Talk:Cincinnati riots of 2001

message: "Of the cited fifteen black men killed by police action since 1995, three (including Thomas) had not even used deadly weapons against police (only ten were firearms, the rest had tried to run the police officers over using motor vehicles), and only four police officers were killed or wounded in the course of the related arrest attempts. [4] Despite all the situations which led to the deaths of the young black males, no police were ever found guilty through any civil or criminal trials; in only one case were the police officers involved reprimanded and given extra training (Death of Michael Carpenter by Officers Michael Miller, III and Brent McCurley)."
I especially loved how "only ten" of the 15 used firearms and how the others "only" tried to use vehicles to "run the police over"
Bias really needs to be corrected
How is this biased? It's factual. Just because it makes the CPD look bad doesn't mean it's not true. Where is the bias? --Duemellon 14:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how it is a neutral point of view to say "only" in those sentences. And the paragraph suggests with its tone that police officers shouldn't use deadly force unless the suspect already kills or wounds a police officer.  Peoplesunionpro 05:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will agree the "only four" part can be reduced to "four". The phrase: "had not even used deadly weapons" could be changed to "did not have deadly weapons and ten were armed with firearms". However, it is safe to say the police are not to employ deadly force unless there is a perceived risk of harm to themselves or others. --Duemellon 20:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completely Biased 

message: Sorry, I didnt' have the time to really flesh it out. It was not going to remain a simple copy of the information here. There is much more information to detail it with & will be included. I am removing the redirect as it is it's own separate issue and article. --Duemellon 13:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Owensby Trial 

message: Removed the statement that Thomas reportedly had a brick. From the multitudinous reports I've seen I have never heard any mention of him possibly being armed having been stated before or during the chase. Even after he was shot there was no initial reports of him being armed. It was later, after Roach was interviewed by investigations that the suspicion of Thomas being armed came up. If you have information otherwise, please share. --Duemellon 04:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roach shoots Thomas 

message: In the second paragraph of the section Background of tensions, the word lawsuit pops up twice, but it's not clear what this refers to. Does anybody know ?Unmitigated Success 14:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What lawsuit ?

message: There are no citations for this article. External links do not count towards this, as they must be introduced per WP:CITE using  tags. There are places where the tone is also not as approperiate as I would have hoped, with a slant against the police officers - i.e. unbalanced. Let's try and correct these issues and get this article up to par.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like for you to be specific on which pieces of this have an inappropriate tone. Whereas I appreciate your interest, I do request specificity in your feedback or even a rewrite to assist. However, I do want to point out that the information present in the sources provided factually point to the CPD acting improperly with dubious intent and perhaps the bias you think you see are really just the facts as they really are? --Duemellon 01:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no bias in this as I am from out of the area (Lexington) but do not bother reading up on the news for your region. I kept out of the loop for the riots and the aftermath so I am pretty much as unbiased as I am. For inapproperiate tone, there are some areas that seem to be more conversational than anything and I will try tommorrow at work, to go through and rewrite some parts (keeping existing material in place).  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No citations 

message: This article is so bad in the linkage. Items in the links for instance say 'Cincinnati Post' which links to the article about that newpaper, NOTHING about the topic. I will [in time] try to fix much of this, but it is a morass of bad linkage. --Dumarest 00:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also cull links that fail WP:EL or are just "spam-links." I removed a few a while ago but much more needs to be done. In essence, there should be no need for external link categories.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with links

message: I have watched this page for some time, and a few months ago wanted to do a full rewrite. Now that is has been at leas partially divided and some of the 'stuff' is in other pages, I would like to do that full rewrite again, but it will mean greatly modifying this page and others, and I do not know how I can do that in a way that my rewrite of more than one page can be done and evaluated by 'the world' [i.e. you commentators] before it is placed in place of the current pages. Help!! How can I do this.--Dumarest 20:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have considered in the past a 'temp' page or pages, for discussion, and eventually moving to the real thing if discussion approves. --Dumarest 14:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Full rewrite

message: Removed tag. If you believe it's POV please provide specific examples. A general complaint is not actionable. --Duemellon 11:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality DIspute 

message: Hello all, I wandered over here following the  tag. I've never even heard of this incident before, so I claim to be fairly neutral. Anyhow, I'm going to start to go through and fix up the main problem from my end, which is that articles that should be inline citations affixed to facts are instead listed in a rather formidable external links section. While I do that, I'll try to remove non-neutral language and fix up grammar and all that. Thank you to whoever put those links into categories, that will make this task much much easier. Just wanted to say hello to the editors who have obviously put a lot of time into this article and let y'all know what I'm doing. --Gimme danger 16:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Howdy from the External Links Wikiproject

message: I am moving some of the external links off of the article to the talk page. They may be useful in the future as references, but an article should not have 40 links.
Some of the links/future references don't actually mention the 2001 riots. This could be a original research or synthesis problem in incorporating them into the article. I don't know enough about the topic to decide at this point however. DigitalC (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: *
*City settles 16 police suits for $4.5 million – Cincinnati Enquirer
*Leisure sues Reeces over offer – Cincinnati Enquirer
*Statement From Alicia Reece – WCPO-TV
*May 8: Leisure Tapes – WCPO-TV(Deadlinks, not available on the internet archive DigitalC (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Civil trial v. Roach & Cincinnati

message: I am trying to research the riots where people were destroying their community while attacking people of different races. Instead there is 8 sentences about the riot, and 8 pages about police officers killing armed gangsters in the line of duty. Can we make 2 pages, one that has the police officer trials, and one about the riot?
:: Armed gangsters? You can't be serious. The riots were a direct reaction to three deaths, and the third that hardly gets mentioned is because the community had no problem with it actually. Owensby and Thomas were not "gangsters". Owensby was a veteran who was mistaken for another man and died in the process of arrest and Thomas was guilty of nothing more than traffic tickets. Honestly, your tone is absolutely racist - so please don't make edits if that's how you see things. I surely hoped you are blocked from making changes to this article. JoeHenzi (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange Article, was there even a riot? 

message: Much bs info in the "article" but it the question remains open: How many died in the riots? --188.23.73.236 (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Deaths

message: First, I removed the link to the Michelle Malkin article. I would also like to remove or have removed the link to the "Ascendancy" article. Both are opinion pieces and both are written by people far removed from the events of the riots, what caused them, etc. You really can't find more biased articles. I can only suggest that people try searching for information at Cincinnati.com or by looking at the Cincinnati station's archives at sites for WCPO, WKRC, WXIX, or WCET. As for the events leading up to the Timothy Thomas shooting, which were certainly more influential than Owensby I would suggest looking at the following link (it actually has statistics, quotes from police);
:http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/article-6644-news-ticket-to-die.html
CityBeat is also a good resource if you can find articles prior to and during April 2001.
I would hope that we could get some editors on this outside of Cincinnati and those who are not racially motivated - because that seems to be where all the bias comes. I, personally, won't edit this article other than removing blatant things like the link to Malkin's opinion piece because while I want to have a NPOV stance my blood pressure would skyrocket once I get into the surrounding arguments. I'm just trying to be honest. The issue has been politicized enough and after 10 years we should stop with it and just report the facts or remove the article. JoeHenzi (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Links to Look At / Malkin's Link 

message: Thomas was 19 when he died and there is a slight chance that some of the information in the portion below, that I removed, could be from when he was a minor - but that is sealed so I would only wonder who made those edits and how they got that information. I can't find a reference for any of this and in fact, the reference provided hardly mentions his traffic violations. It's a discussion/interview piece. Honestly - this is the worst cited article on Wikipedia in my opinion. I've seen hoax articles that have better and believable sources. I said I wouldn't edit, but this is factually wrong;
:Thomas had 59 misdemeanor charges, which led to 14 open warrants  for his arrest. Most of the charges were non-violent, but did include 2 counts of minor assault. The charges included parking tickets, not wearing a seatbelt, loitering, as well as running from police. | NOTE, the reference article mentions none of this, and no where in the news does it appear that Thomas has a criminal record outside of his traffic violations.
Neither in 2001 or today was there anything in the news about these charges of "minor assault" and all were non-violent, not "most". He was certainly guilty of repeated traffic offenses, but until someone can link his rap sheet, I can't see how this should be included as it's unproven. JoeHenzi (talk) 03:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminal Record of Thomas - Totally made up. 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.cincypost.com/2001/mar/14/suit031401.html
** In 2001 Cincinnati riots on 2011-05-25 07:08:15, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
** In 2001 Cincinnati riots on 2011-06-10 06:58:37, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
--JeffGBot (talk) 06:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Cincinnati riots of 2001. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2001/apr/19/20010419-022057-7962r/print/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cincinnati riots of 2001. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070804161410/http://citybeat.com/2001-03-08/cover.shtml to http://citybeat.com/2001-03-08/cover.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified