Talk:Tulsa race massacre/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Ambiguous sentence

"A group of armed African-American men rushed to the police station where the young suspect was held and a white crowd had gathered, to prevent a lynching."

This could be read as either the "African-American men" or the "white crowd" being there "to prevent a lynching". Which was it? Or was it both? The sentence should be edited to make it clear. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Article name

See Archive 2 of Talk page for lengthy discussion of move proposals of articles on so-called race riots.Parkwells (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Moving this page

This page is incorrectly titled. This was not a "race riot", which is a derogatory and demeaning term for acts of violence visited on people of color on a massive scale. The page should be called the Tulsa Massacre of 1921. Medavinci (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Michael, June 1, 2018

casualties - Red Cross section

please be patient as I am reading through the rather lengthy and hastily drawn together red cross report. I am constructing the timeline and assessing the information within. there are complicating factors as to the nature of casualties. the red cross had been overseeing the relief effort for some six months by the time the report was drawn up, as a preliminary overview, a large number of casualties may have been caused by the typhoid and tuberculosis epidemics that swept through the camps when the city was unable to provide sanitation services to the refugee camps which would put the numbers higher. however, it is specifically these cases and the martial law which makes the death toll difficult to count. in those days, disease vector corpses were burnt or limed and buried with the least amount of handling possible for obvious reasons. as a matter of public safety, identifying the dead was secondary to controlling the disease outbreak. even more complicating is that the author states many of the families had left for cotton season already and later returned after the picking season suggesting the burned houses may have simply been unoccupied, with 700+ families believed to have been displaced returning once the season had finished. the reported systematic nature of the looting and arson with little violence in the morning of june 1st being quickly quelled with the deployment of the national guard would make sense if the residences were sparsely occupied.

there are also a number of submissions from the community to go through in the appendix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.198.13.161 (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, this is original research. You're attempting to substitute in your own interpretation of primary documents (red cross etc.) for established secondary sources. That's actually against Wikipedia policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

the report was an evolving document which began with his initial impression upon being assigned the post and later changed when more information became available. the records are non-specific as to the nature of injuries as i assume is typical of a mass-casualty situation. for instance his impression of the sanitation facilities on day 0 being the cause of the prevalence of typhoid in the camp was misleading with no such further reports later on. the large number of recorded individuals on site would seem to indicate certain prejudices he held with the number of residences destroyed being fairly close to the census for the "burned area" and number of people documented as being displaced relative to standing structures. so there only seems to be the homelessness as the primary effect of the disaster.

a note that just because he refused to place a number on the death toll just means that they couldnt reliably count it not that it wasnt a major tragedy.


and a note to marek: no, they are only quoting directly the report and misrepresenting it. they are saying the red cross estimated 300 deaths. this is false. read the entire paragraph in the reference. it's there for you to vet it. if you think the red cross is an unreliable source when quoting exactly what was said in a red cross report please consult a moderator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.198.13.161 (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, your statement indicates that you are in disagreement with a reliable secondary source, because of your own idiosyncratic reading of a primary document. Well, that's too bad. We go by reliable secondary sources. What you need to do in this case is go out there and find SECONDARY sources which take the same position as yours. Otherwise, we go back to the version based on secondary sources.
You should also read WP:NOR and WP:RS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

if you feel i am being completely unreasonable then we can escalate this for moderation? The exact wording is, "The number of dead is a matter of conjecture. Some knowing ones estimate the number of killed as high as 300, others estimate being as low as 55. The bodies were hurridly rushed to burial and the records of many burials are not to be found. For obvious reasons this report cannot deal with this subject." if you feel as though i am misinterpreting this in some way, as though the words "cannot deal with this subject" and "conjecture" mean "definitely 300" then i feel as though we cannot work through this and need to appeal for moderation.

Right, so why are you removing it? There's also some other problems with your edits, where you remove sourced material.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Use the term massacre

The article begins by referring to the Tulsa massacre as a massacre and noting that it is at times derogatorily referred to as the Tulsa Race Riot. Why then, is the title of the article "Tulsa Race Riot" and why is the massacre continuously referred to, throughout the article, as a riot? What happened was more than a violent disturbance of the peace (a riot); it was a brutal and targeted killing or attempt to kill the African-American people of Greenwood. It should be referred to as such out of respect for the victims, the survivors, and for historical accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.113.51 (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

We can't do it for that reason, but we can if it meets WP:COMMONNAME. There's the other issue of insurance companies wanting to call it a riot. I think that's discussed here but I can't reload it, the new data protection system is really making it hard to view some sites. The Smithsonian seems to support that title.[2] As does Tulsa media.[3] Some sources at Google Books[4] We need a formal move request per WP:REQMOVE. Doug Weller talk 18:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
This has been discussed before, as the talk page shows. If there's good reason to move it and we reach a new consensus that's fine, but it's a bit suspicious when a new named user makes that totally WP:POV change to the lead as his or her second edit ever, informally complains about the name as his or her third edit ever, and an IP with only six previous edits and no edits at all for more than six months shows up minutes later to start a thread quoting that lead sentence. Meters (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@Meters: There's been a march this week in Tulsa. This damn GDPR is stopping my normal browsers, but Opera has VPN, so [5] "Photo gallery: Marchers head from Black Wall Street to Reconciliation Park on 97th anniversary of Tulsa Race Massacre" "The dedication Thursday coincided with the anniversary of the Tulsa Race Riot — referred to by several at the ceremony as a massacre." So I don't think it's that suspicious given that there's a recent context. Also see [6]. There's no question that it's referred to as a massacre and the article already notes that. Over time things change. I don't know if it's changed enough yet. Doug Weller talk 10:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

It's time to call call this historical catastrophe what it was... A massacre. Webdeva (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The number and "value" of edits and the length of time the person has been an editor are not relevant. Unless the editor has a history of actions that are disruptive, destructive or similar actions by an editor, he or she is no less worthy than a more experienced editor and opinions must have equal merit as far as that goes.

If "riot" is defined as "civil disorder by one group against another group", then it would be accurate to call it a riot, but not exclusively. "Riot" is an accurate term to name the Boston Tea Party, the events at Kent State in May 1970 and those of February 14 1929 in Chicago, and many more, but WP must reflect common usage more than formal semantic accuracy. "Riot" does carry the common notion that it is something done as a protest or against established authority by others, and it is the opposite of that. Whatever word insurance companies might have used is worth mentioning in the article but it does not justify the article title.

"Massacre" seems to be the best choice; as far as I can tell, the most accurate title for the events is not necessarily the one that automatically satisfies WP:COMMONNAME on its own merit... but which one would? The different names used for it are present in the article, but I don't see one of them as more appropriate than another at present and WP is not a place for revisionism; it should reflect without being partisan. In this case, the title of the article is best resolved with a consensus, so... Twistlethrop (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

As Doug Weller points out, it may well simply be a coincidence, but per WP:SIGNS it is somewhat suspicious that two editors with little to no previous or recent activity both show up on this somewhat obscure article within minutes of each other. Meters (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
As also pointed out, there was the recent march in Tulsa and articles written on it advocating for the use of 'massacre'; in recent times I've also noticed that outside of older sources (decade+) Race Riot is common, but as of 2018 most of the new writings are of the 'Tulsa Massacre'. I think that its clearly the only legitimate choice and 'Race Riot' is historical revisionism itself, as it appears there was hardly any 'riot'. Belsima (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

not true. page 25 of the red cross report clearly states that the insurance companies refused to pay citing the riot clause of their insurance policies. it is very much historical truth that this was considered a riot. for one reason or another, it is true that the city council was very eager to compulsorily acquire the land to redevelop it. while i agree there was a very small period of actual violence, a few morning hours in which more than 38 city blocks of timber shanties were quickly torched and the fire department failed to attend for unknown reasons, as though the entire neighbourhood was unofficially scheduled for demolition as the true cause of the fires in a Crassus style firesale, the fact remains that it was legally and publicly defined as a riot and therefor you cant argue that it's historical revisionism to refer to the incident as a riot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.198.13.161 (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Calling the event a "Riot" might have avoided the label of "historical revisionism" because the word was used contemporarily by some organizations; however, those same organizations had a vested interest in describing the events as a "riot" because their use of it was arguably used to further their own aims and intentions at the expense of others.
I do not believe that "riot" should be excluded, but it must be accompanied by an explanation that it was used by organizations in order to consolidate or gain at the expense of others. Their motives, together with their apparent status at the time, are what have led to its use today, 97 years after the event, and after a period that people today have experienced what are correctly termed as "riots". But it does not change the fact that, taken by definition of the word, "massacre" is the correct and objective term and outweighs any historical usage of "riot".
Additionally, I do not think we should automatically take a jaundiced view of comments because it is "somewhat suspicious that two editors with little to no previous or recent activity both show up on this somewhat obscure article within minutes of each other". We have a duty to weigh such comments with a greater objectivity than that because it would also exclude many who made their first public comments known in a similar way but who have gone on to be more "established" editors, myself included. Twistlethrop (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Usage of the term, "Black."

can we get some moderators to weigh in on the usage of the term. I am aware that the preferred term seems to be, "African American" however this is inaccurate. the historical term, "black" does not refer to african americans. it was a legal designation referring to any... 'undesirable races' as such in the history of the USA, many diverse peoples were designated 'black' regardless of their african heritage or self-identification. it's a very complicated issue. please read this articles for a bit of background. Walter Plecker White Americans African Americans One-drop rule Jim Crow laws Black Codes (United States) Historical race concepts Ethnic identity development. African American is a modern term implying self-identification. 'Black' however is a legal designation which was used to enforce segregation of 'whites' from 'blacks.' as this article pertains to a historical legal designation, it should not be offensive to use references which contain what were normative, acceptable, legal language of the time. Today i completely understand that the term 'negro' or 'black' should not be used in legal or professional writing to refer to an individual. however this very important legal distinction and the very nature of the article risk a loss of meaning if we completely whitewash the history of legislation against 'blacks' and its relevance to this article.

that said, the focus question should be, "how do we refer to historical victims of tragedies when the very centre of the issue is their legally designated race?" and as an addendum, is it preferable to replace direct quotes references containing the words 'negro' or 'black' with '[african american]' in the quote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.198.45.217 (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Organized Crime and the Grand Jury

while i was sorting through all the newspapers i kept noticing all of these articles on gangland construction companies around the country. Tulsa was one of the only cities with a growing construction industry, as reported in one of the daily world articles. then the union depot was built about 2 years after the fire over the ruins which is reminiscent of Marcus Licinius Crassus. then i realised nobody had written anything on the Grand Jury. it seems to have been completely left out of any historical discussion, mostly because people seem to skip to the part where they blame the black community. sure the conclusions of the grand jury were bad but what makes it so vital to the discussion is that there appears to have been organised crime on both sides. Cleaver describes a black gang. the grand jury indictments describe white organised crime. although im not sure cleaver can be a reliable source considering he was a member of the deeply corrupt police force and they had numerous allegations of threatening witnesses by telling them that they would be framed by the police but that's just speculation so it'll be fun to go through all the grand jury documents. the submissions made to the grand jury are worth reading because even though they quashed many of the indictments, the reasons for failing to prosecute dont seem to be reasonable or even legal. recalling that this was post-ww1, prohibition era america I started on the grand jury section but it's huge and i'd love it if other editors would help fill it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.198.45.217 (talk) 03:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

http://digitalprairie.ok.gov/cdm/search/collection/race-riot/searchterm/Case%20No.%201062!%20vice%201921/field/all!all/mode/any!any/conn/and!and/order/nosort/ad/asc there are 256 documents to go through for the search terms "vice tulsa 1921" which i think is the limit the site will return, 143 for case 1062 alone. happy hunting!49.198.45.217 (talk) 03:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
i misunderstood aspects of cleavers position. cleaver was dismissed from the police force and at the time of the riot was not a member of the city police but a county sheriff, a distinct, independent body and his law enforcement activities seem to have conflicted with the interests of the mostly white police force which subsequently was investigated by the grand jury which implicated many senior city police officers in organised crime rackets. in particular, he raided white run dope joints within the greenwood area. one a very recent raid to his testimony he happened to arrest an Officer Smithy, a city police officer who was found to be in possession of a large quantity of drugs.

"A A fellow named Smithyis the head of the place, and had had two boys and one girl that sell dope. This fellow Smithy is a regular dope peddler, I have known him since 1911, and he has had a police commission from Adkinson. Q Has he that commission now. A No, they caught him the other day with 14 bottles of morphine and cocaine and a big ball of wax. Q Did they take his commission away then? A Yes, they turned him over to the county under a $1500 bond. Q When did Mr. Adkinson commission that man? A I don't know exactly, but I have seen him carrying a gun, and when the police wanted to search his place, he showed that commission." 

http://digitalprairie.ok.gov/cdm/compoundobject/collection/race-riot/id/390/rec/3 	Statement Barney Cleaver, Attorney General Civil Case No. 1062

49.198.45.217 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to add this to the article at the moment so i will add some quotes here.

"REPORT OF ARREST 

Officer J R Meacham Reports:
Tulsa, Okla., 6/2, 1921
Party arrested Charlie Burleson & Evert Ray
Where arrest was made at West Tulsa
Time of arrest 11:50 A. M. . . . P. M.
Sex Male Color White Age . . . Nativity A
Booked on charge of Investigation
Reason of arrest found sand bag, music box, silk goods and shoes and records for music box found at 30 South Carolton
Released by Chief Gustafson
Witnesses They work for Cosden & Co" "Report of Arrest Charlie Burleson and Evert Ray, 1921 June 2".

chief of police released two looters, no reason given but note, "they work for Cosden & Co"

"B. Nesbitt, 403 Security Building, says Wm. McCullough told him on the morning of June 1st, that he was sorry that he did not shoot down the three white men that came into the court house before the riot started." "Miscellaneous Witness List, 1921 June 8". McCullough is refering to the men who asked to be deputised at the court house. In the witness testimony, Buck gave testimony that officer told him no, but told him that he, "better go out and try to get a gun and get a nigger." "A I asked them if they were deputizing--if they would deputize me as an officer. 

Q What did they say to you?
A He told me no, that they could take care of the situation.
Q What else did he say?
A And they told me that I better go out and try to get a gun and get a nigger.
Q You say you went down to a hardware store and you were issued a gun?
A Yes, ma'am."  "Part 3 Witness Testimony District Court State of Oklahoma v. John A. Gustafson, Attorney General Civil Case No. 1062".: p.44 

John W. Franklin

an eyewitness account was discovered in 2015, authored by Buck Colbert Franklin, a black Greenwood attorney at the time of the riots. His grandson and the cultural historian and senior manager at Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture, John W. Franklin,[1] was paraphrased by Allison Keyes in an article in the Smithsonian, as stating something along the lines of, "[the american people] has been in denial over the fact that people were cruel enough to bomb the black community from the air, in private planes, and that black people were machine-gunned down in the streets."[2] John Franklin was apparently not referring to his grandfathers document as proof to support this, but making a general statement. This may be confusing for some readers, as it is confusing for me, why they would jump into stating this without proof, and with the consensus of a number of historians disavowing such a belief. This is especially disturbing as a stanford graduate and holding a prestigious position as a historian in the case of Franklin, and Allison Keyes, as a journalist.

I have added substantial referenced statements to the article including instances of hyperbole that franklin uses. no other reports exist to cooberate the use of operational machine guns, only heresay of the use of one machine gun, which was for a 'show of force' but it was not operational, did not have an operational water cooling rig or feeder and could only be fired single-shot and was in possession by the national guard in the morning, not at night. franklin reports that he he saw multiple flashes and concludes these must be multiple machine guns. he states that he saw the ground covered in burning turpentine balls. but this is what many of the building roofs were made of, a mixture of pine tar, pitch, cotton and softwood. today covering a dwelling in incredibly flammable materials might sound unreasonable because of fire codes devellopped around 1905 after the establishment of underwriters associations which collectively bargained for building insurance and were able to dictate building codes to some extent by refusing to negotiate with cities that failed to institute their building reccommendations.

I referenced Plano,texas because it's perhaps the only modern city that still used traditional wooden roofing across 70% of its residences and has been heavily criticised for using such an antiquated construction material. in the tuberville PhD, he says that large collections of such buildings were destroyed in an almost routine fashion which is why you dont see large collections of such buildings anymore.

this is a relevant addition to the article because it has been cited by the smithsonian magazine as prooving the area was firebombed when the reliable cited sources indicate that in a large urban conflagration, specifically with the types of buildings constructed in the greenwood area at this time, fires will appear to start from the rooftops even when they are not bombed. previously, this smithsonian reference was used instead of a direct link to franklin's report. but their claims that franklin's conclusion that they must be under attack from the air because planes+fire=bombs isnt a logical conclusion as per the following discussion i have added to the article that provides a historical understanding of the cause of the fire. 175.36.196.38 (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ "Smithsonian Journeys Experts: John W. Franklin". Smithsonian Journeys. Retrieved December 19, 2018.
  2. ^ Keyes, Allison (May 27, 2016). "A Long-Lost Manuscript Contains a Searing Eyewitness Account of the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921".

NPOV tags must have specific discussion there

and the one for "New eyewitness account" does not. The IP has said at WP:NORN that I'm trying to avoid an ongoing NPOV by saying their edits are original research, but I still haven't a clue what they mean. Doug Weller talk 08:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Original research

I've started a discussion at WP:NORN#Tulsa race riot original research about a fire. There may be more OR in the article as I've not checked the edits about Franklin. Doug Weller talk 08:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The most recent edit is full of OR about what isn't in documents, etc. As well as " Furthermore it curious that witnesses claimed Brady dedicated the tarring and feathering to, "the women and children of Belgium." The reference to Belgium may be a reference to the WW1 occupation of Belgium by Germany." Where's the source? Doug Weller talk 17:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Part of it in here --Askedonty (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
@Askedonty: good work. So the OR statement that "it is curious" is just that, original research. Doug Weller talk 18:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

NPOV issues, eg misrepresentation of a source to discredit a source in this article

I'm trying not to get in an edit war with the IP adding original research, but keep finding more problems. For instance, the IP wrote ".It was reported, in an indie magazine in its first year of publication, by a freelance reporter described in the Columbia Journalism Review as,"having never done a lick of journalism before,"[31] citing an entire archive as a source, that a UCLA investigator reported seeing "five dead negroes", including one man who was dragged behind a car with a noose around his neck.[32][citation needed]The reporter has since died and the magazine closed after less than seven years of publication in 2017". This seems clearly an attempt to discredit the journalist and the following text is original research arguing with the journalist.

But if you look at the source,[7] you'll find a different view of the journalist:

"Here’s the kicker: Chapman had never published an article in his life. He explored Tulsa’s history as a hobby. Should he be allowed to call himself a journalist, or to say he conducted journalism?

Fuck, yes. The act of journalism doesn’t require a career. It requires a 42-year-old Lee Roy Chapman hunched over a 90-year-old document in the Western History Collection at the University of Oklahoma. And when that act of collection and contextualization gets refined through skill and craftsmanship, journalism takes on even greater qualities. Chapman’s 3,500-word article forced all of Tulsa to address its racial divide. At its height, journalism does not simply displace power or shed new light; it is power and it is light." Doug Weller talk 17:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

my point is that the author was not a reputable journalist from a reputable news source. as per the gentlemanly rules, I did not make any personal attacks upon the author, merely stated that the source is not from a reputable journalist. I should add to the article that the article was syndicated internationally with it being mentioned in associated press articles by various reputable news agencies and multiple books on the topic of the history of greenwood/tulsa however the reputability of the source has never been questioned. recently tulsa city has begun renaming streets and public places based on this single image which has been regarded as absolute proof that Brady tarred and feathered a black man. [1] if you read the obituaries of the late Mr. Chapman, the author of that section in the CJR was the owner/founder/editor of the Land Press and personal friend of chapman. I feel its best to be cautious of such sources as they begin to border on heresay. there's no shortage of misquotations and misrepresentations in the oklahoma commission report which is why i've used legal and accounting documents from the archives of the state of oklahoma. I've especially done this whenever I found an author make a quotation, looked it up and found figures or statements did not match so that I didnt end up with multiple duplicate references with different content all citing the same source. 175.36.196.38 (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)



References

  1. ^ http://thislandpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/labrown.jpg

NPOV participants: black residents

participants has been changed to white mob, black residents. there is definitely an NPOV issue in this article in which some editors and academic sources wish to represent every black citizen of tulsa as completely innocent. there was violence committed by both 'black' and 'white' residents of tulsa. I contend that according to Oklahoma's Riot statute, that any group of three or more who take unlawful violent action constitutes a riot. I presented evidence to show that there were black rioters. there should be consistency in the use of terms mob and residents. either the participants were white residents and black residents or white mob and black mob. 175.36.196.38 (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

We rely on what secondary sources say about the subject. Policy doesn't allow us to take a primary source such as the riot statute and allow us to label people according to our interpretation of it, right or wrong. Doug Weller talk 15:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD WP:SECONDARYNOTGOOD primary sources can be used. for example I have used sworn statements penned by attorneys and reputable law enforcement officers signed by corroborating witnesses and submitted as testimony that is of official record and sourced from official state archives. although it is definitely a matter of perspective in the case of eye witness testimony, it is wiki policy that such references can be used if you say it is what the particular party said rather than definite fact. I have been unable to find any modern secondary sources discussing the involvement of black rioters but black residents of tulsa who were employed as trusted persons submitted signed statements under penalty of perjury and loss of reputation within the following fortnight of the event gives some credibility to the sources. if a thorough discussion of the topic existed I would use it. This is also acceptable as many of the secondary sources also simply reference and quote a single primary source, with no synthesis of different accounts, studies or other investigations, as proof of their points. in such cases it's not really a secondary source but a quotation or paraphrase of a a primary source anyway.

The use of different levels of severity of involvement seems unjustified given the evidence presented that an organised group of black residents also rioted. 175.36.196.38 (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I would give examples of other articles that use the phrase, "Parties to the civil conflict." 1968 Chicago riots and 1968 Washington, D.C. riots, in the section of King assassination riots may be better examples. In such cases proof exists of some fairly extreme violence perpetrated by law enforcement officers yet is a more objective and tame rendering in the infobox. labelling the national guard and police force as perpetrators of the violence in the case of this incident, in the infobox, without proof of any such involvement is factually incorrect and WP:POVPUSH. I would suggest that the infobox format used for the king assassination riots articles be adopted for this article and the listing of 'white' rioters and 'black' rioters be included. 175.36.196.38 (talk) 04:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Should article title mention alternate names?

My great grandmother hid her African-American maid in their Tulsa basement in 1921 fearing for everyone's life, and she barely ever spoke of it again out of fear - this fear censors us before we speak up, it silences our views due to very real threats of lethal violence, and though it's an unpopular opinion in the state of Oklahoma, it is my firm point of view that calling this a "Race Riot" is an erasure of genocide akin to calling what happened in Auschwitz a "religious riot."

To avoid outright denial of genocide, Wikipedia needs to respect the objective view point that many people do refer to this as a pogrom[1]; many do refer to this as a massacre[2]; we exist in large numbers and we will not be erased from the encyclopedic record.

I understand that the majority of people do ignorantly call this a "Race Riot," yet there are so many of us who refuse that name - how can it be a riot when the police and national guard were participating, given that the legal definition of a riot is that it's in violation of police orders?

To be encyclopedic and neutral in point of view, it's vital to keep the article's mention of the alternative names for this incident, especially including pogrom and massacre.

I was disappointed to see that this article was whitewashed in January of 2019 as all alternative names were erased from the article, and I implore the objectively neutral Wikipedia community to recognize the alternative names of this ethnic cleansing incident.

[1] https://daily.jstor.org/the-devastation-of-black-wall-street/ [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2018/09/28/feature/they-was-killing-black-people/?noredirect=on — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carl.r.larson (talk • contribs) 20:36, February 13, 2019 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. And please read WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RS, WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS and WP:NPA. As I pointed out in my edit summary when I removed "pomgrom" a blog is not a reliable source. Calling my actions "whitewashing" is a personal attack. Meters (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
And don't rewrite posts that have already been replied to. If you have anything to add then add it in another thread. If you want to change something in your original post then strike it out (using <s>old text</s>) and underline any new text (with <u>new text</u>). Otherwise we lose context for what had been replied to. I have restored the original version of your post. Meters (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
To indicate insertions, please use <ins>new text</ins> instead of <u>new text</u>. See Help:HTML in wikitext#ins. Paradoctor (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
@Paradoctor:What's the point of this comment? The <u>new text</u> approach is perfectly valid. Help:HTML in wikitext#ins points to WP:REDACT, which says Any inserted text should be marked with <u>...</u> or <ins>...</ins>, and in any case, the editor this was for has not been active since this was posted. Meters (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Absolute Goldmine

http://cdm15887.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/fullbrowser/collection/p15887coll1/id/28/rv/compoundobject/cpd/129, University of Tulsa, Department of Special Collections and University Archives. Parrish, Mary E. Jones, 1922. Events of the Tulsa disaster.

contains loads of first hand reports from different people, lots of information, 100+pages

you can download the entire pdf at once with this link then renaming the file from 29.pdfpage to 29.pdf http://cdm15887.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getdownloaditem/collection/p15887coll1/id/129/filename/29.pdfpage/mapsto/pdf/type/fullbrowser/cpdtype/document-pdf/show/28 Verify references (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Should the main page be named "Tulsa race massacre" instead of "Tulsa race riot"?

UPDATE 2018-11-28: When I originally suggested the rename below to "Tulsa race massacre", I wasn't aware of the past discussion of this issue. Based on that edit history and on Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events), I reluctantly conclude that we should leave the title as "Tulsa race riot" at least for now. As an experienced editor said to me in a thoughtful discussion about this article: "There is a certain deliberate conservatism to English Wikipedia's approach, and it protects against certain kinds of threats admirably, and it also slows down some good changes too." I'll let my argument below stay here, so that at least if anyone else comes to look they will immediately see that the rename has been considered multiple times before. If common usage outside Wikipedia starts to change, then some day it will be appropriate to rename this article accordingly. In addition to the New Yorker Magazine article cited below, the article A Racial Awakening by Liz Farmer also uses the term "massacre", and even touches on some reasons why the question of how the event was classified might have made a difference for insurance purposes.

Here's the original suggestion:

Argument (possible re-usable some day) for renaming the page "Tulsa race massacre"

On 20 Nov 2018 I moved the page to "Tulsa race massacre" (with redirection, of course), giving this as the edit message: 

The term "massacre" is far more accurate than "riot" for the events described in this page. The former is also a recognized usage; for example, the New Yorker magazine used "race massacre" (and not "riot") to refer to this event, in https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/11/05/americas-other-family-separation-crisis.

I then updated the text of the page accordingly, though making it clear that "riot" is also commonly used to refer to this event. Here's the edit message for that change: 

Use "massacre" instead of "riot" wherever appropriate, but preserve "riot" in references and in contexts where that is the source's usage. This a specific case of the more general problem of how Wikipedia should handle the situation of an inaccurate (often somewhat evasive) term that had been used for a long time being replaced in common usage with an already-available, more-accurate term. I hope the solution here works, but recognize it may need further discussion and improvement.

A few days later, Srnec reverted the page rename, with this change message: 

reverting move: should be discussed - surely whites can 'race riot', too?

Agreed -- let's discuss it. My original edit messages give the reasoning behind the change, but I can expand on them here. I confess I didn't fully understand Srnec's edit message for the reversion (since my reasoning for the original change had nothing to do with the race of the people doing the slaughtering: it would have been a massacre either way), but on my talk page Srnec left a more detailed note: 

I reverted your move because the term "Tulsa race massacre" is much less common, so I think a discussion is necessary to determine if it is nonetheless a better descriptive term. I myself am agnostic: a "riot" does not need to be (indeed usually isn't) two-sided and the level of violence, death and destruction here seems to be on the same order of magnitude as the 1967 Detroit riot or the 1992 Los Angeles riots. But then maybe the Tulsa incident has more in common with, say, Kristallnacht (not a riot) than America's other race-related riots.

I will address two separate questions here: one, which term is definitionally more appropriate, and two, historical usage (in the specific context of similar events) related to those definitions and how that usage is changing.

As far as definitions go, I think it's a pretty clear case. The event in Tulsa is more accurately described as a "massacre": that's the narrower and more specific term, and it completely matches what happened -- this is pretty much what the word "massacre" is for. One could say that it was also a "riot" in the sense of being a "violent disturbance of the peace, by a crowd", but the really significant thing in Tulsa was that people (almost all of them African-American) were violently killed, i.e., it wasn't just that shop windows were broken and property destroyed, etc. So it's a "massacre": an "indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people". When there is a choice of two terms, and one of them more closely matches the thing being described, then, all other things being equal, we should use the narrower, closer term. We wouldn't say "World Event II", we would say "World War II", because although it was an "event" it was also an instance of that subset of events known as "wars".

I agree with Srnec's reasoning by analogy with Kristallnacht, and also point out that some of the other events that some Americans have historically been called "race riots" were also massacres. The use of the term "riot" has in some cases been deliberately -- though perhaps unconsciously -- avoidant. Something like the New York City draft riots might be a much closer call: it started as just a riot, and then became something more in between a riot and a massacre. But what happened in Tulsa is more clear cut, in any case.

The recent choice of "race massacre" that I cited in the New Yorker is a sign that a once-common term is now being understood as having been avoidant language all along, and that a more accurate term should be used if available. I'll offer another example: across the American South, many historical markers referred to slaves as "servants". For example, you could go to Monticello and see plaques and pamphlets describing what life was like when Thomas Jefferson lived there, and those documents would often refer to slaves as "servants" (they've apparently fixed this now, but it was still true when I visited many years ago). This choice of language was the norm for a long time, even though it was less accurate. It's analogous to the "riot" vs "massacre" question here, in that it obscures what actually happened and thus weakens historical memory. A reader is less likely to think of a "riot" as targeting a particular group than they are to think of a "massacre" as targeting a particular group. But the vast majority of the deaths in the Tulsa event were indeed within the targeted group: African-Americans living in Tulsa in 1921. Therefore, I argue that Wikipedia should choose the more accurate term (as the New Yorker magazine did), and not unwittingly cooperate with a particular political agenda by describing the event in a way that obscures what actually happened.

One could argue, of course, that historical accuracy is also a political agenda, but that particular agenda is one that Wikipedia has long openly allied itself with. I guess what I'm really saying is that Wikipedia should serve its political agenda instead of someone else's, and Wikipedia's agenda is making accurate information available to as many people as possible.

@Srnec: that's why I propose that the main name for the page be "Tulsa race massacre". I appreciate your invitation to discuss, and am interested to read counterarguments.

Best regards,

--Karl Fogel 17:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kfogel: I never got around to responding to you before you posted your update. I too was unaware of the previous discussions. Since you have "retracted" for now your proposal to re-title the article I will not give a detailed response. I agree that historical accuracy is part of Wikipedia's agenda. "Pogrom" strikes me as a good compromise term, but its usage is still too restricted to anti-Semitic attacks. Looking at the previous move request, I agree mostly with User:SnowFire that the articles should have been nominated individually and there are probably some that should be moved. Srnec (talk) 02:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
no, it shouldnt be renamed. it has been historically referred to as the tulsa race riot. it is referred to currently as 'the tulsa race riots' including in the modern report published by the state of oklahoma. furthermore, the 'massacre' was initially reported in what the head of the national guard referred to as 'yellow journalism.' no such massacre took place, you can refer to the tulsa daily world in the week before and after the fire, i have previously posted these articles as references in the article. the reports from the national guard state that they didnt find many people murderred during their brief investigation of the scene as had previously been reported in tabloids, just a few people who were known to police and whom the daily world reported in an interview as being itinerant criminals. deaths were suggested in the red cross report to largely have been a result of the fire or circumstances following the widespread homelessness. 49.198.45.217 (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

black residents of Oklahoma argued for participants in the incident to be prosecuted as rioters in 1921.[1] the emotionally charged, inflammatory language proposed is not technically or legally relevant but a political stunt.

article XLV. 2558. RIOT DEFINED. Any use of force or violence or any threat to use force or violence if accompanied by immediate power of execution by three or more persons acting together and without authority of law, is riot.

R.L.1910, § 2558. [2] 175.36.196.38 (talk) 09:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "The Black Dispatch (Oklahoma City, Okla.), Vol. 6, No. 28, Ed. 1 Friday, June 17, 1921 Page: 4 of 8: Oklahoma's Riot Statute".
  2. ^ "2017 Oklahoma Statutes Title 21. Crimes and Punishments §21-1311. Riot defined". Justia Corporate Center. 2017.
@Srnec and Kfogel: After reading the discussions and looking up the definition of both massacre and riot, both could be used for the title however after conducting a google search riot is defined as such "a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd" and massacre as "an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people". If we consider historical accuracy to be the "political agenda" of Wikipedia then we should also consider we are not restricted to the opinion of the accounts from Tulsa citizens of 1921. Much like in a court case if science or technology evolve and shed new light on past verdicts we should use our knowledge of current day in reporting accuracy of this event that went unrecorded for many years.
First, there were no immediate investigations or legal proceedings by law enforcement or the local government leading up to or following the deaths which would have removed the need for this discussion because it would have clarified the causes of death. Second, we know this historical event involved the deaths of multiple people in a way they could not realistically defend themselves against i.e. no support from local law enforcement and the local government, and use of airplanes in attacks. This information in itself is more characteristic of a massacre whereas a riot traditionally involves failure by law enforcement to stop a mass of people destroying/stealing property, inadvertent loss of life as a result of damage to materials, and support by the government/law enforcement to include at a minimum due process prior to finding of guilt and retribution. Third, considering the social perspective of this time in American history and that history is usually written (omitted in this case) by the victor, logically can we rely on use of "Tulsa Race Riots" or "Yellow Journalism" by authorities of this same time and place if they didn't feel the need to denounce or prevent the incident to begin with? Black Oklahoma residents of 1921 arguing for use of "rioters" instead of "murderers" is also not as credible, considering if you just witnessed your community burned down and its residents killed, how likely are you to criminalize white citizens of the city you live in when you are too afraid to report the incident and there is no guarantee this type of event will not happen again?
A way to reality check this is; how would this event be labelled if it happened in today's time? Multiple people die following a city's reaction to a two-person disagreement, no investigations are conducted prior to or immediately after the deaths, and technology not accessible to those dead was used in their killing. The amount of property damage may be why some see this as a riot instead of massacre so it really comes down to what is most significant about this event the deaths or destruction of property?
@Meters: This paragraph more directly addresses if riot or massacre are commonly used for this event.
In short, both riot and massacre could be used, historically riot was used, however current day definitions more closely match massacre and the decision by white and black Tulsa Oklahoma residents of 1921 to euphemize massacre with riot is more a reflection of their omission of the event through fear, ignorance, and dated social perspectives than because of a desire for historical accuracy. —  comment added by Mawfia (talk) 05:02, February 11, 2019 (UTC)
Please learn to indent and sign your talk page posts. Meters (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
It's not a question of which word fits the situation better. It's a question of which term is commonly used as the name of the event. See WP:COMMONNAME. Meters (talk) 05:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I think it should be renamed massacre. Riot is misleading, and at the time it was used to mislead. I'd prefer "Tulsa massacre", not "Tulsa race massacre". deisenbe (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


This was a massacre, not a riot. Just because the term riot was used to misinform people of what happened doesn't make it a riot. That was an attempt to alter the perception of what happened. This was a massacre. The name needs to be changed to accurately reflect what happened. 2600:1700:7A51:10B0:A80F:4629:F412:A945 (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Emic and etic. Wikipedia history articles take the etic form. Anthropological articles may take the emic form. We record a summary of evidence as presented in the annals of history. Unfortunately one of the realities of the legality of running a website is that you cant just present anything you want as absolute truth because its personal truth. Verify references (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

NPOV riot participants

In the state of Oklahoma, according to the statute below that has been in effect since 1910 without change, only participates in a riot if they do so "without authority of law" as the national guard and police acted with the authority of law, they cannot be perpetrators.

article XLV. 2558. RIOT DEFINED. Any use of force or violence or any threat to use force or violence if accompanied by immediate power of execution by three or more persons acting together and without authority of law, is riot.

R.L.1910, § 2558. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.36.196.38 (talk • contribs) 09:45, December 22, 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "2017 Oklahoma Statutes Title 21. Crimes and Punishments §21-1311. Riot defined". Justia Corporate Center. 2017.
Oklahoma doesn't get to decide what the word riot means for the rest of humanity. National guard slaughtering innocents is not within the law anyway, if their enforcement is not within the bounds of the law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:8980:106F:B960:2130:57A4:22FD (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no evidence to suggest the national guard intentionally slaughtered innocents. there is evidence to the contrary that they responded to an armed insurgency. there is no evidence to suggest that the national guard was acting outside of their standing orders or that those orders were invalid. some bystanders were caught in the crossfire. some civilians were noted to have been shot. it was never confirmed that the national guard shot them or if the bullets came from burning ammunition stores or rioters. Taking an emic perspective, I can understand why this was presumed by some witnesses. I must call particular attention to the notion that in these witness statements they take particular pains to avoid a potential prosecution for libel, never actually stating that they witnessed members of the national guard shooting civilians. this was commented on as described in the main article with loads of references. I do not believe the Beryl Ford has ever been criticised for this interpretation. Richard S. Warner, similarly has not been criticised and is considered to be of impeccable integrity. Please try to actually think before throwing out things like, ~well that's just like the law and like, your opinion mannnn.~ Verify references (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  • correction he was chairman of the red cross at a later date.
  • correction mixed up beryl ford with someone else, white male. but still i do not believe he has been criticised in terms of his credibility.

Verify references (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Prohibition as “Background” cause

In the Background section, Prohibition is mentioned as one of the causes, because of how it supposedly increased general lawlessness. This claim needs a citation, and further justification or deletion. Prohibition had a lot of flaws, but the idea that it increased general lawlessness is hard to document factually and can also be explained by growing urbanization and unemployment problems (see Wikipedia’s own article on Prohibition for discussion). Prof500 (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

extreme plagiarism

used plagscan.com

https://imgur.com/a/KnvgPbb I know its pretty hard to tell these days if reporters and academics are just wholesale plagiarising wikipedia and people tend to assume it's wikipedia plagiarising them. I just ran a check on this page with a free version of plagscan. https://imgur.com/a/KnvgPbb it has a word limit so i only checked 3 pages worth. the freport.pdf is the oklahoma comission report so there's definitely a bunch of stuff just plastered from there. im actually inclined to believe F Jones didnt credit us :( imagine getting paid to just copy wikipedia articles into a newspaper... http://theoklahomaeagle.net/2017/06/01/96-years-later-the-greenwood-cultural-center-1921-race-riot-massacre-facts-with-video/ the old version of the greenwoodculturalcenter.com page refers to books by Hannibal B. Johnson which should be checked against this site for plagiarism https://web.archive.org/web/20150215092737/http://www.greenwoodculturalcenter.com/tulsa-race-riot and the current website just appears to be a copy of the recent wiki https://web.archive.org/web/20170424060637/http://www.greenwoodculturalcenter.com/tulsa-race-riot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verify references (talk • contribs) 06:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

found another one https://imgur.com/a/ZAjEUDF https://books.google.com.au/books?id=rH_oDAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false you can just check short strings in google books. Verify references (talk) 07:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Comparing the text in F Jones' article to the Wikipedia pages that existed prior to his article's publication, it's clear that either he copied his text from Wikipedia, or from a source that a Wikipedia editor copied from. I don't have the time to look into the latter possibility, but it's clear that Wikipedia didn't copy the F Jones article. CruiserBob (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Possibly change primary name from Tulsa race riot to Tulsa Race Massacre

"Tulsa Race Massacre" is how the event is being titled in current news and updated historical/.gov sources.

Recent media:

https://kfor.com/2019/05/10/city-of-tulsa-to-oversee-search-for-mass-graves-connected-to-tulsa-race-massacre/

https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/date-set-for-public-meeting-on-investigation-into-potential-tulsa/article_cbf3ac0e-a3f3-5ffb-b6b1-6bfc40d92150.html

https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/1921-race-massacre-commission-to-roll-out-state-wide-curriculum-for-teachers

https://www.newson6.com/story/40450212/tulsa-to-search-for-mass-graves-in-1921-race-massacre


On November 29th 2018 the Tulsa 1921 Race Riot commission was renamed to Race Massacre Commission.

https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/tulsa-1921-race-riot-commission-to-be-renamed-tulsa-race-massacre-commission

https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/government-and-politics/centennial-commission-to-replace-riot-with-massacre-in-official-title/article_128d9304-6d59-5b5f-872a-f72509d3ecd8.html

https://www.fox23.com/video?videoId=880389811&videoVersion=1.0


Oklahoma Historical references:

https://www.tulsahistory.org/exhibit/1921-tulsa-race-massacre/

https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=TU013

Agsync2534 (talk) 00:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Possibly add a section with both the definition of a riot, and that of a massacre; quotes as to why the Oklahoma Commission to Study the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921 was renamed to Oklahoma Commission to Study the Tulsa Race Massacre in November 2018; and have "Tulsa race riot" redirect to this page with the new title "Tulsa Race Massacre". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.164.202 (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

This is not a proper move request. Please see Requested moves for instructions on how to go about doing that. El_C 14:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Wouldn't pogrom be more appropriate than massacre? While a massacre does describe an indiscriminate slaughter of a group of people, the word "pogrom" specifically describes the destruction of and slaughter of an ethnic community? EricSpokane (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 21 July 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus for the time being. If sources increase their usage of the name, then I imagine a future move request will find success. However, we are not a crystal ball, and there is no consensus here about whether or not the new name has come to eclipse the prior name. There was also clearly no consensus that the name is biased or a whitewashing. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 02:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Tulsa race riot → Tulsa race massacre – Current name no longer reflects best current usage (see prior notes on talk page), and represents a whitewashing of a racially motivated attack against a minority community. - NiD.29 (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisted. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  01:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Relist note: members of WikiProjects with banners at the top of this page have been notified of this request. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  01:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Pogrom has been suggested, however it is not supported by references, and is mainly used for Jewish populations. - NiD.29 (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • We title articles according to what the most common English name is. Can you provide some evidence that "Tulsa race massacre" is the more common name for this article's subject than "Tulsa race riot"? Rreagan007 (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose just reading the casualty figures confirms that this was an ugly vicious extended mass racist riot, but was not not by modern standards a massacre. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Comment - what standards for what defines a massacre? A bunch of people were murdered - en mass.
    • Dictionary entry for massacre (note the lack of numbers):
      • Noun 1. an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people. Verb 1. deliberately and violently kill (a large number of people).
    • Dictionary entry for riot (note lack of mention of killing people):
      • Noun 1. a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd. Verb 1. take part in a violent public disturbance.
    • Per wikipedia entry - A massacre is a killing, typically of multiple victims, considered morally unacceptable, especially when perpetrated by a group of political actors against defenseless victims. The word is a loan of a French term for "butchery" or "carnage".[1] There is no objective definition of what constitutes a "massacre". Various international organisations have proposed a formal definition of the term crimes against humanity, which would however include incidents of persecution or abuse that do not result in deaths.[2] Conversely, a "massacre" is not necessarily a "crime against humanity".[3] Other terms with overlapping scope include war crime, pogrom, mass killing, mass murder, and extrajudicial killing.
    • Riot was used at that time. The term massacre is now being used - officially. The length of time the former term was used should result in a high number of hits, however Tulsa race riot returned 671,000 results while Tulsa massacre returned 839,000 results.
    • Riot is both less specific, and ignores the massacre to focus on the less important events preceding it. - NiD.29 (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Consulting a dictionary to decide the title is WP:OR. Hyperbolic or not, "massacre" is often used in the U.S. for events with only a few deaths (e.g. the Orangeburg massacre with three deaths). Follow what the sources use. —  AjaxSmack  01:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support... I would rather not inject myself into this debate. However, based on the definitions of riot and massacre, "race riot" does not seem to be an appropriate title for this event. Not to mention the fact that the sources calling this a riot in those days may have been biased in their interpretation of the events that occurred. I don't believe this is revisionist history to change the article title. Buffaboy talk 05:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • And seeing that "massacre" has as many hits above, I believe this also gives credence to s different article title. Buffaboy talk 06:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – If you actually put quotes around the term, "Tulsa race riot" returns over twice as many results as "Tulsa race massacre". And anyway, there should probably be a comprehensive list of move requests created since it seems that attempts to move this page are very frequent. Master of Time (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support if contemporary researchers have begun to use the name "Tulsa Race Massacre" I feel it better fits.Mangokeylime (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support the perpetrators appears to have had intent which makes massacre more appropriate, whereas a riot can just be an out of control crowd. Contemporary research is also more frank about the event. Fettlemap (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Still not convinced. The death toll is comparable to other race riots. This was a pogrom, but we follow sources and they have not changed that much since this was last aired. Srnec (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - The governing rules are WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA. Tulsa Race Massacre appears to have become the common-name for this event according to, e.g., a GNews search ("Tulsa Race Riots" gives 152 results, Tulsa Race Massacre gives 213 hits ). "Massacre" is also arguably more accurate for something that may have resulted in hundreds of intentional deaths. Whilst obviously there is an element of POV-pushing in the adoption of "massacre" in e.g., the name of the Tulsa Race Massacre Centennial Commission, this is real-world POV-pushing and not on-Wiki POV pushing, and it appears to have been adopted by the sources since the name-change in November 2018. My main concern here is neutrality, but neutrality doesn't beat WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA. The same is true of my concerns about WP:RECENTISM. FOARP (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Why would you use GNews for an event that happened in 1921? Why not GScholar? The proposed title is not remotely the common name. Srnec (talk) 12:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
GNews provides plentiful sources, and the run up to the anniversary is drawing a lot of coverage as a news item. Per WP:COMMONNAME we should use the common name at present and GNews is more demonstrative of this. FOARP (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
When I do those Google News searches, I get 1,160 and 3,490 results, respectively (maybe a difference between google.com and google.co.uk?). However, I think it's a mistake to search for "Tulsa race riots" plural. The singular form gives 4,070 results (for me). Colin M (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
You've got to page through to the final page of the results to see what the actual count is. The estimate of the number of results Google provides is normally wildly incorrect (e.g., sometimes it over-estimates the numbers of results by a factor of 10-100). FOARP (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip! Using this technique, my new counts are 216 ("Tulsa race riot") vs. 219 ("Tulsa race massacre"), which are very close to your original counts. Colin M (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Google Scholar search for "Tulsa race riot" gives 1060 results. "Tulsa race massacre" gives 16. If the results are limited to publications from 2019, it's 25 vs. 5. Ngrams - "massacre" doesn't register, but the search only goes up to 2008. Colin M (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
    • One more interesting data point: 2018 article on a concerted effort to change the name from "riot" to "massacre". I wasn't able to find any sources from earlier than 2018, but my search was far from exhaustive. Colin M (talk) 05:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Sure, it was a massacre. But that's not what our sources call it, except for a few recent news items. Dicklyon (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current title appears to be the most common name. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not the common name (see comment by Colin M). The name might be changing from riot to massacre, but Wikipedia shouldn't be among the first to change it, before the common usage has switched. And just a personal comment: isn't the term "race massacre" really odd - wonder why the campaign just didn't call it "1921 Tulsa massacre". --Pudeo (talk) 12:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as too soon. "race massacre" has had a surge in popularity over the last year (in large part because the 1921 Race Riot Commission in Tulsa renamed themselves to the 1921 Race Massacre Commission in 2018) but "race riot" remains more popular in contemporary RS, especially scholarly publications, and is the more recognizable name. The new name may eventually overtake the old one as the WP:COMMONNAME, but it remains to be seen. Colin M (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
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.

Requested move 15 October 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: decline request. The same move request was recently closed as no consensus. Please wait at least six months before initiating the same request again. El_C 17:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Tulsa race riot → Tulsa Race Massacre – "Tulsa Race Massacre" is now used in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources (see WP:AT). For example, the Tulsa Historical Society, Oklahoma Historical Society, University of Tulsa, Washington Post, Tulsa World, CNN, and various local television stations all now use "Tulsa Race Massacre." https://www.tulsahistory.org/exhibit/1921-tulsa-race-massacre/ https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=TU013 https://utulsa.edu/mcfarlin-tulsa-race-massacre/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/10/08/tulsa-searches-mass-graves-race-massacre-that-left-hundreds-black-people-dead/ https://www.tulsaworld.com/tulsa-world-coverage-tulsa-race-massacre/article_b28a10aa-fbd3-5329-b0b9-ad7ede874e5e.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/08/us/tulsa-mass-graves-search-race-massacre-trnd/index.html https://ktul.com/news/local/work-with-ground-penetrating-radar-begins-in-search-for-race-massacre-graves https://kfor.com/2019/10/09/members-of-tulsa-mass-graves-oversight-committee-asking-for-search-to-be-expanded/ https://www.newson6.com/story/41158572/search-continues-for-potential-1921-tulsa-race-massacre-mass-graves https://www.news9.com/clip/14925602/search-continues-for-potential-1921-tulsa-race-massacre-mass-graves https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/tu-opens-tulsa-race-massacre-exhibit-to-public. Additionally, searching for "Tulsa Race Massacre" on Google returns comparable hits to "Tulsa Race Riot" (and far more hits when limiting the results to recent news). Dbrote (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2019

The following statement is found in the introductory text with a request for citation.

Shots were fired and twelve people were killed; ten black and two white.

The above statement is contradicted by the next statement, found under section May 30, 1921 subsection Riot with a citation.

The first "battle" was said to last a few seconds or so, but took a toll, as ten white people and two black people lay dead or dying in the street.

Pfrowe (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear why you consider this a contradiction - the first indicates 12 people were killed. The second sentence indicates 12 people died (someone cannot be described as dying and subsequently live).--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
The contradiction is in the breakdown of the numbers: the first statement says 'ten black and two white' but the second statement says 'ten white people and two black people'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.147.219 (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 Not done. The page is no longer protected, so you should be able to edit it yourself. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

1921 TULSA MASSACRE

this was not a riot this was a massacre of black people by white people in Tulsa OK in 1921 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.7.68.50 (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Lines

The first four lines are odd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.57.15 (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

They have been improved now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.57.15 (talk) 10:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Native Americans owning slaves

This is my first time here so I'm sure I'm doing this wrong so I'll apologize ahead of time. In the "Background" section of this article there is a citation requested for the statement of Native Americans owning slaves. It won't let me edit it but here is some info from the Smithsonian that can be added as a citation. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/how-native-american-slaveholders-complicate-trail-tears-narrative-180968339/ Again, I'm sure I did this wrong so any tips or constructive criticism would be welcome. Bigpoppa333 (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bigpoppa333 and thanks for the note. You didn't do anything wrong, quite the opposite! This article has experienced a lot of disruptive editing recently, so it has been protected from editing by un-registered and new users. Once you've been around for 4 days and made 10 edits you'll be able to edit this page freely. Until then I've added the source to the article with this edit. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 5 January 2020

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: It has not been six months yet. Please wait another two months. Thank you. El_C 13:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC) El_C 13:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Tulsa race riot → Tulsa Massacre of 1921 – Public discourse over the incident that is the subject of this article has increased and evolved since the last discussion regarding its title. The preponderance of late coverage now refers to it as having been a massacre. The previous rationale of referring to the incident as a riot, because it was so termed in scholarly works of the time, is moot. Additionally, the elements of its occurrence which had been controversial, and which had distinguished it as a riot rather than a massacre, are no longer under question. The current title is an anachronistic remnant of a period when the incident was referred to euphemistically, so as to avoid offending raw sensibilities. In 2020, Wikipedia must uphold its commitment to presenting facts as dispassionately as possible, which includes titleing articles accurate to the subject matter therein. If necessary, a portion of the article can discuss the naming controversy; however, the name must change. Rowd149 (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC) Rowd149 (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rowd149: I might be convinced but not by your arguments, no matter how correct. Please read WP:COMMONNAME. What to contemporary (to now, not then) reliable sources call it? Doug Weller talk 17:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support addition of "1921" whatever the result In ictu oculi (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I would submit that the 3 alternate names in this entry's opening refer to the incident as a massacre. If 3:1 of the terms used by readers to locate this article include the word "massacre" instead of "riot," that would seem to indicate some satisfaction of WP:COMMONNAME on its face.Rowd149 (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support - The tide has clearly turned for calling this a Massacre. The reliable references from 2019 that have been added to the article consistently use massacre. Even the Tulsa 1921 Race Riot Commission has renamed itself, Race Massacre Commission. The recent flurry of articles has consolidated the description as massacre. Adding the year provides immediate context to the article. I think it meets the COMMON NAME criteria. Cheers, Fettlemap (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose with capped "Massacre". Possibly Tulsa massacre of 1921 or Tulsa rase massacre could work; would need to study sources. Dicklyon (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Although I still maintain that only sources count and not the terms used for searching, I agree with Fettlemap. A Google news search (I've learned not to trust the numbers Google suggests but to keep going through the pages until there are no more, thousands often become 100s or less) show "Tula Massacre" and "Tulsa Race Massacre" pretty even. As for upper case, that seems also pretty split. For purposes of clarity I'd support "Tulsa Race Massacre", with no particular preference as to the case of the word massacre. I'm not sure about 1921, might including that suggest there was another one? Doug Weller talk 13:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

By definition, a Massacre.

Brutally slaughtered, deliberately and violently. Hendo702 (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that your comment, right or wrong, is original research. As I've said above, policy requires us to go by what the sources say. Doug Weller talk 13:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
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.

"Riot and Remembrance" quote

In section 3.3 ("Stand-off at the courthouse") there's a page number and verification request for the story of three white civilians asking the sheriff for custody of the suspect so they can lynch him. Here's the relevant passage from "Riot and Remembrance: The Tulsa Race War and Its Legacy" by James S. Hirsch (2001) on page 81/358 of the first edition and 87/386 of the reprint edition of 2014:

As tensions mounted, three white men walked up the steps, entered the building, and demanded to see Dick Rowland. There they met the sheriff. At fifty-four, McCullough was an experienced lawman who sported a whiskbroom mustache and carried a pearl-handled .45-caliber pistol. Nicknamed “Uncle Bill,” he was known for defusing trouble with negotiation, firing his pistol no more than five times in his entire career. He was first elected sheriff in 1910, and one of his first assignments was to execute a convicted black man by hanging. He called it “about the worst job I ever had to do.” He was not the sheriff when Roy Belton was lynched nine months earlier but had since won reelection, and now, with Rowland in jail, he stood in the same spot as his predecessor, a mob knocking on his door.

“There’s been talk of lynching,” McCullough told the three men, “but you might as well go because no one is going to get the Negro.”

The men left the courthouse and returned to their car on Boulder Street, where the sheriff saw them talking loudly and waving their arms.

I hope that covers it. Stefantalpalaru (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Is there a historical primary source predating the massacre documenting Greenwood being called the "Black Wall Street"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.39.39 (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

For that matter was "Wall Street" in use in 1921 as a metonym of wealth or high finance?73.149.246.232 (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

If no indication that it was ever called "Black Wall Street" until recently, it should be rephrased to be accurate.

Requested move 7 February 2020

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Opponents did advance an important point: that the historiography we rely on to make this determination ought to be based on scholarly rather than mainstream newspaper sources. They argued that proponents may be jumping the gun by being adventurist rather than erring on the side of caution — yes, even though in the final analysis it does seem more likely that massacre would end up being the correct term for the event. Still, after multiple move requests, the consensus here has finally shifted toward supplanting "riots" with "massacre." If it's not clear so far, I've had reservations about closing the request in the affirmative rather than as as no consensus. It was close call. But, ultimately, it is up to each participant to decide whether they prefer mainstream to scholarly consensus, as much I'd like to supervote it otherwise. Per the IP, findings in April may clarify the matter further. Please update us. El_C 04:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Tulsa race riot → Tulsa race massacre – It's now been six months since the full move request discussion from August 8 2019, and many reliable sources are now referring to the event as a Massacre rather than as a Riot. For example, when searching "site:nytimes.com tulsa race", we can see the latest article the Times has published refers to the event as a massacre: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/05/us/tulsa-race-massacre-mass-grave.html (titled "Nearly 100 Years After Tulsa Massacre, City Plans to Search Cemetery for Victims"). Similarly, "site:washingtonpost.com tulsa race" gives us https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/02/03/tulsa-mass-graves-excavation/ (titled "Tulsa plans to dig for suspected mass graves from a 1921 race massacre"), and "site:npr.org tulsa race" gives us https://www.npr.org/2019/12/17/789015343/new-research-identifies-possible-mass-graves-from1921-tulsa-race-massacre (titled "New Research Identifies Possible Mass Graves From 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre"). NPR also has a transcript of an All Things Considered piece from the same day at https://www.npr.org/2019/12/17/789036767/new-discoveries-open-old-chapter-in-tulsa-race-riots-of-1921 which is titled "New Discoveries Open Old Chapter In Tulsa Race Riots Of 1921," but the transcript of the story itself consistently refers to the event as a Massacre, and does not say Riot. As these three organizations represent sources of record, I believe that we now have enough support from sources to make this move, and as the waiting period El_C requested has now ended, this seems like an excellent time to re-open the discussion. CC Drmies. Waidawut (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be in lower case like it is in the article right now? El_C 21:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Ah -- yes, probably, I didn't notice that. How do I modify the request? Waidawut (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 Done. El_C 21:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Waidawut (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Waidawut, there's a lot more work to be done. Cicero race riot of 1951--isn't it odd that this is called a "race riot" as if it were between races, when it was 4000 violent racists preventing one single family from moving into their home? "Racist riot" would be a better term. Drmies (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Drmies -- I agree that referring to Tulsa as a "Riot" rather than as a "Massacre" is emblematic of a general trend in US History of euphemizing white supremacist terrorism against African Americans, but I think we should concentrate on this move before making title changes to similar articles. From the cursory research I just did, it doesn't seem like moving Cicero is feasible yet due to the lack of contemporary sources referring to it as such (which we do have at this point for Tulsa) Waidawut (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I know. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: the sources confirm. Drmies (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The opposition to the previous move request noted that usage seemed to be changing, but that it was too soon to determine whether "Tulsa race massacre" was indeed the common usage in contemporary reliable sources. From the sources presented here, and my own reading of the news over the last few days, it seems that "Tulsa race massacre" has become the common name. Additionally, the points raised by supporters of the previous move request still make sense: it's less ambiguous (as "race riot" in the US context is typically associated with African Americans) and it's somewhat more accurate ("riot" typically does not include systematic murder of a group of people while "massacre" plainly does). I think "massacre" is the better page title at this point in time. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support With the recent publicity, this is the commonly understood, appropriate title. Fettlemap (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Waidawut: this is not a RfC matter, please use requested moves. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Redrose64: I pasted the template from the requested moves page, but El_C pointed out that I had requested it to move to "Tulsa Race Massacre" rather than "Tulsa race massacre" -- I asked them how to modify the request, and they changed it to what it is now. If this is not right, please advise us how to modify this section so that it is correct. Thanks! Waidawut (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
    Sorry, brain melt! El_C 23:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Supportper nomination and Wugapodes. It's time now to make the change. Doug Weller talk 13:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per my last request, which I mistakenly posted within the 6-month cooldown, but whose details are largely unchanged. Rowd149 (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, based on current contents of article. If mass graves are discovered in April that raise the death toll higher, or if the white deaths were almost all from the initial melee at the courthouse (so that the deaths in the destruction of Greenwood were almost entirely black), that would come closer to the accepted usage documented at Massacre: a totally asymmetrical slaughter in which one side is almost helpless to defend itself. The article is not clear at the moment on the question of where did all the whites die. If almost none died in the later rioting in Greenwood, but lots of defenseless blacks did, then the situation is a Tulsa Courthouse Shootout avenged by a Massacre (or Pogrom, or Rape) in Greenwood. The contemporary accounts indicate that the residents of Greenwood had significant ability to fight back and inflict casualties, but not enough to repel or defeat the attackers. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. The increased number of search engine hits for Tulsa "massacre" rather than the "race riot" is partly due to writing the name of the centennial commission (which used Massacre), but also due to the Great Wokening of the New York Times and some other newspapers the last few years (see ongoing research by academic Zack Goldberg, much of it posted to his Twitter). The new style is way too new and much too localized to POV-pushing editors at a few major outlets like NYT, to treat it as overturning the standard previous term, especially among historians. Of course African-American Studies is an extremely politicized field itself, so it would not surprise me if there had been some concerted effort among academics to insist on calling the event a Massacre. So far, no evidence of such a change in terminology has been posted here. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
    • "The Great Wokening" is a wholly inappropriate term and emblematic of a possible POV conflict on the part of this contributor, shown throughout the above posting; this should be considered when weighing his opposition as stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rowd149 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The Great Awokening is a snarky term for the New York Times editorial policy in recent year to push all identity politics, all the time, as documented in the word-frequency graphs posted at Zack Goldberg's twitter account in which you can see visually and quantitatively how the coverage has gone far-left and in the direction of actively instigating race/sex/ethnicity issues rather than covering them. Since NYT articles are reprinted in thousands of other places that trend accounts for a lot of the Google hits on recent terminology. It does not mean everyone else has started using it. As to POV, I can't imagine what could be more POV-pushing than trying to poison the well against commenters who disagree with you; in effect saying their difference of opinion means they should be ignored. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. The recent trend of RS support the categorization as a "massacre." Allegations of those RS 'pov-pushing' is wholly irrelevant and nonsense. POV-pushing is a rule against Wikipedia editors, not RS. RS are allowed to be biased. Sleath56 (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Reliance on NPR (about which see WP:RSP), NYT and WP for this is bad. This is a historical event and the news media is about the last place to look for RS. Especially in light of concerns previously raised about the accuracy of "massacre". I stand by my assertion that it does not describe this event better than "race riot". There is 2019 book that calls it the Tulsa Massacre, but there are three papers from 2019 that prefer race riot. The GScholar results for 2018 are even more lopsided in favour of riot. My preferred term, "Tulsa pogrom", has been used in print, as has "Tulsa uprising"; neither is common. We should ignore journalistic trends in this case. Srnec (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. I do not understand why "race riot" is regarded as a euphemism, at least given the state of our knowledge. If the death toll is revised upwards in the future I could readily admit this as a massacre. But the actual death toll is similar to other serious riots, like LA '92 and Detroit '67. Also, "Tulsa massacre" would be better than "Tulsa race massacre". Srnec (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Sleath. NPOV is a Wikipedia policy, not an irl policy. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, but bias can affect the reliability of a source on a particular question. Although in this case I just think the sources cited are subpar. Srnec (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The Tulsa Race Massacre is an example of Domestic Terrorism, described in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States#Tulsa_Race_Massacre_(1921) EWLwiki (talk) 06:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC) ~~signed EWLwiki ~~

  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Quick search on google scholar indicates that the current title remains significantly more common among reliable sources, sources from 2016 give "Tulsa race riot": 224 vs "Tulsa race massacre": 26.--Staberinde (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment Please see commentary for the 5 January move request, where an attempt to address WP:COMMONNAME was made. The reason this move request is in place is because significant advances have been made in public understanding of the incident's events in the past year, such that even what is considered appropriate nomenclature has evolved. This cannot be ignored, as it is based not on fashion, but, again, on a newfound understanding of history. Older sources are important but will obviously not reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rowd149 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I was surprised to learn that all scholarly sources describe at most a third white victims and at least one fifth white victims. Where are these one fifth white victims then categorized if it is a massacre only targeting black victims? Do we create separate articles for Tulsa race massacre No. 1 and No. 2? The only explanation is that the name originally chosen fits these events the best. I also question the sources given. They don’t seem to based on any research but just hearsay from interviewed people.
1. The New York Times article mentions no white victims. It only mentions black victims. Then it says “as much as 300 people were killed”. That is a number that gets thrown a lot but seems to be based on nothing but rumors. The most factual study we have says at least 75–100 and calls the upper estimates as dubious as the lower estimates. The only evidence we have are of 39 bodies. Even the more heavy-handed estimates that aren’t based on anything say 150–300. Why are they moving their numbers up, up and up without any evidence?

2. The Washington Post article is similar. It says “as many as 300 people dead” first thing. It mentions no white victims. It actually goes further and says “Historians believe that as many as 300 black people were killed in the massacre” which is completely incorrect and based on rumors of rumors. I’ve noticed this same reporter is in charge of every Washington Post article concerning this issue and they keep getting all kinds of things wrong, not just this.

3. The NPR article is the best researched out of the three, but it again repeats the same number and only manages to mention one white victim.


     All three articles get the most basic facts wrong and fail to mention that there were many white victims which is crucial. --Pecanclops (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

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.

Is the initial riot included in the massacre?

It's not clear to me whether the initial riot is included in the scope of this article. Are the "ten whites and two blacks lay dead or dying in the street" killed in the initial fighting included in the total dead? Wouldn't be accurate to list them as victims of "Perpetrators White American mob and[4][5][6][7][8]:8, 10 the United States National Guard[1]:193, 196" if so. 82.17.189.66 (talk) 12:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Small grammatical issue

Before I saw that the page was locked, I attempted to change "the 17-year-old white elevator operator of the nearby Drexel Building" to "a 17-year-old white elevator operator at the nearby Drexel Building." The current wording seems to suggest that Page was the only elevator operator who worked at the Drexel Building (a reading not supported by the rest of the article) and in any event, does not seem like wording that a native speaker would use.

Edgy4 (talk) 02:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Either wording seems acceptable to me. To put it another way, both seem equally stilted, but only a little bit. Per the article, the building only had one elevator, so she was "the elevator operator" on duty, or in the building at that time. I don't think it's ambiguous in context. Grayfell (talk) 03:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
"the" is the correct word. It is known that there was no other operator that day, which mandates the use of "the". And there is no evidence that any other elevator operator worked there. "a" strongly suggests that there were other elevator operators, so it's the wrong word. "does not seem like wording that a native speaker would use" -- seriously? Do you know any native speakers of English? I'm one and it's the wording I would use, and I would expect other native speakers to do the same--certainly fluent and literate ones. -- Jibal (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Race Riot?

Was is a riot of Black people against white? Or were Black people attacked in their homes and business’s destroyed by white racist. Tell the truth, tell the specifics in the title. “Tulsa Black Wall Street’s Massacre “ Tanjie8420 (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

A riot over racial issues is different than a riot by one specific race. Literally both scenarios you mentioned can be described as a race riot. Also, destroying property still constitutes a riot, only mentioning the property damage as you did actually doesn't describe a massacre at all. Provide sources with details of a massacre and the title can be changed.76.184.196.142 (talk) 04:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
The title has already changed accordingly, see above. El_C 05:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Provide sources with details of a massacre and the title can be changed -- that's not how it works. -- Jibal (talk) 10:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Stop Minimizing The Number of Black Deaths

An estimated 300 black people were killed and buried in mass graves. (Time Magazine, 12/17/19, LA Times, 6/8/20). This article should NOT say that 36 were officially killed. It should say that a prosperous neighborhood known as Black Wall Street was destroyed and never recovered, that the city of Tulsa has engaged in a 75 year coverup & refused to pay reparations (while handing out money to businesses hurt by COVID-19), and continues to drag its feet even though mass graves were located in December 2019. Lnevias (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Lnevias, can you provide links to the articles you are referring to? Vexations (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Vexations, on the last page of the Tulsa Race Riot report[1] it says: "On the evening of June 1st, thirty-seven African American men were conscripted to bury riot dead in unmarked graves at Oaklawn Cemetery. Many More Burials would continue throughout the city and county for days to come" and "Perhaps as many as three-hundred Tulsams--some say more--both white and black, had been killed or lay dying." It doesn't fully substantiate what Lnevias is saying nor provide the links to the two claimed articles but it's a start. I did find this other LA Times article from slightly earlier: https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-05-22/one-newspaper-never-forgot-the-tulsa-race-massacre --TFJamMan (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
TFJamMan, https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-02-04/tulsa-set-to-excavate-bodies-from has this: "Oklahoma officials initially put the death toll at 36, where it remained for decades. Only later did historians who studied the massacre arrive at the current estimate of 300." But that ALSO isn't the article referenced above. Vexations (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ [1]Tulsa Race Riot report, February 28, 2001, Oklahoma Commission

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

Lose 'angry', it is editorializing. Reduce the use of 'white' where possible. If possible, identify the specific leaders and groups with those leaders who lead the attacks mentioned in the article. This article reads as if it has a tinge of vendetta against white people in general. Just as there exist petty criminals in the black community, so too white. Just as there exist dictators in white community, so too in the black. People across races are not so different in their angels and demons. Instead of saying 'it is said', which is Trump talk, write Author said. This is more honest. Focalpoints00 (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. "Angry" isn't editorializing if it's supported by a source and helps to convey the mood of a crowd. Other than that, it's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Can someone plz undo User:Baby abby08? That change isnt true and isnt based on anything — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarmeladeFanx (talk • contribs) 21:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Clarify some of the National Guard actions which justify them as co-perpetrators

Including part of the following quote from the Tulsa Race Riot report[1], might help elaborate the negative aspects of the National Guards behaviours that justify them as perpetrators.

Black attempts to defend their homes and businesses were undercut by the actions of both the Tulsa police and the local National Guard units, who, rather than disarming and arresting the white rioters, instead began imprisoning black citizens. Guardsmen on Standpipe Hill made at least one eastward march early on the morning of June 1, rounding up African American civilians, before being fired upon off Greenwood Avenue. The guardsmen then returned to Sunset Hill, where they turned over the imprisoned black Tulsans to police officers.

Thoughts? --TFJamMan (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference tulsa-race-riot-oklahoma-commission-report was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Looks useful. Calthinus (talk) 23:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2020

In the third paragraph, the first two sentences are duplicated. 2001:56A:76B6:6900:B9DF:E91A:3094:A852 (talk) 04:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 04:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2020

I think it’s strange to say “the white men” and then immediately follow with “the Black men” I am unsure why or towards what purpose this distinction is being made... Sahatish (talk) 04:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The Lower case vs upper case distinction. Not the racial distinction. Sahatish (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Hitchhiker Of The Galaxy (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2020

Bob Dylan's song "Murder Most Foul" on his album "Rough And Rowdy Ways" (Columbia Records 2020) has the line "Take me back to Tulsa to the scene of the crime". Tickon (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Rummskartoffel (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Negro

No, I'm not complaining about using this word. I do, however, wonder why it is rather randomly capitalized or not capitalized throughout the article. --Khajidha (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

W. Tate Brady

In the "Riot" section there is a lengthy digression about W. Tate Brady. Two paragraphs confusingly principally focus on his actions in an event that occurred 3 years before the race riot/massacre. This information seriously impacts the readability of the article and made me think that there was an anti-labor component to the event. The whole section is in need of major revisions. Thoughts? Corzia (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree, that part confused me as to what was the relevance for this article. In my opinion, it should be taken out and put into the article on W. Tate Brady instead. That article does not have this much detail on the tarring and feathering yet. --2003:E3:5F25:BE00:39EE:32E4:1F11:4AB (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree - this section makes no sense where it is. In addition to its random placement, there are also grammatical errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BestestC (talk • contribs) 21:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Massacre as opposed to race riot.

I am a little confused by the decision to change the title from race riot to massacre. I have not heard the term race massacre outside of recent talk of this event. Also in looking at the events during the Red Summer the term race riot is used and I don't see much of a difference between this and those riots other than a higher number of people killed, both Black and white (100-300, 50),(38-15). This article uses race massacre in the title, but then almost completely uses the term riot in the article [8]. I understand that race massacre has been used more often in the media now, but I personally feel that using news sources for historical events are okay, deference should be given to books and other such publications by historians. Scott Ellsworth, titles it a race riot in his book along with Tim Madigan "The Burning: Massacre, Destruction, and the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921". I see that this was debated but the vote to change was 6-4 in favor, is that considered enough for consensus? 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Black and White

Why is 'Black' capitalised often in the article but 'white' isn't? It's grammatically incorrect and seems to be some sort of racial bias. Also, some of the sections seem contradictory. At one point it says there were several hundred White people forming a lynch mob, it later refers to them as numbering in the thousands. Many of the claims are also unsourced. Overall, this article really reeks of bias. - 86.5.160.43 (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

AP decided last year that they'd start capitalising black whilst leaving white lower case (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jun/20/associated-press-style-guide-capitalize-black), as there are many newspaper articles used as sources, this is likely why the style is such. I would agree of the bias within the article however that needs reform Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Neither black nor white should be capitalized. They are both simple adjectives, like male and female. They do not refer to an entity, such as a nation or state that would correctly be capitalized because the undlerlying noun is a proper noun. I suggest de-capitalizing both.

External links

I'd like to include this article on the Main Page for its 100th anniversary, but there's an {{External links}} maintenance tag which prevents that. Can someone please clean up that section, and ping me when it's done? Thanks in advance. —howcheng {chat} 07:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Please change the title to Tulsa Massacre

this was not a race riot and codifies the institutional racism in the USA. please change the headline of this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maya Wasserfolk (talk • contribs) 14:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIPT_Terrorism_Knowledge_Base

The Tulsa Race Massacre is an example of Domestic Terrorism, described in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States#Tulsa_Race_Massacre_(1921) ~~signed EWLwiki ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by EWLwiki (talk • contribs) 06:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

It should be changed back to Tulsa Race Riots because that's what conventional histiography uses Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Still think it should be called the Tulsa Race Riot. While I understand the modern interpretation, the colloquial name was the name. Describe it as a massacre if you choose but it was relabeled 100 years afterwards because a few people wanted to change it Jawz101 (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2020

Please change the title of this article, it is misleading as it is. The main title should read Tulsa Massacre. Race riot makes it sound like african americans were the ones that started the rioting, when in fact it was a planned assault by white racists. 2601:647:5E00:8F0:842B:5B5D:DE30:101D (talk) 07:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

See above post and previous move requests, another move request will be initiated in two months. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The event was called The Tulsa Race Riot colloquially for the past 100 years. It has nothing to do with downplaying the event or shifting blame. As a Tulsa native, I think it should be called whatever you want but the title should be the Tulsa Race Riot. If 7 billion people say the sky is blue and 1 person 100 years later says it's azure, we don't need to change anything. At least put that for 100 years it was known as the Tulsa Race Riot. That's all I'm saying. Leave the emotions out of it. I doubt you're from Tulsa, Oklahoma or anywhere near. Those correcting are highly likely to be from the area and search for the thing they know- not what you want to call it. Jawz101 (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you fucking kidding me?

There is a racial slur in section Casualties. --84.132.147.249 (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The article isn't protected; you can fix it. But perhaps I'm just a unseeing person, but the only things I see as possible racial slurs are the contemporary usages, unquoted, of the terms "colored" and "Negro"; and there is one other "N-word" usage, a direct quote from the Tulsa police. Am I missing something? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 16:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

God I hate Wikipedia. You all want this sanitized b.s. instead of accepting historical speech. Jawz101 (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Extensive modern newspaper discussion

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/17/fact-check-tulsa-race-massacre-worst-u-s-riot-isnt-ignored-history-books/5341812002/https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-opinion-tulsa-race-massacre-greenwood-20210528-pwqleloqfrg6be53j3u2woxsqe-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-aud-nw-nyt-tulsa-race-massacre-survivors-20210520-5vtdnakppvcj5msbbnurqwxucy-story.html

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/5/25/22453330/100-years-after-tulsa-race-massacre-damage-remains https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-opinion-tulsa-race-massacre-greenwood-20210528-pwqleloqfrg6be53j3u2woxsqe-story.html

Kdammers (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Financial impact of the event

The financial impact of the riot/massacre was far more significant than the figures contained in this article suggests.

The registered claims of those who had suffered losses are relatively undisputed and are widely accepted as US$ 1.8m but the statement in the article “...local citizens filed more than US$1.8 million (equivalent to $26 million in 2020)...” is a wild underestimate.

It appears the original cost has been inflated using the CPI which is very unreliable and an inappropriate comparator.

Unfortunately a modern comparison is contentious as there are many variables that operate but a more reliable comparator would be the output worth - i.e. the proportion of 1921 GDP that the $1.8m represents - and this puts the 2019 value at $519,000,000 (data only available up to 2019) (https://measuringworth.com/calculators/uscompare/result.php?year_source=1921&amount=1800000&year_result=2020).

Even if this comparator is not the most ideal it is clear from the above that the figures given in the article are wrong. Sammysamak (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

If you have any reliable sources that show the impact is greater than what is said in the article, then feel free to provide some. X-Editor (talk) 05:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Possible change of infobox image?

Hey I do not know if there has been a discussion that picked the current infobox image, but I am wondering if we could possibly change it. The image currently used is good and I have no major problems against it, but it is a low-quality image. The proposed image below shows the destruction of the Greenwood District as it happens through the giant cloud of smoke in the air and is a high quality image. We could just switch the images on the page with the current infobox image being in the article and the article image being in the infobox. If we want to show the destruction of the Greenwood District we could possibly find a public domain picture since the event happened in 1921 and public domain in the US is pre-1926. Jon698 (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Current image which is captioned as "Homes and businesses burned in Greenwood"
    Current image which is captioned as "Homes and businesses burned in Greenwood"
  • Proposed image which is currently in the page and captioned as "Flames across the Greenwood section of Tulsa"
    Proposed image which is currently in the page and captioned as "Flames across the Greenwood section of Tulsa"
  • Proposed image I found which is surprisingly not used in the article
    Proposed image I found which is surprisingly not used in the article
  • Hey I just found another really good image that could serve as the infobox image. It is a high quality image showing the aftermath of the massacre so we could still show the same information that the current image does, but with a higher quality image. Jon698 (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
    I went ahead and swapped in the third image into the infobox, nice find. It is quite difficult to make out anything in the image that was there before. — Goszei (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Are any of these photos public domain?

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/t-town-tulsa-race-massacre-photographs/ Victor Grigas (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Tulsa Race Holocaust (remember the 3 million!)

Can someone add a section that explains why the riots have been upgraded to a massacre?

It was always a massacre. "Race riot" was just the most common name before the event received extended national coverage in the mid/late-2010s. Master of Time (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Just to point out that the OP used a rebranded antisemitic “meme” in their title...2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:E18B:863D:2313:19E (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Additional possible explanation regarding elevator

In the May 31, 2021 CNN documentary about the Greenwood massacre, an expert mentioned that the elevator in the Drexel Building was known to be a bit off-kilter and difficult to get to stop exactly at each floor (necessitating strong pressure on the wheel used by the elevator operator to control it), which may have explained Rowland's possible fall. Is this true, and do any sources bear this story out? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Please remove this.

The small bit in the background section which mentions “some Native Americans owned slaves”. It’s not relevant and hence not expanded upon in the article. Just seems like a deliberate attempt at sowing discord between marginalised groups. 2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:E18B:863D:2313:19E (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I can see any "deliberate attempt at sowing discord" would be an issue. I don't see any hint that the content was purposefully included to sow such discord. Without proof that is not assuming good faith. The next sentence also includes "slaveholders".
I think a discussion would be needed, not on any possible "discord" which seems obvious was present at the time, but are the two sentences unnecessary, or do they possibly layout some important informational background. Why would an entire city either be a part of or allow, and continually allow, such an atrocity to go unchecked and covered up? In 1920 Tulsa was a city of more than 100,000. According to History of Tulsa, Oklahoma there were over 72,000 Indians in Tulsa with a black population of around 10,000, many affluent, and I can see the possibility of animosity.
This "massacre" was a type of genocide. The Smithsonian Magazine stated, "The Five Civilized Tribes were deeply committed to slavery, established their own racialized black codes, immediately reestablished slavery when they arrived in Indian territory, rebuilt their nations with slave labor, crushed slave rebellions, and enthusiastically sided with the Confederacy in the Civil War.” The fact that the atrocity of the massacre could remain hidden aided in other instances such as the law Texas passed around 15 years later (1836) involving the attempted wholesale ethnic cleansing to be carried out by 1842. Thanks to a community and some good fortune this was prevented by the Ashworth Act. We do not ever need to bury history with claims that it "might" sow discord but it needs to be recorded and remembered so hopefully it is not repeated. The Smithsonian Magazine stated, "it is imperative to provide the museum-going public with an unflinching history, even when doing so is painful." I submit this is valid for all people and not just those going to a museum. I see a rationale for why the content should remain. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Encounter in Elevator Typo

The small paragraph under the tag line in the main article has the following phrase "reported that he heard what sounded like a woman's screen." I assume it's supposed to be woman's scream and since the article is protected, I can't make the small edit myself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4410:d050:adfe:655a:aeb0:e9c4 (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

checkYDone. Thanks for the report. TwoTwoHello (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Using White as a source for victim count

I think we should be careful with using Walter F. White as a source for any victim count, particularly the claims that "ten Whites lay dead or dying in the street"? This is not supported by any other source, and White seemingly was interested in inflating the White casualties to drum up the effectiveness of the resistance. On June 2nd Tulsa World published a pretty detailed list of who has been killed where, and there is no mention of that many casualties near the courthouse.

The number of victims, both dead and wounded, as presented in the official report, mirrors that of Chicago riots. of 1919. A lot of early victim reports were based on self-reported number of kills by National Guard and other combatants, which were very inaccurate given that most of the fighting took place in the dark and at a distance.

Why is the above comment unsigned? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2021

Change "In 2020, the massacre became a part of the Oklahoma school curriculum.[21]" to "The massacre became required in Oklahoma history classes in 2000 and U.S. history classes within the state in 2004" Resource: https://www.history.com/topics/roaring-twenties/tulsa-race-massacre#section_5 74.196.193.44 (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done – Per WP:RS/PS, The History Channel is not a reliable source. codingcyclone advisories/damages 18:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
@CodingCyclone: I don't know where the 2000/2004 dates in that source are coming from, but the 2020 thing conflicts with my personal knowledge, so I checked for another source. From the Associated Press: "While schools across the state have been required to teach about the massacre since 2002, state Superintendent of Schools Joy Hofmeister said Thursday the curriculum developed at the state level follows a two-year pilot program by the Tulsa School District. It will incorporate recommendations by the Tulsa Race Massacre Commission in conjunction with descendants of victims and survivors of the violence." Whatever the case, it's misleading to say it wasn't part of the curriculum at all prior to 2020. Master of Time (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
@Master of Time: I rewrote the sentence and included the Associated Press source. "Schools in Oklahoma have been required to teach students about the massacre since 2002,(AP source) but in 2020, the massacre officially became a part of the Oklahoma school curriculum.(other source)" Thanks for telling me about this! :D codingcyclone advisories/damages 17:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Red Cross extensive medical care provided

" the only place where the injured Black people were treated was at the basement of Morningside Hospital"

The above quote cannot be correct. The Red Cross provided extensive medical care as detailed in the Red Cross report:

21400bc3-acb9-420d-98ec-ac1476caeba6.filesusr.com/ugd/979868_8ee49768505e4a848a03a94bbebd9d0e.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.217.179 (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

"Attack by air" section is grossly misleading

The consensus of historians and the 2001 Commission seems to be clear: that there was no "attack by air" by rifle or by "turpentine bombs"—yet from the title on, this section is misleading. It cherry-picks selected "eye-witness" accounts and gives them prominence over the expert consensus view, quoting them in such a way that it appears Wikipedia concurs. The title should be "Rumors of air attacks" and the section should be rewritten to make clear that the consensus view is that such rumors consisted of little more than imagination, hoax, and/or conspiracy theorizing. Elle Kpyros (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Specific ethnicity of the white people involved?

Do historians know what the specific ethnicity of the white people who instigated the race riot was? Like, would historians know if they were german-americans? Historians are able to be specific with the ethnicity of the people involved in the labor strike riots that occurred in the USA's past.

- As this article deals with a group of assorted white Tulsa residents initiating the massacre of Black residents, and does not have anything to do with their ancestors' European countries of origin, it is entirely immaterial to the subject at hand. Discord Ian (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Did you see the discussion above? Also see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 11#Black and White people from 2013. I don't know if there is more current discussion. Fettlemap (talk) 05:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

On capitalization in "Black" and "white"

Several users have come through run an apparent "find and replace" to change "white" to "White" or to change "Black" to "black". I think it is inappropriate to make such changes without having a discussion on the talk page beforehand. My personal opinion on the topic is that "Black" should be capitalized and "white" should not. While I have many reasons for this opinion, perhaps the simplest is that this is the convention used by the Associated Press. Rileyjmurray (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

It's more than just a matter of capitalization. Some of them are also "fixing" things like file names, quotes, and references. And that is not acceptable. - Sumanuil (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Why do we have to follow what the Associated Press does? Capitalizing one word, but not the other is going against what our society is striving for - equality. This is fighting racial inequality with more racial inequality by treating one demographic as somehow better than another because of "what they (the latter) did in the past" as if it's some sort of revenge, which will just cause more tension and division. The Associated Press' reasoning for this is basically black people in America all sharing the exact same heritage, culture, and experience, which is racist because it's not true - they're individuals with their own unique heritages, cultures, and experiences just like white people are, which is also a reason we need to stop blaming all white people for past (and present) injustices.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LizzieBabes419 (talk • contribs)
First, sign your comments. Second, don't blindly find-and replace. Third, since when is anybody "blaming all white people for past (and present) injustices"? (Moorish sovereign citizens and their ilk aside.) - Sumanuil (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Well LizzieBabes419 it's a very complicated subject and the matter is in flux generally. It's been discussed at WP:MOS and there's no consensus, in which case leave-it-as-you-found it us is the usual practice. I'd be willing to discuss on the merits, but you seem caught up in political stuff so I don't want to. Your whole thrust seems in line with the "well white lives matter too" and "what about white pride and why isn't there a white history month" stuff. It's racist, and you'll get nowhere, so give it up. Herostratus (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

It's really not that complicated. There's no human or legal right that a white person has that a black person doesn't have in America today. Yet, you guys (and AP) insist on favoring one racial demographic over another via selective capitalization, which is regressive. What's wrong with saying "white (or all) lives matter"? The "black lives matter" ideology was started because of police brutality, which is possible for anyone, regardless of skin color, to experience. There are many white people who have been unjustly harmed and/or killed at the hands of cops (of multiple racial backgrounds), yet their cases got much less news coverage and awareness because they don't fit the "whitey bad" narrative. Why doesn't BLM focus on the countless black-on-black murders or black abortions that happen constantly? Oh, wait, it's only wrong when white cops or regular white people do it, which are rare occurrences in comparison, because their priorities are out of order. And when did I ever bring up white pride or white history month? If white pride is racist, all other racial prides are, too. Besides, no one should be proud of an immutable trait because it's not an achievement. The only thing I'm giving up is talking to you. Take care.

Sorry, but stopped reading after the first few sentences. I get that you're mad and upset and all, but that doesn't have anything to do with what we're trying to do here. My advice would be to save your time here for working on stuff that doesn't emotionally excite you, and go vent on Reddit or something for the whites-are-mistreated stuff. There you will find sympathetic ears, here you mostly won't. Herostratus (talk) 07:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, more ad hominem. I don't even use Reddit and it's true that white people are mistreated a lot like every other demographic (and yes, based on skin color - with the ASU incident being the most recent example). And at least I actually take the time to read everything people say. "That doesn't have anything to do with what we're trying to do here," says the one who brought up "white lives matter, too", which has nothing to do with what I've been explaining. My point is: Selective capitalization is unequal and regressive, and it's just going to further divide us as a society. But I guess it can be seen as a wake-up call to those who haven't been seeing what's been going on lately.

I'm guessing LizzieBabes419 left this comment? Please sign comments by ending with four consecutive tilde marks. Rileyjmurray (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Franklin's Account - Fact or Fiction?

Buck Franklin actually wrote three written accounts of the Tulsa riot. The first as a 1922 contribution to the Parrish book reffed overleaf. The second in his 1959 autobiography 'My Life and an Era' (pub 1997). Little of the dramatic detail of the '1931' manuscript appears in those two memoirs. Franklin does however mention in his autobiography (p 273) that he is a writer of historical fiction. Students of the Tulsa riot may therefore at least pause to wonder if the celebrated '1931' manuscript is fact, or fiction, whilst critically comparing the three quite different accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.32.134 (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tulsa_race_massacre/Archive_2&oldid=1152296948"