Talk:Hayes Arboretum

Biased Article

This is one of the most biased articles I have ever read on Wikipedia. The author probably thought that it would be easy to get away with this because of the fact that very few people have ever heard of Hayes Arboretum, but a topic as controversial as this needs to be balanced. It creates the illusion that every one in the town was against the deal, when, in reality, those upset by it most were the students at Earlham College, the majority of whom aren't even natives of the town. Also, the sarcastic comment on the uncertainty of what the members were members of shows the ignorance and bias of the author. They were members of the arboretum and got deals on their summer programs, etc. It seems that they were too busy writing defamatory material about the sale of Hayes Arboretum to do any research on the arboretum itself.--Geam9111 21:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The bias in the article needs to be corrected. But a claim that most of the people against the sale of Arboretum land were Earlham College students is also absolutely incorrect. Many prominent community leaders, neighbors and general citizens were against the sale. In the end, it was determined that the Arboretum board had the legal right to sell the land. Many would argue that there were other solutions and that the board should have never allowed their endowment erode and to fail to raise money to keep the organization viable without selling land. It could also have been developed in such a way that it was more compatible with the adjoining aboretum. DIDouglass 19:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that most of the people against the sale were Earlham College students, I said that they were the ones most upset by the sale. The Earlham students made up nearly all of the protestors, including those that protested outside of some of Hayes arboretum employees' homes. Unfortunately, there weren't any public opinion polls taken to prove whether the majority of Richmond's residents were for or against the deal, but the group most opposed to it was certainly the student body of Earlham college. --Geam9111 22:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the tone of the article, it is badly written. Nicmart

Without question, the desecration of the Hayes Arboretum by avaricious developers from Cincinnati Ohio is a permanent and irreversible scar on this already culturally impoverished community. It is completely false that the main opposition to the destruction of the Hayes Arboretum emanated from Earlham College. The community at large was opposed to the clear cutting of a huge parcel of this priceless resource but could not muster the resources or the creativity to stop the developers, lawyers, and weak board members from this ultimate insult to the memory and legacy of the Arboretums Founder and the City of Richmond. The stunning eyesore that has resulted from the destruction is nearly too painful to view. What was once a beautiful swath of native species now looks worse than a war zone, soon to be replaced by garish retail that nobody wanted or needed except the narrow minded and greedy despoilers of this property. A wonderful Indiana resource has been raped and can never be restored.

Nothing lends credility to a comment like anonymity. The Hayes article is still poor, both as prose and information.Nicmart 04:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

While there are certainly improvements to be made to this page, the criticism to date fails to identify problems with any specific portions. The Neutral Point of View page notes "you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that are problematic." thomaskemp 2:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Thomas' point of view: For those who have problems with this piece, you need to cite specific details if you want others to be able discuss it reasonably. Otherwise, you can say "it's still poor" and I can say "It looks OK to me", and we get nowhere. If there are not specific details to dispute, I think the "disputed" tag should be removed from this page. --Markstos 00:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Editing Suggestions

This page has not been edited since 2007 and although the page appears to be straightforward and written in an informative matter I believe the content should include information about the controversy surrounding the sale of 33 acres of land. I have recently done some research and found a few articles published in the Pal - Item that discusses the controversy. I am sure there are plenty more articles to use as reference because this was a hot topic at the time. Information concerning the deal and the public opinion should be included without bias as this would go against Wikipedia's policy for "Neutral Point of View". I also believe this page should contain information about the state of the land today. The most recent store to be added to the plaza is Best Buy. Will any more stores be be built on the land? How does the general public feel about the decision today? How has Hayes Arboretum benefited from the deal? These are all questions that should be addressed. Also, what is the actual amount of acres that Hayes Arboretum currently own? The page suggest 355 acres however after selling 33 acres, shouldn't the amount be close to 322 acres? Lastly, more links could be added to this page to benefit readers or tourists. I've found links to the arboretum's social media pages such as twitter and Facebook as well as a link to their trip adviser website.

Bchudson102 (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Ghost Legend

There's a local myth that if you go out into the forested area of Hayes at night durring February (the month when they first started cutting it down), that you'll hear the ghost of Mother Earth crying. If you cry sincere tears with her, you notice it's raining. When you leave the woods though, it shows no sign of rain; it was the trees crying.

Worth mentioning? TwistedRed 03:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)