Talk:Berkeley balcony collapse

Removal of non-neutrality flag

204.116.251.194 has not made any indication of what the neutrality issue is, and in fact has offered no comments at all. So this meets criteria 2. and 3. cited below. ~~

When to remove

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Yankeepapa13 (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

As requested, the article as written takes a strong slant in favor of some potential causes over others, and attacks the official investigative report. 204.116.251.194 (talk) 06:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you able to provide any balance that might make it more neutral? In my view, the facts are not neutral. And there are not "some potential" causes. There is a clear chain of causation. No amount of both-sidesism will leven this truth.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. I've got no side in the debate myself, I don't know which is more accurate or not. But I would expect an article with a Wikipedia-approved NPOV to read more like "the official report believes the cause is X, but other sources say Y and Z are contributing factors as well." As written, however, it comes across to me more like "the official report believes the cause is X, but this is obviously wrong and foolishly ignores the obvious truth that Y and Z are to blame." 204.116.251.194 (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

If you were to read the "official" reports, they don't nail down a cause, as I explained in the article. They provided a long list of speculative factors the "may" have played a role. Thus, the report is inadequate because it fails to answer the pertinent question. Thus, my observations and characterizations of it are neutral. Also, steap yourself in the astonishingly high-resolution images that accompany the article, and you will see how the visual evidence is at odds with the reports claims. Yankeepapa13 (talk) 05:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The cslb_berkeley_balcony_materials_packet.pdf (ca.gov) source on page 139-141: they seem to conclude that the use of oriented strand board, by the contractors, where plywood was called out -likely as a cost cutting measure (speculation) - was the cause of the failure. The details and project specifications, call out that oriented strand board is not an acceptable substitute for plywood, and the detail sheet call out plywood by name on the balcony detail sheets. See Page 139 - Page 141. Nothing in the main article mentions anything about oriented strand board, and instead focuses on laminated veneer lumber. The Irish Times Article also specs out Oriented Strand Board under the photograph of the failed balcony, which led to the dry-rot of the laminated veneer lumber. It is weird that laminated veneer lumber page leads you here, instead of OSB page. Some mention of what the original investigators thought the causes were in the reports, should certainly be included. Also see page 68, of cslb_berkeley_balcony_materials_packet.pdf (ca.gov) Perry consulting group seems to come to similar conclusions, but also notes, unusually high rainfall (38.78" inches) during 2nd of August 2006. The simplest conclusion is that the balconies were not built according to the details and specifications of the drawings, espcially the use of OSB in place of plywood, and suffered from exposure to moisture, which eventually led to conditions of dry-rot. 70.177.4.155 (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Let me reiterate, the government-contracted investigation report never said anything in the format of "the cause is X." Rather, it said something in the format of "contributing factors could possibly have been A through P [ignoring the rest of the alphabet including X]." That "official" report takes no position to be affirmed or refuted. The article as written simply points to the accompanying photos and makes neutral observations. The power of these observations causes the reader to conclude that the official report was wrong. In other words, the facts are the facts. The (well-founded) "non-neutrality" is in the minds of the readers. There is no debate between conclusions A or B, so it's impossible to structure the article in the way that you would prefer.

Secondly, is it too much to ask that you sign in when commenting? Although not required, it's the courteous thing to do. Yankeepapa13 (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

It is now more than five months since anything has been heard from the anonymous critic who cannot identify any specific cause cited by the government-sponsored report. Thus, the time appears nigh to declare status 3 which provides for removal of the non-NPOV flag "In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant." Yankeepapa13 (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, could possibly see your way clear to login when commenting? I do. Yankeepapa13 (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Six months have passed since 204.116.251.194 raised the non-neutrality flag, and there has been nothing further heard from that editor. They (204.116.251.194) have failed to identify a second "side" of the "debate." The article presents facts, while the architect report presents a laundry list of possibilities without any clear focus or evidence. So there is no debate, and no sides of any debate. Thus two of the three removal factors have been satisfied (only one is required),

1. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
2. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

And the non-neutrality flag must be lifted. Yankeepapa13 (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Original research

Martey, You may have some valid points, but the answer is not to dump the whole thing in the trash. You'd need to offer details of what is OR and what is NOR. For example, "Pre-collapse exterior views of the collapsed fifth-floor balcony and the identical fourth-floor balcony are available in Google Street View.[13]" You dumped that as OR even though it's instantly verifiable with the link. So while it might be easy to just dump all of it, you should give it more time and write down your specific reasons for each item that you'd like to strike or modify. Thanks. Yankeepapa13 (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't "dump the whole thing in the trash" - I removed the parts of the article that I thought were original research. There are several conclusions and observations that I removed that are not supported by the cited sources.

See WP:Burden - it's the responsibility of the editor adding the material to only add material that can be verified by reliable sources. Google Street View is not a good example of a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_149#Google_street_view), but that sentence is a good example of synthesis (Google Street View can't verify that the two balconies are identical).

It seems like you agree that there are parts of the article that are original research. If that is true, I think reverting my entire edit moved the article a step backwards. It would be great if you could remove/modify any parts that you consider original research, so I don't have to waste time compiling reasons for material that we (and presumably other editors) already agree shouldn't be in the article. I'll add a template to the article so that other editors can help. Martey (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Martey, Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough reply.

On the Google Street View controversy, would it help to remove "identical?" Or add the more circumspect "apparently identical?" If you look at the image, the two balconies certainly appear identical. And the cited investigation report treats the two as identically designed, but it doesn't explicitly say that the two are identical. The clear inference to a neutral reader is that they're identical. (Also, the architectural plans show as much.)

The article about Google Street View seems unrealistically skeptical, and it's outdated. The street view imagery has vastly improved since 2013. That article seems to suggest that GSV can't be relied upon to tell the difference between a house and a parked car. Do we really need a citation to a publication in which they're labelled "house" and "parked car" rather than a citation to the actual image? If one can't believe such a rudimentary interpretation of an image, they what can they believe? Is this a text-only encyclopedia?

On the dump-the-whole-thing question, you did remove a wholesale swath with little commentary other than OR. And what is your reason for removing the post-incident photos? Are photos OR?

I'm eager to hear other editors' opinions as well. Yankeepapa13 (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I think focusing on Google Street View ignores the more important fact that the section contains original research. I'll reiterate that it would be great if you could remove existing text that you previously added that you agree is original research (i.e. is not directly and explicitly supported by reliable sources) or that is a synthesis of information (i.e. contains conclusions not explicitly supported by reliable sources).

Please note that the official report is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia, so any objections or additions to its contents need to be explicitly supported by another reliable source (e.g. not Google Street View or photos you took yourself).

If you disagree with this, I think listing this at Wikipedia:Third opinion would be a good next step. Martey (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)