Misplaced Pages

Talk:UC Davis pepper spray incident: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:50, 26 November 2011 editYoureallycan (talk | contribs)12,095 edits add BLP other← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:34, 12 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,804,576 editsm →top: blp=yes has priority over blp=other; cleanupTag: AWB 
(311 intermediate revisions by 51 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{WP USA|class=start|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=start|importance=}} {{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|class=C|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low}}
{{BLP other}}
{{WikiProject California|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject OWS|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject University of California|UCD=yes|UCD-importance=|importance=Mid}}
}}


== References and material for expansion ==
==Who took pictures?==
===UC Davis Social Science Teach-in===
Misplaced Pages needs pictures of this event. Click "Upload file" on the left menu and upload pictures, preferably to Wikimedia Commons so that anyone in the world may use them. If anyone has trouble posting pictures then please post on this page or post on my user talk page. Thanks. ]] 15:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
;November 28
:The fact that nobody has shared a free image of this event is a sad testimony of the lack of understanding of free culture among the public, including the activists who should now better... :( --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 09:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
*"Abolitionism", Ari Kelman, professor of history
*"Taxation, California politics and civil liberties", Mark Van Horn, director of Student Farm
*"Anarchist Anthropology: Cultural Anthropolists on Anarchist Politics", Laura Meek and Whitney Larratt-Smith, graduate students, anthropology
*"How Nonviolence is Racist"
*"Happiness, Wealth and Community"
*"Cops Off Campus: Toward a Safer University", Joshua Clover, professor of English
*"Budget Blues: UC Financial Structure and Privatization"
*"Tips on Argumentation"
*"The History of Police Militarization in the US", Charles Shaw


;November 29
==Questions==
*"Rising Inequality in the US: The Story of Your Lives", Ann Stevens, professor and chair of economics
Some user posted these questions in the article. I am moving them here.
*"Protests and Politics", Eric Rachway, professor of history
*"Protest Indoors and Out: Why Occupations Matter for Universities", Michael McQuarrie, assistant professor of sociology
*Talk by Clarence Walker, professor of history
*"Whose Diversity? Our Diversity! Latinos and the University of California", Loreana Oropeza, associate professor of history
*"1968 Brazil and 2011 Davis: What can we learn by comparing the past and the present?" Tori Langland, assistant professor of history
*"The UC student movement meets the OWS movement", Sarah Agusto, graduate student, sociology
*"The Role of Unions", Nick Perrone, graduate student in history
*"The Board of Regents, the University and the State Legislature", Louis Warren, professor of American history
*"Unmaking the University of California", John Hall, professor of sociology
*"Financing the University: Where Has Tuition Gone?" Rob Feenstra, professor of economics
*"Three Theories of Power, Three Theories of Stuggle: Marx, Fanon, Foucault", Nathan Brown, professor of English


===Investigative task force===
*How many personally administered pepper spray?
On December 5, UC President Mark Yudof announced the names of 12 people heading the task force to investigate the UC Davis pepper spray incident. The task force will be led by professor emeritus Cruz Reynoso of the UC Davis School of Law, a former California Supreme Court Justice. Members include:
* How many protestors were seated? Links to ones who have issued statements / interviews.
* How many students witness the events? Links to notable statements.


*Patrick Blacklock, Yolo County administrator and immediate past-chair, Cal Aggie Alumni Association.
]] 01:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
*Peter Blando, business services manager, Office of the Vice Provost-Information and Educational Technology, UC Davis, and past chair, UC Davis Staff Assembly (nominated by the UC Davis Staff Assembly).
*Alan Brownstein, professor, School of Law, UC Davis (nominated by the Academic Senate).
*Tatiana Bush, undergraduate student and former Associated Students senator (nominated by the Associated Students of UC Davis).
*Daniel M. Dooley, senior vice president, external relations, UC Office of the President and designated systemwide administrator for whistleblower complaints alumnus, UC Davis.
*Penny Herbert, manager, Department of Clinical Operations, UC Davis, and staff advisor to the UC Board of Regents.
*Kathryn Kolesar, chair, UC Davis Graduate Student Association (nominated by the Graduate Student Association).
*William McKenna, law student, UC Davis (nominated by the Law Students Association).
*Carolyn Penny, director in International Law Programs and principal and mediator, Common Ground Center for Cooperative Solutions, UC Davis Extension (nominated by the UC Davis Academic Federation).
*Eric Rauchway, professor, Department of History, UC Davis (nominated by the Academic Senate).
*Judy Sakaki, vice president, student affairs, UC Office of the President and former vice chancellor for student affairs, UC Davis.
*Rebecca Sterling, undergraduate student and former Associated Students senator (nominated by the Associated Students of UC Davis).


