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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

== NPOV dispute ==]] I have made a few emendations, KeithJack, from firsthand knowledge. Pepkoka

NOTE: KEITHJACK'S SUGGESTIONS HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED. Apostle12 02:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This article only has ONE citation. There are many quotes and references in the article without citations. While it is my personal OPINION that this was an absurd event and the reason I never liked Regan despite his popularity, this article is entirely UN-ENCYCLOPEDIC . I do not have the knowledge or time to edit this article properly, but it looks like Founders4 has spent considerable time on this. Founders, and others, would you please consider my challenge for neutrality and cite your sources as well as editing the text for a less "flavorful" and more neutral presentation of the facts? If a reader wants flavor, he or she can read one of your sources. Thanks!  :-) Keithjack 02:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE Keithjack 00:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC) OK. SO it looks like I'm going to end up getting dragged into this thing whether I like it or not! Here are some examples of what I feel threaten the neutral integrity of the article.

“

"During its first three weeks, People's Park came to be enjoyed and appreciated by University students and local residents alike. Telegraph Ave. merchants were particularly appreciative of the community's efforts to improve the neighborhood."

”

This is not encyclopedic because it gives a *possible* one sided POV. It is okay to cite sources here which describe the park as a benefit to the community, but a remark such as this, especially the first sentence, puts the red flag up immediately for a critical reader.

“

muddy, dangerous eyesore

”

Weasel words: Again, the same principal. Maybe there are certain people or groups who happened to like the way it looked. Ways to fix this could be "By December 1968, only an empty field remained which would pose a hazard when rains caused the debris-filled site to fill (and overflow?) with mud.

“

Finally, a group of merchants from adjoining Telegraph Ave., along with University students and other Berkeley citizens, decided to take matters into their own hands and put the land to use as a neighborhood park.

”

"Taking matters into their own hands" is not a phrase to use in an encyclopedia. This could be cited as a weasel "phrase." An easy way to fix this is to just use "initiative" some way.

“

According to Michael Delacour, whom some consider the "father of the park," "We wanted a free speech area that wasn't really controlled like Sproul Plaza was. The land was there. It didn't have a fence around it."

”

This quote needs a citation. All quotes must have citations, per the Wikipedia policy.

'street people' should not be used... plus, it is an improper use of 'single' "quotes."

“

People's Park was conceived as a place where people from all backgrounds could create a beautiful setting, share community food, listen to music, plant gardens, learn from one another, and freely express themselves. It embodied the spirit of the earlier 1964 Free Speech Movement.

”

Haha, well, yeah... this is what I am talking about when I say the Neutrality has been compromised. This is a very revealing sentence that screams "A HIPPIE WROTE THIS" and to beware of everything you read from this point forward. Don't get me wrong, I'm a hippie in my own ways too, but our beliefs (and the beliefs described here) are our individual opinions, and not a neutral POV suitable for an encyclopedia.

Alright, so I've listed some specific examples of why this whole article needs to go into reform mode. Really, it was a pleasure to read: it read like a magazine story. Let's just now try to clean up the bias while still trying to preserve much of the content.

If anyone would like to take matters into their own hands initiative, then I commend you! If if the article becomes stagnant, I'll try to come in and put in some effort. I am a full time student though, so it may take me longer to do...

Thanks to everyone for contributing to the hippie-socialism-at-its-finest community encyclopedia! Free knowledge!

Keithjack 00:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 The Battle Over "Peacefully" 2 POV tag 3 Rosebud Abigail Denovo. 4 Rosebud Denovo Revisited 5 Gimme a break! 6 Move article --> disambiguation 7 More NPOV concerns

[edit] The Battle Over "Peacefully"

Please let me weigh in here. While the demonstration on "Bloody Thursday," May 15, 1969 was NOT peaceful, Governor Reagan was critical even of peaceful demonstrations opposing the Vietnam War, and the May 31, 1969 demonstration WAS peaceful. Why do you choose to delete "peaceful," when this is an accurate description in both instances? It is not a political word.

I have changed it back, since it is acccurate. If you believe otherwise, please explain.Founders4 18:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag

I really haven't had too much involvement w/ this article, but I think it should go back per the description of "Bloody Thursday." The first two paragraphs are pretty bad in that respect. Yanksox 05:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you be more specific, please? I've edited these two paragraphs extensively and can see no way to communicate what happened without mentioning the politics of the participants. The section may appear to lack NPOV because of the highly charged political rhetoric of the participants, but actually it is just descriptive. Would welcome any suggestions.Founders4 07:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Two quotes that really get me:

During its first three weeks, People's Park came to be enjoyed and appreciated by University students and local residents alike. Telegraph Ave. merchants were particularly appreciative of the community's efforts to transform a neighborhood eyesore into a place of beauty.

Reagan was intolerant of Americans who peacefully protested the war in Vietnam, whom he called "commie sympathizers,"

The first one does sound like POV it could be reworded and for the second intolerant is a pretty harsh and pretty POV word. Those are the two quotes that I noticed right off the bat. Yanksox 12:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Yanksox. I'll work on it this evening. I think I can expand the first paragraph to include the fact that some people were probably offended by the expropriation of University property, without its permission, to create a park. I honestly didn't know anyone who felt that way at the time, since the park enjoyed overwhelming community support, but there must have been a few.

The second one is more difficult, because it goes to the root of why the confrontation occurred. Perhaps I can substitute "critical" for "intolerant," which is more descriptive. Yes, I think that would help. And I can make the point that many Americans of the era were offended by those who protested the war in Vietnam. In California Reagan made his mark politically by criticizing "the rabble," and "commie sympathizers" was the term he used to refer to those who opposed the war--even if the demonstrations were entirely peaceful, he viewed those who participated as unpatriotic. By extension, all demonstrations at the University of California at Berkeley were held suspect by Reagan.

Anyway, thanks again. I'll try to balance it out, while still conveying some of the flavor of it all. It's tricky, because such events occur in a highly charged atmosphere; if one attempts to make it too mild, one fails to convey that reality.Founders4 17:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"flavor of it all." This is an encyclopedia entry. It should not have "flavor." As a current student of Cal, I would have to sympathize with the events that took place and your heartfelt description of the events. With that said, however, I must say that this entire article is completely un-encyclopedic and should either be cited for the claims you make or should be revised in a more neutral tone. I am not hearing the other side of it here. Let's present the facts, people, not our sympathies. Keithjack 02:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Changed quite a bit in the "Bloody Thursday" section. Hope it meets approval with respect to NPOV. Founders4 07:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't have changed it because of me. But, it does sound more academic, nice work. Yanksox 13:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Alot of personal POV and talking like a radical

Hi Vckums. I keep trying to satisfy people when they make comments about specific statements; guess I'll just keep trying. Please tell me what sounds "radical" to you? Founders4 08:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently there's already a substantial amount of debate on NPOV, but I said I'd comment, so here goes. The section on Bloody Thursday, I think, particularly shows bias. The police are depicted as the villans trying to "crack down" on the students and ruin their fun, the students are shown as being a bunch of nice kids trying to plant some trees and give people flowers and have peace. The article never states why the police fired into the crowd; I assume they had a reason other than that they didn't like the brownies, or that they're general spoilsports? It needs addition of other points of view (other than quotes that imply that Reagan wanted a bloodbath because he didn't like liberal students). Hey jude, don't let me down 23:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rosebud Abigail Denovo.

Hi Eptin. Thanks for adding the bullets to "Subsequent History" and for separating out the information on Rosebud Abigail Denovo.

Actually I'm wondering if the Rosebud Abigail Denovo information belongs here at all. It has very little to do with People's Park. What would you think about eliminating it entirely?

