Talk:People's Park (Berkeley)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AustinePeng. Peer reviewers: Isabelleosorio, Lucallespinoza.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed Modifications

Hi, I'm Austine, and I'm an undergraduate student at the University of California, Berkeley and I am working on this article for my project. Here's a link to my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AustinePeng/People%27s_Park_(Berkeley)/Bibliography AustinePeng (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear @AustinePeng: thank you for your interest in delving into Wikipedia as part of your academic work. I see you kindly proposed some edits to the People's Park (Berkeley) article which eventually did make it to the article.

I have recently reviewed the article and I believe you made some contributions including about the Community Involvement. I have tagged that section as needing improvements, as well as other recent additions to the article. If improvements aren't made, me or other editors may remove the content that doesn't meet Wikipedia's quality requirements. That content needs be backed by more secondary reliable sources, and some parts need to summarized further. For example, this bit is probably unnecessary:

(...)Artichoke, Asparagus, Basil, Fava Beans, Beets, Broccoli, Cabbage, Carrots, Celeriac, Celery, Chard, Chayote, Chives, Kohl Rabi, Leek, Lettuce, Mustard, Onion, Parsley, Peas, Potatoes, Radish, Spinach, Sunchokes, and Turnips. Community members meet every Saturday from 1-4 pm PST at the Northwest Entrance of the park to cultivate these plants.

Please review those tags and the guidance they point to and let me know if you have questions about it. And again, thank you for your interest in editing Wikipedia; it is a learning process and other editors can answer your questions if you need assistance. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: I left the same message on AustinePeng's talk page. Al83tito (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

For Immediate Release

For Additional Information: Harvey Smith peoplesparkhxdist@gmail.com

 510-684-0414

(May 27, 2022) – Nationally significant People’s Park was officially listed on the National Register of Historic Places on May 24, 2022.

This designation underscores the historical, cultural, architectural and environmental assets of this irreplaceable open space. The park has an over half-century legacy of political and cultural events, a bio system of flora and fauna, and a surround of highly significant architecture.

This recognition follows being nominated unanimously by the California State Historical Resources Commission. People’s Park has played a key role as a gathering place for free speech during the decades of anti-war and civil rights struggles.

Former Berkeley Mayor Gus Newport commented that, “The stability of cities and towns is formed from the history of planning and participation of citizens. People's Park very much reflects and proves this. People's Park is very deserving of being on the National Register of Historic Places.”

However, the University of California plans to destroy the park despite its national significance. Harvey Smith, president of the People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group, commented that, “Its planned destruction is unconscionable. The park’s importance is beyond a squabble in Berkeley or within California. It is a nationally recognized historic site.”

Smith suggests the park should be preserved so that its appearance and infrastructure are no different than any other park within the City of Berkeley or any green space within the UC Berkeley campus. This is entirely possible once the present homeless population of the park is relocated to housing as planned by the City of Berkeley and the University.

The ill-considered plan of UC Berkeley to build on the park should be scuttled because the university has many alternative sites for student housing. Chief among them is the Ellsworth Parking Structure, which is one block away from People’s Park. Keeping a parking lot and destroying a park is a totally irresponsible action in the age of extreme climate change. UC Berkeley’s plan to demolish Evans Hall to create open space on the campus should be matched by maintaining the open space of People’s Park in the community.

Both the City of Berkeley and UC Berkeley celebrate the Free Speech and Sixties history of the Telegraph Avenue corridor. It is an asset to both the city and university, and among the reasons visitors from all parts of the globe are drawn to Berkeley. Recognizing People’s Park for the asset that it is and then preserving and enhancing it can only add to its value as a treasured Berkeley attraction.

The National Register of Historic Places is the official list of the Nation's historic places worthy of preservation. Authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National Park Service's National Register of Historic Places is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect America's historic and archeological resources.

More information on the People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group can be found at peoplesparkhxdist.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:201:9880:B9A3:D5D0:32E5:1D9A (talk) 05:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

And as a point of policy, it is absolutely NOT okay to delete any comments from other editors, regardless of the content (whether you like what they have to say or not etc). Welcome to Wikipedia! Please play nice, and by the rules, thanks! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

You're unilaterally declaring People's Park demolished despite the fact that people are still using it as a park, deleting comments on a talk page, reverting edits with no discussion, and inserting phrasing with blatant anti-protester language. How long do you think your vandalism will be allowed to continue before you eat a ban? Give it up. You want to celebrate People's Park demise, you do it on Andy Ngo's twitter with the rest of your ilk. 97.88.151.165 (talk) 06:01, 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)

Again NetHelper, you don't get to remove comments! If you feel offended/harassed then please go through the proper channels, deleting comments and reverting contributions without discussion is absolutely unacceptable here on Wikipedia. I have reinstated the comment, please discuss rather than delete. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 06:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

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