Talk:Barrington Hall (Berkeley, California)/Archive 1

message: M Dillion indicated that there's no soucre for the student death in my original edit.  Most newspapers in the area seemed to have started archiving editions in 1995.  I'll look into more research from my memory as a student (not in Barrington)- the student who died was named "Juan" and depending on who's telling the story he either fell, jumped, or was pushed off the roof the week after the "all-night riot" incident.  I will look into sources.
:*His name was Juan Mendoza from Taos, New Mexico.  He was 19 or 20 years old and the fall/jump/push occurred sometimes in Spring, 1990.  --AStanhope 16:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: student death

message: I lived at Barrington from 1974-78, and was house president and Board rep. I'd really like to expand this article, since there is much more to the history, culture, and significance of Barrington Hall than the unfortunate events preceding its closing. I'm also going to see if the USCA will release some historical photographs into the public domain, GFDL, or CC free license. MCB 17:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A very good initiative! I think that Barrington Hall in its many aspects was alwas something special and the time there was formative and singular for many. Two of us have visited Andreas Floer there in the eighties and have never seen anything like it again. Erkabo 19:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: DanielCD, I'm not clear why you reverted all of User:Cindery's edits. While much was added which doesn't really belong, or was badly styled/written, some of what was added was worth keeping. I've edited some of what Cindery restored; please don't remove material without an explanation. Argyriou 03:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops. Looks like I made a mistake. Sorry. --DanielCD 06:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well be nasty about it. I realize that. --DanielCD 16:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cindery and DanielCD's edits 

message: not sure where/if to put this.  i think some mention of the slingshot would be ok--it's a well-known anarchist newspaper, it was started in barrington, and it still exists. (it evolved out of "the biko plaza news," during ant-apartheid protests.  funnily enough, ex-barringtonian jeff kravitz, now a lawyer, who helped start both publications, is running for congress right now--california 5th district: sacramento. he has the green party's endorsement...and a website, where he lists involvement with slingshot/biko plaza news as accomplishments...) but anyway, maybe slingshot could be listed in "long tradition of social and political activism" etc?
i don't think ian was "famous" enough to be listed as notable--but his obituary in the slingshot gives interesting perspective/info on barrington. ("southside wingnut culture" and "unofficial Nudity Liberation Front.") maybe it could be listed in external references? like the allison roberts piece, it's a subjective account, but it was published:
http://slingshot.tao.ca/displaybi.php?0059022
Cindery 05:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ian ray/slingshot?

message: (begin comment by Mr. Atoz) Barrington Hall was not =the= headquarters of the University of California at Berkeley anti-apartheid movement in the 1980s.
I have no information about the 1970s.  Several members of Barrington were very active in the Berkeley anti-apartheid movement from late 1984 to 1986.  For example, Barrington members often brought large amounts of food to the student and community occupation of Sproul Plaza (then known at Biko Plaza by the anti-apartheid movement to honor the late South African student activist Steve Biko) MrAtoz 23:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. The article should probably read, "a center of activity of the anti-apartheid movement". --MCB 02:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Headquarters" of the anti-apartheid movement? 

message: is not copyvio--the link is provided free on the barrington site (which is still busted at moment, i think). anyway, the film was made by mahlen morris and his brother, and they have always provided free access to it online.  adam stanhope put it on youtube for easier access, because the site is down (but the link is still available through cache--it was you-tubed only because the cache was a long, clumsy link.
Cindery 04:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If so, please switch the links anyway. The YouTube page can't be linked, since it does not give licensing information. Dmcdevit·t 01:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thoroughly false. We link to bazillions of Web pages that do not have copyright information at all. This has never been, and still is not, any kind of problem. Copyright terrorism is unacceptable conduct. --FOo 21:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If you're willing to license it under the GFDL, please upload it to Commons instead of Youtube. 67.117.130.181 16:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: you tube

message: This is getting really silly.
The link to the video on YouTube will stay.
There are two main aspects of this discussion.  One is linking to YouTube videos in general.  That appears to be a fight for another day.  The other aspect is linking to this video specifically.  I wish to address that.
Both User:Cindery and I know Mahlen and his brother personally.  We all lived together, in fact, at Barrington Hall in Berkeley, California - the subject of this article.  Mahlen and his brother are aware of the desire here to link to the video.  There was a question about the Matrix soundtrack - that question has been answered by Mahlen and his brother rebuilding the video sans music.  There is, therefore, no copyright issue with this work.
The Wikipedia depends on experts on an article's topic to decide what information is relevant and not in a given article.  Both Cindery and I are, by virture of our personal histories at Barrington Hall, "experts" on the topic.  The video exists.  It is an essential piece of the history of Barrington Hall.  A link to the video belongs in this article.
I'd like to suggest that people who are super-paranoid about violating copyright laws focus their time and energy on articles that link to YouTube where the article's editors simply don't care.  Cindery and I "care" and I'm not going to allow anyone to interfere with this aspect of the article because they have wrong and unhelpful understanding of copyright law and how it works in the real world.  --AStanhope 21:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you ask Mahlen to put on the youtube page a statement saying "I am the copyright holder for this video", or "This video is authorized to be on YouTube by the copyright holder"? Having that information *at YouTube* should make this particular bit of copyright paranoia go away. Argyriou (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Cock!  --AStanhope 23:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but look - I attributed the video to Mahlen and his brother in the notes associated with it in YouTube.  Regardless, Mahlen's version is now the one in question.  There should no longer be any need for discussion.  --AStanhope 00:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *It's not so much the attribution, but the assertion that you have permission. If you, for example, posted to a YouTube video taken from some local newscast, saying that the video was from Channel 5 isn't enough - the uploader on YouTube would have to say that he had permission from Channel 5 to upload it. Technically, right now, Mahlen doesn't say that the video is his, so someone who doesn't know Mahlen might assume that he uploaded it without permission. If Mahlen says, on YouTube, that he owns the rights to the video, or that he has permission from the copyright holder, or that the copyright holder has released the video into the public domain, then there's a presumption that the material is not in violation of copyright. Mahlen could also go through the process of releasing the video under the GFDL or a CC license, but that's not really necessary. Argyriou (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Copyright law is more complicated than that - Mahlen and Clark own copyright on that video automatically, unless they take some sort of steps to place it into the public domain or give it a free license. They don't have to enforce that copyright if they don't want to, but they have it anyway. Argyriou (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Right on, Cindery!  Any chance, you think, that we could convince the Lord of the Flies people here to move to another island and leave us alone?  --AStanhope 02:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: YouTube redux

message: ...mimsy-whomever was clearly editing in bad faith in late Dec by deleting the link without discussion, as he was politely informed in early Nov that the link was not a copyvio, and that he should not even be attempting to delete it without discussion (see below). He is also an official member of the "You Tube Deletion Committee" started by Dmcdevit--i.e., has an admitted bias/ego investment in something other than editing this article.  From his current talkpage, you can easily observe that "Nearly Headless Nick" is a close ally, and not constructively for the benefit of Wikipedia, from what I have seen--NHN has recently made the bizarrely ludicrous accusation on mumsy's talkpage--to Arygiou--that stating any alternate opinions about YT links is "disruptive." He clearly has ZERO idea what "disruptive" means, as on-topic good faith editorial opinions on talkpages are never disruptive--or perhaps he does know and is trying to bully??? NHN, on the other hand, is in fact participating in a project which is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point; has certainly had a decidedly and idiotically disruptive effect on this article, in my experienced judgement.  My feeling is that they can get lost and stay lost, or we can take it to a higher level.  They are not editors of this article, they have categorically refused to engage in discussion on the talkpage of this article while making edits they know are disputed, and they do NOT have consensus on policy pages--consensus is against them. What they lack in consensus they have tried to compensate for with bullying (which disgusts me).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cindery#Barrington_hall
Cindery 06:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarification: Nearly Headless Nick and Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington are the same person, so to say they are close allies is an understatement. If you click on Nearly Headless Nick's signature above, it takes you to Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington's home page. The names are based on a character from Harry Potter. Girondin 23:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: sockpuppetesque? meatpuppetesque? I don't understand. They are A SINGLE ACCOUNT. It's just that the sig says "Nearly Headless Nick", while the account is at User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. There's some way to change your sig so it doesn't say your name, even though it points back to your account.
"there's some way to change your sig so it doesn't say your name" is SOCKPUPPETESQUE, derrrrr. And again, it changes not at all any substantive element of mimsy whomever's bad faith editing. Did you have a point?
Cindery 00:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what you mean by "names," but there is a DEFINITE need to point out lying, bullying, bad faith, etc: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington#Lennon. See also current EL talkpage/RFC.
Cindery 08:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: * Has anyone ever considered that AGF is a two-way street?  It is absolutely correct to insist that we do not link to rich media which violates copyright (contributory infringement, as it's known, which has been identified as a legal and ethical problem for the project regardless of what anybody here might assert), and the entire dispute could have been settled right at the outset by calmly stating the evidence that the work is (unlike very many YouTubes) not a copyright infringement.  Instead I see a lot of arm-waving and hysterical assertions of "copyright terrorism" which really does not help.  So: after the holidays, how about everybody takes a dose of calm  and move on? Guy (Help!) 10:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *There were repeated assertions, and heated discussions (above) regarding the propriety of the link. Sometime after those discussions died down, with the link having been restored, the same user came through and deleted it again, without having bothered to check the talk page or provide any rationale for the deletion, beyond a mechanical insistence that all YouTube links are invalid. That is why I have assumed that the particular user was not acting in good faith. Argyriou (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: evidence of bad faith

message: It's been 5 days and a holiday weekend; I've unprotected the article in the hope cooler heads will now prevail and the edit war will not resume. If it does, it can be protected again. Reading through the comments here, I'm hoping there's a consensus on the specific issue of the YouTube link. --MCB 22:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: Much of this article is in dire need of citations.
Thanks, ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 07:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Choose your battles.  --AStanhope 04:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Battle? ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 08:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (I am assuming this is again about the YouTube issue) Look, its just not worth arguing; it will only cause more bad-blood between various editors. Instead this should go for Arbitration, where they will deal (issue by issue) with the copyright issues as well as the reliable issues. Common sense and the law will prevail. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I long ago stopped caring about the YouTube link here. I actually slightly lean towards supporting it's inclusion...  Most of my copyright concerns are alleviated and it's relevant to the article. My main concern with the article now is it's current failure to satisfy WP:V (and possible violations of NOR). ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 08:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pick you battles, dude. Pick your battles. :] — Nearly Headless Nick 08:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just formatting--there are references instead of inline citations. I will make the conversion when I have time if consensus is that it's necessary/a good idea, etc. There is a great deal more in the curent refs--especially from Krista Gaspar's "Counterculture's Last Stand" --that should probably be incorporated into the article. Also, many more Bancroft library refs. Article is definitely "in progress," like most Wiki articles.-Cindery 21:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In-line citations are pretty much the standard here. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 21:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If you want to provide (Book, Page) type citations, I'll be more then happy to convert them into more complete  citations. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 07:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's more elegant and useful to leave the Green Book as a general ref, instead of citing it 30 times in the article.-Cindery 20:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting citations 

message: I don't know "where the bodies are buried" on the Lemmings--way before my time.  They were all friends with  Jones, Cohen,  Clay etc., and they did come back to visit--that's how it's common knowledge that the mural of cars-off-cliff was one of Lemmings' album covers. This refers to the band, under "Code of the West": http://us1.fakescience.com/scientificjournal.php, and is good jumping off place for further research. They were a significant Berkeley band of the late 70s/early 80s. If the album cover is not online somewhere, someone who has it on vinyl should take a picture of it.-Cindery 20:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemmings

message: They were popular in 1980, apparently. Should perhaps be mentioned in article, as they have a Wiki article. You can buy the "handbill" for only $43.00!  That's a pretty good 27-year appreciation in value for something that looks like it cost one tenth of a cent? :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cindery (talk • contribs) 02:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Zeros

message: They played Barrington, but there are no refs. If you miraculousy somehow preserved *your* "handbill," (and are not selling it on ebay for $43...) scan it and email it to me or Mahlen.-Cindery 02:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the college paper would have a reference to it?  If you (or anyone who happens to wonder by) has access to the archives they could look it up and get the information for a proper citation. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 05:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A call for ephemera is a call to those who were there, and might have some. If there are an extant handbills etc., they would not be references. They would be scannable image sources. There are many in the Bancroft library, but not for Negativland or the Jesus and Mary Chain.-Cindery 06:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Negativland]], [[The Jesus and Mary Chain]]

message: The Green Book--the main ref for the article--notes that the decison to close Barrington happened in 1989, but that Barrington was not actually closed until March, 1990. (Meaning: people were living there in until March 1990.)  I think that should be clear in the article, but perhaps both dates can be used, specifying that one was year of decision to close, the other the year or actual closure? -Cindery 20:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have page numbers for that?  I can add  tags for it no problem if you have page numbers... and it should keep people from modifying it further. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 20:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1989/1990

message: Hmm. I don't understand why a section was blanked without discussion?  As the same person affixed fact tags to each item in the section, agreed with someone else to wait for sources, agreed that one of the items was not disputed at all, and there is both a new reference and an ongoing discussion about it, it doesn't seem helpful or constructive to me.-Cindery 08:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: blanking