Talk:Melissa King assault case

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 WIKIPEDIA 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, Wikipedia 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

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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\^talk 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 Wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia, 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 wikipedia 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[1]" 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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. [1] 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

June Parker's changes are not encyclopedic and these above by June Parker of "white genocide fantasy" are ludicrous. StellarNerd (talk) 07:19, 22 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? Wikipedia 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)

June, you are the only one here bringing up sock puppetry, repeatedly in fact. Please just focus on the content on the article, I've already said I'm willing to discuss but you do not seem able to move on from this. TylerBurden (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Take this discussion to my talk page please June Parker (talk) 00:56, 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)

• The latest changes by June Parker are nonconstructive changes. Changing reference names is confusing to editors working on the article. Convictions and acquittals were already stated in the lead. "Insisted" is bad language that implies the stated fact is false. --StellarNerd (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, the conviction and acquitals are stated because I added them into the lead.

I will gladly avoid using "Insisted" if that's not good for the article, but your revert removed a ton of other changes I added meant to add weight to the May Day thing. If you have anything to say please funnel it to the section I created below so it's easier to keep track of. June Parker (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• Seems like June Parker doesn't like what the sources are saying and is trying to subtly change it to imply that the parts they don't like are incorrect, to me. We follow what the sources say, that's basic policy so I think changing things in this manner to make subtle implications is a rather insincere. June Parker, you expressed previously that you were no longer interested in editing the article, but since that doesn't appear to be the case anymore please follow the sources and remember WP:NPOV. TylerBurden (talk) 04:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

  I never said I was not interested in editing the article. If you have anything else to say please funnel it to the section in created below so it's easier to keep track of. June Parker (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

  Apologies, you're correct and said you would not revert further, not stop editing it altogether so that's my bad on remembering it wrong. Rest of this discussion can take place down below like you said. TylerBurden (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Recent reverts

@StellarNerd: You reverted my additions to the page twice under the guise that I used the word "Insisted" instead of "Ruled", given the sources claim this was a judicial ruling and that would be more accurate.

I kept "Ruled" as you asked me to, before this I made the edit in order to make additions to the article that both added more weight to the "May Day" allegations as well as pulling info from a new source (That you added) and pushed a more neutral POV. I understand how you feel about "Insisted" but don't remove sourced additions to the article. Are there any other problems you'd like to discuss?

BTW @TylerBurden: I am already in the talk page Tyler, what are the problems you'd like to talk about? June Parker (talk) 04:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I don't think you have responded to the issue StellarNerd raised such as why you are changing the reference names? I'll go through your changes though from top to bottom and ask about changes you made with the edits. I don't see why it is necessary to alter the lead from the current state, similar to how you added insisted previously the addition of allegedly is a bit odd considering the very next sentence which concludes that it does exist. You then add "were thought to hold" altering the previous wording of "held" which again is similar to how you seem to be subtly trying to instill doubt that the attacks were real. That's everything on your latest edit, I appreciate you discussing while maintaining a cool head and will listen to your reasoning for the rewording. TylerBurden (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with June Parker's edits. This article is extremely flawed, violates WP:NPOV, and is not WP:VERIFIABLE.

You're inserting WP:HEARSAY information in WP:WIKIVOICE. The judge was the only person who believed race was the motivating factor. None of the people involved, the prosecutors, or the defense argued that these attacks were racially motivated.

This sentence is not encyclopedic in the slightest and is problematic for countless reasons:

"The attack occurred on May Day, on which black kids hold a custom of "Beat up a White Kid" day, with the judge in the trials determining that "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."

Do "black kids" just meet up and plan this "Beat up a White Kid" day? Who organizes these events? This is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim to make, especially if you are claiming that this is common place among "black kids". Desertambition (talk) 04:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I do agree with this but honestly Desertambition, none of my changes were meant to fix whatever racialized propoganda I see in the page. It was actually adding weight to the May Day claims as well as sprinkling some nuance since obviously this is an extraordinary claim, I'm just seeding the page to it's more conscise for whatever extreme change will come in the future

My original response to Tyler (Which got deleted) would be a better way of putting it, and much more level headed, and it probably wouldn't have been gone if you hadn't shadowed me again. June Parker (talk) 04:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I was editing this page as well. Not shadowing you. That is how Wikipedia works. See WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BOLD. Who exactly is talking about racialized propaganda? Wanting accurate articles != crusading against "racialized propaganda". We interacted once and you immediately ran to get me blocked. Please stop accusing me of things I am not doing, as you have done repeatedly at this point. Desertambition (talk) 04:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Desert this conversation has nothing to do with you. Every single edit I've made to do with African politics you've publicly thanked, you've shadowed and done more than I was trying to do.

Everytime I have a dispute you come running in with advice or trying to cover for me, but this is just weird. And now you've disrupted a reponse I had to Tyler and I can't even remember it anymore. This is the only time I have ever accused you of anything, but your just coming off weird around me. Please stop. June Parker (talk) 04:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

You can recover messages from edit conflicts. Just scroll down to the bottom of the page and copy paste from source. Also, this isn't a private conversation. If you look through my edit history you will see that I've been editing articles on Africa/racism for a while now and was looking through the "anti-white racism" categories. I just voiced my support for the edit proposals. I will continue to voice my opinion because that is how we come to a consensus. I'm honestly confused. We don't need to interact but I am allowed to voice my support for edits. Desertambition (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay then, feel free to do that then.

Can you come to my talk page and tell me how exactly I recover lost comments? Because the source doesn't actually keep it. June Parker (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

You are free to voice opinion, but you do not need to go off on a unrelated (to the content me and June Parker were discussing) tangent about something that you're inccorectly saying that I added, or at least the location where you chose to place your response implies that. If you have opinions on how to word whatever you are taking issue with while still following the source that does exist, then by all means make suggestions. TylerBurden (talk) 05:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There was no unrelated tangent. I was explaining why I supported the proposed changes. I did not say that you added something you didn't. I have been making suggestions, it just seems like you disagree with them.

You also said: I don't see why it is necessary to alter the lead from the current state, similar to how you added insisted previously the addition of allegedly is a bit odd considering the very next sentence which concludes that it does exist. So of course I am going to bring up my opinion of the lead (ie. "black kids hold a custom of "Beat up a White Kid" day") that you said you support. I have personally never heard of this phenomenon. The article makes it sound like this is a thing "black kids" do regularly.

Please explain why you keep opposing these changes with WP:VERIFIABLE information and WP:RELIABLE sources.

Also, please remember that Wikipedia discussions on article talk pages are not private and that we require WP:CONSENSUS in order to resolve editing disputes. Desertambition (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes you did, you interjected this WP:LAWYERING tangent onto a portion of the discussion where I was trying to ask questions about the specific content June Parker added in their recent edit. I've never said it's private, but I'm asking that you let me speak to June Parker about the changes so that I can better understand what they are trying to do. I am open to discussion about rewording the lead, I do not believe that this so called may day is a regular occurence, but according to the sources it does occur. You not personally hearing of it means very little, you may not live in an area where it occurs. The sources is what matters, not our opinions. A simple google search brought up a source straight away: https://www.clevescene.com/news/today-is-beat-up-a-white-kid-day-in-the-cleveland-schools-1558458 TylerBurden (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

So what is the issue exactly? Several sources have reported on may day, and from what I can see the article does not say it is a regular occurence, just that it occurs. TylerBurden (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: Cleveland Scene and other tabloids are not reliable sources. This "event" has received very little substantive coverage from reliable sources. The current wording is not neutral at all and the sources are not strong enough to state such an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. Stating that "black kids" participate in this activity regularly, occasionally, or even just in Cleveland, is not a claim this article should be making.

It really stretches the limits of my imagination to believe there is a day when the white people of Cleveland have to hide/protect their children because the "black kids" or "black children" actively search them out to attack. Also, if this is true, it should have extensive coverage by the media and yet there are extremely few articles about this supposedly common occurrence. Sounds extremely unlikely. Desertambition (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

So you basically restored June Parkers changes, while removing the Cleveland Scene reference because you don't think it is reliable. What makes the Cleveland Scene an unreliable source? Because it reports on something you don't like? You evidently think The Baltimore Sun is reliable enough to be used for referenced content, despite it not being included on WP:RSP. This continued fixation on mayday being a "regular activity" is unfounded entirely since the revision does not state such. It honestly just seems like you want to censor something you don't like, but like I said, Wikipedia is not censored. TylerBurden (talk) 07:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Desertambition, having looked over the content some more and with your WP:EXTRAORDINARY point I can somewhat see why you felt it was worded too strongly. I've since added the word "allegedly" to hopefully make it more balanced. TylerBurden (talk) 08:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, the article does present May Day as a regular occurrence. Also, Baltimore Sun isn’t listed in the list of reliable sources yes but neither is Cleveland. And Steller was the one who added Baltimore Sun, to add weight to the May Day claim.

that source just references Cleveland to say May Day is real, then says petty violence isn’t the same as systematic racism.

All I did was clean up the article but my changes were removed under the guise of a single word in the lead that I didn’t even add in the second time. June Parker (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for late response, I did not notice that you had responded. If that if how you choose to interpret the text in the article I suppose I would have to agree to disagree, the words "common" or "regular" are not used to describe the racist attacks as some common occurence, it simply reflects the sources which do state the attacks are real. To state otherwise would be going against the sources and therefore WP:SYNTH. I don't see how systemic racism is relevant to this article either, personally, as that has nothing to do with the attack according to the sources. That part that was added just seemed to say "yea this is bad, but look at this!". At the end of the day the article is about a racially motivated attack, which makes May Day relevant as allegedly it was performed as part of that "ritual", systemic racism however is just not relevant to this case. TylerBurden (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

You may want to direct that question at the person who added it to the article, which was not me. TylerBurden (talk) 05:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, people have been complaining about that type of wording since 2011. Before any of us have had accounts. I could try and find out who added that in but maybe another day. June Parker (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Which wording are you referring to? As far as I can see, Desertambition seems to be taking issue with the whole "black kids" part which was added to the lead recently. TylerBurden (talk) 05:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Well I think both of us have a problem with the way the article goes on to describe a day that I honestly can’t find a single reference to on Google, other than this Wikipedia article. The way words like “Ritual” and “Tradition” run on give the impression it was written by some mouth breather on stormfront who was too excited to be able to write an article where a bunch of black girls apparently beat up a white girl.

and the direct quote, I believe it should stay but it sounds very run on sentencey, I actually tried to remedy that in those reverted changed by just paraphrasing the quote.

Either way, all I’m doing is cleaning this up and then adding a bit of relevant nuance, the source that was added from Baltimore Sun helps, but I had tried to format it into a proper citation and that was also undone by you and Steller. June Parker (talk) 08:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Well you were altering the wording seemingly to make it sound like the attacks are in question, I understand you both are questioning the validity of the attacks and this may day thing as a whole, but the sources confirm it. Wikipedia is not censored, if that is what happened and the sources reported on it, you taking offense to it is not enough to remove it. TylerBurden (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

But June Parker, if you want to add the source and extra information feel free, without the other rewording. TylerBurden (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I was trying to respond to Tyler and got hit with another edit conflict, christ. 3 paragraphs gone. June Parker (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Trying this again, Tyler, I changed the reference names because for a previous page I helped expand, I used names like "Porn1" an "Smut2" but was told it was not appropriote, so I thought "Violence" and "Stomp" were not either...

... God I forget everything else I was going to say to you. Christ. It was so well written and got the point right on, Just please don't revert my edits without seeing it fist, I went out of my way to remove "Insisted" because I was asked, and I don't like how you accused me of trying to push my agenda by pulling from a source that Stellar added. But I'm here to speak to you and come to a comprimise, I want the additions I added (Which add weight to the May Day claims) to stay in some way. Just keep chatting me up, maybe it will come back to me. June Parker (talk) 04:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

June Parker, please do not use religious imprecations in your content debates on Wikipedia. Highly religious editors may be offended by you taking God's name in vain. Atheist editors may be offended by you invoking the Judeo-Christian deity. Jewish editors (such as me) may be offended by you invoking "Christ", a word with heavy theological significance. Not that I am offended but I have exceptionally thick skin. Please be careful what you say. Cullen328 (talk) 05:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey, @StellarNerd:, what are your two cents on this. I would appreciate if you participated in this discussion instead of watching and nitpicking how I choose to express my viewpoints on the noticeboard. June Parker (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)