Talk:Rodney King
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rodney King article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 29, 2009, March 3, 2010, March 3, 2012, March 3, 2018, March 3, 2021, March 3, 2024, and March 3, 2025. |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
Likely typo reverses the intended meaning?
From the section "Aftermath":
"Blood and urine samples were taken from King five hours after his arrest. The blood alcohol content (BAC) from King's test samples was 0.075%, indicating he would not have been legally intoxicated under California law, BAC legal limit 0.08%, at the time of his arrest."
As it stands, it's nonsense, because a blood alcohol content of 0.075% five hours after arrest would mean a blood alcohol content far over 0.08% at the time of arrest. I can't correct this because I don't know whether it's the "five hours" that is wrong, or the "not" in "not have been intoxicated", or the numbers. Someone who has this info please fix. Longitude2 (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Longitude2: The change introducing the "not" was made on November 10, 2022, with the editor apparently acting in good faith but missing this implication. I checked the source cited earlier in the sentence, which says: "Blood and urine samples taken from King five hours after his arrest showed that his blood-alcohol level was 0.075%, indicating that at the time of his arrest, he was over the level (0.08%) at which one can be presumed intoxicated under California law." Accordingly, I removed the "not." Rebbing 07:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
archive
Wafflewombat, sorry if I'm misunderstanding - why do we not need the archive bot? Valereee (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- There is very little activity on the talk page, so there's no need to automatically archive. I would say it's better to let the content build up naturally and then manually archive when it feels right to do so, instead of when the bot is programmed to do so. But if you disagree and want to restore the bot, that is 100% okay. It's not very important 🙂 Wafflewombat (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I feel like if a bot can do it, why should we do it manually. I don't think removing these bots is a good thing. I think if your only objection is that it can be done manually, you should either stop or get consensus that it's a good idea. Valereee (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- No problem. In the future I'll seek consensus about this type of edit. Wafflewombat (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I feel like if a bot can do it, why should we do it manually. I don't think removing these bots is a good thing. I think if your only objection is that it can be done manually, you should either stop or get consensus that it's a good idea. Valereee (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Moving content to new page: 'Beating of Rodney King'
I will be moving a large amount of content from this page to a forthcoming page, Beating of Rodney King, for several reasons. First, historical incidents are typically given their own page, even if they center on a single individual. This provides an easy reference to the event, which is significant enough to reference on its own regardless of its association to specific people. For example, Death of Charlie Kirk is a separate page from Charlie Kirk.
Second, a single incident can overshadow an entire biography if the person's life is otherwise normal (i.e., irrelevant to public discourse). Third, it can be considered demeaning to reduce the identity of a person to a single traumatic event outside of their control.
Following such reasoning, I have already changed the introductory line from 'Rodney King was a victim of police brutaliity' to 'Rodney King was a resident of Los Angeles. He is well-known for being a victim of police brutality'. Soon, I will address the bulk of the content between 'Early Life' and 'Later Life'. Doctor.Moron (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2025 (UTC)