Talk:Melissa King assault case

message: This is one of the most profoundly racist articles I've ever read on wikipedia. The thing looks like it was copy-pasted from the stormfront archives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.27.160.254 (talk) 15:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Racism is not race specific, and any race is capable of being racist. There's a stupid, PC belief that only white people can be racist. Not hardly. People who'd like to deny that things like this happen are as much racist as the KKK. It'd be nice if people would learn from their own history, and not re-enact what's happened to their group, but unfortunately most don't. I went to school in Detroit in the early 90s, and this went on there then. You don't want it to be true? GOOD! I wish it wasn't true, too! But denying it is hypocracy. People who what to ignore and deny the problem are allowing it to continue. In short, they're racists themselves by covering up racist behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.241.137.116 (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

text: So we should censor articles that describe events of racism by group B against group A, but leave articles describing racism by group A against group B? Racism is racism. If you mean this may cause further attacks, it would have been nice to know the punishment for the attackers as discouragement. --218.215.53.154 (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Racist?

message: Why is this even here? Shouldn't something so violent and vicious be deleted and forgotten? That way, if no one remembers it, then it may not occur again. --70.118.121.189 23:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For good or for bad, Wikipedia is not censored. -- Atlant 23:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Judge Russo probably had the same thoughts. Should the court deny the existence of Beat Up a White Kid Day or acknowledge the existence, knowing the ramifications. The court did not censor itself and instead acknowledge the existence of Beat Up a White Kid Day, reasoning that "This terrible tradition must be stopped by sending a message today." -- Jreferee 00:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Better delete all of the articles on Slavery in the United States and the Holocaust too then, right? --64.180.29.220 (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is this even here?

message: Simply because it is informative and it also explains how and why people do this. Now I don't agree with it but I think there should be an article about this because it talks about the history of it. If it was deleted, then no one would beable to know about this and thats why it shouldn't be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DemonicSailormoon (talk • contribs) 19:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I know why there should be on article about this 

message: One thing that I pondered during this article's AfD was the renaming of it - perhaps it's more appropriately named as, say, "May First Racial Assaults" or something? Thoughts? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A new name should also be less America-biased. I suggest two things: 1. renaming in the direction of rascist attack -day, and 2: renaming in direction of showing this is in the USA. Please notice I don't actually have a candidate, I just say what I would want from the new name.Greswik 19:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of article?

message: I've added some information which indicates that the Cleveland case is not as straightforward a case of racially motivated violence as might be thought. The accusation that Melissa gossiped about one girl's sexual abuse and suicide attempt suggests there are alternative explanations such as a personal vendetta. Most of this theory of mayday black-on-white attacks seems to rely on the 2003 case (i am not sure but i don't think that white children were beaten in the race riots?). So this does weaken the general theory behind this article.  This case seems rather confusing so if anyone has the copies of the Cleveland paper that are cited in the references and has time to attach them to this article that'd be fantastic --131.111.216.251 (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the truth behind this 2003 case? 

message: As far as i can tell there's two pieces of evidence that this exists beyond the cleveland 2003 case:
#the judge said so.
#the Cleveland Plain Dealer's readers said so.
It's worth reporting these people's statements but neither is infallible, so it's unwise to just baldly assert that this is a longstanding tradition ("This day that "blacks beat on whites" continued, but without publicity until 2003..."). the connection to rodney king is OR by synthesis. It would probably be better to move this article to "Melissa King assault case," or something, since that's really all it's about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.179.31 (talk) 04:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  my edit 

message: A pointless and trivial article. Where is the significance? Outside of this incident there is nothing to confirm that such a day exists. Recommend deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.61.253 (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: During both AfDs and the DRV it was suggested this be renamed. There doesn't seem to be any such thing as 'Beat up a white kid day), the references are about a specific event in Cleveland on May 1st, 2003. The article needs re-naming. May 1st 2003 racial assaults in Cleveland? Dougweller (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: This article is irrelevant and is probably a "15 minutes of fame" type of thing. Someone should delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.2.241 (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting this article? 

message: Is this event notable according to Wikipedia:Notability (events)? Jesanj (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It got through two AfDs. I definitely think the title is against our NPOV title and we need a new title. I'm not impressed by publicising what a judge with an alcohol and domestic violence problem has to say about this. Dougweller (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, didn't notice that those were under the article milestones at the top. Yeah, but he's still a reliable source for his opinions and if his opinions have been published then it is due weight to proportionally include them. Jesanj (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but you didn't see the article's state a few days ago. The lead pushed his views, and the article said he 'found' that it was real. Maybe a sentence, but not more. Dougweller (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the cleanup. I haven't read enough on the subject to know what is due. Jesanj (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable?