Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:25, 22 April 2022

United States: Ohio Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio (assessed as Low-importance).

Racist?

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)

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)

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED actually translates to[REDACTED] IS NOT SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE I hope you can live with yourselves. I hope that "policy" is enough to shield yourself from your conscience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.41 (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Why is this even here?

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)

For good or for bad, Misplaced Pages is not censored. -- Atlant 23:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

I know why there should be on article about this

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).

The problem with this page

is that it is at least as socially impactive, if not more so, than the few local paper stories that reported on it, and furthermore it is of a nature that could perpetuate hate crimes. If responsible wikipedians agree it should be kept, at least we should agree on an ID warning box, something to the effect: "Warning: contents are politically charged and their significance is disputed." We do have the power to be responsible!

If anyone can make such a warning box, thank you in advance. MotherFunctor

Misplaced Pages is not censored. Corvus cornix 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be nice to state exactly what you believe is the connection between WP:NOT and this question. WP:NOT merely states that there may be objectionable content on Misplaced Pages. It does not require use to have objectionable content. It also does not forbid any sort of template or warning. For instance, we use a lot of spolier warnings on articles about books, movies, etc.

Having said that, I am not arguing that we need any sort of warnign or template here. I just want to point out that pointing to a policy is not really meaningful discussion, and it does not help us reach consensus over what to do here on this page.

Johntex\ 05:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed MotherFunctor 18:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thre is nothing to do here on this page. The fact that Misplaced Pages is not censored follows hard on with "we don't put warning templates on pages". Corvus cornix 23:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No, as pointed out above[REDACTED] does employ spoiler warnings, for example. Let's not forget context here, I'm not suggesting that every controversial topic be given a Tipper Gore warning box. What I did say is that[REDACTED] is playing as big a part in the promulgation of this story as the original sources, more so, in fact. This is a big problem.MotherFunctor 18:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, that's a minor reason as to why I'm seeking to rename the article. (The major one is that the current title just doesn't sound...well, encyclopedic.) A redirect would be appropriate, no question, but consider a couple of things. One, we've covered that we aren't censored. Two, it is not the job of Misplaced Pages to provide some sort of so-called "fair and balanced" report of what these are, or - God forbid - obfuscate (or even remove) them in the hopes that they'll go away. The former is just bad reporting, the latter is just the proverbial ostrich act. Misplaced Pages, as an encyclopedia, has a responsibility to document the phenomenon as an encyclopedia - that is, saying what it is, and that's it. When we do this, we aren't going to try and say that this is wrong - first, that's a moral play, and second, anybody of good conscience should be able to figure out that it's wrong to attack somebody because their skin color is different than yours. See the latest AfD from the beginning of the month - that seems to be the concensus. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I maintain an objection with this article. I think bottom-feeding from the ocean of news one can come up with many trivial AND offensive articles and I don't think doing so does[REDACTED] any good. Also, the first sentence could imply that this is a generally acknowledged practice.MotherFunctor 05:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

And by extension, so is abuse. You provide what borders on a straw man argument - the first paragraph needs a remodel no question. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've altered the first paragraph. Remember, MF, you can edit this too, so you have no excuse to complain about content. Be bold, already! =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't need an excuse to complain, I complain unabashedly :) I don't follow your comment 2 up, but it's not a problem, I'll back down, I haven't investigated the article enough. MotherFunctor 08:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that reads a lot better. Thanks. MotherFunctor 08:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The real problem with this article is that the so-called sourcing sucks. Just look at the first footnote. The opening sentence says, "Beat Up a White Kid Day is a May Day event in Cleveland, Ohio" But the footnote for that assertion says no such thing. That's the problem with every single footnote in this article. Corvus cornix 17:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Granted, that first paragraph needs a cleanup. God, that one hurts. =O.o= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The references all point to the Misplaced Pages articles about the newspapers referenced, but not to the Cleveland Plain Dealer's website. That is because there is nothing in the Plain Dealer's archives which discuss this supposed "annual event". I'm beginning to wonder if it's made up. Corvus cornix 23:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• ...anyone in the area know more about it? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Name of article?

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)

• The name is problematic - most of the sources seem to prefer May day which is obviously problematic, but what about May day assaults or such? I think May day is better than May first in the context. WilyD 21:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I figured that May First would be better to at least point to a calendar date if only because it seems more appropriate. Given the sources, though, maybe a redirect from one or another would work. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Racist Palaver Should Not Be a Serious Entry

This article purports to identify a continuing and prevalent event throughout the United States. It does not. It references an event which occurred in Cleveland, Ohio, USA, and provides no evidence that this event was replicated elsewhere in the country.

It is noteworthy that the article commences with pejorative innuendo that "May Day" is related to socialist and communist protests. Just how does that relate with the incident of violence that is referenced?

I believe the overall effect is to depict young persons of nonwhite ethnicity as violent and racist. The single incident does not render nonwhite youth as violent and racist but this entry does betray a certain level of racist fear-mongering which a legitimate reference work should not countenance.

This should be reconsidered for deletion. LAWinans (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to renominate it, but the two previous AfDs and the DRV are highly suggestive that such an effort would be unsuccessful. I think it's pretty clear from context that it refers to a couple of events (my reading of the sources leads me to believe there were at least two such events).

May Day is definitely a socialist/communist holiday - I don't think one can seriously dispute that. I'm not aware that socialist or communist are really widely regarded as pejoritives - your mileage may vary, different cultures and all.

Beyond that, whether we like the facts or not is not supposed to colour our presentation - obviously one could read an article like this that way if so inclined, but there's plenty of "counterbalancing" articles that portray whites as violent and racist, if you prefer to read those - and I'll wager those garner a lot more pageviews. WilyD 04:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This happens every year; there is no "single" incident aside from this article itself. The media dares not to tread over this ground every year so there aren't a whole lot of sources. Just because you haven't seen it yourself, or the NYT didn't cover it, doesn't mean it's not real. The article will ruffle some feathers but the fact is that this sort of thing needs to be known the same way OTHER race-based happenings are known here on Misplaced Pages. As far a name-change for the article, sure but the fact is that whites are the de facto victim in these crimes so changing it to something like "race-based May 1st attacks" would be a cowardly thing to do.

There is no evidence this has occurred anywhere besides Cleveland, so the claims that it exists "throughout the United States" are blatantly false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.98.2.132 (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

What's the truth behind this 2003 case?

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)

my edit

As far as i can tell there's two pieces of evidence that this exists beyond the cleveland 2003 case:

1. the judge said so.
2. 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)

Deletion

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)

Title

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)

Deleting this article?

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)

Notable?

Is this event notable according to Misplaced Pages:Notability (events)? Jesanj (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Recent changes, and racism

I’m going to tag all relevant parties in a later edit since I’m doing this on mobile, and it’s more convenient on a desktop. @Desertambition: @Doug Weller: @TylerBurden:

I’m sorry for assessing the existing sources, all in which appear to call the allegations that this unprovoked, brutal attack was done solely because the victim was white and not because of an existing vendetta between the victim and the perpetrators, which IIRC are barely out of middle school, and making appropriate adjustments. I didn’t realize that refusing to appeal to a white genocide fantasy was considered hostile, especially given how that appears to be the main reason this article exists. Trying to paint it as an example of white genocide citing egregious storefront articles and creepily detailed violence that just up and sounds like porn for sickos.

But now I’m being accused of being someone’s sock puppet which is ridiculous. I have edited Misplaced Pages via an IP as far back as 2020 as far as I remember, I made one account who's sign in data I lost access to, and with no email connecting me to it which prompted me to make this one after more IP edits. I’m sure you can find out with a deep scrub on my Misplaced Pages activities that I have no connection to Desertambition beyond him just popping out of nowhere after I first decided to make these edits.

You asked me to discuss this so here I am. June Parker (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

White genocide? What on earth are you talking about? I don't see a single mention of the white genocide conspiracy theory in this article, and I have no idea how you've managed to come up with that reach. Aside from that, I don't feel your adjustments were appropriate given that they removed relevant categories and see also material. Read the article: ″He also concluded that "based on the evidence I've heard, May Day is reality and the evidence was overwhelming that this was an attack based on May Day and that the victim was chosen because she was white.″ With cited material like this, why do you feel it is appropriate to remove categories relevant to that? You may wanna have a look at WP:CIVIL because ″I'm going to cut the bull and call you a liar″ is not just uncivil, but it's assuming bad faith and a personal attack. You do realize you can get blocked for behaviour like this, right? How people calling that out is somehow them saying anything about ″white genocide″ is beyond absurd. Evidently, you are very passionate which is great, but if you can't keep a cool head when editing these topics then perhaps consider finding a different area to edit in. Or just be civil and assume good faith. TylerBurden (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Well for one, this article relies excessively on sources from a single website, which doesn't do enough to give a good perspective. The Plain Dealer is the only source that claims May Day exists The lead of the article even says "both prosecutors and defense lawyers agreed that the incident arose from a vendetta between two girls." which means there (Used to be) a source that may have elaborated on that. Second, the text "He also concluded that "based on the evidence I've heard, May Day is reality and the evidence was overwhelming that this was an attack based on May Day and that the victim was chosen because she was white" does not actually show up on the source used to cite it. Nore does any suggestion of the statement from the looks of it. Secondly, the source itself isn't listed in Perennial sources and appears to be a tabloid kind of paper, correct me if I'm wrong. If not, it's unreliable unless backed up by more sources, even if they are all tabloid type papers.

Four, maybe don't call anyone you don't like a sock puppet, then? I don't understand why you're trying to talk to me about civilty when that'a all you've ever bother to say to me. But if you want to actually discuss the page I'm still willing.

And five, I am talking about the original incarnation and sources used for the article. It was riff with stormfront sources and stuff. How in the world did you assume I directed any of that at you? June Parker (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

You just started throwing that term around, white genocide, with the context of me reverting you, so perhaps you can see why I'm confused as to why you're talking about that. I am not familiar with the history of this article, so I don't know what state it has been in before. I have been trying to discuss with you, but you immediately went attack mode on me so it's a bit difficult, however here please let's keep focus on the article. Sources don't need to be listed on perennial sources to be used, it just means it hasn't been listed as either reliable or unreliable as of now. But you seem to be correct, I don't see that claim that she was attacked before of her skin color either, it does contain that the prosecutors and defense agreed though. Unless it is in the Regina Brett source? I'm sorry if I've made some mistakes based on the sources because they are not the clearest to be honest. TylerBurden (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

To add, nevertheless the article and references used for it discuss all the relevant categories, being included in a category doesn't make something a matter of fact and I am not quite sure why you feel that it does. It just makes it relevant to the category. It's clear you want it removed, but going after the source seems like a rather poor tactic for that since it seems reliable given that it is the major and almost 200 year old newspaper of Cleveland. So if unreliable sources were used before and has been removed that is good, but I see no reason for removing content based on this source. TylerBurden (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me for intervening, but this appears to me to be borderline WP:Battleground. Can you please take this discussion elsewhere and try to keep it a little more civil? Misplaced Pages is not about winning after all. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm willing to up and end my conversation with Tyler if you feel it wont fix the page, or if it's devolving. My original intent was to discuss the page content but it appears Tyler is more concerned with calling me someone's sock puppet than actually improving the page. Have a nice day CollectiveSolidarity June Parker (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I am more than happy to discuss things in a civil manner and am not the one who initiated hostility here, June Parker is very hung up on that I was suspect about sockpuppetry, altough I never accused them. Though you're right and discussion about that doesn't belong here as it should all be about the article. TylerBurden (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Start-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• Start-Class Ohio articles
• Low-importance Ohio articles
• WikiProject Ohio articles
• WikiProject United States articles