Talk:Death of Malice Green

message: Since you're a newb on here, let me explain -- if you see "lots of unsupported crap" then you are the one that changes it.  You document as best you can, and others collaborate on the effort.
When I started editing, the article was horrible.  For starters, it was horribly slanted -- it might as well have been from a Black Panthers brochure.  I re-wrote it, and others chimed in.  Together, we thought we had it about right, which is remarkable given all the twists and turns in the case, not to mention the emotions involved.
So, here's my call-out:  If you see "crap" then you go ahead and fix stuff.  Twohlford 00:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gomektampa, Care to explain? 

message: While it is clear that there were serious questions about the initial convictions of the police officers, they were both convicted in new trials for Green's death.  The article was laughably biased with phrases such as "crack head" and statements about "2nd reports" that were intentionally misleading.  It has been edited to reflect the controversy more accurately.  It was stunning how biased the article was before.
I wish you would've signed your rant so I could respond to it.Twohlford (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edited to reflect reality 

message: There are two postings of the court opinion from March of 2003 when the conviction of Nevers was originally overturned, however, both appear to be out of place and unnecessary since the overturning of the verdict is mentioned in the Appeals section; in fact, in the second posting of the court's opinion, it is posted in a section that has nothing to do with the appeal.  I am not removing the postings since it is obvious Twohlford has done a lot of work on this article and may have posted these for a legitimate reason, however I wanted to point them out in case he did NOT post them, because while informative, as they are currently posted, they do not appear to follow Wiki standards and should be removed.  72.185.43.62 (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about the "Update" and court documents? 

message: I didn't add the legal document stuff.  I would never add that stuff verbatim like that.  In fact, I removed both quotations, which means I've now effectively removed all of the material added by that poster (see earlier deletion).  If that person would care to identify themself I'm sure we can discuss ways to make this article better.Twohlford (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: I didn't do it

message: I removed the reference to Tasers not being available in 1992. They were indeed available and one, in fact, was used on Rodney
King in the March, 1991 incident involving him.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.1.83.2 (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tasers

message: Hi, you could mention this release: http://www.discogs.com/Underground-Resistance-Message-To-The-Majors/release/9106 --78.48.34.145 (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dedication from Underground Resistance 

message: First, where are all the citations? Nothing discussing the legal proceedings is cited. Secondly, the reason for the Appeals decision to grant Budzyn a new trial? "Mostly on the grounds of the showing of Malcolm X" is not a legal reason. Did the court find that the officer wasn't given a fair trial? Also, under what circumstances was the jury shown the film Malcolm X? Who exactly "showed" the jury the film? All of this is unclear. Also, the colloquial language in the article should be eliminated, i.e. "the Supreme Court 'let it stand'", and "the jury 'was shown'".
Nothing in this article is supported by appropriate citations.
--Zdespart (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarity 

message: Why does the introduction say that he hit him "14 times", when later on it first says that while the coronoer initially claimed 14 wounds, he later reduced it to seven. Did we just pick the bigger number because it sounds better? I would say we should go with the smaller number, since it's more likely accurate. AnnaGoFast (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of blows 

message: Substituted at 22:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment