Jump to content

Talk:People's Park (Berkeley)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus to move. Prolog (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(Copying text from incomplete Move Request at WP:RM:)

— Several parks with this name, disambiguation in title preferred. Turn People's Park into disambig page. — Gjs238 (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This move has happened several times before. Should be discussed first. 128.232.1.193 (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: there are "People's Park"s in many cities of the world. Some already have Wikipedia articles, others don't yet (like my nearest one in Halifax, West Yorkshire). The one in California is not a Primary Usage, so the dab page should be at People's Park, and all specific parks should be disambiguated. PamD (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    Why do you think the one in California isn't the primary topic? -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: According to how Wikipedia uses the term "primary usage", this particular article is, indeed, the primary topic. It doesn't matter if you change the name, because "People's Park" will still redirect here. This was already vetted by the dab project in April of this year. Review Wikipedia:D#Primary_topic to see if the article still meets this qualification. Viriditas (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose as primary usage. 482 hits in August for People's Park, and only 73 of those (or others) clicked through to People's Park (disambiguation) in August to find a different article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Not really sufficient evidence; some readers are demonstrably confused by our dab headers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
      Still, coupled with the previous consensus (i.e., the current placement of the articles), it would appear to be sufficient unless there's contrary evidence. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
      The primary use is not (should not be) determined by the most "popular" page on Wikipedia, i.e., the page that receives the most "hits." I think that it is a safe assumption that if People's Park were made a disambiguation page, the page visits between the various People's Park pages would tend to even out, with the People's Park in California receiving fewer visits. Gjs238 (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
      This isn't the place to change the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline, which uses "searched for" and "read" as the criteria, of which popularity and hits are the indicators. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
      Of course this isn't the place to change the guideline - this is the place to implement the guideline - which uses the word "may" in italics, making it a discretionary matter. I don't feel that guideline applies to this situation - all People's Parks are equal in stature. Gjs238 (talk) 11:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
      No, they are not all equal as far as primary-topic-ness is concerned, and stature is not a criterion of primary-topic-ness. The italicized mays are for discretionary ways to determine the most searched for and read articles and don't indicate that "most searched for" and "most read" themselves are discretionary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
      The guideline also says that an extended discussion such as this may indicate that there is in fact no primary page and that a disambiguation page should be the primary page. Gjs238 (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
      Not such as this -- explaining what "primary topic" means and how it's determined, discussion that should have been held elsewhere, is not an indication that there's no primary topic here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
      Exactly such as this - interpreting how to apply a discretionary guideline to this particular page. Gjs238 (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per current page being primary topic. --MPerel 17:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Clearly the generic peoples park is the primary use. The number of hits can be used to assist in making a decision, but using those results to drive the decision is risky at best. When there is clearly no primary use, then the disambiguation page should be located at the primary name space. It is bad to send readers to the wrong article. Given the number of other Peoples Parks listed on the dab page and its talk page, it is clear that considering a single park as the primary use may be an error. I did try and go thought several google searches and that left my head spinning since the term is so common, further evidence of no primary use. If, as suggested in the discussion at WP:RM, is correct about their being several moves of this page, then that is convincing evidence that there was and is no primary topic. Move wars are the best indicator of no primary use. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is no primary use of the generic term on Wikipedia, or anywhere else for that matter, but if there were, you would find it on Wiktionary, not here. No "move wars" have occurred in the history of this page; it was moved once to support the current request in 2006. Subsequent moves support this article as the primary topic.[1] Finally, the argument above concerning Google searches is in error. The People's Park in Berkeley receives the majority of all hits across the board.[2][3][4][5] Traffic statistics for all other links do not even come close, and WhatLinksHere is open and shut. If there was a valid argument for this move, I would address it, but I can't find one. Viriditas (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

John Willard

The sentence on John Willard (in the 3.5-screen-long section People's Park disturbance; could this be subdivided?) has been fact-tagged for 21 months. I have let the sentence and tag stand, despite my G-search that turned up

6 for "John Willard" Berkeley -wikipedia buckshot

as follows:

  1. [http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/People%27s-Park,-Berkeley] (NationMaster, a non-acknowledging WP clone).
  2. [6] (produced bcz of the early 20th-cen. films Berkeley Square & The Buckshot Feud, and presumably some John Willard).
  3. [7] (John Willard of New York and Little Buckshot, a stage work of the same period).
  4. [8] (John Willard Marriott Sr. & "Buckshot" Jones).
  5. [9] (Same 2 guys).
  6. [10] (Another clone, at wiki.cn).

But i changed the lk from John Willard (disambiguation), which is pointless and annoying, to John Willard (Berkeley). This has the added virtue that the rdlk encourages rather than discourages efforts to find more info on him.
There are two somewhat related questions:

  1. Keep or drop sentence.
  2. Keep lk or change to plain text.

The next six months are a fairer test than the last six, for what to do, probably re both.
--Jerzy•t 18:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Other POV and Relevancy Issues

Large chunks of the article seem to have POV and/or relevancy problems. I haven't scoured the whole article for editing yet but there are some parts that I think should be rewritten or removed.

The "Bloody Thursday and its aftermath" section seems to have some problems. Almost all of the material relating to the National Guard there is not POV-neutral; so I'm going to flag this specific section. There are a lot of problems there, but the major one is that the section seems to be written in as a sort of "anti-Establishment" narrative. There is too much irrelevant material about the students getting the Guardsmen or the Guardsmen misbehaving. --Nogburt (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Specifically what material are you talking about and why do you find those details to be irrelevant? What do you mean by 'POV-neutral'? Articles are to be written following the WP:NPOV policy, but that doesn't mean that the sources that are cited don't have a point of view, nor does it mean that the facts never lend credence to a particular point of view. Please be specific in your criticism - the only way to achieve consensus is by hashing out the details. Dlabtot (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"Let's take back the park" is erroneous quote

At the time this happened, Dan Siegel was quoted as saying "Let's take the park", not "Let's take back the park".Daqu (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Final outcome

One of the problems I have with the People's Park story (both here and how it is told in Berkeley) is that the final outcome is not well-explained. The park exists today, so obviously the people won. But how? What were the circumstances? The article seems to imply that the immediate outcome of the riots was victory for the police/governor, but after an extended guard (how long?), the fence was torn down and the land was converted into a park in the '70s. This needs more detail -- how did the Guard/State/University back down? What was the mood among students/the people over their victory? I will say that public enthusiasm for this park (which, by the way, is very small) has waned immensely, but had that already happened by 1972? The article should spell this out more.

