Talk:2011 Vancouver Stanley Cup riot/Archive 1

references for clean up
I fleshed out this section but do not know how to add references:

http://www.miss604.com/2011/06/vancouver-canucks-riots-aftermath-how-to-help.html http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Riot+aftermath+Extra+helping+praise+served+with+pancakes/4970473/story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.241.206 (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Images
I'm new so I really don't have enough copyright experience yet to do this, but I think the order of images should be as follows
 * Riot - flames, cars, rioters, etc. Probably two (or three if the article grows)
 * Aftermath Response - replace the overturned car pic to an image of the police during the riot
 * Aftermath clean up - image of cleanup (already there)
 * Media coverage - would this be a legitimate place to put a gallery?

Thanks. juan less 00:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Futuristic assumption
Futuristic assumption of event. Gave me a good laugh, but obviously won't make the cut yet. Calabe1992 (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There are now several news outlets reporting that it is, indeed, occurring. If there's evidence to the contrary, feel free to update the article, but be sure to cite verifiable secondary sources stating such. Cheers =) -- slakr \ talk / 03:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a Riot
No longer in the realm of futuristic assumption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthpig (talk • contribs) 05:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110615/bc_stanley_cup_riot_110615/20110615/?hub=BritishColumbiaHome Earthpig (talk) 05:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

1993
Please add another Cup riot link to the see also section: 1993 Stanley Cup riot.

65.94.47.63 (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done GaneshBhakt (talk) 09:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Stanley Cup riot
We need a list article for a list of Stanley Cup riots... 2011 (Vancouver), 2008 (Montreal), 2006 (Edmonton), 1994 (Vancouver), 1993 (Montreal), 1986 (Montreal). 65.94.47.63 (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * They're all in this category (and if not, then I assume the article doesn't exist; if it does, then feel free to add the category to the article.) Gary King  ( talk  ·  scripts )  18:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't have articles on all of them. Which is why a list article would be good. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah; yes, that would be good. Feel free to create a stub and then we can help contribute to it. Gary King  ( talk  ·  scripts )  05:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't create stubs, don't have an account. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge
I believe that this should be merged to 2011 Stanley Cup Finals. Sports riots aren't particularly uncommon or noteworthy, and the overwhelming majority of them are detailed in the article about the sporting event itself. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 1994 Stanley Cup riot has been around since September 2006 without calls for merger. This doesn't seem that much different. Some Canadian news reports even suggest that the damage from this riot is predicted to be greater than from the 1994 riots.
 * I don't follow pro sports that close, neither in Europe or North America, but I've always though that North American fans were more civilized. That just my unfounded impression, though.
 * Peter Isotalo 09:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * More civilized that UK footy fans, anyways. There was no rioting in the stadium itself, the Bruins got an ovation from the mostly Vancouver-fans crowd. I think the 86 and 93 riots were worse than the 94 riot. But all of that was a long time ago... so the existence of articles on events from that long before Wikipedia was created is iffy, that the 94 riot got an article shows something. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 09:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Some information should be in Georgia Street, since that's the street with the parkade where the car was set on fire and looting at the big Bay store in downtown Vancouver and fence that was thrown from its roof. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 10:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the merge template is prematurely added to the article, but for the record, I oppose such a merge. This article can stand in its own right, and has significant room for expansion. Resolute 19:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Resolute, and also oppose. Frankly, I think 2011 Stanley Cup Finals should be focused on the actual hockey games, while this article can deal with the fallout on the streets of Vancouver. The spark that lead to the riots may have been the finals, but the riot may give rise to issues that really do not belong in an article on a sports final. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with a previous commenter that 1994 Stanley Cup riot has been around for a while so 2011 Stanley Cup riot should follow the precedence set previously just to be consistent. For the record, I oppose such a merge. – Kempton   "Ideas are the currency of the future." - a quote by Kevin Roberts 19:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As for this article, it is a news article masquerading as an encyclopedia article. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Simply saying Other stuff exists is not a particularly helpful retort, esp. since that essay is a balanced discussion of when referencing other articles is a good argument and when it is not. Simply linking to it says nothing, because the essay covers a spectrum of situations and opinions.  As for the arguments that the essay suggests should be generally avoided, the previous commentators didn't simply argue that the article on the 1994 riot exists, so this one should too.  One said that the damage in 2011 is reported to be greater than in 1994, which I took to mean that this riot was, in his/her opinion, more significant than the one in 1994.  The second noted that the existence of the 1994 riot article should be viewed through the lens of the fact that the event it covers is pre-Wikipedia (so it was presumably not created in the throes of WP:RECENTISM).  You're free to disagree with those points, obviously.  But simply providing a link isn't really convincing. As for WP:NOTNEWS, that policy does not say that there cannot be articles on current news events (which is obviously not a correct proposition).  It does say that Wikipedia should not contain "first-hand news reports" (i.e. the type of original research permitted on Wikinews).  The sources here are articles in the mainstream media, not primary sources.  WP:NOTNEWS also warns against "routine news reporting" (i.e. "reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities").  While you may disagree, it strikes me that a riot does not fall under that rubric. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, as far as NOTNEWS goes, the 1994 riot has been referenced several times, even before last nights events (the police famously predicted there would be no repeat of 1994 yesterday morning), which is a pretty good indication of the notability of that event. This riot was much larger in scope, and has attracted world wide attention.  There will certainly be ramifications out of this event.  It is not just a news story. Resolute 20:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Appears to be a pretty significant event, more than a routine parking lot scuffle. I could see merging if there were riots after every game up there, but I've been informed that is not actually the case. As Skeezix1000 just pointed out, this is far from routine news coverage. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose It has little to do with the hockey game other than using its staging as a cover for the crimes. There are reports of people coming to the celebration and viewing sites armed with hammers and Molotov cocktails in backpacks. In other words, they planned the action beforehand and were simply using the conclusion of the game to act as a trigger.
 * This is a stand-alone event that will grow as news stories are written, published reports are issued, and investigative reports are completed. This article will grow by the weekend and for the next few months. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose It's clear that this is as bad, if not worse than, the 1994 riot, which has its own stand-alone article. This one should stay on its own as well. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 21:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose This was the biggest riot in Vancouver in decades. It's at least as notable as the article on the hockey game. MaxVeers (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. This has world wide coverage and the potential to include information that should not be in the article on the game. If it is just purely fans rioting then maybe a merge could be carried out once it dies down. BTW just because a merge of the 94 riots has not been suggested previously does not mean that it deserve its own seperate article. Wikipedia is a big place and it could just mean that no one has got around to it yet. AIR corn (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose such a merge. The 1994 riots have their own article. This one should have its own too. Justin Tokke (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose its notable  and its does now have anything to do with the cup but name and the won of Boston  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty1214 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose The damage that has been caused is significant enough that we should allow this article to remain. Striker force Talk  Review me! 23:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * STRONG OPPOSE- much of the criminal element involved were not there for the hockey game, but had planned a head of time to incite rioting such as the guy who light his own car on fire and had brought hammers with him before the game started. Also in reference to the separate 1994 riot article. Mkdw talk 23:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose it is a significant event that deserves its own article. From here, it just needs to be beefed up with a few hours of work. ShdSlyr2 (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

pepper spray grenades
Do we have an article on those pepper spray cannisters that VPD used? 65.94.47.63 (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * would this one work? juan less  00:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Criminal offence
What is the penalty in Canada for rioting? I did some research and got answers of both two years and life in prison. What exactly happens to elevate it from two years to life? NorthernThunder (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For rioting, the punishment is a term "not exceeding two years". I suspect the life part only comes into play if another serious offence occurs - i.e.: someone dies as a part of it. Resolute 19:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually it looks like life imprisonment happens when a crowd of 12 or more people do not disperse in less than 30 minutes. Then you may possibly get life imprisonment; something I didn't believe at first, either, but someone pointed me to that article. Gary King  ( talk  ·  scripts )  01:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. It seems that those two sections contradict each other.  Though the latter refers specifically to when the Riot Act is read.  I guess the former is for routine rioting... Resolute 01:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the rioters were reportedly released after 24 hours ShdSlyr2 (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the VPD website, 85 people arrested for breach of the peace were released, as were 8 arrested for public intoxication. Of 8 arrested for crimes including theft, mischief, assault with a weapon, and break and enter,  two people were charged in connection with a stabbing, four people were released with a future court date, and two were released for lack of evidence. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That is the immediate charges fallout. Other charges may yet be laid, even against those currently released. All it takes is new evidence -- and with all the pix taken specifically for the purpose, there is no shortage of that. Also, life imprisonment (for rioting post Riot Act reading) is a maximum penalty, not the required penalty. After all, the original context of the Riot Act was sedition and outright rebellion, which hardly applies here. - Tenebris 06:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Racial element
I've never heard any suggestion of a racial element and can't imagine what it would be. Seems totally out to lunch to suggest this. The different demographics of Vancouver were all there, and bits of all participated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.241.206 (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This article suggests there was a racial element to some of the assaults that took place during the riot. Any more details? Cla68 (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen anything about that from the articles that I've read, and Googling for terms such as "Vancouver Stanley Cup riots ~racism" did not return any useful results. Gary King  ( talk  ·  scripts )  02:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There was nothing whatsoever racial in it. Before I wrote my piece on it, I spent a lot of time going through footage. I saw many different races involved equally gleefully in the overturning/torching/looting, white and Oriental and black -- as one would expect to see for Vancouver. Racially, that city is about as integrated as anywhere in N. America. (You would not believe the percentage of mixed marriages.) Nor was any particular semi-segregated district targetted over any other, except insofar as the downtown expensive shopping district was targetted, partly because the original gatherings were downtown -- but the rioters did move. (Can't use it here -- but I wonder if any of our secondary/tertiary sources will pick up on the $$ element? Not anarchy as such, no matter what the mayor says. If anything, this had a strong feel of sticking it to the Man, or some convenient substitute thereof.) But anyone spinning about a racial element is doing just that -- spinning. - Tenebris 05:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.129 (talk)


 * Agreed. I witnessed a lot of the riot and saw absolutely nothing that could be considered racial motivation. Wikidsoup [talk]  16:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Vancouver street articles and landmark articles
Some of this material should also appear in the various Vancouver street and landmark articles, where hotspots occurred. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Article clean up
Hi guys, there's obviously a lot of information on the riots out there. I'm hoping more people can bring and consolidate that information onto this article. 24.87.59.164 (talk) 10:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

There are some great pics we could perhaps use in an article over at http://www.anotherenthusiast.com/2011/06/17/photo-essay-vancouver-sports-riot/ ... they are subject to the Creative Commons license, which I think means we can use them if they are attributed to the owner correctly? Maybe someone that knows about this better can figure this out please Wikidsoup [talk]  16:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, we can't use those because they have placed a "no commercial use" (NC) restriction. While Wikipedia itself is not commercial, some of its downstream re-users are.  If it was just CC-BY-SA they would have been good. Resolute 20:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Impact of social media and cyber-vigilantism
I think as more stories are done on it, this aspect of the riot would be very interesting - and perhaps somewhat unique? The person who started the tumblr page with the intent of outing and embarrassing the rioters was already interviewed on CTV, and I expect "CaptainVancouver" and his blog won't be far behind. The impacts of cyber-vigilantism will be interesting to follow in the weeks to come. Resolute 14:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea. There's really no other page I can think of where a detailed section on these "outing" blogs would fit. You could then link here from Social Justice or Social media, etc. juan less  00:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This would fit perfectly in Internet vigilantism. _dk (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

On the International Media
Why do we point out that coverage was "mostly negative"? Is there an aspect of this riot which could be interpreted as innocent or positive in some way? Or was this meant to imply that international media was placing some harsh judgment on Vancouver as a city, in addition to the rioters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.70 (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the "mostly negative" coverage doesn't mean much. I've removed that part and reworded the paragraph a bit. Gary King  ( talk  ·  scripts )  00:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The Kissing Couple
The following about what the media refers to as The Kissing Couple was removed and I think it is significant enough to warrant inclusion, because it has been covered, extensively, in the media:

"===The kissing couple=== Amidst the rioting, a picture was taken of a couple lying on a street while kissing. A search for the identity of the couple has been started. There has also been some speculation of the event being staged. The image was taken by Rich Lam of Getty Images. Later that week, it was announced that the couple was an Australian male, Scott Jones and his Canadian girlfriend, Alex Thomas. "

NorthernThunder (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's worth its own section at the moment. It can be placed in somewhere like "Media coverage" for now, though, since it's really just enough information for one or two paragraphs for now. Gary King  ( talk  ·  scripts )  00:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. At most, the couple will warrant only a few sentences.  The photo itself may warrant a few more, especially if it manages to take on any kind of iconic status.  But to write any more would lend undue weight. Resolute 04:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the image has definitely become the iconic "artistic" image of the riots. How about we include it in the "media coverage" section as a thumbnailed image? juan less  19:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If you can contact the original photographer to provide the photo with the right license, then feel free to do so. Gary King  ( talk  ·  scripts )  20:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It was done by a photojournalist from the Geddes news agency... 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * CBC is reporting that the kissing couple photo is now more widely known outside of North America than the riot. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not what the segment that aired last night said. The report indicates that video footage of the event has been uncovered and that young man in the photo, who is attempting to boost his career as a comedian, has hired an agent to capitalize on the popularity. The fact that this is for Australia doesn't indicate that it is all of the world outside of N.A.. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That wasn't what I was watching on CBC then. I watch a news blurb on CBC saying it, it was not long enough to call a segment. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

City officials caused the "Perfect Storm" for the Riot
Start by inticeing a quarter million young people to come to the city to watch a big screen.

Make sure they know the liquor stores will be closed, and personal searches will happen. That way they will all get real drunk before they show up.

As soon as a few Hoooligans do anything, they shut off all public transportation, bridges and any other exits from the city.

Then shoot teargas into the crowd that has no way to exit the area.

Make sure the firemen don't show up and put out the fires.

My wife and I went into the middle of this to get our daughter, and talked to many of the people trapped there by the authorities.

99.9% of the people were young citizens of that country.

This entire situation was the fault of the city.

24.249.35.196 (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't editorialize on an article talk page, but I wouldn't be surprised if what you're saying is accurate. Cla68 (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Having been there as well, I have to back you up as least as far as the big screen they put up at Hamilton and Georgia. It was no surprise to me when that specific spot became the centre of the riot. I'm entirely in support of a section about criticism of the preparation and response by the city. I have come across this article about how recommendations made after the '94 riot were ignored and saw footage of the mayor saying he was surprised that the riot happened. Clearly the riot should have surprised nobody and the city is largely to blame for it, but that's my opinion and I haven't come across any published articles criticizing the city apart from the one I've already provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.129.43 (talk) 08:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Where's the discussion about the move?
Since I don't see one and the rationale for the move is completely bogus, I am nominating a return to the original title. The riot was not during the entire Stanley Cup run, it was after the final game, and contrary to popular opinion, it was not caused by the result of the game. The game, and more importantly the crowds that gathered to watch them, was used as cover for the core of rioters to launch their actions. The activities during the previous Stanley Cup run does not have "Stanley Cup" in the title. The Montreal and Edmonton riots don't have the word in it. It makes no sense to start now. I nominate moving it back. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand, the user who recently move the page added "Vancouver" not Stanley Cup. The '94 article has the same convention - 1994 Stanley Cup riot as does the 1993 Stanley Cup Riot (which is a redirect to the 1993 Stanley Cup Finals). Moving it back would be to call it 2011 Stanley Cup Riot, which seems to be opposite of what your saying.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 06:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The 1993 riot should be a full article. The CBC called it the most infamous Stanley Cup riot so far. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I admit I'm curious myself as to the rationale behind the change. Was there more than one significant Stanley Cup riot this year about which we hadn't heard? That being said, Walter, you're editorializing.  The conspiracy theorists are going great guns over this "organized core of rioters" nonsense, which suits our civilized amour propre a great deal better than the unwelcome premise that barbarism isn't nearly as far from the surface as people might wish.  Nonetheless, no evidence has been proffered that there was any such organization, tacit or otherwise, nor that the outcome of the series had nothing to do with the riot.   ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  11:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The '94 article has been moved as well. I don't really see the reasoning behind adding the City name. It isn't happening in multiple cities where the added disambiguation is needed. To the best of my knowledge there was no "significant" rioting in Boston if any at all, no was there any in the 28/29 other NHL cities. A quick check on Google shows that there is 103,000 hits for "2011 Stanley Cup riot" 14,400 for "2011 Vancouver riot" 4,560 for "2011 Vancouver Stanley Cup riot". I think the article and the '94 article should be moved back to the year and just Stanley Cup riot.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 14:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There are no conspiracy theorists. The reporters I've heard have all stated that the core showed up with WD-40 and hammers in their backpacks fully prepared to ignite vehicles. The looting and other destruction were all crimes of opportunity, but had those few who started the actions not planned to do so, the rest probably would not have started.
 * Since the 1994 article has been moved, I'll retract my request to move this back, but in which other cities were there Stanley Cup riots? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Montreal in 1993. But, I personally prefer the original titles. Resolute 15:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Montreal in 1986, Edmonton 2006, Montreal 2008, Montreal 2010. (according to CBC) 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I also prefer the original titles. Not necessary to add the city. – Nurmsook!  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk...  20:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the new titles - Why, because I believe that many will search simply "2011 Vancouver riot". The title is more specific and thus more accurate. Moxy (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2011_riots - nearly every riot is listed by location. Three years from now, most people not from BC will still remember the location, but probably forget the occasion.--JimWae (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think people interested in hockey will remember the occasion as well as the location. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What about our readers that are  not  interested in hockey, but only interested in the riot that took place in "Vancouver"?Moxy (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME needs to be taken into consideration though. "2011 Vancouver Stanley Cup riot" yields 12,200 results, however, "2011 Stanley Cup riot" yields 106,000 results. – Nurmsook!  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk...  16:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As pointed out above the page should be under the most used name for the event. For as people interested in the riot that took place in Vancouver not associating it with the Stanley Cup...that's why we have redirects. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 17:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Vancouver Riot" AND "2011" 2,240,000 hits
 * "Stanley Cup Riot" AND "2011" 1,400,000 hits --JimWae (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Stanley Cup Riot" AND "2011" -"Vancouver Stanley" 1,300,000
 * "Stanley Cup" AND "riot" AND "2011" 10,500,000
 * "Vancouver" AND "riot" AND "2011" 26,100,000
 * "hockey" AND "riot" AND "2011" 25,200,000
 * "Hockey Riot" AND "2011" 330,000 --JimWae (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Picture request
Is anybody in Vancouver able to get down and take a picture of the plywood "apology board"? It would be nice to add something like this to the article. Resolute 15:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah great photo. Perhaps we could find something on Flickr (with the right license)? I've already contacted a few people on Flickr asking if they could change the licenses of some of their photos for use in this article. Let's see what they say. Gary King  ( talk  ·  scripts )  16:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright, I added some images. There isn't much space in the article since there is little content, so I've only added two for now. There are more images in the Commons image category if the article ever expands. Gary King  ( talk  ·  scripts )  19:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent! As we expand the article, we should be able to spread them out more.  Resolute 22:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we should consider adding a section talking about the "citizens wall." It has become a major historical symbol arising from this event; it will come down Monday but the city has apparently requested them, likely to display them somewhere. 24.86.195.132 (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not certain there is enough material to form a section about it, but most certainly an expanded paragraph or two as part of the cleanup section. Resolute 17:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * At the time being, maybe not. But maybe once the city decides what to do with the pieces of the wall, there can be enough details added to warrant its own section. Time will tell. 24.86.195.132 (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Citation question
How do I cite live television coverage? And btw - has anyone tracked down a cite noting that the rioters focused almost entirely on property damage, avoiding deliberately harming other people, even to the point of rioters assisting a homeless man who had been tripped by another rioter? (eg. The riot swirled right past the (crowded) theatre without touching it, while shattering other (unpopulated) glass facades in the area. Even people wearing Boston Bruins shirts were unharmed.) It is a very atypical pattern for any kind of riot -- noteworthy if we can find a cite. - Tenebris 20:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.251 (talk)
 * channel, program, date, time (time of mention); I think. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Onlookers - in progress
Some people tried to persuade others to not damage property, sometimes resorting to their fists when words failed. Many of those defending property were pushed away or attacked by others intent on further damage. Meanwhile, onlookers would gather to see what would happen next, intent on capturing it all on their cameras. There were nearly as many cameras as people at the event.--JimWae (talk) 05:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Gasoline and anarchists
There are several statements being made now casting doubt on the role of anarchists in the riot. The jerrycan of gasoline that was thrown into the first car fire came from the back of the green pick-up truck that later became the 2nd vehicle to be torched. Evidence for this is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJpnHNN6Y5U&feature=player_detailpage, which shows the jerrycan in the truck and then is gone. There is a video from another angle (close to the post office) showing a guy tossing the can, the fireball, his being subdued by a cop, a girl interceding and talking to the cop (possibly telling the cop the guy was mentally-challenged? I am serious.), and the 2 of them leaving quickly.

What evidence is there that anyone carried any kind of accelerant (even a spray-can)? Such would indicate planning - but not necessarily involvement of anarchists. Indeed, some people did pull T-shirts up to cover their faces, but anyone who watches the news could have thought of that. Today's Vancouver Sun contained a persuasive argument: no political motive has been pronounced by any group - unlike the anarchists who marched and broke Bay windows just before the 2010 Olympics. --JimWae (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The evidence of the live footage. In several of the pre-ignition activities Tony Parsons commented on the actions of what appeared to be someone spraying something into one of the cruisers and then attempting to ignite it. Then again spraying the interior and successfully igniting the contents. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Is that coverage available still? There were numerous unsuccessful attempts to light the green pick-up truck and the police cars. The "instigators" (at least in these cases & also in the case of the first car) were not people with accelerants and who do not appear to be members of any group of anarchists. The green pickup was apparently leaking fuel and was lit with a flash (by the same person who can be seen lighting the first car). I have not seen any video of the 1st fire - the flags & jerseys - being started. It seems the crowd, realizing they were not going to be prevented from starting small fires, went to bigger & bigger ones. The balaclavas (and improvised ones) do not seem to have appeared much until the looting started -- and anybody intent on looting can buy (or steal) a ski-mask--JimWae (talk) 07:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The footage was live from the CBC and I have not seen it replayed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Questions on arrests
Were the youngsters videotaped repeatedly smashing the solar car with their skateboards arrested? How about the skinny guy wearing the driving hat who was pushing the shopping cart around filled with lighter fluid and rags who was later knocked-out by a bystander because he refused to stop trying to start an overturned car on fire? How about the guy who knocked him out? Cla68 (talk) 10:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

common cause of riots
I don't believe the line "Sports are the most common cause of riots in the United States, accompanying more than half of all championship games or series; almost all occur in the winning team's city, however, so experts believed that any riot would occur in Boston, not Vancouver." is beneficial or adds anything to the article of encyclopedic value. Here is why: 1. First line states common in United States, okay the riot was in Canada so this doesn't apply, what's the common cause for riots in Canada?

2. "experts believed that any riot would occur in Boston, not Vancouver." Something not happening is not notable, because Boston didn't riot isn't notable, but that's what the statement seems to be implying. Not to mention the way it's written makes it sound like they knew in advance the outcome and were expecting riots in Boston.

3. "almost all occur in the winning team's city" so not 100%, what does almost all mean, what exactly is the rarity, almost is not very definitive.

4. Of the more than 50% of riots that occur how many of them are to the heightened degree as this one?

This seems a lot more like newspaper filler than an encyclopedic note about the riot to me and therefore I think that this should be deleted.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 17:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 1. I agree that having the statement apply to the United States and not Canada is not ideal, but that's what the cite says. The rest of the article pretty clearly states that Carrothers, the sports riot academic, believes that his research applies to both countries.
 * 2. Mentinioning Boston provides useful context to readers, by further explaining that a) experts believe most sports riots occur in the winning team's city, and b) Boston is that city in this case. (It also reinforces 1.) And yes, both academics and Boston police expected/feared riots there if the Bruins won given recent history. (And yes, speculation on Wikipedia is permissible if it is cited to reliable sources.)
 * 3. Have you read the cite? "almost all" is a reasonable paraphrase of the article, which states that
 * "After all, one assumption underlay all of Carrothers's and Lewis's work: The winning city was the one that rioted. Of the more than 200 U.S. sports riots Lewis had studied over two decades, only a tiny handful had occurred in the losing city."


 * 4. The cite is not more specific than "some sort of violence". That the riot was unusual in its severity is not contested, and in any case does not affect the cite's relevancy in explaining the propensity of violence in winning cities. Ylee (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Per capita, Canada has had more sports-related riots than the US. Montreal has had several going back to the 1950s and Vancouver has had two now. However the point isn't where they happen but rather that the riot was expected in Boston, not Vancouver. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Three in Vancouver, actually. There was a riot during an anti-Olympic protest early in the games.  Regardless, I don't find great value in that entry in the article.  Primarily because Canada is not the United States, so a study about American attitudes isn't especially relevant to a Canadian riot.  A lot of us in Calgary were expecting a riot whether Vancouver won or lost.  Personal POV, of course, but it is clear to me that the expert the Sports Illustrated article cites clearly had no understanding of Vancouver's riot culture.  Resolute 00:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If the passage is retained, however, it needs to be changed from experts-plural to expert-singluar. The article speaks only of one man's opinion that a riot would have happened in Boston.  The passage is misleading at present. Resolute 00:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No; the article doesn't directly quote Lewis of Kent State, but he is mentioned as a fellow expert on the topic who agrees with Carrothers on expecting Boston to be the city to riot if one were to occur. Ylee (talk) 04:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Reference to the US is 1. entirely irrelevant, 2. does not seem to be legitimate comparison (and in any event, it's wrong that 50% of all sporting events in the US end in riot), and 3. it would seem given the prior two riots in Vancouver, both well-documented, that any estimate of the cause would start there as there seems to be a propensity for violence in Vancouver that's entirely disconnected from the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.193.8.236 (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The consensus is to include. It is relevant, legitimate and a comparison to other North American sport-related riots. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, consensus is not clear in the above. The article is about the Vancouver riots, not Boston, or speculation thereof. If you want to write an article on speculation of the causes of the riot, that's fine, bu this is not relevant background material. That said, if you keep it, then list the other two Stanley Cup riots in Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.193.8.236 (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not clear but made none the less. Feel free to add information about the other Stanely Cup riot as contrast, but don't forget to remove it from the see also section. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The present point is the paragraph as initially posited seems to paint rioting as a phenomena based on national identify, especially by omitting the two prior riots in Van and Montreal, which it most certainly is not. Looking through the above thread, the riots are talked about in the context of North America, yet the paragraph refers specifically to United States. Looking at riots in general, it would appear in fact that riots are more common following soccer games than any other sport, but this only my conjecture as I don't have the data to support it. That might be a useful starting point for the section on background.

Updates on number of rioters arrested and charges recommended
The last update on arrests and criminal charges recommended appear to have been listed in 2011 and 2012. The numbers are much higher now, so would it be appropriate to update with a more recent news article? Sandra Glendinning (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, with a reliable source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you.Sandra Glendinning (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Timeline?
Should a timeline of events be added to the article, to help clarify with the chronology of events? Joshualouie711 (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It might be helpful, but I'd like to see what you had in mind before I offer a clear yes or no. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , I was thinking of a timeline in the form of a separate article similar to Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks or Timeline of World War II (1945). Joshualouie711 (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Independent Review Report
Should the Independent Review Report by John Furlong (sports administrator) and Doug Keefe be added into the article's content? The pdf of the report is in the reference list but not in the article's body. Curious about an aftermath process that had fair amount of public attention/news coverage. Canuckle (talk) 01:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It depends what you mean by added. A mention of it and a brief overview should be added. A link to the full report would be beneficial to add here, yes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, should have mentioned that I hoped someone informed & with sources about the review project would write about it. Thought that the appointments by PRemier Clark was news topic and that the review did have recommendations that received news coverage and might be appropriate for being added to this article. I am not available to add the info so hope another contributor could do if appropriate. Thanks Canuckle (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Better source about report's 53 recommendations - http://globalnews.ca/news/150375/full-executive-summary-on-the-vancouver-stanley-cup-riot/

Mentions of Boston winning being removed as inflamatory
However, that was definitely a reason for the riot. So inclusion of Boston in the lede is WP:DUE and removing it results in a lack information, although the motives should be detailed further in the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Removed citations which may be helpful to future editors
Brindille1 (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)