Anyone else care to comment?Founders4 09:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The more I thought about it, the more it seemed clear that the section on Rosebud Abigail Denovo has no relevance to the People's Park story. Her only involvement was as one of thousands of protestors in the 1991 demonstrations. Hope this meets with Wiki approval; no vandalism is intended. I have, by the way, left the link to Denovo's story.Founders4 18:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to create a stub about Rosebud Denovo using the info that was removed. The info, to my knowledge, is good, non-plagiarised info that people would still want to know about; indeed, the way that I found my way to the People's Park article is by searching for Rosebud Denovo. BTW, there are several references used in the People's Park article, were any of them used to support the Rosebud section? (in which case I should also copy the references to the Rosebud Denovo article). Eptin 21:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. It is good info, and the writing has been cleaned up over time, so it would be a shame to lose it. The only reference in the People's Park article is an external link, "What Really Killed Rosebud?" by Claire Burch. I've read part of it, and it seems very informative. I'm curious: What sparked your interest in Rosebud?Founders4 04:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I was reading an article in the New York Times called "Diary of a Soldier's Wife: Tie-Dye and Camo Don't Mix" (You can read it here ) and the couple had a conversation about "Rosebud". They gave an ounce of background about who she was, but with a phrase from the article like "What was I doing with someone who consorts with people who kill petite 20-year-old protesters?", I was curious about the incident. Eptin 20:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rosebud Denovo Revisited

The following is a debate over whether to include Rosebud Denovo on the Park timeline. What do the rest of you think?stan goldsmith 20:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You removed reference to Rosebud's killing because you suggest it had nothing to do with the Park, yet Park activists blamed Chancellor Tien for allowing the University to go ahead with construction plans (volleyball court, etc.). Rosebud was one of many outspoken critics of Tien. Her being in his house with a machete was directly related to people's park, far from having "nothing" to do with it.stan goldsmith 04:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems pretty tenuous to me. It's true that Rosebud linked herself with those who called themselves "Park activists." Yet she broke into Tien's house because she was deranged, not because her actions had a rational connection to any cause associated with People's Park. Her killing by an Oakland police officer had to do with the fact that she lunged at the officer with a machete; once again, her killing had nothing to do with People's Park.

What I have noticed is that the Park seems to act as a magnet for quite a number of imbalanced individuals. They spend time in the Park, and their "cause celebre" seems to be proving that various authoritarian structures (the University, the campus police, the Berkeley police) are evil.

Perhaps you can find a source that addresses this issue and work it into the article in some rational way. Otherwise it seems largely irrelevant. Apostle12 08:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Your points don't make sense. On the one hand you suggest that she "links herself" to the activists and on the other you say she had nothing to do with the park besides being crazy. As a person who knew her I can say that she was instrumental in organizing protests about the park and a major player in the protest movement surrounding the park in the early 90s.

Using your logic one can say: well the marches and riots in the 60's were just crazy people running amok for no reason, just because they were near People's Park or "linked themselves" with park activists doesn't mean anything.

What is the difference between linking yourself with a movement and being a part of it? And where do you get your information that she was "imbalanced" - this seems like a pretty heavy judgement call on your part. Same goes for the rest of the park activists, many of whom were and are still Berkeley students, many of whom are active in the Berkeley government and run businesses in the city, far from being crazed lunatics who think that the cops are satan. They have a purpose and your removal of that purpose diminishes them to something that you can assert your power over, i.e. nothing more than crazy people.

If you want to maintain that you are being neutral you are just kidding yourself. stan goldsmith 20:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you would benefit from reading the link, "What Really Killed Rosebud?," which appears at the bottom of the page.

I used the word "deranged" to refer to Rosebud, which I think is a mild term considering that: she had a long history of violent conflict with authority; she had been committed to mental institutions because of her threats and violent behavior; she had left Oregon because "there weren't enough protests" there, traveling to Berkeley specifically to seek out violent conflict regarding People's Park; and, shortly before her death, she and her boyfriend were arrested with explosives that they intended to use to blow up Chancellor Tien's house. Her shooting, after she lunged at an armed police officer with a machete, seems clearly to have been "suicide by cop." And she voiced exactly that intent, in a note penned before the event, where she declared her willingness "to lay down (her) life" to protest the building of some volleyball courts.

Yes, "imbalanced" is judgmental word. I'm happy to stand by its use as appropriate in this context. Apostle12 18:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gimme a break!

Does the person who wrote this have a source? :

"In keeping with Governor Reagan's "bloodbath" statement, the police were given carte blanche to use whatever methods they chose..." ?--Pkrembs 22:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Though I don't have it close at hand, I've read the interview with Sheriff Frank Madigan that appeared in the May 30, 1969 Berkeley Daily Gazette. In it Madigan says that he was ordered to "do whatever it takes" to quell the rioting--which extended to the use of shotguns for crowd control. The decision by his deputies to obscure their badge numbers--well-documented at the time--was apparently a personal one and did not reflect official policy. Madigan ended up apologizing for the behavior of some of his deputies who had just returned from duty in Vietnam; this group lumped hippies, anti-war protestors and People's Park protestors in the same category, and they felt justified in using lethal force to go after them. After the extent of civilian injuries became apparent, Madigan pledged to rein his deputies in and make sure they knew they were not in pursuit of the Viet Cong during protests. Subsequent Berkeley protests were handled much more carefully as a result of the People's Park debacle. Kensington7 01:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move article --> disambiguation

Is there an over-riding reason for this articles location to be the 'People's Park' article with all others relegated to the disambiguation page ? I cannot see that there is. I suggest making this articles name the disambiguation page.

Certainly, if one were to take a poll of all people I think it likely that one of the other People's Parks would be the most chosen (in Shanghai, for instance). Amongst English speakers, given that this is the English language Wikipedia, perhaps it would be Berkeley's People's Park, but I also doubt that - I cannot see that this location is noteworthy except to its local residents.

Not knowing the specific location, I am willing to stand corrected, but I wish to put down that there should be a little rational debate on this issue. Thoughts ? Discuss please. I am watching this page too :) --Phillip Fung 06:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I cite the Wikipedia mantra be bold and also given that I am keen on the Wikiproject 'Countering Systemic Bias' (check it out for what it is), and given the comments on the edit history for the People's Park redirect page, I have changed the redirect to the disambiguation page. Dissenters, let me know (on this page ? - or elsewhere) :) --Phillip Fung 06:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I've monitored the page for quite a while. From their comments, it is clear that people worldwide are quite aware of Berkeley's People's Park as a symbol of 1960s activism and check in to see what became of it. Some are former activists who participated in some way, while others are students who have heard about what happened in their studies and want to know more. I suppose the change you made will not detract too many, however no other "People's Park" comes close to being as well-known as the one in Berkeley. In China, for example, since every city has a "People's Park," it is equivalent to our "Municipal Park" and denotes no special identity.

It's not really a matter of local interest--most locals ignore it. In summary, I do think the previous arrangment was better.Apostle12 07:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi jlgolson. The events of "Bloody Thursday" and its aftermath were "absurd and deadly theater" on both sides. Each side was trying to assert itself in ways that defy reason and cannot be understood except by using the "theater" metaphor. Why, for example, would anyone plant flowers in an empty lot in Berkeley, intending to make a political point? Why would anyone guard such lots using National Guard troops to prevent flowers from being planted? "Absurd" is an accurate word that describes the phenomenon, not either side. And "deadly" is also correct, in that People's Park (not to mention Kent State, the Weathermen, the Black Panthers, and so on) led to confrontations that resulted in considerable death and injury. The list of 1960's societal tensions (regarding race, the war in Vietnam, sexual mores, women's rights, traditional modes of authority and a predominantly materialist interpretation of the American dream) were very real motivators at the time, the beginning of a "culture war" that continues to this day. I know of no better way, or more NPOV to refer to these tensions. Would welcome your suggestions. Founders4 05:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More NPOV concerns

NOTE: THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE LEAD. Apostle12 02:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A popular hangout amongst locals? Really? I guess all those homeless people could be called locals... --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)