P.S.: Dan Siegel's comments at the bottom are accurate. Brutannica (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

In the section 'Subsequent History', you'll find this text: In May, 1972, an outraged crowd tore down the 8' tall perimeter chain-link wire fence surrounding the People's Park site after President Nixon announced his intention to mine North Vietnam's main port. In September, the Berkeley City Council voted to lease the People's Park site from the University. The Berkeley community proceeded to rebuild People's Park through user-development, mainly with donated labor and materials. Various local groups contributed to managing the park during rebuilding. .... I agree that more detail about this would be great, but I'm not sure that relevant sources exist. I think it might require some original research. Dlabtot (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

re Peoples Park

Hello User:Apostle12. I took the liberty of undoing your reverts of "O.R." on the Peoples Park article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People%27s_Park&curid=532547&diff=274880476&oldid=274621138 as I see it that it is a matter of interpretation of what is seen in the references. I appreciate your efforts in contribution to the article. Care to discuss your views ? Peace, rkmlai (talk) 09:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I support SierraLaw's changes, the old verbiage gave an extremely skewed picture of the park. Dlabtot (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe the current sources and references are adequate to not have User:Sierralaw's additions to this article be counted as O.R. When I read http://www.peoplespark.org/ and additionally when I read "Hip-Hop Festival Takes Over People's Park" http://www.dailycal.org/article/101588/hip-hop_festival_takes_over_people_s_park I get more the feel of Sierralaw's edits. I will add that dailycal.org article as a reference.
The hip hop article supports the occurence of a hip hop event. This article (http://www.dailycal.org/article/104042/residents_homeless_try_to_coexist_by_people_s_park) supports the fact that the homeless dominate People's Park. Apostle12 (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
A multi year annual occurrence within the park. While I agree that homeless may dominate the annual population at People's Park, I believe that the park remains a multiuse, multifaceted piece of ground that refutes "your version" (which I see as POV) of the park as only a homeless hangout. Peace, rkmlai (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Please read each of the citations provided. I realize that the L.A. Times article is no longer available free of charge, however that piece and the other freely available citations do support the fact that on a day by day basis the park remains largely inaccessible to those unwilling to tolerate a large homeless presence. The central problem is that People's Park homeless are not just benign folk who desire to sit on a bench or ruminate on nature--no, they view People's Park as their turf, many of them are mentally imbalanced in a very angry way, and residents who might wish to enjoy the beauty of the park cannot do so because of human detritus, trash bags that serve as suitcases, temporary shelters and other accoutrements of the homeless.
I helped build People's Park nearly forty years ago; it was a great idea. That idea has been corrupted over time, and I believe that today the evidence is overwhelming that the park fails to fulfill its original purpose. That certainly is my "Point of View."
The important thing, though, is that the article be supported by legitimate references and that it reflect the reality of People's Park. Recent revisions extended into the realm of advertising promotion and they were definitely O.R.Apostle12 (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
L.A. Times article is no longer available free of charge, however that piece and the other freely available citations do support the fact that on a day by day basis the park remains largely inaccessible to those unwilling to tolerate a large homeless presence. NO, I paid for it and it doesn't say that. Ok, I wish I could reprint it here, the article definitely is based on the premise that the park has a homeless and drug problem. But when the reporter actually goes out to the park, he sees not just homeless but also someone tending her community garden and students playing basketball and frisbee. (Although he doesn't explain how he can tell at a glance that someone is homeless or a student.) Dlabtot (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The Berkeley Cal citation describes an incident of violence - they happen in every city - and doesn't say anything about whether people use the park for recreational activities. I must also point out that homeless people are actually people and the idea that their use of the park for recreation somehow doesn't count is not only wrong, it's distasteful and offensive. Dlabtot (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
All true, Dlabtot, all true, however in Apostle12's defense, your position will change when you come across someone who has not bathed in six months and is covered from head to toe in what can only be described as dried excrement. If you have never smelled anyone like this before, let me assure you, you won't have to get very close, as you will be able to smell them from about 50 yards away. Just one of these people can clear an entire park, so any attempt to share the park with them is, unfortunately, impossible. Clearly, these people should not be on the streets, or even in parks, but here they are. Civilization has its benefits, and perhaps I'm spoiled rotten to have the luxury to bathe at least once a day, but public health is a concern in these matters, and until you have stepped in a puddle of fresh urine or a nice pile of steaming human feces on the sidewalk (look no farther than the steps around San Francisco City Hall for that lovely specimen) you may feel differently. Obviously, the city wasn't thinking when they installed pay toilets, but since when have bureaucrats ever solved a single problem in human history? This is a serious public and mental health issue, and until society finds it important enough to solve (and Pat Brown and Ronald Reagan evidently did not as they led the deinstitutionalization movement, and across the United States from 1950-1970, hundreds of thousands were released from asylums and put on the streets) it will continue to get worse. Of course, Buckminster Fuller solved all of these problems a long time ago, but nobody listens to people with ideas in a world where image is everything. Everything but the solution, that is. Viriditas (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I happen to be covered from head to toe in dried excrement right now. So you might as well direct your contempt towards me. Dlabtot (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that Apostle12 and I directly refuted your position, namely that you "must also point out that homeless people are actually people and the idea that their use of the park for recreation somehow doesn't count is not only wrong." The valid concern here is that some (obviously not all) homeless people make it impossible to use the park in a safe and recreational manner. This does not mean they are held in "contempt", it means that they need and require special services that the park cannot or will not provide. I hope that clears up any misconception you might still have. Viriditas (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

People's Park homeless are not just benign folk who desire to sit on a bench or ruminate on nature--no, they view People's Park as their turf, many of them are mentally imbalanced in a very angry way, and residents who might wish to enjoy the beauty of the park cannot do so because of human detritus, trash bags that serve as suitcases, temporary shelters and other accoutrements of the homeless.

