Talk:2015–2016 University of Missouri protests

Untitled

Article merged: See old talk-page here

Remove "2016" from the title

I can't find any source saying the protests extended into 2016, in fact they all say they happened in 2015 only. justtrujames October 2, 2024 — Preceding undated comment added 18:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no proof that the swastika actually existed.

There is no proof that the swastika actually existed. We43ff21 (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Except for the actual police report. Your edits illustrate the dangers of relying on speculations by partisan media. Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Eeeeh, I'm rather skeptical of this source as well. I know WP only uses secondary sources for articles, but I find it rather odd that I can't find the police report mentioned anywhere else. I took a look at University of Missouri Police Daily Incident Log and was able to match the code number 2015-00032702 to a vandalism incident on the same day and location. Though the Daily Incident Log says it's at "Gateway Hall," that location is indeed on 1000 Virgina Ave. So, I conclude that this slate article is reliable, though I have to do some OR of my own to do that. Just saying; having skepticism of all sources, not just conservative ones, as the slate article implies, is healthy. Just my two cents on the subject, hope it helps. Sethyre (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

A police report with no photographs of the evidence? Since when does that happen? We43ff21 (talk) 05:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no helping it, m8. So far there is evidence that shows this incident occurred, even if it's a simple log in a daily police report. Don't cast down judgement on whether it's a hoax or not without substantial evidence to one or the other. Sethyre (talk) 06:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Police reports happen all the time without photographs. In fact, the vast majority of police reports are written reports without photographs. -- Fuzheado | Talk 08:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

That's because in those crimes, there is nothing to photograph. That is not the case in this crime. If the swastika is in fact real, there should be photographs of it. Not even counting the police, it's also interesting that even with every student have a phone with a camera, not one of them bothered to take a picture. That seems very odd. We43ff21 (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps at the time no one thought it would lead to anything. Just some jackass making a mess. And as to why no students photographed it, would you? I mean, really? Czolgolz (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

If I was was scared for my own personal safety, and I had a phone with a camera in my hand at the time, then yes, I would photograph it. We43ff21 (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's your picture! (Don't click unless you actually want to see the poop swastika) http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/the-turnstile/missouri-releases-photo-of-feces-smeared-swastika--photo-221817717.html Czolgolz (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

hahahahahahahaha that's it?! Man with the way it was blown up I expected a mural covering the whole wall. Full dried turds clinging desperately to the swastika and the floor covered with the refuse that had broken off when it was fresh. Also I made myself kinda sick describing that I suddenly lost all appetite. Sethyre (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Butler says he was hit by Wolfe's car, but video shows that Butler actually ran into the front of the car as it was backing away

I added this to the article:

One of Butler's stated reasons for his hunger strike was that Wolfe's car had run into him during the school's homecoming parade. However, video footage shows that Wolfe's car was actually backing away from Butler, and Butler slammed himself into the front of the car.

We43ff21 (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Payton Head said KKK was on campus and he was working with police and National Guard. Police later said none of this was true.

I added this to the article:

Head made a Facebook post stating, "Students please take precaution. Stay away from the windows in residence halls. The KKK has been confirmed to be sighted on campus. I'm working with the MUPD, the state trooper and the National Guard." Major Brian Weimer with the school's police department responded by saying, "There is no Ku Klux Klan on campus." Weimer also said that the National Guard was not on campus. Head apologized, saying on Facebook, "I'm sorry about the misinformation that I have shared through social media."

We43ff21 (talk) 06:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@We43ff21: - Your POV edits [1] using clearly biased sources (Breitbart and The Blaze) are putting the balance of the article out of whack. Please see WP:UNDUE to find out why spending multiple sentences on one detail in relation to the bigger article is against policy. If you continue with the POV-pushing, you'll start to see restrictions on your activity. Ping: @Sethyre: @HaeB: @Czolgolz: -- Fuzheado | Talk 08:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The whole entire point of this article is that there was racism on campus. The fact that the single biggest example of racism (i.e., that the KKK was planning to shoot students standing in front of windows, and that the National Guard had come to address this) turned out to be a lie, which was told by the student government president, is extremely notable.

I quoted the exact words of the student government president as reported by CNN.

Everything that I addded is true and verified by reliable sources. I cited the facts as cited by reliable sources. None of this meets the definition of "POV-pushing."

We43ff21 (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

We43ff21 does have a point at what he wrote being factual in that Payton Head admitted that the story about the KKK being on campus was false despite what User:Fuzheado wants to claim as POV-Pushing. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 05:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh. I see. You also object to a video that showed that a person who had claimed to be hit by a car, had in fact deliberately made contact with the front of the car as the car was backing away from him. We43ff21 (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Differences between "criticism" and "accusations that were later proven to be false."

For accusations that were proven to false, the appropriate section title is "accusations that were later proven to be false."

A title of "criticism" is less accurate. The word "criticism" applies to opinions which may or may not be true. These accusations have been proven to be false, so they are more than just "criticisms." These false accusations were the basis of the protests, and they deserve their own section with this accurate heading.

We43ff21 (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you think of a way to say it in less than eight words? That's an awful long heading. Czolgolz (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

How about "accusations that were proven false"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by We43ff21 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oops. I forgot to sign. Sorry. That's my fault. Anyway, someone changed it to "misinformation." I disagree with that change. I changed it to "accusations that were proven false." The whole entire reason this article exists is because of these accusations. The fact that they are false is extremely notable. We43ff21 (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the original I put up was too long. The only reason I changed it to that was because it I'm a little concerned that "Accusations that were proven false" comes across as a little biased. Although I agree that the video certainly looks that way, the conclusion isn't something that we should be making, I think it would be better to have a source come to that conclusion. JCO312 (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

As I looked at this more I'm even more concerned that the way this is presented is inappropriate. The citation for the statement that the claim about being hit by the car being false is to a YouTube video whose title is the question "does the video show he lied?" When the cite itself doesn't conclude one way or the other, it's a POV problem to have Wikipedia make that conclusion. It would be better all around to simply present the information without drawing our own conclusions. Leave that to the reader. JCO312 (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The entire section heading is biased by honing in and cherry picking two events in order to make a point. It's also illogical sequence-wise. I've moved them into the contexts that follow the flow of the article, while still noting how the YouTube video compares to the actual claims, and that there was no police report filed, to anyone's knowledge. Also, the false KKK report is moved to reaction to the resignation. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

This is probably not the place for discussing this thing; but I've always wondered....why are YouTube videos not considered a source? I took a quick look over at the Reference Desk to see if there were any answers but it only got more confusing. Some videos have free license to use and others require permission and such but they can still be used as references? What about a public video from YouTube? Isn't that a free license? How does one even describe what a YouTube video entails? I suppose that you could take quotes from the video, but isn't that also considered a primary source? I thought Wikipedia only takes from secondary sources? Bah, the more and more I try to understand Wikipedia the less it makes sense. I'm rambling completely off-topic now but I just thought I'd like to write this considering the claims being made differ from the video in question. Sethyre (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

What, exactly, are the students protesting

So far I have only found out three incident - two cases of verbal abuse (in which the drunken offender was suspended) and one of racist graffiti in the bathroom. Thats it? All of this cannot be because of something so trivial. Can we get some sources detailing what the students grievances are. A single spark can light a prairie fire, but that have to be deeper underlying causes for what happened. The article at present does not give enough depth to what, exactly the was the issue that made the students so mad.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Their most recent protest is that the terrorist attacks that killed 129 people in France are getting more media coverage than they are: http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/11/14/mizzou-campus-activists-and-black-lives-matter-complain-about-paris-stealing-the-spotlight/ Brock88734 (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Background info on Melissa Click incident

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/01/25/mizzou-professor-who-pushed-reporters-away-from-protesters-is-charged-with-assault/ -- Jo3sampl (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)