This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The garden was sold last year to a private owner. It was owned by the school for almost its entire existence and open to the public until 2011. Its status is of the utmost importance. Maybe not the first sentence but UCLA's previous ownership is absolutely necessary for the lead. I still think there should be mention of its private nature in the first sentence. Malayy (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
@Malayy: The description of the garden and accolades are what is important in the first sentences. There is plenty of information in the history section about how UCLA did not build the garden but were only the temporary caretakers who then sold it. The ownership is interesting but not significant. The designer is more important than past and present owners. It is a short article; readers will learn about UCLA soon enough. Please don't clutter up the lead and distract from the garden's significance. Be thankful no observant editor has removed the garden from the UCLA template at the bottom. Fettlemap (talk) 00:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I have moved this from my talk page. Where more experienced editors can add to the discussion.Fettlemap (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I have removed it from the template. I'm not "thankful" of anything, Fettlemap. I feel like you're implying I have some bias which I do not. An article's lead is meant to summarize the contents of an article. To not include the fact that the garden is not open to the public anymore and that for 90% of its lifetime it was owned by a public institution is just willfully avoiding properly summarizing the article. Malayy (talk) 01:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
i apologize, I just noticed that you write about UCLA a lot. My comment was unfair. My only point is that ownership by UCLA is interesting and must be included in the history. It is not what makes the garden significant as it is "among the largest and most significant private residential Japanese-style gardens built in the United States in the immediate Post-World War II period." It just happened that the owner donated it to UCLA, a notable institution. Fettlemap (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not from the US but I do live in CA so I have edited pages relevant to this state recently because I thought I could contribute but I don't have any personal connection to either UCLA or this garden. I am from Tokyo though so this article did pique my interest. I understand what you are saying but I don't see the harm in including those minor details alongside that but I agree that my first edit where I included it as the first sentence was not ideal. I feel like something like this would fit better: Malayy (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
“
The Hannah Carter Japanese Garden is a private Japanese garden located in Bel Air, Los Angeles, California. Known as Shikyeon when completed in 1961, it emphasizes water, stones, and evergreen plants. The naturalistic hillside site features streams, a waterfall, a tea house, and blooming magnolia and camellia trees. According to the Los Angeles Conservancy, the garden is among the largest and most significant private residential Japanese-style gardens built in the United States in the immediate Post-World War II period. The garden was donated to the University of California, Los Angeles in 1965 and open to the public until 2011. Following a legal dispute with Hannah Carter's children, it was sold to a private citizen in 2016.
”
@Malayy: Sounds fine to me. Thanks. Fettlemap (talk) 05:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