The thing is, this can be said about almost any park in the urban United States, and it makes it seem like it's unique to People's Park. The fact that most Americans don't want to deal with is that the United States has had a homeless problem since after the American Civil War. Up until the 1960s, people were usually "put away", but this was rarely done after the 1970s, so the problem is seen more and more in urban settings, most notably in and around public parks. I don't think this particular problem is unique to People's Park and should probably not be given so much emphasis in the lead section. I enjoyed People's Park in the late 1980s and early 1990s without dealing with problems from any homeless, however it is reasonable to assume that the problem has become worse since that time. Nevertheless, the focus on homelessness in the lead section seems out of place, as this is a problem facing many modern urban Amercan parks. Viriditas (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Just a reminder, to myself as well as the other participants here, as it says at the top, this page is meant for discussing improvements to the article. Lengthy dissertations concerning why editors hold particular biases are completely off-topic. And btw, no, no one has refuted any position that I stated. some (obviously not all) homeless people make it impossible to use the park in a safe and recreational manner is both untrue and unsupported by sources. Every source describes a mix of people using the park. I challenge you to present one that doesn't. Dlabtot (talk) 06:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Your position was refuted, and all of the material and players I've referred to are part of this topic. And, just so you understand how arguments work, we don't prove negatives. I appreciate your inexperienced idealism, but in the real world (such as anywhere but your mother's basement) the homeless presence in public parks is a serious problem revolving around drug and alcohol abuse, crime, and public health issues related to sanitation. This is a matter of fact, so I suggest you do some research before commenting on the subject from a state of ignorance. Five seconds on Google news turned up enough sources on the topic to keep you busy for years. For you to make the outlandish claims you make above tells me you don't know what you are talking about. Such is the "wisdom of crowds". To conclude, Apostle12's POV on this matter is the dominant one, and I would of course venture to say the "correct" one, but the lead section needs to balanced in proportion to the rest of the article. Viriditas (talk) 07:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
So, what is the source that does not describe a mix of people using the park? Dlabtot (talk) 07:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
What part of "we don't prove negatives" is troubling you? And in case you still don't "get it", the problem isn't homeless people as you claim above. The problem is the effect of homeless people on both the quality of the park and the ability of non-homeless to ey the park. This is the crux of the problem. To follow your logic to its conclusion, just because you are a person in a park, doesn't give you the right to endanger the lives of other people in the same park, nor to impede their enjoyment of the park experience. If I use a park for leisure, rest, relaxation, or recretional activities, I should not have to be cautious of your noise, criminal activities, drug use, urine, feces, needles, garbage, and other activities associated with some homeless. Obviously, some of these activities will apply to non-homeless as well, as they should, but there is a clear record of the problem in association with homelessness itself. The record on this particular subject is widely available, and the Berkeley and UC police and residents have discussed this in public hearings and they have actively tried to improve the park due to these concerns. Apostle12, who helped build the park tried to explain this to you. I'm really not interested in hearing the opinions of freshmen or undergraduate and graduate students passing through the area, as they really have no perspective on the problem like long-term residents who have to live day in and day out with this. When you start waking up in the morning with fresh urine and feces on your doorstep, and needles and other garbage threatening your children and your pets playing in the park, you'll begin to understand the issue. This is a public safety and health issue, nothing more. Just because you are homeless, doesn't give you the right to flout the rules, which is the problem here. Viriditas (talk) 07:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)]]
some (obviously not all) homeless people make it impossible to use the park in a safe and recreational manner is a positive assertion. Do you have a citation that supports it? Dlabtot (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Are you kidding? Have you even looked at Google news? The record on this issue is public. It's obvious you aren't aware of the problem or the dozens of sources on the subject. Do some research, first. Then ask for sources. Because you are basically asking me to prove the sky is blue, the sun is hot, and water is wet. Don't waste my time. Viriditas (talk) 08:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)\
If you make a positive assertion, it is incumbent upon you to support it. There are numerous sources that show that a broad mix of people use the park, for example the L.A. Times article I discussed above. You can repeat your unsupported by citation and untrue assertions all you want, but repetition of a false argument does not lend it weight. Wikipedia is based on verifiable citations to reliable sources. Assuming good faith, I look forward to your constructive engagement by providing such a citation that supports your assertions and the associated slant that is now present in the article, imho, wrongly and contrary to our policies. Dlabtot (talk) 08:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Again, you don't know what you are talking about. I don't have to support a single thing I say on a discussion page, nor does any policy say that I do. You also haven't done any research on this topic. There are dozens of news articles and books on the subjects (People's Park and homelessness), none of which you have bothered to look at. Now, I would be happy to point you to some sources if you support your assertion that the article is slanted. How is the current article slanted? I hope you realize that there is more than one POV here. Viriditas (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, lets keep it civil here. I have helped out numerous times at People's Park, lived near the park for many many years, helped with the garden there, assisted with the ebfnb food scooping, went to many concerts and performances (sf mime troup), brought my kids there to the park, put stuff in the "free box" when I moved from Berkeley. I think the park is usable by many people and feel the article as it stands as of March 5th, 2009 is POV against the homeless and beauty of the park, though less so than before (thank you Sierralaw for your additions and to Apostle12 for dialoging with me). I support Sierralaw's changes to give a more full description of the park as potential usable space for people. While I agree that it is not a park that is always "safe", no urban park today is, so why make a specific point of it in this article ? Peace, rkmlai (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Rkmlai, instead of reverting, why don't you try to compose a compromise version of the lead that will include the POV of long term residents, Cal, merchants, homeless advocates, and anyone else you can think of to include? I think this is going to be the solution in the long term, so we might as well get started on it. I'm almost certain Apostle12 would accept it. Viriditas (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
You're right Viriditas; I'll accept anything that accurately represents reality, is not promotional, and which is supported by reliable sources. While I respect Rkmlai's desire to advocate for People's Park "as potential usable space for people" (his words), Wikipedia is not the place to push for fulfillment of this potential. The article must describe what People's Park is today and how it come into being. The article could discuss the desire of some advocates to develop the park's potential, provided this were adequately sourced. Apostle12 (talk) 05:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Pardon, that is not what I meant by "potential". What I meant is that it is not "used up", but is empty space that people use, can use, do use. To be clear, I am not "advocating for the park", nor wanting to "advertise", mislead, or "push" a pov. What I am wanting is the article to reflect a balanced view of the park and it's history. I am feeling that you, Apostle12 are perhaps too close to the issue in having your expectations of the park not met to be objective in your edits of this article. You say you were one of the people who helped created the park "I helped build People's Park nearly forty years ago; it was a great idea. ", and are sad, perhaps angry, that the park is far from its "original purpose". I however value your input, immensely, in crafting this article and welcome further collaborative dialog. I also welcome Viriditas's suggestion above (I wish I was a faster editor and typist) and hear your (Apostle12) approval. So we shall see what can be crafted and consensed upon. Peace, rkmlai (talk) 06:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Rkmlai, what you say above about the "expectations" of the park would go really well in the first paragraph of the lead, which needs to be expanded anyway. After all, talking more about why the park was built in the first place, should appear in the lead. This is a good place to start balancing out the POV, IMO. Viriditas (talk) 07:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, no, Apostle12's expectations of what the park was supposed to be are totally and completely irrelevant to this article and don't belong in it at all. That's the problem we have now - the present article is not based on the reliable sources, which all describe a mix of people using the park for a variety of purposes. Instead, it's based on the opinions of a few editors. Dlabtot (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not irrelevant; the origin and purpose of the park are important to briefly mention in the lead, as is its current state today, an observation based not on one POV, but on many. Can you give me the specific line that you say is not supported by sources? Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Those who conceived the park had certain expectations, vague as they were, however the park was not my conception and I had no expectations, grand or otherwise, on that Sunday we broke ground, April 20, 1969. I was pleasantly surprised that it became something real, and it was a beautiful thing to have everyone work together to achieve it; that's all. I am hardly disappointed, much less bitter, because my "expectations" were not met.
I think the reasons for conceiving the idea of People's Park, along with the associated expecations of those who conceived it, are relevant to the article. They are an important part of the park's history. Since I knew some of the primary people, especially landscape architect Jon Read, I am familiar with some of these expectations, which varied from person to person: to create a beautiful place to hang out where previously there had been only ugliness; to create a place where counterculture politics could be freely espoused; to thumb our collective, contrarian noses at "The Man"--in this case the University. People of different ages, from different backgrounds, probably had a myriad of expectations; there was no single purpose.
That being said, I don't think anyone participated in building the park because we wanted to create "a menacing hub for drug users and the homeless" to quote an article from the January 13, 2008 edition of the San Francisco Chronicle. When I compare People's Park to other fine urban parks (S.F.'s Golden Gate Park, N.Y.C.'s Central Park, or even the City of Berkeley's Ohlone Park), well, all I can say is that it definitely comes up short and I would never think of taking my young grandson to spend an afternoon there.
I think the article as written is pretty balanced, actually. Various editors have shown up through the years, each insisting that his or her view of People's Park is "correct" and that the article is too positive, or too negative. Each of these various POV's have found their way into the article, as a review of its history will confirm.
I have no axe to grind; I'd just like the article to reflect reality, and I think it does. I also think the sources confirm that. If anyone believes something has been left out, and they can back that opinion up with reliable sources, then go for it--the article can always be improved. Apostle12 (talk) 09:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Please stop cluttering up this talk page with off-topic essays about your personal experiences or feelings. Discussions of where you want to take your grandson don't belong here. Dlabtot (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's been a free-ranging discussion among all parties; why pick on me? Since Rkmlai speculated on my state of mind ("I am feeling that you, Apostle12 are perhaps too close to the issue in having your expectations of the park not met to be objective..."), just thought it might be appropriate to set the record straight.Apostle12 (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
You are explicitly saying that you are basing your edits to this article on your own personal experiences and opinions. That is what Rkmlai is talking about. I agree with him. Please stop. Dlabtot (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I think much, if not all Apostle12 has said is supported by sources. Personal experiences and opinions separate us from the average slime molds and they are encouraged in moderation as long as they are on topic and allow us to move forward and improve the article. We understand history and facts best when we can relate to them, and understanding is the goal of this encyclopedia. We are allowed to have personal experiences and opinions and to even share such experiences in discussion, and I want to thank Apostle12 for trying to enlighten and educate us with his wisdom gained from years of experience, years that you, Dlabtot, probably lack. Nevertheless, I've asked you tell me where the slant is so we can discuss it, and I've asked Rkmlai to help compose new material to include different POV, a POV that takes all of the players into account. I am willing to lend a hand as well. Viriditas (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I've repeatedly asked for the source that supports this: the park serves mainly as a daytime sanctuary for Berkeley's large homeless population It is not supported by the LA Times article, as I explained above. What is the source from which this is derived? Dlabtot (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
That's not what you've said. You said

the article definitely is based on the premise that the park has a homeless and drug problem. But when the reporter actually goes out to the park, he sees not just homeless but also someone tending her community garden and students playing basketball and frisbee

And the idea that the park is a sanctuary for Berkeley's homeless is supported by a Jan. 2008 article in the San Francisco Chronicle, and appears in the article, saying that the park "these days is a forlorn and sometimes menacing hub for drug users and the homeless." There are many other sources saying the same thing. Viriditas (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Gee, who knows, maybe we can find some middle ground here, I'll give it a shot: no one is disputing the fact that People's Park, like pretty much every urban park on the planet Earth, serves as a sanctuary for the homeless. That is not at issue. What is at issue is the idea that this is the MAIN USE of the park. The idea that no one else uses the park. The characterization that the park does not serve as a sanctuary for tourists, students, and Berkeley residents who pay rent or property taxes. All the sources describe these other groups using the park, alongside those described as homeless. The article should reflect what the sources say. Dlabtot (talk) 05:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, I'd like to politely request that you refrain from further personal attacks against me. Please don't characterize my opinions, and please refrain from expressing your assumptions about my experience and knowledge, all of which are completely false. Dlabtot (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Right, like when you said I personally held homeless people in contempt. If you don't want me to reply to your personal attacks, I agree, I won't. I'll just let them hang there without a response so we can see them. Viriditas (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe we need an RfC since this conversation does not appear to be helping us move toward consensus. As your quote shows, the Jan. 2008 article in the San Francisco Chronicle also does not support the proposition that the park is mainly used by the the homeless. Dlabtot (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    • It's not "my quote"; it's in the current article. It also says, "homelessness, crime and drug use that currently pervades the park." There are dozens of more sources that say the same thing. What we need are more sources added to the article. If you don't like the way Apostle12 wrote something, then fix it. The conversation is not "helping" because you are merely engaged in straight reversions instead of working with the multiple POV involved. Also, your latest edit to the article was over the top, as you ignored the "homelessness, crime and drug use that currently pervades the park" bit and added the opinion of Food Not Bombs without attribution and the random opinion of a so-called "park regular". I think it's clear that the accusations of bias against Apostle12 that you've made can be thrown right back at you, if not more so. You're trying to push for a rosy, happy shiny people veneer that glosses over the broken needles, excrement, and criminal activities that make the park generally unsafe for most people. Sorry, but you don't get to do that. There is more than one POV here, and probably a dominant POV relating to public health and safety, and I doubt the radical homeless advocates and anarchists are part of it. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
When I refered to 'your quote' I was referring to the quote that YOU USED in this edit. Thats's why I called it 'your quote' - because it was the quote that you used in the comment to which I was replying. I have not accused anyone of bias. I have, however, noted that personal experience and opinion has no place in the article. Dlabtot (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The problem is easily solved. Instead of reverting other editors, discuss the issue with them on the talk page. Instead of insisting on one POV (and let's be very clear, the POV you are insisting on is indeed a minority view), you need to make an extra effort to write with all relevant views in mind, weighing and balancing views when necessary. Adding opinions without attribution and at the same time, attributing opinions of random people is not encyclopedic. Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Characterization of park users

The dispute centers around the question of whether the article accurately reflects what sources say about use of the park. Is it 'mainly' by the homeless, or do a broad range of people use the park on a regular basis?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlabtot (talk • contribs) 22:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a homeless/street people hangout. Occasionally they have festivals or live music programs in the park, otherwise regular people do not use the park, especially families, because of the element there. I think the article is pretty accurate, there.--Chimino (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Response

  • As an uninvolved editor who has not been involved in the current content dispute in the article and has tried to discuss this with all parties on the talk page for the last week, I can safely observe that the current dispute over content is but a microcosm of the real conflict that has waged over this issue for many years in RL. Looking further, we find the same people involved on the talk page: homeless advocates and anarchists and long-term residents of Berkeley and the surrounding area, some of whom helped build the park. Some of these players have chosen to interpret the sources one way, while leaving out important information, others have chosen to cherry pick the sources another way and rely on quoting leaders in the activist and advocacy community, but not naming them, and yet naming random people. So on both sides, the conflict is not just one of POV and preconceptions that people bring here, but on how to best describe the Park's tumultuous history. The solution is found in sticking to the discussion page, and going down the line from point to point until there is a resolution. So far, discussion has been haphazard, depending more on flash mobs and whoever shows up than fixing the problems. The best way to solve the problem is to focus on the sources, attribute whenever possible, and avoid quoting random strangers in an encyclopedia article. That there is a homeless problem in People's Park is not in dispute. The question right now is, how to best describe this in the lead and in the body. Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Several editors have raised concerns that the article erroneously characterizes the park as being used mainly by the homeless. Others disagree.
In my examination of the sources, I have not found one that supports the viewpoint given in the article. Numerous sources discuss the homeless 'problem' (which I understand to mean the presence of homeless people), but every single source I have examined describes a variety of people using the park. The comments of truly uninvolved editors who did not engage in extensive argument about the issue on this page before the RfC was filed would be appreciated. Dlabtot (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

RfC edit warring

Users attempting to respond to the RfC should examine the talk page history; my comment, which has been repeatedly deleted by another editor, will be found there. moot Dlabtot (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Take a moment to read Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All and look at how it's done on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. This RFC is about the disputed topic, not who supports what or why. Viriditas (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I came here from the Community Portal page. In reading the article, I did not think there is any real bias. The resolution of the conflict over this part of the article looks like it is going to be a question of who's opinion has more stamina. Good luck! I am reminded of Warren Oates famous line from the movie Stripes: "Lighten up Francis.'Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy problems

You are regurgitating sources that are questionable at best. "Students at nearby Jefferson and Franklin elementary schools were also affected"

Hmmm... Jefferson is all the way across town upwind. Franklin is much further away.

The elementary schools affected were Washington, ( West, at first when the wind was blowing in the morning.... and Lincoln, and LeConte then Willard. ).

But...if you need sources...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.15.50 (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

'Neutral' language.

Article looks like it was written by a bunch o' fookin' commies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.164.26 (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that says we should use 'neutral' language when describing someone's viewpoint. In fact, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever - viewpoints are not 'neutral'.a We do have a neutral point of view policy that describes how articles should be written - reflecting all significant points of view. Perhaps it is this policy that is being misunderstood and misapplied here. By all means, however, add unreferenced tags where you think appropriate. Dlabtot (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There are pillars that dictate that when describing someone's viewpoint we should "report views that have been published by reliable sources". The unreferenced tag was already in that section. You should add citations to those reliable sources where you think the viewpoint is less neutral. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
There really seems to be a serious misunderstanding of our policies here. We report viewpoints. We don't render them 'neutral' and then report them. Dlabtot (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there's a misunderstanding of "report". When "reporting" we use reliable sources and cite them. Using loaded language without citations is not what we do. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
It is a simple stylistic choice, completely unrelated to sourcing. 'Repurpose' doesn't appear in any source, so continually referring to sourcing makes your position weaker, not stronger. 'Repurpose' is just an inappropriate word when describing the viewpoint of those who opposed the 1979 move to install a fee-parking lot. It sounds like something a new age consultant would say, not in any way related to the people who protested this.... just a poor word choice. I did find a source that does describe the viewpoint of those folks, and added it to the external links section. As you can see from reading that source, they did not believe that the University was trying to 'repurpose' the park. Since you keep parroting this line about citing sources, why don't you try finding a source that supports your stylistic choice of 'repurpose'. That should keep you busy, since no such source exists. Dlabtot (talk) 04:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
"Repurpose" is neutral, "take over" is not. It is not a simple stylistic choice. You need to add it inline. Just like "parroting" is not, while "pointing out" is. External links are not citations. See WP:CITE if you need instructions on how to add citations, and WP:CIVIL for instructions on how to interact with other editors. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that says we should use 'neutral' language when describing someone's viewpoint. The idea that we should phrase the viewpoints of others to make them sound 'neutral' is just a fundamental misunderstanding of our WP:NPOV policy. I'm sorry that I'm having such difficulty explaining it to you. Dlabtot (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with the use of non-neutral-sounding descriptions of viewpoints when those claims of non-neutral-sounding viewpoints are reliably sourced. Without the reliable source, yes, there is a Wikipedia policy that we don't use original research or non-neutrality. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
This discussion doesn't seem to be getting anywhere... let me try a different approach... a simple question. From where did you get the notion that we are supposed to use 'neutral' language? Dlabtot (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I didn't. WP:NEUTRAL covers the neutrality of the encyclopedia. WP:RS covers the use of sources. WP:CITE covers how to add citations to those sources to the articles. Now, uncited claims within an article should avoid loaded words and phrases, but you are welcome to add the non-neutral language along with citations to reliable sources for them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the neutral point of view policy does have the word 'neutral' in it.... but where is the text in that policy that supports the notion that we are supposed to use 'neutral' language? Dlabtot (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Saying It was also widely believed that the foray into the west end presaged the expropriation of the entire park for the purpose of University construction. neither endorses, nor rejects any point of view, it merely reports it. 'Repurpose' on the other hand is just bad writing. Dlabtot (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't report it without a citation. "It was also widely believed X" needs a citation. Reporting without citations falls under original research. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, since you don't have a citation either, please stop repeating this completely off-topic talking point. Dlabtot (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Are you deliberately ignoring my question? where is the text in that policy that supports the notion that we are supposed to use 'neutral' language? Dlabtot (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm trying to answer it, but you seem to be deliberately ignoring the answer: claims need to be cited. If neither of us has a citation, then the language should be unloaded, simple. If that's too much to ask, then the language should be deleted. Reliable sourcing is one of the pillars, not off-topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
So why don't you have another go at answering it, since I'm apparently so dense that I missed where you identified that text in the NPOV policy. where is the text in that policy that supports the notion that we are supposed to use 'neutral' language? Please quote it or reference it in some way so that even a simple person myself will understand. What is the text? In what subsection or paragraph of the policy is it contained? Dlabtot (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.

"Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, along with "Verifiability" and "No original research."

Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources ... Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made." -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Yes, as I noted many comments ago, the policy does contain the word neutral - even in the title! Wow! But it doesn't say anything about using 'neutral' language when describing points of view, other than to say we should not endorse or reject any particular view, which is why you are unable to find any text that supports this misapprehension on your part. At any rate, this was really about bad writing more than anything else, I don't agree that there is any POV issue or any issue of 'loaded words' at all. All the versions in this mini edit war mean the exact same thing. Yes, the paragraph is unsourced, however well or poorly written. Therefore if you were to delete it, I could not really object, even though I know it to be substantially accurate. However, why you were so passionate about preserving the awkward style choice of 'repurpose' remains a mystery to me, fundamentally. If you wish, you may have the last word. Dlabtot (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes..."Repurpose" sucks. Apostle12 (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleting unsourced claims is not pointy. Since I am unaware of and uninvolved in the issues around the People's Park, I am only "passionate" about the pillars. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't live anywhere near California, and am not passionate about this park in any way. I am vaguely familiar with some of the events surrounding the park's beginnings, but again, I don't care enough to initiate a holy war. I just thought that I would comment as someone who could be considered as neutral as one could possibly be, but someone who appreciates true neutrality on Wikipedia (to the extent that it can be achieved). I have pulled research from as many sources as I can, and this appears to be one of the most biased articles I've read. I know any dispute in this regard was a couple of years ago, and it may be that no one cares anymore. It may also be that the only ones who care will vociferously come to the defense of the article to support its tone as it echoes their own. Most people who think they are biased think so because their view-point makes so much sense to their own reckoning. I suppose I may be one of those people, which is why I'm on the talk page instead of making edits that I know will result in a war, but I really don't have a view-point on this issue, only on the article's reporting. The opinions reported will be those of the individuals reported. No one disputes that, as the the user above tried to indicate to make his point, in between the "LOL"s and "WOW!"s used constantly (and nauseatingly) by those who try to use ridicule to make a point instead of engaging in something more productive. It is the report"-ing" in the article; that is to say not what is reported, but how it is reported, that seems politically charged. If anyone cares, I'll be more specific, although it just seems so glaringly obvious to me that I can't believe I'm the only one noticing it. If I am that - the only one noticing - then I'll definitely shut up. Like I said, I'm not passionate enough about the article's content, and will probably never come across it again. Jdbarras (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you please provide some specific examples that offend you? As with any controversial topic, the article allows the expression of competing non-neutral viewpoints so that readers can make their own evaluation and pursue matters further if they choose. Perhaps you might suggest a couple of changes here to avoid, as you say, "a war." Apostle12 (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Flower Children vs The Establishment

Hey, Apostle12--clearly you like that paragraph. What we've already said aside, I read the TIME article this morning on microfiche in the library near my house, and there's nothing in it even remotely corresponding to the statements in that paragraph. The TIME article is a fairly straightforward narrative of the events in Berkeley, without any such broad philosophizing. So the paragraph does indeed turn out to be unsourced. Second, the section as a whole is IMO quite well written, and reads very much like an encyclopedia article, while that one paragraph sounds amateurish and out of place to my ear. If you're so determined to keep it, would you be willing to have a go at rewriting it to make it more encyclopedic in tone? Or (even better, from my POV) would you reconsider your determination to keep it? I really do think that the article reads quite effectively without it, and I can't imagine anyone reading this particular article without already being all too familiar with the dichotomy reviewed in that paragraph. Jbening (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Jbening, for being willing to engage on "Talk." I haven't read the source for some time, and it's not easily available; thank you for making the effort to read it in its entirety. This paragraph has been in the article for at least five years, and at one point the sourcing was genuine--I suspect a critical source may have been inadvertently dropped. Apparently the sourcing needs to be refreshed, and I would be happy to have a go at rewriting the paragraph.
As for anyone reading this article already being familiar with the dichotomy reviewed in the paragraph ("Flower Children" vs "The Establishment"), I think you are correct with respect to people "of a certain age." However for younger people, especially people just beginning their studies at U.C. Berkeley, the historical background can seem elusive. I have been in a unique position to observe that entering freshmen haven't a clue what "The Sixties" were really about, and they can't begin to understand why People's Park turned into such a big deal. They aren't at all familiar with the spirit of those times. So I do believe the paragraph is important.
Unfortunately only a greatly expanded discussion could really convey what this paragraph only hints at. Might be difficult to accomplish. Apostle12 (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
What you say about the antiquity of the paragraph doesn't surprise me. My hunch had been that it was a relic of an earlier, less professionally crafted version of the article, and that editors such as yourself and ZHurlihee kept it in there because they thought the issues it raised were worth having but didn't want to have a go at rewriting it.
Here's my proposal. Shall we remove that paragraph in the short-term, since it is in effect unsourced, and could you attempt an improved and better sourced replacement when you have time? I propose you rather than me because while I see the value of putting the events in a broader context, I personally don't think it's essential.
One place a discussion of the broader context could fit, I think, is at the end of the "On 30 May 1969" paragraph. One may be able to evoke this broader context without going on at length simply by invoking the Counterculture of the 1960's article. Also, this Daily Planet article may provide useful sourcing for that discussion. Jbening (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for providing a link to the Berkeley Daily Planet article, which reveals several facts I was unaware of, in particular that broad strategic planning preceeded Reagan's decision to dismantle People's Park--prior to reading the article I had thought of it as mostly just his personal initiative, based on political ambition. I will be pursuing this line of inquiry, as I believe it should be incorporated in the article.
Also appreciate your suggestion of a possible location for the discussion of the broader context. I do think discussion of the broader context is essential for the reasons I have given. The "culture war" that we are still embroiled in began during the 1960s and continues in both trivial and important ways today; the fracas over People's Park was an early manifestation of that culture war. The most important questions that remain include: "Will the internet continue to be free, or will it become subject to authoritarian censoring?" and "Will The People finally secure genuine political control by making multinational corporations, the international banking community, and governments worldwide answerable to a broader constituency?"
Although it hardly gets the job done, I would favor leaving the paragraph in place until the larger context can be incorporated in the article.
Some personal notes: Landscape Architect Jon Read, a prime mover in the original building of People's Park, was a personal friend. Since I had worked for Jon as a job foreman on several large projects, he enlisted my aid that first Sunday, 20 April 1969, to begin actual construction of the park. So I and several hundred other people showed up for a work party to build People's Park. Speaking for myself and many others, our motives were not primarily political; we just wanted to turn a neighborhood eyesore into something beautiful. I was not present when the park was fenced off and partially demolished on the morning of 15 May 1969, nor did I participate in the civil unrest that followed. However my good friend and neighbor, Alan Blanchard was working on a carpentry project that day at the Telegraph Repertory Cinema; he heard commotion on the street and climbed a stairway to the roof to observe what was happening. With no provocation whatever, an Alameda County Sheriff's deputy pointed his shotgun (loaded with buckshot) at Alan and opened fire, permanently blinding him; he lost his sight and his livelihood, and his wife Sheila left him, so it was up to friends to provide emotional and financial support. To this day the UCPD website falsely claims that Alan Blanchard and James Rector were "throwing rebar" from the roof, a fabrication based on perjured testimony during the trial of the involved Sheriff's deputy. During the occupation of the city by National Guardsmen, I was personally accosted by National Guard officers, and I was present on 21 May 1969 when National Guardsmen formed a bayonetted perimeter around Sproul Plaza, trapping thousands of men, women and children while helicoptors bombed the crowd with CS gas; this was not a protest gathering, as we had peacefully assembled for a memorial after James Rector died of his shotgun wounds. (Just noticed that the article's mention of this attack has been eliminated, though it was well-sourced; will need to address that.) I am dismayed that People's Park has today become mainly a refuge for derelicts; it does not resemble what it was in the beginning, and I never go there. Hard to say what symbolic importance it might still hold. Apostle12 (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

