Jump to content

Talk:Rodney King

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

Likely typo reverses the intended meaning?

[edit]

From the section "Aftermath":

"Blood and urine samples were taken from King five hours after his arrest. The blood alcohol content (BAC) from King's test samples was 0.075%, indicating he would not have been legally intoxicated under California law, BAC legal limit 0.08%, at the time of his arrest."

As it stands, it's nonsense, because a blood alcohol content of 0.075% five hours after arrest would mean a blood alcohol content far over 0.08% at the time of arrest. I can't correct this because I don't know whether it's the "five hours" that is wrong, or the "not" in "not have been intoxicated", or the numbers. Someone who has this info please fix. Longitude2 (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Longitude2: The change introducing the "not" was made on November 10, 2022, with the editor apparently acting in good faith but missing this implication. I checked the source cited earlier in the sentence, which says: "Blood and urine samples taken from King five hours after his arrest showed that his blood-alcohol level was 0.075%, indicating that at the time of his arrest, he was over the level (0.08%) at which one can be presumed intoxicated under California law." Accordingly, I removed the "not." Rebbing 07:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

archive

[edit]

Wafflewombat, sorry if I'm misunderstanding - why do we not need the archive bot? Valereee (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is very little activity on the talk page, so there's no need to automatically archive. I would say it's better to let the content build up naturally and then manually archive when it feels right to do so, instead of when the bot is programmed to do so. But if you disagree and want to restore the bot, that is 100% okay. It's not very important 🙂 Wafflewombat (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I feel like if a bot can do it, why should we do it manually. I don't think removing these bots is a good thing. I think if your only objection is that it can be done manually, you should either stop or get consensus that it's a good idea. Valereee (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. In the future I'll seek consensus about this type of edit. Wafflewombat (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]