Talk:Pacific East Mall

photo

we need a better photo

neutrality

The section for the creek dispute is slanted to one point of view. m.cellophane (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)M.cellophane

what point of view is that?Thisbites (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The section states that pesticides have been used whereas the source says they "appear" to have been used. What does Pacific East Mall say? The section also refers to "mistaken belief" and "ignored" which are statements of argument rather than neutral statements of fact. A neutral point of view would be that there is a dispute of whether or not pesticides are being used, whether they're allowed and to what extent Pacific Coast Mall is allowed to maintain their property.m.cellophane (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)m.cellophane

All righty I rewrote that section to make it more neutral. I added appear and reworked a sentence that implied both the herbicide and mowing damage where both definitely caused by the mall. As for the ignoring the source states that the mall has indeed ignored the creek organization, it has been reported as a fact by that publication and I don't see how I can rework that without crossing into OR territory. As for what the mall has to say, I sincerely do not know. When I created this article I did all the research that I could to find all the information available. All I was able to find was the source stating that the mall is unwilling to cooperate. As for it being their property, that is a mistake on your end, it is actually property of the cities of Richmond (north bank) and Albany (south bank) that runs along the property line of the mall. Since I have made the changed that you have requested I have removed the disputed template on the good faith assumption that I have properly covered the items that you brought to my attention and also so that the article can proceed at Did You Know. Is there anything else?Thisbites (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not neutral yet. My statement about maintaining their property refers to what extent they're allowed to maintain their property (not the creek, but their actual property), meaning are they allowed to use pesticides on their property. Your source is from a supporter of the creek-side of the argument. They are in dispute with the mall. Even still, the word "ignore" or "ignoring" is not part of the referenced source, nor does the word "caught". The following would, in my opinion, be more neutral:

The business park's southern boundary forms the border between Richmond and Albany, demarcated by Cerrito Creek. This portion of the creek was day lighted and restored by Friends of the Five Creeks (FFC) in 2003. FFC alleges that the mall has used herbicides which have led to the destruction of native plants and damaged trees. Furthermore chemicals may have leaked into the waterway and estuary that drains into the San Francisco Bay's east shore a half mile away. FFC also alleges that the mall has mowed bushes beyond their property lines into the creek area. The mall has not reached an agreement to determine a maintenance plan, something that the owners are required to by Richmond city ordinance.m.cellophane (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)m.cellophane

I posted a request at Editor Assistance. I have added NPOV tags to this article as well as Cerrito Creek and Friends of the Five Creeks until we can get this resolved. As suggested by Editor Assistance, I've requested on the talk pages for those articles that discussion be centralized here.m.cellophane (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)m.cellophane

I looked through the FFC website and the article written by Ron Sullivan. I've provided a link from his website to show that he is a naturalist. The allegations against PEM are coming from Ron Sullivan. I see no such information on a clash between the FFC and the PEM. I've changed the sections on PEM and Cerrito Creek to reflect that the allegations come from Ron Sullivan. I've removed it from the FFC article because they don't mention this at all on their website and Ron Sullivan doesn't mention the FFC in his gardening column. m.cellophane (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)m.cellophane

Actually the information is NOT coming from Ron Sullivan. It is coming from a column he wrote, yes, but he is simply quoting verbatim from a letter he received from Susan Schwartz, the president of the FFC. This is not a neutral or independent source and certainly not a Reliable Source as defined by Wikipedia. There is no way this information should be allowed to be stated as fact. And it should not be sourced to Ron Sullivan, since he is merely quoting the FFC president. I put the following sentence into the FFC article, and if you all agree I will also put it here and at the Cerritos Creek page, to replace the current material.

• The FFC president has criticized Pacific East Mall for allegedly allowing herbicide to spread into the creek area, mowing areas containing native plants, and failing to establish a remediation plan.

--MelanieN (talk) 08:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That looks good to me, MelanieN. Thanks. m.cellophane (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)m.cellophane

Looks great to me too, thanks for perfecting the wording guys! Does anyone know if there is any more content available on this topic? Or city council minutes regarding the topic?Thisbites (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

References