Talk:Wreck Beach

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vancouver Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Vancouver, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and the surrounding metropolitan area. To participate, edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

Contents

[edit] removed from article:

( When has this happened? As a naturist I would never jeer or harass anyone to adopt any given mode of dress. I value my own "right-to-dress" too much to compromise the rights of someone else. If a "textile" is causing problems at Wreck Beach they should be asked to leave. No attempt should be made to "undress/dress" them.

 + - Doug Wyatt, Kansas City

[edit] How do I correct the introductory paragraphs?

How do I correct the introductory paragraph? It has no edit button. The term Endowment Lands is obsolete. The new term for the part of those lands not controlled by UBC is Pacific Spirit Regional Park. Korky Day Korky Day 19:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There is an "edit this page" link that lets you edit the entire page, including the intro section. If you haven't changed the default skin, you'll find it as a tab at the top of the page between "discussion" and "history".
However, notice that both the Park and the Lands are mentioned in the intro and have separate articles. They seem to not be synonymous, so I think further research is necessary to conclude that the Endowment Lands mention should be removed. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
On further reading, it appears that the Park is only about half of the Endowment Lands, the rest being the University land. So, they're not synonymous and the Endowment Lands term isn't obsolete. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you're wrong. Endowment Lands is not currently the name of any of the lands. Korky Day 21:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Read University Endowment Lands and Pacific Spirit Regional Park, which contradict you. If you can find a published source that supports your assertion, then the article can be changed. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
As well, the GVRD sites still use the term PDF map --Kickstart70-T-C 22:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the commotion,especially if I turn out to be wrong. I heard it from what I thought were reliable sources years ago. But until I find it or some good reference, I'll let it go. Even if unofficial, people still use it unofficially because there is probably no good replacement term. Korky Day 00:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I go to UBC, and the Pacific Spririt Park is ALWAYS considered part of the University Endowment Lands. The border of the UEL and Vancouver is basically the park's eastern borders. So yes, the term "University Endowment Lands" is still very much in usage today and INCLUDES the Park. (Even research done by the UBC Department of Geography also shows this.) Buchanan-Hermit™..SCREAM!!!.... 01:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The park was part of the lands endowed to UBC early in its history. It is no longer under UBC jurisdiction so cannot be called part of the UEL except in that historical sense. If academics still call it that, they are creatures of habit. Korky Day 09:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether it's controlled by the University or not, it is still part of the territory that is whatever you want to call the Endowment Lands. They haven't stopped existing even if they've changed hands. — Saxifrage ✎ 10:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
What? The UEL isn't controlled by UBC nor is it under their jurisdiction. The UEL falls under the control of the GVRD. UBC and the Park both fall under the UEL, which is in turn administered by the GVRD. That's how it works. Buchanan-Hermit™..SCREAM!!!.... 15:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who removed that some object to excreting onto the land and into the water?

Who removed that some object to excreting onto the land and into the water? Maybe you like to swim in urine and feces, but I don't, so I'm putting it back in unless you come up with a good argument. Korky Day 21:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether we can all agree on this being a disgusting thing is immaterial to its inclusion in Wikipedia. Unless you can provide a NPOV description of the alleged problem it's going to get reverted. --Kickstart70-T-C 22:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
If you would read your own talk page, you would know that I told you your language was inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a guidebook or a place for personal opinions (no matter how much I agree with them), it is an encyclopedia. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I read it. Stating how people think and react at the beach is not my personal opinion, it's simply fact. You try polluting there, and you'll find that people do object. Therefore, "Many people at the beach object to polluting the water and sand with human waste." is from a neutral point of view. I am well known. You use a pseudonym. Nevertheless, to show my consideration for you as a respectable human, I will soften the statement to "Health authorities and others at the beach encourage everyone to use the sanitary facilities provided." Korky Day 22:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You may find this page helpful for understanding further why this is an issue: Wikipedia:No original research --Kickstart70-T-C 22:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I am a veteran journalist. I know all about objectivity. And yes, I had read the reference you state. Or there is a part of it in particular you think I am violating? Do you object to my new version? Korky Day 23:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

