Talk:Arizona Snowbowl

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Arizona portal This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (assessed as Mid-importance).

Skiing and Snowboarding Mid‑importance

	Sports portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skiing and Snowboarding, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of skiing and snowboarding articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Skiing and SnowboardingWikipedia:WikiProject Skiing and SnowboardingTemplate:WikiProject Skiing and SnowboardingSkiing and Snowboarding articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Needed revisions to the "Development Controversy" section

I think the discussion of the dispute between the developers and tribes could be made more accurate and simpler by focusing on the key issue in general terms -- that the tribes consider the peaks to be a sacred site where development is inappropriate -- rather than in legal terms. The description of the litigation between the tribes and the Snowbowl is not accurate or complete, and I think that a full discussion of the legal issues is beyond the scope of this article. At the very least, it should be made clearer that the litigation ending with the Wilson v. Block decision in 1983 is distinct from the litigation ending with the Navajo Nation v. U.S. Forest Service in 2008. The Wilson litigation was based primarily on the claim that development of a ski resort violated the tribes rights under the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The Navajo Nation litigation was based primarily on the claim that the use of reclaimed water ("recycled wastewater" to use the Supreme Court's language) on the peaks constituted a violation of their religious rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Snowbowl prevailed in both cases, but it is a mistake to characterize their legal victory as concluding the more general dispute over the appropriate use of federal land considered sacred by American Indian tribes. Jrulfo (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowbowl was also the site of a famous EarthFirst! direct action where one of the skilifts was sabotaged. This eventually resulted in the prosecution and conviction of four EarthFirst! members, including Dave Foreman, one of its founders. I think it would be appropriate to consider including something about that in this article. PageRob (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Somebody keeps injecting racist bullshit into this article about the Navajo and Hopi (greedy, hate white people, want to use the land to build another casino, etc)--probably some bitter snowboarding douchebag / South Park disciple who thinks this is extremely witty. It's not funny. Stop. Trench Kamen (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Protests section: long quotes unencyclopedic?

This seems to be getting out of hand -- we now have three lengthy quotes from activists, from what appear to be strongly POV websites. I propose to cut off the section before the first quote, which seems about the right WP:Weight for these protests. Comments? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, not very encyclopedic and very biased. Wsamsky (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biased

This article comes across as biased. The controversy regarding snowmaking deserves mention, but it seems that fully 3/4s of the article is devoted to the controversy. There should be more text devoted to the history of the ski area. There is something wrong when the article doesn't list a founding date but does give exhaustive coverage to a very partisan debate.

Perhaps the controversy should be a separate article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurocomputer (talk • contribs) 01:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Analysis

Apologies, I don't think this should be a section, but I was not sure where else to add this. I have done a very small analysis of this page for my class wikiproject, here is a link to the analysis. Cobrownlin (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]