survey at this late date in the legal proceedings suggests that such a survey would not be favorable to their position. The plaintiff has produced a survey by an apparently highly qualified surveyor, who is the successor in practice to the individual upon whose work defendants rely for their claim to the disputed portion. Defendants did not produce Mr. Pauli's topographic map in support of their opposition to the motion. The title insurer of defendants' property has submitted an affidavit in support of plaintiffs position. With respect to irreparable harm, the Court finds that the cutting down of standing trees and/or the cutting up of downed trees constitutes irreparable harm to the ecosystem the Mohonk Preserve was created to safeguard (Gramercy Co. v. Benenson, 223 AD2d 497 [I" Dept 1996]). The building of fires on Mohonk Preserve land creates a potential for a forest fire, which could cause devastating harm to the Preserve. The equities clearly tilt in favor of the plaintiff Defendants own approximately 14 acres on which they can camp and cut up fire wood. Without knowing the open burning regulations of the Town in which their property is situated, the Court cannot say that they can freely build fires on their property, but they certainly have no need to burn fires on what, from all evidence now before the Court, appears to be the property of the Mohonk Preserve. The motion for a preliminary injunction is granted. Plaintiff shall submit an order in accordance with this decision, excepting only the right of defendants to use the shale driveway as it currently exists for access to their property. This constitutes the decision of the Court. The original decision and order are returned to the attorney for plaintiff. A copy of this decision, and all other papers, are delivered to the Supreme Court Clerk for transmission to the Ulster County Clerk for filing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.35.35.35 (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The land disputes discussed are not significant enough to warrant inclusion in this article, it would seem. Anyone have any support to offer for the inclusion of this material? Ironically, the following paragraph explains how the former paragraph is insignificant, contradicting the inclusion of either paragraph. Strawbrrymlkmore (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More on Land Disputes

The land disputes between the Mohonk Preserve and their neighbors have been discussed in multiple online fora, in reader letters to local papers, and in articles found in several news publications including The New York Times, The New Paltz Times, and the award winning progressive Hudson Valley magazine Chronogram. As such, these disputes seem worthy of mention here in the Wikipedia article on the Mohonk Preserve.

Further, the assertion above that all of the negative changes are added by a single disgruntled neighbor is false. It's the kind of assertion one might expect from an organization with a full time professional public relations staff. Rather than having a single disgruntled neighbor, it's well and widely known in the community that the Mohonk Preserve does not get along with a great many of its neighbors. It should come as no surprise to anyone that this is being documented here on wiki.

Finally, regarding the injunction cited, injunctions are not determinations of fact. They are instead intended to maintain the status quo until a determination of fact can be made. Until the court issues a decision regarding Mohonk Preserve vs Ullrich, all parties involved would be wise to not consider any actions by the court as an indicator of a future decision.

If the trivial is going to be included, at least include the Preserve response

Try as you might, you can't argue the merit of something because you post it lots of places and contact newspapers.

The disgruntled user, who is part of the suit mentioned above, is making a joke of this page. None of the land dispute items belong on this page. The user making these edits is the same person trying to make it sound like there is a lot of discussion of the topic, and is the driver for the posting on those forums, contacting the papers, and making these edits.

But, if anyone else really thinks this topic should be included in here, it seems only fair to leave in the Preserve's response to the claims and a paragraph giving some perspective on the whole tempest in a teacup.

I'd prefer just dropping the whole mess which really doesn't fit and is not of merit in the overview description of the preserve.

More on land dispute edits..

If any moderators are checking in, information about the Mohonk Preserve's litigation is being deleted and restored. The information is cited in accordance with wiki guidelines. A couple of editors have claimed that the edits adding information about this litigation are being made by one person under different names and using different IP addresses. This is not so.

There's more criteria for inclusion in Wiki than just being well cited: for example, worthiness, balance, and neutrality. A reader who knew nothing about the Preserve would learn a lot about the current litigation but nothing about it being a destination for rock climbers from all over the world and providing long-term continuous climate and phenological data to climate scientists. Plus the text on litigation was biased (intentional or not) in that it linked to a news article about a case that the Preserve lost but did not link to an article where the Preserve won. Prairienut (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray, a personal grudge carried out on Wikipedia

Regardless of who is making the edits, the content as Orikull is trying to have it remain is biased and does not meet the "worthiness" test. This is purely a grudge from a disgruntled neighbor (and/or his partner/friends). The fact that a huge land preserve agency is involved in a lawsuit is not special - it is a matter of course. Should all of their regular legal items be cataloged here? Call out the neighbor the preserve had to get a restraining order against for the threats he made to rangers?

And if this content is deemed worthy by community standards, it should at least not be biased. Orikull is removing the paragraph that gives context to the lawsuit, including a direct response from the preserve. Then, once the merit and bias are addressed, the actual flow and organization can be addressed. As is, the "grudge" paragraph is sort of haphazardly tossed in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.90.34 (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Compromise

As a compromise I've left in the bit about perspective but have still removed the bit about the preserve owning the 116 acres that is the subject of litigation. The courts will decide ownership and then we can all read about it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orikull (talk • contribs) 15:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohonk Preserve has prevailed in both of the recent boundary dispute court cases. So the courts have indeed decided ownership, and appeals have been exhausted. These decisions confirm the wisdom of omitting details of pending litigation in a Wiki article. Rather than reading all about it here, interested parties can obtain the court transcripts from the Ulster County clerk's office.Prairienut (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted Land Theft Issue is Notable

The land fraud issue has been litigated for 15 years, with threats dating to the 1960s. This has been covered by The New York Times, Woodstock Times, Chronogram magazine and other venues. I am personally aware of at least 10 cases involving threats or litigation, all of it baseless. One family has been on five separate occasions and won every time. This is a way of life for Mohonk Preserve and there are sufficient secondary sources to establish notability. Dioxinfreak (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Attempted land theft" is an opinion, not a fact. Saying that all the litigation is baseless is an opinion, not a fact. Saying it is a "way of life" for the preserve is an opinion, too. The Ullrich case was just upheld on appeal in the Preserve's favor (decision is available online). If there was aggression in this case, it wasn't from the Preserve. The Fink case is more complicated and arguable, and is still under appellate review. But regardless of these outcomes, I consider a section on active litigation as inappropriate for an encyclopedic level of detail. I have read the cases myself and they are fairly ordinary boundary disputes with old, complicated, and/or flawed deeds. I see no evidence of frivolous lawsuits or bullying. They are disputes that any landowner would take up to defend what they in good faith believe to be their boundaries. Rather tedious to anyone other than the litigants. Wiki isn't the place to promote conspiracy theories. Prairienut (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there are sufficient secondary sources, cite them.

Otherwise, remove the section.

This section is completely out of proportion to the rest of the article.

The Preserve has many functions relating to conservation, research, recreation, and education. Almost as much column space is being given to these two lawsuits as there is for a description of the entire mission of the Preserve. It is pretty clear that this section is being pushed by a few people with a bone to pick who are not attempting to provide the missing citations and are using loaded words such as "land acquisition tactics" and "adverse possession". I would like to discuss here the merits of removing this section vs. leaving it in. After allowing two weeks of discussion, I plan to delete this section. In the meantime, I will be adjusting the wording to be more factual and dispassionate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prairienut (talk • contribs) 17:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article is a complete mess. And that includes the POV lawsuit section. And also the useless immense lists of directors, etc. Feel free to edit and also to add to the article with more appropriate material. Provide citations if you can and know how. Remember to sign your Talk page posts by using four tildes. Softlavender (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tips. Just watched the tutorial on citations so will try to follow the guidelines on any new material. 76.15.8.165 (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I used material from a recent Poughkeepsie Journal article to improve the Intro, History, and Description sections. There have been no comments here for several weeks justifying why the Boundary Disputes section should remain so I have removed it. Even though there were citations, the detailed descriptions of a couple of lawsuits is not at all in keeping with the level of detail in the rest of the article. Mohonk Preserve recently prevailed in one of these lawsuits so a clear pattern of "questionable land acquisition tactics" cannot be presented as indisputable fact anyway. It is an opinion by certain disgruntled landowners and their friends. These arguable points do not belong in Wiki. Prairienut (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of the name Mohonk[edit]

The fictitious Lenape translation of Mohonk as "lake in the sky" went unchallenged since the creation of this page. As soon as the origin of the name was challenged with supported documentation, GoGunks suddenly decides that the origin is "irrelevant to the Preserve" and erases the correction. The Mohonk Preserve employs a full-time historian and considers documenting the cultural history of the ridge, including the native history, part of its mission. The Mohonk Mountain House employs a full-time archivist and briefs its staff daily on the history of the hotel.

So, why wouldn't clarifying the origin of Mohonk be relevant to this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlgH2O (talk • contribs) 02:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with the history section is that there is way too much on the origin of the name and hardly anything on the actual history of the preserve. This article in general has no sense of proportion. 76.15.8.165 (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I condensed the derivation of the name Mohonk down to a couple sentences to be more in balance with the rest of the history section. Prairienut (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it 90 miles or 2 hours?[edit]

@107.77.70.51:, @Softlavender: - I've seen the edit war between the pair of you and my preference is for Softlavender's version. "2 hours" is not encyclopedic language (is that "2 hours" in a car, an RV, a 44 tonner or something else?) and not everyone (particularly those who don't live in the US) know that "NY" means "New York State". Please can you justify your changes? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie, you've missed the fact that the IP is vandalizing by removing text lower down on the article, in addition to IP-hopping between three different IPs. Look again. These are the same set of IP ranges that repeatedly vandalize Mohonk Mountain House and cause that article to have to be repeatedly semi-protected. Softlavender (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I've asked for this article to be semi'd - that should sort things out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had already done that long before. In my opinion it really should be semi'ed for six months, like Mohonk Mountain House. In a week they'll probably be back doing the same thing. Softlavender (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody is clearly unhappy with our representation of the Mohonk Preserve and the Mountain House, I'm just not sure exactly what or why. Oh well, some more eyes are looking at this now so it should be less of a long term issue. I general, I find a brief note on the talk page as to the background of previous disputes helps, otherwise a third party looking at this just sees "revert", "revert", "revert" and has to work out the context from scratch. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's trolling pure and simple. We've tried to interact with the IP hopper(s) and they never respond, they just keep accelerating the trolling. That's why the longterm semi-protection is necessary. Softlavender (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mohonk Preserve. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The Trapps"[edit]

Why does this article include a photo caption that mentions "The Trapps," yet nowhere in the text of the current version of this article is the term "Trapps" mentioned or explained? 76.190.213.189 (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mohonk_Preserve&oldid=1207505401"