Talk:South Central Farm

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Started the stub today, my first article for wiki. I'm collecting sources, and seeking help from individuals that have more experience and can maintain a Nuetral Point of View (NPOV). Any questions or comments should be placed in the proper section below or please email me using the email link on the left side of the screen.

Califman831 03:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Should Present Tense still be used?[edit]

The farm doesn't exist in the form described in the articel anymore. Now that bulldozers have started running through it, how can anyone accurately claim to know what plant species are present? 65.125.163.221 00:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patience!--Rockero 02:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For What? It was cool while it lasted, but the farm is now a notable piece of history, not an actual operating farm.65.125.163.221 04:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but wikipedia editors are real people with lives and families. We can't all respond immediately to non-urgent situations. If you feel confident enough in your wiki-abilities, go ahead and change the tense. Better yet, get an account first and then change the tense. Suerte, --Rockero 04:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. The farm is still in existence. I've actually spoken to the farmers' media outreach guy, Fernando, and he said the bulldozers brought in on the 13th were just Bobcats, and just maid paths in through the farm. There's still a lawsuit going on regarding the legality of the city's selling the land. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 06:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that bulldozers arrived today (5 July 2006) escorted by LAPD and began obliterating what remained of the crops. Also the court hearing is in a week (12 July 2006). I'm assuming some kind of wrap-up of the final outcome of the whole situation would be appropriate in this article. - Mark Dixon 00:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, I added in the bulldozing and clarified that a case is pending. I didn't add anything to the introduction pending the outcome of the court's decision. Maybe you missed it?--Rockero 01:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While bobcats alone may have been used earlier, a Caterpillar D6 was utilized (along with a bobcat) for the earthmoving work done on July 5th. - O^O

needs[edit]

  • Citation formating
  • Early pictures of the farm
  • Internal diagram showing how lots are divided
  • Describe the use of roles within the SCF
  • Role of women in the SCF
  • Other community roles
  • Determine Actual National Ranking as Urban Farm (Community Garden)
  • Obtaining public domain aerial maps of the garden and its vicinity would eliminate the need to have the google earth link. Currently, the program provides a unique veiwpoint to understanding the problem present at the SCF in relation the community.

thanks to contributors[edit]

Thanks to those who have contributed. Special thanks to the following:

Dr. Peña who provided the plant list, reference documents, and inside knowledge of the SCF.
Mr. John McIntosh for the images and captions, who's work helps the article transend the confinds of screen text.
rockero citation formating, comments, and wiki-knowledge.
Califman831 08:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History Section[edit]

This part of the article needs major revision, possibly a time line of some sort.

Califman831 08:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


plant list[edit]

  • Expand section to discuss its role as a Vovilov Center. Nikolai Vavilov
  • On (800x600) screen the double columned plant list merges with the right hand photos.
  • Original Double columned code Follows.


Notes[edit]

  • The locatation of the farm is at 34.008937 degees latitude and -18.24305 degress longtitude
  • It has a perimeter of an estimated .6 miles (3,214 ft) using google earth, actual distance may be higher or lower.
  • each lot measures 200-260 meters^2.
  • The public voices for the farm are Rufina Jaurez and Tezozomoc.
Elected by the General Assembly (all members of the SCF)
  • Monitors have the duty to make sure each plot conforms with the rules of the farm
Rules are voted on by the General Assembly.
  • women play a prodominate role in the organization.
  • farmers removing internal fencing and replacing with natural barriers such as nopal cactus. (permaculture)

Comments and Suggestions[edit]

Please enter your thoughts oh how to improve this article below. Califman831 21:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be moved to South Central Farm. It's the only one, so there is no need to specify where it is located on the article title. I have heard that one of the common misconceptions about the farm is that the farmers are squatting, whereas they have always farmed legally. If this is true, it may be important to mention. Also, I wonder how much of a supporter we can consider Villaraigosa, considering what he could do with his power as mayor and what he actually has done. Oh yeah, and why do they grow jimsonweed? Is Dr. Peña sure that it is planted there intentionally? It is a poisonous plant that grows pretty much everywhere as a weed, and its mere presence on the land may not be an indication that it is a desired plant.--Rockero 05:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The squatting/trespassing issue is questionable now that the eviction has been served. You are correct that since the creation of the garden, the farmers have been in complience with the law and had the support of city officials, but now things are up in the air. Mayor Villagraiso claims he supports the farmers, but many find this questionable, including myself, since the city announced it could not find the money to purchase the land, yet on or near that date the city found the funds for a renovation of a stadium.
Jimsonweed (Toloatzin in Nahuatl) is a plant that is present on the property and Dr Pena lists it as a tea (quality not noted). The USDA plant guide lists it as invasive and noxious. I may have to email him for permission to release the complete document and then figure out a place to store it. Please note, that there are other plants on the list that not edible and plants that are not listed currently in the USDA plant guide (i.e. chipilin an edible green). The items listed in black with no link, are in the most need of additional sources. Good night Rock.
Califman831 09:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they make tea out if it, it will cause visual and auditory hallucinations and temporary blindness. I know this from personal experience. Datura was probably used by indigenous people for spiritual and ceremonial purposes for its hallucinogenic properties, but I think it is unlikely that the South Central Farmers are cultivating it for this purpose. I don't know whether or not it is being intentionally cultivated, but I highly doubt it.--Rockero 16:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On farms and gardens humans do not have absolute control over vegetation nor the environment. Datura Inoxie may be nothing more than a pest that the SCF must deal with on a day to day basis. At present the list is a subset of the 100 to 150 plants present at the farm.
Califman831 17:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Dr Peña writes:
The completed list (if we ever get a chance to do one) will include both cultivated varieties raised by the farmers and the wild plants present on the land (weeds, although the farmers seldom see weeds as weeds; many are edible wild relatives of cultivated varieties or otherwise seen as beneficial companion plants).
Most of the species grown at SCF are native (pre-Contact) varieties that have been grown in the biogeographic province known among biologists as Mega-Mexico (i.e., the area from Chiapas to the Southwestern U.S.A.); it is a "Vavilov Center" (a center for the original domestication of plants); thus, while most of the heirloom crops grown at SCF are "introductions" to the LA Basin, they are in fact original native plants of the Americas, which is why I often describe the farm as a collection of 5,000 year-old germplasm - that is not a metaphor but an anthropological fact.

Califman831 23:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re supporters, I visited the South Central Farm in June 2006, clued in by coverage on Michael Moore's website, so I think you could include him as a supporter. Also Martin Sheen came and spoke.

I'd love it if this was updated, elsewhere on the web I saw photos of the walnut tree, pruned to stubs and boxed and trucked away at night, going to the Getty Museum. Did it survive? That must be the tree that Julia Hill sat in. --?

Also, re Mayor Villaraigoso -- I marched with the farmers that night and there was a lot of disappointment with V -- he had campaigned there and the farmers felt he had promised much more support than he actually came through with. On the other hand, Barbara Boxer wrote a letter of support to the original owner, offering to help work out something. SHE recognized what LA had, but Villaraigoso let it get pissed away. FAIL.

-- just me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.188.49 (talk) 05:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ELs[edit]

I removed a lot of external links that had nothing to do with the farm. Some of them were bad links altogether. Others may discuss some of the same issues pertaining to urban gardening, etc., but only links that directly discuss the subject of an article should be included (see WP:EL#Links to normally avoid). I see they are now back. I would just remove them again, but perhaps there is a reason they are being included of which I am unaware?--Rockero 19:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these are being used as reference (Google Earth) and the others are momentary place holders that will be removed eventually or promoted to a different section. You may have deleted some dead links of articles that are no longer present. I have convrerted some of the articles in PDF form using PDFCreator and Openoffice.org. Notice that the list is getting shorter. Califman831

Current event[edit]

I added the {{currentevent}} tag after reading this piece by Ralph Nader in Counterpunch; seems the shit is about to hit the fan in the next couple of days. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 06:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well there was speculation that the sheriff was holding out due to the elections. Califman831 07:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On KPFK they were speculating that they were holding off until the station's fund drive began (and would thus be unable to give the farm the coverage they normally do)... --Rockero 01:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enviromental Racism[edit]

SCF "is" an example of ER. One of the main issues is the placement of the wharehouse or other industrial use in an area that is higly populated by poor minorities. This action by the city and the developer falls under the Category of ER.

Califman831 23:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, why was the incinerator going to be placed there in the first place?--Rockero 01:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The SFC is actually a really good example of what good can be done with land. Its destruction also doesn't seem to be ER, as it is located in an area is zoned for industrial use, and has been so zoned for many years. You could potentially argue that zoning an area that is highly populated by minorities as industrial is ER, but at that point all city-based industrial zones could be considered ER. I do agree with Rockero that the incinerator proposal was a classic example of ER, however. Maybe we could note that ER relates to that. --Thalia42 01:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about more than the farm itself. It is about the history of the land and the community. That history is one of the people turning an environmentally-racist situation into something positive. It is also the history of a changing community. On those grounds alone, the SA should remain.--Rockero 03:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV?[edit]

POV? The "Farmers" Section seems straight out of the mouth of the two leaders. They are "just fulfilling roles" and are "not leaders"? News reports seem to strongly suggest that they are the elected leaders, and that they have affirmatively excluded those that they had disagreements with.--Thalia42 01:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't know much about the two, I can say that the mainstream media (and even the government) is often very wrong about who it labels as leaders of groups, especially progressive and radical groups. The FBI says Rod Coronado is the leader of the ELF, which is ridiculous since the ELF has no formal structure and definitely has no leaders. It could be POV though, but don't really know in this case. The Ungovernable Force 04:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This section came from a document titled: Design Principles for community based collaborative Management by Dr. Pena. This individual spent more than a year among the SCF, it is the most reliable source i have at the moment. Unfortunately its confidential until Dr. Pena chooses to release it to the general public. One of the reasons the media sees them as leaders is due to top-down organizational thinking. This type of structure does not apply to the SCF, since they vote for assignments as a group with everyone having equal rank. I appoligize for the quality of my writing. I am very out of practice. I originally just wanted to create a stub with some brief information, but kept adding and collecting further information. I do value your insight in how to improve and balance the article.
Califman831 07:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe this article doesn't have a tag challenging its NPOV. It's a puff piece for the farmers, and a hit piece on Ralph Horowitz. As an example, it refers to the actions of those at the farm on July 5th as "civil disobedience." Yet the LA Times reported that several people were arrested for attacking one of the drivers of the heavy equipment, and for throwing milk crates at an LAPD officer. Hitting a policeman with milk crates is not civil disobedience. It's assault.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.41.56 (talk • contribs)

Protection[edit]

Due to continuous pornographic vandalism from IPs and newly-registered users (many of which I've had to block), I have protected this page. Please continue to improve the article but beware of vandalism. When it dies down let me know and I'll unprotect.--Rockero 23:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are we ready to unblock?--Rockero 06:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The assault seems to have abated--for now. Now unprotecting.--Rockero 21:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
still occuring by the same user. Califman831 04:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked one of them for 3 weeks. I'll see about the other one now.--Rockero 04:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing Page[edit]

I want to thank the editors for making an amazing page. As the situation with the farm goes to hell, it'll be a critical resource in saving what is possible. I hope the negotiators apply proper pressure to green South Central and keep hope alive despite the political bullflop. Here's a link to an article about the backroom dealing. I can't verify that it's true, but if it can be corroborated, it belongs in the article.[1]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.194.211 (talk • contribs)

Refs etc.[edit]

I think it's about time we started converting the inline external link citations into a references/footnotes section. As I began the process this morning, I was stalled when the very first link I clicked ([2]) had died! Also, we need a reference for Horowitz's decision on why not to sell the farm back. All I keep hearing is rumors about anti-Semitic remarks. I'll bet it was La Voz de Aztlán. They are always messing things up for us. But since it is so crucial to the story, some citation is necessary. And I suppose we need a reference for the early history. If we can get those, then I can get busy formatting the citations in-line.--Rockero 03:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, the link to the los angeles times article covering the anti-semitic remarks is listed, but not as a footnote. I have PDF backups of most of the articles on my hard drive. Not sure if anyone else would like a copy of the folder containing the files. You are also correct that it was the La Voz de Aztlán. Why do people consider that site credible, they are like the national equiererCalifman831 07:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page News?[edit]

I've listed the raid of June 13th on the Main Page News Candidates. If this truly is the largest community garden in the nation, I think it deserves such a status. And, you know, all that other amazing stuff they do. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 06:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its status as the largest urban garden is still unconfirmed, but so far no one has disputed the claim. It would be great to find its actual ranking some where. As far as the extra things the farm did, a paragraph or two is needed. This section will have to be done by some one who has visited the farm. Califman831 07:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it goes on the main page it will have to be unprotected. That's OK as long as someone can keep an eye on it, which I won't be able to do. As far as other activities go, maybe we should mention something about how the Farmers were politicized (radicalized?) by their experiences. The SCF, as an organization, participated in the 2006 United States immigration reform protests. I saw them at a teach-in on the Downing Street memo hosted by Maxine Waters in Inglewood. They were also at peace marches, etc. Is this what you meant by "other activities"?--Rockero 16:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was refering to its role supporting other community organizations and nonfarmers, such as the farmers market and support for local food banks, etc. Basically to balance out the political tilt of the article. The items you mentioned should also be mentioned. Califman831 19:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone (particularly admins, since they're the only ones who have any say) thinks that the events at the SCF warrant mention on the main page, please sing out here, under June 14th. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 22:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Semitism[edit]

The reference doesn't say much about the anti-semitic comment, other than to say Horowitz accuses some of the farmers and/or supporters of it. Where is this coming from, and which website said it? How prominent were they with the farmers? I doubt the majority of the farmers/supporters would have supported that, so who was it? The Ungovernable Force 22:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned earlier on the talkpage, it was the anti-semitic "news service" La Voz de Aztlán. This article mentions the "Jewish Mafia", and this one "exposes" the "Jewish mafia". These people do NOT speak for the farmers or anyone except themselves. But apparently, that doesn't matter to Horowitz.--Rockero 22:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to poke around on their website, since I've heard some bad things about them. I confirmed them all. They are incredibly anti-semitic and anti-gay, and if I spent more than 10 minutes there I could probably find plenty of other things to get upset about. I thought it was funny that they praised bisexual Joan Baez (among others) for being at the farm, then in another article talked about the sodomite menace in the Episcopalian church. The Ungovernable Force 05:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

African Americans and the SCF[edit]

What is the current tension between members of the black community and the SCF? There appears to be a some bad blood in the cases of councilwoman Jan Perry and Mark Williams of Concerned Citizens of South Central. One of the protestors splashed water on Mr. Williams.

It has also been alleged on indymedia that Horowitz is playing the race card by using African Americans as security for the property, although this allegation may mistakenly stem more from the color of security officer's t-shirts. The scf has acknowledge some problems recruiting members of the black community to participate as farmers. please see Leslie Radford's piece a vicious campaign of calumny Califman831 03:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Links[edit]

several footnotes have associated links where the article is no longer present online. Please do not remove these, thank you Califman831 22:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lenin?[edit]

Is that banner depicting Lenin truly representative of the SCF? I know a lot of right-wingers have been accusing the farmers of being "communists" and much worse, but I doubt they have any such affiliation. Maybe that banner was put up by agents provocateurs? According to the licensing tag, it is the cover of a magazine. But there is no text, which makes me doubt that it is a magazine cover. Apparently, there really is a magazine called The Liberty Bell, published by Liberty Bell Publications [3], which is apparently a anti-semitic or white supremacist publishing house. Which raises critical questions about its credibility.

What was wrong with the old image (South Central Farm feeds families)? It seemed much more representative of the farmers than the image of Lenin. Anyone care to explain the changes? If not, I'll restore the old images.--Rockero 15:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what is up with the satellite image??!! According to the last report I heard, the farm was only partially destroyed. There is no way it could be all gray like the current image shows. The image is also much smaller than the original. WatchtowerJihad, you have some explaining to do...--Rockero 15:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the Lenin and satellite images were acts of vandalism. Califman831 19:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poor vs "economically challenged", and more important matters[edit]

I don't know how many of you have been watching the latest little tussle here, where someone apparently feels that the adjective "poor" is a racist slur. I'm reverting it, as the alternatives ("economically challenged"? give me a break!) are almost universally words of the weasel.

But rather than spin our wheels over this, there's a much more fundamental problem that needs fixing here. Notice that the opening paragraph says nothing about the ongoing struggles over the farm, the sheriff's kicking people out, etc. Surely someone here who's more familiar with the situation than I could insert a sentence or two of explanation there. Currently, someone reading this might thing, "Oh, how quaint: a nice organic farm in the middle of urban Los Angeles". There should be some clue that there's this tremendous struggle going on over this plot of land right up front. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 16:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you noticed, but I changed some of the wording when I restored the old images. It may be "anglo-centric" to assume that people with few resources are "poor". But it is downright racist to assume that "those people want to live like that". Nobody wants to live in poverty. And poverty is not self-induced. There was also a previous version that mentioned the conflict in the lead; perhaps it was excised due to the uncertainty of the current state of affairs. I agree that something about the conflict should be mentioned in the intro. Let's keep the adjective "poor" and expand the intro a bit.--Rockero 16:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is classist to assume that poor people are challenged, or that they should want to live like the rich, or the "not poor?" What is anglo-centric about being poor? We are all over; we organize ourselves and take care of our needs. Oh yea, and Latino is a diverse culture, not a single race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.89.58.188 (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you simply revert to the last version ILike? Did you notice my concerns about the images??--Rockero 16:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I simply reverted: I didn't want to mess with any other aspect of the article.
The sentence or two about the struggle should be general enough to cover rapidly-changing circumstances.
Don't understand what all the fuss is with "poor": where in the article is it said (or even implied) that poor people want to be poor, or that their poverty is self-induced? I agree that both these ideas are repugnant and wrong, but I don't see anything in the article that suggests these attitudes. "Poor" is a value-neutral word and needs no excuses. Perhaps the racism is in the mind of the beholder here. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 16:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please be careful about reverting and make sure you revert to the proper version. Your reversion restored the image of Lenin and the satellite image with the farm grayed-out.--Rockero 16:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote "poor" because that is what the vast majority of people who are "poor" call themselves. It is not meant to be mean-spirited. I, myself, was born "poor" and I'll probably die "poor". The term "Economically challenged", may be the PC version, but how often is the term used?. Califman831 20:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: replaced "poor" with "of modest means." The latter phrasing has widespread use in many professional contexts (just google it) and is more appropriate than both "poor" and "Economically challenged." It has nothing to do with any claim of racism or PC, it is simply accepted usage and reflects the highest degree of professionalism and neutrality that are critical to the credibility of WP. dr.ef.tymac 15:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: Please note that the phrasing at issue here is not just arbitrary or trivial, as some terms have a specific and technically-defined meaning in this context. Casual analysis based on conversational English is fine for everyday usage, but the article needs to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you have an alternate viewpoint on this issue, please support it with discussion here, so that all views can be fairly evaluated and compared. Doing so helps demonstrate your respect for the article, the persons mentioned therein, and the entire WP community. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 15:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Of modest means" seems the best choice of words, to me. I reject "economically challenged" because I find it to be ridiculous wording. I reject "poor" because it lacks the requisite erudition called for. "Of modest means" points directly to what we are trying to indicate, without undue drama. "Poor" tends to tug at the heartstrings. I think that is uncalled for. Bus stop 16:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restored "poor": First of all, speaking of drama: look at the ridiculous level of drama one editor has raised this issue to. I mean, if you look back at this article's history, you'll see that after some earlier back-and-forth on this word, it has sat here peacefully with the word "poor" in that paragraph for what, months now. Now, all of a sudden, the cavalry comes along and demands that a more "erudite" phrase be substituted? Give me a break. As I've been pointing out, this is a case of false erudition, of using more flowery phrases to give the impression of refinement, or whatever.
The word "poor" is a perfectly respectable, neutral descriptor of economic circumstances that is especially apt with reference to the South Central Farmers. "Of modest means" in today's world implies that they're sort of lower middle class, which, from everything I've read about the Farm, is clearly not the case. So please, put that in your pipe and smoke it. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dr.ef.tymac reply to ILike2BeAnonymous:

Unresponsive: Please stay on topic. I raised issue with a substantive assertion that is not supported by a cite. Plain and simple. Your personal opinions, side remarks about false erudition and "flowery phrasing," and vague generalizations about "today's world" still do not address the issue I raised. If you really want to help de-escalate "drama" why not start by sticking to citable, neutral facts? Please consider the factual basis for my original change. Which you have yet to even address, let alone refute.
Mis-application of a technical term: FACT: The words "poor" and "poverty" have a formally-applied meaning established in 1963 by the United States Government (the relevant jurisdiction in the article) and yet there is not a *single* cite establishing that the parties involved in this matter meet that formally-administered threshold, nor is the threshold even indicated, nor is an alternate standard indicated. The use of the word "poor" is therefore: 1) imprecise and argumentative (precisely what is discredited under WP:AWT which you seemed to reference in edit histories); and 2) entails a questionable factual assertion that is not yet substantiated, thus harming the credibility of the article.
Not supported in the article: FACT: The only dispositive fact on this issue cited (or even indicated) in the article is the fact that the families in the dispute did not raise the $16 million purchase price necessary to secure their interests in the property (only about half that was raised). On that basis alone, the issue of relative financial means is ambiguous at best, and warrants the change in misleading phrasing. They had inadequate financial means to meet a $16 mil contract price. Period. Any other speculation requires a cite, or else constitutes personal conjecture.
Support for "modest means": The personal interjection about "today's world" neglects even the most cursory glance at how frequently this term is used to characterize individuals and families who are unable to pay for a critical asset or service (the only dispositive fact demonstrated in this article). This is *clearly* an accepted and widespread usage to describe the exact facts indicated in this article.
The fact that this deficiency has remained undiscussed for months is *irrelevant*. Please, let's stay on topic so we can keep things moving forward. dr.ef.tymac 20:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer Field[edit]

If horowitz purchased the property for $5.05 million, shouldnt the correct value of soccer field be 2.6 * (5,050,000/14.2 acres) = $924,647.88 or a figure using the county appraised value? The 3 million figure seems to be derived from the sale price Horowitz requested to the framers.Califman831 09:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roof garden[edit]

The money raised so far would easily pay for a gigantic public-access roof garden on top of whatever warehouse gets built there....—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.79.88.240 (talk • contribs)

Careful with balance: portrayal of agents in the conflict[edit]

This struck me as odd. When talking about the negative actions of the police, no qualifiers are used:

Other protestors were removed by force and struck with batons, some reported to have been carried by ambulance.

But when talking about actions taken by protestors towards the police and construction workers, pains are taken to qualify the action of protestors, with "allegedly" and mentioning that the people they "allegedly" assualted wern't hurt:

Two others were also arrested, one for allegedly throwing a milk crate at a police officer and the other for allegedly assaulting a bulldozer driver (neither of whom were hurt).

Now, I'm not somebody that automaticall assumes the police were on their best behavior (quite the opposite), but whats with the double standard? How come the police didn't "allegedly" hit protestors with batons? From skimming the article there doesn't seem to be any huge POV issues, but that is a subtle one contributors should be careful to avoid, whether their bias is for the police or protestors. Brentt 09:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of the Bulldozed Farm[edit]

I just uploaded new photos from the bulldozed farm capturing the destruction there. Feel free to use them in this article if appropriate. Find them on wiki-commons here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bulldozed_South_Central_Farm

--Fluxaviator 18:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Going backwards in time?[edit]

Why does Juli 5 come after Juli 12? Should that be Juli 15? 82.169.240.67 (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LANCER Opposition[edit]

Juanita Tate is routinely given credit for leading the charge in opposition to the LANCER project, but it appears this is not so:

"An obituary in Thursday's California section on South Los Angeles activist Juanita Tate incorrectly stated that she was a founder of Concerned Citizens of South-Central Los Angeles and had helped defeat the Lancer incineration project. Tate joined the group when it was formally incorporated as a nonprofit organization in 1988, after the group's founders -- Robin Cannon, Charlotte Bullock, Gwendolyn Cannon, Sheila Cannon and Roberta Stephens -- led a successful drive against the incineration plant." http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jul/08/local/me-tate8 Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on South Central Farm. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_Central_Farm&oldid=1195397237"