Talk:1971 May Day protests

message: This article was cited as a source here. zafiroblue05 | Talk 18:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Besides being heavily POV, this article is listed as a High Importance District of Columbia article.  Why is that?  Heck, I was in the area then and I don't think of it as high importance.  CsikosLo (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the reason it is marked as high importance is that, from a historical perspective, the 1971 mayday protests will be one of maybe two or three demonstrations taking place in the DC area that people will care about 100 years from now. The very idea that military forces were used against citizens, and used to the extent that they arrested 12,000 people is a very important part of not only DC but US history. Ethyr (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: High Importance?

message: Did a major Wikifying of the article. The article hopefully reads less like a fan article now. While I deleted some material for Original Research  I was forced to leave a lot of material in (and maybe delete material I should not have) because I don't have the 1971 Washington Post articles and the book used as sources in front of me. Big issue is to find out what the government was held libel for and how much. Also the time line is probably out of whack. Edkollin (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up

message: I removed the following from the section "Overview"
The combination of the protesters desire to shut down the government and the desire by the Administration of President Nixon to keep the government running created a state of siege in the United States capital. Despite a massive show of force that kept the government open the Nixon Administration would come to view the events as very damaging. The protests resulted in the largest amount of mass arrests in the US history, and its government to be held legally libel.
Besides being PoV and unsourced and unencyclopedically vague, it is so clearly ignorant of its subject matter as to disgrace WP every hour that it stood:
: A recent editor found "virtual state of siege" and changed it to "state of siege", linking via Rdr to State of emergency. That article makes clear that "state of emergency is a quite specific legal provision that was not claimed in that event (in fact, so specific that (altho IANAL) i think the Supreme Court ruled (re Lincoln's use of martial wall in the North) does not exist except where civil courts are unable to function, far short of the DC situation.)
: The passage used "libel" as an adjective; clearly what was intended (whatever the facts may have been) was "liable.
What i really want to do is take a shower, or maybe vomit, to put this behind me. But i'm taking another look, beyond the first headinged secn. --Jerzy•t 21:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Gutted the "Overview"

message: * Renamed to "Planning"; "Background" would be the history of VN protest, and maybe of the war. Should be non-controversial.--Jerzy•t 08:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to "Background" (now "Planning") secn

message: :sounds to me that this: "Undercover infiltrators were so transparent they were easily neutralized by overwhelmingly generous offers of drugs, sex and rock & roll" is actually offering the 80's heavy metal music scene. Is there a way to change the words in order for them not to be misleading? or better yet, provide an external reference?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.192.10.50 (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Undercover infiltrators were so transparent they were easily neutralized by overwhelmingly generous offers of drugs, sex and rock & roll". That is plausible for this era. Sex and Drugs and Rock and Roll was a reality then Hippies, Woodstock etc. Don't exactly remember exactly when the expression started but when Ian Dury had  cult hit with it in 1977 the expression had been around awhile. And the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover used undercover and infiltration tactics often.  And a lot of times they did stick out like a sore thumb. The external references are a big problem. Eventually the article needs to be cut down to a couple of paragraphs if no more references are found which might be because this is kind of a forgotten protest. The protests did quickly taper off after Kent State and most histories write it that way glossing over this exception. 209.225.141.253 (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The 80's

message: Is this the demonstration about which Nixon famously proclaimed that he would completely ignore it and watch a football game instead? -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Nixon

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 1971 May Day protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://georgetownvoice.com/2010/01/28/a-penchant-for-protests/
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5gYCwI4ba?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.upi.com%2FAudio%2FYear_in_Review%2FEvents-of-1971%2F12295509436546-1%2F%23title to http://www.upi.com/Audio/Year_in_Review/Events-of-1971/12295509436546-1/#title
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.upi.com/Audio/Year_in_Review/Events-of-1971/12295509436546-1/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified