Talk:Pepper spraying of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators

Hi, I am new to this so forgive my missing protocols. I am a CJ professor at a medium sized state college in Minnesota. I advise my students to use Wikipedia all the time. Today I needed a quick reference to Bologna so I went directly to Wikipedia. If it helps in deciding to keep the page or not, I really appreciated not having to look all over the place. Thanks, I will now attempt to sign my addition properly. MnCjProf (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)MnCjProfMnCjProf (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]