Talk:Morikami Park

merge

I merged in the text from the George Morikami article, and left it as a Redirect to here. When I get a chance, I intend to take some photos of the park to add to the article. - Dalbury 17:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The reference to the boycott is taken from factual, verifiable sources. Adding it is both a valuable piece of information and totally consistent with Wikipedia policy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stephenjayburns (talk • contribs) 10:12, February 14, 2007.

Dalbury: Thank you for helping me to understand Wikipedia's rules, and I intend to incorporate them in future edits, but also bear in mind that you are violating the following Wikipedia suggestion:

"Avoidance The best way to resolve a dispute is to avoid it in the first place".

Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The revision you would prefer will not be established by reverting, and repeated reverting is forbidden; discuss disputed changes on the talk page. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, resist the temptation to respond unkindly, and do not make personal attacks."

Thank you...

Mokumbear 23:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Mokumbear

I can see your point. People can often be rude in asserting policy. It will be interesting to read their responses. -Ste|vertigo 07:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I request that Mokumbear provide links to where I have been rude to him. -- Donald Albury 15:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a reasonable request, but Donald, note the term "rude" is mine, not his. He was referring to instances where you reverted him and makes a request: "When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it." I think this is quite reasonable and consistent with my own views on WP:CIVIL. Im sure you are in agreement on this point, so please don't feel like Im lecturing or taking a side. -Stevertigo 12:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Ive briefly gone over your complaint. Ill take a closer look -Ste|vertigo

Ive left a comment on the mediation talk page, but we should continue discussion here. -Stevertigo 12:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Issues to be mediated

• Unable to have ANY edits accepted with clearly factual, citable sources.
• There is a book titled George Morikami: Pineapple Pioneer that details the Park's history. The author, Virginia Aronson, has corresponded with me and also feels that the Park has been progressively been placed on a path to destruction by it's current "stewards".
• Her book is for sale at the Morikami Park's own gift shop, online and at the Park.
• The Park is no longer solely public as was intended by the donator of the land. It is now a public/private endeavor. The Morikami's official web site makes this clear.
• The Park is no longer free for the public to visit. There is a $10 admission fee.
• Also clearly shown by the Morikami's official web site.
• The Park was donated to Palm Beach County on the exacting condition that it forever remain a public park and recreation area. There are Palm Beach County public records that clearly back up my edits.
• As someone who has lived in the area for many years, I can attest to the fact that for many years it was free to stroll the Park's grounds. Even after the new museum was built, there was still just a nominal charge if you wanted to just visit the museum, the Park grounds were still open to the public.
• The Park was also not formerly surrounded by high, locked chain link fencing. Search as I might, I can't seem to find references to cite. On the other hand, a simple visit to the Park would confirm that the Park is now surrounded by fencing and no longer freely accessable to the public.

Mokumbear 00:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Mokumbear

Book referenced

On the project page Mokumbear (talk · contribs) refers to a book called George Morikami: Pineapple Pioneer. I have found Konnichiwa Florida Moon: The Story of George Morikami, Pineapple Pioneer, by Virginia Aronson. Pineapple Press, Inc. 2002. ISBN 1-56164-263-0. This book is written for juvenile readers, and must be used with caution, because the author states on page 53, "George Morikami was a private person who shared little of his life with others. I have taken poetic liberties with his story to convey what I imagined were some of his feelings and emotions as he struggled to survive—and prosper—in an inhospitable land."

If Mokumbear is aware of another book called George Morikami: Pineapple Pioneer, it would helpful if he could supply an ISBN for the book. -- Donald Albury 18:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point, however in the book, Ms. Aronson writes that she worked closely with Delray Beach resident Virgina Snyder (who is now running for Mayor of that town).

Ms. Snyder was one of the people who knew George best. The author also worked with the Morikami organization for material for the book and the book is even sold at their gift shop!

I think the "poetic license" refers to her musings of what he may have been thinking back in Japan, before leaving for the United States.

For a "very private person", the book claims that George was made "Honorary Mayor" of Delray Beach in the late 60's, hardly the stuff of reclusive hermits, don't you think? He is also shown in many of the photos depicted along with others.

If there were more scholarly texts, I would read and reference them. I also learned from the author of this book that a Morikami museum official wanted to produce a "scholarly work" but could not find a publisher and refused Ms. Aronson's assistance.

Mokumbear 14:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Mokumbear

Without reliable published sources, none of that can be used in the article. Ms. Aronson does list references at the end of the book, and that would be a place to start looking. Publications of a local historical society do not rank as high on the list as books published by universities or journals issued by major scholarly societies, but there may still be useful information about George Morikami and/or the Yamato Colony. I would love to see more attributable information about either subject added to Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 15:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Donald, its easy to get carried away with RS. Note that RS has the caveat "wherever possible." Also there has been some poisoning from WP:BLP regarding how the RS standard should apply to non bio articles as well. We have NPOV and ATT. RS as you use it appears to be a highly subjective standard, one which is too often contraditory to NPOV. Likewise any concept of RS must be applied in proportion with the context and subject matter of the article. We publish claims in proportion and ATT them. "Scholarly societies" are often of no help on subjects which themselves are not entirely vital and hence dont belong entirely in the domain of scholarship. -Stevertigo 12:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The following material was added to the article by Mokumbear on February 13, 2007:

In January, 2007 a boycott of Morikami Park was launched by a local community activist. See: http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/central238/boycottmorikami.html

The reason for the boycott is that the Morikami Park was donated to the people of Palm Beach County by George Morikami. Public records confirm his wishes were for his private land to be donated after his death to Palm Beach County on the condition that it forever remain a public park and recreational area. For many years it was free to stroll and enjoy the grounds, feed the turtles and koi and simply soak in the tranquility of the land. Now, per the Morikami's own web site. "the Morikami Museum and Japanese Gardens is a participant in public-private partnership in which the grounds are operated and maintained by Palm Beach County". Admssion is no longer free and it now costs $10 for adults to merely stroll the grounds. The park is also now surrounded by hundreds of yards of chain link fencing to keep the public out.

Per the Morikami Park's own web site, private parties and corporations can book parties and events under event tents at prices beginning at $7,000.

Many articles in the area's newspaper of record, the Palm Beach Post, have documented the increasing scope of corruption and "pay for play" attitude of Palm Beach County officials. Some County officials are already under indictment or investigation as a result of this.

Mokumbear 00:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Mokumbear

The first paragraph cites a web page of unknown provenance, which doesn't meet the requirements of WP:RS. The second paragraph presents a specific point of view that is not supported by any source. The book Mokumbear mentions, Konnichiwa Florida Moon: The Story of George Morikami, Pineapple Pioneer, states that "[George Morikami] gave over one hundred acres to the Palm Beach Department of Parks and Recreation, hanging on to his lake and the surrounding farmland he still tended. In his will, the remainder of his property was left to the county to be used as a public park." This fact was already included in the article from other sources. The book does not support anything else in the above paragraph. The last paragraph refers to recent political scandals, but fails to establish how those are relevant to Morikami Park.

I have also tried to track down the sources listed in the Bibliography of Aronson's book to see if they hold more information. The two issues of "The Spanish Rivers Papers" are online, and interesting sources about the Yamato Colony (and, peripherally, George Morikami) but say nothing about the conditions under which George Morikami donated his land. "The New History of Florida" contains a single paragraph about the Yamato colony, but does not mention Morikami. There are a couple of unpublished masters theses, which are thus uncitable in WP. The other source that might be relevant, Virginia Snyder's article in "Palm Beach Life" in May, 1993, has eluded my search.

Mokumbear's basic claim is that the county has broken the conditions of George Morikami's gift for a public park. To this point, all he has presented are his personal opinions and vague claims about what is stated in public records. I think his claims requires appropriate sources. Mokumbear appears to be complaining about a situation that has existed for a number of years (the new museum has been charging admission since it opened in 1993, and I think the fences went up at about the same time). If this were indeed a controversial situation, I would expect published sources to be available. As a local resident and an occassional visitor to the park, I am not aware of any controversy or coverage of a controversy of this nature. This is a case in which the burden is on Mokumbear to cite reliable sources for his edits. -- Donald Albury 10:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. -Stevertigo 20:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: If the activism Mokumbear refers to were newsworthy, then of course we could cite the news report, including any allegations and assertions about the background. Until then, it seems OR covers it. -Stevertigo 21:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

OR... hmmmm! Not being able to cite a book that the Morikami sells in its own giftshop. I also don't see how citing documents that are official Palm Beach County public records is "OR". If the end result of Wikipedia's rules is to publish biased fiction, this first experience will be my last. I will find other media to disseminate my message. It's no wonder some colleges are not allowing Wikipedia to be cited as a reference. There is a fence around the Morikami, you can't miss it. I think the average Palm Beach County resident or visitor does not know that their shared history has been "sold out" and despoiled. I certainly didn't until I visited after an absence. Enjoy your PR Committee version of what's happening at the Park. I could say the sky was blue and be accused of "OR". Mokumbear 00:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Mokumbear

What is that you want to cite from that book? It says George Morikami donated his land to the county for a park. That fact is already included in the article. The book does not have anything in it to support the rest of your claims.

As for the public records, they haven't been published, and therefore are not available to editors and readers who do not live in the immediate area. Moreover, any claim that the present operation of the park violates the terms of Morikami's gift is your interpretation, and therefore OR. Until there is coverage of the issue in reliable published sources, it can't be included in Wikipedia.

This is outside the scope of this discussion, but I suspect you would be surprised at what courts have ruled are valid uses of land donated for public use as parks. -- Donald Albury 11:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Mokumbear states: "I will find other media to disseminate my message." This indicates to me that you came to Wikipedia under two false assumptions: 1) that Wikipedia is simply a form of "media," and 2) that "[your] message" is meritious on its own terms. Neither is true, as 1) Wikipedia strives to be above all an encyclopedia, and not just "media" (you can try YouTube if you like), and 2) noone's "message" is particularly important here anyway, regardless if you did have sources. I'll repeat, if your activism were noteworthy, it should also be newsworthy. "Then of course we could cite the news report, including any allegations and assertions about the background.

"I also don't see how citing documents that are official Palm Beach County public records is "OR"." - I dont have a problem with citing such documents, though our "primary sources" clause might have bearing. There is of course some leeway there, but the issue, as I understand it, is that your citations attempted to make not just an interpretation, but an actual original claim - one which cannot be stated here without corroboration. Its one thing to make a note of facts which are of public record. Its another to use these in a misguided violation of WP:POINT. -Stevertigo 06:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Steve...

Thanks for your help with the mediation. Unfortunately, the bar is being set too high to present even the most minor, citable fact, like "the park now charges $10 admission".

The current article is in no way complete or accurate, but I am not interested in "nit picking" here.

Discussion over.

Mokumbear 23:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Mokumbear

And yet, you're doing almost the same thing again with this article and Morikami Museum and Japanese Gardens that you did previously. A bit better, admittedly. I updated both with an example of how to more properly cite references. But please, you can't be vague about them. Saying they're in partnership with a 501(c)(3) organization is fine, if you can specifically cite it. I looked through the Morikami site and couldn't find that information. I'm sure it's there, but where? Part of the point of the references is that they refer to something specific. If a reader of the article has to hunt to find more information about a cited fact, it kind of defeats the purpose of the citation. It's like giving directions to someone and saying, "it's that way a few miles up the road". Does that make sense? I do actually hope so. --Ebyabe 12:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am "at it again", if "at it again" means citing verifiable sources and telling the truth about the Park.

At the same time, I thank you for helping me improve my edits. This is more in the spirit of Wikipedia than just blindly reverting everything, as has been done in the past.

The reality of the quasi-public state of the Park is clearly stated on the Morikami.org web site. I am working very hard to find citable sources that admission to the grounds was once free and the park is now completely fenced off from the publc.

A casual trip to the Park will immediately show you the Park is fenced in and not freely accessable. Finding record of when this happened on the web has been hard and I will dig deeper to cite sources.

Any long time Palm Beach County resident knows this is the truth and I will cite sources as soon as possible.

Anyone who has seen the Park "before" and "after" would be absolutly shocked at what has happened.

This once serene piece of paradise has been despoiled. It used to be like any traditional public park, you could stop and eat your lunch there, take a hike and feed the koi. All gone. All greed. All ego and bureaucracy.

If you are a long time Palm Beach County resident you would be shocked at the contrast. Before, there were pleasant, older volunteers who were friendly, low key and helpful.

Now, the Park is like an entirely different place. It is virtually unrecognizable from 10 years ago and the staff are hostile and defensive, from my own first hand experience.

I am doing my best to organize a grassroots campaign to bring the theft of this Park from the public to light. I am not an experienced organizer, but I am studying.

Whatever it takes, I will let the truth be known.

A mass, non-violent, non-destructive civil disobedience "trespass" of the Park grounds would be a good start.

This situation is newsworthy and time and persistance will bring this injustice to light.

How would you feel if you visited Central Park or Golden Gate Park one day and found it fenced off and admission charged after years as a public treasure???

Mokumbear 03:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Mokumbear

Original research and Verifiability

Speaking to author Aronson and museum employees is considered original research. Though laudable, it can not be used as part of an article on Wikipedia. Even if something is true, if you can't find suitable references, you can't include it. Think of it as though you were turning in a term paper, and you didn't include any footnotes or bibliography or any references. You'd get an F from the teacher, as there would be no way to verify if the information in the term paper was made up. Similar philosophy here. So please-please-please find the references. Remember, one of the major tenets here is verifiability, not truth. May seem counter-intuitive, but that's the way it is here. --Ebyabe 12:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was split. --BDD (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Morikami Park → George Morikami – This article is primarily about the person, and only tangentally mentions the park. This is a notable Florida settler who deserves his own article. Furthermore there already is another article dealing with the museum, and perhaps that content and some of this content can be merged to address the park. Greg Bard (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Greg Bard (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• WP:FORK - the thought behind the RM is correct, probably the settler is more notable than the park named after him. However the gardens seem notable enough on their own. This looks like a case for a WP:FORK rather than a move. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks as though it would be an easy and clean fork as well, these articles probably shouldn't have been merged in 2005. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Morikami Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101128034446/http://pbcgov.com/parks/locations/morikamimuseum.htm to http://www.pbcgov.com/parks/locations/morikamimuseum.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)