![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why is this listed as 2006? It's still going on. The first paragraph makes it sound like its an old thing.
As far as I can tell, the anonymous user(s) that keeps altering the wording of the article is the only one violating NPOV. The rest of the article is backed up by 32 sources and as neutral as I can make it in wording. However, I invite discussion as to what exactly the IP editor objects to? -- Falcorian (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll leave a note on the IP's talk page, but if they don't reply I'm going to remove the tag. -- Falcorian (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
definitely POV. it is told from the university's side with "furthermore..." and propoganda. even the university doesn't say the trees were planted in 1923 -- if you read the citation you will see that whoever inserted that has a POV agenda. plus, there is almost nothing about the grove itself. where is the part about the grove being dedicated to berkeley's WWI victims? some of the citations don't even go anywhere, i removed them but people keep putting them back. many of those "violations" are bogus. i don't have the complete list but they were arresting people for things like riding their bikes on the sidewalk last time i checked. there is definitely some agenda-pushing here. falcorian, i think you should go on wikibreak till the controversy boils over. 71.112.10.248 ( talk) 01:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The University claims "almost all", in other words the University won't even claim that they planted more than some of the trees. But you've phrased it like "the university claims the trees ... were planted in 1923 as part of a landscaping project". POV-ification plain and simple
71.112.10.248 (
talk)
17:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
User:71.112.10.248, please stop changing arborist to goon. It is blatantly POV, unsupported, counter to every single citation in that section of the article (every news article on the subject calls them arborists), and frankly boarding on vandalism. While I appreciate your attempt to help clean up the POV, these edits make your above argument seem a little hypocritical. -- Falcorian (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
User:71.112.10.248 has reverted back to goons, apparently believing this word falls somewhere close to the meaning of NPOV. It has been removed and contractor inserted instead. Clearly the person contracted to perform this job by UC is a 'contractor' so hopefully nobody should be able to complain about this change. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.181.2.134 (
talk)
03:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
By the way, User:71.112.10.248, there is a 3 revert rule. Your blatant POV changes keep popping up over and over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.2.134 ( talk) 07:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
anyone know how many trees are in the grove? i've seen numbers as low as 26 (UC) to as high as 91 (treesitters).
71.112.10.248 ( talk) 03:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Is the new "center", if built, going to be used by anyone other than football? AFAIK only football players train at memorial and the "center" is supposed to house those endangered souls now training in memorial. 71.112.10.248 ( talk) 14:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
User:71.112.10.248, the proer nomenclature is not girls, but women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.2.134 ( talk) 07:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Other than one use in a photo caption, I can't find a source for the 'scared' part. I assume it's in reference to the Ohlone? Having just read a few articles on the Burial grounds, it doesn't seem like there is strong evidence for this. So, is there a source? -- Falcorian (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
There's a separate space for it's possible sacredness down below, ie Burial ground. Since this is a controversial subject, saying it is sacred in the intro is inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.2.134 ( talk) 07:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Amerique, well so putting it in the burial section seems only half of the story. I still like it in the intro; it sort of gets at why people are making such a big deal over the trees. 71.112.10.248 ( talk) 05:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
A new editor, User:Dumpster muffin, added the following text to the article today:
"Other sitters include Cricket [6], Michael "Fresh" Shuck [7], Millipede [8], Dumpster Muffin [9] and former professional lacrosse player, Nathan Hall."
I think the individuals named have not demonstrated sufficient notability for inclusion, as this is an article about the controversy and not a list of all participants. As well, the editor in question may have a conflict of interest. Thoughts? -- Ckatz chat spy 05:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Dumpster muffin ( talk) 05:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
So only leaders or people with traditional names or celebrities are mentionable? This is not an article per sitter, this is mentioning a handful of sitters. Dumpster muffin ( talk) 06:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Could somebody explain the reason for the NPOV tag at the top of the article? If not, I'm going to remove it (again) within the next few days. That tag should only be applied with regard to specific disagreements, which doesn't seem to be the case here. All of the previous points of contention seem to have been resolved, or are being handled via pretty congenial discussion, so I don't think the tag is really necessary anymore — but if you believe it's needed, please list the reasons why here. -- UC_Bill ( talk) 19:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The article title is still POV. Some people are trying to keep "memorial" out of the title even though there are references for it. Dumpster muffin ( talk) 03:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
So, any further opinions? -- Falcorian (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Dumpster Muffin (the editor) has removed the cost sentence now five times, often doing so under a misleading edit summary such as "undid trolling". The sources are for separate costs. Not one cost.
I don't know if now is the appropriate time to take official action, but at least as a first step I thought I'd bring it up here. -- Falcorian (talk) 06:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it your claim this is two separate sums?
Dumpster muffin ( talk) 15:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I have rewritten the two sentences in question, hopeful to the satisfaction of all (but not to the satisfaction of spelling or grammer... If someone would massage them a little.). --
Falcorian
(talk)
17:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
DUMPSTER MUFFIN IS ONE OF THE TREE SITTERS!! Whoa people, I just saw Dumpster Muffin mentioned on TV; she's one of the protesters in the trees! Once I saw the report, I immediately checked back to the 'history' page for this topic to see if she edits. I find out she's one the topics' most prolific editors! Why are you people allowing this bias? This is the type of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad name. I've never edited on this topic but I have been reading it for information on the protest. Now I feel cheated. I hope the active moderators of this topic do their duty and keep completely biased editors out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.224.6 ( talk) 00:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
==AirBears provides wifi to all students anywhere in the campus (all you need is a Calnet ID) and laptops have batteries. However, I haven't been reading her edits, are they biased? Even if it is her or if it is one of her surrogates or fans, I feel very uncomfortable that someone that biased on this issue is editing wiki articles. How can the people on this board tolerate that? How can alumni like myself trust this page anymore?
Dumpster Muffin continues to undo the rational changes I made like changing the words "anonymous sympathizer" to "anonymously" (the former gives undue unsourced legitimacy to these anonymous burial ground plans), as well as my deletion of Tennessee fan's declaring that the protest is "Awesome!" Why is that relevant for an encyclopedia without explaining what they represent? I think this undo war is silly. 169.229.87.183 ( talk) 06:15, 12 July 2008
I am dumpster muffin. The Dumpster Muffin of Wikipedia is not me. I appreciate the user's advocacy of the tree-sit, but would prefer if they selected a different user name. Additionally, a friend of mine directly involved in the tree-sit would like to help reformat this article. Much cited information is factually incorrect. 208.106.103.222 ( talk) 02:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
So, should it be included in this article? It was a parallel tree sit (for about a month) with far broader goals (although one of them was the stadium). I can source it from at least the daily cal, the new yorker, and probably a few other local papers. An additional connection is that Fresh is now (or was until a few days ago) participating in this protest.
So it's a somewhat tangential, but also somewhat related, topic. Thoughts? I'm for including it, because I think it'll add some information and content, without detracting from anything. Of course, I could (and may) just throw up a section and then see what people think. -- Falcorian (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
This keeps whoing up in the article: Other students have created a Facebook group, "Students Against Hippies in Trees", to oppose the protest. Can someone point out the part in the cited article that this is referring to? Thanks Dumpster muffin ( talk) 18:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
That's not me, that's what the cited article says, 69.181.2.34 71.112.10.248 ( talk) 20:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC) (DM)
Is that 600 students number relevant if no longer accurate today? Today it rests about 250, while the number in students in pro-construction groups (to use harsh language) rests at about 2,000. It seems a POV issue to include a large number but not any mention of the fact that today the number is dwarfed by the opposition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QuixoticPillow ( talk • contribs) 07:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Do we have a RS for how many of the law-and-order group are actually students? I only know of 1 -- that law-and-order raised by conservatives guy. Dumpster muffin ( talk) 15:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I've moved the following section here from the Reactions section, becuase I don't think it belongs there, but am not sure where (if anywhere) it should go:
That's pretty much exactly what the Economist says... I just don't know though. It almost reads like hyperbole on their part. :-/ -- Falcorian (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliments. We've done our best. There have been some paid UC goons that come here to edit from time to time but they usually don't get far. This isn't really a place to discuss the topic, but I think where its headed is possibly the worst of all outcomes: the grove is destroyed, the football-player only gym is built, and memorial is left as earthquake unsafe as ever. In the meantime crime plagues campus as police are distracted. There were two recent killings and just last week a robbery spree starting at LSA and hitting four others as the monster-mask wearing bunch made it to Southside.
Dumpster muffin (
talk)
17:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
References
The university stopped allowing outside supplies at or around the time of Judge Miller's latest ruling... But I haven't yet found a source with more details (like a date). There was then some back and forth between the supporters and the university (involving the city council as well), then there was a judicial ruling on the subject of removing protesters (and whether they had to be be given food or not), and then the university decided to start giving them water and energy bars.
However, I can only find sources right now for the last bit. Can anyone help me here? -- Falcorian (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The sentence: "The University also disputes the value behind the City of Berkeley's law, pointing towards groups like the United States Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service that argue coast live oaks are neither a threatened nor an endangered species." Is not properly cited. The part about the USDA and not being endangered is cited, but no mention is made of the university disputing the law.
Anyone have an idea of what to do with it? Removal seems simplest, but the fact still seems useful. -- Falcorian (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking we should move all UCs claims into their own section. To get the full effect of UC thumbing its nose and any and everything "that law doesn't apply to us" "yeah its falling down, but half a billion $ is fair" "our paid consultant doesn't know anything about a burial ground" "what old trees?" "these trees are worthless" "our paid consultants didn't see an earthquake fault" "there are only 8 trees in the grove" "we are not wasting money on these fences...trust us" and on and on Dumpster muffin ( talk) 15:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Just some food for thought if looking for a reliable source about any of the following topics: http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2008/06/19_ruling.pdf
QuixoticPillow ( talk) 01:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't put anything past the UC administrators at this point. The propoganda effort is really ugly. They've even sent their own people to this very page to push their agenda. Anyway here's info from a reliable source about the flaws in Miller's decision: [13]. Incidentally Miller seems to be bending over backwards to please the UC administrators. When she can no longer rely on the letter of the law, she says (repeatedly) that she is deciding in favor of the administrators because to do otherwise would be "absurd". C'mon Judge Miller, surely you can do better than THAT. Dumpster muffin ( talk) 05:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is full of propoganda, jedi. It has been uncovered a few times and that's just the very tip of the iceberg. Here's one example: [14]. It's in the University bureacrats interest to slant this story and leave out key details. They are paid to successfully carry out projects, not to spend millions on engineering, planning, litigation, security, and PR, only to have it flushed down the toilet. If the story is slanted, residents and students come here and walk away a little more likely to support the bureaucrats/goons. That you can't see the propogandizing might mean it is working on you.
There are many elements to the propoganda. One good one is to claim Memorial Stadium is earthquake unsafe and has been for decades(!). If it is unsafe, you'd think the bureaucrats would have done something about it in the short term -- move the offices to Harmon, do a retrofit, etc. The bureaucrats have hired engineers and construction crews to retrofit many, many buildings. Another I like is the way the bureaucrats tell a sob story about the poor female athletes that have to change in their cars right now. This is classic manipulation. It paints the grove-supporters as depraved sexists who don't care that an innocent nipple might be exposed, paints the bureacrats as wanting to help out the girls. It also draws in some of those that would oppose the center if it were just for football players (which it is!). No one has questioned why the bureaucrats haven't simply made one of the rooms in CMS available as a changing room?
No, destroying nature is not the bureaucrats' goal, but when looking for a site for the football-player training facility they weighed nature (Memorial Grove) vs a parking lot (the one adjacent and the planned one at Maxwell) and decided in favor of the parking lot. Dumpster muffin ( talk) 19:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
(Section moved to bottom because of recent activity.)
This is a style guide issue... if there is no objection, I'm going to move the page to Berkeley oak grove protest per the Manual of Style. -- Ckatz chat spy 21:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
i'm thinkin "berkeley memorial oak grove controversy". the memorial aspect needs more attention here. 71.112.10.248 ( talk) 03:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
One source I located (don't recall what it was at the moment.. most likely an Oakland newspaper from the 1920s) did contain excerpts from the dedication speech for the stadium, and made it clear that at least the stadium and a garden located to the north of the stadium were both being dedicated to victims of WWI, but still no mention of the grove. I'll keep looking though, as time permits. -- UC_Bill ( talk) 19:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah thanks, but we already have the Environment News Service article calling it Memorial Oak Grove -- isn't that sufficient? Dumpster muffin ( talk) 04:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The court case section needs some expansion, mainly in the subject of the University's reply to the initial ruling. They made a few changes to the construction plan and these need to be documented, perferably from sources written at the time (as they'll be more detailed then later summary pieces).
Also, a final ruling is out. I'll be updating the article to take it into account. A few sources so far:
-- Falcorian (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice if someone could find a campus map and highlight relevant areas. Agnamus ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The article doesn't seem to mention the third "fence" at all. The UCPD blocked off a city sidewalk with a "police do not cross" short fence and put in 24-hour guards, first real cops then rent-a-cops, with a floodlight powered with a generator. This was a pretty big development, taking over part of city property (on the grounds of exigency) and cutting off access even via the telephone pole, but it seems this otherwise thorough article says nothing about it. 136.152.181.2 ( talk) 19:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
California Football fans have heavily opposed the tree sit and the tree sitters themselves.
I don't see how the citation in the article supports this generalization. At most, the source seems to express the personal musings of some football fans. However valid and justified these musings may be, they can hardly be cited as representing the views of "California football fans" in general. -- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 01:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
University of California, Berkeley oak grove controversy. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why is this listed as 2006? It's still going on. The first paragraph makes it sound like its an old thing.
As far as I can tell, the anonymous user(s) that keeps altering the wording of the article is the only one violating NPOV. The rest of the article is backed up by 32 sources and as neutral as I can make it in wording. However, I invite discussion as to what exactly the IP editor objects to? -- Falcorian (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll leave a note on the IP's talk page, but if they don't reply I'm going to remove the tag. -- Falcorian (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
definitely POV. it is told from the university's side with "furthermore..." and propoganda. even the university doesn't say the trees were planted in 1923 -- if you read the citation you will see that whoever inserted that has a POV agenda. plus, there is almost nothing about the grove itself. where is the part about the grove being dedicated to berkeley's WWI victims? some of the citations don't even go anywhere, i removed them but people keep putting them back. many of those "violations" are bogus. i don't have the complete list but they were arresting people for things like riding their bikes on the sidewalk last time i checked. there is definitely some agenda-pushing here. falcorian, i think you should go on wikibreak till the controversy boils over. 71.112.10.248 ( talk) 01:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The University claims "almost all", in other words the University won't even claim that they planted more than some of the trees. But you've phrased it like "the university claims the trees ... were planted in 1923 as part of a landscaping project". POV-ification plain and simple
71.112.10.248 (
talk)
17:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
User:71.112.10.248, please stop changing arborist to goon. It is blatantly POV, unsupported, counter to every single citation in that section of the article (every news article on the subject calls them arborists), and frankly boarding on vandalism. While I appreciate your attempt to help clean up the POV, these edits make your above argument seem a little hypocritical. -- Falcorian (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
User:71.112.10.248 has reverted back to goons, apparently believing this word falls somewhere close to the meaning of NPOV. It has been removed and contractor inserted instead. Clearly the person contracted to perform this job by UC is a 'contractor' so hopefully nobody should be able to complain about this change. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.181.2.134 (
talk)
03:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
By the way, User:71.112.10.248, there is a 3 revert rule. Your blatant POV changes keep popping up over and over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.2.134 ( talk) 07:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
anyone know how many trees are in the grove? i've seen numbers as low as 26 (UC) to as high as 91 (treesitters).
71.112.10.248 ( talk) 03:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Is the new "center", if built, going to be used by anyone other than football? AFAIK only football players train at memorial and the "center" is supposed to house those endangered souls now training in memorial. 71.112.10.248 ( talk) 14:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
User:71.112.10.248, the proer nomenclature is not girls, but women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.2.134 ( talk) 07:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Other than one use in a photo caption, I can't find a source for the 'scared' part. I assume it's in reference to the Ohlone? Having just read a few articles on the Burial grounds, it doesn't seem like there is strong evidence for this. So, is there a source? -- Falcorian (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
There's a separate space for it's possible sacredness down below, ie Burial ground. Since this is a controversial subject, saying it is sacred in the intro is inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.2.134 ( talk) 07:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Amerique, well so putting it in the burial section seems only half of the story. I still like it in the intro; it sort of gets at why people are making such a big deal over the trees. 71.112.10.248 ( talk) 05:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
A new editor, User:Dumpster muffin, added the following text to the article today:
"Other sitters include Cricket [6], Michael "Fresh" Shuck [7], Millipede [8], Dumpster Muffin [9] and former professional lacrosse player, Nathan Hall."
I think the individuals named have not demonstrated sufficient notability for inclusion, as this is an article about the controversy and not a list of all participants. As well, the editor in question may have a conflict of interest. Thoughts? -- Ckatz chat spy 05:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Dumpster muffin ( talk) 05:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
So only leaders or people with traditional names or celebrities are mentionable? This is not an article per sitter, this is mentioning a handful of sitters. Dumpster muffin ( talk) 06:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Could somebody explain the reason for the NPOV tag at the top of the article? If not, I'm going to remove it (again) within the next few days. That tag should only be applied with regard to specific disagreements, which doesn't seem to be the case here. All of the previous points of contention seem to have been resolved, or are being handled via pretty congenial discussion, so I don't think the tag is really necessary anymore — but if you believe it's needed, please list the reasons why here. -- UC_Bill ( talk) 19:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The article title is still POV. Some people are trying to keep "memorial" out of the title even though there are references for it. Dumpster muffin ( talk) 03:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
So, any further opinions? -- Falcorian (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Dumpster Muffin (the editor) has removed the cost sentence now five times, often doing so under a misleading edit summary such as "undid trolling". The sources are for separate costs. Not one cost.
I don't know if now is the appropriate time to take official action, but at least as a first step I thought I'd bring it up here. -- Falcorian (talk) 06:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it your claim this is two separate sums?
Dumpster muffin ( talk) 15:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I have rewritten the two sentences in question, hopeful to the satisfaction of all (but not to the satisfaction of spelling or grammer... If someone would massage them a little.). --
Falcorian
(talk)
17:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
DUMPSTER MUFFIN IS ONE OF THE TREE SITTERS!! Whoa people, I just saw Dumpster Muffin mentioned on TV; she's one of the protesters in the trees! Once I saw the report, I immediately checked back to the 'history' page for this topic to see if she edits. I find out she's one the topics' most prolific editors! Why are you people allowing this bias? This is the type of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad name. I've never edited on this topic but I have been reading it for information on the protest. Now I feel cheated. I hope the active moderators of this topic do their duty and keep completely biased editors out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.224.6 ( talk) 00:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
==AirBears provides wifi to all students anywhere in the campus (all you need is a Calnet ID) and laptops have batteries. However, I haven't been reading her edits, are they biased? Even if it is her or if it is one of her surrogates or fans, I feel very uncomfortable that someone that biased on this issue is editing wiki articles. How can the people on this board tolerate that? How can alumni like myself trust this page anymore?
Dumpster Muffin continues to undo the rational changes I made like changing the words "anonymous sympathizer" to "anonymously" (the former gives undue unsourced legitimacy to these anonymous burial ground plans), as well as my deletion of Tennessee fan's declaring that the protest is "Awesome!" Why is that relevant for an encyclopedia without explaining what they represent? I think this undo war is silly. 169.229.87.183 ( talk) 06:15, 12 July 2008
I am dumpster muffin. The Dumpster Muffin of Wikipedia is not me. I appreciate the user's advocacy of the tree-sit, but would prefer if they selected a different user name. Additionally, a friend of mine directly involved in the tree-sit would like to help reformat this article. Much cited information is factually incorrect. 208.106.103.222 ( talk) 02:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
So, should it be included in this article? It was a parallel tree sit (for about a month) with far broader goals (although one of them was the stadium). I can source it from at least the daily cal, the new yorker, and probably a few other local papers. An additional connection is that Fresh is now (or was until a few days ago) participating in this protest.
So it's a somewhat tangential, but also somewhat related, topic. Thoughts? I'm for including it, because I think it'll add some information and content, without detracting from anything. Of course, I could (and may) just throw up a section and then see what people think. -- Falcorian (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
This keeps whoing up in the article: Other students have created a Facebook group, "Students Against Hippies in Trees", to oppose the protest. Can someone point out the part in the cited article that this is referring to? Thanks Dumpster muffin ( talk) 18:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
That's not me, that's what the cited article says, 69.181.2.34 71.112.10.248 ( talk) 20:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC) (DM)
Is that 600 students number relevant if no longer accurate today? Today it rests about 250, while the number in students in pro-construction groups (to use harsh language) rests at about 2,000. It seems a POV issue to include a large number but not any mention of the fact that today the number is dwarfed by the opposition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QuixoticPillow ( talk • contribs) 07:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Do we have a RS for how many of the law-and-order group are actually students? I only know of 1 -- that law-and-order raised by conservatives guy. Dumpster muffin ( talk) 15:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I've moved the following section here from the Reactions section, becuase I don't think it belongs there, but am not sure where (if anywhere) it should go:
That's pretty much exactly what the Economist says... I just don't know though. It almost reads like hyperbole on their part. :-/ -- Falcorian (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliments. We've done our best. There have been some paid UC goons that come here to edit from time to time but they usually don't get far. This isn't really a place to discuss the topic, but I think where its headed is possibly the worst of all outcomes: the grove is destroyed, the football-player only gym is built, and memorial is left as earthquake unsafe as ever. In the meantime crime plagues campus as police are distracted. There were two recent killings and just last week a robbery spree starting at LSA and hitting four others as the monster-mask wearing bunch made it to Southside.
Dumpster muffin (
talk)
17:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
References
The university stopped allowing outside supplies at or around the time of Judge Miller's latest ruling... But I haven't yet found a source with more details (like a date). There was then some back and forth between the supporters and the university (involving the city council as well), then there was a judicial ruling on the subject of removing protesters (and whether they had to be be given food or not), and then the university decided to start giving them water and energy bars.
However, I can only find sources right now for the last bit. Can anyone help me here? -- Falcorian (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The sentence: "The University also disputes the value behind the City of Berkeley's law, pointing towards groups like the United States Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service that argue coast live oaks are neither a threatened nor an endangered species." Is not properly cited. The part about the USDA and not being endangered is cited, but no mention is made of the university disputing the law.
Anyone have an idea of what to do with it? Removal seems simplest, but the fact still seems useful. -- Falcorian (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking we should move all UCs claims into their own section. To get the full effect of UC thumbing its nose and any and everything "that law doesn't apply to us" "yeah its falling down, but half a billion $ is fair" "our paid consultant doesn't know anything about a burial ground" "what old trees?" "these trees are worthless" "our paid consultants didn't see an earthquake fault" "there are only 8 trees in the grove" "we are not wasting money on these fences...trust us" and on and on Dumpster muffin ( talk) 15:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Just some food for thought if looking for a reliable source about any of the following topics: http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2008/06/19_ruling.pdf
QuixoticPillow ( talk) 01:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't put anything past the UC administrators at this point. The propoganda effort is really ugly. They've even sent their own people to this very page to push their agenda. Anyway here's info from a reliable source about the flaws in Miller's decision: [13]. Incidentally Miller seems to be bending over backwards to please the UC administrators. When she can no longer rely on the letter of the law, she says (repeatedly) that she is deciding in favor of the administrators because to do otherwise would be "absurd". C'mon Judge Miller, surely you can do better than THAT. Dumpster muffin ( talk) 05:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is full of propoganda, jedi. It has been uncovered a few times and that's just the very tip of the iceberg. Here's one example: [14]. It's in the University bureacrats interest to slant this story and leave out key details. They are paid to successfully carry out projects, not to spend millions on engineering, planning, litigation, security, and PR, only to have it flushed down the toilet. If the story is slanted, residents and students come here and walk away a little more likely to support the bureaucrats/goons. That you can't see the propogandizing might mean it is working on you.
There are many elements to the propoganda. One good one is to claim Memorial Stadium is earthquake unsafe and has been for decades(!). If it is unsafe, you'd think the bureaucrats would have done something about it in the short term -- move the offices to Harmon, do a retrofit, etc. The bureaucrats have hired engineers and construction crews to retrofit many, many buildings. Another I like is the way the bureaucrats tell a sob story about the poor female athletes that have to change in their cars right now. This is classic manipulation. It paints the grove-supporters as depraved sexists who don't care that an innocent nipple might be exposed, paints the bureacrats as wanting to help out the girls. It also draws in some of those that would oppose the center if it were just for football players (which it is!). No one has questioned why the bureaucrats haven't simply made one of the rooms in CMS available as a changing room?
No, destroying nature is not the bureaucrats' goal, but when looking for a site for the football-player training facility they weighed nature (Memorial Grove) vs a parking lot (the one adjacent and the planned one at Maxwell) and decided in favor of the parking lot. Dumpster muffin ( talk) 19:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
(Section moved to bottom because of recent activity.)
This is a style guide issue... if there is no objection, I'm going to move the page to Berkeley oak grove protest per the Manual of Style. -- Ckatz chat spy 21:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
i'm thinkin "berkeley memorial oak grove controversy". the memorial aspect needs more attention here. 71.112.10.248 ( talk) 03:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
One source I located (don't recall what it was at the moment.. most likely an Oakland newspaper from the 1920s) did contain excerpts from the dedication speech for the stadium, and made it clear that at least the stadium and a garden located to the north of the stadium were both being dedicated to victims of WWI, but still no mention of the grove. I'll keep looking though, as time permits. -- UC_Bill ( talk) 19:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah thanks, but we already have the Environment News Service article calling it Memorial Oak Grove -- isn't that sufficient? Dumpster muffin ( talk) 04:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The court case section needs some expansion, mainly in the subject of the University's reply to the initial ruling. They made a few changes to the construction plan and these need to be documented, perferably from sources written at the time (as they'll be more detailed then later summary pieces).
Also, a final ruling is out. I'll be updating the article to take it into account. A few sources so far:
-- Falcorian (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice if someone could find a campus map and highlight relevant areas. Agnamus ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The article doesn't seem to mention the third "fence" at all. The UCPD blocked off a city sidewalk with a "police do not cross" short fence and put in 24-hour guards, first real cops then rent-a-cops, with a floodlight powered with a generator. This was a pretty big development, taking over part of city property (on the grounds of exigency) and cutting off access even via the telephone pole, but it seems this otherwise thorough article says nothing about it. 136.152.181.2 ( talk) 19:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
California Football fans have heavily opposed the tree sit and the tree sitters themselves.
I don't see how the citation in the article supports this generalization. At most, the source seems to express the personal musings of some football fans. However valid and justified these musings may be, they can hardly be cited as representing the views of "California football fans" in general. -- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 01:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
University of California, Berkeley oak grove controversy. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)