Talk:Tulsa race massacre/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Please read this statement

This article has a checkered past when it comes to Neutral point of view issues and Edit wars. The result of this activity was an irretrievably damaged article that needed to be nearly completely replaced.

The result of this overhaul left the article as it reads now, minus a handful of typographic corrections. The entire current article is based on a single piece of source material: Final Report of the Oklahoma Commission to Study the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921. This article is therefore accurate based on the source cited, but needs additional material with verifiable sources to fill in the gaps and to assure neutrality.

Because this article has proven to have subject matter that is very sensitive to some contributors (and rightfully so), and because of the contentious history of the article itself, virtually all new material added will need verifiable sources cited. For details on cited sources, please review Citing sources. Please review No original research. Also, please reframe from deleting or overwriting existing material without first posting your intentions on this discussion page. Any deletion without discussion and consensus to delete will result in an immediate reversion. Thank you for being curtious, and happy editing. Thanks, Master Scott Hall 05:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You have no authority to make this declaration, Scott. Tulsino 02:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The introduction is very POV. And what is "an ignominy of the white community of Tulsa"- this certainly isn't English language.

Images

A simple DuckDuckGo Image Search https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=tulsa+race+riot&iax=1&ia=images returns a lot of images. I would be surprised if there were not several that would be suitable. DrewWho (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

There is also interesting video. https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=tulsa+race+riot&ia=videos DrewWho (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The machine gun on top of the Tulsa Hotel

My father lived in Tulsa in 1921. He told me that a machine gun was placed on the roof of the Tulsa Hotel and they shot at anyone crossing Main Street. My guess is that it was manned by the National Guard forces brought in to stop the riots, but I do not know any more than what my father said and have never seen any written reference to it. Jim George

--JIMGGGG (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Mass graves and aerial attacks

Why is EVERY massacre in the US against Black people called a Riot? This is a massacre, plain and simple. Mass Graves, Government coverups, and rounding up people to be shot. MASSACRE. -Unsigned

The mass graves are a pure urban legend. In fact, this whole article is pretty biased towards the more sensational and rumor-laden aspects of the riot. Government coverups, psh. Next you're going to spout that idiotic old wives' tale that there were bombers flying over the city. -RannXXV 04:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I am framilar with the subject and I assure you that there are no mass graves and there is a consensus among black and white survivors of the riot that the "aerial bombers" legend is a hoax. MafiaCapo 21:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

How can anybody state a fact regarding this incident. There may have been mass graves, we don't know for sure because there was never an attempt to find out if there were. There may have also been air attacks, there were citations of aircrafts hoovering over Greenwood in a white newspaper; we will never know for sure if these aircrafts were involved in the distruction of Greenwood because no one, who wouldn't be considered biased, that was present there could give us such facts. The main point of having such an event written is just to know what happened (using what few facts we do have), and what we should work toward as humans; not to criticize the beliefs of what each person might believe happened or push your own beliefs. My point, however, is that any sensationalization or downplaying of the event will seem bias to someone, especially when it is not backed by something other than personal accounts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garlickgrl (talk • contribs) 17:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

To both Garlickgrl and MafiaCapo, the aerial attacks are well-documented with four eyewitnesses and a fifth second-hand account from the son of an eyewitness, as well as the official report on the riot and contemporary news accounts. These accounts are included in a 2001 book from a major publisher by a distinguished, award-winning reporter from a major mainstream newspaper, Tim Madigan's The Burning: Massacre, Destruction, and the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921. The material, properly sourced, will be added to the article shortly. Wiki requires that material be sourced and verifiable, see WP:V. A statement that an editor is personally "familiar" and believes there's a contemporary local consensus contrary to documented fact is neither acceptably sourced nor verifiable and also violates WP:OR. -- LisaSmall ^T/C 18:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This was not a massacre. It was a racial conflict. The first shots were fired by blacks. Beyond that little is known for certain. However it is clear both sides were to blame for escalating the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 07:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So-Called Vandalism

So. I see User:Dtasripin has brought his POV-based edit war over here, along with accusations of vandalism. Very well, I will not touch the article further, save to add the markers that it is not of proper quality and is not NPOV. -RannXXV 21:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

And there we go. Now, if someone cares to start sourcing the claims of mass graves to any sort of evidence, hopefully credible evidence, and clean it up to use less sensationalist language, maybe it will become a Wikipedia-quality article. -RannXXV 21:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Tulsa Race Riot overhaul

I have made a very honest attempt to turn this article into a solid and hopefully neutral encyclopedic piece. In the process, I am certain that many facts and figures have been missed. I hope that other contributors will continued to add, in good faith, additional factual, NPOV information to this important article. I have added a 'Controversy' section to facilitate other points of view, and encourage contributors to use the Talk/Discussion page to work out differences and conflicts of opinion. This article has the potential to become a significantly educational article and a great asset to the worldwide readers and users of Wikipedia.

I pulled most of the facts and figures directly from the Race Riot Commission Report. I realize that there are many differing points of view on this subject, but I used what appeared to be the most neutral source available to build a basic structure for this article - to provide a framework for future changes and additions. I am not attempting to establish this source as the only source for credible facts on this sensitive subject.

I also invite those who excel at writing scripts and templates to add the appropriate citations to this article. This is another reason I tried to stick with a single source this early on - to make it easier to cite sources.

Thanks --Master Scott Hall 22:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Unknown user: 68.0.119.82

Thank you for your contribution to this article. Based on the points made in the statement at the top of this discussion page, your contributions can not stand as is. The edit concerning Dick Rowland after the riot will be reverted. You may replace this material without overwriting existing material if you are able to provide a cited source. The edit concerning the dumping of bodies will stand pending citaion of Reliable sources. If no sources are provided within a reasonable amount of time, this edit will be reverted as well.

Note: I have heard these details mentioned, and don't doubt their validity. But in order to develop and maintain the credibility of this article and Wikipedia in general, all material must come from reliable sources and be verifiable. Thank you, Master Scott Hall 05:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: The edits made by User:68.0.119.82 have been reverted based on reasons discussed above. Thanks, Master Scott Hall | Talk 04:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Unknown User:128.32.14.36

User:128.32.14.36: Thank you for your interest in contributing to this article. As has been stated above, due to the sensitive nature of the subject matter in this article, and its long history of edit-warring and POV complications, any deletions or otherwise altering of existing content will be reverted unless first discussed on this talk page and a consensus reached with fellow contributing editors. This, coupled with your history of questionable edits, makes the motivations behind your most recent edits highly suspicious. Based on these points, your recent edits will be reverted. If you do not agree with this action, please discuss it here.

Perhaps, if you wish to change this editor's suspicion about the motivations behind your editing habits, you could consider contributing quality content (in other words, adding new, neutral, verifiable information) to this and other articles instead of strategically deleting/modifying/quasi-vandalizing content in an apparent effort distort its intended purpose. Another step toward gaining general acceptance and credibility would be to identify yourself and sign your work. Thanks, Master Scott | Talk 15:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

poorly cited

one citation at the end of this article is not sufficient. citations are needed throughout the article.

Tulsino 02:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• What purpose would it serve to have [1][2][3][4][5]...[999][1000] peppered all through the article, when they all point to the same source? I think Mr. Hall's explanation at the top of the talk page -- the one you struck-thru -- is valid and appropriate. On the other hand, it probably *is* appropriate to add the "cite sources" template to the top of the article. --Robertb-dc 17:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The [1][2] etc would show what really appears in the sources and what doesn't. I am new to this article and when I see questionable statements have no option but to read the whole cited report. Tulsino 05:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV claim

An anonymous IP address added a NPOV tag to the "Looting and burning" section. I don't see why, and they didn't bother to tell us here. Does describing a defense as "valiant" constitute a pro-defender POV? Are "countless" and "many" too unclear? Maybe so, but if there are no concrete suggestions on how to make it more NPOV, then I think it would be appropriate to remove the tag. --Robertb-dc 16:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Subtle POV shift?

The tone of the article was changed, in a rather subtle way, by an anonymous user's recent edits. The descriptions of the whites seemed to change from "mob" to "community" -- and the blacks changed from a "community" to a "mob". I would be tempted to chalk it up to a difference in wording, except for this change:

Before:

In the most generally accepted account, Rowland tripped upon entering the elevator and, in an effort to prevent himself from falling, grabbed the arm of Page, who subsequently let out a startled gasp or scream. In a less-accepted account, among others, it has been suggested that the two had had a lover's quarrel, but very few, on either side of the debate believe that any kind of actual assault occurred.

After:

It has been suggested that the two had a quarrel, and it is believed that the young lady was assaulted.

This incident, the spark that ignited the entire event, has been changed from saying that "few believe there was an assault" to "she was assaulted". To me, this shows the other edits in a different light altogether. With that in mind, I am reverting all the changes by 72.185.200.99 (whose only recent edits are to this article). Please note any objections here, as I am only trying to revert possible vandalism, not inject my own POV. --Robertb-dc 18:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• What's the deal? There are at least two recent reverts where the paragraph above has been changed to:

It has been suggested that the two had had a lover's quarrel, and few believe that any kind of actual assault occurred.

As before, the change is accompanied by several other, more subtle POV shifts. Why the need to move blame to the victims? It's been almost a century, folks. I think we white folks should be able to accept by now that people the same color as us did some awful things back then. On the other hand, I guess it could be worse. --Robertb-dc 15:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• And again! With almost the same revisions. It seems there is one person out there who has a vendetta against this article. Keep spittin' in the wind, dude. Keep on spittin' in the wind. --Robertb-dc 13:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"I think we white folks should be able to accept by now that people the same color as us did some awful things back then." - Robertb, I would not ascribe the most neutral point of view to you, especially given this statement. Validate your claims, then make revisions. By the way, I can guarantee you there is more than one person that has a problem with the article as you write it. I can swear to you that I only use one IP address (believe this if you choose, I do not care), and have no affiliation with the reasonable others that feel these revisions are more reflective of a neutral POV.24.161.233.224 04:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for stepping up and acknowledging the changes! I respectfully disagree, however, with your assertion that you are making the article "more reflective of a neutral POV". Let's start with an example that is far closer to the borderline than many of the others:

Before: Whether or not an actual assault had occurred, Dick Rowland had reason to be fearful. Such an accusation, rightful or not, in those days was enough to incite certain segments of the white public to forgo due process and take such matters into their own hands. Upon realizing the gravity of the situation, he fled to his mother's house in the Greenwood neighborhood.

After: Whether or not an actual assault had occurred, Dick Rowland had reason to be fearful. Such an accusation, rightful or not, in those days was enough to incite certain segments of the public to forgo due process and take such matters into their own hands. Upon realizing the gravity of the situation, he fled to his mother's house in the Greenwood neighborhood.

Removing the word "white" from the paragraph below makes it less accurate, not more neutral. Although if you have evidence of black mobs lynching whites for alleged offences, it would be very interesting to read. NPOV does not mean making everyone look like the good guys.

I would also very much like to know what is wrong with my talk page statement. It clearly upsets you, and I'm curious why? --Robertb-dc 20:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

To respond: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina_civil_disturbances_of_1876. There you go -evidence of black mobs lynching whites, with a link. There are plenty more instances. Mob violence went both ways, although that is beside the point here, or should be. The talk page statement did not so much upset me as it did reveal your own bias. Your talk page statement, while I agree, makes it seem that we through this article we (as humans, whoever reading this, whatever their color may be) should accept that whites did awful things to blacks, and you wish to convey that through this article. This is not what Wikipedia stands for. Wikipedia strives for historical objectivity, not a push for a modern agenda, however admirable it may be. A historically objective article allows the reader to make his or her own decisions about the occurances of the past; your article, as written, serves to make these judgments for them, and that right there is the main source of my disagreement. Hope this clears things up. Respectfully, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.161.233.224 (talk • contribs).

• It's not my article. In that spirit, let's see what the rest of the community has to say about the issue. Meanwhile, thanks for the link! Also, may I suggest creating an account? You're able to address me by name, but I can't extend the same courtesy to you. I would also suggest you learn more about Wiki formatting standards, like using [[South Carolina civil disturbances of 1876]] instead of creating an external link. Your knowledge of what makes Wikipedia work on a technical basis has no bearing on this discussion, of course, but some might think it implies a lack of familiarity with other Wikipedia policies. --Robertb-dc 14:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Upmost Importance

This article is listed under Oklahoma pages of "unknown importance". This is a critical turning point in race relations in this state. It is of highest importance, IMO. Hopquick 03:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Now it makes sense

I wondered why this article had been subject to so much revisionism (as detailed above), but it makes sense now. As detailed in this Tulsa World article, the parties to the lawsuit against the state, asking for the reparations recommended in 2001, were recently before the US Congress in an attempt to extend the Statute of Limitations for the case. This, apparently, brought out the worst in some editors, making edits like the ones detailed above, changing "very few, on either side of the debate believe that any kind of actual assault occurred" to "it is believed that the young lady was assaulted", along with other more subtle changes. Reparations are always a touchy issue, so I guess it's inevitable that the Wikipedia article would become embroiled in the fight. At least now we have a better idea of the reason behind the POV shift. --Robertb-dc 19:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Are there still no other sources to be found for this article? I would say it fails NPOV and encyclopedic style miserably. I came here because I followed a link from Roy Belton, however that case is not mentioned in this article. Also, I certainly assume the "statement" at the top of the page is meant to help, but it comes across as ownership. Ursasapien (talk) 09:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Problems with revision

There are plenty of sources for the riot and the ensuing looting and burning. Unfortunately, this is a highly politicized topic that has become even more divisive since the Race Riot Commission shifted its focus from looking for the truth to reparations. The Commission report is a true compromise since it seems none of the groups really agrees with it. There are a variety of arguments with it, from the unpublished manuscripts like William O'Brien's Who speaks for us? : The responsible citizens of Tulsa in 1921. Jenks (Okla.) : William M. O'Brien, 2002 and Norris, Robert D. The Oklahoma National Guard and the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921 : a historical, tactical and legal analysis. Tulsa : [s.n.], [2003], and Gates, Eddie Faye. Riot on Greenwood: The Total Destruction of Black Wall Street. Sunbelt Eakin, 2003. None of these agree with the others. However, Commission's report is the version of events that was accepted by the Legislature.

Among the major issues still under dispute are whether the Klan was directly involved; the number of people killed in the Riot; the presence of mass graves; if there was an active conspiracy to destroy the Greenwood district, to keep the African American victims from rebuilding, and to cover up the events; and the disagreement between "white evidence" and "black evidence".

It is generally believed that the Klan was behind the burning and looting even though there is no provable Klan presence in the state until a few months later (according to the late Danny Goble in the latest edition of the Historical Atlas of Oklahoma (2007), the first official incident of Klan related violence was in Muskogee, in July). People tend to point out that Tulsa had a huge Klan presence in the 20s, but overlook that the Tulsa Klavern (no.2 in the State) was created at the end of August, 1921, with the induction of 300 members. Is it possible that there were Klan members operating behind the scenes at the Riot? Sure, but if they were there it can't be proven.

Oklahoma was definitely racist during this period, and there were a large number of lynchings that took place, including that of the above mentioned Roy Belton, a white man. There were also a lot of other incidents of a similar nature, such as the assaults on a number of people accused of being members of the IWW.

The disagreement about the number of people killed, I believe, confuses the number of people who were directly killed, and those who died as a result of the riot, but that's my opinion.

If there were hundreds to thousands of people killed, that leads us to the question of mass graves. Several sites were identified in the folklore as being grave sites, and while Clyde Snow had originally received authorization to dig those sites, that authorization was pulled when several of the Race Riot Commission objected to digging (according to several witnesses at the meeting in question, the reason for the objection was the realization that if the sites were dug and no bodies were found, it might hurt the case for repercussions).

There has been a long standing belief that there was an active conspiracy, particularly among the white elites to destroy the Greenwood district, to keep the African American victims from rebuilding, and to cover up the events. I doubt there was any active conspiracy, but I have no doubts that the there were those who were willing to take advantage of the situation. Tulsa, going into the 20s still had a strong reputation of lawlessness. For example, a federal report made in 1921, before the riot, listed a number of brothels on both sides of the tracks centered on the area where the shooting took place all night long after the initial riot. One thing that is not often discussed is that the Commission examined the property records and discovered that while many people lost their property in the looting and burning, the majority of those properties were white owned rental properties. It is also frequently obscured that the African American citizens rebuilt bigger and better than before. The final demise of the Greenwood District (as did the decline and demise of many Black communities in Oklahoma) eventually came about after desegregation. The current vacant district was cleared during "urban renewal" in the late 60s and early 70s.

Finally, one of the arguments that were sparked during the Race Riot Commission was between "white evidence" (written documentation) and "black evidence" (oral traditions).

It's a messy topic, and it may take many more years before there is any true consensus.--68.0.71.149 06:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Tulsa is a city rife with a troublesome history of racism, right-wing extremism and the aftermath of the civil rights era, although Oklahoma was the farthest west of the Confederate Southern culture. I wondered about the impact the Greenwood (to indicate where the incidents started) race riots had on American Indians living in Tulsa, since the city was founded by the Creek Indians in the 1830's and a large (10-20%, maybe more part-American Indians?) porportion of residents claim Native American descent (esp. the Cherokees) experienced a moderate level of racism by white American settlers in the 1890's. + 71.102.7.77 (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Out of the Ashes

The Tulsa based dance and youth arts group, Nubian Heritage Arts, based in Apache Circle in North Tulsa, is launching a year of art pieces, spoken work, dance, sculpture, and more as a commemoration and awareness of the 1921 riot. The mission statement of Nubian Heritage Arts is to educate and empower underserved youth, through arts education. NHA is currently planning entertainment, workshops, and outreach to public schools in this vein. NHA is a 501c3 non profit organization. Find out more by emailing nubianheritagearts.com. 68.0.119.114 02:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Inflation-ised dollar estimate

I'll stay away from all the arguments about POV et al and update the dollar amount that equates 1.8 million 1921 US dollars to $17 million of today. As with all such figures, they erode with time, and as it's about a 2000 estimate, I have adjusted the figure for 2007 dollars to $21 million. Was it necessary I told you so? Eh. Aragond (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

The following is not clear: "Private and armoried guns," Do you mean guns taken from the National Guard armory?Fconaway (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thx. Tried tweaking it (don't know, successfully). --Justmeherenow (talk) 06:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Mmm. The National Guard has always maintained that none of their weapons were removed and used by the rioters. Moreover, in the report of the National Guard commander, LTC Rooney indicated that a machine gun was supplied by MAJ Daley who indicated that "we dug it up", and Rooney assumed it came from the Police Department. It was "not in repair and could only be used only as a single shot piece." And for the record, there is no proven evidence that any incinerators were used. Marccarlson (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

????

Just like everything else "negro" based in this world, things are covered up. We will never know what actually happened. The World will twist things to pity the "negro's", thats how America is now. I am not racist by any means. As far as suing Tulsa and/or The State of Oklahoma??? I think "negro's" should be happy how America had turned out. They now have more right's than White people. So for all the sympathizer's look at the world and tell me who needs more right's

Trey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.252.74 (talk • contribs) 17:08, March 7, 2008

• The history of the Race Riot has been one of the white folks generally doing the "covering up" in Tulsa.Marccarlson (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Trey, you're in the year 2010 and hardly anybody except for the US census document form ever dares to use the term "Negro" and you failed to capitalize the term describing a person, not an animal. What you're trying to do is either commit an act of racist trolling or trying to be a shock-jock comedian on the internet. You cannot assume black people, African-American or persons of color (don't start with the "colored" term either) have more rights than white people or the majority of Americans being European/Caucasian, and the Tulsa race riot was caused by both sides when racial tensions peaked at the time between the two ethnoracial communities. + 71.102.7.77 (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

In respose to the paragraph above, what is sad is the amount of ignorance that still exists in our country. To refer to us as "negros" more than once in your writing is extremely offensive and ignorant. All of us are not the same and you'd be surprised at how many blacks in this country are quite appreciative of the freedom we have. You should be ashamed of yourself for your remarks. Furhtermore, you should perhaps consider revising your paragraph. You have several errors... - Taj Woods-Sutherlin--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.19.250.43 (talk • contribs) 17:28, December 1, 2015

Question about Capitalization

I'm not going to change the edits because I'm really not sure about the interpretation for the Manual of Style for Wikipedia, but I believe that it's based on Chicago. I think that the Chicago style says that proper names should be capitalized. The generally accepted name for the event is the Tulsa Race Riot, with the caps (the OCLC/World Cat subject heading, for instance is "Tulsa Race Riot, 1921.". If the Wiki style is to put the proper names in lower case, that's fine, but if so, "Tulsa Race War" should be in lower case. Could someone who is more knowledgeable on this please comment? Marccarlson (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:CAPS states: For page titles, always use lowercase after the first word, and do not capitalize second and subsequent words, unless: the title is a proper noun. Now the question becomes, is this title a proper noun that would be capitalized irregardless of context. Ursasapien (talk) 07:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You probably mean either regardless or irrespective; "irregardless" is a double negative. Rammer (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Chronological impossibility?

The article makes this claim: "The Ku Klux Klan made its first major appearance in Oklahoma on August 12, 1921, less than three months after the riot." But one of the categories is "Ku Klux Klan crimes." Question: How can an event so major as the Tulsa race riot be a Ku Klux Klan crime if the "first major appearance" of the Klan in Oklahoma occurred after the riot? See also the earlier discussion on "Problems with revision." Rammer (talk) 05:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Good question, the participation of the Greenwood race riots by some white racists is evident, but there probably was unannounced klan organizations at the time. The Stone Mountain, Georgia KKK in Oklahoma did establish a state chapter in Aug. 1921, while the KKK became very powerful in the level of local and state government in the 1920's when about half of the state legislature are thought to be Klan members, but the Klan collapsed under their weight by the end of the decade and were federally investigated for corruption from the Oklahoma Democratic and Republican parties. + 71.102.7.77 (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The current opening paragraph has language inappropriate for an encyclopedia imo (e.g. referencing "video evidence and a *true book*" with no links or names for them). Most of the damage seems to be done by a june 26th edit but since it seems to be in good faith and i have no knowledge of the subject someone else should clean it up.--Helixdq (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

Even if we completely disregard all the problems with the factual accuracy of this, it's still just embarrassing. The article is going to turn people off just by merit of the fact that every sentence, at least in the introduction, is "this is important!" "this is the most ignored piece of American history!" "racist historians want to hide this from you!" and so forth.

68.225.137.79 (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is the title different from the lead?

Is it the Tulsa race riot or the Tulsa White supremacist attack? Whatever the title is, I feel it should appear in the lead. For example,

The Tulsa race riot (also referred to as the Tulsa White supremacist attack) was a large scale racially-motivated conflict ...

thoughts? 128.59.179.241 (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I assume that the discrepancy is because this is Wikipedia and somebody changed the lead to push a POV. I've changed it back. --Richard S (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Phrasing issue

This is more of a nitpicky thing than an actual issue, but the phrasing in the 'Standoff at the Courthouse' section is... Well, it's poorly done.

"He also positioned six of his men, armed with rifles and shotguns, on the roof of the courthouse. He also disabled the building's elevator, and had his remaining men barricade themselves at the top of the stairs with orders to shoot any intruders on sight. The sheriff also went outside and tried to talk the crowd into going home, but to no avail."

The word 'also' was used three times for three sentences. My suggestion is as follows:

"He positioned six of his men, armed with rifles and shotguns, on the roof of the courthouse. After disabling the building's elevator he had his remaining men barricade themselves at the top of the stairs with orders to shoot any intruders on sight. The sheriff then went outside and tried to talk the crowd into going home, but to no avail."

If there's no issues from a historic point, I'd like permission to edit that in, or have someone else edit it. 174.16.203.71 (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestions; do it.Parkwells (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait

I read somewhere that 300 black people died in this riot. B-Machine (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The figure of 3900 victims given in the article is wildly exaggerated. The footnote cited estimates that there were fewer than 100 victims of all races. This needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.33.158.121 (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Any figures need citations and sources; conflicting sources can be added to show differing estimates, as well.Parkwells (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Who flew those planes?

The article goes to great lengths to picture the aftermath of the Tulsa police chief, yet no attempt is made in the article to investigate the aftermath of what is perhaps the most dramatic event in the story: the fact that US military aircraft were used in the attack.

Planes do not fly themselves. Furthermore, it would be a quite narrow segment of the population that would be able to pilot these aircraft. Who was it? Military personnel? World War One hobbyists?

I find it hard to believe that the Tulsa police department kept pilots on its staff in the event of emergency.

To the point: if it was the military, why was no official inquiry made in that direction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.164.248.243 (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It's because of the very nature that the genocide was state or federally sanctioned that investigation isn't and hasn't been pushed for.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.151.28 (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Time style

Most, but not all, of the article refers to time of day in 24-hour clock style. This is uncommon in the United States outside of the military. Would there be any objection to changing these to standard 12-hour clock style with am and pm? If there's a consensus, or at least no objection, I'll make the change in a couple of days. SchreiberBike talk 04:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Changes made. SchreiberBike talk 22:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Perpetrators

It says the perpetrators in the previous version were "whites" which implies that all "whites" were involved, that makes absolutely no sense. I had no part in that nonsense that took place in Tulsa, it was some White American racists who did. The new editorial is more specific -- when talking about colonialism in Africa in specific country do you say 'the white colonized this country'? No, say would say 'the British colonized this country' or whatever specific nationality colonized it. "Whites" is a vague term. ShawntheGod (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

some white americans

Regarding this nonsense. ShawntheGod wants to hedge on the perpetrators by saying that they were "some white americans," thus making a mockery of the English language and the good sense of everyone reading it, who can see immediately that it wasn't all white americans who did it. Why not say that it was some members of some components of the OK national guard? This is just how you say this in English. I'm looking forward to seeing any kind of coherent rationale for this edit.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Last time I checked the white race was a lot more ubiquitous than the "Oklahoma National Guard" is. The former version of the article implied that all "whites" had to do with this awful event in the perpetration and it is specific about the type of National Guard involved. It says specifically "Oklahoma National Guard" not the National Guard of the United States in general or the National Guard of Florida or whatever. ShawntheGod (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

No it did not imply anything about what the whole white race did. Do you think it was every member of the OK national guard? Why don't you want to hedge that too? Do you not understand that, in telegraphese, which is what these infobox fields are written in, saying "Perpetrators: whites" means that the perpetrators were white people, not that white people were the perpetrators. It's shocking that you think this. It leads me to think that you're trolling. but we'll see what others think soon enough, I imagine.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

And what in the world do you even think "ubiquitous" means? Not whatever you're using it to mean.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean? I'm saying the white race is found everywhere and comes from tons of places, unlike the National Guard of Oklahoma which is simply from Oklahoma. Look, I'm not gonna edit war over a couple words, if you wanna keep it "whites" then fine. I just don't want people to get the wrong idea from the event though, but I changed it back. ShawntheGod (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, thank you. Believe me, no native speaker of English is going to get that idea. Even you didn't get that idea, or you wouldn't have known to change it to "some."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Your welcome, but hopefully people don't get the wrong idea from this event, the way I saw the infobox perp section was kinda nebulous to me and I just didn't want people to get the wrong idea. ShawntheGod (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If it was "nebulous," why'd you add the word "some" instead of some other word?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I comprehended your point now, obviously not all whites were involved in this, but I just didn't want people to get the wrong idea and I was trying to be more specific and not let such a vague term be used, but I see your rationale for dissenting and hopefully people comprehend only certain people were involved. No need for edit-warring over a few words. ShawntheGod (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Brethren, let us pray!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm agnostic, so only when I feel like I might need some help. lol...ShawntheGod (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Domestic Terror Attack

There should be no dispute that what took place in Tulsa was a domestic terror attack. Yet I have been met with opposition from one individual. His reasoning is that i should have to source that it is a domestic terror attack. I find this assertion ridiculous. Reading over other articles where the attacks are noted as domestic terror attacks there is zero sourcing to the tag of why it should be considered a domestic terrorist attack, its just that we commonly all agree that said attack was a domestic terror attack. So there is no prior acts in place that establishes that I must source this. Additionally, just reading the facts of what happened should be enough to note this as a domestic terror attack. The people revising my edits obviously have not spent any time actually researching the Tulsa Race Riot in any capacity as they seem to just be edit trolls.

According to a memo produced by the FBI's Terrorist Research and Analytical Center in 1994, domestic terrorism was defined as "the unlawful use of force or violence, committed by a group(s) of two or more individuals, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."[2]

Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."[3]

The Tulsa Race Riot clearly fits every single factor of the terms set forth in 1994 and under current United States law. It is high time we update the Tulsa Race Riot to reflect the law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cquest (talk • contribs) 06:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you redact your personal attack on the other editor.

At least three editors have undone the edits to this article and to Domestic terrorism in the United States (not one, as you claim), so clearly there is a dispute as to whether the Tulsa Race Riot should be called domestic terrorism. I have not yet made any edits to either article, but I don't agree with retroactively applying a definition from a 1994 FBI memo or from the 2001 Patriot Act to something that happened in the 1921. We don't make those judgements. If we can find reliable sources that use the term "domestic terrorism" in reference to the Tulsa Race Riot, then we can use the term. If not, we shouldn't. Meters (talk) 06:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You cant say its been 3 other users when there are just IP addresses which could and probably mean one user. You report me for some craziness yet you don't report them? Thats crazy.

Also, its clear that you are on "their" side in terms of not wanting to call this a domestic terror attack, in fact, you are probably the same person doing this against the article. With that said though, I will argue against your inane idea of "retroactively applying a definition". This is laughable to think that something that IS a domestic terror attack should not carry that label as such because the definition had not been created until later. To follow your inane train of thought this essentially means hiding domestic attacks of terror before 1994 and calling them something else entirely. Of course this is crazy and not suitable in any regard. I reject your assertion as completely invalid. It is in FACT a domestic terror attack and will be states as such.

But I don't even need to state that. All I have to do is simply do this:

Notable domestic terrorist attacks[edit]

Bombing of Los Angeles Times building[edit] Main article: Los Angeles Times bombing The bombing of the Los Angeles Times on October 1, 1910 killed 21 people.[17] The perpetrators of this crime were the McNamara brothers (James and John McNamara), two Irish-American brothers who wanted to unionize the paper. The McNamaras became a cause célèbre amongst the labor movement in the United States, though their support eroded when they admitted their guilt.

Wall Street bombing[edit] Main article: Wall Street bombing The Wall Street bombing was a terrorist incident that occurred on September 16, 1920, in the Financial District of New York City. A horse-drawn wagon filled with 100 pounds (45 kg) of dynamite was stationed across the street from the headquarters of the J.P. Morgan Inc. bank. The explosion killed 38 and injured 400. Even though no one was found guilty, it is believed that the act was carried out by followers of Luigi Galleani.

Both of those are considred domestic terror attacks in the United States and they both took place before Tulsa. Therefore, you want to get rid of those too, right? Of course you don't.

So I have just obliterated your argument. Do you have any more? Ill be here all night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cquest (talk • contribs) 06:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to add that since your ONLY argument was that it happened "too long ago" which I clearly just showed to be a non factor, you should now have absolutely no other reason to be against labeling the Tulsa Race Riot as a terrorist attack. If you come up with something else it won't be because you believe it, it will be because you are now actively trying to "win" and bully instead of focusing on what is right and true. Neither winning or bullying will be tolerated. I know I am in the right, and I know you have no argument to sustain your position. Therefore, please stop challenging my edit with bullying tactics. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cquest (talk • contribs) 07:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Last thing. Its clear you are attacking me saying some sockpuppet stuff when I was very clearly not signed in when I made my first edits. I am not hiding that that is me, I say "my edits" across posts. That is a really low tactic for you to try and use to silence the truth. I suggest you go edit another article because I am not budging on the truth here. You obviously have nothing to offer in the way of truth on this article, its not even a subject you are remotely versed in discussing. Thank you, and have a good life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cquest (talk • contribs) 08:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, it's one IP and two experienced, named accounts (not 3 IPs) that have undone these edits. If you want to accuse me of socking take it to WP:SPI. It's considered a personal attack to accuse someone of being a sock without presenting evidence at SPI. I'm sure the other two named accounts Mild Bill Hiccup and InedibleHulk will get a laugh out of it if you do so.

I could be wrong about whether this event should be called domestic terrorism. I have made no changes to either article. All I've done is give my opinion on this talk page so I can discuss the issue with other editors. I think we need sources that use the term "domestic terrorism" before we apply the term ourself. The Wall Street bombing and Los Angeles Times bombing may be listed as domestic terrorism incidents in Domestic terrorism in the United States but neither of the main articles use the term. It may well be that the result of this discussion is a decision that the term should not be applied to those events either (without suitable sources that use the term). Meters (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You are indeed wrong, which is fine, we are all wrong sometimes, and I am glad you are able to entertain the possibility. Lets be clear, without a shadow of a doubt this was a domestic terror attack. We should not pretend otherwise. What the argument really comes down to is sourced information proclaiming it as such when most attention on the subject was done before the term domestic terror attack came into being. Obviously, that is going to be hard to do from news sources as its nearly 100 years old. Additionally, this specific situation needs special attention because from the days it happened it was covered up and kept quiet. It was not acknowledged for a long time by its own state, whether by shame or racial intent. 'Official' numbers are never quite right in these kinds of situations when the power structure is hand in hand with the problem. So we can't hide behind technicalities, certain articles need a case by case look to impede those people who don't want to give the Tulsa Race Riots their clear distinction (shame, racial intent). If we want to start taking away statuses based on terms not existing before the situation took place then we will have 1000s of articles that would have to change, not just the LA Times bombing and Wallstreet bombing. I feel this tactic of picking and choosing is not fair, and that it is no coincidence that its about an article dealing with white people committing domestic terror on black people. That strikes a chord and even still nearly 100 years later some people are not able to confront the injustice. Wikipedia can not be party to that. We need to start tackling these situations head on. If editors are going to discuss this article, they need to stop hiding behind technicalities and actually start discussing the article. When someones logic is "Well we can't name it a domestic terror attack because it was not called that when it happened" to me that clearly shows a lack of understanding educationally, historically and socially of not just the Tulsa Race Riot, but of our laws as well as checks and balances. Still, I have not seen once counter argument that mentions specifics from the Tulsa Race Riot at all. Its all just "well show me proof if you can't show me proof then I'll reverse it". Its like talking loudly over someone in an attempt to silence them instead of actually listening. Its extremely frustrating and if people are going to show attention to this article, they need to actually know what they are talking about. Thus far, no one else (September 2014) seems to have any real grasp of what the Tulsa Race Riot was. I think before discussing many editors here need to do more than read just the article. I think you need to research it yourselves a lot more to get a better understanding of how we arrived at today. Put in the time. If an editor can't put in the time personally to do that, to get a proper grasp of the situation and how it historically came to be, then in my opinion perhaps said editor should not be making such important revisions. Just my two and a half cents. Cquest (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

No evidence has been presented that this event is considered an occurrence of domestic terrorism. It was not prosecuted as such, either under the PATRIOT Act or any other law (as is mentioned, e.g., in the Wall Street bombing article). No sources have been provided to show that it is considered domestic terrorism by historians or by law enforcement. The sole reason provided for inclusion of that description is a primary source legal definition, along with one editor's analysis of the facts of the case to reach the unsupported determination that they fit the definition. Four editors find that determination insufficient and/or erroneous. There is no way Wikipedia requirements of reliable sourcing, no original research, and verifiability are close to having been met. 2600:1006:B02B:4F7B:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The entire event is evidence of it being an occurrence of domestic terrorism. You are asking for evidence of...evidence. When the OKC building was bombed and they caught McVeigh, we knew it was domestic terrorism. This happened in 1921, it was essentially covered up, it was white on black crime and America is not in a rush to highlight an extremely painful situation like this. We are adults, we know how history is written. Its a footnote in history with no champion. Naturally, its going to be hard to find much with those specific definitions nearly 100 years later. Curiously though, you are not discussing the event itself, which is obviously the most important element. As I said, the entire event is evidence of domestic terrorism. I'd like you to actually discuss the event. I don't think 4 editors who have no knowledge of the Tulsa Race Riot in any shape or form are best suited to make changes. Put in the time to understand why its hard to source something like this with official acknowledgement. Actually look at the facts of what happened yourself. This is an event that no one wants to really address. Please understand the conditions. Please put in the time to actually understand it by doing research. I offer the entire event as proof of it being a domestic terror attack. I would like you to please use the event specifically to tell me why it is not a domestic terror attack. Cquest (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You demonstrate nothing with these repetitious demands to discuss the event itself except your own complete lack of understanding as to the purpose of Wikipedia and its talk pages. We are not here to discuss the subjects of articles and decide what we think they were. We are not here to "right great wrongs". If you think the event is underrepresented or misrepresented in history, fine. Convince some professor at UCLA to publish a new book on the subject. Or do so yourself. Wikipedia's mandate is to summarize what has already been published by others, preferably scholars but also news media if necessary. Not to break new ground by publishing our own analysis, interpretations, or opinions - no matter how self-evidently correct we personally consider them to be. 2600:1006:B02B:4F7B:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, I do all my editing as InedibleHulk, minus two or three before I made the account in 2006. And yes, of course you need to cite claims. This is Wikipedia. Also, "act of terror" is not synonymous with "act of terrorism". Many things are terrifying, without the ideology. Reporters and presidents alike use the former term when trying to invoke emotion in the absence of evidence. Changing the definition at the list to suit inclusion of vague "acts of terror" (especially next to an existing source which doesn't back it) is wrong. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This is another post that hasnt actually discussed the Tulsa Race Riot specifically. I find this to be a troubling trend so far this September. I urge you to read that article and watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4IvFXPGYNA and tell me after that you do not think the Tulsa Race Riot was a domestic terror attack. If you can't put in the time to know the subject you are talking about and why sourcing is different in this case then I do not see how you can properly edit it. Cquest (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It has become clear to me that no one here seems to actually care about the article at hand. None of you have mentioned anything from the Tulsa Race Riot specifically at all. Just me. So I know truth will always win. I know how this goes though. 2-3 editors will keep changing what I edit in an attempt to just starve me out, with no actual dialogue about the article itself. Unless of course, more people see this talk page and it becomes 20 to 3. ;) Cquest (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

LOL@ census has been reached. NO ONE IS DEBATING THE ARTICLE. Meter you are funny. All of these bullying tactics and then closing something for edit because you want to protect a racist way of thought. NOTHING has changed since the Tulsa Race Riot happened. People like you still want to hide the truth. Its a joke to say consensus has been reached when I am the only one debating the topic and its only been 2 days. What a joke. Racist ideology has some people smiling to themselves and doing nerdy digital high fives about something they don't even care about. Again, what a joke. Cquest (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Your edits calling the Tulsa race riot "domestic terrorism" in this article and in Domestic terrorism in the United States have now been undone by at least 3 named accounts and 2 IPs. Three of those editors have participated in this talk page thread. No-one else has supported your position, so there's no consensus that your position is correct. As I said in my edit summary, "consensus seems to be not to call this domestic terrorism without sources calling it that." Meters (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

N.B., Unless I missed someone, it's one IP editor, not two. Some ISPs seem to rotate dynamic IPs at random intervals. 2600:1006:B02B:4F7B:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

If you were also 2600:1006:b10d:6844:5ad:4287:e314:1b02, then yes, 1 IP. Meters (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

First, I will echo what 2600:1006:B02B:4F7B:B945:D20A:9451:85D wrote above: it's not Wikipedia's place to reach its own conclusions about events; we report what reliable sources say. Insults of other editors and repeated reversions are not constructive. Having said that, it is also the case that a number of writers have used the term "terrorism" to describe these events. See for example the Google Books results here. Rather than continuing to try to put that characterization in Wikipedia's voice, a more constructive approach would be to identify some of the strongest examples of this in the scholarly literature, and then propose to add something along the lines of "Scholars such as X and Y have described the riot as a substantial example of [exact quotes from the sources]", with appropriate footnotes to attribute the description. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, this is rubbish that completely dismisses what has gone on with the Tulsa Race Riot for nearly 100 years now. It was covered up. It was finally said to have existed much later. The term domestic terror attack doesnt come into popular lexicon until 1994. There is no rush for America to call it a terrorist attack. Yet, its a pick and choose problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States Bombing of Los Angeles Times building - 1910 Wall Street Bombing - 1920 These are said to be domestic terror attacks but I don't see any sources having to SAY they are domestic terror attacks. Its just accepted by what HAPPENED that its a domestic terror attack. You don't need a source to STATE that. You need facts to show substantiate, and then you need to source those facts. FOr example, we don't have to show proof that Phil Ivey is a poker player, we see him playing poker to know this. We then note that he has played poker and source that this has indeed happened. We don't need to nor do we source someone calling him a poker player as evidence that he is a poker player. That is NOT how wikipedia works or has ever worked. The evidence that he is a poker player is the action of him playing, which is then sourced. So if you want every time someone has called something something to be sourced, instead of the facts of the event itself, then the entire system needs to be uprooted. But we all know this. This is just a tactic, its an excuse to justify actions instead of actually confronting the issues head on - what happened in fact was indeed a domestic terror attack by definition and there is no disputing that as the facts are in the wikipedia article already. You can't dispute those facts, and those facts add up to domestic terrorism. But none of you will actually READ the article to see that. Stop with the farce. This is a circus.

Again, I want to see someone come up and dispute it being a domestic terror attack based on the facts. NONE OF YOU CAN OR WILL DO THAT. Instead you pick and choose. So if this is the case then we need to start changing up a lot of articles that just name stuff based on facts rather than what somebody called it one time. Especially every single one that took place a long time ago. Cquest (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

If things are covered up to the extent that no reliable sources mention them, it's not Wikipedia's job to decide to "wake people up". There are plenty of other places on the Internet for that.

The Wall Street and Times bombings don't have a verbatim "domestic terrorism" citation, but the former was connected to a famous anarchist, and the latter to a unionization agenda. Where's the political coercion in this one? You've gone at length about how we're ignoring facts, but you haven't presented them. Mainly tangents about racism, Wikipedia sucking, reading comprehension and Phil Ivey.

Instead of telling us "The Tulsa Race Riot clearly fits every single factor of the terms", show us. Concisely, if possible. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this should be called domestic terrorism. Anyone who actually read the article can see that. Does anyone dispute the actual events are an act of domestic terrorism, or are others just splitting hairs because no government has called it a domestic terror attack? Do the nature of the government covering it up, they should not be the ones we look to. By its nature it looks to be terrorism. Does anyone dispute this? 99.2.220.120 (talk) 07:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Clearly, several editors have disagreed with calling this domestic terrorism and have undone that change. Meters (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization

This is a bit of an issue on the side that hasn't really been addressed, but I noticed that amid the edit warring, the infobox has been getting switched between using "Tulsa race riot of 1921" and using "Tulsa Race Riot of 1921" for the title. Would "Tulsa Race Riot" be regarded as significant enough as to be an actual name of the event? Any replies would be appreciated. Please notify me of any responses by using {{Reply to}} before the actual reply. Thanks. Dustin (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: Some refs capitalize it, some don't, for example, the 2011 New York Times piece http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/us/20tulsa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 . As for the infobox and the first sentence in the lead, shouldn't the capitalization reflect that used in the article title? We should change it everywhere, if it needs to be changed. I have not looked at this issue in depth, but so far it looks like changing to upper case is probably the way to go . Meters (talk) 04:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: Anyone else want to venture an opinion here? We should go with modern usage, but it is split on whether the name should be capitalized. The sources we use are also split, so I suggest that we stick with the usage in what seems to me to be the definitive modern reference we use. That is the nearly 200-page Tulsa Race Riot: Report by the Oklahoma Commission to Study the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921, 2001, http://www.okhistory.org/trrc/freport.htm Usage is split in this document (even after ignoring headings, direct quotes, and usage as a proper noun in the name of the commission [Tulsa Race Riot Commission]); however, in a strong majority of the occurrences the term is to not treated as a proper noun. I think we should leave the article title and body usages as lower case. Meters (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree (weakly). I myself tend to use the capitals. But given Wikipedia's default preference for lower case, and the guidance at MOS:CAPS that "words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia" (emphasis added by me), I lean toward keeping it as is. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Should we call the Tulsa race riot or the Tulsa ethnic cleansing?

This is generally considered a riot, but there seem to be things that went on beyond a typical riot. There were indeed planes being used to drop incendiary devices(although it's clear they weren't from the military) and it appears the rioters were able to get into the armory of the National Guard. This seems comparable to what happened in Rwanda(i.e civilians supported by local leaders). I think the title needs to be changed based on this source http://www3.law.harvard.edu/journals/hjrej-articles/archive/vol20/gates.pdf Turtire (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• We name articles according to the name by which the subject is most commonly known, see WP:COMMONNAME, and in this case, without question, that name is "Tulsa Race Riot". --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The ref was interesting reading, but it certainly didn't use the term ethnic cleansing. Meters (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Result of 2007 appeal to Congress

Are we to assume Congress did not act? Best to state the result. ChicagoLarry (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

References I've found up to 2012 say that the Judicial Committee did not approve the bill; and I added this. Conyers re-introduced it in 2009 and 2012. With Republican control of the House, I believe rejection of the bill by the committee has continued.Parkwells (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Needs more info on what ever happened to the initial protagonists, and under separate heading

The answer to the burning question of "What ever happened to Dick Rowland?" is buried under the heading "Legal actions." Suggest it be put under a separate heading and include what happened to the girl as well (Sarah Page), if there is information. Seems odd that there would not be more about these persons, and maybe even some subsequent commentary from them. But I suspect there isn't or it would already be included. ChicagoLarry (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tulsa race riot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://chronicle.com/weekly/v47/i44/44a02203.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Source at Smithsonian

See A Long-Lost Manuscript Contains a Searing Eyewitness Account of the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921, Smithsonian Magazine, May 27, 2016, by Allison Keyes re Buck Colbert Franklin's eyewitness account. Note John Hope Franklin's words: "The term riot is contentious, because it assumes that black people started the violence, as they were accused of doing by whites," Franklin says. "We increasingly use the term massacre, or I use the European term, pogrom." If only they put the text of the ten-page manuscript on-line, too. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Should it be protected ?

Lots of vandalism:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tulsa_race_riot&diff=729031224&oldid=729001624
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tulsa_race_riot&diff=728974103&oldid=728537900
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tulsa_race_riot&diff=726836243&oldid=726791987
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tulsa_race_riot&diff=725308526&oldid=725252566
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tulsa_race_riot&diff=725245733&oldid=725137351
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tulsa_race_riot&diff=725137009&oldid=725029036

all in the last month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Au travail (talk • contribs) 12:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Rolled back edits

An editor recently removed some material sourced to the article noted above in the Smithsonian Magazine, including excerpts from an eyewitness account of the riot, based on a recently discovered manuscript by Buck Colbert Franklin, an African-American lawyer in Tulsa. He became noted as a civil rights lawyer and was the father of noted historian John Hope Franklin. I think it is arbitrary for the editor to decide this is a "bad source," as he says in the reason for deleting the quote and source. The excerpt and article were published in a recognized mainstream Reliable Source. I agree that it was inappropriate for another editor to rename these events in the Infobox for this article as the "Tulsa Massacre", based on this one source. Such a name change for the Infobox needs to be discussed on the Talk page. But I believe that the quote from the manuscript and the citation to this source should remain.Parkwells (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding new content to Aftermath

Am adding new content and cites to immediate aftermath - formation of a committee of businessmen committed to helping fund restoration and redevelopment, governor's ordering of Grand Jury, etc. More needs to be said about this period. Parkwells (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Unsupported Assertion in Article/NPOV Issue

The article's third paragraph contains the statement "The massacre, usually referred to as a "race riot" as if the blacks had attacked". The alleged motivation for the term "race riot" being used "as if the blacks had attacked isn't supported in the reference cited in support of the paragraph ["As Survivors Dwindle, Tulsa Confronts Past" by A.G. Sulzberger. New York Times, June 19th, 2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/us/20tulsa.html]. In fact, the article itself uses the term "race riot" in an unqualified manner, and its author is not in any way trying to misrepresent those responsible for the riot.

I'm deleting the entire passage "usually referred to as a "race riot" as if the blacks had attacked" under the WP:NPOV guideline. Not only is no source for that statement cited, but the New York Times itself calls the incident a "race riot", and can be presumed to be not be motivated by any desire to misrepresent who was responsible for the incident. I realize the author was a Sulzberger, but I don't think even a member of the NYT's controlling dynasty would be forgiven such a departure from neutral point of view by his or her copy editor. loupgarous (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Once again somebody tried editing the article to describe the incident as a 'massacre' and downplay the description of 'riot' (namely Special:Contributions/75.115.128.81 who also vandalised an article to change "a White Nationalist author" to "a racist and un-American author"). Reverted to keep NPOV. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

This was plagarisum but there is a lot of good information that would be good for this page. If anyone wants to go and change this so that it fits with Wikipedia policy then please do so.

Walter Francis White of the N.A.A.C.P. traveled to Tulsa from New York and reported that, although officials and undertakers said the fatalities numbered ten white and 21 colored, he estimated the dead to be 50 whites and between 150 and 200 Negroes; he also reported that ten white men were killed on Tuesday; six white men drove into the black section and never came out, and thirteen whites were killed on Wednesday; he reported that the head of the Salvation Army in Tulsa said that 37 negroes were employed as gravediggers to bury 120 negroes in individual graves without coffins on Friday and Saturday. The Los Angeles Express headline said "175 Killed, Many Wounded". <?ref>

References

Move to Tulsa Race Massacare—reverted

Usually, on Wikipedia, with well-established articeles, we request moves so that others may participate and offer their opinion on the move proposal. Only when there's consensus, does the move then goes ahead. *** There's no indication (via reliable sources) that the new term enjoys common usage in the historiography. El_C 16:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Yup. This has been discussed before. "race massacre" and "ethnic cleansing" have both been considered and rejected, and multiple attempts to rewrite the articl eto use terms other than "race riot" have been undone. Meters (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 21 April 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. This discussion has been open for over a week, and while comments are still being made, I see no reason to think leaving it open for longer will result in a different consensus. There is no agreement for a blanket move of all listed articles to the proposed slate of titles, or any other titles. In general, Wikipedia articles take the most WP:COMMONNAME, and if there's no one common name, other options such as neutral, descriptive titles are available. In most of these cases, the present titles are just descriptive titles, and there is no pressing policy reason or consensus that they should all be moved as proposed. However, the nominator has given substantial evidence that has lead to different degrees of support for individual articles. To move forward I suggest opening individual RMs at some of these articles where sources appear to support the "massacre" terminology versus "riot" or "race riot". Cúchullain ^t/c 15:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

---

• Tulsa race riot → Tulsa Race Massacre of 1919
• Meridian race riot of 1871 → Meridian Race Massacre of 1871
• Elaine race riot → Elaine Race Massacre 1921
• Chicago race riot of 1919 → Chicago Race Massacre
• Knoxville riot of 1919 → Knoxville Race Massacre of 1919
• Omaha race riot of 1919 → Omaha Race Massacre of 1919
• Memphis riots of 1866 → Memphis Race Massacre of 1866
• Detroit race riot of 1863 → Detroit Race Massacre of 1863
• South Carolina civil disturbances of 1876 → South Carolina Race Massacres of 1863
• 1895 New Orleans dockworkers riot → New Orleans Dockworkers Race Massacre of 1895
• Wilmington insurrection of 1898 → Wilmington Race Massacre of 1898
• Phoenix election riot → Phoenix Election Race Massacre of 1898
• Robert Charles riots → New Orleans Race Massacre of 1900
• Atlanta race riot → Atlanta Race Massacre of 1906
• Springfield race riot of 1908 → Springfield Race Massacre of 1908
• East St. Louis riots → East St. Louis Race Massacre of 1917

– After doing extensive research on the Rosewood massacre, and other such massacres, for a project, I realized that several of these events had been erroneously labelled as being "race riots." Realizing the discrepancy, I looked on the Wiki help pages on how go about moving a page. I made the edits/moves and went on with my day. Then I was contacted by Wiki editors who told me that my moves had been rejected for being "contentious." Given there is no difference between the "Rosewood massacre" and the Elaine race riot, the Tulsa race riot, and the Meridian race riot of 1871, I edited/moved the pages for accuracy and uniformity. My intention was not contentious but, as is often the case when one points out the inaccurate labelling of racism/racist acts (which have been historically minimized by the status quo), I was basically labelled a "troublemaker," with one editor alluding to the edits/moves as being "inappropriate" and questioning my sincerity because I hadn't made a Wiki edit "for months," and the other editor telling me that I lacked "common sense" in making the edit/move...while adding that "the moves were hasty."

Both editors made judgments on my character and intent without 1) knowing me or 2) making any effort to understand me or my intent.

I have made several edits to pages before, over 6 years, and nothing I've ever edited was ever treated in such a manner. When pointing out that my moves were based on, in part, Wiki's own page definitions of riot vs. massacre, in addition to the sources already on those pages, and Wiki's own context of the Rosewood massacre...I was again labeled "contentious." Furthermore, not only were my edits/moves rejected, I then pleaded for help in how to get such changes made by expressing the importance of the accuracy: "This has many implications, and it is also just factually and historically inaccurate. If you want to be helpful, please don't just point out how I'm 'wrong,' but tell me how I can go about making things 'right." Yet, my plea was unanswered, with the editor simply labeling my moves as being in "good faith," though noting that my response was "contentious." I don't use Wiki forums often, and have only learned of building consensus. And this is something that I will aim to do right now, because such mislabelling of history has an adverse effect on the present, and impacts the future. Given that Wikipedia is the defecto source of info for so many people, accuracy is important.

A "riot" doesn't result in intentional mass loss of life and total destruction/desecration of property for one side. A "riot" implies that "everyone" is perpetrating chaos. Furthermore, "riots" are how these events were labelled by the status quo, at the time, in order to shift blame off of one group and "split" it with another group -- a group that had no say in the matter.

This is the historical context that my edits were aiming to correct.

Wiki's own definition of massacre is twofold: "...the intentional killing by political actors of a significant number of relatively defenseless people... the motives for massacre need not be rational in order for the killings to be intentional...can be carried out for various reasons, including a response to false rumors... political... should be distinguished from criminal or pathological mass killings..." and "the murder of more than one individual, within an outrageous moral deficiency...not carried out by individuals, but by groups...[with] the use of superior, even overwhelming force..." Riots, on the other hand, while they may result in death(s), don't involve murder as in-the-moment sport -- the opportunistic mass killing of one group by another group. Yet, these events in Tulsa, Elaine and Meridian left more than 600 blacks dead (the known number on record), thousands hospitalized and over 10,000 homeless, while about 10 whites were accidentally killed...by other whites. How can these events truthfully, in 2017, still be labelled "riots?"

My edits were akin to noting the difference between saying a man "died" when there is widespread factual evidence that he was "murdered." Contextual accuracy is important and it should not matter when/how we recognize the inaccuracies, what should matter is that they are corrected when we see them. This benefits us all.

That said, I would like the rejection of my edits/moves to be reconsidered because they:

1. Reflect an accurate definition of the events that transpired
2. Take into account the context (Jim Crow) by which the COMMONNAME of event came to be known
3. Aim to correct the damage that the COMMONNAME has upon the present and future context of the event
4. Reflect that the community that was harmed in the event had no say in the matter as to how the event was initially labelled, which came to be the event's COMMONNAME
5. Are in line with, and brings uniformity to, context provided in Wiki's own representation of other such events like the Rosewood massacre, the Opelousas massacre, the Coushatta massacre, the Hamburg massacre, The Slocum Massacre of 1910, the Ocoee massacre, the Orangeburg massacre, and the Thibodaux massacre
6. Acknowledge new research and classification that exist today, corrects inaccuracies about the event, which is seldom mentioned in history books
7. Recognize that information, in any encyclopedia, can evolve as knowledge evolves
8. Take the following additional sources into consideration:

Furthermore, please take the following into account:

• "The attack, which happened 95 years ago on May 31 and June 1, 1921, is now known as the Tulsa race massacre of 1921."

• "It was always a remarkable feature of these insurrections and riots that only Negroes were killed during the rioting, and that all the white men escaped un- harmed. From 1865-1872, hundreds of colored men and wo- men were mercilessly murdered and the almost invariable reason assigned was that they met their death by being alleged participants in an insurrection or riot. But this story at last wore itself out. No insurrection ever materialized; no Negro rioter was ever apprehended and proven guilty, and no dyna-mite ever recorded the black man's protest against oppression and wrong." - Ida B. Wells

• "Armed guerilla warfare killed thousands of Negroes; political riots were staged; their causes or occasions were always obscure, their results always certain: ten to one hundred times as many Negroes were killed as whites." - W. E. B. Du Bois

• Social economist, Gunnar Myrdal, also objected to the term "riots" to describe these racial pogroms. He preferred to call this phenomenon "a terrorization or massacre ... a magnified, or mass, lynching."

• "Riot" was often a pretextual euphemism for "nigger hunt," and trumped-up fears of insurrection became the pretext for routing entire black communities. These riot death totals did not capture public attention because the "riot" label repositioned whites as acting in self-defense, which is not a crime. Thus the victims of the "riot" became marauders, killed within lawful defenses to murder charges. Pretext, euphemism, and calculated mischaracterization were central features of the public discourse throughout the era of the most intense racial violence. These strategies make many of the news accounts and eyewitness reports of reasons for racial violence highly unreliable. More importantly, there are simply no records at all for many "riots."

Finally, following the Wilmington massacre, in Nov 1898, the African American community tried to tell the rest of the nation what was happening, as exemplified by an anonymous woman who wrote a desperate plea to President McKinley requesting federal protection (her letter went unanswered). But it was instead the white supremacists whose version of the story became the nationally accepted one, a process that began immediately and culminated a few weeks later when Alfred Waddell, a former Confederate officer and one of the supremacist leaders, wrote “The Story of the Wilmington, N.C., Race Riots” for the popular publication Collier's. Waddell’s story, accompanied by H. Ditzler’s cover illustration of marauding armed African Americans, led to the designation of the coup and massacre as a "race riot," a description that has continued to this day. I hope Wikipedia will use accuracy to right this wrong.

References

Justbean (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment whatever happens here no need for caps. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, it should be lowercase. El_C 10:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

I think Wikipedia should follow modern historiography—so, if indeed, the tendency is to refer to these riots as massacres, I think we should allow for a rename. El_C 10:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The parts of the move request that don't correspond to the facts regarding why such a move should be made need to be removed. Using a move request to disparage others and make complaints about reverts is inappropriate. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 10:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think he is "disparaging" you; in fact, his talk page consists of you and another editor shouting at him for marking his page moves as minor – when they are marked as minor by default...! (see [1]) Laurdecl ^talk 11:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I fully disagree with your characterization, but the point is that kind of discussion doesn't belong here. This should be about the facts surrounding the need to make these moves. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

There's no characterization – continually reprimanding an inexperienced user for marking page moves as minor, when they are always marked as minor, is bitey at best. Laurdecl ^talk 11:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, this is not the appropriate venue for such claims or discussion, nor for your opinion about them. This material has nothing to do with the merits of making these moves, and it needs to be removed. If you would like to discuss the matter of how Justbean was informed about their moves, please use the appropriate venue, like their talk page or my talk page or WP:ANI or whatever else is normally used. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Stevietheman: I did not disparage anyone, nor is this a complaint (though I did make a formal complaint). I disclosed your exchange with me in order to provide context. Period. Without that context, others may not grasp the full gravity of my request. As stated and cited above, since 1935, people have been on record trying to get the term "race riots" removed from defining these events due to its inaccuracy. However, every time they do, they are relegated to being "troublemakers," are dismissed as "having an agenda," or they are outright ignored because they lack the power to enforce the accurate definition. And when you are wrongly placed on the inaccurate side of history, the impact runs deeps. For example, there is a concerted effort by the status quo to get the word "slaves" erased from history books and replaced with the word, "workers." That's a totally inaccurate context. And we are educated enough, as a society -- in this day and age -- to know this. Contextual accuracy of history is important because it helps shape the present/past. Encyclopedias are a big part of that. The content of my move request has nothing to do with you, but the fact that you think it does gets to the heart of why I decided to share your exchange with me -- to demonstrate to others what my request is up against. Because, in addition to now dismissing me as being vindictive/slanderous/petty, you also dismissed me in our previous exchange for not having a certain amount of knowledge when dealing with Wiki forums/procedure (obviously, I'm not a polished Wiki user), in addition to questioning my sincerity and dismissing me for reasons that showed to be personal .i.e questioning my "common sense." And, when I literally pleaded with you for help, you didn't provide any...let alone even respond to my plea. Yet you have the audacity to call my exposing these facts, when coming to the Talk group for help, "inappropriate?" However, in doing so, you demonstrate to everyone on this forum, the way in which pushback and re-defintion of a situation works through subtlety, shifting fault and refusal of recognition. And that is the point of the content of my request. To demonstrate why, despite being armed with facts and accuracy and the perspective of 100 years, the labeling of these events are so difficult to change.Justbean (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Definitely appreciate all the thought and debate going into this. No matter the outcome, it's a good/healthy debate. Justbean (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@SnowFire:Just to clarify, I wholeheartedly agree, Wiki is not a place to right great wrongs. Nor is that the intent of my request. My intent is not to "right a wrong," but to have history reflected accuractely. And, if it is reflected accuately, then justice (for lack of a better word) is serviced. There is no correcting the wrongs of these massacres. However, accurately reflecting what they were is the correct thing to do. Look at it this way...many southerns refuse to call The Civil War a war, and instead label the war as The War of Northern Aggression. The interesting thing is, on Wiki, this "War of Northern Aggression" is actually validated with its own page. Even if you misspell it as (The War of Northern Agression), you are still redirected to The Civil War page. The fact is..."The War of Northern Aggression" is validated on Wiki, and Wiki, by doing so, is equating The War of Northern Aggression to The Civil War. The same people who dubbed The Civil War the "War of Northern Aggression," are the same people who dubbed outright massacres as "race riots."

Also, to address your comment that your "opposes" could easily become "supports" if there are good third-party sources that use "massacre" and they are added to the article (i.e. not blog posts)." By that benchmark, then the entire page of Tulsa race riot should be deleted, or there should be, at the very least, the same about of objection to the page, as is being given to my request. For example, look at the following cited sources on the Tulsa race riot page:

• 2011 History Thesis, Oklahoma City University
• San Francisco Bay View
• Tulsa Tribune Race Riot blog, 18 June 2014
• GOOD Magazine
• 8-page lesson plan for high school Students, 2013, Zinn Education Project/Rethinking Schools
• Subliminal.org
• The Crisis Magazine
• digitalprairie.com
• chroniclingamerica.loc.gov
• Public Radio Tulsa

In addition, these sources are cited in both my request and on the Tulsa race riot page:

• Smithsonian.com
• New York Times
• Public Radio Tulsa
• Greenwood Cultural Center
• Associated Press
• The Chronicle of Higher Education/ TeachingHistory.com (comparable)
• Vox, The Nation/ The Village Voice/ The Daily Kos/ The Daily Beast/ The Progressive (comparable)

So, I'm at a loss when the sources I provide are expected to be at such a different standard...and am uncertain as to what extent? To that end, I don't see how a Supreme Court docket, the Smithsonian, the Associated Press, the Georgetown University Law Center, NPR and accounts from WEB DuBois, Ida B Wells, Gunnar Myrdal aren't third party sources that can get this request approved outright when 1) there is no one close to their ilk currently referenced on the Tulsa race riot page and 2) under any other circumstance, these sources would be strong enough to support their own page. This discrepancy in expectation shows how it takes very little for the status quo to establish an inaccurate label, but those seeking to change it are tasked to clear near insurmountable/immeasurable obstacles in order to even make a dent in dismantling something erroneously established to begin with. That leads me to this:

What is happening here, is that it is being "subject to debate" as to whether these "events" were actually massacres. But for each page change that I am requesting, in every account, numerous innocent, defenseless people were maimed, injured, killed, left homeless and/or left destitute. By Wiki's own page on massacres, a massacre is:

• "...the intentional killing by political actors of a significant number of relatively defenseless people...involving the murder of more than one individual, within an outrageous moral deficiency..." and;
• "Although it is not possible to set unalterable rules about when multiple murders become massacres. Equally important is that massacres are not carried out by individuals, but by groups... the use of superior, even overwhelming force..."

So, why is this even a debate? If these events aren't massacres, then what needs to happen in order to call these act "massacres?" Why is Tulsa not a massacre, but [[Rosewood massacre|Rosewood] is? How many sources are needed in order to make a determination? Who is "reputable?" Because, it seems like this is stuck in an feedback loop. It's known as the Tulsa race riot simply because it's been known as the Tulsa race riot -- it's self-referential. And if that's the case, how can this inaccuracy ever be addressed? Because while "massacre" may not embody the full atrocities committed by one group against another, in these events, it is far more accurate than "race riot" -- a term coined by a self-expressed racist.

Finally, you say that this "is not necessarily the problem of Wikipedia, but perhaps society." However, Wikipedia is society. This is not a private company, but a non-profit that thrives off editorial, and monetary, contributions by the public. This very Talk page/open forum, upon which users debate and vote, is nothing more than public discourse. So, if Wiki's own users, as members of the public, don't treat this as a public service for the public good...then what good is Wikipedia? Because if it can't do that much, then it's nothing more than a social media platform of users surveying over their own edits and user pages like individual fiefdoms, acting like guardians of a private company that doesn't exist. I don't think that's what this is...which is why I even bothered to make the move request in the first place. Rather, this encyclopedia is supposed to be an open source reference of our society, by our society, protecting and contributing accurate knowledge for the sole purpose of the betterment of the public that uses it. Justbean (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Justbean: This is a very serious topic, and it's great you're taking it seriously. You're preaching to the choir in that I agree with you that many of these incidents would perhaps be more accurately titled "massacres" than "race riots", and if you look at my list, I tentatively support some of your moves. However, my opinion and your opinion on what these topics should be called is worthless. What matters is what everyone else calls them. Names are misleading all the time. The Byzantine Empire referred to itself as the Roman Empire but didn't include Rome (but arguably should have been called the Roman Empire by historians anyway, because that's what they used themselves?). Nobody uses Anti-Semitism to mean "dislike of Semites in general" for the past 70 years, it always means Jews and Jews specifically. And so on. It would be madness to attempt to "fix" all these names, not least because once it becomes "A Wikipedia editor likes this term", what do you do when another editor comes along who likes a different term? The only way that keeps sanity is to just use what the rest of the world uses.

You asked "what needs to happen in order to call these acts 'massacres'." What needs to happen is society's use needs to shift. I will give an example: the Sand Creek massacre used to be called the Battle of Sand Creek, or just ignored, but society shifted the usage, and you can go to the Colorado Museum and see historians referring to it as the "Sand Creek massacre." Then, it isn't your opinion you're citing; it's society's. You have a laundry list of references, and that's a start, but you're basically committing original research with a lot of this. Nobody is arguing that these events weren't terrible, but WEB Dubois stating 100 years ago that blacks were killed more often than whites doesn't say anything about the proper title of these articles. You mention the New York Times as supporting your cause, yet looking at the linked article in the references, I read "The Tulsa race riot of 1921 was rarely mentioned in history books, classrooms or even in private." and "A magazine he started published the first article in decades about the riot, written by a local historian around the time of the 50th anniversary. But it was not until 25 years later when Mr. Ross was a state representative that the riot garnered nationwide attention." [2] That's... referring to the incident as a riot. Again, any of the sources you cite talking about how terrible these events were are not relevant to the naming. Only how third party sources refer to the event in running text matters. I will give an example: the East St. Louis article cites a book called "The Horror of the East St. Louis Massacre", and also references a random website that uses "East St. Louis massacre" as the title. Granted, this is still a borderline case, because plenty of other modern sources still call it a riot, but that's what you're looking for. Useful: A source that says "The ((TOWN)) massacre was an incident wherein... (description)." Not useful: A source that says "The ((TOWN)) race riot was an incident wherein terrible things were down to ((TOWN))'s black population." Especially for titles. If you can find sources like that that aren't trying to say "Hey we should really call it a massacre", but instead simply refer to it as a massacre, and then add them to the references and improve the article, the next move request will go much smoother - "move as per recent historiography" or the like. SnowFire (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@SnowFire: Thanks for the thoughtful reply. You make some great points, some of which I agree with. Will respond, in kind, a bit later. Till then, thanks again.

@Mitchumch:Thanks for the consideration; however, hope you reconsider (and anyone who opposed/on the fence -- including @SnowFire: @Malik Shabazz: @Meters: @Master of Time:) based on the following:

• I am requesting moves to 16 pages, after considering nearly 100 such "race riots" on record. I selected these events based, in part, on Wiki's list of "race riots," including taking into account the 36 such "race riots" that occurred over the Red Summer.
• Individual page moves are difficult to request, given so little information exists on most of these events. However, I requested them together, because what is known of them, is similar in nature, process and outcome, and also consistent with the label of massacre
• I ask you to please take a look at the sources of my requested moves, and consider the amount of scholarly attention that might have been paid to the event, over the years. If it's reasonable/feasible that I can acquire more substantive sources, then please let me know, and I'll do my best to do so. But if not...for example, the Meridian race riot of 1871 is largely built on only four sources, as is the Robert Charles riots. Very few records exist, beyond local news sources, for scholarly work to have even been built upon. So, it would render it virtually impossible to ever reasonably get some individual page moves given the limitations of recorded history.
• Take into account any notable/scholarly labelling, i.e: Marcus Garvey declared in an inflammatory speech that the East St. Louis riots was "one of the bloodiest outrages against mankind" and a "wholesale massacre of our people."
• Take into account the dates of the references (i.e. 1924 without anything current), and the likelihood of additional referenceJustbean (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• The problem is that for a number of these articles, they have recent scholarly articles as references that title the event as a "riot." Example: Phoenix election riot. Both sources in "References" call it "Riots" and that includes a 2002 journal article. To move it without any specific evidence that usage has shifted is premature. (If you can find a recent example that disagrees, we can have this discussion again.) And yes, it can be difficult to do many individual requests, but the results will be better and more accurate. SnowFire (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• @SnowFire: - I ask that you site the content of the source...like any other source is cited. Citations do not fall to title alone...and anyone who's ever done a research paper knows this.Justbean (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

And, as everyone chimes in on the consensus, I also ask you to consider Wiki's Five Pillars...specifically Pillar #5, all while maintaining neutraility: Wikipedia has no firm rules:

"Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold but not reckless in updating articles." Justbean (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@SnowFire: Really appreciate your time and thought on this…I do take it very seriously. I agree with you about remaining neutral…but unless its science, all history is recorded through a perspective. It’s no different than investigative journalism, which produces the same sources that Wiki uses for reference. And that’s how I approached this. I think the assumption is that, for the simple fact that I am making this request, that I am not neutral. And, given that the subject is dealing with racism, there’s nothing I can do about that. However, my request is as neutral as I can be…as a human being. My request is to accurately reflect, through historical perspective, the events that transpired between two groups of human beings. This is not about “a name,” and I think we all know it isn't. If this were just about a name, no one would spend this much time and effort on debating it. This is about representation. If 99 people say the sky is purple, and one person says it’s blue, are we to misrepresent the color of the sky until the 99 are ready to acknowledge it?

Galileo dared to challenge the inaccuracy that the Sun revolved around the earth. It lead to him being called a heretic, to his own inquisition, and to science being set back over 75 years. Inaccuracy has a cost.

I am not attempting to “fix” anything. I am trying to correct something. There's is a big difference. To "fix" something implies that something was working, as it should, at some point in the past. To "correct" is to neutralize an error.

Yes, this article involves race, but can we please get beyond that and recognize that what happened to one group of people was not, in fact, a riot? What does recognizing this, as being accurate, supposedly "fix?"

Accuracy has no agenda, aside of being accurate. I am not politicizing this request. I am simply requesting that these events be more accurately reflected. After considering all acts of Criminal law and Homicide, I then looked to Crimes against humanity, which is likely the most accurate term for these events; however, no perpetrator was ever charged or sentenced for these acts, nor do any sources "call it that." Hence, massacre is the most accurate, and adequately referenced, term available, while the term riot is woefully inaccurate.

And I do disagree with this assessment: "WEB Dubois stating 100 years ago that blacks were killed more often than whites doesn't say anything about the proper title of these articles.” Yes it does. It’s every bit as valid as any statement of the White Supremacist who coined the term, “race riot.”

So your argument is effectively this: if one is a minority in "society," and had no say in the establishment of inaccurate representations associated with you (as such representations were created against you when you were not recognized as being part of "society"), nor any power to change those represnetations, you are stuck with the inaccuracies until “society” is ready to acknowledge that inaccuracy. And this is the paradox of people who haven't always been a part of "society."

Wikipedia is that powerful tool that the victims of these massacres didn’t have to correct/challenge those inaccuracies when they occurred. No newspapers interviewed them to get their accounts. No insurance company was willing to cover and record their losses. Their truths of these events were largely lost, sans a few who were about 6 yrs old when Tulsa happened. How can "society” ever come to accept such inaccuracies if the few records that exist are considered to "not be enough" to even be worthy of recognition?

You mention "society," so let’s look at it. Wikipedia, as I presented before, is [reflective of] society. Wiki attracts 374 million uniques/month and has 70,000 active contributors working on more than 41,000,000 articles in 294 languages…which has netted 5.4 million articles in English. I’m sure there are a lot of inaccuracies floating around out there, like your point on Anti-Semistim, but I’m only requesting to correct 16. If anyone else feels so compelled to challenge a page’s accuracy, then according to Wiki…they should. But, please don’t put that burden on me. My request is for these 16. Not the Sand Creek massacre or the Byzantine Empire. Just these 16. Furthermore, I sincerely doubt that what happens on my requested pages will have any impact on Wiki's "sanity" or on how Wiki maintains its 41 million other articles.

Furthermore, in come instances, Wiki is already out-front with a more correct labelling of these events. For example, while Wiki labels the events at Rosewood, the Rosewood massacre, the Encyclopædia Britannica labels it, "Rosewood riot of 1923," which is so inaccurate, it's extraordinary. So, moving forward with my page requests is not without precedent on Wiki.

So, I ask you to please reconsider, and to look to Wiki's own "Ignore All Rules" Page, where it clearly states: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

And finally, again, per Wiki’s 5 Pillars — “...content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold but not reckless in updating articles.”

Correcting an error is, in no way, irresponsible or reckless. So, while correcting the errors, on these 16 pages, would be both accurate and bold...the same cannot be said for leaving them as they are, and willfully allowing the perpetuation of woeful inaccuracy. Justbean (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

It's quite telling, regarding the number of you who assume that I am a man. That leads me to...@Herostratus:....no, I am not suggesting anything else be changed. Only the 16 I requested. Yet, the fact that commenters keep dismissing my requests by making unfounded comparisons...using the "Slippery slope argument" (which Wiki notes as being "fear-mongering")...shows the extent to which correction is a Sisyphean task for historical racial events...because the status quo keeps dismissing such corrections as being "ridiculous," "unnecessary," or "baseless." The fact that several of you went out of your way to divulge how you "agree with the politics" of my request -- effectively politicizing my non-political request -- but then, so cavalierly went on and on about how "this is not the place to make such corrections"...is both sad and disappointing. Somehow, the correction of these events became all about you...and your desire to poke holes in the merit of my requests, as the requests seemingly made [many of] you uncomfortable -- supplementing Wiki's own spirit, pillars, and reality with illogical/imagined/false equivalent scenarios in order to justify your "opposition." I've actually had sources dismissed due to their title, with no scrutiny pored over their content. [Most of] you all agree that these events were not "riots," but are perfectly content to leave them as they are. Counting the references below, I will have supplied over 50 references for my request. Yet, for some reason...they just aren't enough...or they just aren't "good enough." That says a lot about "society." I accept that my requests will fail, but it is rather troublesome that such an incorrect term ("race riot") can be left unturned by a few anonymous people....when it only took one bigot to establish it. I presented a very sound argument here, provided (over 50) sources that are just as rational as any other source on Wiki (including references by the US Senate, the National Archives and a Supreme Court docket), gave more effort, research and time to this request than I'm sure most are ever tasked with providing, and have used Wiki's own guidelines for making my request...and it has all but been ignored under the guise of the idea of "principle" and "respect for editors' time"...both bizarre excuses because 1) Wiki's own principles should come first 2) as editors you've willingly volunteered your time...I never asked for it and 3) if you don't have time to adequately consider my requests, then you shouldn't be making any judgment against them at all. @Stevietheman: Why insert your opinion on something you don't "have time " to fully consider? To do so is, in fact, disrespectful of my requests. And the suggestion that a bureaucratic "one-at-a-time" approach would be more efficient/effective is outright laughable because, if I did submit the requests individually, it would be held against me that the other pages are all titled as being "race riots." It's an immovable Catch-22. So, we all know what's going on here. That said, I do thank each and every one of you for your thoughts and time.Justbean (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

References

• Comment I support accuracy in naming and agree whole-heartedly that most, if not all, of these were massacres, not riots. However, Wikipedia has policies and guidelines about how article names are selected, beginning with WP:TITLE, and accuracy is not considered a priority in choosing a title. Can the nominator cite reliable sources that use the proposed titles? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz:- I have provided more sources...in fact, over 50. Beyond that, I ask that you please also consider Wiki's Five Pillars (particularly #5) and Wiki's encouragement to Ignore All Rules: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.'"Justbean (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Judging by the list of 28 references, this matter is very strongly controversial, and about a matter where the general tide of USA and world public opinion and informedness has much changed since the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–1968) started and got in the world's newspapers and television news. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard:- Thank you for your thought. Currently, I have over 50 references. Sincerely hope you consider.Justbean (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support the move. Both titles are clearly supported by RS, and the "massacre" title accords better with definitions; seems clear-cut to me. Homunq (࿓) 15:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Homunq:-Thank you!

• Support. This is a good and simple suggestion. The term "race riot" distorts and conceals the nature of these events. The New Orleans riot of 1866 is yet another example. I'd also advocate the resurrection of some of the material formerly in the [|race riot article] (now reduced to a redirect) to explain the history of the term. --Lockley (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lockley: - I appreciate your consideration and support!

• Would prefer that most of these be nominated individually. While I am sympathetic to the politics involved, Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs, and massacre is a word to use with care. If the WP:COMMONNAME is unfair or wrong, that is a problem, but it is not necessarily the problem of Wikipedia, but perhaps society. To be 100% clear, I am entirely in favor of being blunt about most of these incidents being more massacres than riots in the article itself, but it's possible that they're still referred to as a race riot. From the proposer's own references, for example, the title of a book on the Memphis 1866 case was "A Massacre in Memphis: The Race Riot That Shook The Nation One Year After The Civil War". The writer clearly refers to it as a massacre, but also acknowledges the race riot term. [3] Additionally, nowhere does that article use "race massacre", merely "massacre." It wouldn't be surprising if it was similar for some of these other cases that there are subtle variations in the title. I would recommend the nominator first add references to these articles about alternate/modern terms, which would make this an easy approve if such sources were already there. Given that they're not there yet, some specific comments:

• Tulsa: Oppose. Every single one of the books in the "references" section - including recently published books after 2000 - uses "race riot" in the title. Nominator's Tulsa link goes to an unrelated NYTimes story, but searching up the actual reference that uses "race massacre" - it's to Timeline, which is apparently Medium-esque blog ([4]). I'd want a better source if you want to claim that usage has recently become prominent.

@SnowFire:-I provided sources, on par with those on the current Tulsa race riot page. It's bizarre that every survivor accounts for it as a 'massacre,' and yet, that's ignored. That only one side was was bombed from airplanes...and yet that's a "riot." This was a massacre. Period.Justbean (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Meridian: No opinion. The most recent source in references uses "race riot", but that's just one.

@SnowFire:-I already mentioned this above. According to the New York Times..."eight or ten" negroes were killed. That is not a "riot," despite what it was labelled at the time.Justbean (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Elaine: Support Elaine massacre. There's a single source that says "race massacre" in a tiny subtitle, but one of the main sources just uses "massacre."

@SnowFire:-Please look to this reference, which is already referenced on the page. And please see this reference as well.Justbean (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Chicago: Oppose, massacre is not mentioned in the article's lede at the moment nor in the reference titles.

@SnowFire:-Per, PBS, "The summer of 1919 saw a national racial frenzy of clashes, massacres and lynchings throughout the North and the South. All where started by whites...The three most violent episodes occurred in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Elaine, Arkansas."Justbean (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Knoxville: Oppose, massacre is not what the current sources use, and at risk of sounding heartless, the body count (2-30) is a bit small for a "massacre"?

@SnowFire:-"According to the "[Knoxville] Journal and Tribune, 'How many have been killed and wounded remains a matter of guesswork.' Newspaper accounts later claimed that only two people had been killed...but eyewitness accounts told a very different story."Justbean (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Memphis: Weak oppose, and suggest just "Memphis massacre" if moved. A solid-sounding recent source is "A Massacre in Memphis: The Race Riot that Shook the Nation One Year After the Civil War" that doesn't use "race massacre", but it also still calls it race riots, and nearly every other source uses "Race riots", including a 2016 article from The Nation (which we can safely assume is not particularly sympathetic to racism).

@SnowFire:-Please see this reference. And please refer to the perfectly reputable sources I already provided in support of my requests.Justbean (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Detroit: Oppose. 2011 source uses "race riot", no sources use massacre, only 2 deaths.

@SnowFire:-This page only only has two sources. To your point that there were "only 2 deaths" reported, one of those sources (Kundinger) says the following:

"Examining the Free Press’s articles shows only what they printed. It shows what happened leading up to the riot, and how the editors felt about any number of things, including African-Americans. It cannot show how the paper and its opinions fit into society. It cannot be determined by the research done thus far whether the Free Press caused the prejudices and violence of its readers; or whether the racism of its readers caused the paper to print what it did. The answer has to be somewhere in between. Few people would argue that the opinions of the press have no effect on the masses; equally few would argue that those opinions control society...One can tell, by looking at the content in the Free Press, that the paper at least reflected, and at the most caused, the feelings of bigotry, hatred, and fear that led to the “bloodiest day that ever dawned upon Detroit.” The Advertiser and Tribune called the riot a “Free Press mob.” They were right in at least one way. Just as the Free Press used the New York Tribune as a representation of abolition and Radical Republicans, so to can the Free Press be seen as a representation of a racist society; of a racist town. Detroit was a city already tense with issues of labor, emancipation, and the war. The Free Press and the people that shared its views found a scapegoat: African-Americans. The paper used a racial rhetoric that showed how blacks were a direct threat to whites. On March seventh the tension grew too strong for whatever bonds were holding it and an orgy of violence was the result".''Justbean (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• South Carolina: Strong oppose. There's a massacre that's a *subarticle* already, and this is an overview article of a number of incidents, including black workers (justifably!) striking back at whites. Will need more sources on this one.

@SnowFire:- Any rational person should take exception to this page is labeled as "Civil Disturbances." I mean...really? Please look to these references.Furthermore, please note how the US Senate referred to Ellerton as a "massacre" -- when the event happened -- as did the NY Times.However, Edgefield, Mount Pleasant and Beaufort have no references at all on the South Carolina civil disturbances of 1876 page, yet...somehow, Wiki editors had no issue allowing them to stand, unfounded, while the lone source of the Charleston "incident" in Nov, is supplied by one unreliable/biased source -- an 1876 local S.C. paper, with not a single quote or verifiable accounting by any black witnesses, padded by this sort of "reporting": "The whites stood their ground and received attack firmly," and its description of "The character of the negroes who took part in the riot."Justbean (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• New Orleans: Oppose, only source uses "riots" and it's a recent one. [5]

@SnowFire:- Please note the following references, and also that 13 blacks were killed.Justbean (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Wilimington: Strong oppose, and on grounds that what happened was worse than a mere massacre! As the article notes, this was basically a coup d'etat, an insurrection. It wasn't merely killing innocents; it was overthrowing a lawful government AND killing innocents. Article should hit the wider topic and stay at Wilmington insurrection of 1898.

@SnowFire:-Please consider these references. Also, agree, this was a coup d'etat, but on the grounds of Alfred Moore Waddell, who led the murderous insurrection, threatening to "choke the current of the Cape Fear River" with black bodies...the call for mass murder is in line with a massacre. Justbean (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Phoenix: Oppose, only 2 sources use "riot." Not many deaths.

@SnowFire:-8 were estimated to have been murdered. How many deaths do you need? As Mark Levene defines massacre on Wiki: "the murder of more than one individual, within an outrageous moral deficiency." In addition, please see these sources. Justbean (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• New Orleans: Oppose, sources in article don't use "massacre".

@SnowFire:- You already opposed New Orleans above. No need to oppose it twice. But, I'll restate my the sources I gave above, just for convenience. Justbean (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Atlanta: Weak oppose, sources vaguely use "riot" currently, but it sure reads like a massacre.

@SnowFire:-Please see these references, one of which is from Let Petit Journal, which was one of our main dailies in France between 1863-1944. 02:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Justbean (talk)

• Springfield: Oppose, sources all use "riot", only 7 deaths.

@SnowFire:- Above, with New Orleans, you oppose on the grounds of there being "only" 2 deaths. Now you oppose because there were "only" 7. Again, how many people have to die for it to reach your standard of "massacre," which is obviously not aligned with scholars cited by Wiki? This only proves the kind of constantly moving goalposts I'm faced with...and because they constantly move, they can never be hit. At this point you've now given me three criteria for you to change your mind: First, you alluded that it must be more than 2 murders. Then, you say more than 7. And looming over both of those is my need to supply you with sources that you deem to be reputable...in addition to me hitting a definition of "massacre" that you have never supplied me. How can anyone possibly satisfy that? Yet...you have the audacity to say, if I do all of these impossible things, your vote can "easily" be changed. Uh hmm. Justbean (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC).

• East St. Louis: Support East St. Louis massacre (or massacres plural?), no need for "race". Sources do seem to use "massacre", "holocaust", etc. here.

@SnowFire:- Please consider the following references.Justbean (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I want to emphasize again that several of these "opposes" could easily become "supports" if there are good third-party sources that use "massacre" and they are added to the article (i.e. not blog posts). SnowFire (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@SnowFire:- Prove it.Justbean (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• These should be nominated individually. Strong oppose on moving the Tulsa article, as this flies against what virtually every source calls it (see WP:COMMONNAME). It is not Wikipedia's job to 'right great wrongs,' so to speak. Claims of historical distortion would hold more water if the article claimed that blacks and whites both had an equal part in precipitating the violence, rather than solely whites. In the very first sentence, the article says "a white mob started the Tulsa race riot." Master of Time (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mitchumch:-As stated above, I am not trying to "fix" something. I am trying to correct something. There's is a big difference. To "fix" something implies that something was working, as it should, at some point in the past. To "correct" is to neutralize an error. And, by neutralizing an error, by default, you right a wrong.Justbean (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per Stevietheman, MShabazz, Master of Time, and SnowFire. Nominator may be motivated with good intentions. However, Wikipedia:COMMONNAME is the only thing that matters in proper article title. Also, the proper title for each article should be examined on an individual basis, not as a group. Mitchumch (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mitchumch:-Please see my last pot in the "Discussion" above. To "correct" is to neutralize an error. And, by neutralizing an error, by default, you right a wrong. Also, please see Wiki's policy: "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; "their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions." Justbean (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose move to "race massacre" support move to "massacre": having looked at the sources provided by the nominator it is clear that most sources do not use the term "race massacre". Some of the articles debate whether the term "race riot" or "massacre" is the more appropriate but do not discuss the term "race massacre" at all. I am therefore unconvinced that "race massacre" is a commonly used term. I would support a move from "race riot" to "massacre" but not to "race massacre". The racist nature of the massacres can clearly by set out in the lead. Ebonelm (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ebonelm:- I ask that you please consider all 50+ of my sources. These were racial massacres. I fail to see the harm of calling them what they, in fact, wereJustbean (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I see no basis for a blanket rename of these articles to "race massacre". We would need sufficient WP:RS showing that the WP:COMMON NAME for each is "race massacre". We're not even close to that. Even if these moves were proposed individually, as they should have been, it appears that "race massacre" is not appropriate for any. Possibly simply "massacre" could be justified for a few, but some were clearly riots, not massacres. Meters (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Meters:- Disappointing, but hope you'll reconsider my 50+ sources. Also, please let me know which ones were "clearly" riots. Neither you, nor has anyone else, opposing my request provided any definition of "massacre." I am the only one who has done so...using Wiki's own page. So, if Wiki's definition does not fit yours...please tell me, what does?Justbean (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Agreeing with others above, these should have been nominated individually and respecting editors' time is the reason. I personally don't have the time to review all of these subjects together, as that would take way too much of my available wiki-time, even if I have the interest in doing so. The ones that have the strongest cases should have requests made sequentially. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Stevietheman:- I never asked for your time. As an editor, you are freely volunteering it. If you don't have the time to commit to my requests, then you have no business passing any judgment as to their merits. There is nothing about my request that is, in any way, "disrespectful." However, passing judgment on a request that you don't "have time" to fully consider is beyond disrespectful. It's reckless.Justbean (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Tulsa per COMMONNAME - even the newest sources largely appear to prefer "race riot". As for the rest, I would urge separate nominations. Even if they have certain points in common, the events span 60 years and a wide geographic range; thus, they are best handled individually. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Biruitorul:- Please see my last post in the "Discussion" above regarding individual submission. Also, please see Wiki's policy: "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions." Justbean (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose all. I took Atlanta to look at at random as a test case. This Google Ngram] compares the frequency of occurrence of the strings "Atlanta race riot" and "Atlanta massacre" across the corpus of English books that Google has digitized. "Atlanta race riot" has way over ten times the usage, with no trend toward "Atlanta massacre" (the converse, if anything). (Interestingly, ""Atlanta massacre" has the edge in books published in the early 20th century but has lost out since then.)

@Herostratus:- First, I sincerely hope you didn't relegate my entire request to a Google Ngram search, or that you are opposing all by requests by a single sample? However, since you did the NGram search, please look at it...two points: 1) between 1906 and 1921 -- when the event happened -- it was widely known as a "massacre." In 1921, that changed. Why? Don't you find, at least, some small correlation between the uptick in lessening the culpability of whites in the "riots" with the uptick in Jim Crow adoption in the 1920s?, and 2) since 1984 "Atlanta Massacre" has had a steady increase in use, while "Atlanta Race Riot" has either decreased, or plateaued, since 1998. Second, if you're going to use these analytics, please be fair in the representation of them. Your search only shows from 1916 to 1908. So, truthfully, you have no clue as to what the usage looks like for the last ten years. But you failed to leave that massive detail out when you proclaimed it as relevant fact. That's either a massive oversight or purposeful misrepresentation.Justbean (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, looking at WP:AT. "Atlanta race riot → Atlanta Race Massacre of 1906" violates Conciseness, one of the Five Virtues. But OK, you could cut off the "of 1906" and it's about the same length. But wait. You can't cut off "of 1906" because "Atlanta Race Massacre" is not a real name. It's a description, which is different. Since it's just a description, you have to append the date to make it specific enough so readers will have a clue what you're talking about.

@Herostratus:- Wow. You're really that hung up on semantics? I raise your "Five Virtues" with the "Five Pillars" and Wiki's own big rule to "Ignore All Rules."Justbean (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Whereas "Atlanta race riot" is a real thing. It is the real name of one particular real historical event. It doesn't need a date attached so we can figure what it is talking about any more than Battle of Gettysburg does.

@Herostratus: The reason most have dates is because there have been more than one riot in these cities. The date differentiates them and, in some cases, helps link them with other massacres that happened at the same time i.e. Red Summer. Having a date to differentiate does not make them any less "real."Justbean (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, there is a problem with "race riot", and that it is that as a description it is unclear, even misleading. A person could come to the article and be like "Oh OK, race riot, like the Watts riots" when of course this is nothing like the Watts riots. So Recognizability issue. But Recognizability says "The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize". So we are not concerned with people coming here with a complete blank slate (maybe we should be, but WP:AT doesn't want us to be).

@Herostratus: What Wiki says about Changing Title Pages is, in fact this:

"Changing one controversial title to another without a discussion that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed'."

Well, I provided numerous good reasons for this change -- my eight overall reasons, at the top of this page, and subsequent arguments that fall under the umbrella of those eight.Justbean (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The other Virtues... Naturalness, probably favors keeping the current more common name... Precision, a wash... Consistency, not an issue since the proposal is to mass move, creating its own consistency. All in all WP:AT militates against this move, with Conciseness being the clearest problem.

@Herostratus: That is not true, per Wiki's Five Pillars and Wiki's encouragement to Ignore All Rules: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.'"Justbean (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't look at the others because I don't have 6 hours to kill. I'm going to assume that the Atlanta case, and particularly the Ngram, is indicative of the rest, and vote against the lot.

@Herostratus: - Then you have no business passing judgment on the ones you did not look at, especially using your so-called "Atlanta case" as a proxy because it is completely flawed. Justbean (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Byt the way, nominator's opening statement -- "I realized that several of these events had been erroneously labelled" -- indicates that he is approaching this from the wrong angle. Is nominator next going to suggest renaming "First Happy Time" to "First Sad Time" since it describes Nazi success... Herostratus (talk) 05:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Herostratus: - Whoever said I was a "he?" That's the problem with this entire page...people have been so quick to use their own biased assumptions as "fact." Looking at the quickest thing they can find, that holds up their own opinions, so they can find a way to "justify" bogus opposition -- all while calling factual sources the equivalent of "fake news." And, on top of that, you have the gall to pull some totally irrelevant example out of the sky? Justbean (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Procedural comment. @Justbean: Would you mind moving your comments to a separate "discussion" subsection rather than in-line? It's rather difficult to see the flow of the debate. (It's your RM, though, so this suggestion is purely optional - feel free to ignore.) SnowFire (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• General comment. Justbean, we can go around for ages on this, but you're suggesting a WP:IAR move on grounds of truth & accuracy overriding WP:COMMONNAME. That's fine, but if you want to make WP:COMMONNAME less of an issue, I explained above how to do it. Most of the sources you're citing are irrelevant for internal Wikipedia standards (standards which CAN be ignored, yes, but it's easier to get your move through if you don't have to rely on that, which is something of a last resort argument). I will give another example from what you just brought up: citing this 1871 newspaper article [6] whose title is "A riot in Mississippi". Now, a random newspaper article from 1871 (and some other ones you've cited from 1921 and the like as well!) is already a weak source for modern usage, but it's not a source in your favor! I explained this before, but if you want to use something other than the IAR argument, what you are looking for, very specifically, are sources that say something like "New analysis of the Meridian massacre" or "Memorial ceremony for victims of Meridian massacre" or the like. NOT sources whose first line is "A riot occurred at Meridian, Mississippi." The point of WP:COMMONNAME is that it is value-neutral, and the name can be wrong/misleading/offensive/etc., but it is the recognized name. Let me come up with an offensively wrong example: If you cite a hypothetical article that says "The Meridian free ice cream day was an unjustified massacre of innocent civilians", that is not an argument for "Meridian massacre" no matter how long it goes on about it being a massacre, it is an argument for the ludicrous "Meridian free ice cream day." (It MIGHT be, per Herostratus, an argument for a "descriptive title" of "Meridian massacre", but these aren't really descriptive titles for the most part.) SnowFire (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@SnowFire: There you go, shifting the goalpost again. First, can you please stop dismissing my sources based on their titles? If we only cited titles, then very little would be of use as actual citations. You cite for content, not title. Second...where, in Wiki does it say anything about "modern usage?" I've seen hundreds of pages on Wiki with nothing more than a document from like 1917 as its sole source. I gave more than that. Third, that so-called "random" newspaper article...if you'd bothered to have actually looked at it, you would have noticed that it's the New York Times! The actual article from March 8, 1871. I didn't realize The New York Times was "random?" Speaking of, last I checked, the Chicago Tribune, The National Archives, NPR, The NAACP's national magazine (that's been around for about 100 years), a Supreme Court docket, the US Senate...they're not "random" either. What is random is the way you cherry-pick something you don't bother to assess -- and hold it out as criticism of me -- or the way you ignore everything from national/highly reputable sources I provide. I got nearly 60 sources. I know you haven't thoroughly examined all of them...you just proved that. Yet, you're saying none of those 60 hold true. You know how statistically impossible that would be? And yes...your example was offensive...never mind wrong.Justbean (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

This entire page has been textbook case of Wiki Bias. And...what does that page say?:

• "A 2011 Wikimedia Foundation survey found that 8.5% of editors are women."
• "The systemic bias of Wikipedians manifests itself as a portrayal of the world through the filter of the experiences and views of the average Wikipedian. Bias is manifested in both additions and deletions to articles."
• "As of 2006, of the top 20 news sites used as references on Wikipedia, 18 were owned by large for-profit news corporations..." Guess those are those so-called "reputable sources."
• "As long as the demographic of English speaking Wikipedians is not identical to the world's demographic composition, the version of the world presented in the English Wikipedia will always be the Anglophone Wikipedian's version of the world." Bingo.

Not to be outdone, this has also been a classic example of Racial bias on Wikipedia. Per Wiki's own page on this matter, it says:

• Wikipedia has been criticized for having a systemic racial bias in its coverage, due to an under-representation of people of color within its editor base.
• The President of Wikimedia D.C., James Hare, noted that "a lot of black history is left out" of Wikipedia, due to articles predominately being written by white editors.
• Katherine Maher, chief communications officer for the Wikimedia Foundation said that Wikipedia could only represent that which was referenced in secondary sources, which historically have been favourable towards white men.

So, to sum this all up, about 9/10 Wiki editors are [white] men. And anyone who says that that perspective hasn't had anything to do with the way my requests have been treated, has no business editing content -- and steering history -- for the masses.Justbean (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Re "First, can you please stop dismissing my sources based on their titles?" I'm sorry, Justbean, but article titles on Wikipedia ACTUALLY ARE decided by things like the titles used in other sources. That's not shifting the goalposts; those ARE the goalposts. That's why I keep bringing things like that up. Yes, I have spent the time to examine your sources. We're talking past each other.

• What we can agree on: you have provided many sources that discuss these events as terrible and including massacres in the usual English sense of massacres. I agree.
• What we can also agree on: most of these sources, in titles and introductory sentences, still call them "riots." I will offer Phoenix election riot again, which has two journal articles as sources in it, and the journal articles are titled "The Phoenix Election Riots" and "The Phoenix Riot and the Memories of Greenwood County".

• WP:COMMONNAME is not all about an accurate description of the events. It is "how do people recognize this topic." If you believe that these articles should all be moved to "descriptive" titles that are normal English phrases, that's fine, but my stance has to do with there being an already existing name these are known by, even if they are misleading. And yes, things like titles and opening sentences are what matter for figuring out what the known existing name is. SnowFire (talk) 06:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose all. The current names are correct by our policies. We are a general encyclopedia and as such do not attempt to change English usage. Andrewa (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Discussion (part 2)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.