Talk:Dominican Day Parade

message: * Photographs of criminal activity pain a negative portrait not only for the Dominican American community but also falls out of place with the article's main objective, which is to illustrate the purpose of the parade. Furthermore, the photograph can lead to legal trouble for the site's administrators as it can be seen as slander and thus a libel case can be taken against the owners.  You have to remember that everyone is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. The photo raises libelous red flags. --XLR8TION (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Dominican Day Parade is NOT primarily a criminal activity, UnclePaco. Characterizing it as such, whether through leading sections about "violence" or inappropriate photos constitutes vandalism. Zenwhat (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that is not vandalism. That is a violation of WP:NPOV. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Photographs

message: Unless a photograph serves a clear illustrative purpose, it should probably not be used in an article. Unless the parade problems were notable enough to be covered by multiple reliable sources (hopefully more reliable than the NY Post), it's unlikely they deserve a mention in the article. Large events of this size in NYC usually involve a few arrests and limited occurances of violence, so unless there is something particular noteworthy about this particular event's occurances, there's no reason or need to mention it in the article. Vassyana (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at both the photos on the page you'll see that I am the author of both of them. The image I don't think was generic it was actually one of the individuals who had committed a crime mentioned in the links.  
I have actually elaborated on the article and inserted it. If you look at these two articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Day_Carnival#Violence and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_Day_Parade#Controversy they have controversy and violence sections that were less developed. Anyway thanks for the help  
UnclePaco (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Felonies aren't petty crimes.  Shoplifting is a petty crime. Attacking officers with bottles and a stabbing aren't considered to be a petty crime.  I thinke we should all work on expanding the article to have at least a comparable amount of information to the Puerto Rican Day parade.  UnclePaco (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: just because something isn't on the news channel doesnt make it non newsworthy. The NY times, Daily News and the Post are are all newsworthy papers. UnclePaco (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: and why is it ok for you to remove it but i have to refrain from placing it in? i've already refrained from the photograph and it seems i have to bend over backwards to make you happy.  UnclePaco (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion 

message: First off, XLR8TION, it looks like you may have violated WP:3RR.  If that is the case, then you may have to deal with another consequence.  There's not much I can do to help on that front.
User:UnclePaco,  There have been some people trying to give some friendly advice here: I think a single incident at a parade is not a terribly notable event.  Any large gathering of public people is bound to have instances of crime.  I would be more shocked if there weren't.  You mentioned that the Macy's Thanksgiving Parade has a section on "injuries and incidents".  It does, but careful examination shows that all of the entries are related to balloon mishaps.  Besides, it is a poor argument to say that just because "x" article has this, that "y" article should have this.  This is in the spirit of WP:OTHERSTUFF.
I would find that your case is more valid if the single year incident was more notable, or that there was a pattern or recurrence.  I think this qualifies as WP:NOT#NEWS.  Even if there exists a reference, it is non-notable in the long term encyclopedic sense.  You may be thinking that XLR8TION is trying to keep this out for other reasons, and I have no clue, but it is non-encyclopedic, and clearly of limited importance.  Ask yourself this:  50 years from now, is someone going to be interested in reading about an incident like this in 2007?  I would have to say no.  Given that it is not encyclopedic.
It is my opinion that you need to let this one go.  Even if you choose to not take my advice, I suspect that when this goes to RFC, the consensus will be to eliminate the section, unless, as I mentioned above, there is a better sense that this is an annual part of the parade, or was particularly brutal.  From reading the articles, the latter does not appear to be the case.  Once it clears RFC, you may find yourself on the short end of any revisions, as they would be in going against consensus.  I am basing this on previous RFC outcomes.
As for civility:  I think the both of you have been dancing around that issue.  I think you both need to walk away for a while and find some other articles to mull over  I think we are clearly getting into violating WP:OWN.  In shot, these are not your articles.  They re public domain.  Anyone can edit them.  If you have problems, you come here and you work them out.  If that doesn't work, you go ask for outside comment. (RFC).  After that, you can try arbitration.  What I am seeing are editors talking past each other.  Instead of truly trying to improve things, you both have been digging in your heels.  Passion is to be applauded.  Passion spilling over to comments that are "talking down" to another are unappreciated by everyone.
I am not here to tell you what to do, and I am not here to preach. I am merely extending some advice.  My feeling is that the two of you are going to end up getting repeatedly blocked for longer and longer times.  No one wants this.  I'm sure you both have great skills which could be helpful to many articles here.  Good editing, and Peace to you both. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: XLR8TION has been blocked for 2 weeks for violating WP:3RR. UnclePaco, please read what others users have to say. If the edit warring continues after the unblock, then I will impose a revert parole and try to mediate this dispute. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gentlemen, PLEASE!

message: http://video.aol.com/video-detail/dominican-day-parade-fun/4260368271
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=15680240
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=15714615
UnclePaco (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video 

message: I protected the article for 72 hours to end the edit war. Please use discussion and consensus to resolve this dispute. Spartaz Humbug! 07:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Hello! This is what we argued about earlier:
=== (Begin) ===
==== Violence ====
There have been serval occurences of violence during and after the event. For example in 1995 after the parade there were reports of attacks upon NYPD officers with parade goers throwing glass bottles at them.
 Individuals were also chased in and out of buildings and trapped inside thier apartments with bats.
 In 2007, there were also arrests for two stabbings and an individual hit with a bottle.
==== References ====
=== (End) ===
Hopefully we can resolve this dispute and integrate this into the article. If and when we do I'll request for unprotection and I'll put it in.  Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs)  16:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done some work.  Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs)  17:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, almost done :)  Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs)  02:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is what the merge will look like: User:Compwhizii/PageSandbox. I'll let this sit for a bit before I request unprotection.  Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs)  02:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please replace the content page with this.  Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs)  19:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't see anyone else participating in this, please demonstrate consensus for this change. —Random832 19:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs)  01:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Why?  Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs)  02:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there is no consensus to not have it put in, and it is well sourced, it should stay.  CWii(Talk|Contribs)  22:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute Resolution 

message: Hopefully we can resolve this dispute and integrate this into the article. If and when we do I'll request for unprotection and I'll put it in.  Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs)  16:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done some work.  Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs)  17:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, almost done :)  Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs)  02:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is what the merge will look like: User:Compwhizii/PageSandbox. I'll let this sit for a bit before I request unprotection.  Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs)  02:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please replace the content page with this.  Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs)  19:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't see anyone else participating in this, please demonstrate consensus for this change. —Random832 19:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs)  01:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Why?  Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs)  02:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there is no consensus to not have it put in, and it is well sourced, it should stay.  CWii(Talk|Contribs)  22:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  (End) 

message: Incluir nombrr de Victor Perez, como el primer presidente del desfile dominicano de New York 174.206.167.218 (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primer Presidente del dwsfile dominicano de new york, se llama Voctor Perez 

message: Incluir nombrr de Victor Perez, como el primer presidente del desfile dominicano de New York 174.206.167.218 (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primer Presidente del dwsfile dominicano de new york, se llama Voctor Perez 

message: Incluir nombrr de Victor Perez, como el primer presidente del desfile dominicano de New York 67.81.226.180 (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primer Presidente del dwsfile dominicano de new york, se llama Voctor Perez 

message: Incluir nombrr de Victor Perez, como el primer presidente del desfile dominicano de New York 67.81.226.180 (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primer Presidente del dwsfile dominicano de new york, se llama Voctor Perez 

message: Incluir nombrr de Victor Perez, como el primer presidente del desfile dominicano de New York 67.81.226.180 (talk) 04:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primer Presidente del desfile dominicano de new york, se llama Voctor Perez