Talk:Point Isabel Regional Shoreline

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject California This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of the San Francisco Bay Area WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of San Francisco and the Bay Area. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Point Isabel Regional Shoreline is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

Contents

[edit] Largest dog park

Does anyone know if it is the largest dog park in the world in addition to the nation?Cholga is a SUPERSTAR¡Talk2Cholga!Sexy Contribs 02:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The current reference for the 'largest dog park' comment- judysbook - is very weak.--Fizbin 21:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
well at least it was weak and not unuseable, fortunatly i found a chronicle article![1]
That works!--Fizbin 16:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Marymoor Park Redmond, WA - 40 acre off leash dog park http://www.metrokc.gov/parks/marymoor/ 12.72.245.203 (talk) 04:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Leash-free"

Just to head off another of Cholga's mini-shit storms, I've checked the references for Point Isabel, and none of them use the phrase "leash-free". I'm changing this to read "allows off-leash dogs", which is what the references say. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No the source clearly states even in the article title as follows "Point Isabel Shoreline the largest off-leash dog park in the nation"[2]
Seriously why would it have been named the #1 dog park in the country by peta, according to the parks own website if it werent a dog park!here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cholga (talk • contribs) 00:51, 27 July 2007

[edit] Copy edit template

Since you (Cholga) seemed to take umbrage at the presence of this template, let me try this: here's a sentence from the article as it stands now:

The park has also been noted for being safe, vandalism free, and very clean, the mutt mitts and self policing by parkgoers has been credited for making it dog poop free aswell.

So tell us, Cholga: how many things are wrong with that sentence? Give us a number. It's your writing, I'm sure, which is why I'm asking you. The article is full of similar errors and problems, hence the tagging. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I remove the template since I copyedited the page already. Chris! my talk 01:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the template, since you didn't copy edit the page; all you did was correct spelling errors. There's lots more wrong: "dog poop"; run-on sentences; just plain bad writing. You should learn the difference between proofreading and fixing spelling errors and copy editing; two different animals.
And no, I don't feel like fixing this. I'm not a janitor. I don't fix vandalism here, and I don't fix stuff like this (unless I feel like it). +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Would you point out a run on? The San Francisco Chronicle uses the word poop, excrement, feces, and stool are also used in the article, using synonyms refreshes the tone and repetiveness dries it up. On another note I think we should move that template to the talk page since it is a visual distraction if it is to remainCholga is a SUPERSTAR¡Talk2Cholga!Sexy Contribs 02:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Action speaks louder than words. So I don't care if you are the janitor or not, just do it.
And no, fixing spelling errors and copyediting are not different. In fact, fixing spelling errors is part of copyediting. Chris! my talk 18:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Well I definatly don't think it is neccisary now, I just copyedited it again.Chuchopacman 00:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I can't believe we're still on this, a copedit template is not at all necessary at this point. I haven't seen one mistake pointed out, gramatical or spelling or otherwise its placement is entirely arbitrary at this point. The only thing that was not removed from previous complains was the word poop which I think is fine. And the user that complained didn't seem to think it was an important enough detail to alter the word themselves so I don't see a point in a copyedit template for an article that's been copyedited a dozen times allready but not by the person who insists on adding the template.CholgatalK! 12:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

On the one hand, I think that ILike2BeAnonymous is vindictively critical of articles that Cholga takes an active interest in, including this one, and is doing so in his usual rude and condescending way.

On the other hand, that said, this article does require extensive copy editing assistance. The first paragraph, for example, has a number of run-on sentences, including the very first one, that should be broken up with commas or split into multiple sentences. It (the first paragraph still) has a kind of disjointed narrative about it. For example, there are multiple mentions of the dog park (largest, and the PETA ranking) separated by other random non-dog-park info. It (we are still on the first paragraph) includes other basic grammatical errors, such as the mention of “views of both Marin County mountains, San Francisco and the Golden Gate Bridge”, which are actually three viewable items (not to mention I’ve never really heard the term ‘Marin County mountains’ and would personally replace it with 'Mount Tamalpais'). (This could alternatively be read to mean that you can see both of the mountains in Marin County, which also does not make much sense in this case.)

And really, I did not get to the end of comments that could be made about the first paragraph alone.--Fizbin 15:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your very helpful comments Fizbin I wish others would be as helpful in helping me with my Junior Highesque writting instead of relentlessly carrying on Elemantary Schoolesque vendettas and using smug pompous childish writting and antics to make themselves feel superior. I'll get to work on those suggestions then. The sources say Marin County mountains that is why I used that term since in the past making simple and obvious assumptions such as Marin County mountains meaning Mt. Tam was used to accuse me of Original Research and then the whole comment was removed.CholgatalK! 23:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, you just elucidated pretty well what's wrong with the article, any imagined "vindictiveness" aside. It's just a mess, grammatically, syntactically and just in terms of being a cohesive "encyclopedia" article. I mean, aren't we supposed to at least aspire to something better than a junior-high-school level of writing here? +ILike2BeAnonymous 16:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it must be a lot of us imaging this vindictiveness, what's up with you popping up on every article I be editing yo?CholgatalK! 23:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
IL2BA,
While I agreed that the article needs work, I did so in a much more helpful fashion than you ever do, using an encouraging tone and providing concrete examples. Just condescendingly indicating that an article needs work is not significantly furthering the process of developing well-written articles. In fact, it tends to lead to long pointless back-and-forths on talk pages, numerous edit wars, calling in of the administrative troops, etc.
I couldn't agree more and thank you for the encouragement and authorative commentsCholgatalK! 23:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
While you may often be (and definitely are not always) correct, your presentation encourages time-wasting confrontation rather than cooperation.--Fizbin 16:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Your objections have been duly noted. Now can we get back to the matter at hand, such as those many run-on sentences you pointed out and such? +ILike2BeAnonymous 16:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Gimmie a break, duly noted, thats so dismissive I think, seriously I've reached out to you a lot of times and no answer don't you even want to avoid these squabbles? or do you enjoy them? I should point out that the template never belonged here until Fizbin made his suggestions for improvements because policy states that tags such as copyedit placed arbitralily on articles without talk page explanations may be removed if anyone objects and that you "should" explain on here which you still haven't. "Jr High writing" is not good enough, its very lazy much like 7th grader i would sayCholgatalK! 23:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
IL2BA
Ironically enough, while we both spend quality time discussing what is or is not wrong with this article, neither one of us feels much like actually fixing it!--Fizbin 17:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's interesting, isn't it? It points out something important about this whole damn project (Wikipedia), which is that nobody is obligated to do anything here as an editor. Folks do what they want to do. For example, I don't consider myself a "janitor", and therefore I never deal with vandalism. There seem to be plenty of others who do that. I do do some copy-editing, but in this particular case, it's demoralizing enough for me, on account of certain editors who continually introduce sloppy writing into the article, that I simply don't feel like dealing with it. So sue me. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Never deal with vandalism, but you've accused me of vandalism and reverted it before. Four letter word that starts with an L, or am I refreshing your memory. Take a chill pill dude, turn your computer off for a few days and stay away from me when you come back, I'll stay away from you too! I would love to never have to deal with you again, hows that sounf IL2BA No more Cholga Or QRC or Chris since you seem to think were all the same person, of course anyone that disagrees with you must be one person, multiple people would never dislike you, oh wait look at your talk page its full of warnings did I put them all there? Just go away or heres a thought don't be rude and confrontational and you recently called me ornery but youre the arguementative combative one not I.CholgatalK! 23:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fizbin. Your presence only brings more confrontation. Perhaps you should leave wikipedia and Cholga alone if you think it is some sort of god damn project that requires you to waste your precious time dealing with it. Chris! my talk 21:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I nominated for a copyediting team copyedit to get over this problem once and for all.CholgatalK! 22:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copy-editing

Actually, copy-editing involves fixing grammer, spelling, punctuation, and general content of the article. Nothing will be removed unless it violates NPOV, or is innapropriate. I will begin copy-editing in a short while, but just right now I would like to know if there is anything I need to watch out for, or a specific point of contention in this article. If, while making my edits, I mess up, please tell me. Best regards.--Song 21:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The only arguement was a ludacrous arguement over the park not being a dog park since people also go there. But this was only the strange observation of a single editor and consensus was that if its own website states it is the biggest off leash dog park in the world and that it had won the PETA award for best dog park. One user seems to think the word poop was innaproproate but was not bothered enough to remove it, i felt it was fine since other synomyms were exhauasted such as extrement, stool, feces, wastae etc. and the references San Francisco Chronicle uses it. I should warn you to watch out for ILike2BeAnonymous as S/he is a very crass editdor with poor diologue and consensus skills and is generally overbearing and arogant and this user is frequently warned for his frequently unfortunate choice of words and pompous editingCholgatalK! 22:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that. I'll keep it in mind as I edit. I read over this page, and read ILike2BeAnonymous's talk page, and your talk page as well. (One of my habits. I get bored rapidly unless I have something to read. Nothing against you or ILike2BeAnonymous personally.) Warning noted, but I have to request that you try to refrain from being rude. I can accept that this person is generally not nice, but I can make my own conclusions, thank you. It's just not nice to insult people, whether the insult is true or not. I will be considerate and honest with everyone here, and I expect the same courtesy from ILike2BeAnonymous. I don't mean to be insulting: if I am I apologize immediatly. One more point is that the copy-edit template belongs on the article page. It's not really important, but still. I'm currently editing another article, but I'll get to this one in about half an hour, possibly more. Best regards.--Song 00:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] copedit template

does it really have to be on the article page, or is that just a general guideline and not a solid rule, do we have any leeway? I think most of those templates maybe excluding "copntrovertial" "grossly unreferenced" or "current" should go on talk pages instead since they are very visually distracting. Hmm maybe at the bottom of the page or maybe resize them considerablly with a small (save page) sized box with a show button, maybe every article should bundle multiple templates like that together? any thoughts? should it be removed off the talk page so as to avoid superfalousy?CholgatalK! 20:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh, well, most of that is so far out of my league I can't even begin to tell you. I can't do anything like that. It does sound like a good idea, but you'd have to take that to somebody else. I think putting the template on the article is just something you do. You can ask the Loce. They might be able to help you more then I can. Nevermind. According to Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup, "The following tags should be added to articles that need a cleanup. Unless otherwise noted, they should be placed at the top of the article."
I was looking through this article, and it seems to me that it requires a lot more then just copy-editing. It needs major clean-up, rather then just spelling, grammer, and prose fixes. I'm going to change the template to read that. It's rather jumbled and confusing, and could easily be made into several sections if sorted properly.--Song 00:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

wow, that sounds great!CholgatalK! 23:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is much better. Much more organized. I might be able to copy-edit it, but don't expect me to be very fast. I'm kind of busy- HS is taking up a lot of time. I will do the best I can.--Song 19:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow. This is scary.

You guys do argue a lot. I've been watching this page, and it just dosen't seem like either of you are enjoying yourselves. Tension is really running high. I've been looking for that 'Random Smile' template to put on here, but I can't find it.

Can everone here calm down? Wikipedia isn't really important, not in the big scheme of things. Don't get all worked up about one article, or one person.

If I interpreted the situation wrong, please tell me.--Song 19:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Far be it from me to tell you your interpretation of the situation is wrong (cf. the Firesign Theater's "that's metaphysically absurd!"); and you're absolutely correct in your assessment of the relative importance of this so-called "encyclopedia" (more like a big touchy-feely social club on steroids). But the fact remains that this article is a huge mess. Whether one cares about that or not, of course, is a horse of a different color ... +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The average messiness of the article is not important (in this particular discussion). What I'm concerned about is the air of semi-hostility and tension here (no offence, that's just the vibes I'm getting). I am going to get around to working on the article, but I can't do that if there are going to be arguments and (minor) edit wars. I just want all hot tempers to cool down. Is that too much to ask?--Song 19:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Well IL2BA is basically in love with me and that's why he follows me around some article I frequently edit or have created after a previous arguement has subsided so he can be close to me. Well thats one theory of mine, since he's very rude and crass...uncivil and beligerant to myself and when you're a little kid boys are mean to you if they like you, so that's my theory. But then again I might just be trying to make light of the situation with a joke (wink wink). IL2BA is generally just as rude to me as he is to anyone that disagrees with him, but there will be harmony someday. On the plus side all the arguing seems to result in near perfect writing, facts, sources... ... ... wait for it... ... ...wait for it... ... wait... wait...eventually. All theatrics aside and apparent agression aside this is just wikipedia even if it seems tense it's not a big deal in the whole scheme of daily life. Funny you should mention the random smile, I gave IL2BA one on his talk page as a peace offering but he removed it, and although its probably vandalism to remove that, It wasn't exactly a comment so I let it go, in any case just flip through his recent history on his talk page and look for an edit summary to the effect of "I don't want Cholga's studpid smile <growl>". Oh you kids! And you interperted it just fine, me and IL2BA are just probably polar opposites I reckon I was raised by nurturing/indulgant/negligent parents and he was raised by strict parents or some other dichotoy which makes us utterly incompatable with regards to chemistry and agreement. As for the edit wars, what edit wars, that died down a while ago here. Although I really hope fundraise vs. raise funds isn'nt blown up by him á la downtown Richmond vs. Downtown Richmond was. But even if it is, this is just wikipedia, its an arguement that may have to happen to reach consensus and prevent a real edit war. And what pray tell is so messy about this article at this point, I think it would reasonably get graded as B+ or A- if we were to use that scale. Its a living article, even if it became a feature article it very well may get messay once again if someone adds in new information due to the mere fact that time goes on and new information becomes available, just relax and chill. Interpretations can be wrong, i.e. getting a joke or not getting a joke, recognizing sarcasm or missing the point. Wow we really can't agree on anything can we? Huge mess? That B.S. and you know it, the only huge mess is your interpretation if this article. Of all the articles you edit, this is probably one of the better written ones. And quit your complaining all you do is renmove content without adding in anything meaningful or giving any useful commentary besides this article sucks, cholga you write like a Junior High School Kids, blah blah blah. Give it a rest and either help out, or stop detracting from constructive edits and get lost. All you say is so negative, wikipedia will never be a good encyclopedia nor will this article unless you stop calling wikipedia a touch feely social club, which is just incorrect in so many ways and focus on the positive, how can we improve, this is a gerund this is not, did you know that? would you like help with... But persisting here at Point Isabel which youve even said above on this page you don't even care about it at all and are not interested, why bother? what's your motivation besides your spite for me, somthing which many people have called you on? Anyways enough said, and sorry if anyone is offended none is intended; and also for the convoluted reply to both of you, the critizism is entirely directed at IL2BA.CholgatalK! 22:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
...*blinks*...Ah. I see. ...Umm....I'm sorry you and IL2BA are incompatible?--Song 19:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fundraise

Hey IL2BA I must insist that fundraise not only sounds better, but is just as gramatically correct as raise funds; and as such should be used as originally written. I know you are acting in good faith and must simply be misguided and think that it is not a word. You probably came to that belief at a time when it was not considered a word and was therefore in good faith that you removed it since you are uninformed of its wordiness, okay that I admit is not a word, yet.CholgatalK! 22:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, wordiness is a perfectly good word. +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
lol71.142.84.165 04:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

To ease your understanding look at these links.

  • Dictionary.com
    • "verb raise money for a cause or project; "We are fundraising for AIDS research"" (WordNet/Princeton University)
    • "To engage in fundraising."(American Heritage Dictionary [via dictionary.com])
    • "–verb (used with object) 1. to collect by fund-raising: The charity needs to fund-raise more than a million dollars. (Unarbidged Dictionary)

–verb (used without object) 2. to engage in fund-raising."

I give up.CholgatalK! 04:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] allocates vs. provides vs. supplies

allocates seems to be a better more specific and encyclopedic term to me, as it implies both supply and distribution.17:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That's because it sounds like a 50-cent word to you. It's neither more specific nor more encyclopedic; "provides" is better. Allocation is a different process; the park gives out "mutt mitts", so they can be said to provide them. The supplier of the mitts may allocate certain resources towards their production or distribution, but that's a horse of a different color. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
what is a 50-cent word? you mean the rapper? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cholga (talk • contribs) 21:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Allocate: distribute for a particular purpose
  • Provide: make available for use

those are the definitions according to my dictionary. see what i feel is that the park doesn't just make them available in an if type situation it hands them out for a well "particular purpose" to pick up dog crap. See what i mean, allocate is more specific towards the mandatory and specific purpose of the mutt mitts.CholgatalK! 21:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not the typical English usage of the term. If one is handing out things such as mutt mitts at a park, one provides or distributes them; most people would not say that they are being allocated. "Allocation" is used for such things as allocating money in a budget for a certain purpose, or allocating resources in a planning process, not giving small items out to the public. You need to go beyond just what the dictionary says about a particular term; there's the issue of context and conventions of usage. (Slack cut if you're not a native English speaker on this last point.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by "slack cut" I am a native english speaker in addition to being a native spanish speaker. Typical usage seems very subjective to me and who decides what that is exactly? seems like OR to me dude. "What most people say" or rather how most people speak is not the form in which we write, especially in an encyclopedia article, wouldnt you agree? The word is more apt.CholgatalK! 21:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
That seems to be an argument for "allocated" since it's a 50-cent word; see WP:Peacock for more on this. And notice I said "slack cut IF you're not a native English speaker" (emphasis in IF in case you missed it). You cannot accept the slightest courtesy without shitting all over it. I give up. Sheesh. +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Well obviously you are not a native speaker of any decent dialect of English because your manners are very "shitty indecent".CholgatalK! 01:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I see you're stooping to ad hominem arguments, which will get you nowhere, fast. +ILike2BeAnonymous 02:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry but on close inspection I don't see what part of my arguement you find to be an attack on you? I commented on how I believe that wikipedia doesn't use the standards of typical english usage rather is uses the most proper and accurate academic wordings whenever possible or it strives to do so. When you wrote "that's because it sounds like a 50 cent word to you" reffering to me, see that sounds ad hominem to me, because you are focusing on my interpretation instead of the general understanding. But i will take it with a grain of salt and hope both I and you may enjoy your advice and not go the ad hominem route, maybe we can avoid the use of the word "shit" and its derivatives too? Even if we are ironically debating the word usage in a sentance regarding bags used to collect the very contensious word I'm asking we both stop using towards or relating to one another in an unfriendly manner? I am still having trouble what you mean by a 50-cent word, because the link you gave me connected me to weasel words and that doesn't seem to be your use of the term 50-cent. Would you just break it down for me and explain what that term means to you so that you may get your point accross more effectively so we may quickly resolve this "point of centention" between us, and hopefully (pwwwease) civily? Well and what did you think that i said was ad hominem, that is bombastically argueing against you and not for the point-at-hand. Let's get along =)CholgatalK! 22:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean you have not gotten anywhere fast yourself? Mr. Erases my comments, says/calls me "Shit-storms" "What Idiot Said" and "Sitting All Over", oh whats that, am I quoting the nice things you have said about me, hyprocrit. So yeah dude, what is your angle? No one likes a rudeness, so take some advice and Don't Be A Dick anymore.HeebieJeebies 22:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop personal attack each other, both of you. The usage of the word "shit" is certainly not helping the situation. Chris! my talk 02:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's okay for him to say everything about me is shit, its okay for me to at the very least critisize him for his use of it.HeebieJeebies 22:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Um. Are you Cholga? You sounds like her by using the word "me". Because if you you operate a sockpuppet, you can get blocked for it. So I advise you not to do it, even if you are upset about the situation. Chris! my talk 22:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The above comments are consider trolling comments in Wikipedia and has been strike out. Chris! my talk 22:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

anyways, i still favor use of allocate and since no real arguement has been given besides the accusation of ad hominem attacks and sockpuppetry attempting to appear as me i will put it in. if any objecttions please discuss "CONTENT ONLY" here =) cheersCholgatalK! 05:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] measurements

How can you be so sure that this would be assumed, the 21 acres is an exact figure from the East Bay Regional Park District the hectares is just an estimate so it should be noted i think.CholgatalK! 21:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody, so far as I know, assumes that this, or any other such figure here, is exact. And please show us one other article here that uses the "~" symbol in such a way to show approximation with figures such as these (measures of parks and similar areas). All such figures are assumed to be approximations. The only exceptions would be for such exact figures as the definition of a metre or similar scientific measurements. +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a known fact that all measurements are not accurate here on Wikipedia. WP:MOS has no such standard. Chris! my talk 00:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laci Peterson

I don't think this is "tabloid trivia" rather since it is such a noted murder i think it should me mentioned in the article that her remains where found at point isabel. I remember seeing the reports, in fact i was at the park when reporters where there, whilst walking my dog.CholgatalK! 12:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The Peterson connection is relevant to the extent that many people in the Bay Area, myself included, had never heard of this park until she floated ashore there.--Fizbin 16:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Sadly ROFL! but trueCholgatalK! 23:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The remains of Laci Peterson and her unborn fetus' Conner's corpse washed up, at two separate sites, on the shores of the park in 2003 from where they drifted from the Berkeley Marina to the south.(Laci Peterson's remains identified; husband arrested, CNN, April 18, 2003, retrieved September 23, 2007)

This text should be included because it has to do with a major climax in one of the crimes of the century, if OJ's Black Glove or a Charles Manson murder's disposal of a bodu occured here it would be important to mention. Maybe if someone was robber at the park in 1983 for 200$ in their wallet it wouldn't be, but this is well sourced information. Laci Peterson+Point Isabel gets a lot of google newshits 4 years later, not from some library archive either. This was a major turning point on the Laci Paterson case and should be mentioned.CholgatalK! 19:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The question is (or should be, in any case) whether this factoid about Laci Peterson is relevant to this article in an encyclopedic sense. If one goes by the standard that anything that happens in, or is associated with, a certain place is "notable", then yes, it should be included; if, however, one sets standards as to which things like this are worthy of mention and which are simply coincidences that really have nothing to do with the place itself (which is what I believe), then this doesn't belong here. To me, the Laci Peterson affair is on the level of tabloid news coverage, and therefore is not appropriate here. +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

is it? should it be? - with all due respect it is not your personal meter that should be used here. I also object to the notion that this is a factoid, its a notable event that happened at the park. the park happened to be where she washed up, the berkeley marina happened to be where she was dumped from, she happened to live in Modesto, shes mentioned in the latter two, the matter of the fact is she didn't wash up in Albany or San Rafael and she similarly wasnt dumped from the Ferry Building or live in Fresno, California or Livermore, California, she was from Modesto, was dumped in the Berkeley Marina and washed up at Point Isabel. The article on the book supsoatory and school where kennedy was shot mention it, because it was a major event, it amde national headlines and so did Laci. CNN is not a tabloid, and neither is NBC, ABC, CBC, MSNBC, CNBC, Univisión, Telemundo, PBS, the AP, Reuters, or any other news agency that covered her corpse washing up at this park, none of those are tabloids. Tabloids don't cover such facts, they make up conspiracies and myths to sell their rag-mags, if anything the tabloids might start to say her ghost is terrifying peoples dogs at the park, somthing silly like that. This is not just anything, this was probably the biggest case in the bay area since the zodiac murders, every site of each murder and body recovery who have an article mention what happened there. There is precedant for such inclusions. I think this will compell you to agree this does belong here. You are very mistaken if you think the Laci Peterson murder is a tabloid affair. Goggle her, you wont see many tabloid news coverage, youll see a lot of serious coverage, also see Laci and Conner's Law.CholgatalK! 01:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laci Peterson remains - comments request

There is a disagreement wether this information should be included in this article between myself Cholga and ILike2BeAnonymous which opposes its inclusion. The rationales are apparant within recent edit summaries and the discussion above this section which has died. May we try and find a definitive desicion on this topic and avoid an edit war?CholgatalK! 04:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Exclude. Ten years from now nobody will know who the Petersons were. Their murders, however tragic, are not historically noteworthy. Sadly, that sort of thing happens all the time. When I read the section for the first time, that factoid seemed to come out of left field. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Exclude. I agree that this is really trivia. As Milkbreath says, this will soon be forgotten and does not deserve to be immortalized in an encyclopedia article. Just because Ms. Peterson is mentioned in the article on the Berkeley Pier doesn't mean that the mistake should be repeated here. Marco polo (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

But as long as there is an article about her, shouldn't it be mentioned? Its part of the history of this park. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomgaylove (talk • contribs) 01:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the information again. Totally inappropriate for the encyclopedia. This isn't a close call. We're not a catalog of dead body finds. Wikidemo (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(note - even so, I did so before I figured out there was a discussion here, so feel free to revert - mine is just another opinion like everyone else's) Wikidemo (talk) 07:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Do other articles about places list every corpse ever found there? The place isn't really a significant element of Laci's story (since she was killed elsewhere and washed up here by chance), let alone the reverse. —Tamfang (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Most corpses don't have articles written about them, its of note since her body being found was a milestone in her disappearance's investigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomgaylove (talk • contribs) 01:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)