Jump to content

Talk:Attack on Reginald Denny/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Johnny Cochran

Should it be mentioned that he took the case in favor of Reginald Denny? rock8591 05:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 (talk • contribs)

Summary Paragraph

If this is an article about the Reginald Denny incident, as the name suggests, then why are the first two sentences in the lead-in about Rodney King? I understand that it gives background, but why not put it in a background section with a link to the LA Riots? As it is, Denny isn't mentioned until the fourth sentence of the intro. I think a background section discussing the King incident and the Riots would make much more sense. Falcon111 (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, new discussions should be added to the bottom of the page. But you do make a good point. The intro is poorly worded, and perhaps reflects the many changes that have been made to this article over the years. I was responsible for the merging but I didn't really take the time to improve the prose, but it could be vastly improved if the time was taken to make some copyedits. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 16:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I propose that the first three sentences of the current intro be removed because this article is not about Rodney King, but the attack on Reginald Denny. Yes, I know the trial & acquittal of King's arresting officers led up to this incident, but frankly, those wishing to read more on King's arrest and the subsequent riots can find ample information on the appropriate Wikipedia pages. Perhaps the introduction could be rewritten along the following lines:
"Reginald Denny was a white construction truck driver who was beaten almost to death during the 1992 Los Angeles riots by a group of black assailants who came to be known as the "L.A. Four". Although LAPD squad cars were parked around the corner from the incident at the time it occurred, the officers were ordered to leave the area rather than assist Denny. Although it was just one of many incidents that occurred during the riots, this particular attack gained notoriety because it was captured by Los Angeles News Service reporter Marika Tur, filming from a helicopter piloted by her husband, Bob Tur, with the video being broadcast live on US national television."
I have that "Denny was a white construction truck driver" not because he's deceased, but because that is no longer his occupation Kwazimoto69 (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation Needed

There should be a disambiguation link added to this entry; I ended up here, when I was actually searching for Reginald_Denny_(actor). I would do it myself, but I don't know how. 24.131.99.225 (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Freikorp (talk) 06:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Summary Paragraph: Continued

This is the first Wikipedia article I've ever read, about a beating, which began with a lengthy description of another beating. When I started to read the article, and when I began to read about the Rodney King beatings, I actually hit the back-button on my browser because I thought I hit the wrong link. This is absurd.

I'm switching the order of the paragraphs in the introduction, not because I think it should stay that way, but to force someone (or the idiot who originally wrote it) to write an introduction that actually introduces the reader to its intended contents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.18.47.92 (talk) 08:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Denny is a man, not an "incident".

I see that Rodney King's page does not have the word "incident" after it. Why? 64.251.40.254 (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not an article about Reginald Denny's life. It is only about the incident in which he was beaten.Jdlund (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I've got no problem with calling it something, but incident is too politically correct. This was assault, beating, and attempted murder. But, it was by blacks on a white man, so we're going to call it an 'incident'? Bullshit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.16.52.139 (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You're right, there is something dismissive and even contemptuous about the word "incident". I think "Attack on Reginald Denny" would be more respectful and more accurate. This being Wikipedia, I suppose we should be grateful that the "incident" is mentioned at all, but still.Shiresman (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
"Attack on Reginald Denny" sounds reasonable to me. Freikorp (talk) 05:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I've got no problem in saying you're the only one dealing in bullshit. The article on the Howard Beach attack, which DID result in a fatality and homicide convictions, is titled as a 'incident'. This completely disproves your theory of bias. The Yusuf Hawkins and Latasha Harlins attacks, which also resulted in fatalities and criminal convictions for the homicides, are simply described as the 'Death of' the victims. The Amadou Diallo, Michael Brown, and Travon Martin articles are all described as 'Shooting of', without any indication in the titles that all three died. More proof that this purported political correctness has nothing to do with anything.
Now, all of this I've posted you could have discovered for yourself with a few minutes of research. However, it doesn't appear that you to are here to build an encyclopedia, but to attempt to disrupt the process with false claims. MikeyLin (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Trucks on the bottom of the page!!!!

I dont think its fair AT ALL that the bottom of the page has some stuff about trucks. Not cool. Major insult to the life of Mr. Reginald Denny!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.185.210 (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not an insult, as you can see he is included in the "Trucking industry in the United States" template as a notable person. Please familiarise yourself with how templates work on wikipedia. Freikorp (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Fair, insulting, or cool, it is still kind of ridiculous to tag this as a trucking article. That's a huge box down there for an article that is only tangentially about trucking. Brted (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, I won't oppose you removing it on logical grounds as opposed to the opinion that it is insulting. Freikorp (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

"Could not", or did not?

In reading this article the following stands out as being a fact but not sourced, "LAPD officers, despite the fact that they were in the vicinity as the attack took place, could not provide help to Denny." I imagine this may have been discussed, but I didn't see it here. So I'm wondering is there a reason why this specifically states "could not" instead of a more general and obvious inference of "did not"? JoeSeo (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Valid point. I think it's fair to assume police in the area would have had their hands full at that time and perhaps did not have the manpower to provide help to Denny. But as always verifiability, not truth. If a reference cannot be found saying the police 'could not' help him I won't oppose you changing it to 'did not'. Do you think if that change is made we should remove or reword "despite the fact that they were in the vicinity as the attack took place". As it stands the sentence implies the police were unable to help Denny but wanted to. If we change it to 'did not' I think it would then imply the were in the area but did not want to help him, and that is unreferenced also. Your thoughts? Freikorp (talk) 08:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

"Reginald Denny"

The usage of Reginald Denny is under discussion, see Talk:Reginald Denny (actor) -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 07:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The last line of the last paragraph in the Related Litigation section claims the Court dismissed the case. Should it be stated that Tur made the motion to dismiss the case? I don't quite understand why YouTube appealed the decision, but I think it had to do with the attorney fees it had suffered, or that Tur was trying to join a class action based in New York. The explanation in the Wikipedia article seems a bit misleading. (At least to me, but someone else should look into this.) Thelema418 (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Brown and Parker

Why do we bother to say four plus if neither gets a subsection? Ranze (talk) 06:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

photo caption

that is indeed angling northeast but this adds confusion...it should state east, as Florence blvd is known simply as an east/west......i will change for now....96.64.21.237 (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Zoey Tur

Shouldn't Zoey Tur be named as Bob Tur? Because at the time (s)he hadn't come out as transgender, that happened two decades later. Someone Not Awful (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

That was my first thought, but I'm not sure on the policy for name or gender changes. I added the note for now. MartinezMD (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Where a person is mentioned in another article besides their own bio, MOS:GENDERID says, "Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis". In this case I think that means to defer to published sources. The article on the LA uprising I cited refers to Tur as "Bob". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Sounds appropriate. Bruce Jenner is listed as competing in the olympic trials, not Caitlyn. So it would be consistent. MartinezMD (talk) 09:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Categories

I've removed this page from Category:Race-related controversies in the United States. While there used to be a statement in the article about "controversy" relating to the verdicts, it was unreferenced and has been removed. Categories should reflect verified content as well as the defining charcteristics of a topic as covered in reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Hate crime?

The sources for calling this a "hate crime" are a brief parenthetical aside in Marvin D. Free's African Americans and the Criminal Justice System, in which Free doesn't explicitly call it a hate crime, and a paragraph in Responding to Hate Crime: A Multidisciplinary Curriculum For Law Enforcement and Victim Assistance Professionals, which is not a scholarly source. None of the perpetrators was convicted of a hate crime. Therefore calling it a "hate crime" seems WP:UNDUE for both the lead section and short description, as well as being a BLP issue. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. MartinezMD (talk) 05:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of race

There's been some back-and-forth editing in the article that I've avoided by some of the editors. I'd like it to come to some consensus as it's approaching edit warring. This attack was highly notable at the time of its occurrence. It is established to have been racially driven as a consequence of the Rodney King events. IMHO race should be included in the lead because without that factor, the attack likely would not have happened and seems to be the only motivation. MartinezMD (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I see a subtle anti-blackness in the way the article identifies Denny's attackers as "black," consistently throughout the article, but then identifies his rescuers as "African-American" rather than "black." I would suggest that one term or the other ought to be used throughout the article. The men who beat him were black, those who rescued him were also black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.67.250 (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
It should be consistent throughout with care to identify race issues but avoid unintentional racism. Although that being said, the first and second paragraphs of the lead identify both his attackers and rescuers as black. So I'm not sure if there's an issue, since they are similarly identified. MartinezMD (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 Done —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for that. Now the issue of letter case, lower or capital. I reverted you then myself as I looked more. What is correct? MartinezMD (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
It's a purely stylistic choice. I think the capitalization helps establish that we are talking about a person rather than visual color, since the terms Black and White are introduced in the article before any broader mention of race. The AP now capitalizes Black for similar reasons. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: there's an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters about this very issue. So we may have sitewide consensus (or a declaration of no consensus) to go on soon. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The intro

"Four other Black L.A. residents who had been witnessing the attack on live television came to Denny's aid, placing him back in his truck, in which one of the rescuers drove him to the hospital. Denny suffered a fractured skull and impairment of his speech and ability to walk, for which he underwent years of rehabilitative therapy. After unsuccessfully suing the City of Los Angeles, Denny moved to Arizona, where he worked as an independent boat mechanic and has mostly avoided media contact.". This was an interesting read after not knowing anything about this incident 20min ago, then watching the live helicopter coverage from the time, then coming to wikipedia to get different information than what I just heard from the newsclip from the time. The helicopter clip is interviewing Bobby Green, allegedly a (the) person who helped Reginald Denny, who is saying he was the only person with Reginal next to a woman that was already there when Bobby came. Bobby goes on further to say that Reginald was already in his truck and already driving, slowly at that, and that Bobby pushed him away from the driving seat so he could drive him to the hospital.

I cant help but notice that the whole paragraph has no references, not one... Also interesting how "white" and "black" are apparently words with capital letters now. Given that this whole section has no references while a newsclip interview on top of a different interview with Bobby Green done 10 years later give contradicting information I think this section should be deleted or heavily edited, preferably with referances. I dont want to post links here because it makes the page look amateurly, but I found the video easily on youtube and the interview was in LA Times April 22, 2002. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.209.8.208 (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Following MOS:LEADCITE, you'll find many leads don't have cites, and that they are later supported in the body of the article. "Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source". However, per the same WP policy, if you think something is controversial about the lead, we can add any of the numerous sources that appear later in the article. Also, (B)lack and (W)hite being capitalized is an ongoing issue in the media in general as well as WP. I'm not sure if there's an official decision about it. See the paragraph I started above titled "Discussion of race" MartinezMD (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Attack_on_Reginald_Denny/Archive_1&oldid=1185112737"