Talk:People's Park (Berkeley)

Recent Updates

Helllo, as you might have noticed, the park no longer exists by virtue of its being demolished currently. I have made a series of updates that reflect these events. 107.142.45.217 (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

People's Park does still exist. Stop deleting this comment. 97.88.151.165 (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of talk page comments?

Hello fellow editors, I believe it goes against the suggested community cultural norms & guidelines here on Wikipedia to delete the comments of others. Removing or altering comments (other than your own!) could lead to some sort of sanctions. Play nice!! Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

State of the article subject

Because the existence of People's Park is not legally recognized and is in the process of being demolished, the park no longer exists. Illegal activity on the site of the park does not imply its continued existence. It implies illegal activity on the site of the park, not that the park really exists, or is recognized on any legal level for that matter. Please adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, which can be found at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Thank you. NetHelper (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

We need to go by what reliable sources are saying. Where do you see this language being used in credible news media reports? Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

The "park" is not legally recognized as a public space.

The "park" is actually a case of squatting.

Disrupting, occupying, and threatening construction on a legally owned piece of land by a legally recognized entity is unlawful.

These three propositions are all strongly supported by the sources in the notes of the article. NetHelper (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen the word "squatting" in any of the recent sources that discuss the issue. It's true that the legality of the park has been under dispute for many decades now, but that doesn't mean that the park doesn't or didn't exist etc. And of course civil disobedience and direct action are unlawful, that's why arrests have been made, and the UC Police have also made statements to that effect, which are clear in some of the cited sources. Just FYI there are still on-going legal challenges in regards to the UC plans to repurpose the park. Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 01:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@NetHelper: But also, that line of logical argumentation doesn't give you the right to delete the comments of others on the talk page. Care to self-revert the deletions you made? Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 02:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Please learn the difference between "de jure" and "de facto" and stop deleting my comments and inserting your bias into the article. For example, the only source for the claim that protesters threw objects at workers comes from the police; with all of the video and photos of the events, there doesn't seem to be any other evidence. Therefore pointing out that the police are the source of that claim adds clarification, and removing that clarification is pure WP:Vandalism 97.88.151.165 (talk) 04:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, two things. One, primary sources are not to be used on Wikipedia in most cases. Second, expressions of doubt, like "the police claimed that x happened" as opposed to "x happened" run afoul of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

In general, no user, including me, is obligated to explain any and all edits they make to the article, in this case especially. Users are given the privilege to remove sources as they see fit, and are under no duress of policy from avoiding arbitration, especially since verifiability does not imply inclusion. See Wikipedia:V

There are no extraordinary claims being made in the development of the article, policies for which are also elaborated in Wikipedia:V, and excessive micromanaging over minor details and changes in the bibliography and content in general is unlikely to constitute a constructive attitude for the article. In fact, some of the deleted comments your address made a day or so earlier could be construed as an editor-side conflict of interest. NetHelper (talk) 05:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it's quite common to include in Wikipedia articles the source of a claim, such as "police stated such and such happened."

Exactly why are you removing quality sources? And blanking sections? You do in fact need to account for that here on the talk page, thank you! Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not responsible for any edits on the bibliography. Talk to the person who actually made them. NetHelper (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually NetHelper, YOU are the one who deleted multiple relevant sources, from the LA Times, East Bay Times, Mercury News, SF Chronicle and others! Enough already! Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Please ensure that your comments align with Wikipedia: Talk page guidelines. Personal attacks and insults are unacceptable. I have removed the offending comment. NetHelper (talk) 06:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I've notifed WikiProject California about this dispute. Funcrunch (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Great, thanks Funcrunch! More editors helping out here could prevent some of the edit warring, and maybe could lead to better discussions on the talk page, in order to build consensus around some of the more contentious edits. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Seriously? Because it's being demolished doesn't mean it's not a park. It will cease to be a park if the area is replaced by buildings. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Right, but that hasn't happened yet. Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 03:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

To the IPs editing the article, trying to rewrite reality, this is the wrong place to do such. The park is gone as the area is legally off limits to all even if protesters are still breaking down fencing to enter the area. Of 19 (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that "rewriting reality" is not the right approach here when participating in an encyclopedic source. Just a reminder to editor Of 19 that legal processes are still underway and this is not a done deal yet. Also, the park has not been "demolished" but a few trees have been cut down etc. Please adhere to what reliable sources say! Thank you. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources say that anyone in the area is illegally trespassing, hence it's not a public park despite the millions in damage caused by those against the creation of housing where there was previously a centre of violence and drug use. Of 19 (talk) 07:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Pave Peoples Park needs to be mentioned. Lots of people still in support of paving the park 2601:646:A280:5D10:16:38A8:7683:78F6 (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

• Stop the WP:SOAP. We use common names here at wikipedia. Even after the park is gone (if that happens) we will just change the tense from is to was. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Deletion/incorporation of #Past community involvement

In my opinion, it would be better to incorporate info in #Past community involvement in one of the subheadings, perhaps #Occupation, rather than have it be its own section or possibly even be deleted. At most, the information in the section could be moved to earlier sections without affecting cohesion. Artwhitemaster (talk) 10:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's unreasonable initially to lump all of the sub-sections of #Past community involvement into one paragraph. Then, we can decide what happens with the section as a whole. Feel free to take the liberty of doing this, but I will probably get to it sooner than later. NetHelper (talk) 08:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I did as I said I would, but now that I have cleaned up the section I see how anaemic it is and how little it actually adds to the article. If you want to, try and see how you could incorporate what's left of the section into the main bodies and we could really do away with it. NetHelper (talk) 06:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding information - Jan 2024

Hi, I have made several edits [1] to this article this morning, including adding some more recent information and adding a photograph. The edit is being fully reverted :( The reverter has raised concerns about the revisions, but could make further edits rather than reverting entirely the new content I have added. Specific edits I believe should occur:

• Mention that the park is fenced off with cargo containers and wire, which has been widely reported.
• I deleted, "The housing plans have unanimous backing by [...] as well as two-thirds of UC Berkeley students." The survey was taken in May 2022, almost two years ago. It could be mentioned, similar to how the LA times characterizes it ("the majority of students surveyed by an independent agency last May supported it by a margin of 62% to 27%."). There have also been various other surveys over the years. But I think the original is a misleading way to state it.
• Add photograph from the commons.
• Change loaded language such as "said plans have been met with opposition by a small contingent of Berkeley residents and activists" to more general language such as "plans have been met with legal challenges and several protests" Dandelion breeze (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The specific way in which the park is fenced off is undue and recentist. A "small contingent" is entirely in line with the cited reliable sources and also fits with the overwhelming confirmed support the project has among local politicians, as well as surveyed students. I have no objection to adding the photo to the body Thenightaway (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. I added the photo. Would like to hear other editors weigh in on these points. To me, "contingent" implies a unified political body, it has a military connotation. I prefer local media to national because they tend to pick up the finer gradations, that the park conflict has been highly dis-unified. I also deleted the claim about 2/3rds because it is mathematically untrue & misleading. It is a useful detail so I added it in the relevant section below Dandelion breeze (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Added POV template for disputed neutrality

The page presently has numerous areas with strong bias against police, government, and the university. I've cleaned up several spots of language and have also found statements lacking citations, or which are not supported by citations already provided. Additionally, several areas have very weak sources, such as an Instagram account (citing events from years ago). Thus, there are some accuracy issues as well, but the main problems seem to be POV-related. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 06:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I have recently done the same. The article is still riddled with references to things that violate WP:RS, like editorials/opinion pieces with no rigorous justification on why their opinion is important. I will do some work to remove these passages. Future constructive work on this article should be done with a particular focus on actually representing the majority positions (UC Berkeley, Berkeley, California, Alameda County, etc.) instead of having them ignored or be bashed by soapboxing. This cleanup operation has annihilated about a third of the article, so I think we need to group some of the sections together as well. NetHelper (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up unreliable sources. I don't see an NPOV issue at this point in the "2022 demolition effort" section. WP:UNDUE says "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject," and everything in the section is well sourced and seems to me to be doing that. Whether you personally agree or not with the movement to keep this site as a park, reliable sources treat that movement as significant (this article is, after all, about People's Park, not about the development proposal).

I have edited the article overview slightly to be less POV in favor of the university's point of view. It previously included the university's characterization of park activists as a "small contingent" and rounded up a survey of students in support of the development from 62% to "almost two-thirds," which didn't feel objective to me. Graue (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)