Talk:Tompkins Square Park Riot (1988)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tompkins Square Park Riot (1988) article.
Article policies
Good article Tompkins Square Park Riot (1988) 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.
Tompkins Square Park Riot (1988) 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Flag of New York City
NYC Portal

This article is part of WikiProject New York City, an effort to create, expand, and improve New York City-related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard.

Bulletin: The next New York City meetup is Sunday June 1st.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] NYT article

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)

[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).

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)

  • It's interesting that these sorts of criticisms never really point to any concrete examples, which lead me to believe the problem is with the historical reality (that the police were responsible for a riot, by their own admission) instead of anything having to do with the article. --David Shankbone 13:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
As the edit summary was, "Liberal Nonsense," you can simply, and should simply, dismiss this criticism. KP Botany 17:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Conversely, the events happened. That historical accuracy of the article isn't meant to be "liberal" or "conservative." It's odd that everything needs to be seen through an ideological lens. The park had been taken over by drug dealers, homeless, and punk rockers; the neighborhood established a curfew; people protested; the police caused a riot with their actions. That's the story. There's no ideology--it's what happened. --David Shankbone 17:35, 30 May 2007 (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)

[edit] History

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 think you're suggestion is admirable, but this article relates to one event. Your paragraph would work better in the Tompkins Square Park article, I think. --David Shankbone 20:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Id.

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 "&nbsp;" 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)

[edit] Lead

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)

Because that would, and should, fail an FAC nomination. Per WP:LEAD, lead sections should concisely but accurately summarise the entire article in about two to three paragraphs - which the previous lead section does not, and in fact this has been criticised on the FAC by Resurgent insurgent. The lead you have provided does not sum up most of the article, but merely gives the broadest of overviews, which doesn't stand alone as a lead should. Edit the lead by all means, but don't change the style I have set. See École Polytechnique massacre and Hamlet chicken processing plant fire for similar FAs. DevAlt 07:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, cool. Thanks for the links. --David Shankbone 12:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copy edit-ongoing commentary

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:

[edit] Background

  • After the Tompkins Square Riot of 1874, the park held a symbolic place in the New York labor movement
  • This sentence just seems out of place and doesn't really flow because the background jumps so far ahead, it is probably an unnecessary statement and really seems unrelated.
  • By the summer of 1988 the East Village – and Tompkins Square Park in particular – had become a gathering place and home for the wayward and those on the verge of imminent collapse
  • This sentence seemed OR like without a cite, I tagged it as such but that can be fixed in good order.
  • Park workers painted a warning on the ground days after the Association made its decision.
  • Seems to come out of left field, perhaps expand a bit, what kind of warning?
  • On July 11 the police, under the direction of Captain Gerald McNamara of the 9th Precinct, confined homeless people to the park's southeast quadrant, and evicted all others
  • The bolded part: which others, homeless people? or all other people?
  • The closed the park down periodically over the next two weeks.
  • Obvious typo, not sure what was meant though.

More to come. IvoShandor 13:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First signs of trouble

  • Though the park was a de facto homeless shelter and the general public was virtually barred from using the park by anarchists supporting the rights of the homeless, some residents considered the police department's actions an attempt to take the park away from the public
  • I reworded this a bit but it still seems a bit wordy too me, maybe needs tweaked still.

IvoShandor 13:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I am going strictly from memory here, but I believe these notes do play a part in this discussion and can, if written well, reflect the facts of the event without bias. I was a 17 year old punk rock kid living in NYC at the time, and a classmate of Wodarski's son. Some of the officers were reported to have covered their badge numbers with a strip of black tape. I think I remember some very clear pictures of this in the press. Many of the protesters and members of the press cited this as an attempt to keep from being identified. I also remember hearing that many of the officers that arrived to assist were coming from a police funeral, in which the tradition is to cover your number with black tape in honor. This may also explain an initial tension for the officers involved. However, no NYPD officer was killed in the line of duty according to the NYPD memorial list. Not to say there wasn't a funeral, but I could very well be crossing twenty year old memories. I do not have quotable source, but a quick search verified that I'm not the only one who remembers these facts. 190.10.1.35 05:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A rematch

  • 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. "We don't want to get into a situation where we under-police something like this and it turns into a fiasco."[7] The city was on edge and tempers were running hot. In the midst of this, the park was turned into what Times reporter McFadden described as a bloody "war zone
  • The police were where to meet the protesters, what protesters? This section just jumps in here. I couldn't do much with the first paragraph, it needs to be expanded first.
  • I removed what looked like some extraneous information about other events (would probably fit into the background section somehow) because the events didn't directly relate to or influence the riot.
  • I removed what looked like obvious POV language, there seems to be a bit scattered here and there, if there are no objections I can scour the article for it, I am decent at detecting it.
  • May want to consider renaming the section. A rematch is a little too Friday Night Fights for my NPOV tastes.

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)

[edit] GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

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:

  1. "In the middle of the riot the commander left the scene to go to the bathroom at the station house, several blocks away from the fighting." What is the significance of this event?
  2. Is the third paragraph in "the city's reaction" section needed? Mentioning all of these unrelated events would probably be better off included in his article.

Needs inline citations:

  1. "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."
  2. "I was just standing there watching," he said. "The next thing that I remember is seeing the stick, and then a young woman who was helping me."
  3. "We've got cops back there in ambulances who've been hit.""
  4. "Video and images of "police officers striking demonstrators with nightsticks and kicking other apparently defenseless people while they were lying on the ground" were flashed continuously across the media."
  5. "The police actions were "not well planned, staffed, supervised or executed... which culminated in a riot.""
  6. "Ward said the mounted police were brought to the scene too soon and acted too rashly to confront protesters."
  7. ""It was a confrontation obviously. I don’t know if 'riot' is the right word", said Detective Gifford, a Police Department spokesperson."

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)

[edit] GA delisted

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)