Talk:Watts riots/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Non-neutral all the way through

I am goinng to add the pov tag because this article is in breach of the neutrality policy all the way through. It is beyond reasonable doubt that it was written by people who are on the side of rioters rather than law and order. I am not going to get further involved because I am not American and have no special interest in the topic, which I came across by chance, but in its present state the article brings wikipedia into disrepute. 81.99.182.245 (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

You need to be specific about problems. What is the number one most offensive sentence and we can start with that. Rjensen (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Questions about Riots Begin Section

This page features a lot of testimony from police and state officials on accounts of the riots, but no reciprocal accounts are given by people who participated in or witnessed the riots in the same section detailing the actions of policemen. Also, using language such as maintaining order might appear neutral, but it hides the the violence that police use to enforce that "order". Could more descriptive language be used to illustrate the violence that police visited upon the black population of Watts during the riots. Jdevin07 (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

If you have the sources, you can make the edits yourself. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Cultural Reference

The Watts Riots (referred to as the Watts Rebellion) is referenced in episode 5 of the Japanese anime series Haruchika. A character's grandfather is said to have traveled to America in 1966 and experienced the riots. Though they took place in 1965, this error may be intentional because the subplot related to the riots is a red herring.

I have no experience editing Wikipedia but I figured it was a reference most people wouldn't catch since the anime is not particularly popular and American race relations are not a topic covered by anime very often.

Someone more qualified than me can verify the scene referring to the riots by watching episode 5 starting at 14 minutes 32 seconds (it is available for viewing on Funimation's YouTube channel.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.176.251 (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Original research in background section

From the first paragraph of WP:NOR:

"To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support[b] the material being presented."

In this Watts riots article, the first two paragraphs of the section Background violate the above Wikipedia policy because the sources for the two paragraphs do not mention the Watts riots. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

There is not a blanket ban on sources if they don't mention the topic. Background in any article provides helpful context. The policy is about the content as described below. Are there particular sentences in those paragraphs which violate this policy?

"Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." 〜 Adflatuss • talk 17:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that the material in the two paragraphs is not supported by any sources that mention the topic of this article, viz. the Watts riots. The given sources do not mention or make any connection with the Watts riots, so the two paragraphs of this Wikipedia article violate WP:NOR. As it stands now, the connection to the Watts riots is made by Wikipedia, not by sources. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the remaining part of the section, which consists of the subsection Residential segregation, one sees that it has the same problem of using sources that make no mention or connection to the Watts riots. The only exceptions are the last two paragraphs that begin with "Despite its reform..." and "Resentment of....", which contain sources 17 and 18 that make reference to the Watts riots. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

On further review, I found that in the subsection Residential segregation, the fourth paragraph (beginning with "The Rumford...") is OK. Also, I redid the citation there, including the link and numbering for relevant pages. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Please see "This page in a nutshell" for a summary of WP:NOR. It is not about sources having a specific mention. It is about "original thought". I don't think that Watts being a neighborhood of LA and describing the that black people moved to LA is a "new analysis or synthesis". The section is Background and this is appropriate content for this article. Please list any sentences that are "original thought" or "new analysis or synthesis". 〜 Adflatuss • talk 04:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, What are your thoughts on the excerpt from WP:NOR that is in my first message? Bob K31416 (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

"To demonstrate that you are not adding original research..." What follows in your excerpt is how an editor can show their addition of content is not original research. WP:NOR is not about sources but about "original thought". 〜 Adflatuss • talk 05:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The excerpted sentence describes a test that determines whether an editor is contributing original research. Here's the rest of the sentence, "...you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support[b] the material being presented." In the first five paragraphs of the Background section , it appears that the given sources fail this "directly related to the topic of the article" requirement of WP:NOR. If you find otherwise, please let me know. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC).