Talk:Rodney King/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

{inadequate lead} tag

For now, the lead tag should be kept until agreement is reached here to remove it. This is purely for procedural reasons; I have not yet expressed an opinion on whether the content of the lede needs to be expanded.

The tag was there before User:Yosesphdaviyd edited the lede ([1]). He removed the tag while making those edits. Some users (including myself) reverted a few times, and in the end the original version before his edits was restored, but the tag was not [2]. That was a couple weeks ago. Thus, when Yosesph restored the tag today, he was actually restoring a version before his edits. It's immature (i.e., he's trying to make a point that "if you don't accept my revision, then the lede is bad"), but since the tag was already there beforehand he's not actually making a change (in fact, if you look at the history, he's restoring the tag to the exact same lede that had the tag before he showed up). Thus, I don't think he broke any rules in re-adding the tag, and thus I don't think User:MikeWazowski is justified in reverting it repeatedly (today).

Like I said above, I am not saying whether the lede s hould or shouldn't be tagged; to be honest I haven't even looked at the article carefully enough to evaluate that yet. I'm just saying that that user's restoring of the tag today wasn't inappropriate, and thus the tag shouldn't be removed until reasons are presented here for its removal (that is to say, it shouldn't be removed just on procedural grounds with recourse to "rv edit warring"; it should be discussed). rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the tag again. I'm sure that Yoseph was replacing it in good faith, but if you look at the history you'll see that it was originally added by Mikhail Ryazanov (talk · contribs) as explained in the section above for entirely invalid reasons. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Video

Rodney King Beating Video ©George Holliday (requires YouTube or Google accont) — part of the original video. Pay close attention to the first 20 seconds, which are usually excluded from other cuts. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It's rather shaky and out of focus, but what I can see in the first seven seconds or so is King, flat on his face getting to his feet and appearing to run for his life for about two steps. At this point the screen goes very out of focus and the next thing we can clearly see is King face down on the ground again, the beating having resumed (or commenced, depending on what you choose to believe has occurred before the video began). We can't say for sure what happened before Halliday turned on his camera, but he obviously turned it on for a reason, and if what happened while the camera was on was in any way consistent with what happened before that, it must have been pretty brutal. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

"appearing to run for his life" — is it a joke? :-) To save their life, people usually run from the enemies instead of jumping on them... — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

More to the point, doesn't this article here on wikipedia already take this period of time into account?Legitimus (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Article does, the introduction does not. Another issue — is there any other video that can be used instead of the obscure link to an .rm file? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does, Legitimus. From time to time various people will come to this page bearing the TRUTH™ about the Rodney King beating. I suspect that's what Mikhail is trying to do here. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying again to suggest that the introduction is not neutral. In particular, "other officers stood by watching, without taking any action to stop the beating" is not true, as can be seen from the video. Also, no mention of King's own actions that essentially led to the violence is given. (Although the police acted very unprofessionally by beating him instead of capturing quickly, the confrontation itself was unavoidable taking into account the driver's behavior. See, for example, this and this.) — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your analysis of the video. However, that is original research and cannot be included in the article as-is. Please cite a source that says what you're saying as Wikipedia's purpose is to collate things published in reliable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the article and ref 22? Quotes: "0:17 Powell has baton raised and appears ready to strike King. Briseno puts his hand in front of Powell." — in video description (ref 22); and "The videotape shows Briseno moving in to try and stop Powell from swinging, and Powell then backing up. (Koon reportedly yelled "that's enough.")" — in the article. Where is my "original research"?

And the only things I asked to include in the article were: a more accessible video (so that readers can see by themselves what happened, without interpretation) and an improved introduction (that is, consistent with the article body and mentioning what King himself has done — again, the article is called "Rodney King", not "Beating by LAPD" — why the introduction says about LAPD, but not about King?).

Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your analysis of the video and how the most important part, the beginning 20 seconds, seems to be cut from most publically available copies. However, that is original research and cannot be included in the article as-is. Please cite a source that says what you're saying as Wikipedia's purpose is to collate things published in reliable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your claims about OR. The fact that introduction contradicts the main text, as well as the reliable sources cited there, is not my OR. My remark that most of available video cuts lack the first 20 seconds (which are important, though probably not "the most important") was not intended to be included in the article. I was simply surprised that the article does not have a good reference to the original video, and when I tried to find something, I was even more surprised how hard it was to find an "uncensored" video. If you are so interested in the topic, maybe you could help to improve the introduction and references (I mean, video) instead of accusing me? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If you think that the introduction can be better written to reflect the article, then feel free to do so. Also, thank you for your analysis of the video. However, that is original research and cannot be included in the article as-is. Please cite a source that says what you're saying as Wikipedia's purpose is to collate things published in reliable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Fame

I always thought Rodney King was famous for other things, not only the beating incident. 114.76.113.91 (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Trial

Just popping by to try to look this up (from Australia, so no idea about anything on this). Needs more information on the trial, why they were initially aquited, defense and prosecuter arguments, etc. 122.107.145.213 (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It hinged on what should be considered appropriate use of violence. King really sped he was really drunk but the police were hitting and kicking him after he was in handcuffs on the ground.RichardBond (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Death report

Something to watch for: in an unfortunate glitch, Yahoo News's summary reported "immediate signs of foul play" where the full article states "no immediate signs of foul play." News aggregation being what it is, it won't be surprising if the inaccurate summary is picked up elsewhere before it's corrected, and the misinformation shouldn't go in the article! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

He didn't shoot anybody

The statement in the bio about King beating, and then shooting a Korean grocery store owner is apparently incorrect. If you read the article that is linked in the footnote, there is no mention of a shooting. On the contrary, according to the article, the store owner hit King when King tried to steal checks as well as cash, and later said that King wouldn't have hit him if he hadn't struck King first. I don't have a Wikipedia account, but given King's death, I hope someone will correct this very distorted representation of King's criminal history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.104.10 (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

•  Done - corrected to what the source says. Jim Michael (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.104.10 (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 June 2012

Under the Death heading, change "...even smoked weed..." to something like "...was witnessed smoking marijuana"

WhisperdScream (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Already done The content you mention has been removed. Rivertorch (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikiquote

There is a wikiquote article. Can someone please add a tag at the end linking to it as described here? 24.22.217.162 (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Name of fiancée

Is her last name Kelly or Kelley? With or without an "e" at the end? Different sources say differently. Does anyone know for sure? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Vague sentence

"He contacted the police about a videotape of the incident but was dismissed." WHAT? That raises more questions than it answers. How about some detail? 108.93.144.242 (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it as vague. Here is how I read that. He (George Holliday) contacted the police and told them that he had a videotape of the incident. The police were not interested in his claim. (They either didn't believe him or they didn't particularly care.) So, upon seeing the police department's apathetic and dismissive response, Holliday then took the tape to the local TV news station. And the rest is history. That is how I understood the sentence. No? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Civil lawsuit against The City of Los Angles

Rodney king successfully sued the City of Los Angles for violating his civil rights. After the civil verdict, the federal court awarded King's attorneys who worked on the case 1.7 million in statutory attorneys fees which were in addition to the 3.8 million awarded by the jury. King's lawyer, Stephen Lerman, distributed the attorneys fees to the lawyers who worked on King's behalf. King then sued Lerman for legal malpractice claiming King was entitled to those attorneys fees instead of his lawyers. Lerman prevailed in the action by having the case dismissed on summary judgment which was affirmed on appeal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gs253253 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Record Label

Why no mentions at all about his failed record label? The large settlement he received from the city of Los Angeles is mentioned and it is very noteworthy that he lost almost all of it within a few years, mostly in a failed record label he tried to start, seems to be a pretty important piece of biographical information missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.172.165 (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

American "man"?

Shouldn' there be "an American person" instead of "an American man"? Indicating a person's sex or gender seems to be politically incorrect, a sign of a sexual chauvinism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wlalos (talk • contribs) 07:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hahahahahaha

Very clever. Someone who wants to make the first sentence a bit less stilted can try "American construction worker." 24.22.217.162 (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

See Also section

I wanted to fix this, but I was worried it might be a little controversial. Anyway, why is Trayvon Martin in the see also section? What happened to him in completely different and completely unrelated to what happened to Rodney King. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 09:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The only things I can think of are that (1) the article says King released a statement after Martin's killing (an event that *many* people commented on) and (2) they were both black men who suffered violence in which many believe race was a factor (a list that would be utterly enormous, if that was the sole criterion for inclusion). Both seem to be a weak link between the two guys' lives. I vote to remove this from the "See Also" Section. Josephgrossberg (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Typo

There's a typo in the last sentence of the first section of the article: "with the two other remaining other police officers acquitted." Dtaylor05 (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks. Dru of Id (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 June 2012

A section in the top paragraph that says "The 1992 Los Angeles riots ended only after soldiers form the" needs correcting. "form" should be changed to "from".

Majikice (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks. Dru of Id (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Victim of police brutality

If the officers were not convicted, then it is the case that it is alleged that they committed police brutality against King and he is an alleged victim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.161.50 (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not that familiar with the specific details of this case. Although, I thought that I read in this article that some officers were sent to prison for this ... no? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The lead of the article states: "A later federal trial for civil rights violations ended with two of the officers found guilty and sent to prison". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

This might be the crucial issue of the entire article and the only thing that prevents if from being merged into the article on the 1991 Los Angeles Riot, because King had zero notability other than in association with being caught on camera while being severely beaten by police and the subsequent trial verdict and riot. The rest of his article reads like the biography of an obscure, unremarkable and totally non-notable man, of whom there are three billion on earth. I'm not going to take a position on the use of the phrase "police brutality" because the issue is so political and emotionally charged that I'd risk being caught in a bloodbath, but I did want to make my views clear that how King's beating is described is pretty important. Guyovski (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The whole opening paragragh is surreal, it is spun so heavily. Aside from the questionable assertions of brutality and beatings (what were the acquitals, chopped liver?), it states King "did not resist" which contradicts later sections of the article!

The L.A. Riots article has a detached, journalistic tone. Why does this article, in contrast, open with a lengthy EDITORIAL? 66.105.218.16 (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Reading within context, the video footaged showed him not resisting, while the later section which described the confrontation described one act of him resisting. That's not a contradiction. Anyway, if you think that the article can be improved, feel free to do so keeping in mind WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. DonQuixote (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Facebook page uses this as source

The facebook page quotes this page as it's source. Yet no where is there an mention of the fact that Rodney King was high on PCP at the time. Perhaps that should be highlighted somehow in this article to stress the fact that appears to be being overlooked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackal242 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Question: Do you have a reliable source that supports that claim? (Answer: No, it's total bullshit.) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The day Wikipedia starts using random Facebook pages as reliable sources will be a dark day indeed. (not to mention... which Facebook page and do you have any evidence at all to suggest the page in question is a legitimate source? I'm going to guess no to the latter.) 68.188.224.42 (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Alleged

I think it's quite important that the word "alleged" be in the lead, as in "victim of an incident of alleged police brutality". I added it a couple of days ago and it was removed by an IP last night. King was clearly attacked by police officers, yes, but the officers were all acquitted of police brutality, defined by Wikipedia as "wanton use of excessive force". If a jury has ruled that the use of force was not excessive, we can't claim he was the victim of police brutality without some very good sources to back it up. (I'm aware some of the officers were convicted of violating King's civil rights, but that's a very different thing.) DoctorKubla (talk) 08:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I would have to disagree. Yes they were acquitted, but that doesn't equal innocence. It means the jury didn't hear enough solid evidence to convict. And the video is usually enough for John Q. public to agree that he was the victim of police brutality and they got away with it. I do see where you're coming from but I think the sources, video and public opinion are quite clear that he was the victim of police brutality but the DA failed to meet the burden of proof. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!}

I know where public opinion lies, but we, the public, don't know all the facts. We may think it very likely that police brutality occured and the perpetrators "got away with it", but we can't state it as fact in the face of a court ruling. If the jury didn't hear enough solid evidence to convict, what evidence do we have that the jury made the wrong decision? DoctorKubla (talk) 09:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I see your point but I still must disagree with adding "allegedly" in spite of the video and riots and the fact they were charged in the first place. Again, acquittal =/= didn't happen. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 10:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, add "alleged"-- despite the fact that two of the officers were in fact found guilty of federal civil rights violations-- and make a laughably biased article even worsse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.94.77.123 (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with DoctorKubla. The brutality was merely alleged. It was not proven. (Granted, it was also not disproven.) Therefore, it is still alleged (as opposed to actual, factual, or confirmed). Keeping in the word "alleged" takes nothing away from the article. Removing it does. If the jury (which was shown all of the evidence) did not see fit to conclude that there was police brutality committed ... then who are we at Wikipedia to make that conclusion? I do not recall all of the specifics ... but perhaps the jury concluded that, given the circumstances, the police employed proper use of force (i.e., not police brutality) in that situation. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Some might argue that "alleged" is a peacock word. Anyway, the intro also states that

"In the aftermath of the acquittal of the four Los Angeles police officers by the Los Angeles County Superior Court, the United States federal government, through the United States District Court for the Central District of California, stepped in and held a federal trial for civil rights violations, ending with two of the police officers who took part in the incident being found guilty and subsequently sent to prison, and with the other two police officers acquitted."

Also, feel free to edit the article if you think it needs improving, keeping in mind WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. DonQuixote (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, so the intro contradicts itself. Isn't that a problem? And I did edit the article. I was reverted, so now I'm discussing it. (See also WP:ALLEGED, on the page you linked to. "Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined".) DoctorKubla (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Please exercise a little reading comprehension. Read the section that I quoted, particularly the part "found guilty". So it's not a contradiction. DonQuixote (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Found guilty of violating King's civil rights. Acquitted of police brutality. Anyway, someone else has fixed this without having to use the word alleged, which seems to be what people are objecting to. I suggest we let that be an end to the matter. DoctorKubla (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Marijuana plants confiscated from King's home

From the LA Times, this may be worth adding to the article: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/06/rodney-king-police-confiscated-marijuana-from-his-home.html

A neighbor also heard King crying before his death. R1 24.113.109.228 (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

In the introductory paragraph, George Holliday, the videographer of the Rodney King beating, is described as a "bystander." This seems to imply that he just happened to be on the street at the time of the incident, when, in fact, he shot the video from the balcony of his nearby apartment.

My suggested edit: George Holliday, a resident of the area, witnessed the beating and videotaped much of it from the balcony of his nearby apartment.

Maude Frickert (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. I agree with your post ... and I'd support that change. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Change made. Maude Frickert (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Resisting or Not Resisting?

This is from the main Wikipedia Rodney King page ( http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Rodney_King ):

2nd Paragraph - "The videotaped footage showed seven officers surrounding the solitary King, with several Los Angeles police officers repeatedly striking King (who was not resisting) with their batons while the other officers stood alongside watching the incident, ....{NO FOOTNOTE}"

Confrontation Section - "King's two passengers complied and were taken into custody without incident.[9] King, however, initially remained in the car.[15] ... As the officers attempted to [subdue King after he did exit his vehicle & got on the ground], King resisted. King rose up, tossing Officers Powell and Briseno off his back. King then struck Officer Briseno in the chest.[18]"

One section says he didn't resist and offers no footnotes. One section says he did resist and offers footnotes.

I will leave it up to the reader to decide which is true & to whoever is in charge of editing the Rodney King page to decide how to make the truth more clear.

MarkTheMeS (talk) 05:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read the above two sections that you quote carefully, particularly the first part "The videotaped footage showed". That is, the "2nd paragraph" is about the videotape footage and the "Confrontation Section" is about the entire confrontation. DonQuixote (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

DonQuixote is quite correct. Halliday did not tape the encounter immediately and when he did the tape showed the tail end of King's resistance. News sources edited out the resisting part and aired just the beating instead which left many with the impression that King was being unfairly beaten. It is true the two of the officers were eventually convicted of use of excessive force and violating King's civil rights. Now can we take the neutrality tag off? William J Bean (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Why does King's page read like a police report? Interesting... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.127.132 (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe because of the way he chose to live his life? ~EgyptKEW9~ 18:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)EgyptKEW9~EgyptKEW9~ 18:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EgyptKEW9 (talk • contribs)

Horrible Introduction

What the intro fails to mention is that the entire use of force seen on the video was in strict compliance with the LAPDs use of force policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.226.95.18 (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Kelley or Kelly?

There are several references to his fiance in the article with varying spelling - probably due to inconsistencies in the general media, BBC article (Kelley), CNN article (Kelly). Review of results in google suggests Kelley. Any way to determine correct spelling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.192.0.10 (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The introduction states as fact Mr. King was "beaten with excessive force". He was ordered to "stay down" DOZENS of times by the officers and refused to comply. Stating as fact that that was excessive force is poor journalism. The fact that he won his civil suit is not proof of anything.Opiniongiver1111 (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality check

You say that the long section headed 'Incident' needs to be reviewed for neutrality. It seems to me such a balanced report that I actually can't see on which side it's supposed to be biased! Maybe someone could tell me. Valetude (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Letter from car manufacturer is missing from article. It exposed the police lying. The letter from (i believe honda or hyundai?) the manufacturer read "Our car can't fall that fast". This was seen as the silver bullet in police credibility. Popular saying around this time period was "come to LA we will treat you like a King"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.61.70 (talk) 09:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC) 

Early Life Section

This is confusing - it says that King went into the store with an iron bar, then says that the store owner struck King with an iron bar. The two facts are not incompatible, but do cause a little puzzlement - did the owner get hold of King's iron bar? Did the owner have an iron bar of his own? Is King the one struck or the one doing the striking (since we are told he had an iron bar).Dr hilto (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

No report on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on the appeal

In the section on the federal trial, the following two sentences appear:

Both Laurence Powell and Stacey Koon appealed their sentences, first to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, followed by an appeal to The Supreme Court of the United States, which decided the case (518 U.S. 81) on June 13, 1996, with Justice Kennedy delivering the opinion of the Court.[9][33]

There is no information on the Supreme Court's decision.

Ed (talk) 06:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

It's still missing. Kdammers (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I noticed this too, so I fixed it at last, with a NYT link. Orthotox (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Recent charges?

I may be totally messed up, but wasn't there something in the news several years back saying that King had been arrested and charged for robbing a store, or shoplifting, or something? I can't recall the details, but I remember thinking "what a dumbass...some people just never learn". I just can't recall what it was...could have been domestic assault, or drug possession, or something. I didn't even know he was dead, so it couldn't be that I am thinking of that..45Colt 22:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Wording Problems Regarding The Timeline

I'm a Wikinoob and primarily just point out errors via the Talk page and let experienced users fix it. I noticed some problems with this article:

"Both Mr. Koon and Mr. Powell were released from prison last year while they appealed the Ninth Circuit's ruling, having served their original 30-month sentences with time off for good behavior. Whether they will be required to serve more time depends on the District Court, to which the Justices ordered the Ninth Circuit to return the case. Judge Davies is free under the ruling to impose no added time.[37]"

The bold sections are the problem. It looks to have been written not too long after the beating and was never updated. Obviously saying "last year" doesn't tell readers anything and saying "will be" instead of were is the same kind of error. The wording on the last sentence is horrible. Why not just say that the Judge can not extend the sentence or not say anything at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:244:8300:3B09:A054:1D6B:3B81:B2D7 (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rodney King. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091203041211/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu:80/trials24.htm to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/trials24.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rodney King. 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/20090224201645/http://laist.com/2009/02/22/rodney_king_forgives.php to http://laist.com/2009/02/22/rodney_king_forgives.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090502084012/http://laist.com/2009/04/29/meet_rodney_king.php to http://laist.com/2009/04/29/meet_rodney_king.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rodney King. 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/20140821042730/http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/121687/how-citizen-journalism-has-changed-since-george-hollidays-rodney-king-video/ to http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/121687/how-citizen-journalism-has-changed-since-george-hollidays-rodney-king-video/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110410153212/http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_17540843 to http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_17540843

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Difference in people killed and injured

In the 2nd paragraph the Rodney King acticle states that "The rioting lasted six days, during which 53 people were killed and 2,373 were injured;", referring to the 1992 Los Angeles riots. It provides no link for evidence. The wikipedia article on the 1992 Los Angeles riots states that 63 people died and 2383 people were injured and it does provide a reference to support it. Should the number of deaths and injured be changed to match that of the 1992 Los Angeles riots article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A446:3B7F:1:4903:8AF2:C1BC:C891 (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

RE: Lede

The lede is supposed to be a simple summary of the article body. More specific details, such as the fact that King was drunk, should be mentioned in the main body of the article--which it already is. DonQuixote (talk) 05:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The video and Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh was the first (probably only) person in the media in 1992 to show the complete, unedited video which showed King attacking the police officers. I saw it on his short lived 30 minute late night TV show. Seeing the *complete* video changed my mind about the incident, like the article mentions was the jurors reaction to it.Bizzybody (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Better video of news conference

The current cited video of the news conference is this, which is a brief excerpt. Recently this was added, but I removed it because it the video has been edited to remove the middle of the statement. This shows the entire statement, but it's hosted at a personal YouTube account. Can anybody find archival footage directly from news media that shows the entire statement? I didn't find any on archive.org. —NilsTycho (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Popular culture reference

"Can't we all just get along?"

Was also referenced in the film Naked Gun ​33 1⁄3: The Final Insult. Don't know if it worth including. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.45.106 (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

It isn't. Zaathras (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Attack on Reginald Denny

There is no mention of the attack on Reginald Denny, the truck driver who was severely beaten during the aftermath of the police trials. It has its own Wikipedia page; but it should at least be referenced from here. Cross Reference (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

occupation: author

Seriously? Gjxj (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2021

In Section "Later life" Fix a typo for Rodney King's fiance's last name: "Cynthia Kelley"

Original Line: On September 9, 2010, it was confirmed that King was going to marry Cynthia Kelly Suggestion: On September 9, 2010, it was confirmed that King was going to marry Cynthia Kelley

You have it spelled correctly in partners but have a typo in Later Life. I noticed it while reading the entry. Pattpass (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

All set. Thanks! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Undid revision 1015022422 by Batreeq

Hi, I just undid the most recent revision, which itself undid a revision which undid a claim which appears to be original research at best.

The content in question was originally added in 1014453158 and 1014453349. "My father Dr. Snowden [...] from the LAPD", as cited in the edit summary, even if true, is not a reliable source. It also contradicts the article body.

Intralexical (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Remove Docuseries Reference?

Morgan Freeman and Lori McCreary will be producing a docuseries through their company Revelations Entertainment on the life of Rodney King, to be released in 2018.[95]

"To be released?" Gprobins (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)