Talk:UC Davis pepper spray incident

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)