We can't put words in the mouths of "health authorities and others at the beach", so we can't put that in the article without substantiating it. See our verifiability and citation policies. Further saying that "people" say something is a fundamentally unattributable statement, and so qualifies as weasel words to be avoided.
I reaslie you're new here, but please familiarise yourself with the policies. You have experience, but that experience is useless to this project unless you can reference it to someone or something outside of yourself. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
And for that matter, I've spent a little time looking through your contributions and Googling you. Your edits over the past few days, while some are helpful and useful, also indicate a strong disposition to self-promotion of websites you are involved in. This clearly shows a lack of objective intent to me, whether you understand journalistic objectivity or not. It appears that most of those attempts at self-promotion have already been removed, and I hope you won't continue on this path. --Kickstart70-T-C 23:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

From Korky Day: The only thing remotely approaching self-promotion, Kickstart, was to add my Web publication as an External link. Since many external links throughout Wikipedia make no pretense of objectivity, I thought that was acceptable. You think I should start deleting them all? I doubt it. If people have removed mine, it is likely that they simply don't like them or think I'm not mainstream enough. So, as it is set up, this whole project is, unavoidably, a popularity contest to some extent. Korky Day 23:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That you don't see why that in itself is a wrong thing to do is evidence that you have not read or do not understand the rules we've linked to above. Yes, loads of external links on Wikipedia are referenced with no requirement of their objectivity. That's why they are external links. There is a difference, however, in that in the far, far majority of cases those links have been added by people who are not the owners of the external links, as you are in these cases. There would be no objection whatsoever if I or another user found your site to be a reference valuable for inclusion here. The "original research" link above is what you really need to look at here, both in this case and the uncited details you have provided with the "I heard it from someone" rationale. --Kickstart70-T-C 01:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a reference handy. I see throughout Wikipedia that citations are needed at many various points. So there's no need to remove the statement--unless you DOUBT that health authorities have said such things. Is that the case? Korky Day 23:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a work in progress and edited by many people—who have various levels of grasp of the policy—every day. That other articles contain unreferenced material is reason to make them referenced or remove that material, not carte blanche to add more. I don't doubt that health authorities and people have said things things, but what I don't doubt has nothing to do with what is allowed in an article by Wikipedia's standards.
There are many reasons to remove the statement: what health authorities are these? when and where, and in what context, did they say this? who funds them? who gave them any authority in the first place? who are these other people? This may not seem important, but consider the hypothetical statement, "Health authorities have said that fluoride in the tap water is beneficial to dental health and has no side-effects." This is a statement that has the exact same form, and which would not stand without a citation to its source. Which authorities? who funded their research? where was it published? So, it's not so much about content as it is about the form: unqualified statements just don't cut it in 99% of cases. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no citation for the allegation that Wreck Beach is at the base of a cliff. Why not? Because no one doubts it. The statement about fluoride is true and should stay in, though adding "citation needed" is fine, because those who disagree, including me, would like some evidence to examine and criticize. I have many newspaper clippings about the contamination postings, but they are not where I can get them right now. So having your "citation needed" note there is fine, but don't act like I'm the only one who adds stuff without citation. You could add "citation needed" to about 20 other statements in this article, if you listened to every doubt expressed by someone who doesn't have 36 years of experience at the beach, as I have. Korky Day 09:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No, that the Beach is at the base of the cliffs is not cited because it is trivially verifiable, not because no-one doubts it. (As for the statement on fluoride, do some research on who funded the original FDA research and look at published research since then about the effects—it's a bit disturbing, and "dental fluorosis" is an ailment of particular interest.) I'm not acting like you're the only one that adds stuff like this—every day that I work on Wikipedia I run into people who aren't aware of the policies and I try to copyedit their contributions and educate them. And it's not about doubt either, it's about the standards laid out in the verifiability policy. — Saxifrage ✎ 10:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You took Trail 6 out of section heading

I can see your reasoning, Saxifrage, but I was just trying to make it consistent with the other headings, like "Trail 7". Should that be changed, too? Korky Day 07:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Not really—consistency isn't as important as accuracy. Since that section isn't very much about the trail and is about the Beach, and the following section is about the trail (and the associated beach, which is known more by the trail number than its own name), the sections are fairly accurately titled. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)