Jump to content

Talk:Seattle Mardi Gras riot

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Race

[edit]

Liberals in denial and African Americans trying to justify what happened are the reason this happened and events like this will continue to happen. Commentators on this "Talk Page" asking for sources, citing "Bias" or "lack of neutrality" are clearly making feeble attempts to re-write the events of 2/27/01. THERE IS VIDEO OF THE BLACK ON WHITE VIOLENCE. CLEAR, UNEDITED AND IN NO WAY OBSCURED IN ITS DEPICTION. THE WORLD AND INTELLIGENT MINDS DON'T NEED TO DEBATE THE CONJECTURE AND VALIDITY OF SOURCES.[[[1]] link] It is a disgusting and shameful display of the depths of humanity and perhaps a hard pill to swallow for some; Nevertheless, attempting to negate the various literary accounts of what occurred will never diminish the cold hard reality that was on display for the world to see that night:

African Americans commiting senseless random acts of violence on Whites. 4 on 1, 4 males on 1 female, kicking humanity in the head, BRUTALLY attacking someone for no reason, all on video, all quite barbaric. THERE IS NO OTHER INTERPRETATION! Bklein9104 (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The Seattle Establishment? Is there an address for that? could you be a bit more specific, cite a source or two? thats a pretty nebulous phrase, and it just makes you sound like a nutcase

Who authored this article? I need it for school, plz.

The tone of this article seems to be rather biased. Not enough sources are cited. This article needs to explain what started the violence in the first place. -- futurebird 03:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


"Most of the violence was due to roving groups of African Americans singling out white victims and viciously assaulting them". There is no neutrality or scope of circumstance in this phrase and needs to be edited. Throughout the article but particularly in this opening phrase it merely labels African-Americans as violent thugs with its sensational language and biased opinions.Portz 16:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this was cause for concern, then fists shouldn't have been thrown in the first place. I'll have to read the remainder of the article, but the line you've quoted does not seem 'biased', but capturing the incident and the actions of those involved. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 15:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Futurebird complains that the article is biased? Please recall that the arch-liberal counter-culture newspaper "The Stranger" was the source out of which the clear-cut racial attack report was cited. If the evidentiary truth makes one a "nutcase," then may I suggest that denial of clear, irrefutable evidence makes one . . . well, you *should* get the picture.

Peter1589 16:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)peter1589Peter1589 16:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The article is biased. The "riots" were not principally racial at all, and there are plenty of reports and visual evidence showing whites, Asians, Latinos, and Blacks all participating in violence and sexually assaulting women. Men and women of all races were charged with crimes relating to the incident. Patricksartini9@hotmail.com 04:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed words like "brutally" and "viciously". Whoever wrote those in is a moron. 24.186.192.247 16:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOT SURE IF ANYBODY CARES, BUT I WAS THERE, AND ANYBODY WHO CLAIMS THERE WAS NOT A RACIAL COMPONENT OF BLACK MALE ON WHITE FEMALE VIOLENCE IS EITHER IGNORANT OR OUT OF THEIR MINDS. I HAD TO GO PICK UP MY GIRLFRIEND, WHO WORKED IN PIONEER SQUARE, AFTER SHE WAS SERIOUSLY INJURED BY A GIGANTIC BLACK MAN, WHO BODY-SLAMMED HER ON THE CURB.

I vote this entry be deleted. It is biased and offers only a small factual account of what occurred during the riot. Further, it relies heavily on an editorial piece in the Stranger. The direct quote from the Stranger (see below) evinces the article’s editorial nature.


"This was a race riot...the kind of race riot Seattle produced was different, scarier in two ways: (1) blacks exploded not in their own neighborhood, but in a white, commercial district; (2) their rage was directed not at the police, but at white civilians."


Although there is a smattering of fact in the Stranger article, it is an editorial. Opinion pieces, while informative, generally shouldn’t be a fact source for an encyclopedia entry. Encyclopedia entries are supposed to offer factual accounts and descriptions. By relying on this particular Stranger article as a fact source, this encyclopedia entry has now been infused with the opinion of the original editorial.


Lastly, the final paragraph is poorly written. It attempts to explain the aftermath of the riots, yet does not cite any sources. Also, the conclusions drawn seem tangentially related to the riots.

NEW ADDITION, DIFFERENT COMMENTER FROM ABOVE, ADDED 8/16/07: The last paragraph is at best redundant, but is really editorializing and does not add much hard factual information to the topic. The rest is largely neutral.

This paragraph should be cleaned up. Recommended omissions are struck as they are editorializations:

Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske ordered the police at the scene not to intervene, instead maintaining a perimeter around the violence, supposedly because he feared escalation. Shortly after the incident, the Seattle police force voted a resolution of "no confidence" in Chief Kerlikowske when officers complained of being "held back too long". The City of Seattle acknowledged police strategy presented a public safety threat, and settled with Kime's family for just under $2,000,000.

Several of the perpetrators admitted to racial motivation in their attacks, and the Seattle Police recommended they be charged with hate crimes. However, none of the perpetrators were charged by the prosecutors with hate crimes, which if convicted, would have increased their jail sentences. Under interrogation, Khalid Adams stated that he "most likely" kicked a white man on the ground because of his race and that he believed a race war was in progress. EDIT: citation needed

Plus, the Stranger, while they call themselves a newspaper, is an 'advocacy journalism' publication, which operates with a political agenda and will editorialize with a clear and obvious bias at will, and thus should be cited with caution. The text cited should not qualify, since it is an editorial opinion on the part of the author.SGinSEA 05:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


It's hard to believe this discussion page was even worse than the article was, but somehow it was. I overhauled the article and gave it a more NPOV framing. I removed things attributed to the Stranger that they did not actually claim. I removed the claim that Khalid Adams said he "most likely" attacked someone based on race since I could only find one website to verify this, and it was a hate website that referred to blacks as "negroes." (In other words, it lacked any credibility.) For the record, the Stranger is counter-culture, not liberal; Do not take anything they print as any kind of "concession of the left." Also, does anyone have any source regarding the curfews Seattle instituted on Mardi Gras for years after the incident? I know this happened, at least for a while, but I can't find a source to cite on it. WallyCuddeford (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also changed some of the wording in this article to make it a bit less offensive. In the section about "racial motivation", there is the implicit assumption that all black people have criminal records and are involved in gangs. I changed it to indicate a correlation between the violence of that night and young black offenders/gang members, so that there would be no confusion over who the perpetrators were. They weren't just *black people*, they were mostly young, black, male criminals, and that makes up a small part of the overall black population. I'm not denying that some of these crimes were racially motivated, because clearly they were, but you need to clarify exactly who the perpetrators were. This is a mistake carried over from the source material, and yes, it is offensive.76.102.10.239 (talk) 03:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black≠young black male criminal. Your edits appear good for the most part. my only concern is I do not know if the sources discuss age. These might not have been "young" black men. Can you verify with sources?Cptnono (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Watts Riots which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Carnation Massacre which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Seattle Mardi Gras riot/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Winner 42 (talk · contribs) 20:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Placing this under review, should be done in a day or so. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking so long, review is done now, placing on hold. Winner 42 Talk to me! 03:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No improvements in over seven days, failing GA review. Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall Comments

[edit]
  • Only one dead link, I have tagged it
  • Overall, it is comprehensive and largely well written, but lacks the level of sourcing and the neutrality expected of a GA article.

Sectional Analysis

[edit]
  • Lead
    • No real issues here, but a sentence or two focusing on the outcome of the investigations could be helpful
    • "It was the second serious rioting incident in over a three-year period" This could be more clearly worded though, it is a bit confusing
  • Background
    • Is ref 1 or 3 available online?
    • Fat Tuesday should be linked at its first usage
  • Fat Tuesday
    • the women as the women -> the women as they
    • "evening went continued" is poor and confusing wording
    • This section could use the inclusion of images of the event
    • "The police stood by and did nothing" The sources given do not seem to support this statement.
  • Reactions
    • "Its scale caused people to refocus their attention on earthquake recovery and away from the violence. Outside the Seattle area, the incidents attracted little media attention and have largely been forgotten" These statements do not seem to be supported by sources in the article
    • This section seems to heavily imply that the riots were racially motivated, is it providing proper WP:DUE weight to all views surrounding the topic?
    • "One man was charged with forcibly fondling a woman." Unsourced.
    • "criticism of the police department's inaction during the incident" This is unsourced and could lead to issues with neutrality
  • Investigations and legal proceedings
    • The use of primary sources is not acceptable in cases such as these as OR. Secondary sources should be used.
    • "The Seattle police force voted a resolution of "no confidence" in Kerlikowske when officers complained of being "held back too long"." is a BLP violation and I have removed it as it is unsourced and potentially harmful against Kerlikowske.
    • This source could be used more extensively in the article as it summarizes some of the currently unsourced statements.

Review

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Seattle Mardi Gras riot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Seattle Mardi Gras riot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seattle_Mardi_Gras_riot&oldid=1205233278"