Talk:Cibolo Creek Ranch

No advertising

This is purely an advertising piece. Every hotel has some news coverage but Wikipedia is not Wiki-TripAdvisor or Wiki-Expedia. NoAdvertisingHere (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

As a relatively impartial party, I believe that this is not, in fact an advertisement. OrangeYoshi99 (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

User:OrangeYoshi99: Would you please remove the speedy deletion tag? I gave a reason below, and you seem to agree. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

User:OrangeYoshi99: Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This is a historic ranch, established prior to the American Civil War, which spans 30,000 acres near the US-Mexico border. This is not an advertisement.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Democratic donor

I removed the statement about the current owner being a Democratic Party donor. I don't think we normally consider such matters relevant to ownership of private property. The death of Justice Scalia at the ranch last weekend also seems to have raised a little tinfoil hat thinking, and this sort of irrelevant detail is their hall mark. --TS 12:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

It's in the Washington Post article. They suggest he's made political contributions to Ciro Rodriguez and Pete Gallego, two Democrats.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

E-Verify?

Is anyone able to find a reference about their use (or lack thereof) of E-Verify?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Antonin Scalia

Unclear whether he died on February 12 or February 13.. Perhaps a link bak to the main section describing his death is in order? Optim.usprime (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Since many other items in this article only have the year, not the date, that's enough for this event. Jonathunder (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with mentioning Scalia, the Order of St. Hubertus, and the Ranch together. It amounts to a kind of guilt-by-association presentation. The cited source says that Scalia had neither membership in nor connection to the Order. That Scalia's death brought a brief flicker of media attention to the Order is not encyclopedic. (Really, just headline hunting by the one WaPo reporter looking for yet another detail to squeeze a further article out of the Scalia death story.) The fact that Scalia died at the Ranch is the sufficient point here. I think that bit of text should come back out. I invite comment from other editors.--Pechmerle (talk) 03:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

We're just saying he was there when they were there. That's all.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes, but what's notable about that merely incidental fact?--Pechmerle (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The third-party references thought it was. As a Wikipedia editor, I have no opinion about this and nor should you.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The source cited in the article states that "some of the men who were with Scalia at the ranch are connected through the International Order of St. Hubertus". Also, "Cibolo Creek Ranch owner John Poindexter and C. Allen Foster, a prominent Washington lawyer who traveled to the ranch with Scalia by private plane, hold leadership positions within the Order". That's certainly worth noting in the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Why The Chicks changed their band name

I was going to revert this edit but had an edit conflict. Scottsdesk, instead of edit-warring, please explain why you believe that the reason The Chicks changed their name is of any possible relevance to this article. Schazjmd (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Schazjmd, I think the reason it was removed was the first issue. I also would like to get consensus since this is the proper way. I am not an expert at this but feel I can add good concise added information that informs as well as updates. I first off do not think Cullens328 had a valid reason to revert my added to article information. So that being said I accept that the change was out of order. I now want see about adding the information. Consensus is done by what manner? So does the 170 year old Ranch have a problem with being associated with the reasoning behind the name change? It adds to the Ranches diversity with real facts... I only made the change after seeing the Chicks... and at first was thinking it was a mistake so was going to change it to Dixie Chicks.... but read the cites stuff and thought it was noteworthy to add to the Ranch article and how they are associated with its patrons and how The Chicks were patrons of theres and the reasons they changed the name. Kinda to slip in the noted reason for the change into the article since its so new. Scottsdesk (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Also you allowed the addition of this group associated with SC Judge death.... that I do not see any selfsame exact reasoning... but that slides right in... but I talk about racial and equality being associated and take care to make it very carefully constructed to add without making it more than a aside to the wedding... and I am not sure why this is. Scottsdesk (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

(I added indentation to your comments) Mentioning that someone famous got married at the ranch is of minor (trivial) relevance to the article. But adding details about an event (the name change) that had nothing to do with the wedding or the ranch makes no sense in this article. Sorry, Scottsdesk, whatever reasons were behind the band's name change have no relationship to the ranch. Schazjmd (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Schazjmd. The band's name change took place long after the wedding and has nothing to do with this ranch. I oppose inclusion of this irrelevant detail. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I really do not know exactly how to respond and where... I'm trying to get used to it. Scottsdesk (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I ask that the same validity be shown to my addition as the allowance of adding adding of the unassociated added information that was allowed be made in my point. To try to give you a reason to associate the reason for the name change and how it ties to the Ranch seems like a boxed circle. The addition is to the patrons... the reason the name was changed was cited. Same as when they even allowed the page since it seemed more an advertisement than article... Other than SC Judge dying and The Chicks getting married how is that entire article even noteworthy at all to be included as a Wikipedia article? I added just something to very simply explain the Chicks name-change and since the cited stuff deals with that subject is must be part of the name change correct? Adding it as an aside seems within reason Scottsdesk (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The ranch is notable and should have an article at least in part because it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

OK I will bite. of what historical value... what other than SC Judge dying and The Chicks band members being married... I see nothing else of significance. What noteworthy historical events happened? I am sure getting listedon the register is not that difficult. It is mostly now a very nicehotel and not even a ranch... its a business. It just so happened to have past the gauntlet of Wikipedia admins to get a page. Lets be honest here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottsdesk (talk • contribs) 20:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

(ec) The ranch is notable because it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The cited source for the wedding makes no mention of the band's name change, which it couldn't since it hadn't happened at the time. I would not object to making the sentence read In May 1999, the ranch hosted the wedding of country musicians Charlie Robison and Emily Robison. and just leave it at that; both names are wikilinked for anyone who wants more information. Schazjmd (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

There is widespread consensus among experienced editors that every place listed on the NRHP is notable and ought to have a Wikipedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)