Talk:Knockout game

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Knockout (violent game))
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Crime  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Invalid and prejudicial article[edit]

This is a factually invalid and prejudicial article that does not belong in the encyclopedia. The author cites two alleged cases of this "game" in 19 years. I would ask Wikipedia to avoid carrying articles that attribute behaviors to "teens" (or any other population group) unless the authors can document with valid references (not mere news articles) that they are widespread, common, and occur only among that demographic. Mike Males,

This appears to be an issue that is documented in the media. It should meet the notability requirements to be included in Wikipedia.
-There is a book documenting it [White Girl Bleed a Lot: The return of racial violence and how the media ignore it.]
and plenty of news articles.:
- ["Knockout King" from American Crime Prevention Institute]
- "Scattered reports of the game have come from around the country including Massachusetts, New Jersey and Chicago. In St. Louis, the game has become almost contagious, with tragic consequences. " [Knocktout King: New Brand of street violence targets random victims]
-"It isn't clear how long Knockout King has been around, nor is the exact number of attacks known. The FBI doesn't track it separately, but Slay said he has heard from several mayors about similar attacks and criminologists agree versions of the game are going on in many places." ['Knockout game' killer gets life sentence for St. Louis attack]
- [Bus rider's face smashed in during 'Hate Attack']
-[Knockout King: The sickening 'game' claiming lives across the country as youths beat up the vulnerable 'for attention']
-['Knockout game' case shocked St. Louis, then fell apart]
-[Man's death linked to "Knockout Game"] (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

This article keeps on being reverted even though the game is predominately "played" by black youths but that note keeps getting removed!

- [[1]]
- [[2]]
- [[3]]
- [[4]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Add your source to the text... multiple if need be. I'll drop a help sheet on your talk page. Do that and it won't be reverted so quickly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Racial violence[edit]

Its time to add the subject of racial violence to this topic. Its quite apparent to even the least educated observer, that this game is predominately played by African American youths against European American whites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B02C:F37B:A4D7:E5F6:AE51:49E5 (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The ridiculous self-censorship about the black racists involved is dangerous for the whole Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that there has been a range of victims, from "white" people to Asian citizens. The "game", even being played overseas, is not predominately played by one race or another. United States citizens think that only African Americans could be capable of such an act, that is where the true race issue is hidden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that there has been a range of victims, from "white people to "tan" people. The "game", is played by "black" primarily teen citizens knocking out "non-black" citizens, videoing it and posting it on the internet. The rest is rationalized, revisionist garbage put forth to protect the "game' players. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Racist Urban Legend[edit]

I've checked these links pretty carefully. It's clear -- from an encyclopedic point of view -- that we can document a CLAIM that there is a widely-distributed game in which uninvolved people are subjected to vicious unprovoked attacks for the amusement of teen males. This article in its present form affirms that there really is a widespread practice, when the Post-Dispatch article on the Index case was already (very properly) asking whether that view might not be imposing a connecting narrative on random acts of violence. It has all the earmarks of a rumor panic (hints of conspiracy) and it provokes all the usual responses -- just look at the comments section on any of the videos posted. I'm pretty sure you've got an urban legend here, very much like the "Lights Out" type, but the racial violence? That's all in the comments --including the ones here. (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Please relate your comments to specific Wikipedia policies. Otherwise, this discourse is just WP:soapboxing. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
No soapboxing at all. I am responding to 1) how this subject is framed (as if the game existed, in some stable form, which is undocumented, and thus treating the Loch Ness Monster as part of the fauna of Scotland) and to someone's suggestion that we really need to make it clear that this (nonexistent) game is a device for black people to hurt white people (the evidence suggests no such thing). Rather, the evidence suggests it's an urban legend by which white people express their anxieties about black people. Now, those are the observations of a wikipedian, on no other evidence than is available to everybody reading, on a no-need-to-document-the-sky-is-blue basis. That's a really normal part of editing. Don't be so snarky, k? (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
So you're just soapboxing on critical race theory then? Stop wasting everybody's time, especially while you're not citing any relevant Wikipedia polices. None of the information you reference above is even included in the article. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
You're being obtuse and unpleasant. The article as it stands says something exists which may not -- you need a specific wikipolicy for that? Somebody proposed a change, I explained why it would be a bad thing? And you want a policy for that? OK, show me where it says we need to cite a specific wikipolicy to communicate at all? This conversation is an attempt to improve the article, and if you feel your time is wasted in it, exit. (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Let's not get personal about this subject. Remember to WP:Assume good faith. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate reporting[edit]

The story originally linked to, which identifies the guy in the alley as Ralph Santiago, but in the video, his name is given as James Addlespurger. If you click through to the link about Santiago at, there is no mention of this game, but there is another article, now listed, that does mention the game.

I have not checked the other footnotes, but because the entry repeated the erroneous information from the CBS report, I separated the two reports and provided separate links. Cyraxote (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


I've just semi-protected the article for a month, as there's currently a daily barrage of useless, racist vandalism. As there's dialog here on the talk page now, anon editors can feel free to weigh in here instead - Alison 22:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Good for you. Last thing on planet earth anyone want's is an accurate revision of history. Ignoring the obvious racial component is not racist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Avoiding Racial Component?![edit]

Please note that the "knockout game" includes aspects of racial profiling where individuals are targeted based on their race. Also most of the attacks are sucker-punches. This activity is strongly related to racial profiling. It is surprising that this aspect of this article is avoided... it would be like referring to the Nazi death camps without referencing war or Jews. Please have someone look into this post and edit. (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Thanks for wanting to improve the article. Suggestions are always welcome and do not require an {{edit semi-protected}} template. The template is used to allow non-auto-confirmed editors to make specific, detailed edit requests. Those edit requests must be detailed at a "please change X to Y" level and include reliable sources supporting any factual change. Regards, Celestra (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The knockout game, also known as polar bear hunting, is overwhelmingly perpetrated by blacks on white victims. (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.. See also the reply to the previous request, immediately above this. --Stfg (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Other incidents before 2011[edit]

Whether or not these other articles are referring to the same thing, they use the same name or something similar like "polar bear hunting" (possibly a term purposely inflamatory created by media sensationalists) and it is allegedly played similarly. I, for one, would like these articles referenced in the wiki page along with that previous one from 1992. If nothing else they can be evidence of past attacks either mistakenly attributed or possibly adding to the evidence of this not being a new game.

-[2007 Teens knock-out game targets strangers Four Hoboken High students arrested in connection with assault]
-[2009 Columbia teens play to knock out victims]
-[2010 Unprovoked attacks in Champaign may be linked] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Lets just be honest[edit]

Whatever your feelings, we all know deep inside that this does in fact have a racial component. Certainly it is not an organized movement against whites by blacks, but the perpetrators just simply ARE black youths. I have a problem with the word "conservative" being used in the article. Why not just say something like "some commentators"? Adding the word conservative seems to be a slimy attempt to discredit the points that follow it. Hope more editors are concerned enough to offer their input on this article. (talk) 04:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The current wording is "Conservative political commentators have criticized the media for insufficient news coverage of these incidents and ignoring the alleged racial nature of these attacks". Can you find an example of a liberal commentator pointing out the insufficient news coverage and the racial aspect? "Conservative" is only a biased word if you come to the table with a preconceived notion that conservatives are wrong and liberals are right. --B (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Actual honesty requires rejecting the notions that a) people can "know" things without a thorough empirical investigations and b) that "we all" know the things that one person believes. Honesty also requires recognizing the fact that there are perpetrators of various races. I'm also surprised that someone would suggest that merely labeling statements as being presented by conservatives discredited those statements. -- (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any conservative media analysts calling it a myth or an urban legend, using the exact logic that see's coservative inserted in the body. I inserted liberal into the lead. Only liberal media analysts believe it is a myth. Before it vanishes better come up with some great spin why one should stay and the other go as numerous liberals as pointed out below and elsewhere have certainly acknowledged they believe this myth being perpertraed by the conservative media(according to the spinbots around here) exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, the Washington Post published an article today discussing this very topic.

The WP is certainly considered to be left-leaning. Geraldo Rivera also discussed this on the O'Reilly Factor on 11/22/13, with Laura Ingraham. I wouldn't say Rivera is a liberal, but he certainly cannot be called a "conservative commentator". I understand the resistance to acknowledge this topic's racial component - race is an understandably loaded addition to any conversation - but the claim that only conservative commentators are talking about this is not accurate. (talk) 05:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say Rivera is a liberal -- good, because he isn't. but he certainly cannot be called a "conservative commentator -- yes, he certainly can ... that's why he's a regular on Fox News, and considered running as a Republican in a NJ Senatorial race. the claim that only conservative commentators are talking about this is not accurate -- that's not the claim. -- (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing where the Post article you linked mentions race. --B (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request, 22 November 2013[edit]

In the case of Michael Daniels, both boys plead guilty, and were sentenced to 1.5 years prison. [Attacks around US probed for link to knockout game] (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Done the source says that the 16-year-old was found guitly rather than pleading guilty. I have reflected that. Thanks for providing this information. --Stfg (talk) 10:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Racial Components being added[edit]

Saying these attacks are racially motivated is completely dishonest as no one can prove that all victims have been white. There have been multiple victims of all races in these attacks. Adding information on what Conservative pundits are saying about black youths only attacking white victims does nothing but add prejudice to the article as it is not true. Dumaka (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Do not delete sourced information because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Nobody is saying it is true, but it is notable to put the views of prominent conservative pundits. The information is presented in an WP:NPOV manner. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
This is presenting a racial overtone to the entire article. This has been discussed before. Dumaka (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Dumaka is now just engaging in WP:Edit-warring by deleting sourced information that is presented in a neutral manner. S/he is not sourcing a valid WP policy for removing this information. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it is you that is engaged in WP:Edit-warring by placing bias information in the article that has already been discussed and deleted. If you look at previous discussions on this talk page you will see what I mean. Dumaka (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It likely is not racially motivated in the sense that certain black individuals organize and seek to target whites in a concerted effort. However, of the reported cases by any news outlet I'm aware of, the very significant majority of these cases have been committed by young black individuals against non-black individuals. The idea that this "game" is just a fantasy ginned-up by certain Conservative pundits is demonstrably false. As another editor posted on this page, a convicted participant of this "game" has already acknowledged it as such. Are we to believe that this individual and his group of friends created this "game" themselves, and that all of the other reported cases are just coincidental? (talk) 05:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

of the reported cases by any news outlet I'm aware of -- your limited awareness is noted. The idea that this "game" is just a fantasy ginned-up by certain Conservative pundits is demonstrably false -- that claim has not been made. Rather, it is the assertion by conservative pundits that this is specifically a black-on-white phenomenon has been called into question. (What is it with conservatives, anyway, that they have so many negative things to say about blacks? Even if some of these things are true, even if all of them were true, this racial component to conservative rhetoric is of interest.)
-- (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

James Addlespurger[edit]

According to the New York Times, the Pittsburgh police say there is no evidence that James Addlespurger's assault was part of any "knockout game." (starts in 15th graf): That article also points out that many in law enforcement believe this game is an urban myth. The article should be edited to include this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the many videos of random, one-punch assaults, some videoed by the perpetrators themselves with commentary, bely the notion that this is an urban myth. Rklawton (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Watch the attack of James Addlespurger on video as difficult as that happens to be. Oh they didn't hang a banner calling it the knockout game? So weird how it closely resembles it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Eden Lomax murder of Simon Mitchell with single-punch "bomb", Bolton, England[edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Not attributed to "Knockout" as a game nor mentioned anywhere in the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
So you are proposing that a separate article on "bombing" be given its own article because it is not an African American juvenile attacking a solitary adult and later referring to the "knockout game" but rather a Caucasian British boy doing the exact same thing who calls it "bombing"?—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Stop insinuating that the other editors here are racist. That's a violation of WP:AGF and WP:No personal attacks. This article is about the violent activity known as "knockout". Perhaps there should be a new article about a more generic phenomenon of random assaults or single punch knockouts, that this article could be merged into at some point. But as it stands, the alleged game known as "knockout" is a notable topic on its own right, given the dispute whether it's a menace or myth, and how conservative commentators have embraced the issue.Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I have not said anything of that sort so you are the one violating WP:AGF.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

This particular incident hardly belongs in the article except as an example of the creation of the myth of the crime: Eden Lomax didn't choose a random victim, he punched a man he'd been having a lengthy conversation with after an imagined provocation. Similarly his previous two "bombs" were delivered to people who interacted with him and whom he felt had provoked him (according to the linked references). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Lead replace[edit]

As Ryulong is insistent on edit warring I decided to write a smaller lead to go with the longer section on the details. Here is the lead. "The status of Knockout has ranged from urban myth to an actual game, with police grappling with how to advise the public on the subject or if they are different from random assaults. Police in Syracuse have stated that the assailant in one fatal attack was playing the Knockout game. Fears about the spread of the game has been covered in conservative political media, but this has been attributed to stemming from racial roots. Victims and perpetrators involved in "Knockout" indicate that it is not purely a black on white crime." How's it look? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The longer section on the details is problematic because it over inflates comments by the conservative media as well as by individuals reporting on the other side of the fence. We should not have to directly quote Susteren or O'Reilly in such detail to convey their opinions to the reader, particularly Susteren's plea to the stereotypical leaders of America's black community and to the President.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Title issues[edit]

"Knockout (violent game)" does not really work as a neutral article title. It suggests that the game is something that exists, which many sources are not clear on, and "violent" while being an accurate description of the event does not really work in an article title.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Knockout (violent game)Knockout (assault) – I'm turning this into a proper move discussion. As previously stated, disambiguating this item as a "violent game" does not meet WP:NPOV and treats it as something that it is not, as far as I can tell from reliable sources. I believe that disambiguating this as a type of "assault" or maybe even a "criminal trend" (although I'm not as fond as the latter) will make the article more neutral and may help to stem the vandalism that struck it in the past. —Ryulong (琉竜) 20:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support. It is an assault, not a game. Here are the definitions from my Macintosh dictionary:

ASSAULT noun 1 a physical attack : his imprisonment for an assault on the film director | sexual assaults. • Law an act, criminal or tortious, that threatens physical harm to a person, whether or not actual harm is done : he appeared in court charged with assault. • a military attack or raid on an enemy position : troops began an assault on the city | [as adj. ] an assault boat. • a strong verbal attack : the assault on the party's tax policies. 2 a concerted attempt to do something demanding : a winter assault on Mt. Everest.

GAME noun 1 a form of play or sport, esp. a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck. • a complete episode or period of play, typically ending in a definite result : a baseball game. • a single portion of play forming a scoring unit in a match, esp. in tennis. • Bridge a score of 100 points for tricks bid and made (the best of three games constituting a rubber). • a person's performance in a game; a person's standard or method of play : he will attempt to raise his game to another level.

Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose I think calling it "Knockout game" would be a preferable title per WP:NATURAL which states "If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title". Almost every reliable source on this topic calls it "knockout game" - Maximusveritas (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The subject here is the allegations that there's some sort of game behind the assaults. The tone should be similar to this: "Yet police officials in several cities where such attacks have been reported said that the “game” amounted to little more than an urban myth, and that the attacks in question might be nothing more than the sort of random assaults that have always occurred." Aren't you the one violating WP:NPOV by classifying it as the latter instead of the former, especially when the page you cite says "prefer nonjudgmental language"? It may be both as Kyuu says, but we should go with the one used in the title of the sources instead of passing our own judgement. Sai Weng (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose It certainly is an assult (nothing allegedly about it), but the purpotrators call it a game. This is a good example of confusing a slang term with the correct grammatical terminology. I can see putting the word "Game" into quotes to illustrate that it is called "Game" not that it is an actual game. Probably the easiest way to approach this is to substitute a different word for "Game" and see how it would read. Arzel (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - since we're dealing with a crime here, we need to use the correct term. The legal definition of assault, therefore in no way applies. A more appropriate and specific term would be Battery (crime). Hence, I would support "Knockout Game (battery)". I definitely don't support the current title Knockout (violent game) since the title is far too vague and sounds much more like a harmless video game. Rklawton (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Maximusveritas — goethean 22:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose all proposed titles and the current title too. Knockout (battery) sounds like it's a competitor to Duracell. The proposed title sounds like it's a threat. The word "game" used as a disambiguator is ridiculous. "Knockout game" is ambiguous. I hate all of this. Red Slash 03:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support : "Game" is the colloquial term given by the perpetrators. "Knockout" as the name is alright, as it describes the whole act similar to "Happy Slapping", but hurting/beating up someone is a crime. None of the victims would call this a harmless game. Formicula (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
    Please note that this discussion is not trying to determine whether or not the act is a game or what the subject should be called. "Violent game" is just a poor disambiguator and does not fit with Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia articles must use the most common name for items.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


Any additional comments:

Both. Sadly to say. It is a game of attackers, involving the assault of bystanders. Otherwise, if you really want to use just one word for the label, why not crime? KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 09:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This game was played in Brooklyn and probably other places in NYC in the 80's, and I suspect it probably goes back further. Back then the attacks were predominately black males on black males. You can probably corroborate this by talking to 40 something year old and older prison inmates from NYC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazywayno (talkcontribs) 17:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This needs to be renamed KNOCKOUT (violent ASSULT) because that is what it is! It is NOT a game in any way, shape, or form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summerluvr2 (talkcontribs) 20:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The motive is to knockout the victim, not to rob. Therefore it is a game, a sick game, but a game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Support. — goethean 22:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose there's even less evidence to indicate that this is an urban legend. Rklawton (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I propose Knockout game, since that is what many sources call it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Knockout game is a far better title since that's what the outside world calls it. The only reason for anything to be in parentheses is if the "best" title is unavailable. For example, the game Monopoly is at Monopoly (game). The actual name used for that game is "Monopoly", but since Monopoly is an article about monopolies in business, the game has to be at a disambiguated page name. On the other hand, the news media reporting on the knockout game actually calls it the "knockout game", not "knockout". Yes, obviously, I fully agree that it's not a game - it's a violent crime - but that isn't the point. It's not Wikipedia's job to make up a name for something. If the media is going to call it the knockout game, then that's what it should be called here. Even if you think it's a hoax or urban legend that doesn't really exist, that doesn't matter - if the outside world is calling it knockout game then so should we. --B (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Whether a game or not, this is what it's commonly referred to. The Choking game is another example of a "game" not in the traditional sense. It's not like youths are getting together "playing" a "game" of competition, it's just another contrived way to get a thrill. -- (talk) 04:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)me

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

List of attacks[edit]

This really doesn't do anything to improve the article and will simply become a place for anyone and everyone to list events that the media have linked to this alleged trend. It should really go. The events themselves can be incorporated into the article as a whole, but the list format is not helping anyone.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Support for the reasons stated in the proposal. Rklawton (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I don't see any harm in retaining the list, and of course we have to credit "the media" or another WP:Reliable source for anything we put here. A list might serve as a handy way of gauging the beginning of the phenomenon under the Knockout game identification and its duration. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Not attributed to knockout in the source[edit]

I've deleted a reported instance of an assault by teenagers upon a man because nobody in the source called it part of the Knockout phenomenon. See the history here. Shouldn't we insist that a source term it "knockout" before using it? GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

60 Year Old Woman Shoots and Kills 2 Teens After Knockout Game[edit] -- (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

This has been proven to be false. (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Serious injuries?[edit]

The heading indicates it will describe incidents resulting in serious injuries, but the only article clearly states that the attacker was not seriously injured.

--Mfwills (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

If you read the article, it clearly cites numerous examples of serious resulting injuries. Including actual deaths. (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Assault v. Battery[edit]

We need to get our legal terms straight, here. What we are talking about is not an "Assault" in the legal sense. The activity described herein is "Battery". Please read the two linked two articles to get a better understanding. In brief, though, assault does not involve touching. Battery does. e.g.

  • Assault: "I'm going to break your face" (while getting ready to swing)
  • Battery: Punching someone in the face
  • Assault & Battery: doing both of the above Rklawton (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Very good if this were a law textbook. Many folks don't know this. But in normal use, the term basically means to "make a physical attack on." Except in the courtroom an attack upon a sleeping man is also assault even though there was no spoken threat. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Given that we're talking about a crime here, it makes sense to use the appropriate legal terms - so long as it's done in a manner that's clear to the layperson. Rklawton (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Liberal denialism at it again[edit]

A Wikipedia article on knockout game and not a single mention of "black" or "African American". Wow, how surprising! Behemoth (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. After all, what's a racial panic without race? — goethean 01:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with this sentiment. It is indeed very unfortunate that articles featured in this otherwise magnificent collection of knowledge have a tendency to be neutered by political correctness. "The colors of a fascist don't change just because you call yourself a bleeding heart. (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Anybody can add to or edit this article. Just find a good source for whatever you add, or state a good reason in the Edit Summary for whatever you take out or change. Thanks. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Really? It doesn't look that way. With 99z% of the it's a myth/panic believers being the liberal media and the it's reality being the conservative media and the liberal politicians it is extremely difficult to maintain the preposterous idea that the, it's a myth/panic is somehow the mainstream POV with the conservative POV being the minority as the page was previously construed. Why a spinbot feels a need to edit without even a hint of anything beyond-I don't like only it knows. Yes, spinbot, NYTimes, Daily Beast, Slate and Melanie Eversly are liberal. Melanie Zeversly=Reporter/blogger at USA Today with focus on civil rights and social issues— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the case. The "epidemic" or "trend" is, at least from the liberal media's point of view, a fabrication by the conservative media. That's what this article discusses.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus effect?[edit]

I don't know why this is in the article or why some comment can be equated to some new spur-of-the-moment effect to draw a parallel between this and "Miley Cyrus". I've removed it. Since TV coverage is ramping up this article might need to be watched a bit more heavily. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I added it the bit on "Miley Cyrus effect" to add insight to the "game" factor. Of course we don't have to mention the "effect", just the motivation. As the article appears now, we are trying to balance two major views on Knockout attacks:
  • Non-racial, juvenile delinquent behavior vs.
  • Hate crimes targeting whites and/or non-Blacks (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Change name to Knockout (crime)[edit]

Proposed name change to Knockout (crime). The "game" element appears to be one view of such attacks. As the article appears now, knockout incidents are "violent activity", most often treated as crimes. Whether it's a "game" that is "played" in urban areas, or a hate crime targeting non-Blacks, is still subject to debate.

If we change the name of the article to the more NPOV Knockout (crime), we'd solve some of the issues with the article.

I'd change it myself, but I'd like to do so only after reaching consensus.

Thanks, (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

"Crime" is a bit vague. Why not Knockout (violent crime)? Rklawton (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Sounds better, thanks. (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd support Knockout (crime), similar to Battery (crime). There's no need for the "violent" qualifier. I initially supported just Knockout game, but there's already a page for that and there's currently some debate since the term is also used in sports. - Maximusveritas (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Right. I've just checked, WP has quite a few articles without qualifiers as in Boss_(crime), Racket_(crime), Conspiracy_(criminal), Joyride_(crime). I'll move the page (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Umm, hello. There is a section above discussing a name change. This is highly inapproriate to change the name without participating in the above discussion. Arzel (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Well wherever the conversation takes place, this proposal seems to make more sense than the previous knee-jerk one. In light of knockout (game) (which will presumably be relevant long after this fad is forgotten) and apparent precedent, knockout (crime) works. Sai Weng (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted the move. There is no consensus to move it to "Knockout (crime)" because it's not a legal term for an actual crime like "racket" or "joyriding", and because there is a separate requested move above seeking a different title.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't care where the title ends up that much, but a bold move during the move discussion was not a good idea. It is now move protected. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

If it's not a legal term for an actual crime, I support changing the name of this article to Knockout (battery) instead because allowing this to remain labeled as a 'game' is spreading the trend. It's sickos getting off on hurting and killing other people, not a game. It needs to be STOPPED, not spread further.KellyLeighC (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Urban Legend[edit]

This looks and smells like a legend, one of the few that's actually urban and about urban life, though [rumor panic] is probably the more precise category. I know of folklorists who are at work on the subject now, but of course it won't be citable until the work's made public. Meanwhile, here's a reliable source that can be used to document the fact that there are responsible sources who question the reality of any widespread "game," and suggest that a regrettably ordinary type of motiveless assault is being retroactively assimilated to the category. Of course, there is no surprise if a certain number of bad actors are moved by all this publicity to play the game in real life, a phenomenon called [ostension] in folkloristics. It should get an article if it doesn't have one. [5] (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

  • See also Cow tipping Rklawton (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • It would be a misrepresentation to label this an "urban legend". That's conclusory. That communicates to the reader that the phenomenon being described is widely spoken about or widely feared but isn't real. The label suggests the phenomenon is primarily the invention of the popular imagination, and not based in actual fact. Here, we have public statements by public officials asserting this "game" is real. The Riverfront Times article cited ("Kids call it a game. Academics call it a bogus trend. Cops call it murder.") quotes St. Louis Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce

St. Louis Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce acknowledges the existence of Knockout King, based on admissions by five defendants. Most of those defendants were charged with misdemeanor assaults, Joyce says.

and St. Louis Metro PD Chief Daniel Isom

"The 'knockout game' is played by a group of kids who, as outrageous as it sounds, go around with the goal of knocking people out, for apparently no reason," says Chief Daniel Isom.

suggesting the game is a distinct trend. There are other statements by witnesses, victims and the police in the other articles cited on the main page under the list of deadly attacks, which are too numerous to detail here. To label this game an "urban legend" is to communicate to the reader that these first-hand accounts are about as believable as a "Nessie" sighting, or that the parties have grossly misinterpreted their own experiences. That's not neutral. The sources cited in the article aren't treating this as folklore or a part of folk culture, they're primarily looking at it as a crime trend, a trend which implicates questions of racial disparity and public policy. Unlike with most urban legends or modern folklore, not only is there documentary evidence here (the numerous videos replayed by TV news affiliates, most of which originated as viral videos on YouTube, WorldStarHipHop, Facebook, other social media) but the documentary evidence is at the very heart of the controversy. This is closer to a something like a "meme" than an "urban legend", both in how the game is spread and transmitted among players and how knowledge of the game rapidly and unexpectedly spread through digital social media. SierraOccidental (talk) 07:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

None of this discussion really helps to improve the article. The only thing connecting these attacks is that someone was knocked out and they were not robbed. The article covers both sides of the story, that people believe that this is an actual trend going through social media, corrupting the youth, and is only being hidden from the public because it appears that the attacks are predominantly by young black men on white people and and the mainstream media does not want to enflame racial tensions, and that people believe the connection between all of these assaults have been fabricated by the prior party and saying that there is a connection is not going to solve anything socially or to improve the safety of the law abiding public.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the statement "None of this discussion really helps to improve the article". Having read the article & several of the citations, as well as all these Talk page comments, I feel that this is all very constructive dialog. Here are a few points that I believe we editors should focus on :

  1. Having been well-documented on video & by police department officials, the Knockout Game is definitely not an urban legend, according to the definition of that term. This article must therefore give reporting of fact first priority. The article should state that commentators have raised questions, but IMO such commentary should not be given equal weight with factual reporting (see below).
  2. As of late November 2013, it seems to be unclear whether or not Knockout Game players are predominately racial minorities. This needs to be clarified & the article edited accordingly.
  3. As of late November 2013, it seems unclear that the focus of the game is black-on-white violence per se. Given the well-documented level of Black-on-Black violence in America, a simpler hypothesis is that the Knockout game at least began as Black-on-Black & is now "expanding" into Black-on-White.
  4. The "panic" aspect of the story (fears by whites of Black-on-White violence) & the fact that this article has had Edit restrictions placed on it suggests to me that we should create a section "Media Controversy".

My edits will be guided by the above rationale. I welcome & encourage further thoughtful discussion here on how we should proceed. Brad (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It is considered an urban legend because that is what reliable sources say it is and that is all that Wikipedia can say about it. You are not allowed to post your own conclusions on information on Wikipedia. If places say it's an urban legend, then we report it as an urban legend. And unless you can provide reliable sources that state anything you want to say then it is not allowed on Wikipedia. And you cannot use the fact that this page is semi-protected as a reason to add anything regarding "Media controversy" to this page. The only reason it's been protected is because people cannot help themselves from adding useless bullshit to his article based on their personal emotions rather than any sort of actual factual reporting. All this article has to go to say it is anything but an urban legend is the fact that right-wing pundits appear to be seeking a connection between a bunch of unrelated assaults and noting it's young black men generally attacking white men and women, with people unrelated to the attacks saying "Oh yeah, I've heard of knockout" and other people noting that it's ridiculous to connect these and there is no reason to say that these belong to some sort of trend because connecting them solves nothing in preventing them.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Sidebar: the term "urban legend" is being used as if it implied the narrative are nonfactual. That is not how folklorists use it, and not how the Wikipedia article defines it. (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Ryulong, I'm concerned about your language & tone here. You do not sound impartial & unbiased yourself. Why are you characterizing edits as "useless bullshit"? This topic is clearly controversial, so why are you against a "Media controversy" section? Did you even look at the urban legend page & think about the criteria stated? It sounds like you've already made your mind up, just like the right-wing pundits you mock. This article needs to be further developed in a careful, even-handed way, for the reasons you cited. Let's please take an impartial & constructive view & create an article that people can actually learn from when they look it up. Brad (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I am not against a "media controversy" section. All I am doing is informing you of Wikipedia's rules and regulations on article content. If you can find reliable sources that verify that this controversy exists, then by all means add it to the article. However, if your content only consists of your own personal interpretation of the coverage then it is not allowed. That is what is happening with the mention of this being an "urban legend". Multiple sources are stating that the trend is a myth, not the attacks themselves.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

This article or section is slanted towards recent events[edit]

and has been tagged as such. Checkingfax (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Not sure what you mean by "recent." Do you have anything else that goes back further in time? Thanks. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

White perpetrators[edit]

This article specifically notes one (1) instance of the "Knockout game" in which the alleged perpetrators are identified as "white".

This is the only instance in which the article sees fit to identify the ethnicity of the alleged perpetrators.

The identity of all the other perpetrators - the very fact in contention - isn't fitting to disclose.

What a telling anomaly. (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Stop trying to stir shit. The article mentions "black" and "African American" in multiple locations. The one instance where "white" was used was to show that it is both an outlyer and evidence that the concept that the growing trend of the knockout game isn't one that exists.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your polite and helpful scatological advice. To assist your comprehension, none of the references to the "knockout game" identified a perpetrator of any specific attack as being "black", while there were nonspecific references to such attacks being blamed on blacks, for some unidentified reason. How is the reader to know if blaming the attacks on "blacks" has any validity, or indeed if all the attacks not specifically attributed to "whites" were indeed carried out by "blacks". Is that too complex a concept for you? (talk) 09:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, please stop trying to instigate some level of disruption by pointing out a non-existant disparity in the information that is provided to readers in this article. And I do not see how mentioning race in the section on the fact that race is an unspecified factor in these attacks is improper.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Finally, a white perpetrator has been found, so that the race of the perpetrator can be identified in the article. This proves that not hate crimes have been carried out by white people. (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Legislation introduced[edit]

The article should be updated to reflect the recent Knockout Game-related legislation introduced in NY. Assemblyman Jim Tedisco and Senator Hugh T. Farley introduced the Knockout Game Deterrent Act in the NY State Assembly and Senate. [1] [2]

Representative Dean Kaufert in Wisconsin has publicly stated he is considering the introduction of similar measures that would increase penalties for Knockout-style attacks.[3] [4]

Also, it may be notable to mention that the National Action Network had a rally in Brooklyn, NY to protest the recent spate of Knockout-related attacks and to call on social media to take down online videos of the attacks. The National Action Network is notable as it is headed by civil rights activist Al Sharpton, of MSNBC fame. [5]


--00:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)PacificRepublic (talk)

The law sources are useful. The other ones not so much.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Sharpton... predictable. Going to agree that the legislation makes it more notable and gives weight to the supposed game. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
We already mention Sharpton in the article and the news pieces here do not feature him.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Racial tension as an explanation of Knockout attacks[edit]

A recently-elected NYC councilwoman released an open letter on Dec 4 2013 discussing growing resentment by her black constituents towards her Jewish constituents as a possible factor behind Knockout attacks by young blacks on white citizens:

My sense is this Wikipedia article needs to de-emphasize the "myth" hypothesis. Police officials & elected politicians are taking the attacks seriously. I'm looking for a good page on racial tension to link to. Brad (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The general consensus is that the attacks are real but any sort of connection between them is the myth. Your removal of these statements from the article is improper and I will be restoring them shortly.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Seriously? If you want to include the letter by a newly-elected local politician alleging that "racial tension" is a prime factor for this one set of knockout incidents, maybe we should we also include the blow-by-blow response to the letter? That same article has activists from Crown Heights, both Black and Jewish, responding that the councilwoman-elect "missed the point completely", and the Anti-Defamation League stated that the letter "evokes classic anti-Seimitic stereotypes". I think we should steer clear of these sort of "explanations" by novice politicians when they only refer to one set of instances (her theory won't hold water for other knockout attacks outside of Crown Heights), and when that "explanation" is strongly contested by a number of others. (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Trends don't require links between instances. Trends only require a change in frequency. Rklawton (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Change title[edit]

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Knockout game. While there is a fair bit of duscussion, there is a consensus, if not a strong consensus, that "Knockout game" is the WP:COMMONAME for this. The Bushranger One ping only 23:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Please indicate what title you would prefer for this article. There is some discussion above under "Title issues" that might help. There is no particular form for this section. It is just a way of getting consensus on a title, including retaining the present one. Place comments and suggestions below. If you believe we have reached WP: consensus you may change the title yourself, or you can ask an administrator to take some action, including ending the discussion. If you disagree with this formula, then by all means suggest another one. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

  • "Knockout (crime)". This was suggested in the above section #Change name to Knockout (crime) and seemed to have some support, before the discussion was closed down for procedural reasons. I concur with most of the participants of both move discussions that "game" as a disambiguator isn't appropriate. Naming the article "Knockout game" would be alright (if that title wasn't taken), but calling it a game in Wikipedia's "voice" just isn't right. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Knockout game. This is one of the descriptors used in the lede of the article, the others being "Knockout, . . . knockout king, bombing, polar-bearing, and polar-bear hunting," The term "knockout game" is used thirteen times within the article in Wikipedia's "voice," and the term is also used directly by Al Sharpton and Hakim Jeffries, so it is definitely known that way by at least two of the interested parties. When we place the word "crime" within parentheses, we definitely state that the phenomenon is a crime and not a myth, as some of those in the dialogue believe. GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Knockout game is preferable as this is what the media is calling it. You can't use "Knockout (crime)" because the crime itself is not known as "knockout". The crime is an assault.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Knockout game (crime), as this is a crime. While it is a game, it's also a crime, and thus we combine the two titles! Newyorkadam (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam
    Any title saying it is a "crime" does not work because there is nothing written in law that says that there is a criminal act called "knockout game". Racket (crime) and other similarly titled pages exist because they are types of crimes described in laws. And the article does not describe it as a "crime". It describes it as manufactured by the media.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Knockout game sounds alright to me, but I don't really think there's ever going to be a satisfactory name for this article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • "Knockout (crime)". Concur with DoctorKubla. 'Game' is the wrong word for unprovoked violence that can be a cause of death. jmcw (talk) 09:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
    Again, you can't use the "crime" disambiguator because it is not a legal name for a crime. Reliable sources call this subject "knockout game". It doesn't matter if it's not actually a "game". It's what people call it. Wikipedia does not exist to be a moral beacon to change what people call something.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Knockout game appears to the most suitable name. The parenthetical approach is a tad confusing.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Knockout game is already taken by "One-game playoff". Checkingfax (talk) 03:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
    That doesn't mean this article can't take that redirect.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I have changed page Knockout game into a 3-way disambig. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
    This article should be at that title due to recent prevalence. This article's title is still bad.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • To many people "knockout game" likely means a boxing match that ends in a knockout, or a one-game playoff, or similar; I had never heard of the assault-for-fun crime meaning until I read this discussion today. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
    I had never heard the term whatsoever, neither in sports nor as a media frenzy, until last November when every newspaper and newscaster in the US went apeshit over it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Knockout game should be a disambiguation. I have made additional changes to that. Knockout (game) is a {{r with possibilities}}, and one need only check that title's history to confirm that. I'm leaning opposed towards using the term "(game)" as a parenthetical disambiguator, as crime is not a game. However Knockout game (crime) or Knockout game (assault) would be OK as they clearly indicate that this is a criminal activity which is being framed as a "game" by the participants. Dropping "game", i.e., Knockout (crime) or Knockout (assault) both work for me too. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
    The "knockout game" is not a legally defined crime or assault so neither of those appelations work. "Knockout game" would be the preferential title (as its use in boxing or tournament sports is rare). And because the title should reflect the content of the article, "Knockout game (moral panic)" might be more appropriate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
    Are you implying that if I were to KO a random person on the street in front of several witnesses who positively identified me, that I would not be charged with a crime?
    Moral panic? That term is not used at all in the article, I see no basis for that. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
    Don't twist my words. In that hypothetical situation, the crime you would be arrested for is called "assault". It is inherently not a crime called "knockout" or "knockout game".
    And this article goes into detail how most media analysts have seen it as a fabrication by the media rather than an actual criminal trend, and "panic" is indeed found on the article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
    Who's twisting words? The lead begins: The "knockout game" is one of many names given to assaults, therefore knockout game (assault) as it is a type of assault. We need only be concerned with common usage, not some strict or arbitrary "legal definition". Right, I see there is some discussion on the extent to which the phenomenon actually exists, and whether it is to some degree a "media-manufactured" problem. If that is the focus of the article then knockout game (moral panic) probably would not be acceptable, unless there were a strong consensus that it indeed was that. More likely the title would be something like, Controversy over media coverage of so-called "knockout games" - Wbm1058 (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
    It is not a type of assault. The attacks are assaults first and they later called "knockout game" by the media. And more than 50% of the article is dedicated to media analysis. This is why the best title for this is "Knockout game" without any disambiguator qualifiers.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
    Not all media are calling it that. I just looked at the first one cited in the article: "generally known as "Knockout King" or simply "Knock Out," a so-called game"... there is a big difference between So-called game and simply game. Boxing is a (violent game). Knockout (so-called game) might be acceptable. The current title is not, and straight-up "Knockout game" without any disambiguator qualifiers is not either. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
    "Knockout game" is most common. And no, "Knockout (so-called game)" is not acceptable.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


  • OK, after reviewing more of the sources, I'm moving towards your view. I see that many communicate "so-called" simply by putting quotes around the term, i.e. "knockout game", so that should be our title. I'm still not convinced that it should be primary topic. This is probably much more well-known in New York, and perhaps a few other places, than it is in most of the US. See my new Knockout game dab. I don't want to remove the quotes because then you edge towards war game (another dab, BTW) meaning "a surprise attack on an unsuspecting country, for the amusement of the leaders of the attacking country". Wbm1058 (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
    Ugh, that's worse. We don't disambiguate with punctuation and quotation marks shouldn't be used in page titles. "Knockout game" is the best title for this page. Second may be "Knockout game (media frenzy)" or "Knockout game (urban legend)". Just something that doesn't use "violent" or "crime".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:29, 5 February 2014 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


There is no need to fill this article with direct quotations of the sources we are citing in order to make it appear that this does not meet WP:Recentism. There's nothing we can do about that. This is something that's appeared in the news. Also, there is absolutely no reason to spend so much text on happy slapping which has its own article and is completely unrelated to the knockout game.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


Why is the racial aspect of this crime being thrown under the bus? The overwhelming majority of these cases are being committed by blacks. -- (talk) 04:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has not managed to identify any single black perpetrator, or even alluded to the existence of any specific act carried out by a black perpetrator. Having failed to identify a single black perpetrator, I don't know how anyone could imagine this as a problem in the black community. Thus, it is a racist myth that the Knockout game has popularity in any particular demographic. I would perhaps conclude that the perpetrators are probably usually Jews, because the victims are frequently Jewish, and people would likely target their own community. I am not aware that young black men in the USA historically have any notable statistical connection to inner-city violent crime, or anything but the greatest respect for lone white people, so it follows that these attacks are probably mostly committed by other people, of all ethnicities, in totally random situations. It could happen at a Bar Mitzvah, or anywhere, and be carried out by an older, Chinese woman just as likely as being carried out by young black men.
In fact, and in keeping with this sound approach, the single identified perpetrator is British boy Eden Lomax, who is white. This demonstrates that the activity is, for the most part, carried out by British people.
Accordingly, your allegation of bias is must be just plain anti-black racism. (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
This Wikipedia article exists to document the "knockout game" as it is reported by the media and for the most part, the article points out that the "epidemic trend" is a complete fabrication and is often done so by right-wing conservative pundits to say that black youth are a menace, and a good portion of the article is dedicated to people saying that race is being unfairly seen as a factor.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
This crime may well not be an "epidemic trend".
But don't confuse that with the entirely different issue as to the predominant race of the perpetrators, and the racial targeting of victims.
How can race be "unfairly seen" as a factor if you need to refuse to identify any perpetrator whatever, except for a white man in Britain? What does this say about the race of every other perpetrator?
Obviously, the reader must conclude that the perpetrators are mostly black.
If you wish to make the positive claim that attacks are being unfairly attributed to blacks, you must identify the races of the perpetrators. Use evidence.
If the perpetrators were not black, this could easily be "pointed out". But it can't be, can it? (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing the article, not the topic of the article. But for what it's worth: the point critics of this alleged 'trend' are making is that the 'examples' of it are cherry-picked to invent a trend. That is, the media are arbitrarily claiming that assaults by black people by white people are examples of the 'knockout game', while assaults by white people on black people are not. The reason 'the perpetrators are mostly black' is because it was defined by the media as a 'black crime' in the first place. The critics point out that the offence is so ill-defined almost any assault can be included or excluded according to your personal agenda, and that it's not clear that it actually exists as a trend in real life. Robofish (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I am discussing the obvious factual deficiencies of this article.
To assert, as you do, that "almost any assault" can be categorized as a game involving an unprovoked attempt to knock out a person by one blow to the head is plain hyperbole.
What cherry-picked "examples" of black perpetrators are you referring to? Provide the examples if you want to argue that. The article cannot provide even a single example of a black perpetrator.
Who were the perpetrators in the cited attacks? (talk) 04:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia's verifiability policy states that all information within Wikipedia articles must be verified by reliable sources. If reliable sources do not state the race of the suspects, then Wikipedia cannot either. However, the article does go into detail on the criticism behind the conservative and right-wing pundits who have been trying to push the fact that the trend exists, and that mentions the cherry-picking of assaults where the suspect was black and the victim was not black. If you can point out an instance in the citations for the attacks where the race of the suspect/perpetrator is explicitly stated, then this Wikipedia article can contain that very same information. Otherwise, you are wasting our time, because you claim above that this article mentions the race of the British attack but it clearly does not. The only racial aspect mentioned on this page is concerning the Brooklyn attacks where "African-American" and "Jewish" are explicitly stated.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Ryulong, if I said that the article "mentions the race of the British attack", as you falsely assert, you would be able to quote me saying that, wouldn't you? Plainly, I didn't. You are very ready with the "time wasting" allegations, but it seems it might be due to lack of comprehension. Let me put it simply, and see if you wish to address the point.
There is only one attack in the article where the perpetrator is named. It happened in Britain. The perpetrator is white, as was the victim.
So, great, the article has given the specifics of a Non-racially-based, Non-hate-crime attack in Britain. Tangentially relevant, I suppose, to the issue of an alleged phenomenon of racially-based hate-crimes in America.
Is this controversy put about by "conservative pundits" about a number of attacks carried out in Britain? Not really. Is Britain where the "conservative pundits" and black American community leaders identify the problem of black American youth playing this game? Not really. But the article conspicuously refuses to identify that any black Americans that have ever had anything to do with the game. Are "conservative commentators" talking about something that has never happened? Did the "conservative pundits" ever give a single example? If they did, honesty requires reporting it in the article.
So, what is your answer to this question: Why does an article about alleged instances of black people in America targeting the knockout game against white people fail to acknowledge any instance - any single time, any single place, any single perpetrator - where such an act has ever occurred? The article must either state the fact that no such act has ever been identified, or it must identify such acts that have been identified. It must either report the examples put forward by "conservative pundits", or state that they haven't given any examples. As it stands, it the article is transparently juvenile. (talk) 07:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
It does not mention anything that you think it should because that is not at all what the article says it is about. The first sentence clearly says

The "knockout game" is one of many names given to assaults in which, purportedly, one or more assailants attempt to knock out an unsuspecting victim, often with a single sucker punch, all for the amusement of the attackers and their accomplices.

Race is not mentioned at all until the section titled "Race" where conservative and liberal viewpoints on the topic of race and the "knockout game" are described.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

"Some" vs "Many" in Intro[edit]

The last sentence of the introductory paragraph currently reads: "While SOME news sources report that there has been an escalation of such attacks in late 2013, with identifying SOME as a hate crime and/or a crime requiring new targeted legislation,[4][7][8] MANY media analysts have cast doubt on this and have labeled the trend, although not the reported attacks themselves, a myth[9][10] or an example of panic.[11][12]"

I have capitalized "SOME" and "MANY" here to emphasize the words that I am concerned with. I think it is important to discuss how those words are being chosen in that sentence. To me, the choice of "some" to describe the number of people expressing more condemnatory views on the Knockout Game (" that there has been an escalation", "some [identified] as a hate crime") and the choice of "many" to describe the number of people expressing more skeptical views on the subject ("many...have cast doubt...and have labeled [it] a myth") seem to endorse a particular viewpoint that I do not think is corroborated by the evidence. There does not appear to be any reason to say that those in the skeptical camp are in the majority and that those in the condemnatory camp are in the minority; if anything, based on the news articles I've read (anecdotal, I know), it seems like many more news sources are in the condemnatory camp.

My recommendation is either to make all three instances of "some"/"some"/"many" the same (either "some" or "many" for all three) or to evaluate (in as impartial a way as possible) which kinds of opinions seem to be more commonly expressed in the sources (particularly in mainstream news media) and amend the three instances accordingly. ABarnes94 (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Problem solved by removing all quantifiers of that type.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


For whatever reason lately, people have been feeling the need to connect this and every other page that has "knockout" and "game" in the title to each other and this is completely unnecessary. It goes against WP:NAMB, apparently, because no one ending up at this page wanted to go to Knockout (game) or One-game playoff. Such hatnotes are useful on the other pages but not this one, and certainly not one at Knockout (game show) or Knockout (board game). This is getting ridiculous, now that someone has found The Knockout Game was created as a redirect to this page, that the hatnote is suddenly necessary, is nonsense. Until this page is moved to "Knockout game", nothing resembling a hatnote should be added to this article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

"Knockout game" is already taken by "One-game playoff" Checkingfax (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
That's not the point. There is no need for a hatnote on this article while it still has this title.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. The distinguishing hatnote goes one way in this case. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Katy TX incident[edit]

White guy charged with hate crime in attack on elderly black guy[6]goethean 19:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

This page does not exist to document every attack described as a "knockout game" attack, nor is this one of any particular note.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
We really should have a List of "knockout game" attacks that collects all the multiple-reliably-sourced incidents falling under any of the several names mentioned in the article, together with information about race and cellphone image distribution. I bet there aren't really that many publicized reports, and once they are assembled we're sitting on a NPOV mountain of data. Wnt (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
No, that's a really really really bad idea. This whole thing was blown out of proportion by the media and it's practically blown over already. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a compendium of a series of completely unrelated criminal attacks that were lumped together by American media.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I actually agree with your second sentence. However, it's not our role to decide what's true and exclude what we think is untrue; it would be better to have a pile of data and see it in its totality. The media has joined these stories for better or worse; now we can figure out what that means. It is better to understand how stories are cherry-picked, how they are summarized and generalized, than simply to guess at it. Wnt (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
That's what this article already covers and we don't need to produce an article that collects the arbitrarily connected crimes that this article already goes into detail on how that concept was wrong.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

New sub-section for federal hate crime charges[edit]

I restored the deleted information about federal hate crime charges being filed in one case. But then after I reverted I thought that it was important enough to merit its own sub-section under the Government Action section. Federal hate crime charges are a pretty serious thing, afterall. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The Katy, TX, case is already mentioned in the "2011–2013" section of the article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is too long and very sloppy.[edit]

This article is not useful to the reader. It is too long. Far too much of the text addresses particular media members' treatment of other media members' actions. Moreover, much of that content lacks a proper foundation. I recommend that the length of this article be shortened by about 67%, which largely can be accomplished by removing the content regarding particular media members' actions, as well as that a substantial edit occur in order to make this concise and efficient. I would be happy to execute the proposed revisions. (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)February 2, 2014; 1:20 AM EST.

It's a media frenzy so we discuss the media. There is no reason to cut out more than half of this article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

International Perspective.[edit]

It should be noted that this is a cultural phenomenon not reserved to the United States, or black people. The Australian "King Hit", for example, seems to be exactly the same. You should consider merging the article with this one, which would deal with both the people who claim it is some odd race hate epidemic and the people who want to claim it is merely an "urban legend". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Political perspective - irrelevant[edit]

The fact that certain media choose to politicize this issue doesn't make it a political issue. Remove the references to "conservative and liberal" from the article.Landroo (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Purportedly? I do not think so.[edit]

The "knockout game" is one of many names given by American news media to assaults in which, purportedly ...

Since this is Wikipedia we cannot call this Polar Bear Hunting because that might cause problems. Since this is Wikipedia we cannot allow readers to understand the source of the problem. Since this is Wikipedia we can scan the universe with an electron microscope to find a counterexample that enables claims which Wikipedia likes, to be made.

But surely, even in the parallel universe that Wikipedia inhabits, there is a real phenomenon. A real phenomenon, that however evasively, inaccurately and one-sidedly described in the article, should have its reality admitted. Just erase the purportedly. AnnaComnemna (talk) 13:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Support "Purportedly" works when there's doubt that an event occurred as described and it's used to cover legal butts. The "Knockout game", whether people actually participate or not, is not "purportedly" anything - the rules are very clear (as opposed to purportedly): a one punch knockout. Rklawton (talk) 14:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Purportedly removed since there were no objections, I also removed a comma, sorry about doing this without permission from the zealots. AnnaComnemna (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Suspects? I do not think so.[edit]

"want to highlight attacks on whites by black suspects"

I do not have reliable statistics on these events. If I did have this information, given the unexpected and surprise nature of these violent physical attacks, I would expect a high proportion of victims to be unable to provide any information whatsoever about these criminals.

However if a victim, or a reliable witness, or a video recording, shows that the criminal was black, then there is no suspicion whatsoever. The identity of the assailant maybe be unknown, but their societal origin is. The name of this activity given by the perpetrators is not Black Bear Hunting or Brown Bear Hunting but Polar Bear Hunting, and we all know why. What we do not agree about is whether Wikipedia should state this or not. More fundamentally whether Wikipedia should tell the truth, however unpalatable, or follow a pre-conceived agenda.

Comments please. AnnaComnemna (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC) No objections, this now reads blacks.

Looking forward to celebrating the birth of baby Jesus. AnnaComnemna (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

News videos[edit]

Should we include news reporting videos? I found one where perpetrator was caught and convicted. He talks about the game on video. [7]. I'm thinking that a section containing news videos (secondary sources only) would be useful. Rklawton (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


I saw that Criticism Of Reporting section of the article was marked for copyedit. I have made some minor changes to the overall article and have removed the issue.WikiAceBox (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)