Talk:Retreat (survivalism)

The contents of the Bug-out vehicle page were merged into Retreat (survivalism). For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

worthwhile[edit]

This is definitely a worthwhile topic; however, we need to include more references to print works. Use Mel Tappan On Survival for one viewpoint (that a rural town is the best solution), and I suspect that Kurt Saxon has plenty to say on the subject as well (though I haven't read him). I'd shy away from blog posts by JWR, and since Rawles on Retreats book isn't really "published" (as I understand it), it's not the best source (Patriots can be used as containing an example of a type of retreat). In general, websites are nice, but not as authoritative as published works. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 03:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the qualifications of Saxon and Rawles, comparatively, I think it is very important to keep in mind that both are essentially self published. Rawles simply has the benefit of coming into the publishing world in a time where self publishing is much more easily done via the internet, rather than with self published newsletters and small print run books. I'm not familiar enough with Tappan's publishing history to include him in the comparison, but I think the disparity you imply between Saxon and Rawles is rather irrevelant. Readyrodent (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that Saxon and Rawles have different qualifications; I agree that both are less than ideal for the reason you state—they're basically self-published. On the other hand, Mel Tappan is better established, since his work is compiled in Tappan on Survival (Paladin Press) and he had a regular column in Guns and Ammo magazine. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 18:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually meant that I feel Saxon and Rawles are both qualified to be featured here. While self published, for the most part, they both have quite a bit of support as "experts" in the field.Readyrodent (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Groups[edit]

It would be nice to have a list of groups that do this, frugal squirrels for example. ;) ---Wolfe (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Wiki Page on Joel Skousen?[edit]

Since Joel Skousen is mentioned so frequently in this page, I think that it would be apropriate to create a Wiki page about him. (Similar to the ones that already exist on Mel Tappan, James Rawles, Jeff Cooper, and Howard Ruff.) If there are no objections I will draft a new page on Skousen in the next few days. (As time permits.)

I created two new sections on Retreat architecture and Retreat logistics. Feel free to add to them.

Thanks for your input! -- Jeff Trasel, 2327 EST, 25 Dec. 07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trasel (talk • contribs) 03:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, I created a stub page on Skousen. Please add relevant material to it. Thanks!

-- Jeff Trasel, 1705 EST, 01 Jan. 08  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trasel (talk • contribs) 21:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

external links[edit]

According to WP:EL external links should not be used for blogs, forums, social networking, and sites that are primarily for sales. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:EL specifically mentions the following guideline/tests for inclusion of external links:

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for *explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".
3. Any site that attempts to surreptitiously install malware on a visitor's computer.
4. Links mainly intended to promote a website.
5. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore *site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.
6. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.
7. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content.
8. Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser.
9. Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the *article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required.
10. Links to search engine and aggregated results pages.
11. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups) or USENET.
12. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.
13. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Wikis that meet *this criteria might also be added to Meta:Interwiki map.
14. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the *article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more *specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. *If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that *part of the site could be deep-linked.

This wiki article is about a "niche" subject area wherein the majority of resources are available online rather than in print.

Please explain to us, in detail, why you think that any of the list of links that you deleted failed those tests.

In my estimation all of those links meet those tests. They are all content rich, they are all directly related to the article content, they all include information that is not available elsewhere in Wikipedia, they were all written by subject matter experts ("recognized authorities"), and they all provide their content free of charge and without any requirement for registration or a paid subscription.

I am doing my best to start a wiki page that will be a useful resource, but it won't be if it gets systematically eviscerated.

I genuinely appreciate the input of other wiki editors. I appreciate your time. I appreciate your interest. I would also appreciate ADDITIONS to the article. Sincerely, Jeff Trasel 1547 EST 01 Jan 2008

[edit] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trasel (talk • contribs) 19:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the list you show above is not for inclusion, but for exclusion. You'll notice that it comes under links normally to be avoided. So with that in mind,

Survival Bill Forums A Canadian survivalism discussion forum. Fails #11 at a minimum, probably others as well
SurvivalBlog.com is 'The Daily Web Log for Prepared Individuals Living in Uncertain Times'. fails #11, possibly others as well
The Survivalist Blog A Daily Web Log of Survivalism, Preparedness, and Self-Sufficiency. fails #11, possibly others
SurvivalistBooks.com This site includes a survivalist group finder service for those seeking to find, start or join a local retreat group. fails #5, possibly others.

Also realize that in order to write a good article, no external links are required. So removing these links doesn't detract from the article at all. The goal isn't so much to make a "useful resource" as to make a "good encyclopedia". AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--- After taking another look at those links, I identified three that might be construed as commercial. To keep peace in the Wiki community, I have deleted them. Sincerely, Jeff Trasel 1614 EST 01 Jan 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trasel (talk • contribs) 20:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your input on the specific links still under discussion:

>:*Survival Bill Forums A Canadian survivalism discussion forum. Fails #11 at a minimum, probably others as well

This site is indeed primarily a "forum" site, but it has provided a valuable resource to the survivalist community. Its archived posts provide a great wealth of useful information.

Valuable resource is not the criteria for inclusion according to WP:EL since information also involves WP:VER. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

>:*SurvivalBlog.com is 'The Daily Web Log for Prepared Individuals Living in Uncertain Times'. fails #11, possibly others as well

This is NOT a forum. It is a very widely-read site with very deep archives that are of interest to anyone planning or building a survival retreat.

Sorry, I meant fails #12, unless we have reliable third-party sources that show that it's a "recognized authority" which is probably possible on this one. A little help anyone? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

>:*The Survivalist Blog A Daily Web Log of Survivalism, Preparedness, and Self-Sufficiency. fails #11, possibly others

This is NOT a forum. It is a fairly new site, but again has some very useful content.

Sorry, again, #12 I meant.

>:*SurvivalistBooks.com This site includes a survivalist group finder service for those seeking to find, start or join a local retreat group. fails #5, possibly others.

This is a "meet-up" site that is run as a free service by an Internet book seller, at no charge. You will note that link provided is not to the main book selling page but rather to the "meet up" page. Granted, its suitabilty as an external link is debatable, since it is attached to commercial site.

I believe that all of those links are quite useful references and should stand. The only two that remains debatable, IMO, are the "Survival Bill Forums" site and the "SurvivalistBooks.com" meet-up page.

Since there appears to be disagreement between two editors on suitability, perhaps some other editors would care to comment and reach consensus before any further revision/reversion of edits.

Thanks, - Jeff Trasel 1649 01 Jan 2008

your screwed jeff...there gonna delete it or trim it down to nothing, people have already tried to put this stuff before and over at some of the other wiki's sooner or later a wacko admin will nix it....

been there done that...a survy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.83.223 (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with being whacky, we're simply trying to follow the wikipedia guidelines. I have nothing against survivalism, which is why I'm trying to improve the articles (note the work I've done on James Wesley Rawles) AliveFreeHappy (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TheSurvivalistBlog doesn't cut it; it clearly fails #12 (unless the author is some famous guy). SurvivalBlog.com isn't a forum, so #11 isn't relevant, but it is a blog. However, I think it's fair to consider the author of the blog an "expert" in the field, so I think that one should stay (since it passes 12). I don't think the specific page from SurvivalistBooks is a problem, since it seems to be run more as a service by SurvivalistBooks rather than an advertising opportunity... but it is still run by the company, so it's shaky. I don't think the Canadian forum should stay; besides obviously being a forum it seems to be heavy on advertising. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 05:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Governmental retreats[edit]

Perhaps this article could use a section. Actual examples are nuclear Fallout shelters, especially big bunkers like in Switzerland (see Sonnenberg Tunnel) or The_Greenbrier#The_Bunker or Cheyenne Mountain. And of course there are such scifi facilities for surviving big asteroid attacks or massive volcanic eruptions or whatever (as replayed ad nauseum on History and Science channels). It would be nice to know if any exist in real life and put them in here. There are a few interesting things under Category:Subterranea (geography) also that can be explored. Thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's in a different context that this wiki page's topic. The retreats here are survivalist (private) retreats), but there should at least be mention of the government's equivalents Including the continuity of government shelters. Perhaps we ought to add links to some wiki pages on government shelters==like the Greenbrier, continuity of government (COG) shelters, and so forth. So should those links go in the body of this article or down in the "See also" section? Whadaya think, folks? Thanks BobbieCharlton (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the name of the article does not specify private, I don't think a short section on govt shelters would hurt the article. Just listing them might confuse people. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survivalists are private individuals. Survivalism is a movement of private citizens--not a government program. There are analogues in the public sector, but those fall under other categories. So in my opinion POINTERS to other wiki pages would be fitting, but significantly expanding this article off topic would not be. I think that one paragraph briefly describing related topics (with links) would be perfectly fitting. OBTW, have you see the wiki page about Swiss Redoubts ??? That is very cool. BobbieCharlton (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started a stub paragraph, please expand it. Thx, BobbieCharlton (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links and etymology[edit]

See article Bootle(town) in the section 'Toponymy' they mention Boltelai, Botle, Bothull (dwelling). Could that mean any etymological link with 'bolt-hole' ? (it , you'll notice redirects to this Retreat (survivalism) article. Read etymology notes of Bothy also. Should Mountain hut be added in See also list?JohnsonL623 (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Retreat (survivalism). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Retreat (survivalism). 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/mark_l_anderson/faqs/tapp.txt

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Retreat (survivalism). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141026111657/http://www.thebugoutbagguide.com/survivalism-new-zealand/ to http://www.thebugoutbagguide.com/survivalism-new-zealand/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/mark_l_anderson/faqs/tapp.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 04:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]