Talk:Watts Station

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2018 and 11 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): C daisy 9.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"only" structure intact

It is stated in the intro that this is "the only structure that remained intact when stores along 103rd Street were burned in the 1965 Watts Riots" and this fact is used in a DYK nomination. Although this statement is supported by a direct quote from the LA Times, I wonder how it could possibly be true. On google maps, i observe there are about 23 blocks of W. 103rd street, 3 of those being in a separated, discontinuous section. And about 20 blocks of E. 103rd Street. Perhaps some of these are residential structures. I simply do not believe that every structure on 103rd street was damaged. Perhaps the statement needs to be qualified to be "every commercial structure" in some limited section of the street, or "every structure" in some specified commercial strip. doncram (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's that hard to believe. The article is referring to Watts and the Watts Riots. The portion of 103rd Street that is in Watts is only about 5 blocks long (see http://www.crala.org/internet-site/Projects/Watts/watts_map.cfm ). Those blocks were the main drag in Watts and a center of the riots. Also, it's not saying that every other building was destroyed, just that the station was the only one that remained "intact." If you use google maps street view to move along 103rd Street in Watts, you don't see a lot of buildings that would pre-date the 1965 riots -- there are mostly newer buildings and vacant land. And for purposes of the article, the Los Angeles Times is a quality, verifiable source -- one of the leading newspapers in the United States; the statement is based on a direct quote from the Times. Cbl62 (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, the wikipedia article on the Watts Riots notes that, during the six days of unrest, 34 people died, 1,032 were injured, and 3,952 were arrested, and 977 establishments were damaged, burned, looted, and destroyed, which included businesses, private buildings, and public buildings. That's a staggering amount of damage in a small community like Watts. The fact that the Watts Station was left intact among all that damage is pretty remarkable.Cbl62 (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Digging a little deeper, I find sources indicating that the rioting centered on 103rd Street which became known as Charcoal Alley: "The main business drag, 103rd Street, soon became 'Charcoal Alley' amid cries of "burn, baby, burn!" [1] [2] Another published eyewitness account says: "Both sides of 103rd Street were ablaze now. The thoroughfare was a sea of flames that emitted heat so unbearable that I believed my skin was being seared off." [3] A third notes: "On the third day of the Watts Riots, 103rd St. was burned to the ground." [4] I will tinker with the article a bit this evening to add some of these details. Cbl62 (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict, twice!, without absorbing ur last comments:) Thanks for clarifying. How about, in the intro sentence, change it to "It was the only structure that remained intact when stores along 103rd Street in Watts were burned in the 1965 Watts Riots." (adds the two words "in Watts"). And, in the later section, add the same two words to the sentence before the LA Times quote, yielding "In August 1965, the Watts Riots resulted in the destruction of buildings up and down 103rd Street in Watts." Also, attach a footnote to the end of this sentence (or attach somewhere else if better) clarifying that 103rd St. within Watts is approximately 5 blocks long, with an external link from the footnote to the very nice link you provide here, the http://www.crala.org/internet-site/Projects/Watts/watts_map.cfm one. Since the number of blocks is hard to describe, given different numbers of streets coming in from the north and south, perhaps it would be better to quantify it by the length of the street within Watts, which you could measure from google maps. As a supporting fact within a footnote, I think it is okay/good to include your measurement and explanation of your interpretation of the LATimes statement; there is no "Original Research" issue for me for such stuff in a clarifying footnote.

You quote just one sentence of the LATimes article, perhaps a qualification to their not-literally-correct statement is implicit in the context of the article. I suspect that is the case, because you, informed by the article, understand it to mean the limited section of 103rd street within Watts, which may well be the only commercial section of the street. I really believe that commercial structures got damaged, not residential ones, and though i don't know 103rd street in particular i have driven along some of those long avenues along there and noted transitions from commercial to residential and back. And, if the LATimes got it wrong and/or stated it imprecisely--and there are thousands of mistakes in the LATImes and any other great newspaper--we don't want to propagate that, despite, yes, it being verified / sourced to them. It is still quite an amazing extent of damage that you describe; it could be perhaps more compelling to readers if you get across that this is the only undamaged structure along the five or so blocks (or .4 mile or 600 yards or whatever) of 103rd St. in Watts, rather than not describing any length of the street at all.

If you really wanted to put it into more context, you could also determine how many separate parcels there are along that stretch (and see, by color-coding, how many of those are commercial and industrial vs. residential parcels, by visiting the Los Angeles County site (the tax assessor's site at http://assessor.lacounty.gov/extranet/default.aspx) and zooming in, your first click being on "Property Sales & Maps". It shows all parcels and has lots of useful info, perhaps sometimes for your other articles. Hope this helps. doncram (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the edit conflicts. I think your suggested change is fine, and I will examine more closel this evening. Cbl62 (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Benificent

The word is misspelled, but it's in a quote. It should either be "beneficent" or "benificent [sic]". Art LaPella (talk) 05:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Art LaPella (talk) 04:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Whom was namesake "Charles H. Watts"?

Whom exactly were this "Watts" family, something occult I reckon, why no background? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.191.127 (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll be putting in info about Charles H. Watts later today, probably when I get back from my haircut, looking spiffy. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)