Talk:1967 Detroit riot/Archive 2

Contradict tag
The article currently says there were over 7,500; 7,231; more than 1,800; or 1,800 arrests.


 * Fixed. Tyronen 19:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Source problems for an account
Somewhere in the edits, you'll see that I removed the story of John Conyers trying to stop the riot found in "The Revolutionary Worker". Mysteriously, it reappeared. That story is not found elsewhere, and I suspect that Conyers would've told the story elsewhere if true. Without a collaborative source, and given the source, I'm inclined to pull this story from this piece. Twohlford 00:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Black Day in July
There was a song written by Gordon Lightfoot called "Black Day in July," which made reference to this event. Here is an article and interview about the song being banned on US radio. Would someone who knows more about race riots be willing to incorporate this? Flibirigit (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I should have mentioned expanding on the one sentence that is in there, and the censorship of the song. Flibirigit (talk) 07:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There's also a Sam Roberts song called Detroit '67 that talks about the riot. 216.162.76.214 (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Pop culture refrences
was this the riot depicted in the 2007 film "Across the Universe" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.138.32 (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Yes the riots were during the song let it be. There is a riot going on and the police car or fire truck can't remember which one it says Detroit. Also the time period of the film kind of matches up.Sbailey85 (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Mikerussell edits
I edited this article (jeez I'm rusty though- excuse me if I screwed up some ref HTML) because it needs it, I tried to take out generalized contemporary opinions, and add some sourced fact but a lot more needs to be done just to make it average, in my humble opinion.Mike Russell 02:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried to add some sourced material, but it may take time to really add more substance- others are welcome to add.edit too. I'm no expert, but it seems like a pretty skeletal article so far.--Mike Russell 21:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Shebeen
OK, Blind Pig is 'generational slang' but it does have the advantage of being the slang the people who were there used to describe it. It was described thusly in nearly all the news reports of the time. "Shebeen" appears to be a South African version. Why use *that* slang? It's even less accessable and less historically correct. I will therefore remove it and use a much more generic term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.227.211.83 (talk) 07:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Race riots should not be linked to "genocide"
According to the Wikipedia page on Genocide: "Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group."

I believe this concept is grossly inaccurate/inappropriately linked. The race riots in Detroit were many horrific things, but a systematic and deliberate attempt to annihilate the African-American race they were NOT. Violent manifestations of racial tension in the U.S. during the 1960s are incompatible with the concept of "genocide" and obscure not only the true nature of this situation but also the significance of this event.

Please, my fellow Wikipedians!!! LET US RECORD HISTORY, NOT RE-WRITE IT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.35.159.177 (talk • contribs) 20:50, October 2, 2009
 * I'm not sure where you're seeing that. The only link I see to "genocide" is in the sidebar, where it is listed as another example of "discrimination". I don't see anything saying the subject of this article is an example of genocide, but maybe I'm missing a link somewhere?&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  18:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is Walter Granzka (shot while thiefing by shopkeeper) not listed in the casualty list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.11.157.61 (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup
Just wanted to note that I'm doing a fair amount of cleanup to the article which mostly is removing the numerous unsourced statements as well as doing some grammatical fixes. Cat-five - talk 01:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

New Detroit Section?
Shouldn't we have a "Today" section talking about how detroit has made improvments. After all the entire city wasn't just abandoned and as most of you know who have been downtown in the last year it looks beautiful. Maybe show a picture of 12th street "Rosa parks street" of what it looks like today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.111.85 (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

12th street today looks worse than the riots. 99.36.11.133 (talk) 06:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ernest Roquemore
At the bottom of the list of deceased, it states that Ernest Roquemore was "hit in the back" by a paratrooper and declared dead on arrival at the hospital. Does "hit" mean struck or shot, because I find it unlikely that a punch or a kick in the back could kill someone. If it means does mean "shot", then the word "hit" should be replaced. --Mindblast101 (talk) 06:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Name (revisited)
I have no idea which local yokel decided that this should be called the "12th street riot", but the 1967 Detroit riot was an event of national importance, and it certainly wasn't confined to one street. As it is, nobody would be able to locate this article out of a list of riots in America. There's no reason for the word "Detroit" to be censored from the title. I propose to change this to a more recognizable name unless someone has a valid objection. Mandsford (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Decades afterward, it was just called "the riot" in Detroit. In the rest of the country, "the Detroit riot" the "Detroit race riot" or the "Detroit race riot of 1967." In all my years in Detroit, I never personally heard it called (or read a ref to it as) the "12th street riot". I've been working through the claims that this was called a "rebellion" and this is a related issue that could use some documentaiton. Rutgers history dept calls it "Detroit riot of 1967" and some variation of that seems to be most common[ http://www.absolutemichigan.com/dig/michigan/remembering-the-detroit-riot-of-1967/] even when they steal text from this article. Wayne State Library seems pretty authoritative  Should the article be re-named? I myself don't know how to do that without messing up the histyory.  DavidOaks (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind; I see that the issue has been resolved. I was just paying attention to old discussion and assuming it was still a live concern. DavidOaks (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I was 9-years old and living in the Detroit suburbs in July, 1967, and I remember the riot quite well. It was referred to as "the riot," and while it started on 12th Street (later renamed Rosa Parks Boulevard), I do not recall it being referred to as the "12th Street Riot." The riot was quite extensive (primarily on account of LBJ's criminally negligent refusal to respond promptly to Governor Romney's request for assistance), and placed all of Detroit off limits to those of us who were in the suburbs (not that we wanted to go anyway). The "67 riots" nomenclature came later. It is important to distinguish the 1967 riot from the 1943 riot. John Paul Parks (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Blind Pig
I move that the use of "blind pig" is essentially generational slang and sets the wrong tone for an informal article142.35.159.177 (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The term "Blind Pig" is almost always used by scholars and informal discussers alike when talking about the '67 Riots. This is true to the point that many natives of Detroit actually think that the bar was called "the Blind Pig," and don't recognize that that's just another term for a speakeasy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.189.152.42 (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Coordinate error
The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—204.38.90.193 (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC) yall dont know me but i am cwood

Documentation
Citations rely heavily on Fine's 1989 book. There were other studies of Detroit and the riots, and editors should try to include more sources for such a major disturbance. Parkwells (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

List of dead?
Maybe the list of dead should be attached as a page to this article. Parkwells (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.annarborpaper.com/content/issuev2i12/plamondon_v2i12.html
 * In 1967 Detroit riot on 2011-05-25 03:58:12, 404 Not Found
 * In 1967 Detroit riot on 2011-06-06 13:32:28, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could use this archived copy located on the Internet archive

http://web.archive.org/web/20081121155512/http://www.annarborpaper.com/content/issuev2i12/plamondon_v2i12.html --Sd-100 (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No mention of the Tulsa riots?
The lead section mentions that the Detroit riot was only surpassed by the NYC Draft Riot and the L.A. Riots. What about the Tulsa riots? How does it compare to this one? Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 10:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Huey Helicopter
I spoke with a state police officer who was deployed in the riot zone during these events. He stated that a Huey gunship was deployed to suppress snipers on the 5th floor of a building. He said the gunship wiped them out with a .50 caliber machine gun. He said he was on the scene shooting back at the snipes with a .357 because that was all he had - and that pistols were entirely ineffective against snipers positioned that high up. I saw no reference to this in the article, and I'm hoping someone here might dig up a reliable source or two to help verify this account or discount it as urban legend. Rklawton (talk) 02:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

12th Street?
The author of the "Name" heading is exactly right on all his points. As one who studied the media coverage of the event (Detroit Free Press and The Detroit News) as an undergrad and a native Metro Detroiter I have never heard the term 12th Street. This is especially misleading since it can imply that the events of the riot never left 12th Street which is untrue. The terms most used colloquially are the 1967 Detroit Riot, '1967 Riot' or '67 Riots'. This riots were most deffinatley linked to racism and the black community's view of the Detroit Police at the time. This is an important distinction to everyone in southeast Michigan since this was an enormous event in this area's developmental, political and social history. Secondly the term 'Blind Pig' was a widely used term in the media and historical reference of this event to describe the establishment that police raided that July 23rd. The term should remain in the article with description and meaning. I move to remove the term '12th street' from the article completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.124.188.74 (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

But thats what the riot was called at the time the 12th street riots. And the start of the riots we're on 12th & Clairmount, not Grand River Ave 99.36.11.133 (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The riot was centered in and around 12th street.John Paul Parks (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Riot or Insurrection?/Draft Riots
I did a couple of edits regarding the name of this disturbance. Though usually this is called a riot, some refer to it as an insurrection. One might argue that since the majority of people in power were/are Caucasian, calling it a riot might be inappropriate, though perhaps not intentionally discriminatory. Many African-Americans thought and still think the events were justified, given the long history of oppression and violence directed at those of African descent in the U.S...Also, made an edit correcting what I see as an error. The 1967 riot/insurrection in Detroit was not as bad as the disturbance in the NYC Draft Riots during the Civil War. The Draft Riots (or "Insurrections") were perpetrated by Caucasians, with many African-Americans ("Negros") as victims. Later, the LA riots ("Insurrections (?) in the '90s surpassed the number of deaths in the '67 Detroit disturbances, but were still not as bad as the NYC Draft Riots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobledeegooke (talk • contribs) 02:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

"Long history of oppression and violence" is just another black fantasy kept alive through the aid of credulous white liberals. Detroit was the Arsenal of Democracy during the Second World War, the Paris of the West, the city with the highest rate of single-family home ownership in the United States, and black people, while contributing relatively little to the city's progress, gained much. And then they destroyed the city in 1967, and it has never recovered. Today, the city that once was the Paris of the West is bankrupt and looks like Mogadishu.John Paul Parks (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Please identify specific events in this supposed "long history of oppression and violence" that you contend occurred in the City of Detroit.John Paul Parks (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

5 days to 4 days
"Over the period of five days, 43 people died, of whom 33 were black and 10 white. The other damages were calculated as follows:" turned into "Over the period of four days, 43 people died, of whom 33 were black and 10 white. The other damages were calculated as follows:"

This looks like vandalism to me! James the Knldge-Lvr (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

First arrests
Re: "unable to make their first arrest until 7 a.m. the next morning" it's not clear (to me) whether this means Sunday or Monday morning. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Chronology
All the subsections of "Chronology" after "July 26–27" seem like they belong in a different section, since they're not really part of the chronology. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Name
Why the "12th Street Riot"? I was in Detroit during and after the Riots and I never heard them referred to as the "12th Street Riot". It's not a descriptive name because the riots spread over a huge area, including the east and west side of the city. I always heard the riots refered to in Detroit as "The '67 Riot", to differentiate from race riots that had taken place in the 1940s and earlier. I would suggest changing the title of this article from "The 12th Street Riot" to "The 1967 Detroit Riots" which is what most people would recognize as the consensus name.

Also, the long absurd claim that it wasn't a race riot. B.S.! Everyone knew it was a race riot. The fact that blacks and whites were both killed proves nothing, in terms of substantiating this claim. Many buildings were painted with slogans like "Soul" "Black Owned" "Brother" during the riots. Many so painted avoided arson. Every person I know who lived there during the riots thought of them as primarily racial.

The author says it is sometimes considered a "rebellion". That only makes sense as a racial rebellion. Else what were people rebelling against? Every factor sighted in the "background" section is essentially racial.

I have removed the two paragrahps that, situated in the front of the article, convey the false impression that racial issues were not at the forefront of the Detroit Riots of 1967. They were. Deliberate poverty in the minority areas of the city were at the forefront. Detroit has always looked down on the minorities with disgust. Bring in more economic sources of the wage-gap between the rich and the poor. Then notice the skin-color difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.202.205.24 (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the incorrect assertion that the federal troops were mostly black. The 82nd Airborne at no point has been 515 or more black. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.96.151 (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed the claims that it goes by the name of "rebellion;" some writers with scholarly credentials are cited as proof that has actually been called that, but it's going to take solid evidence that this is generally recognized if not mainstream usage rather than inflammatory partisan rhetoric before that's justified, esp in the lead. DavidOaks (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Dug a little deeper. We got the Daily Worker, and a squib in the news that claims "blacks who lived through it call it a rebellion." Not evidence of regular usage. Just somebody making a point that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. DavidOaks (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Overkill
The word "black" appears in the article more than 60 times. I believe that most of the slain people were mixed-race colored people, some of them with Caucasian blood in their veins. People apply the word "black" excessively and sloppily in Wikipedia. Superslum 02:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The term is used in a manner entirely consistent with common American English usage. Rmhermen 03:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, phrases like "angry black males" in the description of the riot's start are clumsy and carry heavy connotations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.198.98 (talk) 07:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The fact is, they were angry, most were of African-American descent (i.e. black), and most (if not all) were males... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.189.152.42 (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I lived in Detroit's suburbs at the time, and trust me, "black" is the most polite thing anyone called the people who destroyed Detroit.John Paul Parks (talk) 04:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I see a bunch or racist white people attempting to degrade a people because of the color of their skin. This article contains hate speech, and it must be corrected. "Black is the most polite thing anyone called the people"? Disgusting and bigoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.202.205.24 (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Proximate Causes Don't Pass the Common Sense Test
I find it odd that discrimination and displacement are proposed as proximate causes for riots by blacks. Blacks are not the only group of people to have their homes raised to make way for freeways. There must be some other mechanism at work here.


 * I believe that the article includes references to redlining,which is the practice of restricting bank loans for black residents to certain neighborhoods. While not the only factor -- police brutality is the major reason given my most poll responders -- certainly the housing lending laws mentioned, combined with the destruction of "redlined" areas, contributed to the riot. Twohlford 00:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how many of the respondents gave the answer "well, I thought I'd riot and justify it aftwards"?

194.46.186.113 (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop.

194.46.186.113: A perfect demonstration as to why the riots occurred. Entitled racists who care nothing about the people involved, or why the riots occurred. This article is broken because of people like this. Fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.202.205.24 (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC) ___________________________________________

According to the Wikipedia page on Genocide: "Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group."

I believe this concept is grossly inaccurate/inappropriately linked. The race riots in Detroit were many horrific things, but a systematic and deliberate attempt to annihilate the African-American race they were NOT.

My fellow Wikipedians ...!!! Let's record history, not re-write it.


 * Agreed.

Rating?
So what would the Wiki ratings gurus like to see to improve this article? Twohlford 02:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To start, more inline citations and supporting material (images). After that maybe submit the article to WP:PR. --Elliskev 12:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Less racist undertones. More of what lied under the surface of Detroit for years before the actual event happened. It wasn't spontanious like the article makes it seem. This had been boiling for a long time, due to poor living conditions for minorities, inexcusable wealth inequality, and systematic racism. The article makes it look like the "angry black men" were savage hell-spawned creatures who wanted everything to burn. Fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.202.205.24 (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Lead should have comment on race aspect
To someone totally unfamiliar with the riot, it reads a bit funny when the lead has nothing on the riots having a race aspect. It's starts off as maybe being a pub-goer-riot but in section two and onwards everyones skin colour is mentioned. Not until you get to the "social conditions" you start to see the 'why' and 'who'. Swooch (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Surely someone can clarify it a bit? Anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swooch (talk • contribs) 13:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The preceeding comment is correct. The lead should contain a cited fact that the primary cause of the 1967 riots was precipated by race relations in the city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.27.163.95 (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You can't have a cited fact that the primary cause of the riots was race related, because it went far deeper than that. It was poverty that caused this, not race. The racial aspect on that final sunday just pushed everything over the edge. Things don't "just happen." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.202.205.24 (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Removal of "black" and "white"
A recent edit removed race designations: i.e. "black" and "white" from the article. This is generally considered a "race riot" and removal makes the article more difficult to understand, so I restored the content. Jim1138 (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Just because it is understood by the anglo-saxon historians as a "Race Riot" doesn't mean it was one. It was much more a "Poverty Riot" where those who were living for years with no guarantee of their safety or basic standard of living saw an opportunity to strike out against the city that was destroying their children's future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.202.205.24 (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Economic damage
I have reverted a change to the numbers in the "Economic damage" section. If a new source gives different numbers, we can't just ignore the older numbers with no explanation. If the new source gives some explanation for the discrepancy, we can note that, otherwise we would have to say something like "estimates of families left homeless range from 388 to 5000." Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

"1967 Detroit revolt"??
This is obviously a misnomer and should be changed to "riot." A "revolt" implies people rebelling against something e.g. an oppressor. Using this term grants undeserved legitimacy to the riots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.148.245.221 (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you mean the word at the top of the information box, I changed it to riot. It was probably old vandalism. Rmhermen (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Shooting Looters
Does anybody have any information on whether or not it was the policy of the security forces quelling the riots (Detroit PD, US Army, Michigan National Guard) to use deadly force against looters? I know that the fleeing felon rule still existed, and a lot of states had laws allowing troops to kill rioters back then. The evidence shows that many, if not most of the deaths were at the hands of the police and armed forces. While I have heard anecdotes from Detroiters who lived through the riots that troops were in fact deliberately gunning down looters, is there evidence that this was an explicit policy? Partridgeinapeartree (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I just came across a source that says "Mayor Jerome Cavanagh ordered that looters not be shot". But this would have applied to the city police at the beginning of the riot; the policy may have changed later with the arrival of State and Federal troops. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review
Jonesmal has not yet added anything to the Wikipedia page but simply added a bit of information to their sandbox. Most of what is in their is just information on what should be changed in the article not actually changing anything. The one paragraph they did write is quoted and yet missing a source link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijacobson (talk • contribs) 19:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The article flows well, but I do not see where Jonesmal's edits stem from. The timeline is dense and very descriptive. It shows an in depth history that accurately lays out the events of the riots. Overall this page is very strong and very descriptive. added by shhalpe

List of deaths
Agreed this entire section needs sources, but which of these entries exactly are you disputing? Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Kendall-K1, I am disputing all the unreferenced ones. how can anyone know whether these persons truly died or were involved in riots without any reliable references/sources (at all)? Thank you Grandia01 (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a list in this book: Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. but are we going to cite only this single source, without even knowing the appropriate/relevant pages, for this entire section (that consists of approximately of 50 persons)? that is academically and informatively not acceptable Grandia01 (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Have you checked the source? Do you have some reason to think it's not reliable? Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * you simply "don't know"? very constructive. anyway, I frankly am not THAT interested in this so as to actually do a days-worth of research to check whether the 50 persons on here truly died or were involved in the riots in any way. I merely put the tags on this section to denote the alarming unreliability of the information in it because it hardly cites any sources (did you know that in a situation like this ANYONE can write ANYTHING he wants? duh). but since you are so interested yourself in it seems, why do not do some effort and check the source yourself? and do I "have a reason to think it's not reliable?" I have already answered that above. Grandia01 (talk) 06:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I will get right to work on that just as soon as I receive my first WP paycheck. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

So what exactly do you want to do about this? What changes do you want to see in the article text? Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1967 Detroit 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130504011411/http://www.law.msu.edu//clinics/rhc/MI_Housing_Disc.pdf to https://www.law.msu.edu/clinics/rhc/MI_Housing_Disc.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Detroit Institute of Arts Edit-a-thon
Editors are working to improve this entry and other content related to the '67 Rebellion today, October 8, 2017, as part of the part of local activities commemorating the 50th anniversary. Msitar (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Photographers
I am suggesting that these photographers be added to the entry Two photographers Lee Balterman Ira Rosenberg Organicwater2 (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Here is a more comprehensive list of photographers that were part of the Detroit Free Press Pulitzer Prize winning team: Tony Spina, Jerry Heiman, Jimmy Tafoya Ira Rosenberg, Ed Haun. and: Dick Tripp Thenommos (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Caucasian
"Caucasian" is a proper noun and should always be capitalized. But anyway, since people outside the U.S. might not understand the term, it's probably better to just use "white." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.102.177 (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2005

White is not a proper description of any people group on earth. It is not a scientific term, and holds no objective criteria. It focuses on skin color, which is something only done by racists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.205.148.10 (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

DUMB
I'm sure popular music's take on these events might seem of importance to some high schoolers today. But IMHO, as someone who lived through them, I think it has ZERO PLACE in this article. Don't you have editors to remove these gratuitous remarks that keep cropping up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.145.174 (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Was it a Rebellion?
The Was it a Rebellion section seems like an editorial. It uses intentionally persuasive language and isn't fit for the entry. Even so, the topic is pertinent and should be addressed in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editeditedict (talk • contribs) 15:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The use of the word riot in the Wikipedia entry about events relating to the arrest of African-Americans who wanted to welcome home Black Vietnam War veterans and the killing of up to 2 dozen African-Americans in Detroit by the US government in 1967 related to those violent arrests is not correct. Riot uses intentionally persuasive language which casts the victims as perpetrators. The term rebellion is factual and should replace the word “riot.” Worldpeaceforyou (talk) 05:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Worldpeaceforyou and am prepared to second a motion to move. Forty years later, we began to hear people questioning whether it was improper to term the rebellion a "riot" and fifty years later many local voices came out preferring "rebellion."  Perhaps our title is behind the times. - phi (talk) 08:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Far left ideological agenda...
the far left, pro black (to be clear, when the phrase "pro black" is used, it should be received as someone receives the term "white supremacist", etc. IE a racist ideology) agenda in this article is blatant. The SJW nonsense needs to be removed from this article, and historical revisionism needs to be removed. I abhor all racism, that's the motivation for this statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.205.148.10 (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The statement "The scale of the riot was the worst in the United States since the 1863 New York City draft riots during the American Civil War, and was not surpassed until the 1992 Los Angeles riots 25 years later" seemingly ignores the Tulsa riots of 100 years ago. Frunobulax (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

'Police victory'
In the context of a battle, it's important to list the victor where applicable because presumable some territory has been gained or lost. In the context of a riot, though, don't they almost always fizzle out in basically the same way? People stop rioting. What would a riot that didn't end in 'police victory' even look like? A total coup? Surely there's some better way to phrase this appropriate to the events. 2600:8800:2396:4600:51DD:4DFA:B5B8:4592 (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Good call. I've eliminated that and fixed the link. Cheers, -- irn (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)