Talk:Longview race riot

Sources

Both the recent East Texas Historical Journal article and the one in the Handbook of Texas Online are by the same historian, Ken Durham. He may be considered the expert source, but other sources also need to be used, such as William Tuttle, Jr., who wrote about this event in the 1970s, and perhaps contemporary accounts - or at least list links so reader can see what primary sources were like at this tense time.Parkwells (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Needs paraphrase

The article in sections is nearly a verbatim account drawn from Durham's article in the East Texas Journal; this is a copyright violation. It needs additional paraphrasing. Recommend excluding details of going two blocks where and three blocks there in this account. The map is attached, and people's names are generally sufficient to locate houses.Parkwells (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization

Is the event more commonly known as the "Longview race riot" (descriptive name) or "Longview Race Riot" (proper name)? The article was renamed by User:Deisenbe citing "WP policy on capitals", but I have found both the upper- and lower-case forms used in reliable sources. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to provide the references? Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Of course, here are some examples:

"Longview race riot":

• "The Sociology of Race Riots", Phylon
• "Longview's deadly 1919 race riot: Passed down memories, no markers", Longview News-Journal
• "A look back at Longview race riot of 1919", CBS 19

"Longview Race Riot"

• "LONGVIEW RACE RIOT OF 1919", Texas State Historical Association
• "Violence in a "Heathen" Land: The Longview Race Riot of 1919", Phylon
• Anti-Black Violence in Twentieth-Century Texas
• "Longview Race Riot", The Portal to Texas History

The odd thing is that both forms are commonly used with "of 1919". I do not have a particular preference one way or the other; I was just looking to align the article text with the title, or vice versa. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: Friendly ping. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Black Falcon: Sorry, I had forgotten about this. I've gone back over the help pages on common and proper nouns. It just seems to be ambiguous. WP uses Lincoln assassination, not Lincoln Assassination. But I think this is a proper noun: there were a lot of race riots, but the Longview Race Riot is a specific one. Like other proper nouns, it can't be made plural. So I guess I was wrong and it should be capitalized, though I don't feel sure of it. If there is agreement I'll standardize to the plural. deisenbe (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for responding quickly after my ping. :) I am neutral, to be honest, and the sources suggest that both are used. I just happened to see the current inconsistency within the article, where the title treats the name as descriptive but the lead sentence treats it as proper, and so I am fine if we either move the article to Longview Race Riot or update the lead sentence. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: Any preference for one or the other option: moving the article to Longview Race Riot or updating the lead sentence? Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I started looking through the other red summer 1919 incidents and they're all lower case, so I changed the first sentence. So I've learned something. Thanks to those who put in time on it. deisenbe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:54, 16 December 2019‎ (UTC)

Thanks very much. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)