Talk:1964 Philadelphia race riot

One-Sided Portrayal
Poorly sourced, one-sided article.John Paul Parks (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

POV
I do not specifically dispute any information in this article. However, much of it is clearly told from a particular point of view, without citation.

"After Bradford refused to comply with the two officers' orders to move the car, because the car had stalled, and she was unable to drive it, an argument ensued."

Pick one: We seem to have a muttled version of the two.
 * She could have moved the car, but would not do so.
 * She was told to move the car, but could not do so.

"The officers then tried to physically remove Bradford...A man tried to come to Bradford's aid by attacking the police officers..."

So the cops were just trying to move her and were attacked? Whose version of events is that?

"withdraw from the area rather than aggressively confront the rioters"

This assumes the only options were 1) aggressively confront rioters or 2) withdraw.

"Outnumbered, the police response was to withdraw...774 people were arrested"

They arrested 774 people without even being there?

"Business activity in North Philadelphia declined even further after the riots,"

This assumes, without citation, that the riots caused the decline, though it states the decline was already underway ("declined even further").

"The Brewerytown neighborhood has also been suggested as a possible site of gentrification."

Er, what? By whom?

"This riot was one of the first in the civil rights era and followed the Rochester race riot and the New York City race riot."

It was a civil rights riot? Says who? Mdbrownmsw (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A lie?
Actually, the 1964 riot is an out and out lie. It started by an unfounded rumor of police brutality. Whoever wrote that should be banned from writing in Wiki. 72.94.178.112 (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * On the one hand, we have a number of reliable sources (Time, Philadelphia Daily News, a couple of peer-reviewed journals, etc.) saying it happened. On the other hand, an anonymous editor in Philly says it's "an out and out lie" and we should ban the editors who have worked on the article over the years.
 * I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's reliably sourced and we shouldn't ban anyone. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)