Talk:Point Reyes National Seashore

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Point Reyes National Seashore article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

California: San Francisco Bay Area High‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. 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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Protected areas Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

The McClure's beach photo is now confirmed as GFDL. seglea 20:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nearest city[edit]

what are uu talking about It's hard to be sure, but I think Novato or Petaluma might be closer to Point Reyes National Seashore than San Francisco. Does anyone have a reliable source for such information? Stepheng3 (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drakes Estero oyster farm controversy[edit]

Here's a nice review of the controversy: Protecting a Bay While Treading on Truth at RealClearPolitics, May 11, 2014. Looks like it might be helpful in balancing the section, which looks rather one-sided to me. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That accounting is ridiculously biased, albeit apparently in a direction you agree with. How about we find neutral reliable sources to account for this issue? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noting the accusations of bias, let's work together to create a neutral, even-handed accounting of the dispute. I note that we don't have any quotes from defenders of the farm, so that would be a good place to start. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the lack of quotes by, or even mention of, defenders (other than Dianne Feinstein) begs for correction. However it will be hard to find neutral reliable sources, and that's because the issue has been festering for years now, and most of the published commentary on it is not neutral. I think we'll just have to make do with reliable and forget about neutral. I'll see if I can round some up. --AnotherNitPicker (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, none of the quotes are really illuminating to the particular issue, and I stripped out a number of them, replacing them with actual facts of what has transpired in the dispute. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful what you did! Now the section is neutral and both sides should be happy with it except that there is a further chapter to the Coastal Commission thing that should be mentioned. I'll see if I can dig it up. There are also a few more twists and turns in the federal courts issue that might bear mentioning.--AnotherNitPicker (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: this is a stormy issue with endless rebuttals and you've done well to pare the debate way down and stick with the actual facts of what has transpired. Re: the latest with the Coastal Commission, this report from the local paper might help. Barte (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another thanks. Best to stick to facts in controversies. I pulled unbalanced as unneeded now. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Point Reyes National Seashore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100617015104/http://www.hiusa.org/hostels/usa_hostels/california/point_reyes/60109 to http://www.hiusa.org/hostels/usa_hostels/california/point_reyes/60109

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]