Talk:1988 Tompkins Square Park riot

message: 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)
thread_title: NYT article

message: 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)
thread_title: GA nomination

message: 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)
thread_title: "alleged police brutality" category

message: 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)
thread_title:  Thanks 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Great - thanks.  I think you gave useful suggestions that improved the article.  --David Shankbone 16:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA on hold 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Id. 

message: 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."Yes, a Police Riot," editorial of The New York Times, August 26, 1988, Section A; Page 30, Column 1; Editorial Desk
--David Shankbone 02:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Okay, cool.  Thanks for the links.  --David Shankbone 12:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: *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)
thread_title: '''[[Tompkins_Square_Park_Police_Riot_%281988%29#Background|Background]]'''

message: *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)
thread_title: [[Tompkins_Square_Park_Police_Riot_%281988%29#First_signs_of_trouble|First signs of trouble]]

message: *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)
thread_title: [[Tompkins_Square_Park_Police_Riot_%281988%29#A_rematch:_August_6|A rematch]]

message: 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:
#"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?
#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:
#"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."
#"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."
#"We've got cops back there in ambulances who've been hit.""
#"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."
#"The police actions were "not well planned, staffed, supervised or executed... which culminated in a riot.""
#"Ward said the mounted police were brought to the scene too soon and acted too rashly to confront protesters."
#""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)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

message: 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)
thread_title: GA delisted

message: 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)
thread_title: badges