Jump to content

Talk:People's Park/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

NPOV dispute

I have made a few emendations, KeithJack, from firsthand knowledge. Pepkoka


NOTE: KEITHJACK'S SUGGESTIONS HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED. Apostle12 02:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


This article only has ONE citation. There are many quotes and references in the article without citations. While it is my personal OPINION that this was an absurd event and the reason I never liked Regan despite his popularity, this article is entirely UN-ENCYCLOPEDIC . I do not have the knowledge or time to edit this article properly, but it looks like Founders4 has spent considerable time on this. Founders, and others, would you please consider my challenge for neutrality and cite your sources as well as editing the text for a less "flavorful" and more neutral presentation of the facts? If a reader wants flavor, he or she can read one of your sources. Thanks!  :-) Keithjack 02:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE Keithjack 00:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC) OK. SO it looks like I'm going to end up getting dragged into this thing whether I like it or not! Here are some examples of what I feel threaten the neutral integrity of the article.


This is not encyclopedic because it gives a *possible* one sided POV. It is okay to cite sources here which describe the park as a benefit to the community, but a remark such as this, especially the first sentence, puts the red flag up immediately for a critical reader.


Weasel words: Again, the same principal. Maybe there are certain people or groups who happened to like the way it looked. Ways to fix this could be "By December 1968, only an empty field remained which would pose a hazard when rains caused the debris-filled site to fill (and overflow?) with mud.


"Taking matters into their own hands" is not a phrase to use in an encyclopedia. This could be cited as a weasel "phrase." An easy way to fix this is to just use "initiative" some way.


This quote needs a citation. All quotes must have citations, per the Wikipedia policy.


'street people' should not be used... plus, it is an improper use of 'single' "quotes."


Haha, well, yeah... this is what I am talking about when I say the Neutrality has been compromised. This is a very revealing sentence that screams "A HIPPIE WROTE THIS" and to beware of everything you read from this point forward. Don't get me wrong, I'm a hippie in my own ways too, but our beliefs (and the beliefs described here) are our individual opinions, and not a neutral POV suitable for an encyclopedia.

Alright, so I've listed some specific examples of why this whole article needs to go into reform mode. Really, it was a pleasure to read: it read like a magazine story. Let's just now try to clean up the bias while still trying to preserve much of the content.

If anyone would like to take matters into their own hands initiative, then I commend you! If if the article becomes stagnant, I'll try to come in and put in some effort. I am a full time student though, so it may take me longer to do...

Thanks to everyone for contributing to the hippie-socialism-at-its-finest community encyclopedia! Free knowledge!

Keithjack 00:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The Battle Over "Peacefully"

Please let me weigh in here. While the demonstration on "Bloody Thursday," May 15, 1969 was NOT peaceful, Governor Reagan was critical even of peaceful demonstrations opposing the Vietnam War, and the May 31, 1969 demonstration WAS peaceful. Why do you choose to delete "peaceful," when this is an accurate description in both instances? It is not a political word.

I have changed it back, since it is acccurate. If you believe otherwise, please explain.Founders4 18:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

I really haven't had too much involvement w/ this article, but I think it should go back per the description of "Bloody Thursday." The first two paragraphs are pretty bad in that respect. Yanksox 05:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you be more specific, please? I've edited these two paragraphs extensively and can see no way to communicate what happened without mentioning the politics of the participants. The section may appear to lack NPOV because of the highly charged political rhetoric of the participants, but actually it is just descriptive. Would welcome any suggestions.Founders4 07:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Two quotes that really get me:

During its first three weeks, People's Park came to be enjoyed and appreciated by University students and local residents alike. Telegraph Ave. merchants were particularly appreciative of the community's efforts to transform a neighborhood eyesore into a place of beauty.

Reagan was intolerant of Americans who peacefully protested the war in Vietnam, whom he called "commie sympathizers,"

The first one does sound like POV it could be reworded and for the second intolerant is a pretty harsh and pretty POV word. Those are the two quotes that I noticed right off the bat. Yanksox 12:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Yanksox. I'll work on it this evening. I think I can expand the first paragraph to include the fact that some people were probably offended by the expropriation of University property, without its permission, to create a park. I honestly didn't know anyone who felt that way at the time, since the park enjoyed overwhelming community support, but there must have been a few.
The second one is more difficult, because it goes to the root of why the confrontation occurred. Perhaps I can substitute "critical" for "intolerant," which is more descriptive. Yes, I think that would help. And I can make the point that many Americans of the era were offended by those who protested the war in Vietnam. In California Reagan made his mark politically by criticizing "the rabble," and "commie sympathizers" was the term he used to refer to those who opposed the war--even if the demonstrations were entirely peaceful, he viewed those who participated as unpatriotic. By extension, all demonstrations at the University of California at Berkeley were held suspect by Reagan.
Anyway, thanks again. I'll try to balance it out, while still conveying some of the flavor of it all. It's tricky, because such events occur in a highly charged atmosphere; if one attempts to make it too mild, one fails to convey that reality.Founders4 17:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
"flavor of it all." This is an encyclopedia entry. It should not have "flavor." As a current student of Cal, I would have to sympathize with the events that took place and your heartfelt description of the events. With that said, however, I must say that this entire article is completely un-encyclopedic and should either be cited for the claims you make or should be revised in a more neutral tone. I am not hearing the other side of it here. Let's present the facts, people, not our sympathies. Keithjack 02:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Changed quite a bit in the "Bloody Thursday" section. Hope it meets approval with respect to NPOV. Founders4 07:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't have changed it because of me. But, it does sound more academic, nice work. Yanksox 13:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


Alot of personal POV and talking like a radical

Hi Vckums. I keep trying to satisfy people when they make comments about specific statements; guess I'll just keep trying. Please tell me what sounds "radical" to you? Founders4 08:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Apparently there's already a substantial amount of debate on NPOV, but I said I'd comment, so here goes. The section on Bloody Thursday, I think, particularly shows bias. The police are depicted as the villans trying to "crack down" on the students and ruin their fun, the students are shown as being a bunch of nice kids trying to plant some trees and give people flowers and have peace. The article never states why the police fired into the crowd; I assume they had a reason other than that they didn't like the brownies, or that they're general spoilsports? It needs addition of other points of view (other than quotes that imply that Reagan wanted a bloodbath because he didn't like liberal students). Hey jude, don't let me down 23:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Rosebud Abigail Denovo.

Hi Eptin. Thanks for adding the bullets to "Subsequent History" and for separating out the information on Rosebud Abigail Denovo.

Actually I'm wondering if the Rosebud Abigail Denovo information belongs here at all. It has very little to do with People's Park. What would you think about eliminating it entirely?

Anyone else care to comment?Founders4 09:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The more I thought about it, the more it seemed clear that the section on Rosebud Abigail Denovo has no relevance to the People's Park story. Her only involvement was as one of thousands of protestors in the 1991 demonstrations. Hope this meets with Wiki approval; no vandalism is intended. I have, by the way, left the link to Denovo's story.Founders4 18:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to create a stub about Rosebud Denovo using the info that was removed. The info, to my knowledge, is good, non-plagiarised info that people would still want to know about; indeed, the way that I found my way to the People's Park article is by searching for Rosebud Denovo. BTW, there are several references used in the People's Park article, were any of them used to support the Rosebud section? (in which case I should also copy the references to the Rosebud Denovo article). Eptin 21:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. It is good info, and the writing has been cleaned up over time, so it would be a shame to lose it. The only reference in the People's Park article is an external link, "What Really Killed Rosebud?" by Claire Burch. I've read part of it, and it seems very informative. I'm curious: What sparked your interest in Rosebud?Founders4 04:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I was reading an article in the New York Times called "Diary of a Soldier's Wife: Tie-Dye and Camo Don't Mix" (You can read it here ) and the couple had a conversation about "Rosebud". They gave an ounce of background about who she was, but with a phrase from the article like "What was I doing with someone who consorts with people who kill petite 20-year-old protesters?", I was curious about the incident. Eptin 20:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Rosebud Denovo Revisited

The following is a debate over whether to include Rosebud Denovo on the Park timeline. What do the rest of you think?stan goldsmith 20:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You removed reference to Rosebud's killing because you suggest it had nothing to do with the Park, yet Park activists blamed Chancellor Tien for allowing the University to go ahead with construction plans (volleyball court, etc.). Rosebud was one of many outspoken critics of Tien. Her being in his house with a machete was directly related to people's park, far from having "nothing" to do with it.stan goldsmith 04:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Seems pretty tenuous to me. It's true that Rosebud linked herself with those who called themselves "Park activists." Yet she broke into Tien's house because she was deranged, not because her actions had a rational connection to any cause associated with People's Park. Her killing by an Oakland police officer had to do with the fact that she lunged at the officer with a machete; once again, her killing had nothing to do with People's Park.
What I have noticed is that the Park seems to act as a magnet for quite a number of imbalanced individuals. They spend time in the Park, and their "cause celebre" seems to be proving that various authoritarian structures (the University, the campus police, the Berkeley police) are evil.
Perhaps you can find a source that addresses this issue and work it into the article in some rational way. Otherwise it seems largely irrelevant. Apostle12 08:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Your points don't make sense. On the one hand you suggest that she "links herself" to the activists and on the other you say she had nothing to do with the park besides being crazy. As a person who knew her I can say that she was instrumental in organizing protests about the park and a major player in the protest movement surrounding the park in the early 90s.
Using your logic one can say: well the marches and riots in the 60's were just crazy people running amok for no reason, just because they were near People's Park or "linked themselves" with park activists doesn't mean anything.
What is the difference between linking yourself with a movement and being a part of it? And where do you get your information that she was "imbalanced" - this seems like a pretty heavy judgement call on your part. Same goes for the rest of the park activists, many of whom were and are still Berkeley students, many of whom are active in the Berkeley government and run businesses in the city, far from being crazed lunatics who think that the cops are satan. They have a purpose and your removal of that purpose diminishes them to something that you can assert your power over, i.e. nothing more than crazy people.
If you want to maintain that you are being neutral you are just kidding yourself. stan goldsmith 20:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you would benefit from reading the link, "What Really Killed Rosebud?," which appears at the bottom of the page.
I used the word "deranged" to refer to Rosebud, which I think is a mild term considering that: she had a long history of violent conflict with authority; she had been committed to mental institutions because of her threats and violent behavior; she had left Oregon because "there weren't enough protests" there, traveling to Berkeley specifically to seek out violent conflict regarding People's Park; and, shortly before her death, she and her boyfriend were arrested with explosives that they intended to use to blow up Chancellor Tien's house. Her shooting, after she lunged at an armed police officer with a machete, seems clearly to have been "suicide by cop." And she voiced exactly that intent, in a note penned before the event, where she declared her willingness "to lay down (her) life" to protest the building of some volleyball courts.
Yes, "imbalanced" is judgmental word. I'm happy to stand by its use as appropriate in this context. Apostle12 18:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Gimme a break!

Does the person who wrote this have a source? :

"In keeping with Governor Reagan's "bloodbath" statement, the police were given carte blanche to use whatever methods they chose..." ?--Pkrembs 22:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Though I don't have it close at hand, I've read the interview with Sheriff Frank Madigan that appeared in the May 30, 1969 Berkeley Daily Gazette. In it Madigan says that he was ordered to "do whatever it takes" to quell the rioting--which extended to the use of shotguns for crowd control. The decision by his deputies to obscure their badge numbers--well-documented at the time--was apparently a personal one and did not reflect official policy. Madigan ended up apologizing for the behavior of some of his deputies who had just returned from duty in Vietnam; this group lumped hippies, anti-war protestors and People's Park protestors in the same category, and they felt justified in using lethal force to go after them. After the extent of civilian injuries became apparent, Madigan pledged to rein his deputies in and make sure they knew they were not in pursuit of the Viet Cong during protests. Subsequent Berkeley protests were handled much more carefully as a result of the People's Park debacle. Kensington7 01:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Move article --> disambiguation

Is there an over-riding reason for this articles location to be the 'People's Park' article with all others relegated to the disambiguation page ? I cannot see that there is. I suggest making this articles name the disambiguation page.

Certainly, if one were to take a poll of all people I think it likely that one of the other People's Parks would be the most chosen (in Shanghai, for instance). Amongst English speakers, given that this is the English language Wikipedia, perhaps it would be Berkeley's People's Park, but I also doubt that - I cannot see that this location is noteworthy except to its local residents.

Not knowing the specific location, I am willing to stand corrected, but I wish to put down that there should be a little rational debate on this issue. Thoughts ? Discuss please. I am watching this page too :) --Phillip Fung 06:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I cite the Wikipedia mantra be bold and also given that I am keen on the Wikiproject 'Countering Systemic Bias' (check it out for what it is), and given the comments on the edit history for the People's Park redirect page, I have changed the redirect to the disambiguation page. Dissenters, let me know (on this page ? - or elsewhere) :) --Phillip Fung 06:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I've monitored the page for quite a while. From their comments, it is clear that people worldwide are quite aware of Berkeley's People's Park as a symbol of 1960s activism and check in to see what became of it. Some are former activists who participated in some way, while others are students who have heard about what happened in their studies and want to know more. I suppose the change you made will not detract too many, however no other "People's Park" comes close to being as well-known as the one in Berkeley. In China, for example, since every city has a "People's Park," it is equivalent to our "Municipal Park" and denotes no special identity.
It's not really a matter of local interest--most locals ignore it. In summary, I do think the previous arrangment was better.Apostle12 07:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi jlgolson. The events of "Bloody Thursday" and its aftermath were "absurd and deadly theater" on both sides. Each side was trying to assert itself in ways that defy reason and cannot be understood except by using the "theater" metaphor. Why, for example, would anyone plant flowers in an empty lot in Berkeley, intending to make a political point? Why would anyone guard such lots using National Guard troops to prevent flowers from being planted? "Absurd" is an accurate word that describes the phenomenon, not either side. And "deadly" is also correct, in that People's Park (not to mention Kent State, the Weathermen, the Black Panthers, and so on) led to confrontations that resulted in considerable death and injury. The list of 1960's societal tensions (regarding race, the war in Vietnam, sexual mores, women's rights, traditional modes of authority and a predominantly materialist interpretation of the American dream) were very real motivators at the time, the beginning of a "culture war" that continues to this day. I know of no better way, or more NPOV to refer to these tensions. Would welcome your suggestions. Founders4 05:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

More NPOV concerns

NOTE: THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE LEAD. Apostle12 02:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A popular hangout amongst locals? Really? I guess all those homeless people could be called locals... --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Mike Delacour

The support for this claim is Stew Albert's personal webpage.

For better or for worse Mike Delacour played a primary role in the creation of People's Park. References to his involvement can be found in much of the material relating to the creation of People's Park, especially among University administrators who did not like Delacour. "Father of People's Park" is a term Stew Albert used in his written memoirs of the Park's creation; now that he has passed on, I believe it is valid to use this sort of source.
Delacour's statement is from a published article, duly referenced.
By the way, left intact your other change clarifying Stew Albert's "Yippie" role. Apostle12 10:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Okey doke.

Beyond the homeless, few Berkeley residents use the community garden or other facilities.

This statement does not appear to me to be supported by the cited reference. Well, the LA Times one is gone, but speaking of the North Gate New article, it says that in one particular eight hour period, few people other than homeless used the park, but then goes on to describe other community activities that will take place in the park. This phrase also seems to advance the implied point of view that the use of the park by the homeless is in some way less valid than use of the park by people who have homes. Dlabtot 17:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to update the LA Times link. I'm sure the article, which directly supported the statement, is available--though perhaps no longer free access. In any case, a visit to the park (any day, any time) will confirm the accuracy of this statement.
BTW, you can read the article here: [1]. Dlabtot (talk) 05:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The real issue with People's Park is not that those who frequent the park do not have homes. It is that so many of those who inhabit the park are unpleasant, aggressive sorts who do not respect the park and who create an environment that is less than beautiful and tranquil. Some of these "street people" (or "park people") are clearly mentally ill, while others are just lazy vagrants who have little regard for the comfort and safety of others.
Personally I do not believe that it is a good idea for any city to tolerate the takeover of its parks by people who do not respect that the function of urban park space is to provide recreation and natural refuge for its citizens. Mayor Guiliani did a wonderful job restoring Central Park in New York City, so now that park can be enjoyed by all who are willing to respect it.
No one is suggesting that those who use People's Park should be required to produce identification proving that they have homes. But, yes, implicit in the article is a criticism that present-day Peoples Park is unpleasant and dirty because the people who frequent it do not respect it. Apostle12 18:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, you certainly are passionate about your point of view, which you've expressed here. Your dislike and distaste towards those you characterize as 'lazy vagrants' is palpable. However that doesn't mean it should color the article on People's Park. I went ahead and paid for the LA Times article. It does not, in fact, state that few Berkeley residents beyond the homeless use the park. Nor does it say that the park serves 'mainly' as a sanctuary for the homeless. I'm gonna rewrite the opening paragraph - but not with undue haste. Dlabtot 19:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, the 'subsequent history' section quotes extensively from the LA Times article - but in an extremely one-sided manner. I'll rewrite this as well in an attempt to add more balance. Dlabtot 20:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Kind of funny that always in the past I was accused of offering too rosy a view of People's Park! "Sounds like a hippie wrote it" one person said. "What about all the homeless people?" another asked. I'll have to review the L.A. Times article myself, but I do recall that it underscored the negative effect the homeless were having on the park.
For the record, I helped build People's Park way back in 1969. I thought it was a beautiful idea. Through the years I have supported its continued existence as a historic place. But those of us who conceived the park, built the park and maintain an interest in the park are mostly disappointed that it retains little of its original spirit. Apostle12 06:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, you know, it's not really about you. Criticism of the article is not a criticism of you. Dlabtot 15:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Of course, didn't mean to imply that it was about me. Just wanted to provide some background and assure you that I too am interested in making sure the article is balanced. Apostle12 17:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


"The battle lines were drawn, Flower Children versus The Establishment; the conflict mirrored widespread 1960s societal tensions that tended to flow along generational lines regarding the war in Vietnam, race relations, sexual mores, women's rights, traditional modes of authority, experimentation with psychedelic drugs and opposing interpretations of The American Dream."

This is embarrassing. Of course it's a footnoted quote, but this is purple prose. Footnoted sources are meant to provide facts and information, not this kind of twaddle. Someone needs to cut about half of the fluff out of this article and make it more encylopedia-style. 122.52.32.66 22:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This paragraph does more to explain the reasons behind the conflict over People's Park than any other part of the article. Without the context it provides, contemporary readers would be entirely lost. Founders4 04:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Subsequent History and Timeline

I don't understand why these are two separate sections. The subsequent history section doesn't actually give any information on the subsequent history of the park -- whatever of that that is included, is all in the timeline. And a lot of that is unsourced. I don't really think a timeline is a good way of presenting this information. Although many (but a casual perusal leads me to think, not all) of the subsequent protests, confrontations and controversies, are mentioned, I don't think someone who was coming to the article with no prior knowledge of the park would get much understanding of the real context and just how potent a symbol the park is for Berkeley, (which let's face it, is in the first place a community that is not typical for America). Having an extensive section on 'Bloody Tuesday' and then just tacking on almost forty more years of struggle and controversy seems to give undue weight to the events of May 15, 1969. The timeline should be re-written extensively and the Subsequent History material should perhaps be moved to a separate section detailing the ongoing debate on the park in the words of the participants. But if so, it should represent more than one viewpoint, as it does now. Dlabtot 18:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this method of organizing the material is not optimal. It has remained for so long only because the task of writing nearly forty years of park history (with accuracy and balance no less) is daunting.
"I don't think someone who was coming to the article with no prior knowledge of the park would get much understanding of the real context and just how potent a symbol the park is for Berkeley..." Is People's Park still a potent symbol?...I'm not so sure. In any case explaining "the real context" might be very difficult.
The problem with trying to detail the ongoing debate about what to do with People's Park is that those who essentially want nothing done with the park (no improvements, no University involvement) tend towards anarchy and irrational argument. Yet no one is stopping anyone from presenting an opposing viewpoint. Perhaps you will be the one to do it. Apostle12 06:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Is an encyclo/wikipedia the appropriate format to capture the full meaning and significance of a highly symbolic event? The wikipedia excels at describing the literal, documentable, and demonstrable features of human experience. My personal experience of the unfolding conflict at People's Park counts for nothing. Reagan's machiavellian misinterpretation of People's Park, which had nothng whatsoever to do with anti-war protests, propelled him rapidly toward the presidency. Who can see a parallel between his manipulation of the truth and George W. Bush's craven use of the 9/11 terrorist attacks as a pretext for invading Iraq? Would Bush have studied Reagan's play book? Such questions are beyond the scope of the wikipedia enterprise. I must hasten to add that I am a huge wikipedia fan. User:pepkoka10:19 5 September (UTC) I think.
I especially agree that this is not the place to discuss, or try to capture, the full meaning and significance of a highly symbolic event (assuming the question was rhetorical).
As presently configured, the article actually does a pretty good job explaining why Reagan chose this particular battle, though further discussion as to how this choice might have affected his eventual rise to the presidency would certainly be overreaching.
I think, though, that the Reagan/Bush parallel might be overdrawn.Founders4 13:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It's up to the reader to decide 'full meaning and significance' .... but in order to do so, they need to have all the facts presented in a NPOV manner. That's where this article fails. Right now it reads as if it was written by Moe Moskowitz. Dlabtot 16:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Who's that? What are you saying?Founders4 07:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
He's the late founder of Moe's Books. All I'm saying is that the article has a particular point of view, or, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it has two particular points of view, rather than being truly NPOV, and the end result of this amalgam is less than informative. Dlabtot 07:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with your interpretation of Moe Moskowitz's POV. Would you please elaborate? Elizabeth Johnson Tsang 01:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)pepkoka

I'm not gonna try to speak for someone who is dead and whose viewpoint I don't share. I'm sorry I mentioned him. But the two points of view I see in this article are, 1. The existence of People's Park is the result of a lot of idealistic people in the Sixties rebelling against authority. and 2. People's Park is a haven for the homeless, not a real park. Whether or not those are valid points of view is a question that I think is irrelevant. What is missing from the article is a NPOV description of the facts of the last 38 years. I'm not saying that will be an easy task, or I would have already done it.
Personally, I think the events of 'Bloody Thursday' warrant their own article, and then perhaps they would not seem to have so much undue weight as they do at present. Dlabtot 02:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. As written, a reader of this article could infer multiple implicit POVs, including #1 and #2 -- not surprising, since it was written by many people. As the Wikipedia writers and editors strive for complete objectivity, I believe that they/we will asymptotically arrive closer and closer to 'the truth.' However, any written re-presentation of an actual event inevitably requires a selection and sequenceing of details. Is a videocam POV filming everything that happened the ideal POV for capturing 'the truth'? Once one ascribes meaning to oberved events, one inevitably embraces an implicit and not-neutral POV. Pepkoka —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepkoka (talk • contribs) 22:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, that would be the antithesis of my point, which was that no other viewpoints besides those appear in the article, imho. At the very least, I believe the article gives undue weight to one event. And I don't know why you are bringing 'truth' into the discussion. WP:NPOV specifically says it does not strive to present 'the truth'. Dlabtot 22:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. It is a position antithetical to yours. Kindly explain how the 'undue-ness' [to coin a word] of 'Undue weight' is determned? Elizabeth Johnson Tsang 23:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Pepkoka

On a personal note, Diabtot, may I infer that you prefer 'easy tasks'? Elizabeth Johnson Tsang 22:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)pepkoka

Are article talk pages the appropriate place for personal notes directed at other editors? Dlabtot 22:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Only if seemingly invited to do so. Elizabeth Johnson Tsang 23:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Pepkoka

Well I guess a subtle invitation toward civility won't work, so instead I'll just quote from talk page guidelines: " * Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article." I'm sure you would not want me to discuss what I infer to be your shortcomings. Please show me the same respect. Dlabtot 23:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

unexplained revert

I don't understand the reversion of Mgekelly's edits. I think those edits improve the article. Apostle12 why did you revert? Dlabtot 17:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted because the editor in question eliminated easily referenced material that offered important historical perspective. Without this perspective readers unfamiliar with the events would not be able to understand why the conflict arose, nor could they understand the context with respect to Kent State and the changes that these late '60s events inspired. One can argue as to how the historical perspective and context might best be offered, but simply to eliminate the material makes the article less informative.
The material is very far from OR, as any perusal of the historical literature offers ample support. Apostle12 18:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I totally disagree with your assertion that is is 'very far from OR' - on the contrary, it appears to be purely original research that is not derived from any verifiable reliable source. If the material in question is indeed 'easily referenced' then I submit that it should be therefore easy for you to provide the reference from which this material came. That is if is not in fact original research and synthesis. As to your assertion that this 'historical perspective' must be included, I ask you: whose perspective are we talking about? In what reliable source was this perspective published? Perhaps you could take time out from your perusal of the historical literature to cite some of the 'ample support' it offers. tia Dlabtot 19:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd also specifically ask you where this came from: "Reagan saw the creation of People's Park in ideological terms." Is there some reliable source that quotes Reagan saying or implying that he saw it in ideological terms? I just reviewed the footage in 'Berkeley in the Sixties' where he meets with Berkeley faculty. He does indeed talk about the creation of the Park as a challenge to the property rights of the University, however, he makes no reference to ideology, and says nothing that to me indicates that he saw it 'in ideological terms'. Why do you believe this sentence must be included? Dlabtot 19:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Very few ideologues, even the most famous historical figures, identify themselves as such. Somehow the term has gained a pejorative tinge, though in fact it is neutral: one could argue that the heroes of history (Lincoln, Roosevelt, Churchill) were as much ideologues as were the villains (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot). Yet all of these historical figures, for better or for worse, saw things in ideological terms. As others have discussed at length, Reagan was both an ideologue and a pragmatist. With respect to People's Park, it is pretty clear that his stand was primarily ideological, and I don't think it is much of a stretch to say "Reagan saw the creation of People's Park in ideological terms" given his manifold statements leading up to the event, his statements during the event (including quotes from "Berkeley in the Sixties"), and later statements as well.
Those of us who knew Reagan, and especially those of us who lived through the sixties, take for granted that the People's Park fracas was rooted in differing ideological points of view. But for younger readers, this is far from clear and they have a hard time understanding what all the fuss was about. That is why I think the sentence must be included.
Nevertheless, your point is well taken. I should find a clear discussion of this point in the literature concerning the event. And I should include a source since you have asked for same. I will endeavor to do so ASAP. Thanks. Apostle12 16:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you please read what you just wrote? What you are describing is original research and synthesis. Whether or not that original research 'is much of a stretch' is irrelevant.
I'm gonna go ahead and restore Mgekelly's edits. If and when you find verifiable reliable sources that give this 'historical perspective', feel free to add it back in. Dlabtot 16:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought we were discussing the sentence "Reagan saw the creation of People's Park in ideological terms." With respect to this sentence, there is a difference between summary and synthesis. I'm OK with leaving it out until I can satisfy your request for sourcing, though I do believe your demands for sourcing are too literal in this case.
By restoring Mgekelly's edits you have deleted much more than the sentence we were discussing. Unlike the sentence we were discussing, these deletions greatly compromise the article. They are statements of fact, won't you agree? That is why I'm putting the other material back in. Apostle12 17:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't discussing only one sentence. I was discussing all of this original research that Mgekelly rightly removed. Whether or not you or I agree that that research comprises nothing but 'statements of fact' is completely irrelevant. (BTW, no, I don't agree.) The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability to reliable sources - not your opinion about whether something is 'factual'. Since you seem unwilling to compromise and I'm not going to get involved in an edit war, I guess the only other option is an RfC. Dlabtot 17:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe I have compromised, especially with respect to the sentence we were discussing. We can discuss the other material as well, of course. Which statements do you consider unverifiable? If you think something is unverifiable, why not just add a request for sourcing? Apostle12 17:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


For the record, here is the actual comment that I responded to, before it was changed:
I believe I have compromised, especially with respect to the sentence we were discussing. We can discuss the other material as well, of course. With what factual statements do you disagree? If you think something is untrue, why not just add a request for sourcing? Apostle12 17:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC) -- Dlabtot (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


I've made my point repeatedly, but you just don't seem to be hearing it: Whether or not your or I think something is true or untrue is totally irrelevant to the question of whether it should be included in Wikipedia. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I don't think further repetition of the core Wikipedia policies that are being ignored here is going to yield fruit. I look forward to the replies to the RfC Dlabtot 17:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
No need to get snooty. Have substituted "unverifiable" in my questions above. Apostle12 02:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
He wasn't getting 'snooty'. He was pointing out that you do not understand the concept of 'verifiability'. Your substitution of verifiability for truth in these statements of yours makes them nonsense. Verifiability is a pretty simple thing in Wikipedia (unlike in, say, Logical positivism: if you can introduce citations to credible sources, you've verified it. If it can't be verified that way, then it does not belong on Wikipedia, end of story. The fact that the majority of Wikipedia contributors do not understand the basics of Wikipedia's mission does not change that mission. Non passeran. mgekelly 09:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I think I understand the issue pretty well. Much of what appears in Wikipedia constitutes summarization of easily verifiable material, and such summaries often appear without sourcing. When I see a summary that I cannot easily verify, but which I think is probably true, I simply request sourcing. If I see a summary that I cannot easily verify, and which I think is probably untrue, then I delete it. So the matter of judgement with respect to truth does enter into this process. I agree that unverifiable material does not belong in Wikipedia; my practice is to allow a bit of time for an editor to provide verification after I request it. Apostle12 17:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Apostle12, along with WP:V, I suggest you review WP:TALK Dlabtot 18:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

Please see the above discussion of Mgekelly's edits ('Unexplained revert'). Does the disputed material constitute original research? Dlabtot 17:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the disputed material? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The disputed material is the material in the 'Unexplained revert' link in the comment to which you responded. Dlabtot (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, original research (but, accurate).--DOR (HK) (talk) 06:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

POV issue

The account from the UCPD website [2] differs widely from the picture painted in this page. Also, the section "Bloody Thursday" sounds too much like a narrative with some heavy OR...not too encyclopedic. Suggest copy editing "Bloody Thursday" down and including the UCPD take on the events. =) Jumping cheese 05:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be best to source the article using contemporaneous news reports rather than the wildly biased UCPD website.
I just read the article posted there, and I know it to be erroneous on many key issues--in particular, James Rector was NOT throwing rebar down on the police. He was sitting on the roof watching the street scene along with Alan Blanchard. Neither man was involved in the protests; they were simply curious what all the commotion was about. Witnesses who later testified against the deputy who shot Rector testified that he raised his shotgun toward the two men and fired without provocation and without warning. (A photograph of this event exists.) Rector later said he was looking down and realized with shock that the deputy was pointing the shotgun at him; he turned trying to get away, and the deputy fired. The buckshot entered the lower part of his body as he turned, lacerating his liver and spleen. The UCPD article makes the deputy's actions sound like self-defense--simply not true! I notice also that the UCPD article conveniently uses the term "shotgun pellets," glossing over the highly inappropriate use of buckshot (instead of birdshot) by the Alameda county sheriffs, a fact later acknowledged by Sheriff Frank Madigan.
Numerous other errors abound. Apostle12 (talk) 06:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
So you're not up to using that source, I guess. However, the section is still written like a highly detailed narrative. Needs copy editing. Jumping cheese 17:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
All sources are welcome, of course; please see Dlabtot's comment below. Seems to me the "Bloody Thursday" section must by necessity be a narrative, since those who did not live through these events don't know the story. The trick is to avoid pushing a certain POV--the current section has emerged from a good-faith team effort to accomplish that during the past two years. I'm sure it can be improved though; what would you suggest?Apostle12 (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
It is the UCPD's version of events. IOW, their point of view. I agree that it is full of falsehoods - nevertheless it seems to me that it has a place in the article. Shouldn't people know that the UCPD is still operating under a paradigm that is based on lies? Dlabtot (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more, Dlabtot. How would you suggest incorporating their point of view without endorsing it?Apostle12 (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Something on the lines of your original reply to Jumping Cheese, above, seems appropriate, with a little editing to seem less polemical, as long as appropriately cited. Dlabtot (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, as a participant in the events, inclusion of their material needs to meet the criteria outlined in WP:SELFPUB. Dlabtot (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The blatant distrust of the UCPD is a tab bit worrisome for me. However, I guess I have to get used to it at Cal. So I guess we're up to some sort of copy editing? I'm not sure if I'm the best person to do it, cuz frankly I'm not a neutral party in this case and I know I'll get flamed for most of the edits I make. Anyone one up for the challenge? If not, I'll still make necessary the edits, but please be nice. =) Jumping cheese 01:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not a matter of "trust" or "distrust" Jumping cheese. The plain fact is that the UCPD version you referenced is not accurate, and all of the inaccuracies are slanted in the direction of making the assaults perpetrated by the police sound as though they were justifiable acts of self-defense. However the assaults in question were not acts of self-defense. Contemporaneous news sources confirm that fact. Statements by Sheriff Frank Madigan also confirm it, as do eye-witness accounts rendered at the time and confirmed during the years since. We are not talking about a matter of opinion here.
As a starting point, before you begin editing, I might suggest you get a copy of the DVD "Berkeley in the Sixties," which is available from Netflix. It contains a great deal of original footage that is directly relevant to this event. Also I might suggest you read Sheriff Madigan's statements; it was one of his deputies who shot both James Rector and Alan Blanchard. Among the photos taken that day is a shot of Madigan's deputy raising his shotgun and firing the fatal shot. During subsequent hearings, eyewitnesses (including the photographer who shot the photo) swore under oath that the shot was made without provocation. I knew Alan Blanchard personally, an honest man who was working as a carpenter that day. I never knew Alan to exaggerate or lie, and he told me after he was blinded that he and Rector were simply sitting on the roof watching. Madigan admitted that his deputies, many of whom were Vietnam vets recently returned from battle, equated the protestors with the Viet Cong, their mortal enemies; they felt entirely justified opening fire on them, shooting them in cold blood, firing shotguns into their backs and buttocks as they tried to escape.
It was a confusing time, a time when it was difficult to tell right from wrong. My son is in law enforcement, an officer on the street working for the Oakland Police Department. His own training has been stringent, and the kind of abuses and police brutality that were routine during the 1960's are simply unbelievable to him. The grand jury who heard testimony against the deputy who shot James Rector and Alan Blanchard chose not to prosecute the deputy--an understandable decision, since to do so would have solved nothing. That does not, however, exonerate the deputy, nor does it change the facts.
I have run on here, I know. The UCPD perspective does need to appear in the article, especially since it is so full of falsehoods. Perhaps it was written by a contemporary UCPD officer who simply does not know the facts. Or it may have been written by a person who knows the facts quite well and wishes to push a certain point of view. I do not know. What I do know, since I knew the people involved, is that the events transpired in exactly the way the article says. I was there for a lot of it, the Sproul Plaza gathering to honor Rector for example. I was gassed by those helicoptors. I saw the bayonets pointed at me, penning me in to keep me from escaping the gas. I saw the elderly people and children vomiting. I saw people beaten, just for the hell of it. I visited Alan Blanchard in the hospital, with his face and eyes bandaged. I saw him later, after he was permanently blind and trying to rebuild his life.
Please just try to be careful that you, nearly 40 years later, don't out of the best of intentions try to obscure the facts. You say you are "not a neutral party." I'm not sure what that means. It's okay though; a lot of us watching are not neutral either. We are, however, determined to be objective, and we will respect any effort that furthers the cause of objectivity. Apostle12 (talk) 05:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Woah...thanxs for that long reply. I actually saw a copy of "Berkeley in the Sixties" at Cerritos Library a month ago when I was home during winter break. I was about to borrow it, but I picked up another DVD instead. I'll be sure to take a look over spring break.
I guess you've established without a doubt that the UCPD website is inaccurate. I'm gonna hold back from making any major edits for the time being, since it will be a major undertaking. A quick note: the whole "equated the protestors with the Viet Cong" is a bit of a draw, since the source only stated "The Sheriff, who said his young deputies "have the feeling that these prisoners should be treated like Viet Cong ' indicated that disciplinary action would be taken against the guards."[3] Also, the narrative seems to contain a bit of WP:SYN, since a few conclusions were drawn that were not explicitly stated in the sources.
I'm not here to sterilize a blackmark in the history of Berkeley in general, but to help the article to adhere to wiki policies.
Thanxs again for the passionate response (can't be that much fun recall such painful memories) and I'm sorry to hear about your personal experience on Bloody Thursday. For the time being, I cannot yet commit to making the edits. I'll revive this tread when I have time to kill during spring break and after I watch that film you recommended. I do look forward to collaborating with you. Jumping cheese 05:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have an issue with the descriptor in the header: the 'radical' political activism of the late 1960s. There was activism, but why is it described as 'radical'? Elizabeth Johnson Tsang (talk) 00:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Elizabeth Johnson Tsang

What you call the "header" we call the lead section. We reserve the word "heading" for section titles. Anyway, I think one could make an argument either way for the use of the word "radical". Viriditas (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Reagan's Involvement

I'm thinking that the "bloodbath" quote has been taken out of context. Wikiquote records this as being reported in the LA Times, but he stated the same day (confusingly, April 8th 1970, which is a year after the shootings) to another news agency that he did not mean this statement to imply that violence was something he wanted on the Berkley Campus. I'm going to try and find out whether the date on this quote is actually correct, and what Reagan's level of responsibility was. --87.194.236.208 (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC) (damnit, keep forgetting to sign as --CalPaterson (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC))

A good deal of the references on here are dead links. Reading the article more closely, I am now concerned about biases. I'm going to do some checking and so on. --CalPaterson (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Your speculations reveal that you need to do some research. You seem to be questioning well-established facts that are not at all in dispute. I look forward to the results of your investigations. Dlabtot (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Problem is, even if they're well established, they still need to be obviously established on the page, which, because of dead-links, they aren't. The "bloodbath" statement is from the San Francisco chronicle, and while I can't get an exact date, the magazine itself states that they are 1969 quotes and are from before the riot. That's in this article: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/06/06/MNG7771M481.DTL So now what? Do I change the currently linkless reference? And on wikiquote too? Does anyone have a good source for the semi-retraction? --CalPaterson (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't really tell from your comments, what type of revisionist history you have in mind. The reality of Reagan's role is well-documented. I look forward to seeing your edits. Dlabtot (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
You're pretty much jumping down my throat right now: I am not trying for "revisionist history". I'm trying to make sure the article represents what is available in the sources. If Reagans role is well documented, it isn't shown in the article (and, in fact, I've found difficulty finding good references via web search, like whether he or his staff authorised the police response, whether he retracted the "bloodbath" statement etc. I've just gone through almost all the sources in the article. Here goes:
From section 1.1:
The first two references from the first paragraph are broken. Reference 3 isn't quite in agreement with the paragraph it's referenced from; the Berkeley Planet article seems to claim that two people going on with an affair came up with the idea and then presented to a youth group. Reference 4 is dead (on Delacour's involvement). 5 and 6 are fine. Reference 5 could very well replace reference 4. However, reference 5 states that the protestors attacked police (though it isn't clear on what's meant by "police closing in") unprovoked with a fire hydrant, rocks and bottles etc. 7 is dead. 8 is fine.
From section 1.2
9, 10 and 11 are fine. 12 could do with being linked to a weblink; possibly the sfgate.com article I posted above. 13 doesn't seem to reference Siegal's speech and does not make any mention of the Sproul Plaza rally. 14 is dead. The next paragraph could be more accurate and state that the protesters attacked the policemen fixing the hydrant. The next reference (11) states that Reagan ordered the government response to the riot, and does not mention the or the Alameda County Sheriff Dept., though other sources mention the latter. The next paragraph (in keeping with...) BADLY needs a reference. The next reference is fine, but the following paragraph, again, needs a reference. 15 is fine. Reference 16 contains no reference to police injuries whatsoever. 17, 18 and 19 are fine. Reference 11 doesn't say anything about students being called to police the area, but this statement is pretty tangential. The 8-1 vote, 20 and 21 are great. The paragraph on the memorial service and subsequent police action needs a citation, and 8 and 22 make no sense here. Ref 8 doesn't say anything about the taunting of police by hypies, and the paragraph about beatings of curfew breakers needs a citation.
This paragraph is complete junk: "The battle lines were drawn, Flower Children versus The Establishment; the conflict mirrored widespread 1960s societal tensions that tended to flow along generational lines regarding the war in Vietnam, race relations, sexual mores, women's rights, traditional modes of authority, experimentation with psychedelic drugs and opposing interpretations of The American Dream.[23]" A quoted reference is needed to put this point across.
Reference 24 does not support the "30,000" number for the protest. 25 is fine. 26 is broken.
The final two paragraphs need citations and better language could be added.:
"The events at Berkeley during May, 1969 foreshadowed an even more violent confrontation in Ohio less than a year later. On 4 May 1970, the same societal tensions that precipitated "Bloody Thursday" erupted once again at Kent State University in an incident that came to be known as the Kent State Shootings. There, National Guardsmen armed with high-powered rifles fired without warning into a crowd of students protesting the bombing of Cambodia, killing four students and seriously wounding nine."
"No police officers, Alameda County Sheriff's deputies or National Guardsmen were disciplined for their actions. The violence at Berkeley and Kent State did, however, cause America to reexamine its conscience with respect to its treatment of disaffected American youth. The next few years brought an end to the Vietnam War and the flowering of a broad array of societal changes: minority rights, women's rights, citizen review boards for law enforcement, less lethal crowd control methods and an increased tolerance of public dissent and diversity in American life."
1.3 has NO references at all. Maybe they're in the separate article, I don't have time to check at the minute. If they are, they ought to be added to this article.
There are a lot of junk references in this article, which, as far as I've been able to support the text in the article. I think more also needs to be made of the fact that the University legally owned the land, and whether Governer Reagan overruled university faculty and send in the police unilaterally, which could be the case, but isn't clear in the text. The main problem is that it seems like the paragraphs have been written first, and then the citations added after (especially since a few articles are constantly referenced on many areas, even when they aren't germane). --CalPaterson (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I still don't have any idea what edits you are proposing. That seems to be a closely guarded secret, but I'm looking forward to finding out. You've quoted the article extensively; I'm not sure to what purpose. Dlabtot (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
It is no "closely guarded secret"; please stop trying to paint me as partisan. I have no idea what edits to make, and I'm trying to solicit input from people about what the best way to fix the issues with this article are. --CalPaterson (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
No one even hinted that you are "partisan" here. Apostle12 (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
"I think more also needs to be made of the fact that the University legally owned the land, and whether Governer Reagan overruled university faculty and send in the police unilaterally, which could be the case, but isn't clear in the text."
You seem not to have read the first section, which describes how the University came to own the land through its exercise of eminent domain. This sentence deals with the second part of your objection: "Governor Reagan overrode Chancellor Heyns' May 6, 1969 promise that nothing would be done without warning, and on Thursday, May 15, 1969 at 4:45 a.m., he sent 250 California Highway Patrol and Berkeley police officers into People's Park." Apostle12 (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
So the university did legally own the land? I'm still not clear on this point, and neither is the article. --CalPaterson (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I have rewritten section 1.1, now referring only to the sources available. It'd be great if anyone else could help find more sources. It'd be especially good to have a source for the Delacour quote: "We wanted a free speech area that wasn't really controlled like Sproul Plaza was." I suspect this came from Stew Albert website, which aol seem to have lost. Contributions weclome --CalPaterson (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Your edits effectively savage this section and eliminate quite a bit of material that was sourced, for example figures from the student voting that showed overwhelming support for People's Park. You have also eliminated a great deal of material that was sourced previously; though the links may have deteriorated or been eliminated during re-edits, the task should be to repair them and/or provide sourcing, not eliminate the material outright. Or you could simply request sourcing and let others complete this work within a reasonable amount of time. The meetings with Chancellor Heyns were once well-documented, and no one contests that they occurred, yet current readers will not even be aware of their existence.
Regarding ownership, the University DID legally own the land in the sense that it paid market price for the land and the houses that stood on it, which is how eminent domain works. This has always been clear for anyone willing to read the article and become familiar with the term "eminent domain." The context of the ownership issues is far more difficult to understand, however, especially some forty years after the fact.
Prior to the University's exercise of eminent domain to force out neighborhood residents and take control of the land, the People's Park site comprised individual lots with charming older homes that many people had occupied for decades. Some questioned the legitimacy of the University's exercise of eminent domain in this case, since there was no pressing public need for the structures and other improvements they proposed, let alone a pressing public need for a playing field and a parking lot.
After they moved out and their homes were torn down, many neighborhood residents understandably felt displaced. And after the property sat vacant for over a year, Telegraph Ave. merchants saw their businesses negatively affected by a looming empty lot--not just bare ground with abandoned cars, by the way, but a muddy lot strewn with debris and partially excavated foundations. These people were among the group who met prior to the construction of People's Park and began to consider alternatives, because the University had established no timetable for the construction they proposed. Inquiries yielded only that "funds are not yet available." (In fact University funds to proceed with construction magically appeared only AFTER People's Park had been largely built, and it may well have taken years for construction to begin.) Although Stew Alpert did write the article that appeared in the Berkeley Barb, the Park was not solely a Yippie Party project, as the article now implies. It had a much broader base of support than that.
At the time People's Park was built, the University had owned the land for only a short period of time. They had proceeded with seizure of the land without consulting with affected neighborhood residents, nor with the Berkeley City Council. In fact one City Council member commented that if the University's exercise of eminent domain were not checked, the University might well take over much of the City of Berkeley, since there was no inherent check on the growth of the Berkeley Campus. Many Berkeley residents considered the University's actions high-handed. It was in this context that Chancellor Heyns agreed to meet with students, Telegraph Ave. merchants, a newly formed neighborhood group, and other Berkeley residents to work out a compromise that would allow People's Park to remain, the last meeting occuring on May 6, 1969.
Had U.C. Berkeley administration officials been allowed to continue their negotiations with those who created People's Park, I am certain an amicable compromise would have been reached. Instead Governor Reagan felt compelled, for ideological and political reasons, to override Heyns, Kerr and others in the U.C. Berkeley administration. Bloody Thursday was the result.
The University's unhappy experience with People's Park has been the most likely factor in its choice not to exercise eminent domain to take over more of the City of Berkeley during the past forty years.
Again, I believe you have savaged the article, and I would hope that your efforts today do not presage more of the same. If your intent was to make things "more clear," you have not done so. I would encourage you to request sourcing before eliminating whole sections; to do so goes beyond "bold" and enters the realm of arrogance. The article has been stable for quite a while now, though of course it can always be improved. I would hope you might adopt a more collegial approach if your intent is truly to aid in this process. Apostle12 (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I did savage it. However, it was terrible before. I was trying to be thorough with citations, and while I missed the student vote issue, everything else currently in the text is well supported with sources. As for the history you just typed; frankly, I don't understand why you just posted it on the talk page and didn't find supporting evidence and include it in the text. It seems like you wasted your time writing it, and my time reading it. Anything you can find a source for should go in the text, anything else isn't relevant. --CalPaterson (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I haven't added the historical perspective surrounding "ownership" because it is impossible to source, especially if one hopes to satisfy literalists like you. You sound proud of yourself for having savaged the article. I still find it disturbing that every Wiki article seems eventually to attract a resident A-hole. Please see section below.Apostle12 (talk) 07:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Mark Kitchell's documentary film Berkeley in the Sixties (1990) seems to be a good source for a lot of this material. There's also a number of secondary sources that support the film. Why isn't it (and the supporting sources) used in this article? I'll be over in the film article if anyone needs me. :) —Viriditas | Talk 11:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a big omission, I agree. I've just rented this film from the library, and I'll probably watch it today. I've only worked on section 1.1, so I can't really speak for the rest of the article. --CalPaterson (talk) 12:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I've now seen it, and although the section on the peoples park isn't of great quality (there is almost zero material from the University) there is a scope for some to be added. --CalPaterson (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Micheal Delacour has quite a bit of old footage from back then that he screened for me back in the eighties. Worth a view if you get the chance, although obviously not a valid WP:RS for this article. Dlabtot (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've corrected the quote, found a better source, and moved it to later in the article to place it in its proper context - the aftermath, rather than the run up to Bloody Thursday. Dlabtot (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Major re-edits, consensus, arrogance vs. boldness

Expansion and improvement of this article is welcomed and encouraged by all the current editors.

Yesterday editor CalPaterson completely revised the section called "Origin of the Park," calling it "terrible." Granted this section needed updated sourcing, since some sourcing had disappeared and some links had expired. However I do not believe this justified immediate removal of much of the material and a complete, rather crude, rewite of the entire section. As those of us who have worked with the article over the past two years know, this section was accurate and complete as written, despite the fact that some of the sourcing was inadequate.

The re-write needed extensive changes to correct tense, syntax and grammatical errors. It still lacks key elements of the original section, including material regarding student voting that was quite well sourced. I would appeal to editor CalPaterson, who has voiced his intent to go through the entire article in like manner, to build where possible on existing text and establish consensus for further major re-edits before savaging whole sections of the original article (please see his comments and mine in the previous section).

When sourcing is lacking, please make a note of it, provide immediate sourcing where possible, and allow sufficient time for other editors to correct deficiencies. If sourcing cannot be provided, it is of course fine to remove unsourced material as per Wiki standards, but how about a slightly less arrogant approach? Apostle12 (talk) 08:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I realise I made some grammatical mistakes, apologies; I will check more closely in future. The section previously had structural issues, and jumped back and forth through time, and my rewrite addressed this, staying strictly chronological and with a logical sequence of paragraphs.
It was also claiming various things that were not clearly supported by citations, or things that were contradictory to the evidence claimed (in fact, in other sections, it still does that). Every claim in section 1.1 is now sourced, and I have added a new source, and I plan to continue adding sources I can find.
Honestly, I don't agree with your point that removal of material is a big deal; it wasn't sourced and it can always be added in the future if a source is found, and I haven't removed the previous work (ie, you can check back at the previous prose to add things to the current). It's an improvement, I think, to have a section that this very well sourced, even if it is less elaborate than a previous version that was not sourced at best, and sourced to contradictory evidence at worst. If you find sources, or find that I've missed something for which a source is available, I don't see why you aren't altering the text to include it. --CalPaterson (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Your assertions, both about the article as you found it, and the edits you made to it, do not appear to me to be consistent with reality. There are many, many problems with the edits you've made, so perhaps it would be helpful to tackle the specific issues one at a time. Let's begin with this one:
What, specifically, is your justification for removing citations to this Time Magazine article? Time Magazine - obviously a WP:RS - did in reality, in it's May 30, 1969 issue, publish this article. Not only have you removed from the article the verified fact of the student referendum which this citation supported, you've also denied the reader the opportunity of following the link to the Time Magazine article itself, which provides valuable context as a contemporaneous source. So, I ask, why did you remove this? Dlabtot (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed it by mistake, apologies. I don't mean to exclude it; I'm working right now to fix this. --CalPaterson (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you should just revert the article back to how it was when you found it, and make incremental changes after you've educated yourself a little bit about the subject of the article. Dlabtot (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the revert. Your input is welcome, but rather than make massive, unilateral changes, I'd suggest a more incremental approach - that should help avoid mistakes of this sort. Dlabtot (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with the revert; the new prose is clearer, includes all sources that are actually available and is a decent base to start work on.
I now recall that the removal of the student vote section was not a mistake; that vote happened a long time after the origin of the park, and in fact, the source implies it actually happened well after bloody thursday, so it isn't germane to the origin of the peoples park, so long as this history aims to be chronological, which it probably should.
I don't think it's a good idea to revert again, so I'm going to carry on work on the new prose on this talk page, with the aim of replacing the old prose you have now reverted to. --CalPaterson (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Dlabtot. And, yes, wholesale removal of material is a big deal, because it is a lot of work for other editors to go back to previous versions, figure out what has been removed, work it back into the text and get things back in shape again. You now have two editors telling you that they do not appreciate the spirit of your editing, though the sourcing additions are appreciated. All you have to do, CalPaterson, is respect the work that has been accomplished to date, rather than savaging the article, which you admitted you did. The operative term here would be incremental change. Apostle12 (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The work accomplished to date is of very poor quality. I do not respect it. --CalPaterson (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, at least you have made your contempt for the other editors clear. Apostle12 (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea who wrote the current state of the article, and I don't much care. The only thing relevant to any of our discussions is what will make the article better. Our personal feelings are not germane. --CalPaterson (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"New" prose

Origin of the park

In 1956 the Regents of the University of California earmarked a 2.8 plot of residental land for future development into student housing, parking and offices for the University. The University did not have the funds to purchase the land at the time, and the plan was shelved until June 1967, when the university acquired $1.3 million to take control of the land through the process of eminent domain. After taking control of the land, neighbourhood residents were evicted, and the demolition of the current development began. [1]

By 1967, the University had altered its plan; the new plan was to build student parking and a playing field on the land. The demolition took over a year, and the University ran out of funds to develop the plot, leaving it as a brown empty lot. As winter began, the lot became muddy and was derelict with abandoned cars. [2][3]

On April 13, 1969 a meeting of local merchants and residents was held to decide possible uses for the derelict site. Michael Delacour presented a plan for developing the unused, University-owned land into a public park. This plan was approved by the meeting, but not by the University, and Stew Albert, founder of the Yippie Party, wrote an article for the local counterculture newspaper, the Berkeley Barb, which called for help with building materials and manual labor. [4]

Due to the publicity generated by the article, on April 20, 1969 over 100 people began building the park. Trees, flowers and shrubbery were brought to the park, and community development of the park proceeded quickly. Eventually, approximately 1000 people became involved, and People's Park was born. [5][6] [7] Frank Bardacke, who was involved with the construction of the park later said in the Berkeley in the Sixties documentary that; "a group of people took some corporate land, owned by the University of California, that was a parking lot and turned it into a park and then said; 'we're using the land better than you used it; it's ours'".

However, the University was the legal owner of the plot, and on April 28th 1969, Berkeley Vice Chancellor Earl Cheit released plans for a sports field that would be built on the site. This was in conflict with the builders of People's Park, however Cheit stated that he would take no action without notifying the park builders. Two days later, on April 30, he expanded this commitment to allow the park builders creative control over one quarter of the plot. On May 6 1969, Chancellor Heyns held a meeting with members of the People's Park committee, student representatives and faculty from the College of Environmental Design. He stated a time limit of three weeks for this group to produce a plan for the park, and re-iterated the Vice Chancellor's promise not to take action without prior warning. [8][9]

What is the point of posting this here? Rather than pursue a unilateral course, I would urge you to work with the other editors on this article. Dlabtot (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
For example, you propose replacing In 1956 the Regents of the University of California earmarked this 2.8 acre plot of land for acquisition as part of the University's "Long Range Plan for Expansion." The University did not actually acquire the land until 1967, when it was finally able to raise the $1.3 million necessary to purchase it from the residents it displaced using its power of eminent domain. with In 1956 the Regents of the University of California earmarked a 2.8 plot of residental land for future development into student housing, parking and offices for the University. The University did not have the funds to purchase the land at the time, and the plan was shelved until June 1967, when the university acquired $1.3 million to take control of the land through the process of eminent domain. After taking control of the land, neighbourhood residents were evicted, and the demolition of the current development began. - why? your version is clumsy and poorly written compared with what it's replacing. In what way do you think your version is an improvement? Dlabtot (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Because the new prose better lends itself to a chronological progression. In the old prose, the paragraphs work like this;
1 - 1956-1967
2 - back to 1956 and then forward again to 1967
3 - first sentence of this paragraph and the previous are dupes
My prose is chronological, and clear. There are no chronological jumps. My section is also sourced earlier, and clearer than the old prose. --CalPaterson (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I disagree with your judgements about which version is more clear. Your writing is clumsy and awkward. Dlabtot (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
How do we fix the chronological jump then? --CalPaterson (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Your concerns about chronology seem overblown to me. The only "jump" is contained within the following sentence:
"Initially, the University had intended to build additional student housing, parking and office facilities on the land; however by the time the land was purchased the University Regents had decided to use it primarily for student parking and for a playing field. During late 1967, the University moved to prepare the land for that purpose."
Granted "initially" refers to a time prior to 1967, however the sentence is quite coherent and simply introduces the point that the Board of Regents changed its mind. I doubt anyone would be confused by this. Apostle12 (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, before we work on 'fixing' something, we would need to determine that it needs fixing. The problem that you propose 'fixing' does not, in my opinion, exist. You seem to believe that all events must be presented in strict chronological order; I don't know what the basis is for that belief. Dlabtot (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
They occurred in a strict chronological order. When history is to be represented, it is always represented in a chronological order. Few history books do not include a chronological order. --CalPaterson (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, my prose is correctly sourced. --CalPaterson (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Correct sourcing is always appreciated. Apostle12 (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of http://www.peoplespark.org/ as a source for this article

I question the use of http://www.peoplespark.org/ as a source for this article. It belongs in the External Links section, of course. But is it a reliable, third-party published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? I also refer to WP:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29. On a slightly related issue, I want to note that when a citation is made to a newspaper article, the link to the online version 'going dead' does not invalidate the citation. It is the newspaper article that is being cited, not a url. This is a reason to use the citeweb format. Dlabtot (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not used in the current article as a citation. I have used it in my prose because there is a lack of sources for exact dates, and I trust the official page of a site to produce non-contentious information, like the date of the parks' creation.
On links "going dead"; if you're able to fix them: I don't know why you haven't done so. Dead links do cause trouble for the citation; cited texts must be available. Some of the citations from this page cannot be found (specifically, Stew Albert's page has been totally removed since the creation of this article, and a new website has been put in it's place - thus Delacour's statement is unverifiable without getting hold of one of Albert's books, and it is by no means clear which one will hold the quotation). --CalPaterson (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you familiarize or re-familiarize yourself with the applicable policy pages I have provided to you. It's pretty simple, really. peoplespark.org is not a reliable source and can't be cited as such in this article. As for 'dead links', you have not replied to the substance of my comment above. I am forced to repeat myself: when a citation is made to a newspaper article, the link to the online version 'going dead' does not invalidate the citation. It is the published newspaper article that is being cited, not the website. Similarly, if Time Magazine stopped hosting [4] and that url became a 'dead link', it would not invalidate citations to the article published in the May 30, 1969 issue of Time Magazine. Dlabtot (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
peoplespark.org is a reliable source for the dates relating to the creation of the park. Other things, probably not. If the newspaper article is removed, the citation cannot be followed up and should be removed, obviously. The whole point of citations is that they can be verified. If they cannot be verified, they should obviously be removed. Instead of engaging in pointless debate over things like this, we should be improving the article. --CalPaterson (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Your assertions about Wikipedia policies are just flatly wrong, sorry. Dlabtot (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
If you think that the actual park website is a bad source for data about the park, especially when the date is totally non-contentious; you are being over-zealous in your interpretation of the rules. The wikipedia rules are not intended to be cited by the letter. I'm sure you're very aware of Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules. On the point of dates of creation, this is a useless dispute because these simple facts, which you are very concerned about, are also corroborated by many, many, other sources. --CalPaterson (talk) 03:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The date of creation of the park is not only not contentious, it's also well sourced in multiple other sources. I would actually say that the date of the creation of the park is a plain and simple uncontested fact that needs no citation whatsoever, which it why is completely unrelated to any comment I have made. Please do not continue to mis-state my comments as being about the date of the creation of the park. That is not the subject of my comments and seems to be nothing but a red herring.
However, characterizing the creation of the park as primarily a Yippie inspired activity is not a simple, non-contentious fact, nor are other details that you sourced to the peoplespark.org website. If you believe something needs an inline citation and you don't have a WP:RS for it, more appropriate than an invalid source would be a {{Fact}} tag. Especially considering that the website is already available in the EL section. It's not like the reader is being deprived of access to the website and the context it provides.
If we can't reach agreement about whether or not the website constitutes a reliable source, I suggest we take it to WP:RSN Dlabtot (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how we are in disagreement. We both seem to agree that the peoplespark.org source isn't one to use, especially since there are other sources. I'm not opposed to taking this to WP:RSN anyway, but I'd rather go with a more general question about how to source this article. The Yippie focus was because at the time, that was all the information I could derive from sources. --CalPaterson (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is far from pointless because it relates specifically to the issue of sourcing, which is the primary issue you yourself raised, CalPaterson. Newspaper or magazine articles that appear on the web are obviously preferable, because verification is easier. However at least two of the articles that appear in this article predate the web and are available only in libraries. Specifically the May 30, 1969 edition of the Berkeley Daily Gazette, which is archived at U.C. Berkeley, contains valuable information regarding People's Park in general and Sheriff Madigan in particular. Unfortunately, when I first read the article I was new to Wikipedia and did not think to take down page numbers or other more specific information. I do need to return to the library and take more careful notes. Any other researcher could do the same, which is how such a source would be verified. Apostle12 (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I raised the issue of sourcing because there were a number of sources that were wrong, and shockingly wrong. References to a timeline of the park published by the park creators themselves was not the obvious example of bad sourcing I had in mind. Much more importantly; are there any other archives of the Berkeley Daily Gazette? I can't personally trek down the the library and read it. Would it be better to compile a list of the available sources that we know of and work to incorporate them into the article? This would be really productive and could even result in progress ;). --CalPaterson (talk) 03:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this would be a good point in the discussion for you to provide an example of one of the sources that are in the article right now that are "wrong, and shockingly wrong". In that way, we could discuss your specific concerns and build a consensus about what should or should not be changed in the article. Dlabtot (talk) 04:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see much point in coming up with a response to this challenge now. See the next topic. --CalPaterson (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it would be enormously helpful for you to reveal your specific concerns so that they can be discussed. It's not a 'challenge' - it's an invitation to dialogue. I urge you to participate. Dlabtot (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
My main concerns are:
That a good deal of the article is not clearly sourced (I'm thinking we need to check every source and remove sources that aren't good, or clear etc). This article, since it is so contentious, should be written largely around sources, instead of what seems to be the more usual way of article first, sources later.
That government perspectives are under-represented. Also, not enough is made of the fact that the occupation of the park is unlawful.
We NEED images from the demonstrations and riots. It's very hard to illustrate the issue without these. I have a poor quality MPEG2 video of BITS 352x240, but I can take frames from this and clean them up with the GIMP, though I don't well understand the process of uploading images. Especially since they will be fair use.
That we lack quotations from important people (Delacour and Reagan need to appear more, and, probably, so does Savio)
That there are some really junky paragraphs. Example;
The battle lines were drawn, Flower Children versus The Establishment; the conflict mirrored widespread 1960s societal tensions that tended to flow along generational lines regarding the war in Vietnam, race relations, sexual mores, women's rights, traditional modes of authority, experimentation with psychedelic drugs and opposing interpretations of The American Dream.[22]
That we need to divide section 1.2 into more sections. (probably, one section for each of the major events)
More needs to be made of the Red Scare aspect of this.
  • I guess I missed, in that laundry list of general criticism, the specific source you are objecting to. Do you have specific a specific criticism or specific suggestion? For example, you criticize a particular paragraph as 'junky'.... I agree that prose is a bit on the purple side. On the other hand, it seems to pretty well sum up the context. Do you have a specific suggestion for improvement? Dlabtot (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You did ask for a laundry list of general criticism. That paragraph is not a good way to "sum up". The only reason that paragraph should appear in the text is if it's an important opinion from a third party source. The paragraph is a opinion that is held of these events, but in order to include it (and I agree, we must include this common viewpoint) we need to be drawing from a source. It is generally outside the scope of wikipedia editors to independently analyse subjects. As you said so correctly on another subject on this talk page Whether or not your or I think something is true or untrue is totally irrelevant to the question of whether it should be included in Wikipedia. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If you're looking for specific issues with sources, I did write a quick write up of issues above.
If we're agreed that the issues I mentioned need work, perhaps we should do as I have seen done on other talkpages, and place them in an infobox at the top of the talk page and begin work on improvement. I'm supposing you generally agree with my list (and, I bet, you have more that I have missed). We should end the edit ceasefire. --CalPaterson (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)\
I haven't agreed to anything, since I don't have any idea specifically what you are proposing. Despite my repeated requests. I have only so much energy to devote to fruitless attempts at dialogue. Dlabtot (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I just listed my concerns above. We need sources, images, a better representation of the government of the time, remove POV paragraphs, to divide section 1.2 into sections and more quotations. I don't see what is unclear. My general proposal is that we start editing the damn page again and making progress instead of insisting on further clarification on points that are pretty clear. --CalPaterson (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You can either discuss your edits in advance in an attempt to reach consensus, or you can make edits without discussing them in advance and see if they get reverted and discuss them then. I think the first method is better, but I can't force you to discuss your proposed edits, all I can do is ask you to do so. Which I have, repeatedly. Dlabtot (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to discuss the details of every edit I intend to make. I'll just make them, and if you don't like them, then let's take them to the talk page. I expect this will be much quicker. I'll start with a todo box on this page, so we're all understanding the aims. --CalPaterson (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Just an RS sidenote: For decades the Berkeley Daily Gazette was the only paper published in Berkeley, and it dealt specifically with local issues. Though it had a small circulation (Berkeley comprises 100,000 people and perhaps 25,000 households), the paper had a good reputation for solid journalism. The Gazette was established in 1894, approximately seventy years before the city gained its "Bzerkeley" nickname; in fact from at least the 1930s through the early 1960s Berkeley was a Republican town.
I do understand your concerns about access to the Gazette archives. To the best of my knowledge, the only archives are in Berkeley--one at U.C. Berkeley and another at the Berkeley Public Library; the paper itself folded in 1984. These archives are, however, an invaluable source for the development of this article, since the paper conducted contemporaneous interviews with Sheriff Madigan and many others. Their coverage was thorough, and reading some the selections nearly forty years later I was impressed with their editorial impartiality. Perhaps if an article seems of particular interest I can provide photocopies. Apostle12 (talk) 05:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"If it takes a bloodbath...."

Until a few days ago, the article contained a Reagan quote:

" Reagan decided to put an end to People's Park, and he proclaimed "If there has to be a bloodbath, then let's get it over with."

This quote was sourced to the early morning edition of the May 15, 1969 San Francisco Chronicle.

Then during the past few days another source was added, which referenced a date nearly a year later than the May 15, 1969 "Bloody Thursday" confrontation over People's Park. The second source mentioned some controversy regarding the latter quote, because Reagan only accepted responsibility for using the term "bloodbath" after an audiotape was replayed for his benefit.

I will try to secure a copy of the May 15, 1969 San Francisco Chronicle to see if anything of this sort appeared in the early morning edition. This is a bit tricky, however, since even Bay Area residents are unaware of the fact that different editions of the Chronicle are published for different parts of their diverse community--papers delivered to Berkeley homes and sold on Berkeley newsstands are tailored to the dominant politics of that city, as are papers sold in Marin, San Francisco, Santa Rosa and so on.

In any case, I agree that this quote should remain out of the article until we can resolve this issue. Reagan may well have said something the morning of May 15, 1969 (I believe he held a news conference) where he utilized the term "bloodbath." It would not have been unusual for him to use the same term in a similar context nearly a year later; Reagan often told even completely fabricated stories to support his assertions, and he kept repeating such stories after he had been informed that the stories were not factual. And long before Reagan acknowledged his struggle with Alzheimer's he was known to be very forgetful with respect to a wide variety of events and even his own statements regarding various issues. Apostle12 (talk) 05:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, first he claimed he didn't say it, then he claimed he didn't mean it. I look at his demeanor in, for example, the BITS movie, and make my own judgment about whether or not he meant it. But he did indeed say it, after his actions led to the death of James Rector. But such callous disregard for for the taking of innocent human life and his own culpability in that crime is not for me to judge, but for history. BTW, this page led me to the Cannon book, and includes two other citations. Dlabtot (talk) 05:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Depressingly, that board erroneously cites us for evidence that the quote is from 1969. (the answers.com link, halfway down). I'm glad this was fixed, even if it took 3 days. --CalPaterson (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You are right that Reagan irrefutably made at least one "bloodbath" statement AFTER Rector's death, Alan Blanchard's blinding, and the wounding of hundreds of others on May 15, 1969--bloodbath indeed. This fact should be mentioned somewhere in the article, whether or not Reagan used the term prior to "Bloody Thursday." Apostle12 (talk) 06:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
For years, I thought he made the statement before the riot - until today. You really can learn stuff by editing WP and I want to commend our colleague CalPaterson for prompting my research into this. While I encourage you in your effort to track down the old Chronicle, I'll be surprised if it turns out he made two 'bloodbath statements'. Dlabtot (talk) 06:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You are probably correct. And, I agree that each editor has his own unique contribution to make, including CalPaterson. Dispelling misconceptions is an unending task. I too will be surprised if the Chronicle search yields a "bloodbath" quote; Reagan made an enormous effort to back away from the later "bloodbath" statement, yet no similar effort took place during the weeks and months following "Bloody Thursday."
Apparently a lot of people are under the impression Reagan did make a "bloodbath" statement before the People's Park confrontation. I came across an argument put together by a Reagan apologist defending what he supposedly said on May 15, 1969 as "a warning to the demonstrators so that bloodshed could be avoided." Now, that would have been a stretch!
I did not support Reagan when he ran for the Presidency, mostly based on his performance as Governor of California, especially his role in "Bloody Thursday." Yet he may have learned from his choice to escalate the confrontation with Berkeley demonstrators; his negotiations with Gorbachev were remarkably conciliatory (despite his harsh rhetoric) and may have hastened the end of the Cold War, just as his supporters claim. Apostle12 (talk) 07:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
It's difficult to tell what was meant by the word "bloodbath" without knowing the context well. It's probably a bad idea to guess, especially since it was so quickly retracted. "Bloodbath" can very easily be used metaphorically. I recall the Times (of London) using it to describe the purge of hereditary peers from the House of Lords.
As an aside; having watched BITS very recently, I wasn't very bothered by Reagan's demeanour. There are only a couple of sections which even feature him, and seeing as it is a) not directly about him and b) probably selective in what it shows, I can't say it's a decent source from which to draw conclusions about him. It would be a stretch to say that BITS allowed Reagan adequate space to air his views. One of the speeches is a typical Reagan anti-drug/anti-pornography tirade, and this is something that is well out of date (even though it is still a common view among Western leaders now). But another is a small insight into Reagan's opinion; "This all began the first time some of you [referring to professors at UCB] let young people think they could choose the laws they could obey so long as they were doing it in the name of social protest." This is a reasonable conclusion to draw considering the park was illegally occupied. --CalPaterson (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
^ I would comment if this were a discussion page about Ronald Reagan, or even it it were a discussion page about People's Park. It's not. Dlabtot (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, but you broached this topic. The second speech most certainly has a place in this article, however. Wait a little while though, it'd be better to discuss where you previously asked me to (above, with the bold). --CalPaterson (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Todo box and current work.

I've added a todo box, listing things I've thought of that we can do to improve the article. I've also merged both new and old 1.1 prose, with the hope of having all material from both. Please don't revert this! If material has been omitted, assume a mistake and add to it then post here. --CalPaterson (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm now going through and checking the section and copyediting. --CalPaterson (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the vote prose because the vote happened later in the chronology of the park. Need to get that inserted at the correct point in the article (which, I think, is after the government retook the park). --CalPaterson (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot, you just added this again. The Time article seems to imply that this vote happened well after the riots. We need to find a date, because it does look like the vote happened after Bloody Thursday. --CalPaterson (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Please stop deleting this. Bloody Thursday was on May 15. The Time article which reported the referendum was published on May 30. Therefore the referendum happened between the 15th and the 30th. Thus, I have characterized the referendum as happeining 'soon after' Bloody Thursday. Do you honestly disagree with this characterization? Dlabtot (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I haven't deleted it...it's still in the article. I was making a mistake before (edit summaries are easy to misread, sorry). I'm fine with your change. --CalPaterson (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
[5] states; "On May 13, former Chancellor Roger Heyns made clear the university's intentions to turn the park into a soccer field, announcing that eight-foot fences would soon encircle the land"
I don't know whether to include this in section 1.1 or later in 1.2. I'm leaning towards 1.2 because 1.2 could start well by documenting from the beginning of the response from the university.
Apostle12, I don't know exactly what is missing from the DailyCal article (unless it is what is above).--CalPaterson (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
"On April 18, 1969, The Berkeley Barb, an underground newspaper, published an article authored by Stew Albert, one of the original Yippies, urging Berkeleyans to bring materials to create "the People's Park."[6] That first Sunday, April 20, 1969, hundreds of people cleared ground and planted trees, grass, flowers and shrubs using equipment provided by local landscape architect Jon Read. Walter Cox, a former employee of Read's, arranged for Terry Garthwaite's and Toni Brown's band, "The Joy of Cooking," to provide musical entertainment. Others set up playground equipment and cooked meals, which were provided at no cost to everyone. It was a day of celebration, and over the next several weeks University students and other Berkeley citizens joined together to build the park.[7] People's Park was born."
Stylistic objections aside, the above paragraph contains quite a bit of information that was either changed or deleted in your version:
  • Jon Read provided not just materials, but also made his equipment available to the volunteers. Without this equipment (shovels, picks, wheelbarrows, rollers, hoses, and so on) the park couldn't have been built. He also supervised the project, since few people had the expertise to lay sod, successfully plant trees and shrubs, and keep the plantings alive after they were put in the ground. And we needed jackhammers, which Read rented at his expense, to break up concrete rubble from the homes' former foundations.
  • Read's former employee, Walter Cox, also lent equipment and expertise to the project, and he arranged for the "Joy of Cooking" to play; their music set the tone for the event, and the article should at least convey that it was a celebration.
  • "Hundreds" is more accurate than "over 100"--a lot of people showed up to work and to play.
  • After the playground equipment was set up, the People's Park became an attraction for neighborhood children and families; the playground equipment is missing in your version.
  • One of the mainstays during the 1960s was providing free food. You do mention free food, however it was a key feature of the April 20 event--all comers were welcome, not just the park builders.
  • "People's Park was born." That's a direct quote from one of the sources, and it is not an unimportant statement regarding April 20.
Much of this material appeared in contemporaneous editions of the official U.C. Berkeley newspaper, "The Daily Californian." The project was also covered in Berkeley Daily Gazette articles. I'm sure sourcing will be no problem, given time.
I do agree with Dlabtot that your prose tends to be choppy, which makes it difficult to read. Also, it often contains awkward phrasing that detracts from the meaning.
Often the way something is written is important (especially the paragraph above) if one is to convey the true spirit of an event. Apostle12 (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Apologies for any awkward phrasing. I'll try harder for clarity, but you're much more likely to see it than me. Maybe it's a clash between English dialects. I'll add that infomation back in now. --CalPaterson (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The berkeleydailyplanet refers to "Jon Reed" and says "At Delacour’s suggestion, he and landscaper John Reed had driven up to a sod farm in Vallejo, buying turf that volunteers laid on ground they had cleared and prepared."...I can't find anything else about him. I might be making a mistake, but the DailyCal doesn't mention him by name. If you know about this aspect, would you mind writing it in?--CalPaterson (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem, and thanks for reinstating missing material. I will work to try to smooth the prose out, as time allows. Apostle12 (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Feel free. I'm gonna go take a break now. :) --CalPaterson (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ohlone Park

Although the accuracy of the "Ohlone Park" section of this article has never been contested, we are going to have trouble sourcing it. Some information is contained on the City of Berkeley website, however a lot of what is written was provided by those who created Ohlone; I know of no independent, terciary sourcing.

Suggestions, anyone? Apostle12 (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. That section is actually bigger and more factual than Ohlone Park's own article. It's hard to say how relevant it is. Maybe we should consider moving most of the geographical information off this article on onto it's own article, because I think the only part of Ohlone in the scope of the People's Park article is that it was a counter-culture effort. I found a geographical description here; [6], if that helps. --CalPaterson (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:V states: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." The material has not be challenged; do you think it is likely to be challenged? Dlabtot (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's been there in its present form for perhaps two years now, with no challenges. So I doubt it. Ohlone is directly related to People's Park because it was started during the May, 1969 National Guard occupation under the "Let 1000 Parks Bloom" banner. In many ways it has been more successful as an urban park than People's Park itself, since the site is less politically charged. Apostle12 (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

One piece I would add is something to the effect "There is one original structure that remains in the park from the People's Park era: a jungle gym type structure built from old automotive [axles--the long rod that connects the engine to the rear-wheel drive section] that were welded together. Near this is a modern childs play area, including a modern style climbing structure, and the old structure is largely seen for its artistic and historic significance." Not sure of the exact wording, but I played on this structure as a kid in 1970, so I know it is an original. Lee (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

While I find your story interesting and informative, it would have to be published in a reliable source to be included in the article. Dlabtot (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

North Gate News

FYI, here are some articles on People's Park from North Gate News: Portrait of People’s Park, Berkeley Grapples Again with a Troubled People’s Park, People’s Park Considered Unsafe. Also fyi: North Gate News Online is comprised of articles written by students at the University of California at Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism. Dlabtot (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I just found a few nice pictures of the building of the park on peoplespark.org. I'm sure they'd GFDL/public domain them if we asked. Currently, there're here; [7]. I'll email them a little later. --CalPaterson (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You links are broken. [8] [9] [10] --CalPaterson (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I swapped a broken ref out for one of these. --CalPaterson (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Citing a newspaper article that is no longer online

Please see this related discussion: WT:V#citing_a_newspaper_article_that_is_no_longer_online. Dlabtot (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, I'll keep following. I've looked around archive.org and the usual places where one might expect to find a copy (though, I suppose, latimes.com won't allow robots) I'm not massively concerned with contention at the moment, because we have the article from UC Berkeley's Grad School, which I think is pretty reasonable. --CalPaterson (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Need help on hippie

The following unsourced section appears in the hippie article:

In April 1969, the building of People's Park in Berkeley, California received international attention. The University of California, Berkeley had demolished all the buildings on a 2.8 acre parcel near campus, intending to use the land to build playing fields and a parking lot. After a long delay, during which the site became a dangerous eyesore, thousands of ordinary Berkeley citizens, merchants, students, and hippies took matters into their own hands, planting trees, shrubs, flowers and grass to convert the land into a park. A major confrontation ensued on May 15, 1969, and Governor Ronald Reagan ordered a two-week occupation of the city of Berkeley by the United States National Guard. Flower power came into its own during this occupation as hippies engaged in acts of civil disobedience to plant flowers in empty lots all over Berkeley under the slogan "Let A Thousand Parks Bloom."

Could someone help source it from this article? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


More POV / original research

Again, an generally well-sourced article about an important aspect of 1960s history is hurt by POV writing. This section is questionable:

Less than a month later, on May 4, 1970, National Guardsmen at Kent State University, armed with high-powered rifles fired without warning into a crowd of students protesting the bombing of Cambodia, killing four students and seriously wounding nine.

No police officers, Alameda County Sheriff's deputies or National Guardsmen were disciplined for their actions. The violence at Berkeley and Kent State did, however, cause America to reexamine its conscience with respect to its treatment of disaffected American youth. The next few years brought an end to the Vietnam War and the flowering of a broad array of societal changes: minority rights, women's rights, citizen review boards for law enforcement, less lethal crowd control methods and an increased tolerance of public dissent and diversity in American life.

First, Kent State could be mentioned in passing, with a hyperlink to another page. Instead this is being used to argue that People's Park and Kent State changed history. The violence caused the entire US to reexamine its conscience? Really? This is definitely "original research" (hinting at the usual self-indulgent pap about how the baby boomers changed the world in a uniquely special way, as if no other generation or people ever have before or since). The second paragraph, after the first sentence, is entirely opinion. It would belong in an essay, but not in an encyclopedia article, and has no third-party sourcing for its claims.

98.194.237.126 (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Please see the discussions above: "unexplained revert", "Request for comment". - Dlabtot (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The violence at Berkeley and, particularly, Kent State did indeed cause America to reexamine its collective conscience--no, not every American, but a sufficient majority of Americans were brought up short, and things changed pretty rapidly after these events became widely known. I'll go ahead and source it.
An unprecedented expansion of minority rights and women's rights, citizen review boards for law enforcement, less lethal crowd control methods and increased tolerance of public dissent and diversity, did indeed come about during the years following the events of the late 1960s. Nowhere does this article imply that baby boomers were uniquely responsible for such changes; committed people of all ages participated in creating the changes, including many in law enforcement. There is no opinion involved in this summary, and I do believe the summary is necessary to provide historical perspective for younger readers. Apostle12 (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)]
The consensus is that what you wrote is original research, although everyone seems to agree that it was insightful and well-written prose. Dlabtot (talk) 06:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, nothing original about it. I'll work on sourcing. Apostle12 (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2004-04-20/article/18700?status=301, retrived Mon Mar 10 00:40:48 GMT 2008
  2. ^ http://www.afsc.org/about/hist/2002/peoples_park.htm, retrieved Mon Mar 10 00:40:48 GMT 2008
  3. ^ http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2004-04-20/article/18700?status=301, retrieved Mon Mar 10 00:40:48 GMT 2008
  4. ^ http://www.peoplespark.org/tmlin2.html, retrieved Mon Mar 10 04:20:29 GMT 2008
  5. ^ http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2004-04-20/article/18700?status=301, retrieved Mon Mar 10 00:40:48 GMT 2008
  6. ^ http://www.dailycal.org/article/15086/from_rubble_to_refuge, retrieved Mon Mar 10 00:40:48 GMT 2008
  7. ^ http://www.afsc.org/about/hist/2002/peoples_park.htm, retrieved 10 Mar 2008
  8. ^ http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2004-04-20/article/18700?status=301, retrieved Mon Mar 10 00:40:48 GMT 2008
  9. ^ http://www.peoplespark.org/tmlin2.html, retrieved Mon Mar 10 04:20:29 GMT 2008
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Park/Archive_1&oldid=457434047"