People's Park Annex/Ohlone Park Citations

Just noticed the problem and will seek proper cites. Was there at the beginning when we took over the property and started the Annex. There is plenty of secondary source material. As far the bias discussion above, agreed we need neutrality. Will work on this too.Weathervane13 02:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weathervane13 (talk • contribs)

Page title

See Talk:People's_Park_(disambiguation)#Primary_topic.3F for discussion of the undiscussed move of this page. PamD 07:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:GOOGLEHITS is an argument to avoid, yet it was cited as the primary rationale for a RM. Has Wikipedia lost its mind? Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
yes, it has. this is obviously the most important PP in the english language and western world. none of the other parks could possibly come close to this ones notability. it should be the main one. google hit arguments should disqualify the proposer from rational discussion. this park is our tiananmen square. its even more silly that this one is near the end of the list of all the parks. i guarantee that anyone looking for peoples park on this wp is looking for the berkeley one 95% of the time.(mercurywoodrose, who was there)50.193.19.66 (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Nudity

There is something seriously wrong since I see no mention of nudity but I know that nudity in People's Park was among the most talked about things back in the late 1960s and early 1970s. I never saw it in person but I sure remember it being reported in the news. Sam Tomato (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The article should not say that sex is a wonderful thing in the context of the present or the future but it should inform us of the importance of People's Park in the sexual revolution of the time. Instead the article just emphasizes violence and ugly things. People's Park was the center of the Hippies movement and there does not seem to be much of that explained in the article, just the negative reaction to it. The emphasis on the negative is rewriting history. There needs to be more about why the establishment reacted the way they did. Sam Tomato (talk) 07:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Not here/Not Us

When you hear about things abroad or in places like China, i.e. Tiananmen Square, it's horrible. Things like that don't happen in America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E94B:5C00:B10D:2F2A:49BC:39DC (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on People's Park (Berkeley). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on People's Park (Berkeley). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AustinePeng. Peer reviewers: Isabelleosorio, Lucallespinoza.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


Proposed Modifications

Hi, I'm Austine, and I'm an undergraduate student at the University of California, Berkeley and I am working on this article for my project. Here's a link to my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AustinePeng/People%27s_Park_(Berkeley)/Bibliography AustinePeng (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear @AustinePeng: thank you for your interest in delving into Wikipedia as part of your academic work. I see you kindly proposed some edits to the People's Park (Berkeley) article which eventually did make it to the article.
I have recently reviewed the article and I believe you made some contributions including about the Community Involvement. I have tagged that section as needing improvements, as well as other recent additions to the article. If improvements aren't made, me or other editors may remove the content that doesn't meet Wikipedia's quality requirements. That content needs be backed by more secondary reliable sources, and some parts need to summarized further. For example, this bit is probably unnecessary:
(...)Artichoke, Asparagus, Basil, Fava Beans, Beets, Broccoli, Cabbage, Carrots, Celeriac, Celery, Chard, Chayote, Chives, Kohl Rabi, Leek, Lettuce, Mustard, Onion, Parsley, Peas, Potatoes, Radish, Spinach, Sunchokes, and Turnips. Community members meet every Saturday from 1-4 pm PST at the Northwest Entrance of the park to cultivate these plants.
Please review those tags and the guidance they point to and let me know if you have questions about it. And again, thank you for your interest in editing Wikipedia; it is a learning process and other editors can answer your questions if you need assistance. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Note: I left the same message on AustinePeng's talk page. Al83tito (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

For Immediate Release

For Additional Information: Harvey Smith peoplesparkhxdist@gmail.com 

 510-684-0414

(May 27, 2022) – Nationally significant People’s Park was officially listed on the National Register of Historic Places on May 24, 2022.

This designation underscores the historical, cultural, architectural and environmental assets of this irreplaceable open space. The park has an over half-century legacy of political and cultural events, a bio system of flora and fauna, and a surround of highly significant architecture.

This recognition follows being nominated unanimously by the California State Historical Resources Commission. People’s Park has played a key role as a gathering place for free speech during the decades of anti-war and civil rights struggles.

Former Berkeley Mayor Gus Newport commented that, “The stability of cities and towns is formed from the history of planning and participation of citizens. People's Park very much reflects and proves this. People's Park is very deserving of being on the National Register of Historic Places.”

However, the University of California plans to destroy the park despite its national significance. Harvey Smith, president of the People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group, commented that, “Its planned destruction is unconscionable. The park’s importance is beyond a squabble in Berkeley or within California. It is a nationally recognized historic site.”

Smith suggests the park should be preserved so that its appearance and infrastructure are no different than any other park within the City of Berkeley or any green space within the UC Berkeley campus. This is entirely possible once the present homeless population of the park is relocated to housing as planned by the City of Berkeley and the University.

The ill-considered plan of UC Berkeley to build on the park should be scuttled because the university has many alternative sites for student housing. Chief among them is the Ellsworth Parking Structure, which is one block away from People’s Park. Keeping a parking lot and destroying a park is a totally irresponsible action in the age of extreme climate change. UC Berkeley’s plan to demolish Evans Hall to create open space on the campus should be matched by maintaining the open space of People’s Park in the community.

Both the City of Berkeley and UC Berkeley celebrate the Free Speech and Sixties history of the Telegraph Avenue corridor. It is an asset to both the city and university, and among the reasons visitors from all parts of the globe are drawn to Berkeley. Recognizing People’s Park for the asset that it is and then preserving and enhancing it can only add to its value as a treasured Berkeley attraction.

The National Register of Historic Places is the official list of the Nation's historic places worthy of preservation. Authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National Park Service's National Register of Historic Places is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect America's historic and archeological resources.

More information on the People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group can be found at peoplesparkhxdist.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:201:9880:B9A3:D5D0:32E5:1D9A (talk) 05:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Park_(Berkeley)/Archive_2&oldid=1199637890"