Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:55, 1 November 2007

Template:SFBAProject

California Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:People's Park (Berkeley)/ Archive 1

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.

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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] enterprise. I must hasten to add that I am a huge[REDACTED] 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 Misplaced Pages 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' 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages. The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. I don't think further repetition of the core Misplaced Pages 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)

Request for comment

Template:RFChist 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)

• Unassessed California articles
• Unknown-importance California articles
• WikiProject California articles