Talk:Pepper spraying of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators

Proposed redirect to Occupy Wall Street#Anthony Bologna

The subject only received media attention after the Wall Street incident, and falls under WP:BLP1E. There's no reason for him to have his own page when he's already covered on the main article for the protests. He's just simply not notable otherwise. No attention was given to any prior issues with the officer until the Wall Street incident. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, due to the POV issues already going on with the main Occupy Wall Street page, I decided to RfC this quicker than usual, just so we can get a broader range of univolved input. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey. I don't think this does fall under WP:BLP1E. The fact is that Bologna is internationally famous for both the 2004 and 2011 events, and much, if not most, of the media has focused on the fact that Bologna has been implicated in these separate incidents. It is precisely because Bologna is infamous for more than one similar event that he has received so much recent press. The fact that the press has not focused on the 2004 event until recently seems, at best, irrelevant. That has nothing to do with the requirements of WP:BLP1E. Indeed, it seems that much of the mainstream media has precisely the same rule as Wikipedia, publishing the more recent news about this individual only because of his infamy in two separate incidents. Compare a google search for "anthony bologna" (in quotes), which yields (as of this writing) 31,200 results, with a google search for "anthongy bologna" 2004, yielding a subset of 6,180 results, with the top results all coming from major media outlets. By any reasonable definition, this is not a person famous for a single incident. Maybe WP:BLP1E should be re-written to say that news coverage of an earlier event must be contemporaneous. But until that change is made, we should apply WP:BLP1E as written, shouldn't we? PromiseOfNY (talk) 05:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's clear that BLP1E does not apply. Nonetheless, this article needs a broader context now in order to avoid problems. There are Wikipedia admins who would delete this article claiming WP:Attack without so much as a discussion. I think that would be wrong - I think we should not be ashamed to reflect scanty news reports if that's the first thing that we come across - but I've seen this too many times to pretend it won't happen. Besides, the protesters' street-level view that this is one cop causing them problems misses the main point: what is his role in the NYPD? How does he end up in this situation twice? Somehow I doubt he's doing this because he just feels like it - I think there must be some kind of unit or role he's involved in, with some pretty strange rules of engagement. Explain his rank, career path, and so on. And above all - if he's ever gone on record with a rebuttal, his side of the story, make sure it gets covered here. If nobody is up to the task in the next day or two, I'd suggest redirecting the article for the time being - it's tiny, it'll fit in the parent article, and if you don't the person who deletes it will probably "salt" the name to try to hinder recreation of the article, even though that admin tool is only supposed to be used when articles are repeatedly recreated and always turn out to be underwhelming.

I should disclose that technically I was canvassed into coming here ([1]), though I think it was inevitable I'd look at this. Wnt (talk) 06:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Wow. With just the slightest digging, we're coming up with oodles of biographical information. I had no idea we could write such a complete article about this person. Definitely not a BLP1E - high ranking police get a lot more press than I'd imagined. Wnt (talk) 08:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I have not perused the above discussion, but a cursory look tells me if there are people who believe this person is not notable, I'd advise nominating for deletion.Curb Chain (talk)

I don't think BLP1E should apply either...but I also agree with the redirect proposal. The first incident in which he was "famous" ONLY became newsworthy because of the second incident. Additionally, there is no indication to a resolution of the first incident or "rebuttal" from Bologna. As it stands right now, I do not think an article is appropriate. Mreleganza (talk) 12:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• I think this discussion has been a very useful process, because each of the individual objections raised here have been addressed and corrected in the article, one by one. At the same time, I do question the idea of suggesting an article be deleted only minutes after its first draft has been created, because that article is somehow incomplete. Many articles on Wikipedia existed as stubs for months or years before finally being expanded. I do think that an article deserves a reasonable amount of time for editors to contribute to it before it is considered for deletion on these kinds of grounds. A better approach, in my opinion, is to note the issues, and call for those issues to be corrected, and if that doesn't happen after a reasonable time, to then go ahead and nominate the article for deletion. Having said that, I think this proposal having been done the way it was done has accelerated the editing process tremendously, and gotten this article to where it needs to be, to where it's a good, solid, and fair article a lot faster than it would have gotten there otherwise. PromiseOfNY (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Now that there's been more added to the article, a simple redirect would be inappropriate, as there's more to this article. I'll be formally proposing a merge shortly. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's very important to have this page up, as it can continue to be added to as a "public record" of Bologna's accomplishments and offenses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.83.27 (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I really think a brief description of the video should be part of the relevant section. A large percentage of the quotes are explicitly contradicted by the video. (most notably that the protesters were pepper sprayed for impeding the deployment of the orange mesh, as the mesh is clearly already deployed, and that the women who were maced were clearly not maced in response to them being agressive or unruly or combative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.89.70.199 (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

In case this gets deleted or redirected

I'm making a mirror on my userpage, which I will update from time to time. I am not about to let this article get deleted no matter what. Find it here:

• User:InMooseWeTrust/Anthony Bologna

InMooseWeTrust (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Admins have been known to pursue deleted articles even to userspace. I'd recommend you keep a copy offline and put it on www.wikialpha.org or the like if need be. Wnt (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I've nominated the article for deletion because (IGF) I can't ever see it being a notable incident worthy of inclusion in WP. I know you disagree, but for myself I was a bit shocked to see it survive this long. In any case, it's not up to me (or you, "I am not about to let this article get deleted no matter what" isn't really how things work around here), so we'll let the community decide. LoveUxoxo (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. I've seen almost as much press for this event as I have for the rest of the Occupy Wall Street protest. In fact, it seems to be a major driver of OWS news coverage. If OWS is notable, this is too.

The info in Anthony Bologna really needs to be moved here and centered around the incident.

--Qwerty0 (talk) 05:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I can see no reasonable grounds for removing this article, although it certainly requires more information and better sources. Frugen (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Anthony Bologna.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Anthony Bologna.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing issues

Honestly, the sourcing of this article is shocking. Indymedia? Gawker? Even though this is not a BLP anymore, now that it has been moved, controversial negative information concerning a living person absolutely must be sourced to reliable, verifiable sources, not blogs. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Statements by NYPD Chief Spokesman Paul J. Browne

• Proposing to redact (or remove altogether) the quoted statement by the NYPD Chief Spokesman Paul J. Browne. The statement is made before all the available videos were released. Clearly, Browne's "official version" is not a reliable account of the pepper spraying incident. --Fayerman (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course not. In fairness, the official NYPD reaction must be retained. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course yes. As reported by the New York Times on 28 Sept 2011, the NYPD has initiated a formal investigation (See more at Officer’s Pepper-Spraying of Protesters Is Under Investigation. Only after the investigation is completed, one can authoritatively declare that "Bologna used [the] pepper spray appropriately". Thanks. --Fayerman (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Scotty. Your comment that it is not "reliable" because it was made before the release of other videos is WP:OR. Unless it's retracted, it remains. The fact that an investigation has been initiated doesn't change the statement. This is an evolving story, and we mustn't inject our own synthesis of the sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The statement has to be edited down. The part that reads "Pepper spray was used once, after individuals ... tried to prevent [the officers] from deploying a mesh barrier" is an utter lie that has nothing to do with reality. This is not my synthesis -- countless news outlets reported on the released videos, etc. If you must keep that statement in the article, it has to be fixed. Thanks. --Fayerman (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Please copyedit where necessary. Thanks. --Fayerman (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, where to start. First, your edit is unacceptable, and I'm going to revert it. The phrase "Before additional videos were released evidencing Bologna using the pepper spray" is editorialization on your part and is not supported by the cited source. If you want it in, you're going to have to reach a clear consensus for including it, which you haven't done here. Second, the statement that you call an "utter lie" is a quote by Browne from the NYT article. If you want to criticize it, then you have to find a reliable source that disputes it and cite to that source. It doesn't matter where you're even "correct" in our asssesments as to what happened when, who said what, and what's "true" - what matter is what is verifiable by reliable sources. As I stated, the rest is original research and synthesis on your part. Don't reinsert the information without consensus. Also, be careful about labeling a statement by a living person an "utter lie" - without a clear source in support of it, it's a BLP violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do not start a revert war and rollback the edits that are not synthesis (under the pretense that they fall under synthesis). I did not "reach or imply a conclusion". I simply stated that the NYPD statement was issued before the videos were released. That's not a conclusion, but a statement of fact. Anyways, inserted a reference to an article that says Browne lied. Thanks. --Fayerman (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Your edits continue to be unacceptable and now constitute BLP violations in addition to everything else. The source you cite is not reliable for the assertion that Browne "lied". I will revert again because of the BLP violation (don't use the word "lie" in your edit summary, either). See comments at WP:BLPN. You need to tread more carefully when there are BLP issues, as here, and err on the side of leaving out the information until the BLP issues are resolved. Don't put your material back in until that's been accomplished.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Your revert is unacceptable. The source may or may not be reliable, you did nothing to show that there is a problem with the source. Even if the source is unreliable, that can be cured by finding more reliable sources. Either way, do not revert the part that states that Browne issued his statement before the video -- this is not syntheisis as per synthesis. --Fayerman (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how you can say the thing about the Browne vs. the videos with a straight face. The NYT article that reports Browne's statement doesn't say exactly when he said it. The article was published on September 25, so we only know he must've said it before it was published. At the same time, the article mentions videos in it. So, which videos are you referring to for your original research?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Browne's stmt comes from the NYT article that was posted on Sept 25, 2011 "Videos Show Police Using Pepper Spray at Protest on the Financial System". NYT posted an "update" on Sept 28 that the second video was released. They also stated "The police did not immediately respond to questions about the second episode." Inspector May Have Used Pepper Spray on Others, Video Shows. Would you rollback your revert please? Thanks. --Fayerman (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

At least you are now getting more specific. The easiest thing to do is to leave what's there as is and add something about the police not responding "immediately" to the "second episode" (the Kos release of a video) and citing to the 9/28 article. If you can find a way to do that cleanly, go ahead, although I sincerely don't think it's worth the bother.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

My initial edit beginning with "Before the second video was released" was just fine. I will restore that edit from the edit history. --Fayerman (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding #REDIRECTs. Which one?

The section name was changed. Which new redirect do we choose:

• #REDIRECT Occupy Wall Street#September 24 – Street marches, mesh nets, and first pepper-spraying incident
  
  

OR

• #REDIRECT Occupy Wall Street#October 5 – Second pepper-spraying incident
  
  

Thoughts, anyone? 71.146.8.5 (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• First. It has more information on the incident and section name shows others that there were are more than one incident. 71.146.8.5 (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
• First. Uh, I dunno, seems like the right thing to do. LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)