Talk:Foothills Nature Preserve

Final paragraph

Wikipedia is not a current events or news reporting service. Articles should contain only permanent and long-term facts. The final paragraph of this article is a transient, very-current event that has no impact on a visitor's actual experience of the open space that is the subject of this article. The mentioned "pilot study" is not active, and may never be implemented (given the COVID-19 issues and budget restrictions). The reader should not be dragged through this VERY recent unpleasantness. Leave current events to the news agencies. I request that the final paragraph be removed entirely.Carlinotto (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)CarlinOtto

Hi @Carlinotto:

I'd like to clarify, is your problem with the entire final paragraph, or just the first sentence of the last paragraph? I don't think it is "unpleasantness" to explain the resident-only policy (which is a reasonably large portion of why this article is notable in the first place (WP:GNG) it's a curiosity that has caused a lot of news articles to be written about this park). And it's a relevant event in the history of the park, both the policy and the trial run of removing it. See this edit where someone else added a source. If your problem is with just the first sentence, then yes, I suppose it is unpleasant to me too to think of the park as segregated. But that doesn't matter. WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NPOV and WP:DUE take precedence, and my personal opinions are neither here nor there. You may be referring to WP:NOTNEWS / WP:NOTESSAY / WP:NOTGOSSIP, but that isn't what's happening here. The fact of the matter is that this happened, and was covered in the local news. It isn't hearsay that's being first reported here (as if Wikipedia were a newspaper), that would be prohibited.

I'd like to make one thing clear: Notability does not apply within articles. See: WP:NNC

We can, however, look at the WP:EVENTCRIT guideline for if an event is notable enough to merit its own article. But please do keep in mind that this applies to articles on a whole. It would apply if we had an article just on Foothills Park segregation controversy or some such. This is a much higher standard. The standard for within the Foothills Park article will simply be WP:DUE. But I think it could be useful to check if it passes WP:EVENTCRIT, even though that standard is higher than what we actually need to achieve. And I think it does because of WP:EFFECT. The flow of the paragraph shows the chronology of these events to demonstrate that. We also see WP:PERSISTENCE: I just added a source from NBC News in this edit. Just a few weeks ago (Aug 23) this was written, about the event from early July. This also shows WP:DIVERSE. Some passages from this article demonstrate significant notability in this issue, I will paste: Since June, activists have painted “desegregate” in large letters at the entrance to Foothills Park, and Ryan McCauley, a member of the Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Commission, resigned over the city’s refusal to budge, saying the current policy “crudely discriminates by address and ZIP code.” Proponents of change said they’re preparing a lawsuit. ... A letter to the city urging a change was signed by more than 130 supporters, including local ministers and rabbis, the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, the local NAACP chapter and Regina Wallace Jones, the mayor of East Palo Alto, a majority-minority city adjacent to Palo Alto. The local congresswoman, Democratic Rep. Anna Eshoo, who can’t legally visit the park because she lives in a nearby town, signed the letter. So did some faculty and students from neighboring Stanford University, where on-campus residents live outside the city limits of Palo Alto. ... Residents who like the park the way it is are promising a fierce response. Many have lived in Palo Alto for decades, having moved there during earlier tech booms. ... “I do NOT want Foothills Park opened to the general public,” a petition ... reads. “I value its quiet, its uncrowdedness, its pristine condition, the opportunities to see wildlife. More people in the Park will degrade all of these. I pay my taxes to keep it in this condition!!” This is a pretty big deal. Someone from Parks and Rec resigned over this, a lawsuit is being prepared, 130 people signed a letter including our Congresswoman, there will be a "fierce response", etc. This definitely seems WP:LASTING, I think there's definitely going to be future coverage of this in WP:RS.

Here are some more sources on this currently brewing controversy that also demonstrate this passes WP:DUE: [1] [2] [3] [4]

Thanks! Leijurv (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Present tense or past tense

@Ovinus Real: I'm not sure if the lede should be edited yet - it is still restricted today, is it not? And it will be until December when this comes into effect? The article says It means that anyone will be able to enter Foothills Park as soon as mid-December. Your first edit looks great though! :) Leijurv (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Leijurv: Whoops, apologies for the oversight! We should probably note in the lead that the ban is scheduled to be lifted though. How about "As of November 2020, as a result of the pending lawsuit, the ban is scheduled to be lifted as early as mid-December." or something to that effect? Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ovinus Real: Looks good to me, thanks! Leijurv (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)