===Bibliography===
== ] video resource ==
*Baker, A. (December 3, 2011). . ''The New York Times'', SR6.
*] (November 19, 2011). . ''Washington Monthly''.
*Black, D. (December 3, 2011). Pepper spray inventor blasts improper use. ''Toronto Star'', A24.
*Bowe, R. (November 21, 2011). . ''San Francisco Bay Guardian''.
*Cohen, S. (December 5, 2011). Task Force of 13 Will Investigate UC Davis Pepper Spray Incident. ''KTXL-TV''.
*Egelko, B. (November 23, 2011). . ''San Francisco Chronicle'', A-1.
*Fagan, K. (November 23, 2011). Pepper spray's sting spreads. ''San Francisco Chronicle'', A1.
*Fagan, K. (November 22, 2011). . ''San Francisco Chronicle'', A1.
*] (November 19, 2011). . ''The Atlantic''.
*Filler, D. (December 2, 2011). . ''The Davis Enterprise'', A12.
*] (November 19, 2011). . ''The Atlantic''.
*<u>Golden, C. (November 15, 2011). . ''The Davis Enterprise'', A1.</u>
*Golden, C. (December 15, 2011). , ''The Davis Enterprise'', A1.
*Gould, J. E. (November 21, 2011). . ''Time''.
**"Bob Ostertag, a professor of technocultural studies and music, said in an op-ed that this incident and others, including a protest at UC Berkeley at which police allegedly hit students with batons, were evidence of an increased militarization of the state's police forces. "These are not trivial matters," Ostertag wrote. "This is a moment to stand up and be counted. I am proud to teach at a university where students have done so."
*]. (November 20, 2011). . ''Salon''.
*]. (November 26, 2011). . ''The Nation''.
*Islas, S. (November 28, 2011). . ''The California Aggie''.
*Johnston, A. (November 19, 2011). . ''The Nation''.
*Kennicott, P. (November 20, 2011). . ''The Washington Post''.
*Madrigal, A. (November 19, 2011). . ''The Atlantic''
*McDonald, I. (November 29, 2011). State Attorney General's Assistance Requested in UC Davis Pepper Spray Investigation. ''KTXL-TV''.
*] (November 18, 2011). . ''Washington Monthly''.
*Shaw, C. (November 28, 2011). . UC Davis Occupy Teach-In.
*] (November 22, 2011). . ''Rolling Stone''.
*Stanton, S. (December 15, 2011). . ''The Sacramento Bee'', 1A.
*Strumwasser, H. (December 5, 2011). . '"The California Aggie''.
*Tam, D. (November 23, 2011). . ''The Times-Standard ''.
*Vise, D. D. (November 29, 2011). At UC-Davis, a strike over tuition. ''The Washington Post''.
*Yudof, M. G. (December 14, 2011). . . UC Newsroom. University of California.


== POV Template ==
November 19/2011 7:21:19 PM "A California police officer pepper-sprayed protesters at the University of California, Davis on Friday as the authorities were trying to clear out the students participating in the "Occupy UC Davis" movement. Photo AP."


This whole article is written with a tone of indignation and contains bias. I don't know enough about the subject to update it, but someone should. ] (]) 23:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
] (]) 02:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
:I'm afraid that is your personal opinion; sans evidence, there is nothing actionable. As a result, I will remove the tag if you can't provide any other details. I know the subject and I am familiar with the large body of citations supporting it, and I'm willing to remove any glaring POV. ] (]) 23:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


== This is a news item not an Encyclopedia topic ==
== Pepper spray incident ==


You might as well make a page on every incident and activity going on in society and in the news. Maybe if you Wikipedists should spend more time out of your comfortable home and start uniting with protesters and progressive <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
this section is very one-sided. I would like to hear from the police and see the situation contextualized a bit. What were the police officers' reasons for doing what they did? ] (]) 04:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
:I wasn't aware you were put in charge of defining what is and what is not an encyclopedia topic. Why would anyone here have to do anything other than write about the topic? Put down the bong, please. ] (]) 03:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
:I agree. There is no mention of Chancellor Katehi's numerous efforts of outreach to the community. Additionally, loaded words such as "walk of shame" are inappropriate. ] (]) 05:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
:::I couldn't agree less, ''a fortiori'' in light of Katehi's subsequent public apologies to the students and the larger UC Davis community and her recent attempts to distance herself from the decision to use pepper spray. Even so, there are many commentators who feel that the police acted appropriately, including Charles J. Kelly who authored the use of force guidelines for the Baltimore Police Department. - http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57328289/outrage-over-police-pepper-spraying-students/ - This position should be part of the article. // ] (]) 18:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . You may add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
::i disagree. the section is well sourced. the police will not talk to anyone except their lawyer at this point, but in any case the video speaks for itself. the officer is not being taunted, chased, cornered, or anything - he is perfectly free to spray the protesters who are on the ground. as for Katehi - if you have sourced examples of her outreach by all means add them. What words would you use to describe when sitting, arm-linked students line the walk to her SUV to silently protest her part in the actions - "Manning the rail?" "Reception line?" "Group hug?" - change "walk of shame" but the article should include a description of the protest. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/20/us/california-occupy-pepperspray/index.html


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).
:::An incredibly lopsided article.
:::The protesters were given ample warning, and they did in fact surround and taunt the cops for over 20 minutes. The full video shows how the event unfolded.


{{sourcecheck|checked=true}}
:::<br />
:::<br />
:::<br /> <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by :::] (]) 15:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">]:Online</sub></small> 03:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
::::Ample warning of what? To stop camping? The only thing the police had any right to stop, per campus admin request, as protesting was completely legal and allowed by campus policy for this date?


== Sacramento Bee revelations ==
::::Those protestors sitting down, without tents, holding arms is setting up camps now? And that given non-resisting, non-violent, seated students, instead of using their officers to physically remove (which they had no legal right to do anyway) each protestor they instead decided to pepper spray them?


I added a small amount on UCD's hiring of consultants to fix its negative online image, all sourced to the Bee. This is just a placeholder because it is breaking news; hopefully there will be more info coming out. ] (]) 00:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
::::Odd that those officers were not only in no threat, they were not intimidated and could see they were not under intimidation or threat. Not only that but they violated policy and training by deliberately creating a hostile situation that could put civilians and other officers at risk.


== UC Davis Tries That 'One Trick' to Purge Its Reputation for Pepper-Spraying Student Activists ==
::::Sorry, no amount of crying "it's ilegal it's illegal" over and over again changes the legality of what the students did or the complete unecessity of pepper spraying students who were sitting down non-violently. ] (]) 10:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane


https://reason.com/blog/2016/04/14/uc-davis-tries-that-one-trick-to-purge-i/print
:::::I've fixed the sourcing (replacing a primary source with an article from The Independent). The article reports the facts, including the police justification for attacking the students, and the subsequent brouhaha. Is there anything more to add or can we remove the NPOV tag? --] 16:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


Key quote:
{{outdent}}The reference does not include a quote that "police forced open their mouths and pepper-sprayed down their throats." This should be removed from the article or a reliable source added with that information. ] (]) 17:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


'''"UC Davis would like to put the matter behind them. But instead they've managed to figure out how to give themselves yet another round of bad publicity. They have spent thousands of dollars trying to game the internet to try to hide the incident or reduce the chance that people looking up information about the college bring up the incident. The Sacramento Bee discovered through records requests that the college paid at least $175,000 to try to improve its online reputation in the wake of the pepper-spraying incident"'''
== Pepper spray down students' throats ==


We need to keep an eye on this page to make sure that this has not affected the ] of the page. --] (]) 19:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Prof. Brown's letter seems to be the only source of the claim that Police forced open students' mouths and sprayed pepper spray down their throats. There were dozens of cameras and hundreds of witnesses around, but none seem to be able to corroborate that claim. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
* I'd like to second this skepticism. Video of a student's mouth being forced open, as claimed, would be far more convincing.--] (]) 21:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
* I'd like to further support the dispute of this claim. As the videos in the above section show, the use of pepper spray was done from a distance and while the police were standing, and there is no proof of any police pulling hands away from faces and spraying down people's throats. Absolutely unsubstantiated allegations. If there is any evidence of it, please share. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*I agree also. I watched quite a bit of footage of the entire incident and viewed news coverage to boot. Nowhere but here have I heard anything about force feeding someone pepper spray.] (]) 06:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
*Where is the video of this incident happening? There is no proof that this happened, it is just one man saying "I saw it happen." I saw the exact same incident and I saw protestors riding around on unicorns. Why don't we add that to the article as well? ] (]) 08:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
::The source, an open letter posted on a blog called UCDavis Bicycle Barricade, does not meet ] requirements. The letter should be removed from this encyclopedia article. ] (]) 15:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


:::I've just seen an interview with a student who corroborated that he was a victim of the "pepper spray" incident described in the open letter. Indeed it would have been difficult for the students not to get the poison sprayed into their throats, given the proximity of the attacker. --] 17:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


::::Did the student state that his mouth was forced open by the police? This content obviously must be published in a reliable source before including it on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 17:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC) :'noting that Katehi was involved in and approved hiring three firms for '''$407,000''' to repair her online image, as well as that of UC Davis.' ] (]) 23:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


== Doesn't the opening section heavily downplay the complicity of the administration? ==
== The spin on whether the officers were surrounded ==


With literal paid "public relations" personal editing this page, it makes me uncomfortable how much of the administration's guilt is pushed later down the page. Does anyone else share this worry? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I watched a much longer video -- about 40 minutes long -- that put the pepper spraying incident into perspective, and yes the officers *WERE* surrounded by protestors when they decided to use pepper spray. However, the spin that the pepper spray was necessary for "self-defense" was not at all true. Simply put, the officers had about a half-dozen people in custody when they were encircled by a couple of hundred protestors chanting, "Let them go!" It was a standoff, at worst. (While nowhwere near as deadly, the closest analogy would be the standoff between the Chinese army and the protestors at Tiananmen Square.) After the pepper spray was used, the protestors opened a path for the officers and chanted, "You can go!" ] (]) 14:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


== Return of Linda Katehi ==
In addition to this, they protesters even chanted multiple times, "If you let them go, we will let you leave."] (]) 06:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


Linda Katehi has been rehired by UC Davis. Does this fall within the scope of the article, given that she was originally let go due to to this incident? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Having witnessed the protest and watched all the videos, I cannot see how several hundred people yelling, "From Davis to Greece, fuck the police!" at these police officers doesn't constitute being surrounded. ] (]) 08:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


== Should this image be added? ==
No, the officers were no surrounded. At all. Having people on the sidelines watching you trying to disperse a protest, with a retreat directly behind you (whoops, did you miss the part where they then used that to escape) that is secured by a line of officers is NOT surrounded.

Even if magically it were, the situation would have been in no legal way justification as a "threat" or "perception" that justifies the use of pepper spray. Using videos of the AFTERMATH of the pepper spraying when, actually justifiably, the protestors didn't appreciate the pepper spraying of unarmed, sitting, non-violent protestors also doesn't magically make them "surrounded" BEFORE the pepper spraying occurred. ] (]) 10:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

<br />
<br />
<br />
Part 1 shows them being warned to leave and the protesters not moving. Part 2 shows them surrounding the officers and linking arms at 6:00, at 8:00-9:30 you can see the camera pan around and show the entire crow and if you look between the police you can see protesters with their arms linked all the way around the police. Part 3 is the most prolific since its much more interesting to watch police pepper spray people without the context of videos 1 and 2. If you were to be surrounded by a group of 100-200 people screaming, "F*** you!" would you not feel there was a threat? ] (]) 22:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

:Part 1: "This is your last warning. Should you remain, you do so understanding that a peace officer place you under arrest for violation of the law. Any resistance, passive or physical, shall result in additional charges. You shall be arrested, handcuffed, and may be transported to and incarcerated at County Jail." -- I missed the part where he announced that pepper spray might be used against an entire group of non-threatening people. As an asthmatic, who might well come to death under such circumstances, I guess that such a warning is probably required even if this kind of behaviour were legal in the first place. Can you indicate in which minute the warning about pepper spray use occurred?
:Part 2: Regarding 6:00: I don't see much linking of arms there. I see an interested crowd with cameras moving towards the action so as not to miss anything interesting. I ''certainly'' don't see any surrounding there. Is the letter ''i'' surrounded by a dot?<br>Regarding 8:00-9:30 -- huh? I don't know why a guy is shouting "If you let them go we will let you leave". They ''may'' actually be appealing to the police's supposed interest in reducing the overtime they have to work by deescalating through release of the prisoners. Or he was just a bit overexcited, because the situation actually appears under the control of the police. There are a lot of students ''more or less'' surrounding a police circle around the handcuffed students. At 8:45 an officer arrives from outside, greets his colleagues while walking to one of the arrested student, talks to the student for a while, then 9:10-9:25 walks ''alone'' with that student to the left, out of the police circle, and through the 'surrounding' students. He does not appear to be the least bit concerned.<br>What you seem to have missed: From 9:50 we can see a row of students sitting on the ground, apparently interlocked with their arms. The row stretches from further left on the grass up to about the middle of the footpath. There is more than enough space left, even on the footpath, in case the police want to move in that direction. Then we can see two officers raising impressive guns as if going to take aim, leading to angry shouting that comments on the obviously inappropriate pose against a resistant but peaceful crowd, then a chorus "Don't shoot them". Some students appear scared, as the are moving away from the footpath and on the lawn (10:00). Someone makes a sign to the remaining two to turn their backs to the police (10:10), and at 10:40 we see three students in that position, in the middle of the footpath. Another threatening pose provokes the "don't shoot them" chorus again. At 11:00 there are five students on the footpath, blocking it completely. 12:30-12:40 we can see John Pike coordinating the further action. 13:25-13:40 we see two officers lead one of the arrested students off to the left, out of the police circle, and through the 'surrounding' students. I can see no sign that they are not fully in control of the situation.
:Part 3: 3:45 we again see John Pike coordinating. He is holding a red bottle. There is no escalation whatsoever at this point. (Remember that 5 minutes ago two officers left the area with a prisoner by peacefully walking to the left.) 4:10 an officer on the other side of the sitting students (how did he get there if the police circle was surrounded?) pulls on the arms of a sitting student but encounters passive resistance. 4:20, John Pike ''crosses the line of sitting students by peacefully stepping over their shoulders'', still holding the red bottle. At that point we hear cries of "what are you doing", apparently referring to a beginning of the pepper spraying, which we can first see at 4:25.
:Altogether, everything was exactly as reported by the press and not as reported by you. The first 30 minutes were boring. I want my money back. PS: I don't know where you heard "fuck you". I heard a lot of shouting, but nothing as aggressive as that. Not that that would have justified the violence, of course. ] ] 00:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

== Response section ==

The response section erroneously conflates the violence at UC Davis with earlier events at UC Berkeley, referring to Chancellor Birgeneau of UC Berkeley as though he had something to do with the decision to deploy tear gas at UC Davis. No doubt the protests at UC Davis were an attempt to express solidarity with student who were brutalized at UC Berkeley, but the relationship between these incidents is highly attenuated. // ] (]) 14:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

== UC Davis Police Chief Placed on Administrative Leave ==

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2011/1121/UC-Davis-police-chief-on-leave-after-pepper-spraying // ] (]) 15:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
==Interview with victim of police attack==
* . -Current TV, 21 November, 2011. --] 17:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

== The pepper spraying picture ==

The pepper spraying picture is not representative of the overall event and should not be placed in the lede to represent the event - it fits in the section about the pepper spraying - the event is not about pepper spraying is it and we should not assert that it is. ] (]) 20:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
:Could not agree less. As stated by the poster that you reverted, the picture is iconic, and it is the reason why people are visiting/editing this once fallow article in the first place. // ] (]) 21:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
:I have reverted Off2riorob's edit. The image shows the (by far) most notable event related to the subject of the article. &mdash; ] ] 21:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
::Please don't do that until consensus arises and discussion happens. If the article is about a pepper spraying the title needs to be changed - the most notable event is not representative of the overall event - it should not be placed in the lede to represent an event because it is exciting or dramatic or because that single event is attracting attention today in the news. ] (]) 21:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Why is it that you are allowed to edit war and no-one else is? Off2riorob's revert was inappropriate and should be reverted. &mdash; ] ] 21:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
::: Without taking a position, isn't the standard that the stable version remains until consensus is reached? ] (]) 21:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
::: Please stop reverting your own version, Off2riorob. I say this as a longstanding Wikipedian who posted here rather than reverting to what I consider to be the current stable version. // ] (]) 21:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
:::As I said in my revert, the picture is iconic. Without this picture, or rather the various videos of the same scene, I would of course not be here either. I first read about it in an Austrian newspaper, by the way. The newspaper mentioned the officer who can be seen on the picture by name. ] ] 21:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
::::The picture is not representative of the article subject - thats quite simple - as for iconic - that is not an excuse to add such a dramatic picture to represent an not dramatic event. People don't look at the iconic picture and think - Occupy UC Davis - they think pepper spraying incident and that is the section the picture belongs in. ] (]) 21:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
::::These non violent demonstrations have gone on at multiple UC locations for a month - almost totally without any violence at all - can you not see how false and undue it is to portray that topic in its lede with a single pepper spraying picture? ] (]) 21:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::Seriously? So I suppose you wouldn't put a photo of the Tiananmen Square massacre at the top of ] if we had one? Ridiculous. ] ] 21:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::I find Off2riob's position without merit, and I would encourage anyone without a dog in this fight to revert to the stable version which prominently features the photo of the pepper spraying incident at the top of the article. // ] (]) 21:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::This articles focus and topic is about one month of peaceful demonstrations - to portray that with a picture of pepper spraying in the lede is totally false. ] (]) 21:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I don't think we should lose the improvements that we had in between because of one POV warrior. ] ] 21:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::It might be hard for such an opinionated person as yourself on this topic - but I am not a POV warrior at all - I am a neutral uninvolved wikipedia editor with a degree of experience that simply wants the most NPOV and unbiased reporting of this topic as wikipedia can produce. ] (]) 22:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Care to respond to my Tiananmen Square question? And yes, there are a number of topics on which I am opinionated: pedophilia, torture, war crimes, ... ] ] 22:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::I replied...must be missing in edit conflict - as per other stuff exists and it being an incomparable event I don't usually pay much attention to tangents when we have all the details about this issue clearly in view. It is simply undue and false to portray this whole protest in the lede with a pepper spraying picture. Pepper spraying might be iconic but that is not a reason to falsely portray this month long almost totally peaceful event in the lede with such a picture. Rather than grouping together and deriding neutral well meaning uninvolved editors - you would do well to take their opinions about the state of the article on board. Of course if you want to use this wikipedia article to focus on and portray police violence you assert is torture I don't suppose you give a damn about neutral uninvolved input. ] (]) 22:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::Your opinion has been heard, and no one posting here on the Talk Page seems to agree with you. So, rather than calling other people opinionated while concomitantly holding your own opinions as utterly reasonable and beyond reproach, can you please just let it go? // ] (]) 22:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::I never let biased editing go, ever. I never forget users that support it, users that put their desires , their POV , their activism, above the projects npov reporting and educational goal ambitions. ] (]) 22:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
undid Off2riorob's much earlier edit removing the videos from the police violence section, but also duplicated the lead photo their without any indication in the edit summary or explanation. It said "restore deleted videos per talk", but I can see no discussion here about restoring the deleted videos. 72Dino later the photo from the lead again due to the duplication. I guess that 72Dino was not aware of this discussion and the reason for the duplication, and will move the iconic photo up again. ] ] 07:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

:I support high visibility of the picture, it has became an iconic image associated with this event. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 08:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

:People that are students at the Ca uni, or even any uni, or involved actively in the protests, should declare it in their support comments. I really fail to see how any neutral could support this picture to represent the event in the lede. There are and to present the protests with a picture of a pepper spray is simply false presentation and undue representation - the pepper spray picture belongs in the section about the pepper spray. ] (]) 13:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

::Plenty of solid reasons have been given. Your attempt to paint Misplaced Pages editors who disagree with you as tainted constitutes an argument ]. Your behavior is getting ugly. &mdash; ] ] 15:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

::At the risk of feeding the single-minded ''ad hominem'' troll in this dicussion, I am a UC Davis Law School Alumnus, but I have not been involved in any of the protests, nor do I have any interest in being involved in the Occupy Movement in any manner, way, shape, or form. Indeed, Occupy UC Davis was completely off my radar until a friend who lives in Oklahoma brought the pepper spraying incident to my attention. On this note, as far as I can tell, everyone with whom I have come into contact during the last week -- with one notable exception being Off2riorob -- seems to agree that the defining issue of pepper spraying as an unwarranted form of police brutality has completely overtaken the original theme of Occupy UC Davis, whatever that may have been. At this point, everything that happened before the pepper spraying incident is just background. That having been said, I encourage Off2riorob to continue speaking his mind on this issue, but I would truly appreciate it if he would stop slandering my editorial integrity simply because we hold different opinions. // ] (]) 18:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

:::For what its worth, I think that off2riorob makes a good case. I am not sure if this is valid comparison, but the article on "Tiananmen Square protests of 1989" doesn’t even have the "iconic" tank-man picture as its main image. Also, the fact that one person above openly admit that he/she does not have a neutral position further strengthen my support for replacing the main image. I do think what happened with the spaying was horrible, but I think that Wikipedias neutrality is the most important. ] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 18:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::If you are referring to me as the person admitting to not having a neutral position, I fail to see the relevance of my being a UC Davis Law School Alumnus to whatever position I take on this particular article. I graduated over 16 years ago, and I have no affiliation with any of the students involved with the protest, nor do I even know any of them, although I do know most of the lawyers who are representing people on both sides of the issue. The only relevance of my alumnus status to this particular incident is that it explains how the incident first came to my attention -- i.e., a friend of mine from Oklahoma brought it to my attention because she knew UC Davis to be my law school alma mater. // ] (]) 20:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
::::The tank man picture has been removed from that article for copyright reasons. See ].
::::To make it easier for Off2riorob to dismiss my input as biased: I teach at a university, I once spent a week 300 km from the US border, and I have a number of American colleagues. ] ] 19:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::I don't think the goal is to dismiss anybody argument on anything but the merits of the argument. To me it seems the question here is: Is the spray image the best way to represent "Occupy DC Davis" as a whole? And: Is the wanting of the spray image as main image motivated by anything other than a neutral point of view and logical inference? If the motivation for wanting the spray picture based ideology or even emotions, then this puts the neutrality of the article in jeopardy. The goal of Misplaced Pages should always be neutrality. Its not that I disagree 100% with the arguments for the spray-episode being a pivotal moment in the protests. But I also would be weary of anybody wanting use Misplaced Pages for pushing anything but the most balanced and fact based information possible. Sometimes one have to leave emotions at the door to be able to do that. On a side note, I teach at an University too, but I don’t live in the USA. I don’t know if that would make my view easy or not to dismiss. ] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 20:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::::::Indeed, the goal of the person seeking my disclosure *WAS* to dismiss the arguments of those who disagreed with him/her, and said person has succeeded to the limited degree that you are now considering the possibility that my status as a UC Davis Law School alumnus is somehow possibly coloring my opinion. My/your/anyone's status as a student/teacher/police officer/protestor/sympathizer is totally irrelevant, unless you are asking us to give an argument additional weight because of that status. // ] (]) 20:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::::I think its insulting to my intelligence that you suggest that I'm that easily manipulated. I'm capable of forming my own opinion. For example the following comment above is part of my reasoning: «And yes, there are a number of topics on which I am opinionated: pedophilia, torture, war crimes». This obviously is not coming from a NPOV. I don’t think there is a problem with NPOV because off2riorob mind-tricked me. I think it because of your attitude, your arguments and you lack of counter arguments to points made about Misplaced Pages guidelines for event representation and NPOV. And I certainly don’t think it because you are an academic, an university employee, or (if i might speculate a little) your left leaning politically. I am all of thous myself! The question still is: Is the Occypy UC Davis article AS A WHOLE best represented with the spray picture, or should the spray picture be confined to the «Police violence at Occupy UC Davis» section? I rather see more NPOV pro-con in that discussion, related to whats best in line with the Misplaced Pages spirit. ] (]) 20:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::Wow. I am the editor who, in response to Off2riorob's "It might be hard for such an opinionated person as yourself on this topic" responded with an 'admission' that I am "opinionated" on the topics of pedophilia, torture, war crimes. This was after Off2riorob made it pretty clear that he wants to protect the policeman who can be seen on the iconic photo, torturing students, from the unwanted attention. I would have taken it for granted that nobody wants to admit ''not'' being "opinionated" on these three topics, but apparently I was wrong. I guess some people have good reasons to edit anonymously...
::::::::::What makes all of this particularly interesting is the fact that Off2riorob, proved himself pretty biased with his responses to me at ], in which he tried to rationalise the obviously criminal behaviour. ] ] 21:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::::::::Followed the link to Biographies of Living Persons, and followed-up with a cursory review of Off2riorob's edits there censoring Hans Adler's well-researched posts on the issue of whether the use of pepper spray can be considered torture. Given Off2riorob's ongoing campaign to slander and silence anyone who disagrees with him on where the pepper spray photo belongs, I am not surprised, but very disappointed by Off2riorob's behavior on BLP. Up to now, I was prepared to dismiss Off2riorob's contentious behavior on this Talk Page as well intentioned albeit overzealous idealism. Now, not so much. // ] (]) 05:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::::::Point of order: I am not an academic; not a university employee; not a left-leaning politico. Astonishingly, you take offense that I "suggest" that you are easily manipulated and cannot form your own opinion. Never said that; never suggested it. What I did and do suggest is that you are giving undue weight to an ''ad hominem'' argument in supporting your opinion. To that point, once again, the *OTHER* poster to whom you refer admits he is opinionated, but at no point did said other poster state that his opinions should be used as an editorial guide for Misplaced Pages. To the point of whether the pepper spraying incident is what makes this article noteworthy, I concur with Henrymx in his post below. To wit, the Occupy UC Davis article should not and would not exist but for the pepper spraying incident. // ] (]) 21:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::::''To me it seems the question here is: Is the spray image the best way to represent "Occupy DC Davis" as a whole?''
::::::Off2riorob's edit moved the image farther down the page, essentially replacing the image at the top of the article with text. The spray image is better than text. If you have another suggestion, go ahead and suggest it. &mdash; ] ] 21:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think that the Tiananmen Square tank photo is a good comparison. Those protests were quite well-known and had worldwide media coverage before that incident happened. The pepper spraying incident at UC Davis brought an enormous amount of attention to the demonstration. I think that the argument against it boils down to saying that it's a single incident that isn't representative of a several weeks long protest. I would counter that this single incident is the entire reason that the protest is notable in the first place. Frankly if this incident hadn't happened, I'd be in favor of deleting the ] article and folding the content into a larger article about the Occupy movement. Without the pepper spray incident, very few people outside of the local area would even know about the protests at UC Davis, and I'm sure that many people all over the world would have never even known about the school's existence. ] (]&middot;]) 20:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

:I think this is a good point in favor of the spray picture as the main picture. Tho I have to admit I’m not familiar with Wikipedias policy on Main picture, could anybody point me to something? Seems relevant for this debate ] (]) 20:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the image should not be at the top. ] says lead images should not be shocking (ie in this case not be designed to provoke a particular reaction before a reader has had a chance to form their own view based on what's written), and they should be representative of the article (ie to illustrate the whole content, not just a part of it). I'd say using the pepper spray image fails on both counts. If the incident is spun out into a sub-article, then it would be appropriate as the lede image. I fully support the image's use, and have voted to keep it in the ] (which nobody else seems to be aware of?), but people should realise that if it's not placed in the most appropriate part of the article, ie alongside where it is discussed, that could be used as an argument to delete it altogether, because meeting WP:IMAGE is a condition of the ] which, as non-free content, it must satisfy, no if's, no buts, no maybes. ] (]) 19:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

::With the danger of sounding like a fliplopper, I have changed my mind. The arguments given, and after reading the page about images I now feel its more correct for the spray-picture to stay as main picture. I do not think the point of «none offensive» guideline was to shield people from anything unsettling, but to keep unnecessary controversial and obscene pictures out of an article (like a picture of a rapist in the article Wikileaks just because Asanges was accused of rape(With the subtitle: Rape is a horrible crime – And that is what the boss of Wikileaks was accused of)). When the article in it self is about an obscene incident, its only fitting to have the picture we currently have. Also, I would like to add my opinion, that this picture isn’t that shocking, not to the extent that people should be shielded from it. There is a difference between «I was shocked to hear it» in a everyday use, and Socking in the sense of an image causing actual anxiety. ] (]) 20:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC) Edit: Forgot to sign in. ] (]) 20:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

== Videos ==

{{external media
| align = right
| video1 = (Associated Press)
| video2 = (Reuters)
}}
With , Off2riorob removed a number of YouTube videos from the article based on the accurate observation that they are user uploaded. (In case it's not clear, that implies dubious copyright status.)


https://i.redd.it/td28x7ycw4x31.jpg <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Some videos are of course key to understanding the events. I looked among the videos from official news channels and found two that seem to fit well. I propose adding the box that you see on the right to ]. Any comments? ] ] 21:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
:I support restoration of the external media template. It seems useful. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 08:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


== ''despite a recommendation that he face disciplinary action'' ==
==content dispute ==
* - When a group of protestors engaged in nonviolent civil disobedience refused to remove their tents and staged a sit-in, campus police officers pepper sprayed them.


It's not said who recommended that, and no source was given.
Is a lie. The protesters removed their tents without the help of pepper spray. The police - with some people in custody - was going to leave the area when the protesters decided to free these people by blocking the way and surrounding the police. After the block could not peacefully dissolved the cop used pepper spray.--] (]) 17:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
] (]) 10:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
:Personal opinions that contradict what the media all over the world have written as well as the published extensive video footage is not particularly helpful for improving the article, unless it comes with evidence. Per ], article talk pages are not free-style discussion forums and contributions unrelated to improving the article can be removed. ] ] 20:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:34, 12 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the UC Davis pepper spray incident article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconUnited States Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCalifornia Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSociology Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconOWS (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject OWS, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.OWSWikipedia:WikiProject OWSTemplate:WikiProject OWSOWS
WikiProject iconUniversity of California Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject University of California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to University of California, its history, accomplishments and other topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject University of CaliforniaUniversity of California
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
This page is within the scope of the UC Davis task force. New members are always welcome!

References and material for expansion

UC Davis Social Science Teach-in

November 28
  • "Abolitionism", Ari Kelman, professor of history
  • "Taxation, California politics and civil liberties", Mark Van Horn, director of Student Farm
  • "Anarchist Anthropology: Cultural Anthropolists on Anarchist Politics", Laura Meek and Whitney Larratt-Smith, graduate students, anthropology
  • "How Nonviolence is Racist"
  • "Happiness, Wealth and Community"
  • "Cops Off Campus: Toward a Safer University", Joshua Clover, professor of English
  • "Budget Blues: UC Financial Structure and Privatization"
  • "Tips on Argumentation"
  • "The History of Police Militarization in the US", Charles Shaw
November 29
  • "Rising Inequality in the US: The Story of Your Lives", Ann Stevens, professor and chair of economics
  • "Protests and Politics", Eric Rachway, professor of history
  • "Protest Indoors and Out: Why Occupations Matter for Universities", Michael McQuarrie, assistant professor of sociology
  • Talk by Clarence Walker, professor of history
  • "Whose Diversity? Our Diversity! Latinos and the University of California", Loreana Oropeza, associate professor of history
  • "1968 Brazil and 2011 Davis: What can we learn by comparing the past and the present?" Tori Langland, assistant professor of history
  • "The UC student movement meets the OWS movement", Sarah Agusto, graduate student, sociology
  • "The Role of Unions", Nick Perrone, graduate student in history
  • "The Board of Regents, the University and the State Legislature", Louis Warren, professor of American history
  • "Unmaking the University of California", John Hall, professor of sociology
  • "Financing the University: Where Has Tuition Gone?" Rob Feenstra, professor of economics
  • "Three Theories of Power, Three Theories of Stuggle: Marx, Fanon, Foucault", Nathan Brown, professor of English

Investigative task force

On December 5, UC President Mark Yudof announced the names of 12 people heading the task force to investigate the UC Davis pepper spray incident. The task force will be led by professor emeritus Cruz Reynoso of the UC Davis School of Law, a former California Supreme Court Justice. Members include:

  • Patrick Blacklock, Yolo County administrator and immediate past-chair, Cal Aggie Alumni Association.
  • Peter Blando, business services manager, Office of the Vice Provost-Information and Educational Technology, UC Davis, and past chair, UC Davis Staff Assembly (nominated by the UC Davis Staff Assembly).
  • Alan Brownstein, professor, School of Law, UC Davis (nominated by the Academic Senate).
  • Tatiana Bush, undergraduate student and former Associated Students senator (nominated by the Associated Students of UC Davis).
  • Daniel M. Dooley, senior vice president, external relations, UC Office of the President and designated systemwide administrator for whistleblower complaints alumnus, UC Davis.
  • Penny Herbert, manager, Department of Clinical Operations, UC Davis, and staff advisor to the UC Board of Regents.
  • Kathryn Kolesar, chair, UC Davis Graduate Student Association (nominated by the Graduate Student Association).
  • William McKenna, law student, UC Davis (nominated by the Law Students Association).
  • Carolyn Penny, director in International Law Programs and principal and mediator, Common Ground Center for Cooperative Solutions, UC Davis Extension (nominated by the UC Davis Academic Federation).
  • Eric Rauchway, professor, Department of History, UC Davis (nominated by the Academic Senate).
  • Judy Sakaki, vice president, student affairs, UC Office of the President and former vice chancellor for student affairs, UC Davis.
  • Rebecca Sterling, undergraduate student and former Associated Students senator (nominated by the Associated Students of UC Davis).

Bibliography

POV Template

This whole article is written with a tone of indignation and contains bias. I don't know enough about the subject to update it, but someone should. Exercisephys (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is your personal opinion; sans evidence, there is nothing actionable. As a result, I will remove the tag if you can't provide any other details. I know the subject and I am familiar with the large body of citations supporting it, and I'm willing to remove any glaring POV. Viriditas (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a news item not an Encyclopedia topic

You might as well make a page on every incident and activity going on in society and in the news. Maybe if you Wikipedists should spend more time out of your comfortable home and start uniting with protesters and progressive — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎2601:7:8500:982:f48e:acc8:8c97:b614 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware you were put in charge of defining what is and what is not an encyclopedia topic. Why would anyone here have to do anything other than write about the topic? Put down the bong, please. Viriditas (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on UC Davis pepper-spray incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 03:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Sacramento Bee revelations

I added a small amount on UCD's hiring of consultants to fix its negative online image, all sourced to the Bee. This is just a placeholder because it is breaking news; hopefully there will be more info coming out. LaMona (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

UC Davis Tries That 'One Trick' to Purge Its Reputation for Pepper-Spraying Student Activists

https://reason.com/blog/2016/04/14/uc-davis-tries-that-one-trick-to-purge-i/print

Key quote:

"UC Davis would like to put the matter behind them. But instead they've managed to figure out how to give themselves yet another round of bad publicity. They have spent thousands of dollars trying to game the internet to try to hide the incident or reduce the chance that people looking up information about the college bring up the incident. The Sacramento Bee discovered through records requests that the college paid at least $175,000 to try to improve its online reputation in the wake of the pepper-spraying incident"

We need to keep an eye on this page to make sure that this has not affected the NPOV of the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


'noting that Katehi was involved in and approved hiring three firms for $407,000 to repair her online image, as well as that of UC Davis.' Elvis untot (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't the opening section heavily downplay the complicity of the administration?

With literal paid "public relations" personal editing this page, it makes me uncomfortable how much of the administration's guilt is pushed later down the page. Does anyone else share this worry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:200:9F61:70EC:F59C:638E:5DD6 (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Return of Linda Katehi

Linda Katehi has been rehired by UC Davis. Does this fall within the scope of the article, given that she was originally let go due to to this incident? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddivney (talk • contribs) 22:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Should this image be added?

https://i.redd.it/td28x7ycw4x31.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:4000:3170:E54D:2EFE:3EAC:4905 (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

despite a recommendation that he face disciplinary action

It's not said who recommended that, and no source was given. 2A02:810D:9440:7514:CD99:F0BF:570A:F3 (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Categories: