Talk:University of California, Berkeley oak grove controversy

message: Why is this listed as 2006? It's still going on. The first paragraph makes it sound like its an old thing.
:I put 2006 in the title because that's when it started. However, someone did change 'is a tree sit-in' to 'was a tree sit-in' for no apparent reason. I've changed it back. I've also added "The protest has in progress continuously for over one year." to the lead in with citation. --Falcorian (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we rename the page "University of California, Berkeley Oak Grove Protest"? Or just "Oak Grove Protest" (are there any other ones?)? Is there any official (or at least commonly-used) name for this event by the group itself or in the local news? DMacks (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support a move to 'University of California, Berkeley Oak Grove Protest'. Just 'Oak Grove Protest' seems a little short, maybe 'Berkeley Oak Grove Protest'? --Falcorian (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of google hits for 'Berkeley Oak Grove Protest', so I moved it to that name. DMacks (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006? 

message: 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)
replies: text: The article looks well-referenced and NPOV to me. Ameriquedialectics 20:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good compromise with what the anon was trying to insert.  Nice work.  --Dynaflow babble 21:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I removed the tag because there was no explanation given here as to why it was added in the first place.  If anyone wants to add it back that's fine, but explain the reasons here.  --UC Bill (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I left a message for the user that put it there about a day ago now, and no reply. Sounds like a good move. --Falcorian (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the suggestion, but no, I think I'll stick around. I'd appreciate help with the article, but your idea of help so far has been to swing the article wildly in the other direction. My goal has been to keep it neutral, with every fact I've added cited to a reliable source. If you have other sources to build the article from, I'd like to see them. --Falcorian (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, the university does infact claim 1923 for the trees. "Almost all of the trees on the student-athlete center site were planted by the campus — the result of a 1923 landscaping project — and are not part of an "ancient" grove." --Falcorian (talk) 04:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I have reworded it, however, I'd point out you've provided no source for the acknowledgment, so I've removed it. --Falcorian (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

text: i looked up the definition of arborist and these guys aren't it.   arborists don't go and forcibly remove people from trees,  that isn't part of their training or part of any description i've read of an arborist.    these "arborists" cut the ropes one of the protestors was supporting herself with (they caught her with a bucket truck).   i guess we could call them "security forces" or something like that if you insist.  i'm just describing them in the best term i can find.   i'm pretty sure the university calls them "arborists" and the citations are just parroting that.   71.112.10.248 (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: 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)
replies: text: i looked up the definition of arborist and these guys aren't it.   arborists don't go and forcibly remove people from trees,  that isn't part of their training or part of any description i've read of an arborist.    these "arborists" cut the ropes one of the protestors was supporting herself with (they caught her with a bucket truck).   i guess we could call them "security forces" or something like that if you insist.  i'm just describing them in the best term i can find.   i'm pretty sure the university calls them "arborists" and the citations are just parroting that.   71.112.10.248 (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Goons

message: 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)
replies: text: Here's a Oakland Trib article saying the protesters claim it's a sacred Ohlone burial site. Unless there is an objection, I'm going to move the sacred part to the Burial section and site it off that, something like "The protesters claim the site is a sacred Ohlone burial grounds..." and work it in somewhere. --Falcorian (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds ok to me. The Indians and the protesters view the grove as sacred, at least! Ameriquedialectics 22:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: i like it in the intro, gets the importance of the grove across early on.   it is sourced well enough, sfgate says it is sacred.  71.112.10.248 (talk) 04:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

text: 69....,  the sfgate source doesn't say the memorial grove is sacred because its a burial ground,  it simply calls it sacred.   71.112.10.248 (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Chronicle seems to evidence the claim of "sacredness" to the city law against chopping down coast live oak trees:  Ameriquedialectics 22:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sacred 

message: 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)
replies: text: The controversy isn't purely because of or about a memorial, it's all about an oak grove. Not calling it a "memorial" in the title does not introduce any more editorial bias than leaving it out does (if indeed it's a controversial term), and the term is not needed to provide a precise title for the article. WP:TITLE teaches that we don't need the most detailed technical title possible, only one that is unambiguous and easy to find for most readers. What we have here at most is an editorial disagreement over the best way to present (apparently) controversial info: no matter how it's done, there's a clear opposite viewpoint that would cry "POV!". DMacks (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Since there is still no reliable source for the grove being a memorial, and since this is (apparently) the only remaining point of contention keeping the NPOV tag on the page, how about this as a solution:  we rename the article (again) to Berkeley Memorial Stadium oak grove controversy?  It's a bit long, but it gets the word "memorial" in there while doing so in a completely neutral and verifiable way, and actually uses what's probably the more common name for the grove anyway (as opposed to simply calling it "Berkeley oak grove.")  --UC_Bill (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me. DMacks (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I can see no reason not to. More specific, indisputably correct, and NPOV. --Falcorian (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

text: capitalize Oak and Grove and I'll support this Dumpster muffin (talk) 03:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's not a proper noun. --Falcorian (talk) 03:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Concur again. Dumpster muffin, the whole point is to make it more specific and include the word "memorial" if editors feel that that word should be in the title, but to avoid swinging POV the other way by being overly inclusive about what is a proper noun/name and what is just a prose description. It's clear that the stadium is Memorial, it's not well established (and some would say not established at all) that the grove is--want to have the title with as little contentious content as possible. DMacks (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

text:  It's already sort of a mouthful.  The "Memorial" adjective, like the sacred, is part of the controversy and doesn't need to be included in the title. There is a clear argument that the grove, when referred to as "Memorial Grove" is named in the same way that University Avenue is named after the University and not to honor it or what have you.  I don't see how inserting Memorial into the title increases the objectivity whatsoever.76.102.172.83 (talk) 06:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: 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)
replies: text: You can bring it up at WP:AN if you believe one or more policies have been violated.  --Sapphic (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can also go WP:AIV for disruptive editing (note that changing content to contradict sources and removing sources both could count as vandalism). WP:3RR (which is agnostic of the content) if nothing else. DMacks (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

text: No, it states them as overlapping or superset, not disjoint sets of costs. Nowhere do the sources (or we) say that the $367K does not include any money spent by the police department...just the opposite in fact. "There are two people in the room. There is one male in the room." are neither contradictory nor do they mean that there are three bodies in the room. DMacks (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Above Falcorian claimsThe sources are for separate costs., so at least one editor has been confused by this redundant information.   "I spent $10.  Me and myself also each spent at least $9.50"   Better to trim it down so Falcorian isn't confused anymore.  Dumpster muffin (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. It actually doesn't matter how badly he misinterprets it though...the cited source states something, so wikipedia reports what the source says, and it's up to the reader to understand and/or check the sources. Whether they're separate or overlapping/supersets could certainly use clarification if it's confusing. OTOH, your edit is clearly wrong as it contradicts the source you cite: you write $367K specifically for police with a source that states it's for the "university". DMacks (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I am not confused, but thank you for thinking of me. What I meant is that they are seperately reported costs, and not simply redundent statments of the same thing. The first cost is a general university one (Police + Fencing and Private Security), the second is specificly (and at a later date) for the police department's spending (presumably from increased deployment and overtime). If you'd like to make it more clear though, the first source does break it down: "Of the total security costs, officials said about $100,000 went toward paying for police services at the grove that are not part of normal on-duty operations. [...] Installing the two fences cost a combined $117,000, Mogulof said, and the campus has paid $125,000 for the services of the private guards." --Falcorian (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dumpster Muffin Edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree.   Fresh, Millipede, Olive,  Dumpster Muffin should all be in here.  Dumpster muffin (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fresh's Protest 

message: 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:
:According to the The Economist magazine, RunningWolf says that construction of the athletic center would be a “a hate crime; we call it Guantánamo Berkeley.” He further argues that the Illumaniti and the Masons are conspiring to build the center because "the grove is at the intersection of compass lines connecting the Haas School of Business (money) with Alcatraz (state violence) and the Lawrence Berkeley lab that gave America nukes."http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11412661 The Economist
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)
replies: text: Horrific reporting by the Economist. Have they been taken over by News Corp recently? The article still qualifies as a reliable source, though, and from what I've heard about RunningWolf, that does sound like something he would say, but I won't contest removing it as a distinct minority pov, even though that probably is his POV. Ameriquedialectics 23:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whenever I go to the protest, the phrase "guantanmo Berkeley" is widespread and constantly uttered.  If you watch Youtube videos of the protest yourself, you can heard Gitmo being referenced again and again.  Since Running Wolf is the first tree sitter, unofficial leader (along with Ayr, who seems to be battling for the position), and the general media representative of the protest, I don't think it qualifies as a minority viewpoint.  At the very least I think it's informative and interesting for the unbiased reader to understand what the leadership of the protest sounds like.  As someone who's listened to Running Wolf, I don't think this quote is inaccurate whatsoever.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by QuixoticPillow (talk • contribs) 00:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is pretty awful reporting.   Mention of the old growth trees,  maxwell field alternative,  the burial ground,  earthquake fault, etc etc is sparse.   Theres no byline in the article -- I'm guessing the Economist had their law-and-order type London-born spawn of conservatives correspondent assemble the "piece".  Dumpster muffin (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No articles in the Economist ever have bylines. It is some kind of in-house policy of theirs. I've heard the phrase "Guantánamo Berkeley" quoted before, though. It's in this NYT piece if anyone wants another source for it:. Ameriquedialectics 02:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Economist does not have a facade that it is anything but what it is: a realist, cynical, capitalistic (read: economically conservative) magazine.  However, they are amazingly solid journalists and I would be far more likely to trust the  raw facts in their reporting over the facts in the Berkeley Daily Planet, Daily Californian, or Savetheoaks.com (I read all of these regularly).  Considering that this is the viewpoint of the chief architect of the tree sit, as much as such a viewpoint exists, I don't think it's a minority view unworthy of mentioning.  How can you deny that this is an interesting and somewhat valuable tidbit of information?  If the board of Regents for the University of California believed the protesters were a bunch of aliens in human disguise, I think that would be worthy given its significance.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by QuixoticPillow (talk • contribs) 05:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Props to Falconian for finding a home for the Economist article.  I've read the history of this article and you've done a remarkable job fleshing out this issue and keeping it unbiased.  I'm glad we found non-awkward way (given the information) to insert that quote in there. Eventually, I'd like to work together the varying opinions as to where the lawsuits stand now.  Both sides have claimed victory, but realistically the savetheoak's lawsuit requires the judge being convinced that the stadium is worth less than twice the $600k beam that the university was going to add to it but no longer wants to, meaning that the city's lawyers have to prove that the beam is a required addition, a formidable task but not impossible.  The University has canceled its additional events, which was the only other issue in the lawsuit.  Also, there is the question as to a possible appeal which could, if the city gets behind it, possibly extend the injunction.  Despite all of this, even critics of the university are starting to admit that they will likely win the earthquake-based lawsuit (see recent Berkeley Daily Planet editorials), leaving the entire situation in sort of an awkard phase that's rather interesting.  What will the various sides do next?  The tree-sitters are all in one tree and the university controls 99% of the supplies.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by QuixoticPillow (talk • contribs) 09:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

text: DM, I don't think that your reporting could be construed as NPOV.  Goons.  Incessant reverts.  I think this article is good despite your efforts, not because of your efforts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.141.168 (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economist 

message: 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)
replies: text: http://outside.in/Rochedale_Village_Berkeley_CA/tags/trees - that contains a lot of stories.  If you want a date on the energy bars and water, you can follow this link off that site: http://cbs5.com/local/cal.tree.sitters.2.758270.html , which is 1 pm. June 26th, 2008.  Cheers.  QuixoticPillow (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --Falcorian (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supplies 

message: 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)
replies: text: I guess I felt it was implied that the UC disputes the law?  I mean, you could cite the lawsuit itself fairly easily.  UC has argued that it does not have to abide by Berkeley city law (court agreed), that it does not have to abide by AP earthquake laws (court disagreed), and pretty much everything under the sun that its lawyers *could* argue.  You could include it without the statement that the university disagrees, although I don't really feel it's assertive to guess that the UC disagrees with the justification behind the law (otherwise it would not advocate the building of the athletic center!).  It's like trying to find a source for the US believing in the invasion of Iraq.....  QuixoticPillow (talk) 08:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So they obviously argue the law doesn't apply to them (that's easily cited from the court case), but I at least don't think it's obvious that they dispute it. In fact, by arguing that the law doesn't apply it seems they neatly sidestep the issue of having an opinion on the law. --Falcorian (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we just get rid of the contested part and find a home for the status of Coastal Oaks?  They are considered a "heritage tree" in Berkeley city limits.  QuixoticPillow (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Got a link for the heritage thing? I think I can work it in with one. --Falcorian (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yo, of course.  http://www.berkeleycitizen.org/oakgrove/oakgrove1.htm , http://www.cp.berkeley.edu/LRDP/2020DEIR/4.3_BiologicalRes.pdf (page 3).  I read the law though and it surprisingly doesn't have the word heritage anywhere...so it could be a word-of-mouth sort of thing.  The law is called "oak tree removal ordinance" if you want to take a look, it's the only law called that in the world, so no need to further specify your google search.QuixoticPillow (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I'm a winding down tonight, so I'll probably give it a look over tomorrow... Or Thursday as I expect to be working late tomorrow. :-/ --Falcorian (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

text: DM, you're so funny! I love your cute one liners and clear NPOV POV.  It's really refreshing...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.2.134 (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: 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
:Page 21 - "Substantial evidence supports that the proposed SAHPC will not lie across the trace of an active fault, or across a branch thereof."
:Page 29 -"Substantial evidence supports that the SAHPC is not an addition to the CMS [Memorial Stadium].  The principle structural engineer for the SAHPC project is David A. Friedman.  He stated that his mission, from the start of the project, was to design the SAHPC as a separate structure from the CMS, and that the plan has been developed accordingly."
:Page 122 -"In its findings, the regents 'certifies that it has independently reviewed and considered the information on the information on alternatives provided in the final EIR [Environmental Impact Report] and the administrative record, and finds that all the alternatives are infeasible or undesirable in comparison to the integrated projects'"
:Page 123 -"Panoramic argues that 'the specific findings for each of the five alternatives' are not supported by substantial evidence, and that the findings 'do not explain how any one of [the alternatives] is infeasible, instead citing general inconsistencies with various integrated projects objectives."
:Continued on Page 123 "The first argument fails because, as discussed above, substantial evidence in the records supports the University's analysis of project alternatives...The second argument fails because failure to satisfy  project alternatives is a valid 'other consideration.'"
:Page 60 - "The remaining land use zones addressed...[i.e. all such zones other than Hill Campus and Campus Park] occur in urbanized areas with little or not remaining natural vegetation and limited wildlife habitat values.  No sensitive natural communities, special status species, wetlands or important wildlife movement corridors occur in these zones. ""ʰ
:Page 68 -"Petitioner Oaks alleges that the Oak Grove is a Native American burial ground and therefore is an "unique" archaeological resource... The only evidence cited by Petitioner Oaks of any Native American burial is a comment....from a "Richard Schwartz, Historian" informing the University of a record of the 1923 discovery of remains, and the University's response that it was aware of this record.  Mr. Schwartz's comment is not evidence that the Integrated Projects may have any effect on burial sites.  There is also no evidence in the record that any alleged burial sites, or any other archaeological resource in the Integrated Project area are unique archaeological resources."
QuixoticPillow (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that should be very helpful! --Falcorian (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: SCoA's page on the case, for future reference. --Falcorian (talk) 05:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Do we have a link that isn't put up by the University administrators?   They haven't proven themselves trustworthy in this matter.   Dumpster muffin (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm pretty sure they'd get caught if they photoshopped their own words into the decision - that wouldn't even begin to make sense.  What are they going to do, photoshop the ruling and then pretend like the initial ruling never happened for their next court date?  That's ridiculous 'mam.   They haven't 'proven' themselves untrustworthy when it comes to scanned .pdf files from official documents... this isn't some PR guy trying to argue his point to the media.  QuixoticPillow (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

text: C'mon, DM.  You're grasping at straws here.  UC is 'sending' people to this Wikipedia page to push their agenda???  Just because some people want to remove your ridiculously biased rants (eg Goons) doesn't mean that they are UC plants.  Now we can see who is being absurd...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.2.134 (talk) 04:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They are here -- no question about that.   I don't know if they are being sent here or they just see it as their jobs to try to propogandize.    You can bet pats on the back and promotions will be given if the Memorial Grove is clearcut and the addition built.  Dumpster muffin (talk) 05:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So by 'propagandizing' a wikipedia page (evidence of which i have yet to see from the UC perspective), the university will fulfill its master plan of destroying the grove and stomping on nature?  Oh, I see.  That makes sense.  Thanks for enlightening me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.141.168 (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

text: So, we have a history of the edits.  Which ones are undoubtedly by University plants?  And, after looking at their edits (which are unquestionably not by UC plants), which of them are less biased than your own changes?  With the name 'Dumpster Muffin' you are either a tree sitter with an outstanding arrest warrant for theft or a 'ground support' member who  idolizes her, so how is your editing the article any better than the other side?  Even if the Chancellor or Coach Tedford personally edited this article, I don't see it as any more biased than an actual treesitter editing (at worst, they'd be equal).  Your edits have been borderline worthy of mention to Wiki administrators, like the 'goon' edits.  I'm probably done responding to conspiracy theories, like most of y'all.  Cheers. Quixotic Pillow 03:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court Case Ruling 

message: (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. --Ckatzchatspy 21:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that.  --Dynaflow babble 21:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

text: If you'd hold off a bit, I actually think the article should be moved to a different title. Right now the title references purely the protest, but I've been wondering recently if it shouldn't be moved to reference the whole incident (something like Berkeley oak grove controversy) to make the parts covering the court case a little less... out of place. I'm not really sure though and would like some thoughts. ;) --Falcorian (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Berkeley oak grove controversy would be an appropriate title.  --UC Bill (talk) 17:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, that sounds fine, I'll move it. --Falcorian (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for moving it - and for the title; good point about referencing the overall issue. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 05:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, do you have a source? The only ones I can find for it being a memorial are those put out by those in opposition to the proposal. --Falcorian (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've searched through old newspaper archives (through Google news) from the 1920s and can't find anything about the grove being a memorial, but plenty on the stadium being a memorial.  I'll keep looking (and possibly try Lexus-Nexus or some other more extensive collection) but unless a source can be found I think the "memorial" part should be removed from the article entirely.  --UC_Bill (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, will do. Ameriquedialectics 20:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry, got some disagreement here.   the grove is the memorial oak grove:   71.112.10.248 (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a look at it. The source, "Environment News Service," does not provide a byline or a reference for the "World War I Veterans Memorial" claim. Ameriquedialectics 22:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't need to provide a reference,  90% of the other references don't have further references.  Dumpster muffin (talk) 03:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I found the same article (LA Times, 1923-11-24) and shelled out the $4 to view the PDF.  No mention of the oak grove at all, let alone it being a memorial.  Lots of mentions of the stadium being a memorial.  The LA Times article was the only one I could find that had significant quotes, and one of only a few that mentioned the dedication to WWI veterans at all.  Unless somebody provides a reliable source on the grove itself being a memorial, I think the case here is closed.  --Sapphic (talk) 02:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: $4! Thanks for the dedication. ;) --Falcorian (talk) 03:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

text: That only establishes that the grove is "called 'Memorial Oak Grove' by supporters" or something along those lines.  I don't think the Environment News Service can possibly be considered an unbiased source in this case, which is fine for supporting their cause (which I happen to agree with) but not okay for a Wikipedia article.  They're certainly notable enough to warrant mention (which isn't much different than an article reporting "Bush labeled 'Worst President Ever' by the New York Times" which would also be allowed if the New York Times reported that) which gets the claim that the grove is itself a memorial (which I happen not to agree with) into the article.  Unless you can come up with a better source than that, preferably something from around the time the grove would have been dedicated (1923-11-23) I think that's the best you can hope for in getting the message out.  I think the people who edit Wikipedia tend to be on the left side of the political divide — it's just that some care more about editorial standards and a neutral point of view than these particular trees.  This isn't the place for agendas, however noble they may be.  --Sapphic (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: 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:
*Daily Cal
*Berkeley Daily Planet
*SF Chronicle
*SJ Mercury
*The AP
--Falcorian (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done some, added in a cite from the actual ruling (released as a PDF, hosted by the Daily Planet who are probably not photoshopping it). More work is still needed if anyone would like to use the (plentiful) sources I provided to expand it, that would be great, otherwise I will at some point. --Falcorian (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court case (and recent ruling) 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'd love to, but I don't know of a map with a viable license. --Falcorian (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask and ye shall receive! 13 months later that is... :File:Map of Memorial Stadium And Oak Grove.svg. I'm going to clean it up some first. --Falcorian (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Image added. Some rendering issues that hopefully the server will work out (it's currently showing the old version without the grove marked.). Further edits are welcome, but difficult since the image is about 3 gigs once opened for editing in Inkscape. ;-) --Falcorian (talk) 04:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campus map 

message: 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)
replies: text: If you have a source to cover it we can add it. --Falcorian (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third fence? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. --Falcorian (talk) 04:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Falcorian. On second thought, I don't think this even requires a talk page discussion. The source provided is obviously non-scholarly and irrelevant to the claim being made. Besides, the claim is simply too general to be supported by any source, however good. I've decided to just remove the claim. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 05:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football fans 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on University of California, Berkeley oak grove controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080603113359/http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/onlineservice/planning/Guideline_IIIC1_OakTree_ordinance_and_diagram.pdf to http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/onlineservice/planning/guideline_iiic1_oaktree_ordinance_and_diagram.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified