Talk:Dominican Day Parade

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)

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


 * 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)
 * No, that is not vandalism. That is a violation of WP:NPOV. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:36, 4 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/wiki/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)

So again, why is it ok for the Labor Day Carnival to have a violence section, the Puerto Rican Day Parade to have a controversy section. But the Dominican Day parade not to have a controversy section? Even if the photograph wasn't included the article does have a need for one. UnclePaco (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

http://gothamist.com/2007/08/13/dominican_day_p.php another article UnclePaco (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

another 2 articles

http://www.nydailynews.com/latino/2007/08/13/2007-08-13_wave_of_pride_on_6th.html http://www.nysun.com/article/60372 UnclePaco (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again, the controversy should be notable and noteworthy that it would make headlines. There are arrests at all parades in NYC due to a myriad of crimes. A arrest of a handful of rowdy spectators does not equal controversy. --XLR8TION (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

So I guess the 2 stabbings and a mob throwing bottles at police officers aren't noteworthy to you. If you look at the New York Times link there was in fact a headline article. Also it may not be controversy, but it definately was violent. Maybe a compromise on a violence section would do. UnclePaco (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As you can see from my opinion and that of Vassnaya, the photograph doesn't belong in this article. I have gotten another administrator who agrees with me. That photograph could have been taken at a block party in Boston for all that I know. It doesn't belong or fit in the article. Furthermore, the article is about all years the parade has taken place. Crime is present at all NYC events. Unless the incident recieved major news coverage than it is not notable and doesn't belong in this article. Please let me know if you don't understand what I am saying. --XLR8TION (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

From WP:WQA request and as a third opinion: Hope this helps,  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The image is a generic image and provides little to no context to the article. It's not related to the topic of the main article, which is the parade itself, and really doesn't serve a clear, illustrative purpose, per WP:IMAGE.
 * The text is pushing a slanted point-of-view in an article that has very little text otherwise. While it did have a reliable source, it included nothing of a secondary/opposing viewpoint and very little context outside of some arrests.


 * 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)
 * The section on "violence" has been removed. The brief news reference does not merit an entry in the article. Any mass incidents involving violence should be included, however petty crimes do not merit inclusion into this article.--XLR8TION (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Once again, if the incident did not register on news channels, it is not notable/noteworthy. Second, the parade is NOT televised nationally. Only the local Univision channels shows an hour of highlights on Sunday night. Third, please do not revert grammar mistakes. This can be labled as vandalism. Fourth, keep your snide remarks off this site. Your remark is consider an attack. I have already ask for intervention. --XLR8TION (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * The NEw York Post and Daily News are Newsworthy papers! LOL, you're funny! Both of these trash tabloids are not even reputable resources for news information such as the Times or The Washington Post. I have already ask for intervention. Your edits are simply vandalism.--XLR8TION (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

So I guess the new york times isn't newsworthy right? http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE7DD163AF937A2575BC0A963958260 UnclePaco (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if you understand me??? Any information that is relevant to the article and that caused great controversy should be included into the article. Crime such as a stabbing happens even at the St. Patricks Parade in March, the West Indian Parade in Brooklyn every year. Crime is everywhere and it doesn't exempt New York. If the criminal activity caused great controversy, so much that the incident was recreated in popular culture or even massive lawsuits took place such as what happened at the PR Day Parade in 2000, than that is newsworthy. Your inclusion of such material does NOT help the article and only paints a denigrating portrait of this community. Anti-Dominican behavior or hatred of any group is strictly prohibited on this site. Please listen to reason here and refrain from adding this useless information. Wikipedia is supposed to educate people about facts and important events that made a difference in the world. The events at the Puerto Rican Day Parade brought a series of lawsuits against the NYC Police Department and many department changes. That is newsworthy! A stabbing, a pickpocketing incident, or a fight is NOT newsworthy! Kindly refrain from adding this information. I have already asked three admins for intervention.--XLR8TION (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

i'll agree to disagree and wait for more opinions to come UnclePaco (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Until further opinions are posted, please kindly refrain from posting the disputed material in main article.--XLR8TION (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)

Guys, I don't know what to do with this one. For one thing, please see WP:COATRACK and WP:NPOV. This is a parade that has been going on for 15 years. It's a really bad idea for half of the article to be about violence at the parade one year. Take a look at Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. There is a small section at the bottom called Incidents_and_injuries. That's the appropriate proportion. Heck, one of the articles being used to source the violence has about 20 sentences in the article and 3 are on violence. has 2 sentences on violence, "Police said one person was hit in the head with a bottle at the parade. Records of arrests were not available by press time." You can't take these articles that just mention in passing that there was violence and turn it into a Wikipedia article where the bulk of it is about violence. So the best solution is to expand the article and make it a quality article, like Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, then a small section on violence would be appropriate. That's my suggestion. My other suggestion is to quit reverting each other because that's just going to result in both of you being blocked and the article being protected on the wrong version. --B (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * B, you have a valid point there. The Macy's parade has been going on for many decades. There have been many incidents relating to accidents caused by balloons, etc. These have been properly included in the article because they all have taken place during different years. The information the user keeps adding to this article only took place during ONE year. Therefore, unless he can find a slew of incidents that merit an incidents subchapter, than this information is not significant to the article. As I have discussed, the events/incidents should have a lasting memory or effect on the parade.--XLR8TION (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * UnclePaco, per WP:UNDUE, one incident at the Dominican Day Parade in 2007 does not warrant an entire section for the article (especially, since the section would occupy half the article's total size). If there are future incidents of crime, then it might be worth mentioning. Both you and XLR8TION have an interest in the parade, so why don't you work together to expand the article? Considering how important the parade is in the Dominican-American community, the article could definitely use a hefty expansion. What do you think? Nishkid64 (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, PLEASE!
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. 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)
 * 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)

Video
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)

Protected
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)

Dispute Resolution
Hello! This is what we argued about earlier:

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.

(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)


 * I've done some work.   Compwhiz II ( Talk )( Contribs )  17:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, almost done :)   Compwhiz II ( Talk )( Contribs )  02:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * editprotected Please replace the content page with this.   Compwhiz II ( Talk )( Contribs )  19:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see anyone else participating in this, please demonstrate consensus for this change. —Random832 19:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay.   Compwhiz II ( Talk )( Contribs )  01:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with it. 64.131.204.90 (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why?   Compwhiz II ( Talk )( Contribs )  02:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Since there is no consensus to not have it put in, and it is well sourced, it should stay.   CWii ( Talk  22:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Primer Presidente del dwsfile dominicano de new york, se llama Voctor Perez
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)

Primer Presidente del dwsfile dominicano de new york, se llama Voctor Perez
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)

Primer Presidente del dwsfile dominicano de new york, se llama Voctor Perez
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)

Primer Presidente del dwsfile dominicano de new york, se llama Voctor Perez
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)

Primer Presidente del desfile dominicano de new york, se llama Voctor Perez
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)