Talk:People's Park (Berkeley)

Hi jlgolson. The events of "Bloody Thursday" and its aftermath were "absurd and deadly theater" on both sides. Each side was trying to assert itself in ways that defy reason and cannot be understood except by using the "theater" metaphor. Why, for example, would anyone plant flowers in an empty lot in Berkeley, intending to make a political point? Why would anyone guard such lots using National Guard troops to prevent flowers from being planted? "Absurd" is an accurate word that describes the phenomenon, not either side. And "deadly" is also correct, in that People's Park (not to mention Kent State, the Weathermen, the Black Panthers, and so on) led to confrontations that resulted in considerable death and injury. The list of 1960's societal tensions (regarding race, the war in Vietnam, sexual mores, women's rights, traditional modes of authority and a predominantly materialist interpretation of the American dream) were very real motivators at the time, the beginning of a "culture war" that continues to this day. I know of no better way, or more NPOV to refer to these tensions. Would welcome your suggestions. Founders4 05:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The Battle Over "Peacefully"

Please let me weigh in here. While the demonstration on "Bloody Thursday," May 15, 1969 was NOT peaceful, Governor Reagan was critical even of peaceful demonstrations opposing the Vietnam War, and the May 31, 1969 demonstration WAS peaceful. Why do you choose to delete "peaceful," when this is an accurate description in both instances? It is not a political word.

I have changed it back, since it is acccurate. If you believe otherwise, please explain.Founders4 18:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

I really haven't had too much involvement w/ this article, but I think it should go back per the description of "Bloody Thursday." The first two paragraphs are pretty bad in that respect. Yanksox 05:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you be more specific, please? I've edited these two paragraphs extensively and can see no way to communicate what happened without mentioning the politics of the participants. The section may appear to lack NPOV because of the highly charged political rhetoric of the participants, but actually it is just descriptive. Would welcome any suggestions.Founders4 07:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Two quotes that really get me:

During its first three weeks, People's Park came to be enjoyed and appreciated by University students and local residents alike. Telegraph Ave. merchants were particularly appreciative of the community's efforts to transform a neighborhood eyesore into a place of beauty.

Reagan was intolerant of Americans who peacefully protested the war in Vietnam, whom he called "commie sympathizers,"

The first one does sound like POV it could be reworded and for the second intolerant is a pretty harsh and pretty POV word. Those are the two quotes that I noticed right off the bat. Yanksox 12:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Yanksox. I'll work on it this evening. I think I can expand the first paragraph to include the fact that some people were probably offended by the expropriation of University property, without its permission, to create a park. I honestly didn't know anyone who felt that way at the time, since the park enjoyed overwhelming community support, but there must have been a few.

The second one is more difficult, because it goes to the root of why the confrontation occurred. Perhaps I can substitute "critical" for "intolerant," which is more descriptive. Yes, I think that would help. And I can make the point that many Americans of the era were offended by those who protested the war in Vietnam. In California Reagan made his mark politically by criticizing "the rabble," and "commie sympathizers" was the term he used to refer to those who opposed the war--even if the demonstrations were entirely peaceful, he viewed those who participated as unpatriotic. By extension, all demonstrations at the University of California at Berkeley were held suspect by Reagan.

Anyway, thanks again. I'll try to balance it out, while still conveying some of the flavor of it all. It's tricky, because such events occur in a highly charged atmosphere; if one attempts to make it too mild, one fails to convey that reality.Founders4 17:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Changed quite a bit in the "Bloody Thursday" section. Hope it meets approval with respect to NPOV. Founders4 07:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't have changed it because of me. But, it does sound more academic, nice work. Yanksox 13:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Alot of personal POV and talking like a radical

Hi Vckums. I keep trying to satisfy people when they make comments about specific statements; guess I'll just keep trying. Please tell me what sounds "radical" to you? Founders4 08:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Rosebud Abigail Denovo.

Hi Eptin. Thanks for adding the bullets to "Subsequent History" and for separating out the information on Rosebud Abigail Denovo.

Actually I'm wondering if the Rosebud Abigail Denovo information belongs here at all. It has very little to do with People's Park. What would you think about eliminating it entirely?

Anyone else care to comment?Founders4 09:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The more I thought about it, the more it seemed clear that the section on Rosebud Abigail Denovo has no relevance to the People's Park story. Her only involvement was as one of thousands of protestors in the 1991 demonstrations. Hope this meets with Wiki approval; no vandalism is intended. I have, by the way, left the link to Denovo's story.Founders4 18:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to create a stub about Rosebud Denovo using the info that was removed. The info, to my knowledge, is good, non-plagiarised info that people would still want to know about; indeed, the way that I found my way to the People's Park article is by searching for Rosebud Denovo. BTW, there are several references used in the People's Park article, were any of them used to support the Rosebud section? (in which case I should also copy the references to the Rosebud Denovo article). Eptin 21:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. It is good info, and the writing has been cleaned up over time, so it would be a shame to lose it. The only reference in the People's Park article is an external link, "What Really Killed Rosebud?" by Claire Burch. I've read part of it, and it seems very informative. I'm curious: What sparked your interest in Rosebud?Founders4 04:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I was reading an article in the New York Times called "Diary of a Soldier's Wife: Tie-Dye and Camo Don't Mix" (You can read it here ) and the couple had a conversation about "Rosebud". They gave an ounce of background about who she was, but with a phrase from the article like "What was I doing with someone who consorts with people who kill petite 20-year-old protesters?", I was curious about the incident. Eptin 20:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Gimme a break!

Does the person who wrote this have a source? :

"In keeping with Governor Reagan's "bloodbath" statement, the police were given carte blanche to use whatever methods they chose..." ?--Pkrembs 22:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Though I don't have it close at hand, I've read the interview with Sheriff Frank Madigan that appeared in the May 30, 1969 Berkeley Daily Gazette. In it Madigan says that he was ordered to "do whatever it takes" to quell the rioting--which extended to the use of shotguns for crowd control. The decision by his deputies to obscure their badge numbers--well-documented at the time--was apparently a personal one and did not reflect official policy. Madigan ended up apologizing for the behavior of some of his deputies who had just returned from duty in Vietnam; this group lumped hippies, anti-war protestors and People's Park protestors in the same category, and they felt justified in using lethal force to go after them. After the extent of civilian injuries became apparent, Madigan pledged to rein his deputies in and make sure they knew they were not in pursuit of the Viet Cong during protests. Subsequent Berkeley protests were handled much more carefully as a result of the People's Park debacle. Kensington7 01:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Move article --> disambiguation

Is there an over-riding reason for this articles location to be the 'People's Park' article with all others relegated to the disambiguation page ? I cannot see that there is. I suggest making this articles name the disambiguation page.

Certainly, if one were to take a poll of all people I think it likely that one of the other People's Parks would be the most chosen (in Shanghai, for instance). Amongst English speakers, given that this is the English language Wikipedia, perhaps it would be Berkeley's People's Park, but I also doubt that - I cannot see that this location is noteworthy except to its local residents.

Not knowing the specific location, I am willing to stand corrected, but I wish to put down that there should be a little rational debate on this issue. Thoughts ? Discuss please. I am watching this page too :) --Phillip Fung 06:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)