Talk:University of California, Berkeley oak grove controversy

2006?

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)

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)

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)

Lots of google hits for 'Berkeley Oak Grove Protest', so I moved it to that name. DMacks (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

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)

The article looks well-referenced and NPOV to me. Amerique^dialectics 20:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a good compromise with what the anon was trying to insert. Nice work. --Dynaflow babble 21:49, 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Goons

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)

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)

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)

number of trees?

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)

I'll go count them at lunch, if I have a chance. We'd need a reliable source (my counting is about as "original research" as it could get) but knowing the correct number should help in finding an accurate third-party source, I think. Plus, I'm curious about this grove now. :) --UC_Bill (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The numbers I've seen in the press are 26 and 44. The 26 was in references to Costal Oaks, and the 44 is normally just "trees". I would sumize that means 44 trees of which 26 are oaks. --Falcorian ^(talk) 17:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Another article that we've cited says ~"two-thirds of the 140 trees will be removed". --Falcorian ^(talk) 18:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you insist on putting the 26 number in there as if it is fact while this discussion is here? I'd ask you again to please desist from POV-ing this article, you've made your bias painfully obvious and it is harming the article. 71.112.10.248 (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Because it is cited from numerous sources. [1][2][3].

Those were the ones I found in about a minute (just from clicking the first few cited links), there are certainly others. As for bias, you're certainly being hypocritical. I'd argue it's clearly you that has an agenda (goons?) and has been pushing it without regards to wikipedia policy such as WP:RS. --Falcorian ^(talk) 17:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how reporting on the number of trees can be biased, but it doesn't seem that the protesters or the university can agree on anything:[4]. Amerique^dialectics 19:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

here's how it is biased, falcorian continues to downplay the number of trees in the memorial grove. while some have said the grove has as many as 90 trees will be removed, falcor insists on putting 26 in there, which he earlier claimed were all planted by the university....a smaller # of trees implies a less significant grove to some 71.112.10.248 (talk) 04:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

How does "dozens" sound here? The sources all seem to disagree, with ~30 on the low side and ~140 on the high. 71.112.10.248 (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm for the SF Chronicle's account of the #s of trees in the grove, and the #s to be cut, in absence of "better" or more reliable sources. As an aside, i find the focus in this article on the tree-sit largely a distraction from the legal issues underpinning the controversy. The article "as is" is poorly organized and does a poor job of explaining what exactly is keeping this issue in court. Amerique^dialectics 22:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Amerique! I like the tree-sit stuff (to me that's the more notable part of the whole escapade) but I agree the legal case isn't described at all well here. Sounds like there were several issues in the lawsuit and the ruling was long and complicated AND the newspapers haven't done a great job at summarizing the suits, so this could be difficult to do well. 71.112.10.248 (talk) 05:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

football/"student athletic center"

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)

Q: Besides the football team, which Cal athletes will benefit from the center?

A. More than 400 student-athletes from 13 different teams — 7 women's and 6 men's — will use the new facility. While public attention has focused on football, the new center will be a tremendous improvement for other teams — like women's field hockey and softball, and soccer — that train and play on fields adjacent to the stadium. Without locker rooms of their own, many of the women on these teams currently change clothes in their cars to prepare for games and practice. The student-athlete center will support gender equity and ensure that all Cal teams have safe, adequate facilities. --Falcorian ^(talk) 17:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

hmmm, a pretty biased site there falcorian. i guess i'll accept it, but we have to accept the pro-sitter sites too then. i happen to know that UCB site is false , the teams all have facilities already down at harmon. female athletes don't have to change in their cars. their language is pretty slippery there -- they lament the lack of girls locker rooms, but don't come out and say the girls will have lockers at the new place... 71.112.10.248 (talk) 04:16, 25 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)

Sacred

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)

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)

Sounds ok to me. The Indians and the protesters view the grove as sacred, at least! Amerique^dialectics 22:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

The Chronicle seems to evidence the claim of "sacredness" to the city law against chopping down coast live oak trees:[5] Amerique^dialectics 22:57, 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)

List of names

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)

These are people that have been reported widely on, If there were 500 sitters I can understand not wanting the names but I only put five or so

Dumpster muffin (talk) 05:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that we don't even have proper names for most of them, how do they demonstrate relevance to readers? Furthermore, as you appear to be one of the protestors, you have a conflict of interest and should not be adding the material to the article. Instead, you should mention it here and leave the decision to other editors. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Concur with User:Ckatz: they're not notable in their own right (if they were, their presence might be notable as celebrity-endorsement, etc) and they are not mentioned as being important in this cause (just participants, not leader, spokesperson, etc). Note that this is now at WP:3RR for both of you. Given the serious WP:COI/WP:AUTO problem here, I'd say it should be left out unless others think you're important. DMacks (talk) 06:03, 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)

But mere mention of their presence in the trees is not reflective of them having some substantial effect on the controversy. Sure, these people participated in the tree-sit, but what did these people do to distinguish themselves from the others who partcipated as well. As an analogy, should we list the names of the cops acting as barriers between the grove and the protesters? They are participating just as much into the controversy as the above mentioned tree-sitters.

This to me sounds more like patting oneself on the back rather than any helpful information. It definitely strikes me as trying to ensure you get your '15 minutes.'

Given that, I'll let it stay for now and ask others what they feel and maybe we can come to a consensus.

I don't think distinguishing yourself in such a small group is a requirement for mention. In the Kent State massacre article, all the victims were mentioned[10]. Not all the sitters are mentioned, just those written about in "reliable" sources. Listing is just a jumping off point. Details can be filled in from there. My namesake, Dumpster Muffin, had a very memorable standoff with the "contractors". It has been compared to the man who stood in front of the tank at Tianenmen square. [11] Dumpster muffin (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree with pseudo-dumpter muffin on this. First of all, the article you reference makes no mention of dumpster muffin and tiananmen square. Second, any such analogy is ridiculous. I saw the whole affair, and she was visibly shaking her own perch while screaming that the arborists were shaking her down. Third, don't compare the tree-sitters to the Kent State massacre. None of the tree-sitters have been killed or even injured. It smacks of conceit and self-righteousness to make either comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.2.134 (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't support it. Mention of the various non-notables makes the tree-sit seem like more of a vanity project than it already is. Zach RunningWolf seems notable, however. He probably deserves his own article. Amerique^dialectics 15:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag

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)

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)

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)

Fine with me. DMacks (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

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

capitalize Oak and Grove and I'll support this Dumpster muffin (talk) 03:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

But it's not a proper noun. --Falcorian ^(talk) 03:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

So, any further opinions? --Falcorian ^(talk) 03:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

Dumpster Muffin Edits

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)

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)

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)

1. An estimated $367,000 has funded extra police shifts, private security guards and two fences around the oak grove ...

1. UC Berkeley police have spent $300,000 and taken more than 200 police reports while managing a group of protesters living in campus trees for 17 months...

Is it your claim this is two separate sums?

Dumpster muffin (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Well... Dumpster has indicated that she took her login from the name from the tree sitter, but seems to indicate that she is not the tree sitter in question. Also, seems like a laptop would be hard to power in the grove... But who knows. --Falcorian ^(talk) 01:04, 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?

I think that the moderators of this page have done a fine job of keeping Dumpster muff's additions as NPOV as possible. Dumpster muffin definitely seems to have an agenda, but i trust the information on the page as being factually correct and NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.141.168 (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope that is the case but she's done several "undo" actions recently. It's like reading the Iraq war page and finding out that Karl Rove has been editing recently. Even if you think it's under control, how can anyone trust it unless she's shut down? This was my sole source of information on the protest and now I don't know if everything I've read over the months has just been rhetoric. ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.224.6 (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Just as you can see DM's undo actions, you can see how others respond to those actions. You can also check any material in the article against the cited references to see how factually accurate they are (and to get facts if the writing seems biased or trying to hide something). That's precisely why WP insists on citations and does not trust (or even allow) original-research content. DMacks (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

haha. Yeah that's me -- Dumpster Muffin comin live to you from the Memorial Oak Grove canopy via my XO over airbears! I used to have to share bandwidth with Millipeded and Fresh but now I get all 2400 bauds to meself. Really...if I were up in a tree 24/7 I'd have a few more edits under my belt ;) Dumpster muffin (talk) 06:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Dumpster: in that case, let me ask you a question. Who do you support in this protest/controversy?

The good guys of course ;) Dumpster muffin (talk) 02:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Debate and discussion of personal views is not the purpose of the talk page, might I suggest you take it to her talk page? --Falcorian ^(talk) 20:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Dumpster doesn't allow posts on her talk page. But Falcorian, you said it best: personal views are not the purpose of the talk page... Nor is it the purpose of wiki articles. I hope Dumpster Muffin realizes this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.224.6 (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

Fresh's Protest

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)

I agree. Fresh, Millipede, Olive, Dumpster Muffin should all be in here. Dumpster muffin (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

facebook

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)

DM, editorializing is not allowed on WP. Saying things like "a conservative, law and order type" is clearly editorializing. Consider this a warning. Anymore clear violations like this and I'll report you to higher authorities. I might also remind you of the three revert rule while i'm at it. Peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.2.134 (talk) 19:20, 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)

No, DM. You have taken the article out of context and embellished. For example, the article claimed that the student came from a conservative section of London. You claim he is conservative.

My apologies to the law-and-order-type, khaki wearing, member of the crew team raised by conservatives, who may actually be a librel/radical. Dumpster muffin (talk) 05:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, thank you for outing yourself as the same person (User71.112.10.248) who has been editorializing this entire page, eg. goons. You've been warned more than enough. If this keeps up, authorities should and will be notified.

If Facebook is somehow representative of the current setup, there are more than 650 people in that current "Students in Hippies Against Trees" group, and like 1,500 in "If I were an oak tree I would die for Cal football," and since neither shows up in the other's similar-groups-section, one can assume that there aren't a lot of shared members in both. Save the Oaks now has like ~250. I also don't think we should quote random Tennessee fans who don't represent any point of view ("that's awesome!"?), any specialized knowledge, and aren't necessarily symbolic of a larger group of people. That'd be like quoting people advocating taking chainsawing the trees (maybe on the boards of the "Students Against.." group) who don't say anything else.76.102.172.83 (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The Tennessee fans represent an important, unbiased, view on the topic. They aren't "hippies", and they are football fans, but they have the wisdom to the value of the memorial grove. Quoting them gets us away from the pro-planet/rabid-fanatic dichotomy. Dumpster muffin (talk) 05:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That's surely not the dichotomy present (even if you agree with them, it must be a bit fanatic to live in a tree to accomplish goals, however noble, whether Julia Butterfly Hill or the current treesitters)! These TN fans were extremely low-information, only being able to glance at the the protest for a quarter-second, without awareness of the full situation. For example, they would not be aware of the merits and disadvantages of the proposed alternative locations (say, the distance between Fulton and Prospect streets). By only quoting a single anecdote, you are not providing useful information. What if that was the one person who thought it was "awesome" in the entire group? What if they only thought it was "awesome" because they opposed Cal football themselves (being in a competitive situation right before the game) and merely found it all hilarious. Otherwise, the quotation is just "some guy" and not encyclopedic and has as much value as the random guy walking buy yelling "get a job" - who is also likely not invested in the controversy/dichotomy. Should we just interview one randomly selected person in Costa Rica about the Iraq War, and no one else, and post their opinion on the "reactions" page of the Iraq War article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.87.183 (talk) 08:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe the TN fans saw the wide open lot right next to the grove. It's not hard to spot -- it is big, flat, and has cars, sometimes. And what's to indicate the football fanatics know of the multitude of options that don't require demolishing the memorial grove? Unfortunately the University police stole the literature the grove protectors were distributing and took down their signs. Dumpster muffin (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to insist that TN people have a valid view simply for being outsiders, I'm going to quote comedian and B- celebrity Ralphie May, who is also from Tennessee? Here's the Youtube: http://youtube.com/watch?v=bhEIsxmwpBA. Here are some snippits "Why can't we just move the trees?" and "The trees are not your elders. You are not an acorn. Lord of the Rings is a FICTIONAL movie." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.172.83 (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting! I wonder why the University insists chainsawing the trees is the only solution while a 2-bit shock-jock can see there are other options... Dumpster muffin (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

Well, do we have a RS for how many Save the Oaks group members are actually students? Right now there are 629 in the SAHIT group and after looking at about a hundred or so I didn't see a single profile without a berkeley.edu address or a single faculty member or an older Cal graduate. Since the title is "students.." and there is no abundance of non-students, I don't think you'll find a reliable source on the subject. On the "Save the Oaks" group, however, I looked at the entirety of its 249 current members the MAJORITY of people are not current students (most are Cal alumni graduating as far back as '05 and at least one UCB faculty member). Anyway, the point is that "600 students joined the Save the Oaks" tagline without mentioning the strength of the other groups is misleading because we aren't providing the "law and order" numbers, which are actually higher and actually contain a majority of current students as far as I can tell. I'm still looking for a good source on the current numbers, but I can say with certainty that that 600 students number is unfair. It's simply ridiculously conspiratorial to assume that all of those people in that group are UCB non-student plants (I know about a dozen to two dozen people in both groups). QuixoticPillow (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I know it's sourced from the SF Chronicle, but does anyone agree that that 600 number should be changed? It really communicates an inaccurate perception as to the treesitters current strength, and I somewhat doubt that the SFChron really looked into whether the majority of the joiners of that group are actually students. From my own quick look, again, it seemed a slight majority were not current Cal students! While the number of students in non-'Save the Oaks' groups are probably about 8 times the total in the 'Save the Oaks' ones. So, at the very least, I formally question whether 600 *students* actually joined the group since it has a freakishly large amount of non-current students (more than any group I've ever seen on Facebook). It's really like talking about the population of the Earth and saying "North America has 500 million people. The other continents have some too." If anyone actively involved in this wikipedia page would like to contact me so that they can view the group members personally (read: Falconian, Amerique), I can give you an alias no Facebook that you can use temporarily to view the groups in question to confirm this. I really feel that this section of the wikipedia article is wickedly unbalanced and biased, reporting initial facts but not current ones, and stretching to the maximum possible extent allowed by reporting, the amount of Facebook support that 'Save the Oaks' has.

To repeat - 'Save the Oaks!' has slightly less than 250 members, 'If I were an Oak, I'd die for Cal Football' has slightly more than 1,600 members, and [*with little overlap*] 'Students against Hippies in Trees' has around 630 members. To report that one group has hundreds but make no mention of the other groups populations, when they have eight times more than said group, is unquestionably biased reporting and I will edit it in say 48 hours or so unless someone can convince me not to. Again, the SF Chronicle was NOT accurate by saying 600 students joined the group since the majority are not students! (while the other groups seem to be mostly, if not dominated by, current Cal students) , Cheers. QuixoticPillow (talk) 02:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

While I regret the lack of sources in general for response, I think the 600 number is important because it gives a sense of the support in 2006, and is one of our few, hard numbers in the section. Unfortunately, all the bits about how accurate it is and what they are now are moot per WP:V (verifiability, not truth) and WP:OR. So while I'd like to expand the section and balance it, it's a little hard to do with current sources, but I don't think that means we should throw out one of our only numbers in the section (as most of the other stuff is very weasely). --Falcorian ^(talk) 02:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

While it is possible that it was a true number at the time, considering that it is no longer remotely factual now is important. 600 is a large number, and I think the SFChronical was no factual in its reporting job considering the fact that less than the majority of students current in the reported group are current 'students.' I don't know what the ratio of students:non-students was at the time of the '600' reporting, but considering the fact today, I doubt it was precise. I don't know what wiki policies are for factual source that are seriously questionable but I feel that if such policies exist they should be invoked in this instance. Again, there is no evidence that '600 students' joined this group, merely that 600 Facebook members joined the group. If you have any understanding of Facebook you will understand the difference. Considering the gap (I estimate ~8x) between this group and the other groups (which are mostly students), I think it's awfully biased to report the lesser number. I honestly think that the Facebook section, as reported currently, is both 100% untrue and no longer accurate. I wonn't edit the number, however, until you agree Falccorian. Quixotic Pillow 04:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by QuixoticPillow (talk • contribs)

We don't have other reliable sources for numbers other than the 600. There are a lot of facts I'd like to post here but for the most part we are stuck with the Chronicle, The Daily Planet, and the heres-and-theres in the Economist and NYTimes etc. SAHIT joinees are against "hippies" in trees but it isn't clear they are against the protest. Fresh is not a hippie, I don't know if the others are. Also be very wary of what you read about opposers of the grove. University paper pushing bureaucrats seem to have unlimited time to promote their propoganda. They edit this very page, QuixoticPillow, and as you describe some of them have facebook aliases and if they are willing to spend millions on litigation you can bet they're willing to join facebook groups to push their agendas. Also QuixoticPillow, keep in mind that Falcorian is not the only other editor here. Dumpster muffin (talk) 02:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Economist

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."

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)

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. Amerique^dialectics 23:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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:[12]. Amerique^dialectics 02:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

References

Supplies

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)

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)

Thanks! --Falcorian ^(talk) 00:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

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 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)

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)

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)

Got a link for the heritage thing? I think I can work it in with one. --Falcorian ^(talk) 00:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Court Case Ruling

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)

Thanks, that should be very helpful! --Falcorian ^(talk) 02:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

SCoA's page on the case, for future reference. --Falcorian ^(talk) 05:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by QuixoticPillow (talk • contribs)

Article title

(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 second that. --Dynaflow babble 21:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

I think that Berkeley oak grove controversy would be an appropriate title. --UC Bill (talk) 17:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, that sounds fine, I'll move it. --Falcorian ^(talk) 04:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for moving it - and for the title; good point about referencing the overall issue. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:50, 21 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)

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)

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)

I concur, will do. Amerique^dialectics 20:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

sorry, got some disagreement here. the grove is the memorial oak grove: [15] 71.112.10.248 (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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. Amerique^dialectics 22:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

$4! Thanks for the dedication. ;) --Falcorian ^(talk) 03:45, 19 July 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)

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)

Court case (and recent ruling)

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)

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)

Campus map

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)

I'd love to, but I don't know of a map with a viable license. --Falcorian ^(talk) 17:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Third fence?

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)

If you have a source to cover it we can add it. --Falcorian ^(talk) 23:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Football fans

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)

I agree. --Falcorian ^(talk) 04:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

External links modified

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:

• 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.

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)