Talk:2007 MacArthur Park rallies

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Five years, and still not netural

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In June 2013, somebody removed the notice saying the article is not neutral POV, on the basis that nobody has fixed it in five years.

While that's clearly true, that is no reason to remove the notice. It should only be fixed when the article is properly rewritten, meanwhile readers should be warned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.254.130 (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Needs rewriting

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

This article really needs to be rewritten. After a thorough investigation, The LAPD demoted the commanding officer, punished 17 more, payed over 13 million dollars out to people who were unjustly shot, gassed, and beaten with nightsticks, and every public official from the mayor to the police chief as well as media from FOX news to LA times to Indymedia all finally agreed that the police were at fault and violated the constitutional rights of the demonstrators! Could someone please rewrite this to reflect that? sigh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.52.137 (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

i think this should go in current events on the cover page, but not sure whether it's up to snuff, or how to link it there. little help? Chantoke 10:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Mêlée was improperly capitalised, so I changed it (WP:CAPS), but mêlée itself is an improper term to use in the English encyclopedia - if only because its using French alphabetical conventions. Altercation or incident would be better. -Ste vertigo 03:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Melee is the correct title, because that's how it is referred to in Los Angeles. At the time of this post, a google search yields 1.17 million hits. --Dems on the move 00:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, 54,100 hits. I'm not convinced. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

54,000 is not sufficient enough? Perhaps it's because I raised too much expectations with 1.2 million. --Dems on the move 14:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

title

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Maybe there should not be any accents in the word mêlée for this article since the common spelling is usually just melee. I had trouble finding this page, and I trust others will to. For easier exposure of this article, I suggetst the title just be The Los Angeles May Day melee, a common search phrase I believe people will use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.138.115.183 (talk • contribs).

Obviously you found the page. If all the accents are the correct usage (as is evident by the article mêlée, then that's how this article should be titled. We can create as many redirect pages as needed to make this page easier to find. --Dems on the move 00:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you read the article you linked, mêlée is the French spelling, melee is how it is spelled in English. The title of that article is Melee; Mêlée redirects to it. The spelling should be changed to melee in the title of this article, pedants be damned. --Mugsywwiii (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree that it should be changed to melee. Its simpler to search for, and that is how the event is being entitled in current publications and news casts.

Melee is not an appropriate term in any case because it indicates a battle between police and resisting protesters. No one who was there, or who watched any of the extensive video coverage, could possibly imagine that this was a 'melee.' The 'melee' term was used in the late-filed reporting by reporters who weren't present. Later news stories, and the record of events that emerged in the police hearings, indicated that what took place was more like a 'police attack' on a peaceful crowd. Having been there and been shot at, and seen friends shot and beaten, and seen even mainstream reporters clubbed, shot, bruised, injured and even hospitalized, it disturbs and saddens me that this wikipedia entry simply reflects a late-night byline rather than a deep reading and viewing of all sources.

Also, this article is written like crap. Parts of this article read like political commentary, which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. There are a lot of missing, or plain wrong, facts. 600 officers outnumbered the protesters 15:1? --xchsxbigxmike

i agree. also, "in support of illegal immigration" sounds a little neo-con, doesn't it? isn't it more like in support of immigrants rights or something along those lines? that's similar to calling pro choice protesters "pro abortion" protesters. Strutt (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, it's factual. There isn't any issue about the rights of legal immigrants. The issue this rally and all the rallies are about is illegal immigrants. The whole point of the rally was to demand that the government close its eyes to illegal immigration and pretend that the people who engage in it are fine upstanding people who have every right to be here. -- Zsero (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

The 15:1 ratio was clarified in this edit. You can help Wikipedia "decrapify" this article by contributing to the article. Just press the edit button. Here is what the template {{sofixit}} has to say about complaints such as yours:

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).

Cheers, --Dems on the move 22:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

i removed the word racist where it appeared before Los Angeles police because it is an opinion and this is not an editorial page. if i had more time i would take the hatchet to a lot of this article. not only is it poorly written, a lot of it almost sounds like a political rant. save the politics for a blog. this is a totally inappropriate venue for airing political views.

a little clarification

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the beginning of the description of the incident, it says "which the rally permit expressly prohibited". I've never heard of a permit prohibiting something, are we sure it shouldn't say that the permit "didn't allow" it? Murderbike (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, permits expressly prohibit things all the time. They specify things that must not take place at the event, places the crowd must not go, etc. Not obstructing the streets around the park would be a perfectly normal provision in such a permit. -- Zsero (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Merge proposal

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I just found the article MacArthur Park rallies controversy, about the same subject. Obviously, these two articles should be merged. I don't have any preference on what the title should be, but this article is more developed, so I've suggested that one be merged here rather than vice versa. Terraxos (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was WP:BOLD.

Done -- Zsero (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree. I didn't know a separate article existed and was focused on solving on treating all these controversies equally. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

illegals got beaten up?

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is that a bad thing? Maybe that should be mentioned in the article? The reason? This article sounds bias. Focusing on reeporters getting hurt? Come on!

YankeeRoman(65.222.151.74 (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC))Reply

Pro-illegal immigration rally

Latest comment: 14 years ago18 comments6 people in discussion

What are RS calling this event? Thanks, --Tom 13:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's not really the question. You'll never catch the LA Times, for instance, referring to such an event with the word "illegal", even if every single speaker were to proclaim it at the top of their voices. It's not PC. But that doesn't change the facts. There is no real contention over the nature of the event; why would anyone have to demonstrate for legal immigration? That's already, well, legal, and is in no danger whatsoever. So what would a pro-legal-immigration rally be protesting? -- Zsero (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Agree about the LA Times, but the Orange County Register should have a balanced description. Furthermore, a pro-increase-in-legal-immigration rally is possible and has actually occured. It just isn't this one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Remember, Wikipedia isn't about the "truth" but more about what reliable 3rd party sources have already established. If the bulk of RS are calling this a pro imigration rally, that is what should be used in the lead. You can get into the illegal-immigration issue futher into the article it seems. --Tom 13:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I disagree, in part. If news sources which editorialize in favor of illegal immigration report it as "pro immigration", it doesn't weigh against calling it pro-illegal-immigration. But we still need news sources which call it in favor of illegal immigration before the information can be properly included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

The rally was not about increasing illegal immigration. It was about the rights of all immigrants. Dems on the move (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Exactly what rights of legal immigrants are not being honored? Frotz (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Health insurance, living wage, housing, health care .... The list goes on and on. Dems on the move (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

How is that different from protests demanding the same for citizens? Frotz (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Legal immigrants can't get health insurance? They're being denied wages, housing, or health care? In what country? Not the USA! Legal immigrants in the USA get paid what their work is worth, just like anyone else, and can buy whatever housing, health care, or insurance they want and can afford, just like anyone else. They don't get paid less or charged more, and they're certainly not barred from buying, so what would they be protesting about? The rally was for illegal immigrants, who, like any other kind of criminal, are in constant danger of being caught, and therefore can't fully participate in the economy. Like anyone on the run from the law, they pay for it by not being able to do anything that will draw attention to them, such as complaining when they get ripped off. Funny, though, I've never heard of rallies for the rights of other fugitives. -- Zsero (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Although I wouldn't have put it that way, ~~Demons~~ Dems on the move is exactly WRONG. Illegal immigrants seem to have more rights to health care than legal immigrants. And, from from what I recall, the stated purpose of the rally was to increase legal immigration, rather than specifically dealing with rights of legal or illegal immigrants. Perhaps that's that what we should have, even though the real purpose of the rally seemed to be to increase illegal immigration or to improve the rights of illegal immigrants. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, Frotz seems to have found the smoking gun — in the LA Times, no less! The article (ref 3 right now) starts out: "Waving U.S. flags and demanding citizenship for undocumented immigrants". That's LA-Times-ese for "illegal". Case closed, I think. -- Zsero (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've removed the "pro-illegal immigration" language for the following reasons:

There is no support for that language in other media sources - not even in WorldNetDaily. A Google News search (as of today) for "pro-illegal immigration rally" yields precisely zero results.
It is inaccurate and non-NPOV. There is no way you can argue or show that these protesters wanted to perpetuate illegal immigration, rather than making legal immigration more accessible and less broken.
Most news reports referred to it simply as an "immigration rally," which is accurate, unbiased, and NPOV. See articles 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 7 for examples. It's referred to as simply "immigration rally," "immigration rights rally," "protest", and "pro-immigration rally," but never "pro-illegal immigration rally". --The Human Spellchecker (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Here we go again. It was about rights and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. That makes it an immigration rally, a pro-immigration rally, but not a pro-illegal immigration rally. I believe "immigration rally" is the most NPOV option. --The Human Spellchecker (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sigh. I won't try to get into a revert war, because I'm not active enough on Wikipedia to have enough cred or attentiveness. But stating that there are sources without being able to produce any isn't any better than not having sources. --The Human Spellchecker (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

How about pro-illegal-immigrant rally. They may not be supporting increasing illegal immigration, but rights for illegal immigrants. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Is this article somehow no longer applicable? Frotz (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Move

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The term "mêlée" is open for interpretation, most of the protesters and reporters were peaceful as shown by the the 13 million settlement and the fallout section. --Jmundo (talk) 05:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the move, but the "May Day Mêlée" title is commonly used by the press, and I think it should be included in the lead. Thundermaker (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply