Talk:1992 Los Angeles riots/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about 1992 Los Angeles riots. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Moved

Article moved from 1992 civil unrest in Los Angeles

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 16:09, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"L.A. Riots" is ambiguous. The Watts Riots were as least as famous as the riot in 1992, and both are called by this name. DanKeshet 18:35, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

OK, how about "1992 L.A. Riots" or "L.A. Riots 1992"?

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 20:22, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1992 L.A. Riots sounds good. There is an intimidating number of redirects; maybe we can split them between ourselves. DanKeshet 02:12, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

OK. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 15:16, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Uprising?

An uprising is defined as "A sometimes limited popular revolt against a constituted government or its policies; a rebellion." The L.A. Riots (as they are called in the common discourse) don't fit that category. Why the change? – Clockwork Soul 05:11, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Some in South Central LA regarded it and still regard it as rebellion and not a riot. South Central's Congressperson, Maxine Waters, is among those. [1] "Uprising" is an attempt to find a neutral middle ground between "rebellion" and "riot." 172 05:39, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

From the link provided, it's not clear that "rebellion" is even Waters' term for the event. Is that supposed to be a press release from her office? If so, then I guess at least somebody on her staff uses the term. But our naming conventions strongly favor using generally accepted names for things, and references to these events lean very heavily toward calling them "riots". A related historical event, for which all of the same logic applies, is located at Watts riots.

To get a flavor for this, I suggest googling the exact phrases "Rodney King riots", "Rodney King rebellion", and "Rodney King uprising" (I'm picking Rodney King because that's a simple way of assuring that the reference is to this particular event). Results for the first phrase overwhelmingly outnumber the other two combined. I do agree with the renaming in the sense that "Los Angeles" is to be preferred in the name of the article to "L.A.", and there's no need in Wikipedia style to capitalize "riots/rebellion/uprising" in the title. Accordingly, I think the correct title should be "1992 Los Angeles riots". If there are notable views arguing against the use of "riots", those can be cited in the article, but otherwise the introduction should simply mention that uprising/rebellion are sometimes used as alternatives. --Michael Snow 18:39, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Look, I could've provided more links but stopped at one example, but since you are calling this into dispute, I'll provide more. I'm running too short of time right now. I will get around to it later today. 172 20:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No matter what some people involved or sympathetic to it call it, "uprising" is a politically loaded POV term, evoking Palestinian and other politically left rhetoric. In U.S. terms, this was a riot, whether there is justification or not. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not wed to the term "uprising," but there are those the civil rights and black radical movements who call this a "rebellion" and take offense to the usage of the term riot. Perhaps "civil disturbances" is a better attempt at finding middle ground between "riot" and "rebellion?" 172 20:28, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The fact that partisans call this an "uprising" points up the POV nature of the term. Some of these same groups call police "occupying armies" which raises the question of whether events such as these aren't "riots," "uprisings," or "rebellions," but insurrections which could be dealt with in a rather harsher manner than riots.

I agree, "civil disturbances" would probably the most neutral, if not the most satisfactory. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:49, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please go ahead and move/redirect the article. 172 21:58, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The problem is, nobody calls this the "1992 Los Angeles civil disturbances", so this gets into the original research territory of Wikipedia editors making up names for things. We should be reporting the standard name as the basis for naming the article, and include in the article any points of view that speak to the naming issue.

In this situation, appellations of the event vary between "L.A." and "Rodney King" to identify which riots are involved, but "riots" is overwhelmingly the common element in the name. No doubt some law enforcement people would take offense to calling them anything but riots, just as some activists may take offense to calling them riots. If we can find an objection voiced by anyone with decent activist credentials, that would be great to include in the article, but I don't think it changes the fact that in general, people call these events "riots", and therefore that's the name we should use. --Michael Snow 22:34, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I dispute the move to "civil disturbances" on essentially the same basis as ClockworkSoul. The violence was citizens against citizens. Unless someone can show that political authority itself was targeted, it is a riot and not a rebellion. I don't think Wikipedia should become a vehicle for activists seeking to make more of an event than it was. Gazpacho 01:19, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of moving it back. These were riots. If these weren't riots then the term has no meaning. Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've boldly moved it to 1992 Los Angeles Riot, simply because I see no reason why this riot, uniquely among US riots, should not be called by its common name. I invite people to treat POV issues in the article text. Gazpacho 19:19, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Moved back to lowercase r, to conform to Wikipedia style as explained above, and plural "riots", as this describes multiple incidents that are referred to collectively, and therefore the usual preference for the singular in article titles does not apply. --Michael Snow 22:31, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I dispute the fact that Rodney King Uprising is even used at all except in a political activist sense and has no basis for being in the article at all, cetainly not in bold at the top. I was there. It's always been the LA riots quickly followed by an explanation of the cause connected to the criminal trial against the officers who beat up Rodney King. This event is not "also known as" except in somebody's political agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.45.18.69 (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Important Note

I do believe that the officers involved in the Rodney King beating were eventually retried and convicted, yet the article makes no mention of that. Am I wrong, or was this simply an oversight? TomStar81 03:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As the Rodney King article notes, officers Koon and Powell were eventually convicted on federal charges. There was a civil suit later, as well, which should probably be added to that entry. Here, it's not so important. --Dhartung | Talk 09:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One-year anniversary

The wording of this "blackout" claim is very suspicious and POV. Does anyone have any sources for this "almost-riot" and "suppressed" police action? Otherwise it should simply say that appropriate precautions were taken, but there was no mass riot. --Dhartung | Talk 09:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will have to look into this. I've also delayed creating a hour by hour timeline - maybe when I learn how to create tables. Lotsofissues 09:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done Lotsofissues 12:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Great research! Thanks for making that section factual. I tightened up the language and trimmed some melodramatic wording. ;-) --Dhartung | Talk 17:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks you are a great copyeditor. Do you think a hour by hour account of the riots would bring this article up to featured? Lotsofissues 22:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Heh, copyediting is a family hobby :). I was just thinking that the article's improved from a C+ at most to a solid B+. I can see it going to Featured, but it definitely needs an expansion in the discussion of the actual rioting. Hour by hour, I don't know, we don't need to go overboard. But there should be more detail, e.g. specifics about lootings, arrests, shopkeepers defending their stores. I think the discussion of rioting in other cities needs to be underlined, as well. There's one major missing section so far that would need to be included (IMHO) to make it ready for Featured, and that's the political context. Without that, I wouldn't even nominate it. --Dhartung | Talk 23:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The political context? Lotsofissues 23:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stuff like this, this, and [Richard Riordan#Mayor|this]. --Dhartung | Talk 02:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I started out just looking for video and ended up writing a day-by-day! It's far from perfect but I hope it provides a good framework for further improvement. --Dhartung | Talk 20:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for starting it off. I was actually going to camp down at the library and read a book on the incident before beginning my planned major expansion. Before then I'll expand the sympathy riots into its own section. Lotsofissues 23:08, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

White / Conservative San Fernando Valley?

I'm sorry, but I have lived in the Valley for over twenty years in several different section and although the Caucasian population was greater in 1992 than it is now (I need to pull up census data later to completely corroborate this), the difference is insignificant and Caucasians have majorities in populations only in the Western Valley, not counting sections of Canoga Park, Burbank, North Hollywood, and several smaller areas. That leaves over 60% of the Valley that is not dominately caucasion. Although, relevant or not, the Valley has had greater numbers of Asian and Hispanic communities and populations as compared to black communities, which are concentrated miles south of the Valley. In addition, the non-caucasion population (excluding Asian descendants) typically has a much greater density than Caucasian homes.

As for using the term conservative to describe the San Fernando Valley - that's just way off. Only in outer communities such as Simi Valley, Agoura Hills, or Ventura would that apply. I'll attempt to look up the official figures and post those tonight, in the meantime I have made the following change:

From:

"the jury was, however, drawn from the politically conservative and largely white San Fernando Valley."

To:

"the jury was, however, drawn from the nearby San Fernando Valley."

Sorry for not tagging my posts & edits earlier, still new at this. James 22:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Gender useage

"The security video recording of the incident shows Du initiating physical contact by tugging at Harlins' sweater during a verbal exchange before Harlins countered by punching him four times in the face, hard enough to knock him to the floor." I thought both people were female. Also, this paragraph may need cleaned up for readability. --William sharkey 22:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for catching my mistake. Lotsofissues 22:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Clip from Ministry

remark: don't have an account, but i just would like to add that the clip from Ministry entitled "NWO" is a collage of videos from the riots. Just check it, and add it. Im not english speaker, that's why i let somebody else add correctly this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.154.7.173 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I was never sure whether or not the pictures in the videos were stock footage of other riots, staged behavior, or genuine clips from the L.A. Riots. I haven't seen the video in a long time, so I'm not sure what to say about it. Dujang Prang 02:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistency?

Open gun battles were televised as Korean shopkeepers (many of them veterans of the Vietnam War) took to using firearms to protect their businesses from crowds of looters. Organized response began to come together by mid-day

Did Koreans participate in the Vietnam War? Or was that paragraph trying to say that they were veterans of the Korean War? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.74.53.76 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

They sure did, so did the Turks, austrailians, and several others (not in large numbers) Koreans mostly did perimeter control around US bases. I have heard from several veterans that they did not particularly like vietnamese (whether north or south)--130.108.185.197 22:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Funny Math?

"About 10,000 people were arrested; about 42% African-American, 9% white, and 2% other."

That doesn't add up to 100% - what are the actual statistics? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.91.198.6 (talk • contribs).

Please sign your posts to Talk pages. The sentence originally said "42% African-American, 44% Hispanic, 9% white, and 2% other." As I recall those numbers came from the LA Times and were not elaborated, but I can't be sure at this point why they don't add to 100 or even 99. The wording of the racial designations has been frequently subject to POV edits (e.g. "European-American"), so somebody probably wanted to "whitewash" Hispanic involvement in the violence. --Dhartung | Talk 02:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Approximately 51% of all riot arrestees were Hispanic. (References: Manuel Pastor Jr, "Economic Inequality, Latino Poverty, and the Civil Unrest in Los Angeles", Economic Development Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 3, August 1995, p. 238; Peter Kwong, "The First Multicultural Riots", in Don Hazen (ed.), Inside the L.A. Riots: What really happened - and why it will happen again, Institute for Alternative Journalism, 1992, p. 89) Edelmand Edelmand (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Vietnam war?

It says many of the Korean shopkeepers were veterans of the Vietnam War, wouldn't it be Korean War? --Saint-Paddy 00:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are correct. Immigration figures show that 90% of Korean-Americans in LA arrived after immigration caps were lifted ca. 1970. There was definitely a self-defense response organized by ex-military Korean-Americans, and the Korean Veterans Association (so in sources) played a part in post-riot political discussions and organized a citizens patrol that was present during the later verdict. Although South Korea sent troops to Vietnam, the numbers were not significant by comparison (the Korean War more or less mobilized every able-bodied male). I'll see if I can get a well-cited version of this into the article somewhere. --Dhartung | Talk 04:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Good, the current version, listing both wars, is most probably wrong. Thanks Hmains 23:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

They can't be veterans of the Korean War, otherwise it would mean that the shopkeepers would be in their 60's at the time of the riots. Vietnam War would make more sense chronologically, plus South Korea sent 300,000 soldiers there (the largest non-American contingent if I'm not mistaken).

The peak numbers of Korean personnel in the Vietnam War was 45,000. 300,000 was the total number that served from start to finish. Also, the Korean military conscripts, so most if not all able-bodied Korean males would be ex-military. --DOHC Holiday 21:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.130.105.31 (talk) 05:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Citations

"Smaller, concomitant unrest occurred in other United States cities, especially Las Vegas,[citation needed] Atlanta,[citation needed] and San Francisco,[citation needed] but also including Oakland,[citation needed] New York,[citation needed] Seattle,[citation needed] Chicago,[citation needed] Phoenix,[citation needed] Madison, Wisconsin,[citation needed] and even the Canadian city of Toronto.[citation needed]"

For crying out loud, can't you just put one link? That's just excessive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.14.188.130 (talk • contribs) .

I think the assumption was that separate citations woudl be needed for each city. As it is, we have three citations covering about a dozen cities. BTW, 1ne, I did not initially find the corroboration in the HRW report because it was part of a footnote, and there was text higher on the page dealing with other cities that seemed to just be about police brutality generally. Sorry about that. In any case, HRW cites "protests that were sometimes violent" which isn't necessarily the same thing as a riot. But please don't revert to prove a point. --Dhartung | Talk 03:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I wanna just ask some people something

I believe the Rodney King beating was wrong, regardless of what King was doing and/or had done in the past. I also believe it is a tragedy that Latasha Harlins, a young girl was shot and killed by a Korean store owner, by accident. However, I also find it very annoying that out of riots and protests surrounding racism, there stems even more racism. For example, people started hating Koreans because of one mistake, a woman made. The people there were probably used to shoplifting, as it is common, and they were just trying to live too. It does not justify Harlins' death, which was a mistake seeing as how she wasnt actually shoplifting, but it wasn't in cold blood either. Meanwhile, the street gangs of LA such as crips and bloods, big proponents of the riots have been responsible for many innocent children's deaths, many of these children being black or minorities. Does anyone else find this weird? I personally am tired of everyone taking sides of race, and hoping for some all out war, instead of constantly forming more and more racist stereotypes, people need to stop focusing. Affluent whites against blacks against koreans etc, its a stupid chain. Also street gangs are also stupid they are responsible for a lot of the problems LA's minority communities have in the first place. [2]

LOL. So you love the criminal drug addict Rodney King and his lunging at the evil white cops. And then you tell us not to look at race. Blacks have issues that blacks 'don't' want to talk about like crime in their cities and always blaming others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. Are some people hypocrites for being racist while deploring racism in others? Is the sky blue? Certainly nothing justified anyone's death. Fortunately, LA and the US generally have been free of major racial incidents in years since. --Dhartung | Talk 02:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh i didnt mean anything was justified, I was just throwing out why people are racist against racism. Its a vicious cycle, and its depressing, and there are enough events that occur that arent racist but still just as bad (comparison of Harlins and that girl recently, they were both bad, but the killers were contrasting) --insertwackynamehere 02:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the riot was worse than Rodney King's bashing. It sickened me that innocent people, who probably had little idea of what was happening, died or were victims of the riot. Dosen't anyone have compassion here?? The REAL victims are those who were murdered, not Rodney King and not the police. Well, that's my opinion anyway. Racism, prejudice, call it what you like, but it has dire effects upon our race and our lives.Infohappy (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Static Shock

In an episode of static shock, the main character goes to the past to find his deceased mother, she apparently dies during a riot. Is this linked? Its been a while since I saw the ep. So im just asking. Thanks. --205.188.117.65 17:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a comic book character right? Unless something in the story specifically says the L.A. riots, and unless accompanying that is some facts to show the rights of the fictional world are based of the real riots, then no it is not something that should be linked. And in fact, unless the story is trying to say something signifigant socially specifically about this riot in particular, it would still be no more then trivia which Wikipedia is trying to crack down on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.188.52 (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

"The riots in popular culture" and Body Count

"Body Count's track, "Cop Killer", from their self-titled debut album, was seen by many critics as a song that encouraged the behavior seen in the riots as well as promoting the arbitrary murder of police officers. The album was released on March 30, 1992, one month before the riots began."

Why is this in the "The riots in popular culture" section? All it does is mention a song released before the riots began and the post hoc analysis of that song by "many critics". The song mentions Darryl Gates and Rodney King by name, but there's a difference between a song citing Rodney King and a song citing the riots. I'll remove it if no one objects. Dujang Prang 02:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"The Offspring's song "L.A.P.D." off the album "Ignition" is all about the Rodney King incident."

How does anyone figure on this? They say "beat on the n*****" in one chorus, but they say "beat on the white trash" in the next. I think that this is a general criticism of the LAPD, and not limited to Rodney King in any identifiable way. I think both it and the Cop Killer references ought to be removed.

Sublimes "April 29, 1992" I'm pretty sure is "April 26, 1992" I have found it quoted as both on the internet, but on my records and cd's the vocals are almost definitely "April 26" I dont want to change it but if anyone else can confirm I encourage you to go ahead. I will have to have another listen but I am so sure it's right.

It is April 26th. the police banter in the song was taken from the lead singers CB radio (whatever the device that listens to the police frequency is called)

Spike Lee/John Ridley film, also moved Lamb of God reference

I added a reference to Spike Lee and John Ridley's proposed project on the L.A. Riots, which made entertainment news last week. Also, I moved Lamb of God reference to "Music" since I think it was included in the wrong section.--70.171.216.81 19:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No pictures of the riots

Funny how on Wikipaedia pretty much none of the riots have pictures of the descruction and the after of destruction these riots cause. What a hellhole of commies this place is. Not a single shred in credibility or impartiality in plain sight.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.138.0.53 (talk • contribs) 04:39, January 15, 2007

Do you have a free photo to share with us? Or would you like to buy the rights to a commercial ones for us? ... I thought so.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

uprising?

it just amazes me that the word "uprising" is used to describe the riots. there were uprisings at prison camps in ww 2 and in the warsaw ghetto. this was just simple lawlessness. the word should be removed. Keltik31 00:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's get a sense of reality here, they overeacted (the rioters), okay, people have 'uprisings' when they're daughters are being raped, their land taken from them and they're starving not because some loud- mouth criminal got beaten up by two police officers. In the first world in recent times the cloest thing to an uprising was when the Afrikaners invaded Bophuthatswana in South Africa. Come on, a real uprising is what they have in Iraq, not people rioting because they like a bit of a fight. 82.20.21.73 12:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If a group of people is rising up and crying out against anything they feel to be unjust (in this case racial profiling and police brutality) than it's an uprising. Period.

Agreed. This should have awaken America to the problems that it has with its poor and their mistreatment. Apparently..it has not —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.238.188.21 (talk) 07:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. An uprising or a rebellion is a movement to install serious change that includes leadership and goals - even if the leadership is bad and the goals are fuzzy. This was a riot. The LAPD never arrested leaders because there weren't any. No goals were given, attained, or their failure mourned. It was a riot bred by outrage and fed by criminal activity. That being said, as a Californian and a National Guardsman, I have to say the outrage was ENTIRELY justified. Rodney King was, and is, an idiot. But he was just the end of a long line of racist abuse, harassment, and mistreatment by the LAPD. And I'm not talking isolated incidents over a period of years festering only among the paranoid but repetitive daily activities. My personal favorite were the two black police officers a month before the King incident who tried to disprove the accusation that white officers harassed black motorists. They put on civilian clothes and drove an unmarked used car down a main street. A pair of LAPD officers stopped them for no apparent reason and forced them to get out and assume a position against a store window to be searched. When one undercover officer turned his head to identify himself as a fellow police officer one patrolman seized him by the hair and rammed his head through the store's plate glass window. This was caught on tape by a camera in the unmarked car and broadcast on network TV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.41.10 (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Latasha Harlins

Is it me, or do the discrepancies between the paragraph here and the wikiarticle stand out? Recommend shortening the paragraph here, remove the nitty-gritty detail, and reference that article by calling the paragraph here a summary. Furthermore, can some one check the facts and get a citation on it? — Andrew 03:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Third Day

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1992_Los_Angeles_riots&action=edit&section=11

please correct this. was this President GHWBush 1st, President WJ Clinton or the current President GHWB Jr (then something else) ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.7.17.3 (talk • contribs).

It says "President Bush", the third reference to George H. W. Bush, who was President in 1992 (Clinton was not inaugurated until January 1993). Subsequent references do not require wikilinks. --Dhartung | Talk 22:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Proletarian Revolution?

I noticed that the references for this article included something from prole.us. It has nothing to do with the actual content of the article and goes so far as to stereotype certain racial groups with classes in the Marxist hierarchy. Pending debate, I will remove it.

Pandasandpenguins 15:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, it's definitely a classical Hegelian dialectic analysis. I think it was included way back when as a way to balance out some of the "pro-law-&-order" links. I don't find anything offensive about it, but it really isn't an academic source and doesn't have an apparent traceable author. But this article is lacking a criticism & analysis (or maybe "cultural response") section beyond the trivial popular culture references. --Dhartung | Talk 23:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

toomuchtrivia tag

I suggest removing the section "The riots in popular culture" and making it a separate article, "1992 Los Angeles riots in popular culture". This would get rid of the {{toomuchtrivia}} tag without offending anyone and get the main article back to looking like something that belongs in an encyclopedia. --CliffC 21:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea.--User:Jairuscobb

Description

It seems to me that the description of the Rodney King incident disproportionately emphasizes King's actions and minimizes those of the officers.

"On March 3, 1991, Rodney King, on parole from prison on a robbery conviction, led police on a high-speed pursuit, refusing to pull over in response to the red lights and sirens behind him. Finally, after driving through several red lights and boulevard stops, he pulled over in the Lake View Terrace district. The Los Angeles police were assisted by other law enforcement. King, who had a record of drunk driving and was believed to be under the influence of PCP by the officers on scene, resisted arrest and was tasered, tackled, and struck with batons by three LAPD officers under the direction of Sergeant Koon. King also lunged for the weapon of Officer Powell, although that event was not caught on the tape."

It's hard to escape feeling that there's an implication present in this paragraph: that the actions of the officers were justifiable. Yes, King had a record of drunk driving and the officers claimed to believe he was under the influence of PCP - is it necessary to include that in the exact same sentence describing (in cursory terms) his abuse at the hands of the officers? In this paragraph, the bulk of four sentences is devoted to describing King's unlawful behavior, while the brutal beating of an unarmed, prone, inebriated man by three armed police officers is given exactly six words. I'm not arguing that the article ought to be an editorial condemnation of the officers, but rather than some proportion is in order here: Rodney King ran some stoplights and mouthed off to a police officer. On the other hand, three armed law enforcement authorities spent nearly five minutes savagely beating a man with metal batons until he was left brain-damaged and wheelchair bound. --Albert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.151.253.67 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a documented sourced account of events. You cannot change it unless you document and source the changes you think should be in. So if you feel it needs to be differant... then go out, find sources saying otherwise or validating the view you want put in, then add it in and source them. Otherwise any personal disagreement you have with it is just that, personal and opinion based. Although him being left "brain damaged" and "wheel chair bound" after would seem to conflict with another sourced fact here, he's had over ELEVEN run ins with the law, including some convictions, since the incidents presented here. He can't still be that incapacitated and his 'wheel chair bound' couldn't have been more then temporary, and with a long and pronounced history of hard drug abuse, I'm not sure about his brain either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.188.52 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Civil War?

See also: Civil War??? 71.68.15.63 (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Biggest riot in USA?

This claim is suggested by 12th Street riot. If this is true, it certainly is worth mentioning in the lead.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Tom Bradley's speech

After the results of the trial the Mayor of Los Angeles, Tom Bradley, said; "We must express our profound anger and outrage (at the acquittal), but we also must not endanger the reforms that we have made by striking out blindly". This can be considered as another factor leading to the riots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.82.222 (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Not wrong there.Infohappy (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thousands of African-American commenced

First "commenced TO A riot". Wouldn't commenced a riot or commenced rioting be more correct.

And this sentence "Thousands of African-Americans in the Los Angeles area commenced to a riot over the six days following the verdict". Are we certain that every person involved in violence and property damage in the affected area of LA was African American. There was nobody white or asian AT ALL? Because unless we know this and I dont see how we can, how can the sentence be so definite? The worldwide sympathy riots - they sure weren't mostly blacks. --81.105.243.17 (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Approximately 51% of all riot arrestees were Hispanic and more than a third killed during the violence belonged to the same ethnic group. (References: Manuel Pastor Jr, "Economic Inequality, Latino Poverty, and the Civil Unrest in Los Angeles", Economic Development Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 3, August 1995, p. 238; Peter Kwong, "The First Multicultural Riots", in Don Hazen (ed.), Inside the L.A. Riots: What really happened - and why it will happen again, Institute for Alternative Journalism, 1992, p. 89) Edelmand (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

GTA San Andreas

Is there anywhere on the article stating about the easter egg on video game GTA San Andreas where the city is rioting which completely refers to THIS riot. --Flesh-n-Bone 21:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

GTA mentioned over in 1992 Los Angeles riots in popular culture, but I don't see anything about the Easter egg. ==CliffC (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just want to point out the riots in GTA San Andreas are not an easter egg, they are part of the main game. 86.46.48.88 (talk) 03:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

International Reaction

I need some assistance on some information that I wish to add to the Wikipedia article about the 1992 Los Angeles riots. When I read a copy of the newspaper USA Today covering the riots, I came across a small piece about the two suspects in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. In this piece, the two suspects told an American legal consultant they were afraid of not getting a fair trial in the United States because of the riots. The same paper also had an article about the Iraqi administration under the late Saddam Hussein seeking an emergency U.N. Security Council meeting regarding the U.S. response to the riots. I have hard copies of both articles but don't have the date of the paper in question recorded. Does anyone at Wikipedia have any suggestions on how to find the date of the paper these articles were in so I can cite them properly? And003 (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Relevance of Rodney King's future dealings

Rodney King has since been arrested eleven times on a variety of charges including spousal abuse, hit-and-run, and other misdemeanor charges.[25]

What is the relevance of this line to our understanding of the riots and its place in history? And what are its implications? That he deserved to be beaten? This line should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.213.47 (talk) 11:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It has relevance since Mr. King's story is related to the riots through his brutalization by the police. Beyond that, people reading the article will be interested in Mr. King's life after the riots and beating, and the article provides some of that information. We can obviously not control the assumptions that people draw from the article, and any POV ideas should be removed. But we should not remove a researched and sourced entry to an article because some people may draw a conclusion that is not flattering about an individual. Also, I do not believe that anyone draws the absurd conclusion that he deserved to be beaten. That would be very ignorant. Since you seem interested in this article, why don't you improve it by adding to the section dealing with Mr. King. Please add some additional sources that provide a fuller account of his life after the beating and riots. For example, Mr. King founded the Straight Alta-Pazz Recording Company after his beating and the riots. Why not improve the article by adding an entry about his recording company? Thanks! Good luck improving the article! 198.109.220.6 (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of what Rodney King has done since the riots in this article, unless it was directly related to the riots and the aftermath. i.e. The award he received for $3.8 Million is un-noted, but his future unrelated arrests are noted. If people want to know more, they should go to the Rodney King page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.83.6.82 (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Images?

it would be good if we could find images of the riot itself to put in the article.--SasiSasi (talk) 08:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't we mention the continued racism?

The riot has been continously used to attack blacks despite much worse riots occuring earlier than this. Why don't we mention the constant obsession? YVNP (talk) 05:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Cite some. Don't like the truth this sort of descent from the pretense of civilization shows? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.106.71 (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Koreans firing indiscriminately? source please

Under Thursday April 30, there is this unsubstantiated claim:

Open gun battles were televised as Korean shopkeepers took to shooting at people indiscriminately to protect their businesses from crowds of violent looters and innocents caught in the riot.

From what I can see, no Korean shopkeepers ever "[shot] at people indiscriminately".

I just read various blogs, LA Times archives, and pages from a book covering this day's events, and so far I see no evidence that any Korean shopkeepers or their defenders shot indiscriminately, or even shot at people. There was one incident of a Korean being shot that was claimed, by the police, to be friendly fire from another Korean, but the police themselves said even this could not be determined for sure.

There were reports of shots fired into the air, and shots fired in front of the feet of advancing angry crowds at the mini-mall which then made them retreat, and one account of a Korean rifle being aimed directly at an advancing looter (who retreated), but no indiscriminate shots.

Absence of evidence is of course not evidence of absence, so I could've missed the account of this, or accounts may simply be present in other articles I haven't found yet. Or maybe such events occurred, but not on April 30, in which case they need to be moved to the proper section.

But whatever the case, this statement about indiscriminate shooting on April 30 needs to be substantiated or removed. The burden is on those who claim it to substantiate it, not the reverse; I would've simply removed it without comment myself, but since this is my first visit to this article, I didn't want to ruffle any feathers. Some old-timers may want to go ahead and delete it, or I will after a decent interval, if no one else has sourced it by then.

P.S. (Before you ask why don't I give my sources, the reason (which I hope is obvious) is that a reference to a source that does not contain something is not a source. Basically, I could list Humpty Dumpty as a source that doesn't have this information. The only useful source is one that does contain it.) Mathglot (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this is helpful but here's a link to a video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKTw-UHalZc. I saw this footage several times just by doing a google search. Sugarbear475 (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

obviously photoshopped by the liberal media.--Andersmusician NO 01:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Whatever was at that link has been removed from youtube. Roger Midnight (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it was linking to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L5ttIHV12s --Yankees76 ^Talk 20:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

In popular culture: Riots references in the movie Strange Days

To my knowledge the basic plot of the 1995 Strange Days (film) is based on the beating and the riots. Should not this be mentioned in the "In Popular Culture" section? From the summary of the film on it's wikipedia article: "In December 1999, Los Angeles has become a nightmare with heightened police tensions and civil unrest, stemming largely from the brutal murder of Jeriko One, a hip-hop artist strongly critical of the LAPD's pervasive brutality." The film features city wide riots, corrupt police men and an amateur recording of the shooting, very similar to the 1992 events. 213.89.226.79 (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

See the separate wikipedia page 1992 Los Angeles riots in popular culture Edelmand (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Media Coverage

I deleted the last several sentences of this section. It devolves into uncited generalizations. Then, it becomes unintelligible. I don't know what a "tragic frame" is ... please explain. This section could use some more research and citations. "Media Coverage" is a pretty significant subhead, and I don't think we've done it justice here. I've pasted in here the part I deleted in case someone can make sense of it:Agershon (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"The newspapers argued that the catharsis of destructing the city was merely a temporary feeling and that nothing was solved from their actions.^{[citation needed]}

On May 9, 1992 an article in the Chicago Defender stated, “The recent two days of rioting and devastation that took place in South Central Los Angeles are a sad, sad commentary on the state of affairs of Black America…The real underlying factor was and still is economics” (p.119). These public statements also reflected those of the 1965 Watts riots in that they reprimanded the African-American community for acting out in destructive ways, and what they really needed to was redesign their infrastructure to become more successful in their tactics.^{[citation needed]}

There was also the use of a tragic frame by various newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times.^{[citation needed]} The key to a tragic frame is to relinquish all hope, regardless of how just a cause is. To accomplish this they made a hero out of the riot participants, however they also made it clear that a victory was impossible.^{[citation needed]} This was achieved by not so much relying heavily on the details of the Rodney King beating, but to relate it to a larger historical context.^{[citation needed]}"

The information in this entire section has been unverified for several weeks. I have removed the unverified information and shifted the remaining information to another portion of the article. Edelmand (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Riots in other cities

How come the article doesn't mention riots in other American cities and the Canadian city of Toronto? They were smaller and less destructive, but they happened. B-Machine (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Let do not have any pictures of the riots 'is' balanced media. Thats not the only riots they were involved. If they threaten to burn it down; bill them and send them back home.

---

It was my perception that the riot originated in Toronto at the Metropolitan Toronto Reference Library at Bloor and Yonge. I said "faaag..." to an employee to catch his attention as his name was unknown to me. I was irritable because I was a week or so into quitting alcohol and tobacco. The manager of my department had advised me to ask the said employee to not walk through our department, which was why I was trying to get his attention. Anyway, he went on without responding. The Conservation Department was within earshot and the many Caucasian women there picked up slur and rioted, repeating the slur over and over. The riot continued on Yonge St., the subway, and throughout East York, and my own house for months. I was driven completely mad by the riot, driven to a tortured adrenalin psychosis that continues, albeit more pleasantly, to this day twenty years later. I suspect I have been blamed for the riot and I am still being tortured for it. Possibly by police involvement if not also the Asian, homosexual, and Caucasian communities. I was rioted solely by Asians and Caucasians both men and women. There were also disembodied voices and a feeling so unpleasant that you would suicide or cut off your own limbs to indicate how bad you were being tortured. This self-mutilation actually happens in some cases and I understand why people do it. The feeling went on for years and I still hallucinate. I show post-torture symptomology.

I was the only man working with an entire floor of women. I was frequently harassed to some extent by the Asians, who included Vietnamese, Korean, Chinese, immigrants and long standing Canadian citizens. This may have been why the Caucasians rioted, as I am Caucasian yet not Anglo. For all I know, angry or jealous husbands are involved.

I am not responsible for the riot because I could not have forecast the actions of others nor am I responsible for them anyway. They were strangers to me.

The Korean woman had approached me in private not long before the riot. I had received a small promotion to assistant supervisor. I had taken her to lunch, although she was married, there was no impropriety. The staff knew we went out. Keep in mind I was unstable from alcohol and tobacco withdrawal.

But that mental instability contributed to the torture of me. Some people in Toronto are on the hook in my best estimation for crimes against humanity, which torture is, quite apart from Canadian law. GuildCompounder —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.184.90 (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Chief Gates

Should be some mention of the abundant criticisms of Daryl F. Gates' role before and during the riots... AnonMoos (talk) 23:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If you write Hispanic or Latino you have to include the race

Hispanic/Latino is not a race. Any race can be Hispanic. Hispanic is a fabricated ethncity. Nothing more. And if the race is unknown then you should write race unknown or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secret killer (talk • contribs) 10:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "races" among humans; there is only one human race. --Desertphile (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a conclusion without any evidence, much less proof. Sounds awfully a lot like a belief of someone with a "soft" sciences background. Genetics, including racial genetics, is being used more and more to customize medical care. See, for example, Race and genetics#Race-based medicine and Ancestry and health. Phantom in ca (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No, he's right. No scientist, much less a Biologist or Doctor of Medicine will use that term because it has a specific meaning and humanity has no races at all. This is precisely why all the pseudo-scientific nonsense spewed by various 'supremacist' groups has absolutely zero traction with any who has passing familiarity with the facts. Hereditary traits is not at all the same as 'race' and skin colour has a lot less meaning and correlation than some people imagine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.173.106.239 (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Poor writing in "Background"

The "Background" section repeats itself needlessly (such as mentioning a high-speed chase twice), contains meaningless phrases (such as "heavily beaten" which makes no sense), and contains missing and incorrect punctuation (such as "officers" instead of "officer's"). --Desertphile (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"White" is not a nationality

Just as "Hispanic" is not a race or a nationality, "white" is also not a nationality. If the Asian juror is described as being of "unknown" nationality the white jurors should also be described as being of "unknown" nationality. The Hispanic juror could be described as being of unknown race.

One thing that can be said of all 12 jurors is that they were all citizens of the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.47.232 (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

and none of them were black, it was a fake triall to aquit the pigz which backfired thankfully and the state got it's comeuppance in the form of revolutionary street action94.168.194.94 (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

This is why I can never take Wikipedia seriously. 82.95.25.120 (talk) 11:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Public reaction?

It sort of baffles me that I can't find much commentary on what was the public reaction to the riots? A billion in property damages, tens of people dead, and not a single famous/notable individual had anything to say about it, a human behaviour analyst or somesuch critisize the rioting or on the other end of the scale, someone praise it? --Petrim (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"According to the officers, King was under the influence of narcotics at the time of arrest.[7] "

The problem with this statement is the police only made these allegations of PCP and narcotics AFTER the videotape was shown on television.

The original police report made no mention of PCP or narcotics, and when Mr. King was taken to the hospital he was neither tested for, nor treated for PCP or narcotics use.

I'm currently operating from my memory of the events which I closely followed in the media at the time. Once I have citations, I will be changing this statement to closer reflect the reality of the events, which may require removing or editing the next sentence also. Roger Midnight (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)