Talk:UC Davis pepper-spray incident/Archive 1

Who took pictures?

Wikipedia 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. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

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... :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 09:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

After the non free picture was added - just over one day after the article was created, and a professional picture - there was no reason for anyone to upload and donate their picture as free. The way to find a free picture is to remove the non free one that is in the article. It won't affect anything by removing this picture, there are thousands of similar pictures all over the www and the whole world has seen then already. But its removal will give a chance, return a desire, a need, for a commons compatible picture to be donated as is the aim and ambition of the foundation in regards to pictures. It says on the non free template, replaceable? - the answer to that question is, yes absolutely.Youreallycan (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Questions

Some user posted these questions in the article. I am moving them here.

• How many personally administered pepper spray?
• How many protestors were seated? Links to ones who have issued statements / interviews.
• How many students witness the events? Links to notable statements.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal video resource

Police Pepper-Spraying Student Protesters 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."

99.56.120.136 (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Pepper spray incident

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? 98.235.12.126 (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

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. Smcmanus (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

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. // Internet Esquire (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devangel77b (talk • contribs) 06:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

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.

UC Davis Protest Part 1

UC Davis Protest Part 2

UC Davis Protest Part 3
— Preceding unsigned comment added by :::129.97.168.244 (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2011 (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?

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?

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.

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. 124.148.226.18 (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

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? --TS 16:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Guys, let's remember to keep our personal opinions to ourselves and stick to the facts of the case as we can prove. Stating the students did nothing wrong is merely personal opinion at this point in time. Watch the current news, and take a look at the following video to see which direction this incident is heading: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hhPdH3wE0_Y If you can't separate your personal opinion from wikipedia, you don't belong here. Zenmastervex (talk) 09:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

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. 72Dino (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Prof. Brown's letter

• - Pepper spray down students' throats

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.145.108 (talk) 10:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'd like to second this skepticism. Video of a student's mouth being forced open, as claimed, would be far more convincing.--129.162.1.42 (talk) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.59.12.226 (talk) 04:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• 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.184.156.23.123 (talk) 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? Predator47 (talk) 08:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The source, an open letter posted on a blog called UCDavis Bicycle Barricade, does not meet WP:RS requirements. The letter should be removed from this encyclopedia article. 72Dino (talk) 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. --TS 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 Wikipedia. 72Dino (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

In the videos, which are already posted in the discussion forum, it is clear that this did not happen at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.70.23.45 (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The spin on whether the officers were surrounded

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!" Internet Esquire (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

In addition to this, they protesters even chanted multiple times, "If you let them go, we will let you leave."184.156.23.123 (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

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. Predator47 (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

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. 124.148.226.18 (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

UC Davis Protest Part 1
UC Davis Protest Part 2
UC Davis Protest Part 3
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? Predator47 (talk) 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?
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.
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. Hans Adler 00:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You guys don't see a problem with the bias in this article? The protesters had created a circle around the police, and were chanting such things as "If you release them, we will let you go." It wasn't just one guy, it was the entire group. I'm not saying the pepper spray was justified, I am a police officer and I would not have used the pepper spray in that manner without escalation through other control means. However, trying to purposely paint the protesters in a positive light and ignoring their actions is counterproductive to wikipedia's search for the truth... it's a reprehensible violation of ethics. If you can not separate your personal opinion from the truth, you don't belong on wikipedia. Zenmastervex (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the article should show what reliable sources say, and not use conjecture on what the protestors were chanting. The photo clearly shows that there were spectators around the incident at a distance, hardly "surrounding" the police. However, the pepper spray wasn't used on those forming the "surround", it was used on those passively sitting on the roadway who in no sense were surrounding anyone. Kind of the wrong target if "surrounding" was the reason. . dave souza, talk 20:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) If you can't see the problem with torturing people (and yes, there is a verdict on that from a US court in a different context, differing from this one only in that q-tips were used – those brainiacs were so sure of what they were doing that they even videotaped their crime themselves) for 'surrounding' officers with a circle which they can easily and leisurely enter and leave even alone and with a prisoner, as can be clearly seen in the video, then I would say you are likely to do more damage than good in your job. The coward even stepped over the line of sitting protestors with his pepperspray, completely unhindered. The video shows a clear example of dehumanisation.

I am not aware of any laws that say the police are allowed to cause extreme pain against nothing more than completely harmless insubordination, not even in the US, although YouTube videos of officer pepperspraying old ladies and similar idiocies seem to suggest it's become general practice, and the authorities are apparently not interested in combatting this abuse. You should really be aware that this kind of behaviour is in a grey zone: You can almost certainly get away with it unless you are silly enough to do it under the scrutiny of dozens of cameras (and even then you have a chance), your superiors may command you to do it, and it may make you feel better, but it's neither legal, nor legitimate, nor in your employer's interest.

Wikipedia is neutral. It would not be neutral to pretend that sitting in a circle without weapons and not causing a threat to anything or anybody is somehow comparable to pouring pepperspray over people's faces. Hans Adler 20:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It is also not neutral to state that students that were refusing to let officers leave without release of the arrested are "peacefully" refusing to move. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u2fTYUjpmU Start at the 10:00 minute mark. It is clear that the students are repeating after a "leader" that tells the officers that they will "peacefully march" towards those that have been "unjustly arrested". You can then see them march towards the officers. They then continue to chant "Set them free". Soon after, the same guy has the entire crowd repeat "If you let them go, we will let you leave." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.48.186 (talk) 14:30, 13 December 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. // Internet Esquire (talk) 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 // Internet Esquire (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Interview with victim of police attack

• Occupy UC Davis: Student protester Dominic Gutierrez recounts being pepper-sprayed by campus police. -Current TV, 21 November, 2011. --TS 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. Off2riorob (talk) 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. // Internet Esquire (talk) 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. — goethean ॐ 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. Off2riorob (talk) 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. — goethean ॐ 21:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Without taking a position, isn't the standard that the stable version remains until consensus is reached? Hipocrite (talk) 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. // Internet Esquire (talk) 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. Hans Adler 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. Off2riorob (talk) 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? Off2riorob (talk) 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 Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 if we had one? Ridiculous. Hans Adler 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. // Internet Esquire (talk) 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. Off2riorob (talk) 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. Hans Adler 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. Off2riorob (talk) 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, ... Hans Adler 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. Off2riorob (talk) 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? // Internet Esquire (talk) 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. Off2riorob (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This edit 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 removed 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. Hans Adler 07:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I support high visibility of the picture, it has became an iconic image associated with this event. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 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 many differing pictures of the protests 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. Off2riorob (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of solid reasons have been given. Your attempt to paint Wikipedia editors who disagree with you as tainted constitutes an argument ad hominem. Your behavior is getting ugly. — goethean ॐ 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. // Internet Esquire (talk) 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. Jacealcard —Preceding undated comment added 18:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC).

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. // Internet Esquire (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The tank man picture has been removed from that article for copyright reasons. See Talk:Tiananmen Square protests of 1989#I don't know how to, but for the love of god, SOMEONE add the picture of tank man.

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. Hans Adler 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Jacealcard —Preceding undated comment added 20:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC).

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. // Internet Esquire (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia spirit. Jacealcard (talk) 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 WP:BLP/N, in which he tried to rationalise the obviously criminal behaviour. Hans Adler 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. // Internet Esquire (talk) 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 Wikipedia. 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. // Internet Esquire (talk) 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. — goethean ॐ 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 Occupy UC Davis 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. Henrymrx (t·c) 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 Jacealcard (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the image should not be at the top. WP:IMAGE 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 deletion discussion (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 WP:NFCC which, as non-free content, it must satisfy, no if's, no buts, no maybes. DCron (talk) 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. 88.91.125.40 (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC) Edit: Forgot to sign in. Jacealcard (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding the photo that is in use at the Daviswiki taken by Louise Macabitas http://daviswiki.org/November_18,_2011_UC_Davis_Police_Response_to_Occupy_UC_Davis, Philip Neustrom philip(at)localwiki(dot)org did ask her directly if she was willing to release the photograph under a Creative Commons release, but I don't know if anything came to that. LoveUxoxo (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Videos

External videos
Cops Pepper Spray Passive Protesters (Associated Press)
UC Davis chancellor sorry for pepper spray incident (Reuters)

With this edit, 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.)

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 Occupy UC Davis#Police violence at Occupy UC Davis. Any comments? Hans Adler 21:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I support restoration of the external media template. It seems useful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 08:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

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.

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.--80.212.75.177 (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2011 (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 WP:TALK, article talk pages are not free-style discussion forums and contributions unrelated to improving the article can be removed. Hans Adler 20:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No clear consensus to move Mike Cline (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Occupy UC Davis → UC Davis pepper spray incident – This topic is no longer about "Occupy UC Davis". It is now about the pepper spray incident, and is likely to remain that way in the future. It is also appropriate to abbreviate "University of California, Davis" in the new title in the same way that we abbreviate UC Berkeley School of Law, UCLA School of Law, UC Berkeley – UCSF Joint Medical Program, and many other UC-related articles..relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC) Viriditas (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I just re-read the article, and it seems to be about much more than just the pepper spray thing. Kelly ^hi! 04:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Please quantify. What exactly is "much more" than just the pepper spray? The background section is filler from Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Cal, and can be cut down to half its size. At this point, the number of sources about the pepper spray incident in the relevant literature outnumber sources only about Occupy UC Davis. In fact, Occupy UC Davis is now known exclusively for the pepper spray incident. Viriditas (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
    • In that case, you should probably seek consensus to cut out the other material before moving. Kelly ^hi! 04:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
      • That's not needed. The stats are obvious:

• Background section (summary style of Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Cal): 675 words, 3561 characters (no spaces)
• Pepper spray content: 1003 words 5127 characters (no spaces)
• Pepper spray meme subarticle: 339 words, 1730 characters (no spaces)

So, we have a total of 675 words representing a summary style background from two articles, and 1342 words representing a combination of pepper spray material and the meme subarticle which as a short stub, should be merged into this one. This is open and shut and requires nothing more than a simple merge and move. Viriditas (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I second the motion to wait. It is no longer clear that the UC Davis page can serve as the "parent article" for this subject, given that the meme has come to represent overwhelming police violence against protestors in general, rather than just what happened at UCD in particular. I would venture a guess that not everyone who has seen instances of the meme knows from where it derives. There is no rush to make the merge, so lets see what happens in the meantime.Saudade7 07:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that "Occupy UC Davis" is the parent page. I'm arguing that "UC Davis pepper spray incident" is, which is this page after a move. Do you support or oppose a move? This internet meme, like all internet memes, is secondary to the primary topic of the pepper spray incident, and is appropriately merged into that parent topic. Viriditas (talk) 07:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Just a suggestion, what if the Pepper Spray incident was reduced in size in the "Occupy UC Davis" article, and we move the bulk of it to the "UC Davis pepper spray incident" page, then in the section of the incident in the Occupy article, put one of those fancy "See main article: UC Davis pepper spray incident" things in italics at the top. I think that would be a good solution. -Kai445 (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

We could do that. But, then all we would be left with is a background section about Occupy Cal. Don't forget, the reaction, apology, and investigation sections are all about the pepper spray incident. There actually is little content about OUCD here. I don't mind keeping the article at the current title, but it makes little sense to me. Maybe we should wait a while as others have said. Viriditas (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Relisting comment - Editors are encouraged to focus on rationale for the name change and clearly state their Oppose/Support position in this discussion.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
• oppose - if someone wants to write an article about a pepper spraying incident then go for it and trim the pepper spray content from here to a lesser extent and provide a link to that. This article is about the whole Occupy UC Davis protest. Youreallycan (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, your recommendation is the opposite of best practice. This article is about the pepper spray incident, which is why Occupy UC Davis is notable. The preponderance of sources about the protests at Occupy UC Davis are about the pepper spray incident, not Occupy UC Davis. In fact, the sources only about Occupy UC Davis, are actually about Occupy Cal. Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Irrespective of the pepper spraying incident, the Occupy UC Davis protest is just as notable imo as many of the other occupy protests listed here wiki/Category:Occupy movement in the United States - if you disagree then why not merge it (Occupy UC Davis) into the Occupy Cal article, where its mentioned already and write an article about the pepper spraying incident. Youreallycan (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't even see a point to this move anymore. This article is best served at its current location. -Kai445 (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merger proposal

Viriditas (talk · contribs) had redirected Casually Pepper Spray Everything Cop to this article - I've temporarily undone and brought here for discussion, as the other article had numerous contributors and there should be consensus for the merge. Kelly ^hi! 05:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The 339 word (1729 character) stub in question was created and written primarily by one user, a single-purpose account named Gangofnuns (talk · contribs), not "numerous contributors".[1] Standard procedure is to redirect small stubs into parent articles. Viriditas (talk) 05:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Ahem. My user account, Gangofnuns, is definitely NOT single purpose. I started the "Casually Pepper Spray" meme page specifically because the internet meme had taken on a life of its own. I've read wikipedia for years, but I'm new to editing. You gotta start somewhere. Gangofnuns (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm posting my response everywhere since this debate seems to be happening in multiple venues. I second the motion to wait. It is no longer clear that the UC Davis page can serve as the "parent article" for this subject, given that the meme has come to represent overwhelming police violence against protestors in general, rather than just what happened at UCD in particular. I would venture a guess that not everyone who has seen instances of the meme knows from where it derives. There is no rush to make the merge, so lets see what happens in the meantime. Saudade7 07:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The parent article is "UC Davis pepper spray incident", which is this page after a move. If you oppose the merge of the stub into this parent article and the move, please explain why. Viriditas (talk) 07:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit in two minds about the merge, on one hand the meme took on a life of its own and became its own event. Oh the other hand the meme has largely run its course now and we are unlikely to see much expansion of the article. Also I've some question about the article name some just refer to the meme as "pepper spraying cop". On balance I'd say merge.--Salix (talk): 08:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

After a copy of the original created article was duplicated here, I trimmed the content here to what was imo notable and not too tangential - imo the merge has already happened. Youreallycan (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Past performance indicates your record on what is considered notable is not accurate. Therefore, the section will be rewritten to conform with the sources, not with what you personally believe. Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

As I have asked you previously, but you continue unabated - please stop creating a battle atmosphere. I personally believe nothing and have not edited in any way to reflect what I have no involvement or interest in. Youreallycan (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Your edits indicate that what you consider notable is at odds with what the sources indicate, therefore, your personal beliefs are interfering with your ability to edit this and other articles in a neutral fashion. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support merge - no need for a separate article. The 'pepper spray cop' meme is very much a subtopic of this one, and that article is short enough that it can be merged into this one easily. Robofish (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• There is a fair bit of worthless content in the meme article - All the content was added here by user Viriditas when he created the redirect and I edited the fluff out of what was posted here to what currently remains. The meme is of minor note and well enough covered in this article already - imo and merge would be resolved by simply blanking the meme article and creating the redirect again without any additions to this article at all. Youreallycan (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This content for example that is currently in the meme article is duplicated and redundant in this article. Pike is identified in this article already and the fact that he is suspended pending investigation is also already in this article - also the meme content needs to focus specifically on the meme and not tangent off.Youreallycan (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

An article in The Washington Post dated November 21, 2011 identified the officer depicted in the images as Lt. John Pike of the UC Davis campus police. The Huffington Post quoted UC Davis chancellor, Linda P.B. Katehi, as saying the officer had been placed on leave pending an investigation, though she did not mention the officer's name directly.[41]

Infobox civilian attack

IMO this is uncitable and undue - and asserts criminality on the police officers that we have not charges for - it has assertions like - perps=UC Davis Police - that seems a bit undue without charges or convictions? I edited it to what is imo this NPOV policy compliant position but it has been reverted by User:Viriditas - talk:Youreallycan|talk]]) 00:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The name of a template/infobox has nothing to do with making any kind of assertion. If you don't like the name, you can visit Template_talk:Infobox_civilian_attack and propose changing it. You should also look at the template usage over at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_civilian_attack. The fact of the matter is, peaceful civilians were attacked by police with pepper spray in violation of normal procedures, and virtually every police organization in the state of California has condemned their actions. Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The name of the template/infobox is bad enough but I did not remove it - it is the fields inside the template like preps and weapon and such assertions of guilt and illegality that is as yet uncharged and unproved - one mans weapon is currently one mans defense tool - that is clearly undue until proven guilty especially as there are not even any charges yet never mind guilt. Youreallycan (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

There are no such assertions. MK-9, which is classified as weaponized pepper spray, is supported by a solid reference, and can be verified in multiple images/video. I'm working on filling out the rest right now. You're ranting and raving about guilt and illegality that don't even exist. I'd like to see less personal rhetoric from you and more use of sources. Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Your personal attacking comments against me and your blind support for a non neutral position in regard to this topic is sadly nothing less than I have come to expect from you, Youreallycan (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read the helpful suggestions recently given to you by your informal mentor on ANI. To be perfectly clear, "you're doing it again". What's wrong with the current infobox and my latest edits? Viriditas (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Associated Press bias

I've been spending time reading dozens of news reports of this incident from around the world, and the one thing that stands out the most are the initial wire reports from the Associated Press. These reports cited alleged retired law enforcement authorities who are completely unknown aside from this wire report. The wire reports also took the side of the police without bothering to investigate whether their claims were based on facts. It occurs to me that this kind of overt bias wasn't accidental or the result of a mistake, but was representative of a deliberate spin intended to smear the Occupy movement. This is unlike almost every other report I've read. A day after the pepper spray incident, MSNBC acknowledged that "US lobbyists aimed to smear Occupy Wall Street". According to the article, "Washington lobbying firm Clark Lytle Geduldig & Cranford urged the American Bankers Association (ABA), a client, to conduct "opposition research" on Occupy Wall Street in order to construct "negative narratives" about the protests and its political backers." Agence France-Presse reports that Wall Street firms "proposed to conduct research and surveys on OWS and its supporters in order for Wall Street firms to be ready to respond to the movement with a coordinated media campaign." As a result, I'll be closely looking for sources about media bias in this regard, and I'll add them as I find them. Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Kamran Loghman

Rob Kall has a 45 minute interview with Loghman on the Bottom Up Radio Show (WNJC 1360 AM) podcast.[2] Since I've never heard of either of them before, I haven't a clue if this is considered reliable or not. My guess is that it is if it is broadcast on WNJC. Viriditas (talk) 12:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Selma to Montgomery marches

The nonviolent resistance illustrated by the hand in hand posture of the demonstrators sitting on the ground was first popularized in the Selma to Montgomery marches that took place in the mid-1960s during the American civil rights movement. The most famous of these historical images has never been allowed on Wikipedia. Instead we have this poor quality image. Many of the sources compare the posture of the UC Davis students to the one taken by the Selma marchers in order to debunk the ignorant statements made by officials that the students weren't engaging in non-violent civil disobedience. Not only were they engaging in this very behavior, but the images of the marchers in the American civil rights movement hold themselves in the same way using the same gestures, so the students were deliberately paying homage to this strategy. It would be instructive to have both images in this article, but we will once again have the same nattering nabobs of negativism screaming about how the most historical images of the American civil rights movement can't be used because, well, they'll make something up I'm sure. Viriditas (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The "first popularized" wording brings to mind Non-cooperation movement which was not the first instance of popular Nonviolence. Otherwise, rather agree, and not sure if the particular gesture was used before the civil rights movement. . dave souza, talk 07:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hum, just about every NVDA protest I've been on does the sit down link arms tactic, not in any particular homage to prior marches more because its an effective tactic which makes it harder to be broken up. I think drawing a link between these is reasoning after the event and close to WP:OR.--Salix (talk): 08:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

As I originally said, it is the sources that make this link, not me, so no OR. And the reason the sources say this is because officials claimed there was nothin nonviolent about it. The sources then pointed to the most famous image of MLK and friends at Selma with the arms linked. Beyond this, there is additional commentary from officials making all sorts of claims. One official says that when an officer tried to move a girl, she refused and pulled her hands back, and the official argued she was resisting. However, a video captured this inciden and shows nothing of the kind. It shows that the officer let go of her arm, which then dropped to its side. As long as the secondary sources are making these comparisons and not editors, there's no OR. I'm just bringing examples here for brainstorming new content additions. Viriditas (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

"Further Reading" section

The further reading section currently contains a lot of links to editorial opinion pieces, all of which support the "Occupy" POV and none of which oppose. This isn't exactly encyclopedic. Should it be trimmed down to strictly "straight news" links from neutral reliable sources? Kelly ^hi! 04:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Those authors are all supported by secondary sources highlighting their importance and will be used to develop content based on the militarization of police and the Lundberg v. County of Humboldt precdent. As they are used, they will be added into the body of the article as inline sources. Will you be helping or you only here to delete reliable sources and notable, historical images? FYI, there is no such thing a an "Occupy POV". That's something you just invented. If you had bothered to read the sources, you would find that the officials have condemned the incident and the relevant police officers have been placed on leave. What we have here are notable journalists writing about the impact of this incident on students and the erosion of the fundamental rights of assembly that appear to have been violated. This is exactly encyclopedic, and represents one of the most important aspects of this topic. Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

They are simply online articles and not external links but just useful for adding content to the body of the article. Its just a WP:LINKFARM - They have no legitimate reason to all be listed in the article. They can be kept on the talkpage until you use them to support content in the body of the article. Your idea that this article should be expanded with content about, "the impact of this incident on students and the erosion of the fundamental rights of assembly" is also mistaken. Such content belongs elsewhere, if anywhere at all, as imo you are exaggerating this incidents long term notability and its possible affect on any future events or possible changes in legislation. Youreallycan (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. "Further reading" sections are standard appendices, not "linkfarms". You are welcome to learn more about these types of appendices at Wikipedia:APPENDIX#Further_reading and the proposed Wikipedia:Further reading. The current list is both acceptable and appropriate per Wikipedia best practices. It appears that the thrust of your objection is based on your own personal POV of this incident. I'm afraid we don't use that type of criterion when deciding what sources to include in a further reading section. Instead, we research the topic, find common and established themes, and highlight them for the reader, with the intent of using them as future citations if the need arises. In other words, the "idea" that the topic should be expanded to include these themes is not my personal idea, but ideas expressed by the sources themselves, including assertions of notability. Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the removal - the section seemed to be just a launching point to promote a pro-Occupy POV. Kelly ^hi! 23:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a "pro-Occupy" POV, and the sources discuss nothing of the kind. Of course, it would be helpful if you would actually specify what a "pro-Occupy" POV is supposed to be, or is it like pornography, you know it when you see it? Sorry, but this kind of ambiguous, I don't like it argument has no place here. This is an appropriate further reading section based on a sample of notable news coverage. I intend to merge these sources into the article as time permits. For now, they are included in the further reading section as a standard appendix. Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there are pro- and anti-Occupy POVs, as any reading of the press would demonstrate. "Occupy" is left-wing...a comparable right-wing equivalent would be the Tea Party movement, which somehow managed to accomplish its goals without criminal activity or leaving feces in public areas. However, those issues are best discussed at Talk:Occupy movement. Speaking as a veteran, whining about pepper spray seems fairly pathetic to those of us who have been exposed to far worse in voluntary military training - up to and including CS. Kelly ^hi! 02:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Are these sources talking about pro and anti-Occupy POV? No. They are talking about the pepper spraying of demonstrators. What position on the Occupy movement is Al Baker taking in The New York Times? What about Donna Tam in The Times-Standard? And what about the rest? Have you even read these sources, or you just assuming they are taking a "pro-Occupy" position? This article is about the pepper spraying of Occupy UC Davis demonstrators. It isn't about an Occupy POV. And as far as your pigeonholing of the demonstrators on a left-right politics spectrum, that kind of classification is best left to the sources. Upon reading them, I've discovered that few if any of these people care one whit about such politics, and condemn both sides for betraying the American people. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Just some disclosure - I'll admit to being generally anti-Occupy, temperamentally...I put my kids through college with practical degrees and no debt (and I grew up dirt poor). Would you say you are generally pro-Occupy, POV-wise? Kelly ^hi! 02:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

My involvement in Occupy-related articles has been primarily concerned with media coverage of the movement. Previously, I made a total of 48 contributions to Occupy Wall Street.[3] Currently, I've made a total of 97 contributions to Occupy UC Davis. You are free to judge my "POV" based on those contributions. I don't believe I'm pro or anti-Occupy. Based on what I've seen, the people involved in these movements are expressing their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Viriditas (talk) 03:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Except in many cases (this one included) they have violated laws established by their fellow citizens - which other current political movements have managed to follow. Break the law, accept the consequences. Kelly ^hi! 03:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Many of the sources cite Lundberg v. County of Humboldt as a precedent, saying that California law protected peaceful demonstrators from being pepper sprayed. Also, the UC Davis administration maintains that the police were not told to pepper spray the students (there was one non-student who was sprayed). Further, there has been extensive documentation of excessive police force in at least seven Occupy protests around the country. If any laws were violated, they were the civil rights of the demonstrators. Kelly, there's no need to reinvent the wheel. The argument you are making was originally made by G. Gordon Liddy several decades ago. Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Meh, Obama's wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Uganda and elsewhere are hardly Vietnam (especially since they're all being fought by volunteers who aren't complaining much) and some pepper spray is hardly equal to bullets at Kent State. Kelly ^hi! 04:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) So which of these press articles actually add anything to the wikipedia article? It looks like most of them are articles repeating the information already in the WP article or in the other references. The other articles seem to be opinion pieces. The problem with opinion pieces is that we get close to WP:NOTOPINION, but rather than directly expressing an opinion your linking to them. Then we have Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links,

There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia.

To me this large number of links seem to just be a repository of every article written about the protest. In terms of WP:EL the articles do not fall under either those to include WP:ELYES, WP:ELMAYBE or those to exclude WP:ELNO so fall in a grey area between the two. The most relevant section seem to be WP:EL#External links section, the link don't really meet the requirments of that section, which say the links should differ in format from normal citations

you should give your reader a good summary of the site's contents, and the reasons why this specific website is relevant to the article in question.

other than trying to infer from the title whats in the article there is nothing to tell the reader that these are just news articles covering the same material as all the others. So I think these links should either be incorporated into the main text of the article giving context to the particular article, or dropped. If they are to be kept a reason why need to be stated.--Salix (talk): 23:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

All of the links add information to this article that is not already covered. Their inclusion in a further reading appendix is not disputed. Your claim that these are opinion pieces, repositories, or external links is incorrect. You will need to specifically demonstrates a problem with each and every reference in order for me to respond directly to your concerns. Your rationale for removing these references, and all of the other reasons offered for removing them, do not apply to this section. As I have already said, this section is in compliance with WP:FURTHER. Viriditas (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Occupy UC Davis set to decamp for winter break

Three weeks since the pepper spraying at Occupy OC Davis, the demonstrators are dismantling their tent city for winter break.

• - http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/09/4112743/uc-davis-student-dismantle-occupy.html

There are some reports that the protesters are packing up for the holidays, should this be added as an update? I added ...

• - Early in December the students dismantled their tent camp and went home for the winter break.

• - Youreallycan (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I've removed it. Photo captions and titles are not we use to write encyclopedia articles. You've been here long enough to know and understand what kind and quality of source we use to write articles. Given your latest erroneous removal of the further reading section as a "linkfarm" and your insertion of a photo caption and title as a source, I'm afraid you've got a lot of catching up to do. Viriditas (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Sadly, every comment you make in reply to my edits recently seems to be just to attack and demean me. As you did recently here in this edit summary - Can you try not to make everything such a WP:battle? Three different editors have commented objecting to your linkfarm now. Also , a simple google search reveals that the protesters have packed up their tents so your removal was completely unnecessary. I have added a better source and replaced it. Youreallycan (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Sadly, you are incorrect again. I have not made a single personal attack on you at all here. Your erroneous usage of the word "linkfarm" is the problem, and a further reading section that includes notable authors and notable articles is a standard appendix and entirely appropriate. Viriditas (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Can everyone here be WP:CIVIL and not insult other editors.

Yes, details like when the camp is dismantled are important for the article, yes the first source was weak, yes the new source is much better.--Salix (talk): 18:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I must disagree. Youreallycan has carelessly inserted the statement into the section in a non-chronological order. The section now says the students went home before they were pepper sprayed. Youreallycan appears to be editing without reading, adding content without paying attention to where he's adding it, and removing content without understanding why he's removing it. I can't describe that as "much better". Furthermore, Salix, your removal of the further reading section is not supported by a single word in WP:NOT, and you appear to have either misread or mistated that policy. Nowhere in that policy does it claim that a collection of relevant and appropriate articles about a topic can be removed. That's something you invented. Viriditas (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I added the update to the section about the tents - a simple addition. If you want to rewrite the whole article to correct some timeline issue then great. No addition I made said they went home before they were pepper sprayed. Your repeated attacks on me for my simple good faith attempts to update the article are boring and battle-fielding in nature, please stop . Youreallycan (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Your addition is still in the article, but in a more appropriate section awaiting expansion. My repeated concerns have to do with your contributions, not as a contributor. Please learn to tell the difference. Viriditas (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Vetting extraordinary claims

Nathan Brown, assistant professor at UC Davis, said, "One of them, forty-five minutes after being pepper-sprayed down his throat, was still coughing up blood.

I'm not comfortable having this in the article without some confirmation/verification from other sources, perhaps other named witnesses, protesters, or journalists. Brown has come under some criticism for his politics, and the allegation is a serious one that could have real world consequences. Viriditas (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a unverified claim .. from a person whose testimony has been disputed.. so - removed. IMO the statement "hospitalized" also needs a degree of updating and explanation - did the students get taken to the hospital in ambulances for emergency treatment ? Were any students kept in hospital overnight.. or are they still in hospital? Just to state that two students were hospitalized is a very vague stand alone statement. Youreallycan (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I started this thread for discussion, not for unilateral action. In the future, please try to stick to discussing a threaded topic before acting on your own. I haven't yet had time to research this, whether it is verified or not is unknown. And, whether this testimony is disputed or not is also unknown. Brown has his critics, and that's one thing, but I'm more interested in seeing corroborated eyewitness testimony or official news reports. Part of the problem with including a quote like this, is that it tends to fall under the appeal to emotion, and we want to avoid that whenever possible. If we have corroboration from other witnesses, or some kind of external verification apart from Brown, that would be ideal. Viriditas (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Please also see if you can find any additional detail about the "hospitalized" protesters. Are they still in hospital? My search didn't return any details. Was the protester that Brown says was coughing up blood hospitalized? Youreallycan (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking into it. Reliable sources indicate two demonstrators were hospitalized. Viriditas (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, Brown. assistant professor. He is a teacher but was he a protester ? Youreallycan (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he is both. It is unclear if he was at all of the protests listed in the article, but the sources indicate that he was definitely at some of them acting as a demonstrator. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Violence at CSULB?

The lede of this article refers to the letter by the Council of UC Faculty Associations in which they condemn excessive police violence at UC Berkeley, UCLA, Cal State Long Beach, and UC Davis. However, I could find no news reports about any violence of any type at California State University, Long Beach. There apparently was some violence at the California State University system headquarters (the Chancellor's Office), which is also located in Long Beach but on the other side of town. Because of no corroborating news reports, I think the reference to CSULB should be stricken as an error on the part of the faculty of a different university system. Of course, if editors can find reports of excessive violence at CSULB then it should stay. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I will look into it in the next 12 hours and get back to you. Viriditas (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I looked into this. You are correct that it is an error. Instead of "Cal State Long Beach", it should say "Cal State Board of Trustees meeting in Long Beach". That seems like a reasonable change. Viriditas (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It's been almost a week without any response, so I'll go ahead and make the change. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for making that change. I never got around to doing it. 72Dino (talk) 03:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanksgiving, winter break

• - Attorney Bernie Goldsmith told The Davis Enterprise that the Occupy demonstrators plan to return on January 9, 2012http://www.webcitation.org/63iV78FFt

This section about the turkeys , is there any access to the article? Or is the turkey eating story at any other location , I am not getting any returns?

Biele, C. (November 24, 2011). Thanksgiving with Occupy UC Davis. KTXL-TV. - is there any access to this? what is it, a tv news program?

Also the cite that is supporting the statement that the demonstrators are returning after the holidays - http://www.webcitation.org/63iV78FFt - I can't find the detail in that external at all? , isn't that a bit futuristic? Don't we wait till it happens to report it? Youreallycan (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Biele (2011) is indexed by EBSCO. Its accession number is 2W62593324100. The Golden ref is wrong due to the multiple ref names. I'll fix it right now. No, it is not crystal ball. The article makes it very clear throughout that the students are planning to return at the beginning of the semester. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Its promotion of a future event by the people that are protesting? Occupy UC Davis plans to be “back with a bang” when the winter quarter starts on Jan. 9, Goldsmith said. - Back with a bang? Goldsmith is a protester himself ? .. and the protesters went home for Christmas and said after the holiday they would be back with a bang .. and you don't see that as self promotion of a future event that may or may not happen? Youreallycan (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this is over my head - Biele (2011) is indexed by EBSCO. Its accession number is 2W62593324100 - please explain if you know - what is it? and can I access it anywhere? Youreallycan (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The turkey story is on the web here. Is this one of the references you were looking for? 72Dino (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - is that really encyclopedic-ally noteworthy? - and the protesters were donated food and then packed up their protest camp and went home for the holidays. A protester said they would be back with a bang in January. - As Viriditas says, "the students are planning to return at the beginning of the semester" - of course they are, thats what students do. What they will do when they return is a different issue and is a unknown future event and our promoting what a group says they will do in the future is not usual as I have seen at wikipedia. There is only one noteworthy thing about this and that is that the demonstrators have ended their demonstration and gone home for the holidays - that is it and says a lot more than such trivia as they got donated food and the self promotional crystal content that they they claim they will be back after their little holiday with a "bang". Youreallycan (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You're doing it again. You are asserting values (newsworthiness, notability, etc) based on your own POV rather than on the sources. And if you had bothered to actually read your own sources, you would find that the demonstrators didn't end their occupation and not all of the tents had been torn down. The fact is, you are trying to push the POV that the protests are over, but the sources don't support it. The fact that the demonstrators celebrated Thanksgiving with food donated by the local community who support them is notable, which is why the media covered it. And the fact that the protesters have been vocal about continuing is also notable. Your arguments would have more weight if they actually relied on the sources and not on your transparent attempt to push a POV. Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't got a POV about this issue apart from I despise when the project is used for promotion and activism. I do not think a single report of a food donation is encyclopedic-ally notable - I have a right to comment in good faith as to the position and request other users opinions in that regard. If some protesters have stayed and the protest is ongoing then lets report that. Youreallycan (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

We're not dealing with a "single report of a food donation". We're dealing with a notable protest group who spent the Thanksgiving holiday on campus with food donated by the local community. This was a notable news story and it was covered by multiple media outlets, including KCRA,[4] The Sacramento Bee,[5] Los Angeles Times,[6] The California Aggie,[7] and about a dozen more sources. The significance of the OUCD Thanksgiving was that the protesters didn't pack up and go home, but continued to build their community during the holiday, and the university even helped them by providing power. The protests didn't end then, and they haven't ended now. Please stop wasting my time with repeated claims that are immediately disproved by looking at the sources. If you want to help build this article, great, do the research or ask questions. However, you are not helping when you continue to make claims off the top of your head without actually looking into the issue for yourself. Social scientists study protest movements and the community building that cements the group into a cohesive whole. Interviews with many of these protesters shows that they highly value their interpersonal relationships with their fellow protesters, and this sense of community is what keeps it going. Future researchers studying this subject will benefit from an understanding of the social structure that holds the movement together. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• You posted this http://www.theaggie.org/2011/11/23/katehi-holds-open-forum-to-answer-students%E2%80%99-questions/ the aggie, from Nov, what content is in it that related to this discussion? - your comments point to the exact problem, Social scientists study protest movements and the community building that cements the group into a cohesive whole. Interviews with many of these protesters shows that they highly value their interpersonal relationships with their fellow protesters, and this sense of community is what keeps it going. Future researchers studying this subject will benefit from an understanding of the social structure that holds the movement together.

• - Over egging the pudding - You might have personal interests in this topic but please remember - This is a simple Uni protest article. It seems clear they have packed up and gone home till next term. As I said my only interest here is to stop the article becoming promotional and a voice piece for activism, I care less about future social investigations and that is not a topic for this article. Youreallycan (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't recall ever discussing any personal interests on this page nor were any under discussion in the preceding comment. Please focus on addressing the contributions, not the contributors in the future. If you persist on making things up, I will collect those diffs as evidence for dispute resolution, as you have already been warned. This is not a "simple" Uni protest article by any stretch of the imagination, but rather a complex movement that has spread throughout California, the rest of the United States, and the rest of the world. For our purposes, the primary focus is on the reasons for the initial protests (privatization of education, tuition hikes exceeding cost of living), the protests themselves (rallies, encampment, nonviolent resistance), the response from the administration (pepper spray incident, apology, investigation), and the overall public reaction and commentary, interspersed if possible. In addition to to this basic outline, the sociology of the movement is also encyclopedic, and this includes how their community functions within the Occupy movement, and how they interact with the local community. I haven't seen a single instance of any "promotion" or a voice for activism, so I will assume that you are imagining things again. Nobody appointed you as the final arbiter of content, least of all when you can't be bothered to read a single reference or understand basic terms like "linkfarms" and standard appendices like "further reading". To be perfectly clear, your concerns about what is promotional and what is activist appear to be a smokescreen for you to push your own personal POV. I don't buy your explanation, and your continued POV pushing on this topic will be met with further dispute resolution attempts. Viriditas (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes if you are unable to stop your WP:BATTLE position against me, dispute resolution will be required. They have gone home for their holidays though. Well, add some of that Sociology of the movement then if you think its relevant to this article. - Personally I don't see it being reported in the articles I have read about this particular university protest. Youreallycan (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I doubt you have read any articles aside from a few image captions. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thats an exact example of your lack of good faith and WP:Battle position in regard to me. Youreallycan (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it is an "exact example" of your last major edits, where you used an image caption as a reliable source. Do you understand the difference between attacking your contributions and you as a contributor? If you can't be bothered to do the research, then you need to stop wasting the time of editors who are here to write in good faith and to build and collaborate on encyclopedia articles. Here is the latest news report on the investigations. Let's see you update the article to include the most salient points. Viriditas (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• That is something notworthy, appearing before the state legislators to answer question. After a quick look, something like this seems reasonable .Youreallycan (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• - In Sacramento on 14 December, state legislators questioned UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi in regard to the pepper spraying incident. Concerns were discussed about the current rules for policing protests and use of force. A second hearing will take place when results are in from the investigations.<ref>{{cite web|http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/crime-fire-courts/change-policing-of-campus-protests-lawmakers-urge|title=Legislators demand campus change|publisher=The Davis Enterprise|date=December 15, 2011|accessdate=December 16, 2011}}</ref>

Added - If you don't like it feel free to add to it or adapt it or remove it. Youreallycan (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Tense

It appears the protests are not currently going on (the "Occupy" movement seems to have basically collapsed nationwide as even the most Democratic city administrations have evicted them)...I changed the tense in the lede from "is" to "was" for a couple of reasons - first, because the protests are seemingly over, and second because a present tense is more reflective of a news site than an encyclopedia. The changes were reverted, bringing here for discussion. Kelly ^hi! 02:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with any of that. None of the sources have said that the protests are over. In fact, the admin gave testimony saying they expected them to regain strength in the beginning of 2012. Occupy UC Davis has not ended. Their tuition protest has only just begun. Please do the research. Viriditas (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Could that wait until we have reliable sources indicating the protests are not over? Kelly ^hi! 03:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You need to provide evidence that the protests are over. I don't need to prove a negative. The Occupy UC Davis group of protesters is still very active as their Facebook page shows, and they had significant representation on December 17 at the Occupy Education meeting in Berkeley. They are currently taking a winter break on campus, but will be returning on January 6. They are also expanding their movement to include electoral candidates and a protest at the state Capitol planned for March. More to the point, their primary concerns (and demands) have not been met, and according to best estimates, protests about the tuition hikes are unlikely to end until the UC system receives more money from the state of California. The state is planning for these protests right now. You seem to be under the false impression that a student movement named "Occupy UC Davis" is inextricably linked to placing a physical tent on campus. It isn't. Viriditas (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the "Current event" tag needs to be added to the top of the article? Cla68 (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Dunno - I don't think the Tea Party movement articles are tagged with "current", although activism seems to be ongoing. Kelly ^hi! 06:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Questions

There are a few questions that this article doesn't appear to answer that perhaps are answered in the sources:

• Were the protesters intentionally seeking a confrontation with the police? Has anyone asked the protest leaders if they were trying to do that? Is that why they chose to block a public, pedestrian thoroughfare? Is that why the standing protesters were taunting police at the same time the sitting protestors refused to move? If so, is the description, "peaceful demonstration" accurate?
• Were the campus police following standard, written procedure in their actions? If so, then why were any of them suspended?
• If the demonstrators were seeking a confrontation, how does that help them with their stated cause of protesting tuition hikes? Does it give their cause more publicity? If so, do they feel that this kind of publicity helps or hurts their cause? Has anyone commented on the fact that the public may sympathize with the police officers, including military veterans who aren't paid a whole lot, who were faced with a difficult situation and then were suspended for how they handled it?
• The American mainstream public appears to have withdrawn support for the "Occupy" movement. As a result, the movement appears to be rapidly collapsing. Is there a reason for this? Do the well-publicized events at UC-Davis have a bearing on the collapse? Surely some commentators have written on this aspect of the movement. Cla68 (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's a brief answer to your queries, numbering your bullet points 1-4 in reply:

1. There is no evidence that the protesters were intentionally seeking a confrontation. Do you have any sources that support that idea?
2. The question is whether the campus police were following the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training-Learning Domains 15 (LD15). The question is still open and further research is needed. They were suspended for various reasons which will be added to the article. Several investigations are currently under way to address and answer this question.
3. Since there is no evidence for question 1, leading question number 3 doesn't follow. The public has sympathized with the students and their protests against tuition hikes. This is not a police vs. students or police vs. protesters situation. In fact, the police response to the movement is only one small part of the issue, with the primary issue centered around tuition hikes. Some commentators have observed that the violence against the students and the media coverage of this incident has detracted from and minimized their message. According to the university administration, the police did not follow instructions to minimize a confrontation, and the responsibility for escalation appears to be not just on the officers at UC Davis, but on campus police throughout the UC system. Contrary to how these police offciers handled each protest, and their violent response to peaceful demonstrations, the Los Angeles police department recently chose to go a different route, and was able to peacefully disperse Occupy protesters without harming a single person. The tactics used by the LAPD have been applauded by the Occupy movement and by independent groups who monitored their response.
4. There is no evidence whatsoever that the "American mainstream public" has withdrawn support for the Occupy movement. Nor is there any evidence that the movement is collapsing. What there is evidence for, however, is a cold winter coming on, which necessarily and temporarily entails lesser visibility. According to sources, the movement is currently organizing for the 2012 elections. Occupy protests against tuition hikes in California are expected to grow, not diminish, in 2012, with a march and occupation of Sacramento in the planning stages. Because history has a way of repeating itself, many commentators are concerned about the heavy handed police response leading to another event like the 1968 Democratic National Convention.

More later. Viriditas (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, from what I've read, there are a variety of opinions on why the Occupy movement is losing steam, the winter season being one of them. If any of them mentions UC Davis, I'll bring it up here. Cla68 (talk) 01:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that those "opinions" are part of a larger disinformation campaign that is attempting to discredit the movement. The issues and concerns raised by the Occupy movement are no less valid to mainstream America today than they were yesterday. Do you know what those concerns are? Viriditas (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, actually I do and I'm willing to discuss it with you on your userpage. When I mention a variety of opinions, I'm also including left-wing commentators like Ted Rall who said that the Occupy movement was failing because it wasn't being sufficently violent and confrontational. Cla68 (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you should discuss those concerns here, because they are part of this article and need to be expanded. If Ted Rall said that about the Occupy movement, then he's clearly uninformed. The Occupy movement has taken great pains to avoid violence and confrontation. One does not "fail" when one engages in nonviolence. Anyone who calls on people to be more violent and confrontational is clearly deluded in some way. Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Rall appears to be calling on the movement to become a true, violent revolution. In comments in political blogs and forums, which you and I know aren't RS, a lot of people have opined that they think the movement lost steam with mainstream Americans when it started concentrating too much on provoking confrontations with the police. There were several reasons given:

• Many people have friends and relatives who are police officers, and don't believe the protesters claims that the police are being used as repressive agents of the State
• The videos of the confrontations often show that the police were clearly provoked into action by the protesters
• People are aware that police forces are made up of individuals who themselves are from different sides of the political spectrum, including the left and right.
• The racial element. A number of observers have said that seeing mainly white demonstrators taunting and belittling mostly black police officers in places like Oakland, NYC, and Washington DC made them very uncomfortable. Cla68 (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This is nothing more than gray propaganda used to develop and promote a "negative narrative" as part of opposition research.[8] Not a word of it is true, so I have to ask, why is it being posted here? Per WP:NOT, in particular WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:SPECULATION, is there any reason why I should not hat this discussion? You are free, of course, to present reliable sources for this, if any exist. Further, it should be about Occupy UC Davis. Viriditas (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas, I invited you to discuss this on your talk page, but you said we should discuss it here. When I did, you then attacked me for doing so. What's up with that? Cla68 (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, you are correct. I originally misunderstood what you meant by concerns. However, I'm only really interested in the topic of Occupy UC Davis, so unless you have concerns about this topic, I'm probably not the one you want to discuss it with. Sorry about that. Viriditas (talk) 03:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No worries. If I find any relevent sources, including editorials in RS, that specifically mention UC Davis in the context of the Occupy movement as a whole, I will bring them here for discussion. Cla68 (talk) 04:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

February reports

Conclusions from the initial reports are expected to start appearing by February 2012. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Note, the report was finally released on April 11, 2012, and is cited in the investigations section. Viriditas (talk) 08:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

So are they back?

The article states that "demonstrators plan to return on January 9, 2012". Have they?--Salix (talk): 08:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they have. Old news.[9][10] Viriditas (talk) 08:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Occupy UC Davis article title has been changed

A user has recently changed the title of this article from "Occupy UC Davis" to UC Davis pepper-spray incident. I changed the title back to Occupy UC Davis once, but the person who changed the name changed it back, based upon a rationale that most of the sources are about the pepper-spray incident. However, while many of the sources are about this incident, not all of them are.

This is problematic, because the Occupy protests at UC Davis are characterized by more than just once incident that occurred. This title change also sets other sections of the article out of context, such as the "Background" and "Rallies and encampment" sections. Also, Occupy UC Davis has continued to engage in organized meetings, events and actions, which have nothing to do with the pepper-spray incident. Therefore, I place this message here in hopes of obtaining consensus regarding the article's title.

• I propose that the article's title is renamed to "Occupy UC Davis". Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • There are 65 sources supporting the content in this article. The majority of them are about the pepper spray incident. Please list the sources that are only about Occupy UC Davis. Viriditas (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Per RfC. Well, i really dont see problem here. Propose new requested move, gave arguments for both names, and community will decide. We should see what is most common name of this situation. So, i can say only, create requested move template. --WhiteWriter^speaks 12:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

So why doesn't he just create a new article about Occupy UC Davis? Well, he can't because there are virtually no sources on the subject. Instead he has to play coatrack and latch on to the notability of the pepper-spray incident to promote the notability of the group. 65 sources and virtually all of them are about the pepper-spray incident. What does that tell you? Viriditas (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, under that circumstances, req-move will do no harm... And all sides will be pleased. --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

http://occupyucdavis.org/ No sources? Entire website... Northamerica1000, i think that you should propose requested move, with good explanation, and source listing. Same on you, Viriditas. :) --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia containing articles based on reliable secondary sources. Primary sources may be used, but we don't base entire articles on them. It's a very, very poor argument to point to a primary source as a reason for supporting a rename. Viriditas (talk) 07:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Per RfC; may I remind all editors about WP:CIVIL please direct comments about the discussion at hand and not about other editors (see WP:AVOIDYOU). Although the subject "Occupy UC Davis" has a website that doesn't make them notable per WP:ORG, and given that this article is primarily about an event that is notable per WP:GNG but who's notability per WP:EFFECT is questionable I do not at this time support a name change to "Occupy UC Davis". Additionally this article should be checked for neutrality as this events deal with living persons and maybe subject to the WP:BLP guidelines. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I am in agreement with the above thoughts from RCLC. Most will come to Wikipedia in search of information about the pepper spray event, and that's what most of the article is about. The provided context with regards to the larger event is sufficient, IMO.--MichaelProcton (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm in favour of Occupy UC Davis as its a more inclusive title. "Occupy UC Davis" can include details of the pepper spray incident, but "UC Davis pepper-spray incident" cannot include other actions, such as the recent bank closure[11][12].--Salix (talk): 09:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • That's hardly a notable incident. Here in Hawaii, which is a very small place compared to California, bank branches open and close every day. I hardly think that is important enough to even consider justifying a rename. Finally, the focus of those articles are about the bank closure not the group. Let's see some good secondary sources about the group and then decide on a rename. I've been asking this from the beginning, and so far, nobody has presented any. Viriditas (talk) 10:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Per RfC Keep UC Davis pepper-spray incident for this article and create a separate article for Occupy UC Davis. Of the four (!) paragraph lede, three deal with the pepper-spray incident as well as half the length of the article. The portion of the article that deals with Occupy UC Davis along with the lede from this article would make a good start to a separate article with a link to this article for more information on this incident. Eastshire (talk) 12:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep present title (UC Davis pepper-spray incident). The subject of the article is the pepper-spray incident, whose coverage has dwarfed the balance of the Occupy UC Davis event. I acknowledge that a lot of material about the Occupy event in general has made its way into this article, but a better approach would be to move that material into its own article, rather than renaming this one. TJRC (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep Original Title I think the article should be called Occupy UC Davis and should include all information about everything that happened. UC Davis Pepper Spray Incident should redirect to Occupy UC Davis. Thepoodlechef (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• An RFC isn't really the appropriate venue for this discussion. Per WhiteWriter, file a move request and move forward from there. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 04:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)