Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tompkins Square Park Police Riot (1988)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:01, 19 June 2007.

[edit] Tompkins Square Park Police Riot

(self-nomination)This article is simply excellent. Excellent writing, interesting subject matter, improved during its Good Article trial, and eye-witnesses have left notes on the Talk page that talk about the article being so accurate, it's like they were living it all over again. Written in a NPOV and heavily cited with the highest of sources, it includes GFDL media, is wikified to the fullest, a fantastic "See Also" section, and looks at the story from every angle. --David Shankbone 15:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
*Strong Oppose I dont think this article is anywhere near the featured article status, I think it could qualify for the good article status but certainly not FA, also; may I remind you that you do not own the article per the section header of this comment. Kindest Regards — The Sunshine Man 19:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

    • It would be helpful since you feel so strongly to give some reasons for why you are strongly opposed. And I don't need to be reminded of WP:OWN - I think that's an unnecessary comment for a "self-nomination" article. --David Shankbone 19:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
      • It doesn't matter if it's a self-nomination, that does not automatically make the article yours, or allow such claims. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 22:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
        • This is really far too much consideration and attention paid to casual wording that was not meant to show WP:OWN - let's assume a little good faith, shall we? I don't treat the article as if I WP:OWN so let's assume I don't think, as a very accomplished editor well familiar with Wiki guidelines, that I own it. Look at actions, fellas, and not a one word indictment. Thanks. --David Shankbone 04:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments The see also section needs work. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also, which recommends links not be repeated in the "see also" section when they are already included elsewhere in the article. Also, I think referencing can be improved. For example, "The Civilian Complaint Review Board recommended the officers be charged, and Commissioner Ward endorsed the recommendations." is not cited. The number of references (11 different newspaper articles) used in the article may also be insufficient. The article may benefit from additional references, from more diverse sources. [1] [2] I may be able to offer some help in this regard. Also, in the future, I don't recommend canvassing user talk pages with the FAC. --Aude (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I would agree on the more diverse sources angle. The article is certainly better than a GA, but not quite at an FA yet I don't think. I'd agree on cutting down the 'see also' section slightly. I've made a few minor alterations, feel free to revert them. Maybe a map of the immediate area would be good? - Francis Tyers · 21:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Tompkins Square Park was also the location of another riot on January 13, 1874. [3] [4] [5] Thus, the year needs to be included somewhere in the article title, and disambiguation is needed. --Aude (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Is that necessary since this is a Police riot where the other was a labor riot (I believe)? There also isn't an article for the 1874 riot, and there were a few other riots as well in the park. Do we disambiguate when no other articles exist? --David Shankbone 20:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, is disambiguation and separate article creation necessary for FA for this article?--David Shankbone 20:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it is necessary, and not that difficult to do. The 1874 riot involved police suppressing a labor demonstration, which equally fits the definition of Police riot as the 1988 riot. Also, some users may just search "Tompkins Square Riot" or something similar without the year. Disambiguation would help users. And, yes we now do have an article about the 1874 riot - Tompkins Square Riot (1874) --Aude (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
That will work. --Aude (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, maybe the main page should be plural, Tompkins Square Riots?--David Shankbone 21:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
That sounds right. --Aude (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • DONE - Disambiguation and page move --David Shankbone 14:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The references section is quite unorthodox. Either have the full citation in separate bullet points and use MLA citation in the notes, or go all the way with each note. There are a couple linked years (which shouldn't be), and the August 6 heading link is a violation of MoS. Also, it doesn't really matter, but without a navbox I get the feeling this is a rather dead-end/lonely article. ALTON .ıl 03:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • DONE --David Shankbone 14:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Originally when I wrote it, I used legal citation. Links aren't a problem to remove. Navbox - not sure what would be appropriate, but open to suggestion. --David Shankbone 04:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Do we have a Riot box? or Infobox Riot? Should one be created? - Francis Tyers · 11:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - The article reads very much like a newspaper/journal story, and I weakly suspect it might have just been copied from somewhere. Examples of journalistic style (emphasis mine, to illustrate the point):
    • The police attempted to enforce a newly-passed 01:00 curfew for the park, which had been all but taken over by the homeless, drug dealers, addicts and youthful followers of punk rock music.
    • The police were there to meet the protesters. "It's time to bring a little law and order back to the park and restore it to the legitimate members of the community," said Captain McNamara. He dismissed questions about the seemingly excessive police numbers. "We don't want to get into a situation where we under-police something like this and it turns into a fiasco."
    • During a lull in the riot, a young officer on Patterson's video appealed for understanding from the protesters. He tried to calmly tell them how unhappy the police were with the assignment and its aftermath. "We've got cops back there in ambulances who've been hit." But the lull ended. Thirty to seventy protesters re-entered the park. A witness said the mob rammed a police barricade through the glass door of the Christodora House, a high-rise luxury building on Avenue B.
    • etc, etc. -- infinity0 11:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Wait, you strongly oppose because you think I plagiarized?! How in the world is this good faith? Seems like bad faith to me. Pull the articles, if you must. That's why they are cited. And some of your emphasis is with direct quotes. Yes, I did not re-word quotes. It's bizarre to use a line of reasoning that boils down to, "he writes like a journalist, so he must be violating copyright." --David Shankbone 12:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
        • You misunderstand me, I strongly oppose because the style of the article sounds like a news story, ie. unencylopedic. The copying thing is a side issue which like I said, has a small chance of being true. -- infinity0 14:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
          • I don't understand how journalistic, "Just the facts" style is unencyclopedic. Can you please point to me some style guide that points out the differences? How else does an encyclopedia entry on an historical event read?--David Shankbone 14:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Take a look at École Polytechnique massacre, a recently promoted FA. Again, I think the key thing that will help bring the article to where it needs to be is more (diverse) sources. Newspaper articles don't necessarily give a historic perspective, but are talking about the event as news (here and now) with the many quotes. Additional sources can help change the tone. --Aude (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Unfortunate but firm oppose. I wanted to write "support" to counter the quibbles over article naming, "WP:OWN", and "copyvio", but I cannot because:
    • The lead does not summarise the article well (almost all of it covers only the action before and during the riot).
    • "a newly-passed 01:00 curfew" - in the lead, I'd rather not be so specific as to mention the curfew's timing, and the time is mis-formatted per WP:MOSDATE.
      • Since the curfew's time was the sticking point, it seems appropriate for the lead. It was essentially the match that lit the fire. I don't think it's a big issue one way or another, but let me know if you think this is a major sticking point. --David Shankbone 16:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • "rally called for July 31st", "another rally for August 6th" - inconsistent date formatting. Per MOSDATE dates consisting of day and month should be wikilinked, with no prefix after the day.
      • DONE --David Shankbone 16:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I suggest not using the green check marks. Some people find them annoying. --Aude (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Strikeout, then? If not that, there should be some way to determine when things have been completed. --David Shankbone 17:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Simply just saying "Done" or Done works. Don't strike out anything, but instead allow the reviewer to do that. Even that's not entirely necessary, because User:Raul654 will look to see if things are done. --Aude (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
              • I suppose a bolded Done works just as well. --David Shankbone 17:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • 'Captain McNamara countered, "We did everything in our power not to provoke an incident. They didn't charge the crowd until the bricks and bottles started flying."' - unsourced quotation.
    • "New York Times photographer Angel Franco saw the police beat a couple who emerged from a grocery store. As he tried to take photographs, an officer clubbed Franco." - Franco was trying to take photographs of the assault on the couple, right? If so, these sentences should be linked with a semicolon.
    • "the riot became a cause to reflect on the negative aspects of his record" - "became a cause" is rather awkward. I cannot think of a way to rework this without introducing weasels, and the rest of the paragraph wouldn't hurt if you just dropped this part of the sentence.
    • "and they're standing in the street screaming Kill the pigs!" - misapplication of italics per WP:ITALICS. Please replace the italics with a pair of single quotes.
Overall a good look into a fascinating incident in NY's history, but these serious problems linger. Resurgent insurgent 14:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks for this. These are exactly the sort of concrete examples I had hoped to received to improve the article. Most editors are providing these; however, some just appear to have a problem with the topic and the reality (after all, the police commissioner himself admitted the police were responsible for the riot, the press agreed, and so did the public and the evidence from that night--I guess for some the very notion doesn't sit well). But giving these sorts of specific examples will not only help me in knowing how to improve this article, but future articles. I appreciate the time and consideration you paid. --David Shankbone 14:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, David is an excellent writer and I believe that he will clear up all of the minor niks mentioned above before this consensus ends. Tony the Marine 20:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Update: Sunday I plan to turn my attention (and Lexis account) on this article to make some of the suggested improvements (FYI). --David Shankbone 05:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Wow! Good to see that user gone, at least for a while. Anyway, as promised, I'm willing to help some with the article (with some sources not available on Google), but also want to see what you can do with it. I think you should be fine in addressing much of the concerns. --Aude (talk) 05:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I cannot comment on the compelling nature of the prose, as I am useless with that a kind of thing, but having now fixed the references and the lead, I think this article is good to pass as long as the sentence 'Captain McNamara countered, "We did everything in our power not to provoke an incident. They didn't charge the crowd until the bricks and bottles started flying."' is referenced. DevAlt 14:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: - Glad to see some of the earlier quibbles have died down, and that this nomination is being considered on its merits. I looked at the article when it was a GA candidate, and am happy to see it continue to improve. My only concern is this: I think the lead needs a complete rewrite. I think my opinion is somewhat in line with Resurgent's suggestion that the "1am" item be removed from the lead, and also with the "journalistic vs. encyclopedic" question. Essentially, the lead should be more of an overview of the historical significance of the event: why is it famous, why is it notable, what values clashed to instigate the riot, etc. There is plenty of room for a timeline elsewhere in the article; the lead should be written more along the lines of "Neighbors of the park, regarding the political activists and homeless people who increasingly congregated there as a nuisance, pressured the police to impose a curfew. When the police attempted to enforce the curfew, riots ensued, lasting for several days." (Note: I doubt my sentence is accurate, I include it only for a sample of the tone I think the lead should adopt.) Basically, including too many timeline details, before establishing a foundation of what was at stake, makes the article less readable. -Pete 21:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose, problems with 2, 1a, 1c, possibly 1d.
    • WP:MOSNUM on dates, month-day combos and full dates are wikilinked.
    • WP:MSH, headings
    • Protest as a See also ?
    • No consistent style used in formatting references, no idea which style is supposedly employed. See WP:CITE/ES or you could consider using the cite templates if you don't have a preferred style or know how to format refs.
    • Problems with wikilinking. See WP:MOS and WP:CONTEXT. Common terms are not linked, terms relevant to the article should be linked on the first occurrence only. Tompkins Square Park is re-linked in the last section, while common terms like beer and riot are also linked. These are samples only; the entire text should be fixed.
    • Define acronyms the first time they are used: ... and the New York Police Department (NYPD) for their candor in a report that confirmed what ubiquitous media images made clear: the NYPD were responsible for inciting a riot. (fix throughout)
    • Awkward prose: the first sentence in the article body dives into undefined History. Since the Tompkins Square Riot of 1874, the park has been a symbolic place for the New York labor movement. The section is labeled "Background" (not a particularly encyclopedic heading), but doesn't give background on that event.
    • Redundant prose, sample: Contingents of the homeless and rowdy youth had nearly taken over the park, but the neighborhood was divided about what should be done, if anything.
    • the park used throughout, should it be capitalized?
    • Though the park had already become a de facto homeless shelter and the general public virtually barred from using the park by anarchists supporting the rights of these homeless, ... Is "anarchists" the word used in the source? Please provide quote.
    • What is this date formatting in this source? ^ The Villager, Leftöver Crack fires up punks, August 9 August 15, 2006.
    • "ripped open old wounds about brutality"? Doesn't seem like encyclopedic prose, and doesn't seem neutral. Are those the exact words used in the source? Please provide quote.
    • 150 or 200 (police estimates were 700) (which is it according to the source? Please provide quote).
    • The police were there to meet the protesters. (What does this sentence add?)
    • Although bottles reportedly flew, it was the police who charged the crowd. (according to whom?) Attribution is needed on statements like this, and others.
  • The informal prose and unencyclopedic tone is a concern, as well as the MOS and formatting issues and the need for a copyedit. The article doesn't appear to have a neutral, encyclopedic tone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Additional neutrality concern about article title: should it be "Police Riot" or just "riots"? And why is Police Riot capitalized? Is there a well-sourced justification for referring to the police action as a "Riot", in the title no less? This article needs to be seriously reviewed for neutrality, considering some of the responses below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Switching to Strong Oppose after purchasing the NYT articles. The NYT does not use the word "anarchist", so that appears to be POV inserted by the author. A lot of this article is just a re-phrasing of the main NYT article used to source the article. The NYT article says, for example:
      • Moreover, the handful of groups that each claim to represent the community's true interests have bickered over how to handle the park. A group called Friends of Tompkins Square Park favored a laissez-faire approach, while the Avenue A Block Association demanded a curfew. Community Board 3 took the middle ground, while political organizers on the poorer east side of the park favored protest aimed at keeping it open.
    • This article says:
      • A volunteer group, Friends of Tompkins Square Park, did not mind the park in this state. However, the Avenue A Block Association, comprised of local businesses, insisted on a curfew to evict the squatters in the park. Manhattan Community Board 3 tried to take the middle ground, but political organizers for the poor favored protest to keep it open all night.
    • The NYT says:
      • At the board's meeting June 28, members approved a report which included a recommendation for a 1 A.M. curfew. Some now complain that it was passed with little discussion and without awareness by some members that the park would actually be closed. But Martha Danziger, the board manager, said the decision was unequivocal. Days after the vote, parks workers painted a warning on the ground: Tompkins Square would close at 1 A.M. On July 11, a contingent of Ninth Precinct police evicted all but the homeless, whom they confined to the southeast quadrant. The park was closed periodically over the next two weeks. The actions were directed by Capt. Gerald F. McNamara, who some residents say gave the noise problem a higher priority than his predecessors had.
    • This article says:
      • In a binding vote, the board's members approved a report on the park that recommended a 1 a.m. curfew on June 28, 1988. Some residents complained that it was passed with little discussion and that some board members were not aware that the park would be closed. But board manager Martha Danziger said the decision was explicit for all. On July 11, police evicted all but the homeless, whom they confined to the southeast corner, and then closed the park down periodically over the next two weeks. This was accomplished under the direction of Captain Gerald McNamara, the commander of the 9th Precinct.[7]
    • The article is used to source the 700 protestors number, but doesn't mention the 700 number.
  • Problem with simply re-telling the NYT story in unencyclopedic tone, with sourcing problems and possible POV insertions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, first I very much appreciate the time and effort you put into reading and researching the article. It was a big a help. A few issues, though:

  1. WP:MOSNUM - "If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should almost always be linked to allow readers' date preferences to work, displaying the reader's chosen format. The day and the month should be linked together, and the year should be linked separately if present." Where is this not done in the article?
  2. Headings - what do you suggest?

One issue I have with your suggestions is that they are pedantic, for instance, the wiki-linking and begin to read like my high school composition teacher correcting a paper. Instead of expending keystrokes telling me to de-wikify beer (which I didn't wikify), just de-wikify it and collaborate. Many of the minor things would have been better undertaken by you (I don't WP:OWN the article) than telling me to do them. Again, I appreciate the effort, but this article belongs to all of us and I have no vested interest or movie rights in seeing it promoted, except for a sense of satisfaction. Back to addressing your issues:

  1. "Anarchists" - I didn't use this terms, some IP did.
  2. Providing sources for some of the estimates is fine, but I also didn't want to over-cite. I can go back into Lexis and look for the police estimates and link to the number if you feel this important. I didn't originally cite it because I didn't think it was a particularly contentious issue.
  3. What sentences add, etc. is more something that you should be bold in changing if you don't care for them, instead of hashing out minutia here.
  4. Lastly, the similarities between the New York Times articles and TSP article: There are only so many ways to re-state facts. It is not "re-telling the NYT story" but re-stating the facts that they reported. If you have suggestions, or want to take a crack at creative prose that re-states a factual statement, such as "The park was closed periodically over the next two weeks. The actions were directed by Capt. Gerald F. McNamara, who some residents say gave the noise problem a higher priority than his predecessors had" then I welcome the lesson in how it is done.

Since you own the NYT Article, you are now one of the better people to make some of these changes that you suggest and recommend. I have no problem working on this piece with you, but as was pointed out at the beginning of the thread, I don't WP:OWN the article and thus I shouldn't be expected to be the only one working to improve it, and many of your suggestions revolve around minutia best handled by the person who spots it, rather than telling someone else to do it, in my opinion. I don't mean that to sound harsh, but I feel a little weighed down by so many pedantic suggestions. To be honest, if trying to bring an article to FA status entails my needing to be told to dot every i, and cross every t, then this will be my last. --David Shankbone 15:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think SandyGeorgia raises some important points, and I'm going to do some work on addressing them. I don't think SG intended to call DSB out as having repackaged content with any intent to deceive, but speaking for myself, it's quite clear to me that DSB's desire has been to create a comprehensive article from the beginning. It takes work to retell a story effectively, and clearly there is more work here to be done; but that's why FA is such a valuable process. I'll be back soon to work more on this…off to an appointment now. -Pete 21:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Followup comment: SandyGeorgia, since you have the complete NYT article and I don't, if you have time to do any double-checking of my rewrites, it would be much appreciated. I'm gonna work on it now. -Pete 02:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
In editing the "Background" section, I tried to balance three concerns:
  • keeping the article too close to the NYT article would violate copyright.
  • changing the text too much compromises its accuracy.
  • an encyclopedia should give more of a "bird's eye view"; details that may have been politically relevant in 1988 may have no relevance to a historical overview.
Anybody who's following, please take a look and see if I've managed to balance these concerns adequately. If so, I will try to take on some other sections…I suppose I may need to buy the relevant articles myself, but it seems worth it for a few bucks. -Pete 03:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. The entire article is one-sided. Even though the police actions were over the top, the protestors were not innocent. Yet the article doesn't mention anyone condemning the actions of the protestors. The article also contains too many unsourced POV sentences like "Contingents of the homeless and rowdy youth had nearly taken over the park" and "Though the park had already become a de facto homeless shelter and the general public virtually barred from using the park by anarchists supporting the rights of these homeless, some residents considered it an attempt to take the park away from the public" and "A neighborhood divided over their feelings about police were united against their aggression." Finally, what was the long-term effect of the riot? Did the neighborhood gentrify? Is the park now used by families or still controlled by the homeless and drug addicts? If the park and community has changed, how and why? Instead of putting the riot into perspective, the article merely closes with the short sections on music and the anniversary concerts. But I know there was a long-term reaction to the riots b/c the article Tompkins Square Park mentions the park was closed for a year after the riots and that "Increasing gentrification in the East Village during the 1990s and 2000s, as well as enforcement of a park curfew and the eviction of homeless people, have changed the character of Tompkins Square Park." Yet this article fails to mention this and fails to place the riots into any historic perspective. --Alabamaboy 13:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, though it's fixable (but not within the context of this nomination). I was going to write a long critique here, since I printed it out and went through it with a red pen and found myself using it a lot. Alabamaboy has said many of the same things I was going to, most notably that this just leaves you hanging as to what the long term legacy of the riots were other than a concert a couple of years ago, as well as the residual POV from the source material (there is an attempt to be fair to the police, but phrasing like "what ubiquitous media images made clear" still smacks of an agenda (as well as being inherently subjective ... ubiquitous? to whom? Made clear? To whom?). I would also cite an intro that starts out OK, suddenly gets too detailed and then realizes where it's going and tries to get back in line. Also missing until way too far down, as Alabamaboy is also pointing out, is a context ... we read all the time about Tompkins Square Park being important to the homeless and the down-and-out, but only near the end is it made clear that this was seen by the protesters in the context of the increasing gentrification of Manhattan at the time (It's also not a clear connection to jump from the 1874 riots to the 1980s so swiftly).

    Sticking out as well are sentences like "those on the verge of imminent collapse". From what? Was the park some sort of treatment center for heat exhaustion? It could be argued based on that sentence that the New York City Marathon finished there. I also want to see the litany of Benjamin Ward's troubles prior to the riot gone before I vote in favor ... it belongs in the article about him, not here, and this one can just generally allude to them without going into specifics.

    David, I do have a list of specific examples besides these, but I will put it on the talk page (not right now; when I have the time) since I believe that's a better place for them. Daniel Case 03:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose—2 (Manual of style issues), 1a (prose).
    • MOS says space the en dash between full dates.
    • Reference 1: alphabet soup of inconsistent upper- and lower-case initials in the title. Check through all references for this.
    • "Over 100 complaints of police brutality [the community was upset]"—well, it might have ended this way, so use "More than 100 ...".
    • "ubiquitous media images"—It's not an overstatement, is it?
    • "the park was a gathering place for scores of drunken rock fans and their boisterous street parties"—street parties gather?
    • "The Avenue A Block Association (comprised of local businesses) demanded a curfew"—As DCGeist recently taught me, "composed of".
    • "preferred that curfew be imposed; and Manhattan Community Board 3 tried to take the middle ground"—a curfew? And they didn't take the middle ground, they just tried to do so?

These are random examples from the top that indicate the need for a full copy-edit. I like the article, but it's not ready for promotion until the writing glistens. Tony 08:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.