Talk:Tompkins Square Park Police Riot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tompkins Square Park Police Riot article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Tompkins Square Park Police Riot is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Good articles Tompkins Square Park Police Riot has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

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)

Contents

[edit] Liberal Nonsense

This article does not have a NPOV. It is clear everything you contribute has a slant, a bad slant.

This unsigned comment, with no evidence or suggestions, reminds me of the Stephen Colbert quote: "Reality has a liberal bias." --DavidShankBone 16:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it does in NYC, but I notice that there isn't much on the aftermath of the riots (except for the plaque image) relating to the neighborhood gentrification and renewal that was directly attributable to the bulldozing of the cardboard homeless Hiltons and reclamation of the park for use by everyone, not just the junkies, bums and headbangers. There seems to be a lot of commentary from the POV of the 'downtrodden' who were 'victimized' by the riot, not so much of the silent 'normal' majority who may have welcomed the change. That one-sidedness is a bit POV? Or maybe just more appropriate for the overall TSP page perhaps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.2.124.11 (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] GA nomination

Good writing and images, also impressive use of sources. I'm putting this on hold since there are some things to change.

  • Intro does not summarise the article - see Wikipedia:Lead section
  • The section on "Political Response" is fragmentary and not comprehensive.
  • Suggest separating the description of the riot itself and the aftermath of the riot into separate sections.
  • Other sources allege that police officers hid their badge numbers before the riot, this allegation should be mentioned and the evidence for/against discussed. TimVickers 03:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Since no changes have been made, this nomination has failed. TimVickers 16:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "alleged police brutality" category

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)


[edit] Thanks

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)

[edit] GA on hold

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)

  • 1) Can you make a few suggestions? I don't really agree wholeheartedly with that, although perhaps a few examples? (I also think Shtove's comments above, who lived through the riot himself-I've never conversed with him, don't know him-are favorable toward the flow of the writing)
  • 2) I think that a very famous person lived through the riots, witnessed the riots, and was quoted in the New York Times makes it relevant; I also think illustrating a known person who is quoted gives the article more depth. Ginsberg is one of the most famous and highly-regarded poets the U.S. has ever produced, not to mention social critics. However, I think photo-shopping out Peter Orlovsky might be more useful. Do you think that might make it more relevant? Ginsberg also referenced the riots in poetry, though I couldn't cite them right now - do you think a mention of maybe one in the image thumb might be merited?

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)

      • For example, August 6th. For another, does aftermath need so many subheadings? I can be convinced, no problem. As for Ginsburg, if you mention the poem and maybe cut Orlovsky out, it makes more sense. Right now, it just seems like "hey, I wanted another picture and found Ginsburg, neat." I know it wasn't your intent, but it's how it appears. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I made the changes; no Ginsberg poem for now - but I don't think that small point should hold up GA status. --David Shankbone 16:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
No, it looks much smoother. I still don't especially care for the Ginsburg photo, but that's just my opinion. Good job. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Great - thanks. I think you gave useful suggestions that improved the article. --David Shankbone 16:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/m/Talk%7ETompkins_Square_Park_Police_Riot_a36a.html"