Talk:Occupy the Farm

changes
Working on some copyediting of the article, will have some changes up shortly and will document what I'm doing point by point here. I'm working from the version I had up earlier today, and not the current version, as it introduced some problems that will be easier to fix from the earlier version - but I'll be looking at the diffs with the new version and either incorporating the major changes or explaining why I'm not doing so. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Throughout the article, I've left Tract capitalized. It's a shortening of Gill Tract - a proper noun - not just the word tract.
 * I've left 'Background' as 'Background' and not 'Gill Tract background'. I'd like for the section to cover more than just the background to the GT, like the background of the group carrying it out. Some of this material is available in secondary reliable sources currently; more will be eventually presumably.
 * The new version introduced some grammar weirdness, which I didn't carry over.
 * I've reordered the introduction, but not in the way the current version used, as I think it was a bit confusing. I think it's important for what the Gill Tract actually is to be clear in the immediate intro, and couldn't find a great way to do this otherwise
 * I've changed 'opposed' back to 'condemned', because to me it seems to better capture the university's reaction.
 * It's not clear that the protesters have actually begun to establish a sustainable farm; it's only clear that this is their stated intention. There's no outside sources saying the farm is sustainable, and given their water got cut off I'm not sure the farm as it is could be called sustainable.  We shouldn't go beyond the sources, so I've reverted this phrase to the original wording.
 * I've left 'Reactions' as 'Reactions' and not 'Public reaction' - the section speaks initially about the University's reaction (which is not the public,) and then talks about the reactions of researchers (who are also not really the public.) It doesn't talk much about the reaction of the actual public, mostly because I haven't found many reliable sources talking in detail about the reactions of the actual public.  Once such sources appear, the public reaction should be included.
 * The 'who?' tag after 'some researchers' is unnecessary. The who is already in the statement, although I've clarified the wording somewhat. The statement isn't that they're random researchers, it's that they are researchers who use the Tract to conduct research. The who template is used to request clarification of 'vague authorities' - although I haven't referred to them by name, they're certainly not vague. If additional secondary sources crop up talking about the other researchers' reactions then they can be discussed by name and in greater detail - I'm reluctant to discuss them by name or in much greater detail without secondary sources analyzing their comments.  (The Patch, which is a WP:RS for local news, has posted comments from them, but without analysis - so it's a primary source.) I'll look in to expanding coverage in the article of the opposing researchers tomorrow, if it's possible to do without stretching sources.
 * The public affairs release I cited doesn't say that cutting off the water was an attempt to end the occupation. It doesn't outright specify why it was done, but states that the water system wasn't designed for habitation. I've updated the wording to better reflect the source, but unless we have another source saying it was done with the specific intent of ending the occupation, we shouldn't say it is.
 * I'm not sure I've entirely reconciled the versions - I may have missed a few differences between the versions; after I make this post and commit my edits, I'll look over the diffs between the current version and the new version to see if I missed anything big.
 * Looking at the new diffs, I believe I either incorporated most of the major changes, or explained why I didn't. I'll look over it again tomorrow, I'm sure I missed some small stuff. (And intend to expand the article - especially the background section - further tomorrow as well.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

History 1984 (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Made some changes to reflect historical and factual accuracy in order to avoid bias in how the event is contextualized. Please see http://www.cp.berkeley.edu/CP/PEP/History/Reports_and_Studies/Gill_Tract_Experiment_Station_History.pdf for more information regarding the history of Gill Tract and its use by the University of California, Berkeley. The definition of the Gill Tract's original as well as current borders is contested, and is actually crucial to the conflict between the University of California, Berkeley, and the Occupy the Farm movement: http://albany.patch.com/articles/uc-pulls-whole-foods-senior-housing-item-from-p-z-agenda. However, the current agricultural field is the 10 or so (some say 14) acre plot north of Monroe St. bounded by Marin Ave., San Pablo Avenue, and Jackson St.

History 1984 (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)- mistakenly typed "east" in edit summary: "Marin Ave. becomes Buchanan east of Jackson St., so Gill Tract's northern edge is along Marin Ave." should read "Marin Ave. becomes Buchanan west of Jackson St., so Gill Tract's northern edge is along Marin Ave."

tags
I've removed the tags because they were placed ten hours ago with no explanation of them on the talk page. I'm sure the article could use additional copyediting, but don't see why it's bad enough to warrant tagging it. Looking through the article, I don't see any weasel words offhand, but please feel free to mark them more specifically or comment on them here if you see some. I have no idea why a wikify tag would be added; the article is wikified. It's sectioned, has appropriate citations, has wikilinks where appropriate, and is correctly formatted. If you restore the tags, please explain why here. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Gill Tract
Gill Tract most definitely deserves its own article, was notable way before this event.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is definitely true, and although I missed this initial comment, I'm glad someone has taken the time to write Gill Tract in the two years since :) If anyone needs material held in Berkeley's library system to improve Gill Tract, I'd be happy to pull it for you and send you scans or something. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Weird CoI declaration
This is a bit of a weird conflict of interest declaration. I started this article. When I did, I had no CoI whatsoever: I wasn't a part of the protest movement, and wasn't employed by the university - I was just documenting a local notable event. I set foot on the Gill Tract a few times with the permission of UCPD, but didn't actively participate in any of the protesty bits. Now: I'm currently directly employed by UC Berkeley, so I probably shouldn't edit the article in the first place. On top of that: I've just signed on to a petition related to the future of the Gill Tract (I'm not going to link it here, to avoid appearing promotional,) from the other side of things. So: with CoI's from both sides, I'm keeping my hands off this article :) Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Occupy the Farm
Cyberbot II has detected links on Occupy the Farm which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * https://www.change.org/petitions/sprouts-farmers-market-pull-out-of-a-development-agreement-in-albany-ca/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Occupy the Farm
Cyberbot II has detected links on Occupy the Farm which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * https://www.change.org/petitions/sprouts-farmers-market-pull-out-of-a-development-agreement-in-albany-ca/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)