Talk:VEISHEA

Neutrality

This article should be tagged as non-neutral. It's clearly heavily biased in favor of students. I'm not contesting its accuracy, but I've spoken with the Ames Chief of Police, who told me two independent studies he requested after the riots showed that the police acted appropriately. That really should be added for balance.

It's been my understanding it wasn't the students themselves that were so much the problem, it was people from outside the school traveling to the area to drink and to party who caused a lot of the problems.
JesseG 14:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

About a week after the riot, during a public meeting, someone brought in a 50 or so point solution to the problems that caused the riot that had been compiled over 3 months. When asked how it was written over three months when the riot was last week, the person stated that it was written up by the taskforce that studied the last VEISHEA riots and that none of their recomendations had been implimented. That being said, It would be interesting to hear in this article past riots and the steps that the university took to deal with them. --User:Rayc

I agree that this page needs to be tagged as non-neutral. I just arrived at ISU and had no prior knowledge of the 2004 riot, so, like the user above, am not questioning the page's accuracy - merely noting that the summary provided here is obviously biased and does not present both sides of the issue. --kvanderlugt

I tried to clean up the neutrality of this article, and I think its much better than it was. When in doubt, I removed questionable material. Please comment on the changes before reverting. --stemperm 22:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact is, the news reports that this article is based on were not neutral in the first place. I was present at the riot, and it was one of the most shocking experiences in my life; the police did not respond to the situation well at all. The whole thing started with just a couple of guilty students, literally just a few, the ones that started the dumpster on fire. The police had already gotten themselves dressed up for a riot before anything had happened; it was very obvious they were looking for some sort of action and hoping they would get it, and they did. Aggressively breaking up the nearby parties while outfitted in riot gear doesn't seem to me like the best way to go about restoring order and that is clearly not what the result of their actions was; when you want to put out a fire it is usually better to use water instead of gas. Were the under age students at the parties breaking the law? Sure they were, but they were not hurting anyone or causing any problems. Should the police write them under age drinking tickets? Sure, they have every right to; the students were after all breaking the law, so why didn't they just do that? You people can dispute the neutrality of this article all you want, none of the articles on here or anywhere else are neutral, that's just the way it is. To try and act as though it is so wrong that it was written in the words of a witness doesn't make any sense though. Were you there? What gives you the right to dispute this? Why don't you leave it up to those who were present to write the article? The students didn't have a voice after the riot, and still they don't; people like you ensure this. I still love when I got up the day after the riot and watched the news, after having been a witness the night before; "the police do not know the cause of the riot." This was on CNN. What does that tell you? They don't know the cause... Wow, that tells everything to me, but you ignorant people side with the police because they are the police which apparently means they are unable to be wrong. Since the riot I have even witnessed policemen laugh and joke about the riot when confronted as though what they did was the funniest thing ever. The Ames police department is full of meatheads; they never pursued college degrees, they are not the smartest people in the world, but they put on that badge and they get to be tough and “bust” people. It is just another drunk student right? No rights for students, not in Ames anyway. I will not even attempt to edit the article, there is no need; it will never be neutral anyway. People really need to think a little though. It is so sad that the majority of our country simply accepts what they hear on the news as though it is truth with no bias at all and that only on sites such as Wikipedia are biases present. People hear testimonial from a witness and pass it off as garbage, and then take what they hear on the news as though it is 100% accurate and unbiased. Have people really lost all ability to think for themselves? Why when there were literally hundreds of students who witnessed this that feel the same way I do about how the police responded does no one listen? Imagine being in our shoes. This was possibly my biggest life lesson I have ever learned; it finally gave me confirmation that I really cannot trust anything I hear, ever. Unless I see things for myself I cannot believe them at all because our country is falling apart. Everything it was supposed to be when it was founded is no more. This country is brainwashed; people would rather take things as they come and accept them than think about the things and ask how and why. Why would students just lash out for no apparent reason without instigation? Any time fighting occurs; both parties are always guilty including this one. I would never try and say that there was zero guilt on the side of the students because there surely was, but it has been written as though this riot was caused by them 100%. Do the right thing, and let the students or anyone else who is being persecuted have a voice; it is their right as Americans. 131.156.91.49

I think the current version of the article does a good job of presenting what happening without bias. The article does say that the riot started after police dispersed tear gas into the crowd. The reason we try to maintain neutrality on Wikipedia is so that, as you say people don't lose the "ability to think think for themselves." It is not easy to give objective evidence, especially when most of the evidence comes from first-hand testimony. The fact remains that that this article was in no way near neutral. It still presents the facts: after police used tear gas, students reacted by destroy property. If you would like to add more material to the article, please do so, but also make sure it abides by Wikipedia guidelines. Stemperm 17:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)