Talk:Cincinnati riots of 2001/Archive 1

NPOV

It seems that, when discussing things like popular uprisings and riots, much information is due to hearsay and personal allegations. This should be made clearer in this article, especially in the sections recounting the beginning and aftermath of the riots.

Clearer how? Saying you saw it 1st hand or citing articles that say such? How much of it is common knowledge around Cincinnati & how do you cite those? I know that comes off sounding rough, but I don't know how to phrase it otherwise. I did not write the part of the beginning but it fits with what I've come to know from a compilation of live news reports & talking with those who were at the riot (such as the town hall meetings with Angela Leisure).

If we're limited to using sources that are reported by the popular media then I fear the real story won't come out of this. --Duemellon 13:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the key here is to do what newspapers do when they're being cautious. In sentences that include things like "without provocation, the police...", there should be some qualifier like "reportedly," or, "according to eyewitness accounts". The police probably wouldn't agree with the contention that they acted without provocation or warning, and NPOV means that their side should be represented as well as the popular side. I'm not from Cincinnati, so I suppose it's possible that this article represents the prevailing sense in the city. --Boreas231 16:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

hmmm... actually recalling the news reports, internal investigations, & 1st hand civilian statements, it's true. It was where a young girl (under 8) was nailed by a beanbag gun at close distance. It was horrible. I guess I could look for a source or two, but really, the rest of the nation has no clue how poorly our Police behaved during this time & how much they supressed/let slide. Our police are quite corrupt, but most ppl just look at as "business as usual" & even come to defend/justify it. Any other incidents that you see? As you can tell I have my strong opinion about it & it canh taint the way I view facts. (I was downtown for a few of the riots before they "burst open")--Duemellon 10:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

This is definatly not NPOV, your own words declare "the rest of the nation has no clue how poorly our Police behaved during this time & how much they supressed/let slide. Our police are quite corrupt, but most ppl just look at as "business as usual" & even come to defend/justify it". Thats clearly anti-police bias in the article. Most of this article is devoted to criticizing the police actions without any mention of the actual violence of the riots and little to no criticism of the rioters. I'm sure many people would take exception to many of your statements, thus it is not NPOV. Either report just sourcable facts, or put qualifiers like "allegedly..." or "according to some witnesses...". You are passing off your own opinion and unsourcable biased accounts as fact and that is clearly not nuetral. This needs to be re-written more fairly and not so one-sidedly.

Having an opinion about the events doesn't mean you can't be without bias. I let you know that I have an issue with how they behaved & it was appalling. However, the things I stated were factual. You can have an opinionated judge & jury, as long as they don't let that opinion interfere with the decision.

I'm asking because I want this to be unbiased, but the information that comes out if IS ACTUALLY incriminating of the CPD. If all the things that happened actually shows there was something bad going on, then it's not POV, it's reality.

But I would like to know which areas you think are biased so I may review them. If you would like to challenge specific items, please bring them to my attention & I'll source them. If you feel it's too one-sided please ADD IN your contrary information so it can be. Please do NOT remove it to gain balance as I see this to be factual accounts through my 1st hand experience as well as compilation of new reports during the time.

p.s. besides, you being specific will prevent this from turning into a fight about POV & more about the specific violation of the NPOV. --Duemellon 13:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree-- whoever wrote the paragraphs above seems to be a little aggressive. I think we really just need more "allegedly" and "according to eyewitnesses" before phrases that describe events. --Boreas231 16:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm begging you, please, be specific to which items concern you. Tell me the account of "event X" seems biased so I may look into it. I've reviewed it & what I have come to know about this event supports those descriptions. Again, I encourage you to contribute a contrary viewpoint or, at least, specify which areas you feel are misrepresented, so I may be more specific with support.

sayin it's biased is not a helpful criticism since those who heard your suggestion aren't sure what detail is off. Please, give a few specific examples. --Duemellon 20:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

OK. I'd be satisfied if we changed the following paragraph:

But the riot wasn't over for police. Thomas's funeral was held on April 14, 2001. More than 2,000 mourners attended. According to eyewitness accounts, as the funeral procession marched down Elm Street, several Cincinnati and state police cars stopped at the corner of Elm and Liberty. Without any warning or provocation whatsoever, police officers got out of their cars and began shooting approximately a dozen bean-bag projectiles filled with metal pellets into the crowd before jumping back into their cars and speeding away. Four people, including two children, were injured. The most seriously injured was a white teacher from Louisville named Christine Jones, who received a cracked rib, bruised lung, and bruised spleen.

to this:

The rioting continued. Thomas's funeral was held on April 14, 2001, with more than 2,000 mourners attending. According to eyewitness accounts, as the funeral procession marched down Elm Street, several Cincinnati and state police cars stopped at the corner of Elm and Liberty. Allegedly without any warning or provocation, police officers got out of their cars and began shooting bean-bag projectiles into the crowd before leaving. Four people, including two children, were injured. The most seriously injured was a white teacher from Louisville named Christine Jones, who received a cracked rib, bruised lung, and bruised spleen.

Also, would the person posting from 205.188.116.138 please sign your post when you contribute? --Boreas231 21:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the specifics. I will go in & change some of that information. There are some factual errors in what you suggest which I will hope to source & correct so that it is more accurate. I do appreciate your suggestion. --Duemellon 11:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Made the edits & expanded a bit more on some of the details. --Duemellon 12:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Is it safe to remove the NPOV tag now? --Duemellon 12:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm OK with it. Good luck in your other Wikipedia pursuits. --Boreas231 02:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Thomas' Funeral Detals

Cleared out some of the unnecessary "According to eyewittness" statements

Some of those qualifiers were placed in front of information that were not disputed by the police or eyewittnesses. Also expanded on the non-violent nature of the spontaneous post-funeral march which is not in dispute by police or eyewittnesses.

Changed into it's own heading as it has become a subtopic unto itself. --Duemellon smometime on 20 August 2005

Re-removed the "according to eyewitness" statements as they were unnecessary as those details which were being qualified are not in dispute by anyone who was present. Also reinserted the statement that the march was wholly peaceful which, again, is not in dispute. I ask... BEG... you to begin a discussion on this topic as your edits are not following a good code-of-conduct. Please join others in the discussion. --Duemellon 15:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Boycott Details

Created subtopic of the boycott. --Duemellon

Removed the statement that the boycott has no demands as it is completely incorrect. The demands of the boycott group were clear, placed on their website & announced at the introduction of the boycott. The local media did a terrible job of explaining the demands & the average person on the street is unaware of them. --Duemellon

Removed the statement that a boycott was called by Cincinnati businesses against the boycott. Which seems a bit wierd. The boycott directly effects business so of course Cincy businesses would want to organize a resistance. I'm not sure what value-add that statement has except to demonstrate that the boycott is a contentious issue. --Duemellon

Remove the "many people supported" statement as that is not quantifiable. --Duemellon

Removed the qualifying statement "small" in "The boycott is currently in effect, and the small number of its supporters continue to protest at special events and private businesses." as this is a subjective term and statistically unprovable. It further sets a dismissive tone to the boycott. Again, please engage in a conversation regarding your concerns so we stop this back-and-forth edit-battle. --Duemellon 15:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I went fishing for the boycott's webpage. It exists as I had visited there a few times but I couldn't find it again! Heck, I found an article on Stormfront about the boycott before I found there's! *steamed* But really, I was hoping to point you there to find the demands, however the demands are in the news articles attached or elsewhere. We don't need to include the demands, but to say there were none is completely untrue. --Duemellon

Removed the "older generation of..." because the members' ages within the boycott who organized and contributed varied too grealy to characterize them as a single age group. It also suggested that the only participants in violence were young kids, which again, isn't true. --Duemellon 01:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Re-added the details of some of the entertainers who complied with the boycott as whoever the mystery editor is removed their names & added names of those who didn't support it. In the spirit of balance I readded them. Removed the "gospel singer" description prefacing Alicia Keys as that isn't a good description for her career at the time or currently. Again, I invite you to join in the discussion. --Duemellon 15:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Timothy Thomas' death

I thought there was much more written about the circumstances of Timothy's death? I replaced the oversimplistic statement saying "Timothy Thomas ran from police down a dark alley and was shot" with something that provides needed context.

Moved the details from the introduction (to the Beginning) as his death might have sparked the riots but it was not the riot itself. The subject of this article is the riot, it's causes & effects.

Removed the statement that it "was the style of young black men to wear their pants below their undeware" as that is innaccurate as it was the style of many people of different races and to better define the style by noting it's "large pants that sag" otherwise he could've pulled them up and they'd've stayed. (and what a stupid style it is!).

re-edited another restatement of that as innaccurate. "Thomas might have been attempting to pull up his pants which would have looked like reaching for a weapon as it was the style of young black males at the time was to wear ill-fitting pants so large that they sag below their underware." As it was not limited to Black males at the time. Changed it to: "Thomas was probably reaching to pull up his pants which were quite large and sagged below as was the current style of many young men at the time" as Roach specifically cited this. This was not an incident where Roach said "He thought Thomas was trying to pull up his pants" it was that, after the fact & during the trial he specifically stated that Thomas must've been trying to pull up his pants which made it look like he was reaching for a weapon. --Duemellon 15:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Edited The beginning as there was language in there that was NPOV. Removed the statement about his child being "illegitimate" as that is irrelevent and the statement that the child was bore by his girlfriend which in-and-of-itself is redundant (as the contemporiness of his relationship to the mother of his child is irrelevent)

Created a subtopic to address the shooting incident separately. --Duemellon 01:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Re-edited the statement regarding the initial contact by the police to reflect they were off-duty police in a highcrime area. The term "crime-ridden" is too sensational. --Duemellon 15:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Main article introduction

Removed the statement that young black males's violence consisted of: "for the most part, looted sneaker shops, overturned hotdog vendor carts, set fire to store fronts, and made it a point to target whites for violence." which seems inflammatory and intentionally only partially accurate. --Duemellon 02:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

re-removed the statement that "they mostly looted" as that is inaccurate. I invite whoever it is who is making the change to have a discussion about that point so we may clarify details or find a way to agree. Also removed the note that "since 1960 every officer killed was by a Black male" as I question the relevence to the riots. Please, whoever you are, join in a disucssion so we may reach the point of an article that satisfies everyone with accuracy. --Duemellon 15:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

re-removed the statement that Thomas wasn an "unemployed high school drop out who also had one illegitimate child by his girlfriend, had 14 outstanding warrants" for the reasons above. Again, I invite you into a discussion regarding your contributions so we simply don't turn this into a contest of who edited it last. --Duemellon 15:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed the statement: During this same time period, there were 26 incidents of CPD officers being shot at. All were by black perpetrators, none by whites. Seeking support for this statement as I personally know of a white person who shot at Cin police (a bit more recent). I encourage you to join the discussion about this as it appears you might have removed an important statement to keep the context focused after the statement: Police reports reflect the fact that whites resist arrest at a rate far less than blacks which is a national phenomenon which I re-added. --Duemellon 18:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Background to Tensions

The original sentence of:

"It should be noted that for a city the size of Cincinnati, the number of deaths as a result of confrontations with police was not disproportional for that time period." somewhat mischaracterized what the charges of racial profiling were about so to ensure it was clear I continued the statement by adding "...but the fact that only Black males were killed during that span is the focus of the profiling charge." --Duemellon 03:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

re-edited the statement about "not being disproportional" as the point was made before that it was because it was only Black males killed during that time. It wasn't a complaint about the police being on a rampage, but that they were targetting Black males. Again, I invite you to join me in a discussion. That statistic isn't necessary but if it's included it will be balanced with that qualifying information. --Duemellon 15:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed the statement that Owensby was arrested by police for shoplifting. Jeffery Irons was shot during a struggle that same night while being appreheneded for shoplifting. The reason for Owensby's arrest was clouded in mystery for many many months afterwards until the police finally stated he was being arrested for previous warrants. The statement that he resisted arrest is also controversial as the testimony provided by eyewitnesses at the trial stateed otherwise in exception of the police themselves who said he did. It is important to note that he died due to manual asphyxiation that was brought on by a choke-hold or piling-on by the police as determined by the coroner. The fact that there were many dubious things going on with the trial stirred resentment from the Black community (and that is important to the overall topic). Added the incident about Jeffery Irons that occurred that same night as that greatly excerbated the situation. --Duemellon 04:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Edited the statement regarding Owensby's trial as the questionable action of Mike Allen wasn't that he didn't retry him after the 10-2 decision, but that he didn't allow charges after the new information & dispite witness accounts to the contrary of some important details. Again I invite you into a discussion of this before we simply have an endless edit-battle. --Duemellon 15:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Contined the statement "Police reports reflect the fact that whites resist arrest at a rate far less than blacks." as that bit of information is unnecessary but if included needs to be further qualified as it implies a uniqueness to the situation. I added "...which is a national phenomenon" --Duemellon 15:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed " ...mostly while resisting arrest or disobeying police orders." as that is tangential. No where in this article are their any claims that the individuals shot were wholly innocent. --Duemellon 15:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Reclarified the statement that Jorg abruptly quit during the internal investigation. He had slated himself to resign much later (which would've been after the investigation) but upped the date during it. He then went to work for a suburb police department (part of "Greater" Cincy). --Duemellon 16:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The beginning

Edited:

Removed the statement regarding Angela Leisure's later comments saying "regretted telling him to run from police"

• Please back that up (citation)
• Find a more appropriate place to insert it as it was clunky where it was

Went through to replace "disburse" with "disperse" as I'm sure that was the author's intent and other smaller spelling mistakes.

Replaced "demand for an answer" with the demand for details. As "answer" is quite ambivelant & inaccurate.

Also changed the number of protestors to an estimation. --Duemellon 14:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Legacy of Violence

To flesh out the information regarding the increase of reported violent incidents I included the implied call for a police work slowdown by FOP leader Keith Fangman.

Removed this portion ("Since ending the practice of pro-active policing and racial profiling,...") of the sentence as it was covered in the following paragraph & the statement that they "ended racial profiling" is still hotly contested and unprovable statistically --Duemellon 14:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The insertion that most rioters were not Cincy-Proper natives is a bit hard to prove or is poorly worded. If the point was to say most of them were not residents of OTR, that should be in there. However, Cincy-proper is a bit big & incorporates Evanston, Clifton, Bond Hill, Avondale, etc. To suggest they were not from Cincy-proper would mean they came from Mason, Fairfield, Kentucky, Cheviot, & places that are 30 min drives! Also, that statement seems to be placed in the wrong heading. Whereas it is an interesting factoid I suggest it could go in the "as the riots were going on" section, not under "Possible legacy of violence" --Duemellon 13:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed the text: Also, many have noted that those involved in the Cincinnati riots were not Cincinnati citizens, some of which did not even live in the Cincinnati Metropolitan Area. It should be noted that the riots occured during a time in which Cincinnati Public Schools were on spring break and many students simply did not have anything to do to occupy their time. Similarly, the second night, an influx of individuals from the north came to participate in the riots, as can be attested by anyone who worked downtown during that time. As it seemed ill-placed and not well worded. Seeking discussion of what was meant. Greater Cincy? Cincy-proper? How would you know by looking they did not live in OTR (as I was there & made no such distinction) The suggestion they were rioting because they didn't have anything else to do is an assumption projected onto them. --Duemellon 17:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Aftermath

Removed the "The older generation of black community leaders took the initiative to create non-violent means of protest. A boycott was called on Cincinnati which led to several well known celebrities and organizations to cancel previously scheduled and recurring events, as well as several celebrities citing the racial tensions dissuading them from scheduling proposed events. Cincinnati Mayor Charlie Luken said the demands of the boycott were impossible to meet. The demands changed often and varied depending on which organizations were calling the boycott." from the initial heading of the aftermath as being redundant to the latter subtopic of the boycott. --Duemellon 15:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Officer Steven Roach

The details about him losing his gun were removed. The gun he lost was his private weapon not an official sidearm. It's relevence was slight in exception of eluding to Roach's carelessness. --Duemellon 16:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality Challenge

Whoever posted the challenge to NPOV did not put any entry in the discussion to talk about. Seeing as you have not specified the aspects you disagree with, I am removing the challenge until you do.

You have the ability to challenge nuetrality, but in the same vein, you should participate in it's attempt to become NPOV. If you simply complain about it with no real goal or intent to help, please don't complain. Removing neutrality challenge until the person with the problem enters a discussion about what specific aspects are wrong. --Duemellon 14:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Leaving due to violence

Even though it has not been cited specifically, many ppl who leave Cincy are doing so citing the violence & crime in the main city area. Although the riots are not the reason they left, the legacy of violence left by the criminal intent & the lack of police presence both greatly contribute to the increase of crime & violence. As many people have cited violence & crime, there is a relationship between the increase of those things & the riots. I think that should be included. --Duemellon 13:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Article title

This article should be titled “2001 Cincinnati riots,” per Wikipedia’s naming conventions. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs, blog) 04:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Major Changes

whew, that was a lot. --Duemellon 18:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)