Talk:2005 Toledo riot

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Missing Sources[edit]

dead links

^ a b c "Caught in the Clash". Toledo Free Press. 2005-10-19. Retrieved 2008-01-25. http://www.toledofreepress.com/?id=1474

^ a b c "Police to probe use of Taser on woman at neo-Nazi rally". Toledo Blade. 2005-12-13. Retrieved 2008-01-25. http://www.toledoblade.com/oldsaxolinks?query=extrefid:512130349

^ "Three Photojournalists Arrested Covering Nazi Rally". National Press Photographers Association. 2005-12-11. Archived from the original on 1 February 2008. Retrieved 2008-01-25. https://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2005/12/toledo.html

^ "Toledo Business Vandalized". Retrieved 1 March 2008. http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/story?section=local&id=3715574

unless these MIA sources back up a lot of what is stated in this article i have serious doubts about neutrality

120 arrests?[edit]

The sources linked from this article indicate 114 arrests. Where did "over 120" come from?

"Invited"[edit]

There's no need for the quotations around the word invited. It isn't meant ironically or sarcastically. The quotations only serve to add an implied underlying motive behind the NSM claims that is not supported by the sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.15.199 (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting[edit]

This article seems to have been chosen by some agenda pushers (or perhaps it's just one person) who want to change the content of the article to conform with their version of events- their version that clearly contradicts the reporting given by the sources linked to in the article.

Sources indicate "two dozen" [1] members had gathered, not "approx 15". CNN claims that 80 members eventually showed up [2].

With regards to the Dec. 10 rally- I gave a source[3] that gave 63 as the number of NSM members attending, and another source[4] gives "about 60". In spite of this, the agenda pushers are convinced that 40 is an accurate figure. Plenty of other relevant links and information on the impact of the riots are being repeatedly deleted. This needs to stop. Ud terrorist 19:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, there was a planned march, it was abandonned before all the members arrived, therefore, it was not attempted. Ud terrorist 19:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting back[edit]

From tonytunes88

Ud terrorist you must be another hollywood nazi. You are attempting to twist a balanced story toward your NSM agenda.

Look at the photos of the NSM on Sept 15th and you can count about 15 people. No more no less. Your source for "80 members" in the CNN story says that this is according to [Bill White (neo-Nazi)] who is a professional lier and a spokesperson for the NSM. Your reference is bogus and you know it.

Your sources on the 60 members of NSM rallying on Dec 10th is inaccurate as well. I counted 45 participants in the NSM rally area.

Tonytunes: Your very language gives you away as being biased. You are rude and insulting to somebody who disagrees with your figures. Somebody who is so completely biased that they actually get nasty to somebody who disagrees cannot produce a "balanced story."-72.210

tonytunes88 is obviously a nazi, but aside from that (even though this is just confirmation against what Ud terrorist is saying and not source for the article) I was there and saw no more than 15 NSM supporters across from us. There may have been more NSM people in town who could not get to the rally area, but our intelligence (from their own communications and e-mail lists) lead us to believe they would max around 60 in full numbers if it was a good day (which it obviously wasn't) anyways. --Mista-X 09:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I provided sources in my edits here, and CNN is a much more trustworthy source in my opinion than someone who pretends to be nazi, yet entire edit list revolves around this article [5]. As a result of the continued vandalism of this article by tonytunes, I have marked it as disputed. Ud terrorist 19:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


If your "intelligence" is trustworthy and documented, then why haven't you put it here. Wikipedia, as far as I can tell, does not accept your own research (Wikipedia:No original research). Ud terrorist 19:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did say that I wasn't suggesting using myself as a source for the article. Simply stating I saw in persyn the same numbers that can obviously be seen in the photographs. --Mista-X 22:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


You've asserted that you saw this many or that many people, yet i'm disinclined to believe you because what you say disagrees with the sources. Also, mailing lists and chatrooms from a partisan source (international socialists or national socialists) aren't a great way to judge the accuracy of material intended for an encyclopedia. User:Ud terrorist
I really don't care if you believe me or not; I was there and your "sources" merely reported and were not actually on scene. --Mista-X 23:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actual facts available[edit]

And I'll spend some of the vacation period rooting through the recent editions of The (Toledo) Blade to get the actual facts. Then perhaps we can move on and get the tag removed. Meanwhile, whoever it is who has edited the article to assert that "15" Neo-Nazis were at the flashpoint should provide actual documentation of that number. Saying "I was there" is not sufficient; among other things you may not have witnessed everything relevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DSYoungEsq (talk • contribs) .

For the last time, I never suggested "Iwas there" as a relevent source; I merely noted what I saw. I'm not the one editing that in the article anyhow. But, I think something along the lines of "it was reported in the media that 60-80 NSM members eventually showed up, but witnesses say there was only about 15." might be in order. --Mista-X 16:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine if you could provide sources for the witness' count from a source other than yourself; otherwise we still have the problem of original research in the article. If we could gather a collection of sources we could state that AB-CD attended where AB is the lowest estimate with a good source and CD is the highest. This could then be followed by annotations that gives links to the various sources for the figures. Ud terrorist 19:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In viewing the video from Indymedia I counted 11 neo-nazis at the intial confrontation on the lawn of the high school, with them surrounded by numerous officers with what appear to be semi-automatic rifles. A few moments later it shows another group of neo-nazis taunting the crowd, but its harder to tell their numbers or if it is comprised of the same original group of 11 nazis. The statement "Approximately fifteen Neo-Nazis gathered under police guard in preparation to march. They began an impromptu rally at the staging point for the march shouting insults and other racial slurs at members of the community." is essentially what happened. Robison85 January 4, 2006
The video from indymedia is not supposed to be a documentary, it contains very little footage of the NSM. Trying to gauge their numbers from the indymedia video is like trying to count the number of spectators at a sports match from the video highlights. It's not a very accurate way to go about it. Ud terrorist 13:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Toledo, Ohio[edit]

This article does not have lasting encyclopedic interest as a separate article. Please consider merging this article to Toledo, Ohio. Without objection in the next few days, I'll do it myself. -- SwissCelt 03:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This event deserves it's own article. See East St. Louis Riot or Rochester 1964 race riot for articles on similar events with a similar amount of information.Bcirker 19:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I Think that the page should be called the 2005 Neo-Nazi Toledo riot beacuse it should not be called the Toledo riot because it was only a small section of the neighborhood was rioting.Mcanmoocanu 10:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was once a reasonably-sourced article here[edit]

This is the last good version of the page. I'm considering reverting back to the old, old page, unless someone can present valid reasons why I should not. Corvus cornix 02:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has objected, I have moved back to the last good version. Corvus cornix 22:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Corvus cornix. I went back and added a References section and the requisite citations. Now that tempers have cooled, perhaps there will be stability in the article.Historymike (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2005 Toledo riot. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2005 Toledo riot. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links followup[edit]

Links either need to be updated or article needs to be shortened. Heavily dependent on unavailable information. I've removed the reference to an antifa organization in the abstract section based on it being descriptor information not necessary to a general idea of the events, and may detract from neutrality. That group remains listed and linked below in the event details 12.138.28.18 (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2005_Toledo_riot&oldid=1196473628"