Talk:Melissa King assault case

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED actually translates to WIKIPEDIA IS NOT SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE I hope you can live with yourselves. I hope that "policy" is enough to shield yourself from your conscience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.41 (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is this even here?

Why is this even here? Shouldn't something so violent and vicious be deleted and forgotten? That way, if no one remembers it, then it may not occur again. --70.118.121.189 23:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

For good or for bad, Wikipedia is not censored. -- Atlant 23:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Judge Russo probably had the same thoughts. Should the court deny the existence of Beat Up a White Kid Day or acknowledge the existence, knowing the ramifications. The court did not censor itself and instead acknowledge the existence of Beat Up a White Kid Day, reasoning that "This terrible tradition must be stopped by sending a message today." -- Jreferee 00:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I know why there should be on article about this

Simply because it is informative and it also explains how and why people do this. Now I don't agree with it but I think there should be an article about this because it talks about the history of it. If it was deleted, then no one would beable to know about this and thats why it shouldn't be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DemonicSailormoon (talk • contribs) 19:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

The problem with this page

is that it is at least as socially impactive, if not more so, than the few local paper stories that reported on it, and furthermore it is of a nature that could perpetuate hate crimes. If responsible wikipedians agree it should be kept, at least we should agree on an ID warning box, something to the effect: "Warning: contents are politically charged and their significance is disputed." We do have the power to be responsible!

If anyone can make such a warning box, thank you in advance. MotherFunctor

Wikipedia is not censored. Corvus cornix 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be nice to state exactly what you believe is the connection between WP:NOT and this question. WP:NOT merely states that there may be objectionable content on Wikipedia. It does not require use to have objectionable content. It also does not forbid any sort of template or warning. For instance, we use a lot of spolier warnings on articles about books, movies, etc.

Having said that, I am not arguing that we need any sort of warnign or template here. I just want to point out that pointing to a policy is not really meaningful discussion, and it does not help us reach consensus over what to do here on this page.

Johntex\^talk 05:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed MotherFunctor 18:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thre is nothing to do here on this page. The fact that Wikipedia is not censored follows hard on with "we don't put warning templates on pages". Corvus cornix 23:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No, as pointed out above wikipedia does employ spoiler warnings, for example. Let's not forget context here, I'm not suggesting that every controversial topic be given a Tipper Gore warning box. What I did say is that wikipedia is playing as big a part in the promulgation of this story as the original sources, more so, in fact. This is a big problem.MotherFunctor 18:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, that's a minor reason as to why I'm seeking to rename the article. (The major one is that the current title just doesn't sound...well, encyclopedic.) A redirect would be appropriate, no question, but consider a couple of things. One, we've covered that we aren't censored. Two, it is not the job of Wikipedia to provide some sort of so-called "fair and balanced" report of what these are, or - God forbid - obfuscate (or even remove) them in the hopes that they'll go away. The former is just bad reporting, the latter is just the proverbial ostrich act. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, has a responsibility to document the phenomenon as an encyclopedia - that is, saying what it is, and that's it. When we do this, we aren't going to try and say that this is wrong - first, that's a moral play, and second, anybody of good conscience should be able to figure out that it's wrong to attack somebody because their skin color is different than yours. See the latest AfD from the beginning of the month - that seems to be the concensus. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I maintain an objection with this article. I think bottom-feeding from the ocean of news one can come up with many trivial AND offensive articles and I don't think doing so does wikipedia any good. Also, the first sentence could imply that this is a generally acknowledged practice.MotherFunctor 05:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

And by extension, so is abuse. You provide what borders on a straw man argument - the first paragraph needs a remodel no question. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've altered the first paragraph. Remember, MF, you can edit this too, so you have no excuse to complain about content. Be bold, already! =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't need an excuse to complain, I complain unabashedly :) I don't follow your comment 2 up, but it's not a problem, I'll back down, I haven't investigated the article enough. MotherFunctor 08:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that reads a lot better. Thanks. MotherFunctor 08:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The real problem with this article is that the so-called sourcing sucks. Just look at the first footnote. The opening sentence says, "Beat Up a White Kid Day is a May Day event in Cleveland, Ohio[1]" But the footnote for that assertion says no such thing. That's the problem with every single footnote in this article. Corvus cornix 17:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Granted, that first paragraph needs a cleanup. God, that one hurts. =O.o= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The references all point to the Wikipedia articles about the newspapers referenced, but not to the Cleveland Plain Dealer's website. That is because there is nothing in the Plain Dealer's archives which discuss this supposed "annual event". I'm beginning to wonder if it's made up. Corvus cornix 23:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• ...anyone in the area know more about it? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Name of article?

One thing that I pondered during this article's AfD was the renaming of it - perhaps it's more appropriately named as, say, "May First Racial Assaults" or something? Thoughts? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• The name is problematic - most of the sources seem to prefer May day which is obviously problematic, but what about May day assaults or such? I think May day is better than May first in the context. WilyD 21:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I figured that May First would be better to at least point to a calendar date if only because it seems more appropriate. Given the sources, though, maybe a redirect from one or another would work. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A new name should also be less America-biased. I suggest two things: 1. renaming in the direction of rascist attack -day, and 2: renaming in direction of showing this is in the USA. Please notice I don't actually have a candidate, I just say what I would want from the new name.Greswik 19:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Racist Palaver Should Not Be a Serious Entry

This article purports to identify a continuing and prevalent event throughout the United States. It does not. It references an event which occurred in Cleveland, Ohio, USA, and provides no evidence that this event was replicated elsewhere in the country.

It is noteworthy that the article commences with pejorative innuendo that "May Day" is related to socialist and communist protests. Just how does that relate with the incident of violence that is referenced?

I believe the overall effect is to depict young persons of nonwhite ethnicity as violent and racist. The single incident does not render nonwhite youth as violent and racist but this entry does betray a certain level of racist fear-mongering which a legitimate reference work should not countenance.

This should be reconsidered for deletion. LAWinans (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to renominate it, but the two previous AfDs and the DRV are highly suggestive that such an effort would be unsuccessful. I think it's pretty clear from context that it refers to a couple of events (my reading of the sources leads me to believe there were at least two such events).

May Day is definitely a socialist/communist holiday - I don't think one can seriously dispute that. I'm not aware that socialist or communist are really widely regarded as pejoritives - your mileage may vary, different cultures and all.

Beyond that, whether we like the facts or not is not supposed to colour our presentation - obviously one could read an article like this that way if so inclined, but there's plenty of "counterbalancing" articles that portray whites as violent and racist, if you prefer to read those - and I'll wager those garner a lot more pageviews. WilyD 04:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the truth behind this 2003 case?

I've added some information which indicates that the Cleveland case is not as straightforward a case of racially motivated violence as might be thought. The accusation that Melissa gossiped about one girl's sexual abuse and suicide attempt suggests there are alternative explanations such as a personal vendetta. Most of this theory of mayday black-on-white attacks seems to rely on the 2003 case (i am not sure but i don't think that white children were beaten in the race riots?). So this does weaken the general theory behind this article. [1] This case seems rather confusing so if anyone has the copies of the Cleveland paper that are cited in the references and has time to attach them to this article that'd be fantastic --131.111.216.251 (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)