Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:21, 2 January 2008

Photographs

• 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)

• go to dispute resolution for this. It is neither slander nor was it libel. There was an arrest at the parade. Furthermore, neither the faces of the officers nor of the suspect can be seen so the persons identity cannot be determined. By the way an arrest does not mean guilt nor conviction. UnclePaco (talk) 03:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I will go to dispute resolution if required, however this parade is about the Dominican-American parade, not the 2007 parade only! All parades in NYC whether it's St. Patrick's Day or Gay Pride has arrest every year. The photo does not contribute to the article in anyway, therefore it will be removed each and everytime. Furthermore, it's slanderous to the person be arrested and denigrating to the ideal the parade is trying to give to the entire community. Are you trying to paint Dominicans as criminals and riff-raffs? Apparently that picture and the lack of importance to the article clearly illustrate this intent.--XLR8TION (talk) 04:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • it tells the entire story not just the small portion you want to highlight. feel free to open up dispute resolution. i'll reply. UnclePaco (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I have opened a dispute and will follow through with it. For the meantime, please do not add photograph until a resolution has been reached.--XLR8TION (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

what is the link? i'll simply add a controversy section. UnclePaco (talk) 00:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • • The parade article simply discusses the parade in general. You can incorporate the blurb into the article as long as you have an article to source it (that picture could have been taken at any parade, therefore that is not a valid reference. Please cite an article). There is no need to create a new subsection unless it was something of great importance, like what happened at the Puerto Rican Day Parade back in 2001 when women were fondled by attendees and cops stood by watching and doing nothing. That was a significant controvery, but the arrest of a drunk or a riff-raff is not a controversy nor made headlines. The focus of the article is to concentrate on what makes the parade important, notable or noteworthy. --XLR8TION (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

So the way in which you enlarged the puerto rican day's controversy section but deleted the one in the dominican day parade is a bit, umm... unusual. I have found another source that speaks about the violence that has occurred at the parade http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE7DD163AF937A2575BC0A963958260 What do you mean the photograph could have been taken at any parade? Are you stating that it wasn't at the Domincan Day parade? UnclePaco (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

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)

I have the new york times here http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE7DD163AF937A2575BC0A963958260 UnclePaco (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• • That is a normal article about normal arrests. The parade is not even 20 years old and any reader will find the same information when it comes to unruly arrests if they read an article on the St. Patrick's Parade. The addition of any information relating to criminal activity should be added only as Vassyana mentioned above. If it's noteworthy they would be a whole article solely on the crime(s)/criminal(s) than just a bunch of arrests. You have to take into account that the article also covers parades in other cities.--XLR8TION (talk) 11:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It was an article about police officers being assaulted and a large number of arrests. It was not in another city as you stated it was in new york. I have found multiple sources. The New York times counts as being a reliable source. If you look here which is in new york http://en.wikipedia.org/Labor_Day_Carnival#Violence and the puerto rican day parade you'll find similiar events. Why are you so protective of this article? You also didn't reply to the above statement. Since I found a reliable source (new york times) unless you can provide reasonable rationale concerning why it shouldn't be included i will place a Violence section or Controversy section in. (like the labor day carnival has as well as the puerto rican day parade has) UnclePaco (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• First, the words New York Times, New York and Puerto Rican are capitalized always. Second, I am not being protective of no article, however, I won't let any article that I have worked on or cleaned-up fall to a standard that is low and unreliable. It is apparent that English is not your first language, therefore, as someone who has spoken the language since Day 1, I feel it's my duty to maintain proper grammar and structure in articles. As I and Vassyana have informed you the photograph does not belong in this article as it does not illustrate the purpose of the parade. Furthermore, your article on arrests clearly show this as an annual occurence that wouldn't make a blip on media screens. Crime is present at all events in New York City. Unless it clearly is a noteworthy event, than it doesn't belong in this article.--XLR8TION (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)