Talk:Reginald Denny incident/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents

Sources?

Whomever keeps taking out the racial context of this article needs to wisen up. If you simply search for Rodney King, or other blacks who were done injustice in the past, there is ALWAYS mention of race. Therefore, be equal, and stop deleting references to race. To do so is racist, and diminishes white people. You need to be equal and not be so obviously racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.31.163 (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, now it does - a link to a New York Times article has been added. Similar to the Rodney King entry in Wikipedia, proper additional descriptions and adjectives have been added to better describe the situation and the players involved in the incident. Further attempts to remove race from this article should be shunned, and those who do that are subject to accusation of diluting the obvious racial component of this story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.31.163 (talk) 04:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


This is a really good article in terms of flow and content; however, it cites virtually NO sources. Could we maybe add some in the future?

Moreover, there is NO mention that King ATTACKED police officers!!! The tape showed the police repeatedly beating King. Yes. But it was ONLY a portion of the tape that showed the beating. And the media played ONLY this over, and over, and over. If you watch the FIRST PART of the tape, you see King pull himself up off the ground, and charge the police, scattering them like bowling pins. King is a large, powerful man allegedly high on angel dust and Crown Royale -- and what are the police supposed to do -- kiss him until he complies with their commands as any law abiding citizen should do?

This isn't an article on Rodney King, it's an article on Reginald Denny. The two are only tangentially related. --DOHC Holiday 21:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup and Larry Tavin

I tried to overhaul the article, improving the flow a little and adding a bit of backround.

The information about Larry Tavin failed a simple Wikipedia:Google_test, searching his name turned up literally zero results. If anyone has transcripts or media accounts of the event, please cite them and include the information.

I pointed out the race of the involved parties because that was a major issue surrounding Rodney King, the riots, and Denny's beating.

--Uncle Bungle 01:19, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NPOV removal

I removed the tag, if anyone thinks it should go back, please state your case here. --Uncle Bungle 01:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rodney King meeting?

Was Denny present when Rodney King gave his famous "Can't we all just get along" plea to the media? I feel like they met at some point, but that might have been an In Living Color sketch. --feitclub 20:02, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Correct, it's the sketch you remember. At the time Rodney King made his famous plea, Reginald Denny was near death in the hospital. --ProhibitOnions 13:49, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

NPOV Hypocrisy prevents mention of racism

This article is a perfect example of Wikipedia censorship, political correctness, and NPOV hypocrisy preventing a clear description of the subject. Nowhere was it stated that racism is the key factor. The victim and assailant's race was explicitly not mentioned, yet rhe race of those who helped is. The Wikipedia soapbox dogma can be taken to ridiculous, if not downright stupid, extremes. User:user

There is also no mention of Reginald Denny and his family receiving constant death threats from gang members during the trial of the L.A. 4 which was probably why they got off so easily.
There's also no mention of Denny suing the city and the race of his lawyer when he did so, but since that doesn't fit into your desire to believe Wikipedia's bias you don't dare mention it, even though it can be more accurately sourced than your accusations. Now since your so good at formulating conclusions from bare facts, tell us all what we can believed based on these events. 130.156.31.150 18:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

The title name is spelled wrong per[1] should be Reginald Denney.--Dakota ~ ε 23:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The name is correct as is. A Google search of "Reginald Denny" brings about 175,000 hits. One of "Reginald Denney" results in less than a1,000. In addition, "Reginald Oliver Denny" has nearly 200 hits and "Reginald Oliver Denney" 0 hits. OverlordChris 21:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Where Did the Photo go?

The photo is not appearing!!!!!!!!!!!!

BACKGROUND:

Perhaps a better background would be:


"On March 3, 1991, Rodney King, an African-American parolee,".

After all, if the riots have a background with King, the King incidents also have background. Though one might reasonably infer from the Wikipedia article on King that, apart from his driving on the night, his career criminality found its genesis in the confrontation with the police. However, King was already a wife beater and robber. Try http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lapd/kingarrests.html for one of many other views.

Given the propensity in your country to resort to the use of weapons with alarming alacrity, it's perhaps King's good fortune that the local constabulary didn't "fill him full of lead", as they would have said in celluloid LA.

A further insightful background might have been references to the racial strife between blacks and Latinos particularly acute in California, or between blacks and the burgeoning Korean shopkeeper class. Though of course, the racism weapon starts to look a little puny then.

Another background would have been the far greater likelihood of Reginald Denney being a victim of assault by someone of another race than Rodney King even in the absence of full scale civil disturbances.

Or...change the word "background" to "excuse". Now there's a thought.

"Race"

The editors of Wikipedia in their wisdom have decided that race must be mentioned in a court of law in order for it to be included in this article. That is a rediculous made-up hurdle that no intelligent person will buy. Clearly race WAS a factor in the Denny beating as witness accounts were given at the time of the beating. Please show me anywhere in Wikipedia where it states that a court of law must declare race to have been involved in order for race to be allowed in Wikipedia articles. You cannot think that you can get by with racist history revisionist tactics, and if you continue your flawed line of thinking, then Wikipedia is a failed thing.

Instead of being bullies and censoring people from speaking the truth, why don't you help out and research some articles too? A few quick internet Lexis-nexis searches reveal that race was a factor in the Denny beating, so do us all a favor and stop locking these websites, and start helping people find the answer to things and pasting links, etc. You can't just block blcok block, and just because the current version of this page is what it is, doesn't make it right.

You cheapen what Wikipedia could become by using censorship tactics like that. You all should have to cite an article or some international encyclopedia standard to invoke censorship like this, you should not have such free power to let your biases come out. What a shame.

This page neglects to address the blatant racism involved in the incident. Most likely this is due to leftist/PC bias which suggests that only minorites can be victims of hate crimes, a position which I find to be personally offensive. Would someone please ammend the article to actually mention (and not in a passing, dismissive way) that Reginald was targeted based on his race (does anyone truly deny that fact?) -- antireverseracist

[Partisan comment removed - Wikipedia is not a soapbox --kudz75 04:52, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC) ]

No one has stated that something must be mentioned in a court of law. However, the manual of style regarding biographical entries makes no requirement that race of the subject is important to the article itself. In fact, individuals, by custom and rule, are not identified in biographical articles by their skin color. In terms of this incident, you have not provided reliable sources to prove that the attack was racially motivated. Further, race is already implicity discussed because comparisons are made to the King trial.--Strothra (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Strothra, you are the one who undid the mention of race on the grounds that race was not mentioned in a court of law. You implied that there was a requirement of race. There are just as many upset white people about the beating of Denny as there were black people. You don't need citations to prove that. It is a fact, and I don't care if the media did not report it or focus on it, I was there, and I know it was true. Therefore, you cannot revise history by ignoring the racial overtones, explicitly, in the Denny incident, while permitting them in the King incident. The incident itself demonstrates racial motivation. I had previously cited quotations from an NYT article from which one of the Denny beaters shouted racial epithets. His attackers were overheard shouting racial epithets. So when you strip away citations that clearly show this, it is proof of your bias and once again, cheapens Wikipedia. Just go and read the King article. It mentions race, and in that one, you strangely don't require proof or citation to justify using black and white to describe people. You can't have it both ways. You can't just take for granted race is baked in to the King case, when in fact most white people do NOT believe race was baked in, and then, do a double whammy to us by denying mention of race in the Denny case. That is a two strike count against fairness toward white people, and all of the readers who see this page will know that now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.145.238.91 (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not telling you what you are allowed to infer from my statements, but I implied nothing of the sort. Again, this article does not concern the King article, please stop bringing it up. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This is a simple matter of WP:MOSBIO and WP:MOS, not to mention WP:BLP. --Strothra (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Anitreverseracist, the motive for the beating was obviously Denny's race and this has to be mentioned in the article. I think you will need to invite a less biased third party to resolve this problem. A moderator perhaps? But I have no idea how wiki deals with these issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.81.82 (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to seek out other avenues of intervention then please do so, however, please note that you will find no one who will go against basic style guidelines to make this edit [2]. This does not mean that a well sourced section about allegations of racial motivation cannot be included. However, you have not even attempted to make such a proposal.--Strothra (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There is also an obvious inconsistency in the article. It states the following: "Bobby Green (a truck driver), Titus Murphy, Terri Barnett (boyfriend and girlfriend), and Lei Yuille (a dietitian), who had been watching the events on TV, came to Denny's aid. All four are black." So the race of the people who came to Danny's aid is mentioned, while his race and the race of his attackers is not. Now, if this article has nothing to do with race as we are led to believe, why mention the race of those individuals? Pretty much anyone who knows about this case understands that the attack was racially motivated so the race of the individuals who came to Danny's aid is mentioned to say that "yes, the attack was vicious and racist but here we also have good black folks who had saved Danny's life." Despite all this, repeated attempts to simply mention Danny's race and the race of his attackers have been blocked. This is a blatant example of double standards, not to mention that it makes the article inconsistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.81.82 (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Another thing. Strothra, you write that "this article does not concern the King article, please stop bringing it up." If that's the case then why is King's case discussed in the 'Background' section of Danny's article? The answer is that the two are clearly connected. Hence Anitreverseracist's comment to you remains valid. This is what wiki article on 1992 LA riots has to say on Danny's beating: "At approximately 6:45 p.m., Reginald Denny, a white truck driver stopped at a traffic light at the intersection of Florence and South Normandie Avenues, was dragged from his vehicle and severely beaten by a mob of black local residents as news helicopters hovered above..." Care to tell us why this information should not be included in this artcle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.81.82 (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

While Wikipedia is supposed to be based entirely on facts, I can't help but feel that the whole "race" issue is notable and therefore all details pertaining to racial motivations for the incident should be made part of the article. Matt.T.911 (talk) 10:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Matt and #99. If someone were to come across this article with no other context, having never heard of the riots, read the "Background" section, where race is clearly (and rightly) mentioned, then nothing down to "All four were black," it's a jarring discontinuity that leaves the reader wondering what the Denny incident was all about. If the incident was not about race, then what difference does it make what race his rescuers were? If it is about race, why isn't it mentioned until that point? If Denny's race, and that of his assailants, and the racial epithets they were using are irrelevant, then the race of the rescuers is irrelevant. But as this was a racially-motivated incident, then it's all relevant, and that's what should be covered. Darguz Parsilvan (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, details are a good thing to include. We may never know for certain if the attack on Denny was racially motived, but given the wider context of the incident I think it's worth mentioning. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

this really is a very biased page as it stands right now - it's incomplete and weirdly confusing. be consistent: say "all four were of the same ethnic persuasion as the attackers" or something. but for the love of god please fix it soon.

why this particular edit anyway, only naming the races of the rescuers? because its pc? i'm a liberal and value civil rights and all, but you can get carried away with that pc thing ;) i know, ive done it too. but why should denny's story only be partially told? because of fears about race, about anger, guilt?

and btw, would you still have mentioned the rescuers' races if they were white?

i thought Wikipedia was the place to get accurate, complete information...

is this the issue that is keeping this page from being "unlocked" or whatever? because if so, that sucks. please resolve this soon.

if this is about trying to push away the bad stuff, pretend it doesnt exist, i have some words for you from obama in his already famous speech:

"the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races."

does erasing the racial identification of everyone in this story count as washing it away? i think it definitely qualifies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.50.112 (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit protected

Resolved

{{editprotected}} Can we change the line that ends, "stopped near the body and attempted to shoot the gas tank of Denny's truck but missed." to read "stopped near the the unconcious Denny and attempted to shoot out the gas tank of his truck but missed."?

"body" usually means someone's dead and Denny wasn't. Thanks, 86.212.81.251 (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Tonywalton  | Talk 09:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Article merge?

Just putting this out there: Is Reginald Denny notable on his own? Everything about him seems to be in the context of the LA riots, and much of the information doesn't even belong in the article. Should his information be merged into the page on the riots? 64.9.233.52 (talk) 07:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Or rename the page "Reginald Denny Incident," since that's all he's known for. 64.9.233.52 (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There is too much information to merge it into the riots article. Personally I think the title is fine but I wouldn't contest a change as long as the new title is reasonable. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC) strongly urge merging this with L.A. Four into Reginald Oliver Denny incident. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I think he is notable, his name is well known and can sometimes be heard in song lyrics. Just my opinion... --ErgoSum88 (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose You know who else is notable for one incident only? Sirhan Sirhan, Lee Harvey Oswald, Mark David Chapman, and a score of others. The notable-for-one-event-only criteria should not be the sole basis used for determining such things, but rather one among many. Ender78 (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

Per the discussion here it seems that there was a definite weight leaning toward merging the LA Four article into the Denny incident article. I don't think there should be any objection to this particular case. Any suggestions? --Ave Caesar (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)