Talk:Goldendale Observatory State Park

Largest public telescope?

A google check brings up a bigger one for just the state of NJ[1]. So apparently not true. 70.208.19.147 (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The Mount Wilson Observatory wiki page says the 60" is open to the public, so this isn't even in the running. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of material about loss of dark sky status

MsWAparks, are you affiliated with Washington State Parks, the organization that runs this observatory. If so, you have a conflict of interest and may be unable to edit neutrally. See WP:COI and in particular WP:COIEDIT. in that case you should not edit this article directly but instead propose changes here at the talk page.

In any case the material about the observatory's loss of dark sky status is well-referenced and belongs in the article. That is a significant event for an observatory. I am putting it back. Also I see no evidence that the organization Friends of Goldendale Observatory does not exist. Its web site is being kept up to date and has much more information than the observatory site does. I am putting that back also. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

StarryGrandma Hi. No, just an avid hiker and fan of the agency and lover of the observatory. According to the park staff, the friends group was served a "cease and desist" letter by WA State parks almost two years ago. As I understand it, the status was revoked because the same person who made the website we're talking about told the IDA the park wasn't being activist enough. I missed most of this drama but it seems really possible since all the person running the group talked about was light pollution and it sounds like he's the one who put that stuff on Wikipedia last month. Apparently they didn't turn over their treasury to the park after they dissolved and made the fake website that looked like the real observatory website but with a hyphen in the name. I contacted the IDA and they confirmed all of this. Talk to David Ingram. He is the NorthWest Chapter lead of the IDA and was super helpful. He also referred me to John Barentine who is a Director at the IDA international level but I haven't spoken with him yet.

I just got an email back from the park. The letter from Parks was from February 27 2018 and the friends group acknowledged it March 08 2018 so it's been over a year they've been gone. I guess that page is a fake to keep their 501c3 to collect donations for light pollution stuff. Email the observatory and they can send the letter to you; they got back to me in like 10 minutes.

Actually here is a link to it:

http://www.goldendaleobservatory.com/files/theme/CA517-096GoldendaleObs-Friends-Termination.pdf

I am going to remove those links again. Please check with the IDA or the park before reverting my change.

MsWAparks (talk) 1 October 2019

MsWAparks, I've indendented a bit to keep the conversation clear. I've read your interesting note and the letter. Nevertheless the observatory was a dark sky site and no longer is, though it looks like it will be again. I will rewrite the section using only the news sources and put it back. I also recommend that you be wary of calling a controversy between the observatory management and the friends organization a scam in a public place such as this. The recorded events are enough. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

StarryGrandma Hello again and thank you for being thoughtful about this. I removed the word scam from this talk thread as well and you are welcome to do the same. Thank you for being so professional.

MsWAparks (talk) 2 October 2019

StarryGrandma Hello I have been watching the changes made here. I feel my concise summary was appropriate for the article. I live near the observatory and am familiar with the situation and the dark sky status is a minor detail at the facility but a significant portion of the page is again dedicated to the issue after your edits. The former manager and some members of the former friends group helped the park get their status so the facility could be used to leverage lighting policy changes in the city but this was not vetted by WA state parks. After new people took over the observatory they pointed out at city counsel meetings that WA parks are not permitted to influence public policy and that the old dark sky park status was probably inappropriate. The friends group said they would get the dark sky status revoked to pressure the parks department to be more outspoken about the issue. Everyone I've talked to seems to think the late reports were just an excuse and I was told directly by someone with Dark-Skies NW that "The IDA wouldn't revoke a status over a late report. We want more dark sky parks not less." I am concerned that by elevating this issue on the wikipedia page you are serving the interests of this old group which has been attacking our observatory and city hall for years. Looking at the edits, they have added a number of things to the page over the last month which were later removed by yourself, mswaparks, and others. I am an amateur astronomer and that friends group does not speak for locals or the IDA. Whatever the agency or town is reapplying for will not be the same dark sky park status. I have spoken with four different people at the county level, state parks, and the International Dark-skies, to make sure this understanding is accurate. They are looking at a "Reserve" status but will not be applying for "Dark Sky Park" status again. I am requesting that you shorten your changes or leave out specifics about what status is being sought or the minutiae about the reports. Blessings. --RadEdward (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi RadEdward. I am going by published sources here. It was not that the reports were late (incomplete was a problem), it was that the site was no longer in compliance with the requirements, including its own lighting. I guess I didn't make that clear. It was the incomplete and late reports that triggered the IDA to look into things further and asked the president of the Friends group about it. I'm trying to include the friction with the Friends group and still stick to independent sources; probably best to leave it out for now.

The requirement "Park staff and volunteers shall use various communication techniques to educate the general public, park neighbors and local government officials about the importance of preserving, protecting and enhancing the dark night sky environment in the vicinity of the park." seems to have been added to the usual dark sky park requirements because the observatory was so close to town. The regular educational program requirements for dark sky parks wouldn't seem to fall under "influencing public policy". There are other state parks which are dark sky parks.

Do you have published sources for your statements. In particular I would like to see a published source for applying for "Reserve" status. The 2019 article I cited says only they would apply for dark sky status, not specifying the type. I ask because looking at the application documents on the IDA site, the requirements for Reserve status seem to require a lot more participation by surrounding communities than a the requirements for Park status. The park is five acres in size, and Reserve status usually requires 173,000 acres (a circle about 9 miles in radius around the observatory, the core of the reserve). In addition there are lighting requirements (or efforts at improvement) for the communities within the reserve. I think Reserve status would be an upgrade from Park status.

Dark skies have become a big deal. It has been a long time since I've been able to see the Milky Way from my front yard. The skies are still dark at the observatory site and it looks like that will be successfully maintained. I am trying to expand the history section of the article, put in a good description of the equipment, and expand the ups and downs of the renovation project. It looks like that almost didn't happen. The dark sky section will become less prominent. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

StarryGrandma It's not well linked but their history page has a good summary and it jives with everything I've heard from the IDA and parks people. http://www.goldendaleobservatory.com/history.html The new director says the reports weren't taken seriously because they required his staff to do more than just provide information about dark skies but actually try to make the town darker. The impression I got for years is that this issue was being pushed on them and that the old dark sky park status was being used to control the park. It's really dark here already. If you look at the name of the guy contributing to those articles you cited they are the same guy who took over the friends group. That was the first thing that got me wondering about this and motivated me to write to you. Blessings.

--RadEdward (talk) 03:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

StarryGrandma,

I appreciate the time and effort you’ve shown in verifying my “well-referenced” records. I am writing you in hopes of securing the truth on this Wikipedia page.

Some would have the public believe that the Observatory (GOSP) status was lost due to a few non-compliant lights or a missing sign identifying GOSP as a Dark Sky Park. Instead, it has been a complete lack of concern for meeting the requirements for a Dark Sky Park status. My additions to the History shows that in addition to public education, the Observatory was intended by its Founders to serve both schools and amateur astronomers. This is a historical fact. My input also reflected the simple reality of the Dark Sky Park status revocation and potential future re-designation – also historically accurate. What was the purpose in these items being removed? Links supporting these facts which are found on the Friends bona fide website www.Goldendale-Observatory.com were then removed by MsWAparks.

The Friends was not required under any circumstances to turn over funds to State Parks. Further, the Friends group is still in operation, not “dissolved” or “gone.” In describing the Friends website as “fake,” MsWAparks has deliberately provided you misinformation. If you go back using the Internet WayBackMachine, you’ll see www.goldendaleobservatory.com was the Friends of Goldendale Observatory website until April 2017, when the Observatory Administrator and the Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce took it over without Friends knowledge. Friends had worked for years with the Observatory Administrator (who was prohibited from being involved with an external website) to post scheduling, share history, current events, and extensive educational information to the public. After these individuals removed access to the website that the Friends had paid for, the Friends were forced – literally overnight – to create a new website. Therefore, it was the Friends that were subjected to a “scam.” The new and very much improved Friends website is invaluable in sharing the history of GOSP, as well as posting many educational tools, resources and current events.

I would very much appreciate your help and/or support in re-placing the statements mentioned above, as well as a link to the Friends website. Pensar44 (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

StarryGrandma,

I’m a life-long amateur astronomer who volunteered at the Goldendale Observatory State Park for years. And I’m the whistleblower who exposed the Goldendale Observatory’s International Dark Sky Park deficiencies and misrepresentations, and Goldendale’s and Klickitat County’s longstanding failures in protecting the Observatory’s night sky. It’s understandable that Washington State Parks personnel and other special interests would want to obstruct and suppress this information from coming to light. As seems all too common today, they have engaged in spinning a web of “alternative facts” and deliberate misinformation to cover up these realities.

The Friends of Goldendale Observatory existed as the Goldendale Observatory Corporation before there was an observatory, and therefore long before Washington State Parks acquired the property. Its existence is not contingent on the approval of Washington State Parks or Observatory Administrator Troy Carpenter [2]. The Friends website domain and URL are perfectly legitimate, and contrary to MsWAparks claims, was necessitated after Observatory Administrator Troy Carpenter took over what was originally intended to be – and indeed was – the Friends of Goldendale Observatory website [3]. Carpenter often stated he preferred that the Friends have a separate website of their own, and now has what he wished for.

The Friends Board voted unanimously on February 23, 2018 to terminate the Cooperative Agreement with Washington State Parks for breach of contract, which was not contested, and thus no “treasury” is owed to State Parks as has been claimed by Carpenter [4]. Ironically, the Goldendale Chamber of Commerce – which now “proudly sponsors” Observatory Administrator Carpenter’s private website – was assisted in the takeover by Chamber Executive Director Dana Peck. Peck was also the former Klickitat Co. Director of Economic Development and a former Friends board member, and dissolved the Friends in the mid 2000’s due to its advocacy for protecting the night sky of the Observatory by enforcement of the local lighting codes. Peck never turned over the Friends “treasury” to State Parks. Additionally, I did not “take over” the Friends; I helped it get reestablished from the ground up in 2013 after Peck and his associates had shut it down years earlier. Given the foregoing facts, if there is an external website link that should be removed from Wikipedia, I would think it should be Carpenter's Chamber of Commerce sponsored site, as it was acquired unethically if not fraudulently, and is essentially redundant to the Official Washington State Parks website.

The narratives that have been espoused by MsWAparks (most likely Carpenter) and RadEdward (most likely Jonathan Lewis, Goldendale Chamber of Commerce VP) and presented on Wikipedia, is that Goldendale Observatory lost its Dark Sky Park certification merely due to late reports, lack of required IDA signage, and non-compliant site lighting. It is claimed that because these issues have been rectified with the new Observatory construction completion, the Observatory’s Dark Sky Park Status could be easily reinstated.

Unfortunately this is false – the signage and lighting issues were just the “tip of the iceberg.” Goldendale Observatory State Park lost its International Dark Sky Park status because WSPRC Area Manager Lem Pratt and Observatory Administrator Troy Carpenter failed to meet essential IDSP requirements to 1) provide night sky quality measurements, 2) provide public dark sky education programs, 3) publicly advocate for maintaining a dark night sky at the International Dark Sky Park, and 4) were unable to correct these deficiencies during the ten-month long IDSP suspension period [5].

RadEdward is truthful when he states the obvious fact that "the dark sky status is a minor detail at the facility." It is difficult to imagine an authentic amateur astronomer ever making such a statement, and I'm sure the IDA is relieved to see this articulated so honestly and give further validation to their decision to decertify the Goldendale Observatory as an IDSP. He also states that “The new [observatory] director says the [IDA Annual] reports weren't taken seriously because they required his staff to do more than just provide information about dark skies but actually try to make the town darker.” First, the required annual reports were indeed not taken seriously – at least by Observatory Administrator Carpenter (WSPRC Interpretive Program Manager Ryan Karlson did attempt a more detailed, honest, and sincere report). Second, the IDA’s Dark Sky Park designation is contingent on maintaining a dark night sky for the Dark Sky Park, not to make a “darker town.” The Goldendale Observatory and former International Dark Sky Park is located within the city limits of Goldendale; so how would RadEdward or the "new director" expect to maintain a dark night sky for the Observatory IDSP and not have that contingent upon encouraging the City to protect the night sky or implement its lighting codes? Additionally, enactment and implementation of lighting codes were promised as a condition of acquiring the Observatory’s 24 inch telescope in the first place. RadEdward refers to my bringing up these failures by the Observatory and Goldendale as “attacking our observatory and city hall.” These failures are the truth, which they obviously don’t want to hear, and more significantly don’t want the public and taxpayers to know about.

However, RadEdward and Observatory Administrator Carpenter himself now state Washington State Parks is no longer interested in the GOSP being re-designated as an International Dark Sky Park. This is due to Washington State Parks opposition to having “parks staff behave in an activist or legislative capacity.” Really? Advocating for natural resource conservation and simple implementation of existing regulatory codes makes you an ‘activist-legislator?’ So again Washington State Parks has shown its hand – there’s no interest in promoting night sky conservation or supporting lighting policies that would help effect night sky preservation for the Observatory. Instead, the City of Goldendale and Klickitat County will somehow step up to the plate via a “Dark Sky Reserve” designation. This is despite Goldendale and Klickitat County having failed to provide meaningful protection of the night sky for over 40 years, and the Goldendale Chamber of Commerce – led by Peck who opposes lighting code enforcement to protect the Observatory’s night sky – being “contracted” to assist with such designation. I doubt this is a sincere effort, as much as I’d like to be proven wrong.

After reading this news, I inquired with the IDA Dark Sky Places Program Manager in Tucson, who stated he was not aware of any efforts by the GOSP, Goldendale, or Klickitat County to achieve any type of IDA certified dark sky place designation. And as you have noted, achieving a Dark Sky Reserve would place equal if not more stringent requirements on Goldendale and Klickitat County for public education, night sky conservation advocacy, and effective quality lighting policies – which have not taken place or put in effect for decades.

Lastly, the truth and details about how and why the Observatory lost its International Dark Sky Park status is currently available only on the Friends website. Washington State Parks personnel and their enablers are apparently determined to suppress this truth, while promulgating distortions, half-truths, unsubstantiated claims, misinformation, and outright falsehoods. And they are trying desperately to keep the truth off Wikipedia. However, in a democracy, Washington taxpayers and the public have the right to be made aware of the real reasons the IDSP decertification occurred, and who was actually responsible.

Granted this information and supporting documentation about how and why the Goldendale Observatory State Park experienced the one-of-a-kind revocation of its prestigious IDSP certification presents embarrassing information and “inconvenient truths” regarding Washington State Parks personnel, the City of Goldendale, and Klickitat County. However, disseminating this important historical information is in the public interest, and in keeping with the mission and intent of the Wikimedia Foundation: “The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.”

If Wikipedia doesn’t do this, who will? I therefore hope you will reconsider inclusion of the essential facts of the foregoing information, and reinstate the external link to the Friend’s website (www.goldendale-observatory.com). If you wish to confirm any of the foregoing details, all of the source documents are available, and I would be happy to provide them to you. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best wishes,

Bob Yoesle, Goldendale friendsofgosp(at)gmail(dot)com Saturnalia21799 (talk) 12:05 4 November 2019 (UTC)