Talk:Algiers Motel incident

Untitled
I don't know why the incidents were described as alleged. If the intent was to imply that they were alleged to be murders but no one was convicted, then alleged murders would be correct. But they were real incidents. John FitzGerald 20:53, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * To try to deal with this point, I added "almost certainly" to the last sentence of the first paragraph. No one exactly copped to them, and it's not certain that members of both forces were responsible. John FitzGerald

I know a person, Karl W. Mantyla, a former reporter for the Associated Press news service, who says he was one of the original reporters on this event. John Hersey was one, he was one, and the other, Joseph Strickland, has died, he said.

He has revealed details of this event that seem to conflict with the minimal account provided--although he revealed this information to me several years ago. How can I verify the details he has provided, and how can I include his information with a high degree of certainty? Open to suggestions? IrishHillsider (talk) 05:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Due to its nature (an encyclopedia, not a source for news or research) Wikipedia requires that information be verifiable by consulting already-published reliable sources. So if information has already been published somewhere, then we can include it with an apprioriate citation. Unpublished information can not be used here, nor in most cases can self-published information (including blogs). cmadler (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverting without explanation
A user violated the three revert rule, undoing my common sense edits without bothering to explain why. The edits were:
 * The Algiers Motel incident is an incident which ...
 * were brutally badly beaten

The user bizarrely claimed Not adhering to neutral point of view (HG) (3.1.22). This obviously does not explain why they wish to say "the incident is an incident", and does not make any sense in regards to the second edit either. "badly" is a term which indicates severity; "brutally" indicates a judgement about motivation as well. It indicates that you think the perpetrators were brutes, which is not neutral, no matter what our personal feelings about the incident might be. Had I replaced the former with the latter, one could argue that it made the article less neutral. There is no possible argument that replacing the latter with the former could do so.

So, perhaps other editors could state whether or not they agree that "the incident is an incident" is pointlessly redundant, and that "badly" is a more neutral word than "brutally" here. 2.25.45.179 (talk) 09:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not a native English speaker, I have already looked those words up in online, and it somehow seems like the word "brutally" is more neutral than the word "badly". As for "the incident is an incident", I agree that it's a bit redundant. And yes, we should wait for other editors to join this discussion, as we both know each other's stance and it'll just be a back-and-fourth situation. Hayman30 (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The wording is okay as it stands. Badly is probably more accurate. We could remove badly or brutally if there is a better alternative. Beaten is probably enough. "The Algiers Motel incident was an incident of police brutality that occurred ..." ??? Just glad there are other editors interested in working on this article. I'd like to improve the article as the Detroit movie comes out in two months. The movie is a dramatization and the names are changed. I think it is important that this incident's events get fully covered here. Alaney2k (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So I guess now we should decide whether to remove "badly" or let it stay? For "was an incident of police brutality that occurred", the repeated word "incident" might be a bit redundant. I'll take the Grenfell Tower fire article as an example. It says "The Grenfell Tower fire occurred on...", but not "The Grenfell Tower fire was a fire occurred on.." Hayman30 (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Any wording that amounts to "the incident was an incident" would be extremely poor. I oppose any such wording. And what argument would there be for removing "badly"? The debate was whether it was a better word than "brutally", not whether to remove it altogether. 2.25.45.179 (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess the editor above is saying that they have no problem with "badly". I don't oppose it either, but I thought why don't we remove any words before beaten as that might be biased? Hayman30 (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Qualifying the severity of the beating is not biased. Did the victims need hospital treatment? Did they suffer long term injuries? If so, then "badly" is obviously justified. "Severely" could be better. Removing the word entirely only makes the sentence more vague. 2.25.45.179 (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

To add to article
Basic information to add to article:

1) Why did Cooper pull out a starter pistol and shoot blanks up in the air

2) Following the starter pistol shots, who shot at and shattered the Algiers Motel window - from the outside?

173.88.241.33 (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Since Cooper was killed, no-one interviewed him. There might be something in Hersey's book. We can't be precise on the shooters, it was the group who arrived. Alaney2k (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Events occurred
It is wrong to place the words alleged to the events described. It is true the defendants were found not guilty but that does not mean the events did not occur. The policemen admitted to the killings. The legal defence was not that the killings and beatings did not occur but that they were justified. Alaney2k (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)