This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 5 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. An archive index is available here.
Length of Dellums aside in Berkeley in the 1970's
I notice that the sub-section on Berkeley's history in the 1970's has an extensive aside about Ron Dellums activity in the late 1960's and early 1970's, including his time on the Berkeley City Council. While I think that Dellums certainly merits mention, I think that according the Neutral Point of View Policy on Weight, this section perhaps could be removed or pared down, or would be more useful in a section on prominent figures in Berkeley politics. Any input would be very helpful and appreciated. Mountrue14 (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree completely. The Berkeley page should not be Ron Dellums v.2. All of that is covered in his bio page.--Chimino (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback, Chimino. In that case, I propose that the information on Dellums be moved from the page. I would propose adding it to his personal page, but there is no source material provided. If this is amenable to all, I will move forward with this edit. Thanks. Mountrue14 (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The new lead photo is of poor quality (blurry) and does not show the city. I agree the Campinelle Tower alone is not an ideal lead photo, but until we can find a proper skyline photo, it is preferable to the mess which is showing right now.--Chimino (talk) 02:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
It really should read "California" rather than "Northern California" in the lead. There is no U.S. state of "Northern California" (it's a regional designation) and it should have its proper state listed as to mirror the other city articles on WP.--Chimino (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
There is no confusion in the reader's mind whether or not Berkeley is in California. California is listed and wikilinked in the infobox, and of course California is the larger entity containing Northern California. Instead of replacing Northern California with California, I propose that "United States" be removed from the first sentence, as the country is already listed in the infobox. Binksternet (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The last sentence of the lead reads "The city is noted as one of the most politically liberal in the nation, with one study placing it as the third most liberal city in the United States.". Reference number 7 links quite an old (8 years) webpage that lists "The 25 most liberal cities in the US", and claims this information can be found at http://www.votingresearch.org/. However, I have not had any luck finding the information on that website. Also, the site doesn't strike me as very up-to-date or reliable. (It seems to only have a few short, very general articles on American politics).
Would anyone have any more reliable source that supports the claim that Berkeley "is the third most liberal city in the US"? Uncle Alf (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
There's a lot of dubious nonsense in this article. Feel free to remove the claim.--Chimino (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I have removed the claim. Uncle Alf (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Everybody who lives in Berkeley slips a third syllable in there. So it's more like Berk-uh-lee. How do we fix that on the Lead? Checkingfax (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
It seems I must be "out of the know", or perhaps just "nobody", because I've lived in Berkeley for 44 years and it's always been "Berk-lee" to me and all the other residents of my acquaintance who are native English-speakers (at least, California-English-speakers). Is slipping in a third syllable some trendy new bit of gentrifier pretentiousness I just haven't noticed yet? More probably, it is only a manifestation of the difficulty some people seem to have in pronouncing two consecutive consonants without adding a bridging vowel sound (e.g., saying "ath-uh-lete" instead of "ath-lete" or, even more locally relevant, "Duh-wight" instead of "Dwight"). 220.127.116.11 (talk) 09:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
My ex has always pronounced it as two syllables. She was a Berkeley native who attended Berkeley High and studied Linguistics at UCB, so I assume she was "in the know." —Stepheng3 (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I've lived in the area for 31 years now and just about nobody pronounces it with three syllables. I have no idea where Checkingfax got this notion. Binksternet (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
There is no doubt whatsoever that no one pronounces it "berk uh lee". There will not be any references anywhere that will show that, unless its from a century ago or an alternate universe.(mercurywoodrose) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)