This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1988 Tompkins Square Park riot article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1988 Tompkins Square Park riot was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I culled this article together from numerous New York Times articles (as evidenced by the footnotes). I will continue to add to it, but I hope you enjoy the read. If you have any photos from that night, please scan them and put them up. -- DavidShankBone 21:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
This article does not have a NPOV. It is clear everything you contribute has a slant, a bad slant.
Hi, I have just read this article for the first time. It's not particularly well written but in no sense can it be said to demonstrate a nuetral point of view. I'm sure that it's been written in good faith but almost every sentence is lacking objectivity. Sorry guys - it's no good! At all! Dr Spam (MD) 12:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
This criticism should still stand, a statement such as "While there was some controversy about how well-informed the voting board members were, board manager Martha Danziger affirmed the validity of the decision." where the initial section is completely unsubstantied and then dismissed as incorrect after the comma is an example of a POV which is not neutral. In general this article is not particularly "on topic" with respect to the riot and seems to move into preaching about unrelated issues at the slightest provocation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.132.206 ( talk) 04:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Good writing and images, also impressive use of sources. I'm putting this on hold since there are some things to change.
Since no changes have been made, this nomination has failed. TimVickers 16:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
This category is not meant to imply that it wasn't really poliece brutality. The word "alleged" is a norm in these types of categories since, otherwise there is far too much deabte about what should or should not be inculded. futurebird 18:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
This is why WP is so good - I was caught up in this riot, and was just reminiscing about it 19 years later. So I thought I'd look it up on the Internet. Two minutes later - voila! A well written article, with good balance on a controversial subject. Man, that was a sweaty summer. Anyway, thanks.-- Shtove 13:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
A few concerns:
1) I think a lot of these paragraphs need to be cleaned up - they're very short and make the text choppy and difficult to read. 2) Images - there are a lot of good ones here, but I question the relevance of a few. The Ginsberg in particular - yes, he witnessed it, but does the image really add anything? I can be convinced. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 02:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to read the article. It took 15 hours to write the weekend I did it. : ) Dave -- DavidShankBone 05:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
This article needs a history section. Looks like it would be rich. For example, consider this excerpt:
On January 13th, 1874 10,000 unemployed workers, many of them homeless, assembled in the park for a march on City Hall. The night before, the city secretly voided the permit for the march, and that morning there was much confusion between the organizers of the protest. Amid the chaos, hundreds of police officers stormed into the park and began to wreak havoc on the demonstrators with their nightsticks. The Commissioner of Police commented, "It was the most glorious sight I ever saw."
http://www.curbsidemedia.org/tompkins%20square%20history.html
best wishes, Richard Myers 20:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I assume that by "Id." in various references is meant "ibid." — but I understood that this was deprecated (at least) in the Manual of Style. If I'm right on both counts, then they would be better replaced with <ref name=x>s.
Incidentally, I thought that the twenty-four hour clock was preferred in the MoS, but I see now that it's been changed to allow either. The use of a " " isn't MoS-style, though, if for some reason the twelve-hour clock is insisted upon here. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 22:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I think the lead looks better than the original. It's my understand a lead is supposed to be a brief, paragraph-long summary of the event. What it reads like now is a Reader's Digest of events that are detailed in the article, as opposed to a brief summary. I don't want to immediately change the hard work that has been put on here, but maybe someone can tell me why it's not better just to have this short lead, or a variant of it:
Tompkins Square Park Police Riot occurred on August 6-7, 1988 in the East Village of New York City. The police attempted to enforce a newly-passed 1:00 a.m. curfew for the park, which had been all but taken over by the homeless, drug dealers, addicts and rowdy, youthful followers of punk rock music. Instead of enforcing the curfew, the police charged a crowd of protesters and a riot ensued. Innocent bystanders, activists, police officers, neighborhood residents and journalists were caught in the violence that night. In an editorial entitled Yes, a Police Riot, The New York Times commended Commissioner Benjamin Ward and the New York Police Department for their candor in a report that confirmed what media images made clear: the NYPD were responsible for inciting a riot. [1]
-- David Shankbone 02:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
References
I am working through the article a bit, doing some copy editing, any tweaks or changes you dislike just discard them. There was some stuff I couldn't really fix without additional input so here goes:
More to come. IvoShandor 13:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
IvoShandor 13:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I am tired, worked last night, may have to continue this later on.
IvoShandor 13:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
This needs an edit:
"The Avenue A Block Association (comprised of local businesses) demanded a curfew. Other groups such as Friends of Tompkins Square Park and political organizers on the poorer east side of the park preferred that curfew be imposed, and Manhattan Community Board 3 took the middle ground.[7]"
What middle ground? I suspect the incorrect word is "imposed." Was the intended word "voluntary"?
Michael 04:48, 15 November 2007 (EST)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. I have made multiple corrections and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Here are the points that need to be addressed:
Needs inline citations:
The above issues shouldn't take very long to address and should be easy to fix.If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 08:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
After leaving the article on hold for over a week and no corrections were made, I have delisted the article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. If the above corrections are made, the article can be renominated at WP:GAR. I would also recommend giving the article a good copyedit as well. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate opinion at Good aritcle reassessment. If you have any questions let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I'm able. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 00:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is there no mention in the article of policemen covering their badge numbers? This was prominent in the early reporting... AnonMoos ( talk) 20:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
100% agree. As a NY area youngster, I clearly remember video of covered badges as a major part of the mainstream media coverage. CluelessJoeJackson ( talk) 03:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
...and especially because it features prominently in the 1988 NY Times story cited throughout this article. This was a major issue during the time in question, its omission seems like a "whitewash" and disservice to the neutrality of the article. CluelessJoeJackson ( talk) 03:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1988 Tompkins Square Park riot article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1988 Tompkins Square Park riot was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I culled this article together from numerous New York Times articles (as evidenced by the footnotes). I will continue to add to it, but I hope you enjoy the read. If you have any photos from that night, please scan them and put them up. -- DavidShankBone 21:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
This article does not have a NPOV. It is clear everything you contribute has a slant, a bad slant.
Hi, I have just read this article for the first time. It's not particularly well written but in no sense can it be said to demonstrate a nuetral point of view. I'm sure that it's been written in good faith but almost every sentence is lacking objectivity. Sorry guys - it's no good! At all! Dr Spam (MD) 12:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
This criticism should still stand, a statement such as "While there was some controversy about how well-informed the voting board members were, board manager Martha Danziger affirmed the validity of the decision." where the initial section is completely unsubstantied and then dismissed as incorrect after the comma is an example of a POV which is not neutral. In general this article is not particularly "on topic" with respect to the riot and seems to move into preaching about unrelated issues at the slightest provocation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.132.206 ( talk) 04:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Good writing and images, also impressive use of sources. I'm putting this on hold since there are some things to change.
Since no changes have been made, this nomination has failed. TimVickers 16:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
This category is not meant to imply that it wasn't really poliece brutality. The word "alleged" is a norm in these types of categories since, otherwise there is far too much deabte about what should or should not be inculded. futurebird 18:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
This is why WP is so good - I was caught up in this riot, and was just reminiscing about it 19 years later. So I thought I'd look it up on the Internet. Two minutes later - voila! A well written article, with good balance on a controversial subject. Man, that was a sweaty summer. Anyway, thanks.-- Shtove 13:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
A few concerns:
1) I think a lot of these paragraphs need to be cleaned up - they're very short and make the text choppy and difficult to read. 2) Images - there are a lot of good ones here, but I question the relevance of a few. The Ginsberg in particular - yes, he witnessed it, but does the image really add anything? I can be convinced. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 02:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to read the article. It took 15 hours to write the weekend I did it. : ) Dave -- DavidShankBone 05:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
This article needs a history section. Looks like it would be rich. For example, consider this excerpt:
On January 13th, 1874 10,000 unemployed workers, many of them homeless, assembled in the park for a march on City Hall. The night before, the city secretly voided the permit for the march, and that morning there was much confusion between the organizers of the protest. Amid the chaos, hundreds of police officers stormed into the park and began to wreak havoc on the demonstrators with their nightsticks. The Commissioner of Police commented, "It was the most glorious sight I ever saw."
http://www.curbsidemedia.org/tompkins%20square%20history.html
best wishes, Richard Myers 20:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I assume that by "Id." in various references is meant "ibid." — but I understood that this was deprecated (at least) in the Manual of Style. If I'm right on both counts, then they would be better replaced with <ref name=x>s.
Incidentally, I thought that the twenty-four hour clock was preferred in the MoS, but I see now that it's been changed to allow either. The use of a " " isn't MoS-style, though, if for some reason the twelve-hour clock is insisted upon here. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 22:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I think the lead looks better than the original. It's my understand a lead is supposed to be a brief, paragraph-long summary of the event. What it reads like now is a Reader's Digest of events that are detailed in the article, as opposed to a brief summary. I don't want to immediately change the hard work that has been put on here, but maybe someone can tell me why it's not better just to have this short lead, or a variant of it:
Tompkins Square Park Police Riot occurred on August 6-7, 1988 in the East Village of New York City. The police attempted to enforce a newly-passed 1:00 a.m. curfew for the park, which had been all but taken over by the homeless, drug dealers, addicts and rowdy, youthful followers of punk rock music. Instead of enforcing the curfew, the police charged a crowd of protesters and a riot ensued. Innocent bystanders, activists, police officers, neighborhood residents and journalists were caught in the violence that night. In an editorial entitled Yes, a Police Riot, The New York Times commended Commissioner Benjamin Ward and the New York Police Department for their candor in a report that confirmed what media images made clear: the NYPD were responsible for inciting a riot. [1]
-- David Shankbone 02:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
References
I am working through the article a bit, doing some copy editing, any tweaks or changes you dislike just discard them. There was some stuff I couldn't really fix without additional input so here goes:
More to come. IvoShandor 13:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
IvoShandor 13:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I am tired, worked last night, may have to continue this later on.
IvoShandor 13:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
This needs an edit:
"The Avenue A Block Association (comprised of local businesses) demanded a curfew. Other groups such as Friends of Tompkins Square Park and political organizers on the poorer east side of the park preferred that curfew be imposed, and Manhattan Community Board 3 took the middle ground.[7]"
What middle ground? I suspect the incorrect word is "imposed." Was the intended word "voluntary"?
Michael 04:48, 15 November 2007 (EST)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. I have made multiple corrections and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Here are the points that need to be addressed:
Needs inline citations:
The above issues shouldn't take very long to address and should be easy to fix.If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 08:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
After leaving the article on hold for over a week and no corrections were made, I have delisted the article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. If the above corrections are made, the article can be renominated at WP:GAR. I would also recommend giving the article a good copyedit as well. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate opinion at Good aritcle reassessment. If you have any questions let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I'm able. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 00:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is there no mention in the article of policemen covering their badge numbers? This was prominent in the early reporting... AnonMoos ( talk) 20:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
100% agree. As a NY area youngster, I clearly remember video of covered badges as a major part of the mainstream media coverage. CluelessJoeJackson ( talk) 03:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
...and especially because it features prominently in the 1988 NY Times story cited throughout this article. This was a major issue during the time in question, its omission seems like a "whitewash" and disservice to the neutrality of the article. CluelessJoeJackson ( talk) 03:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)