Talk:Attica Prison riot

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 7 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): IamCorleone34.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Older comments
I removed a specious link to Sean Uberoi Kelly inserted by anon user at 131.107.3.78. Per google, Kelly appears to be a computer-ethics researcher at Microsoft (sic) and/or a musician. Irrelevant, either way. As this IP has only made productive contributions to Wikipedia before, perhaps this is either someone else behind the same NAT, or some technical snafu.
 * Finlay McWalter 20:46, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

In the interest of ballanced reporting, would it be reasonable to list all the casualties?

Passing Stranger

General quality of the article
This article needs massive amounts of cleaning up. It's not understandable. What is 5 company? Who is "the rookie correctional officer" who is referred to the first time with the definite article? What are the tunnels? What is D-yard? How did they air their list of grievances? There are no times or dates given between 8:20 a.m. September 9th and 9:46 a.m. September 13th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.30.207 (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I can't understand most of it 81.92.210.18 (talk) 09:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

marriage and children statistics
is it relevant to include these statistics? why did we not include the statistics of the prisoners, as well? this seems to show some inner bias in the article, as if the deaths of these officials were more sad and they were justified in the people they killed. "He had only worked their seven weeks." Regardless if this is a fact or not, that entire section seems like it's trying to get sympathy for the 'lost families.' I think that's highly POV. Lockeownzj00 02:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Either it's POV, or the data was simply more readily available. Ideally, the background information should be added for the inmates as well.  --Maikel 17:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, they certainly were justified (legally, which is not a POV, it is fact). Please review NYS Penal Law if you have doubts.


 * I'm the one who posted that information. I don't have similar information on the inmates who died. If you do, please post it. MK2 06:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Family information is completely irrelevant, even if we included it for the inmates. Not only is it verging on POV, Wikipedia is not a memorial. I'm going to be bold and remove it. Last Malthusian 11:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * N.B: If we do find the same information on the inmates, I wouldn't be too bothered if someone put the information for the officials back in with them. However, I agree with Locke that including the information for the officials and not the other inmates appears to represent a "criminals are worthless" POV, even if that wasn't the intention. Last Malthusian 11:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Since Surgo added the POV tag because of the marriage and children statistics (according to the edit history), which I've now removed, I've removed the POV tag as well. Last Malthusian 14:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Al Pacino? Really?
What's up with the gratuitous movie references? It seems people have been going through wikipedia and adding any minor movie reference they can, regardless of whether or not it contributes to the value of the article. I mean, everything has been referenced in some movie or other, so what, are going to link every article to IMDB? Should we (somehow) play six degrees of Kevin Bacon with ancient history? Honestly, the attica riots were a horrible tragedy for everyone. The fact that some actor shouted one line of dialogue about it in some movie is taking a serious event and adding an utterly banal detail. -super90


 * I completely agree. Wikipedia is less intelligent as it becomes a tangled web of pop-culture references gasping for historical relevance. 70.157.138.155 14:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've moved that information to a new 'Cultural References' section --Paolo Meccano 11:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * One possible point of view is that such cultural references give evidence of how people remember the event long after it took place. It's an obvious way of lifting articles like these above 'news story' status. --Last Malthusian 22:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I felt that there were too many meta-references to the Al Pacino movie, so I mentioned three of them in the paragraph about the Al Pacino itself and removed the rest. I included Saturday Night Fever, Spongebob Squarepants and WCW Nitro purely for the sake of variety (movie, kids' show, rassling) rather than any sort of significance of the reference. --Malthusian (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I just edited the "Cultural References" section for grammar and spacing, but can't figure out what the last paragraph (about "King of Queens") is trying to say. This seems a very minor reference to mention. --User:akuchling

This article is becoming very biased
Let's not forget a few core realities. The people who were living in Attica Prison were not revolutionaries or political prisoners; they were criminals who had been convicted in open courts. And this was a prison riot, not some noble battle. This was a bunch of criminals who got together and decided to take over a prison, take some emloyees hostage, and kill some people. Anyone who thinks the rioters were heroes is either unaware of the facts or is deliberately ignoring them. MK2 06:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Some of the comments on this page are disturbing. This article is rank with bias. Also this discussion page is turning into a youtube comment thread. It's all about race and trying to obscure the fact that a large number of people died here. Most likely at the hands of the state. I'm not condoning the action of the prisoners but let's not forget what really happened at Attica. This is an encyclopedia; articles MUST REMAIN NEUTRAL. I do not believe that many people truly understand what this means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.164.204 (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

They were criminals but they were also victims it seems and they were human. It's not wrong to clearly point out the horribly corrupt and even evil people who did the shooting in the end. This is here for the very reason that it is a who dunnit story to this day. It's easy for the biased to blame criminals but we all know very well that abuses were rampant at that time in America's history and long before it and to this day. 101.51.231.3 (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

There’s far too much evidence to contradict this point that the prisoners were violent or seeking to kill anyone. It might be fair to say that what started as a riot became a political movement once hostages were taken, but that’s about as far a reason will allow. This wasn’t really a prison riot. It shouldn’t even be called that. This wasn’t even a police riot, which is actually a better fit. This was another Rockefeller Massacre! JonesyPHD (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Survivors' settlement
When did this happen? I recall Inside Albany did a piece on how they were coerced into accepting workman's comp immediately after the deaths and injuries and that precluded them from suing. How did they get around this? John wesley 21:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC) ~

Revert
In reverting an unsourced allegation that smacked of POV (something to do with gang rape) I also realised that two weeks ago an AOL IP also blanked the list of dead and cultural reference without leaving an edit summary. I have restored the cultural references. It might be better to cut it down, but that's the sort of thing we should discuss here; it certainly doesn't need to be blanked. I have not restored the list of dead per Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Malthusian (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing
"Most hostages killed were shot by state troopers or National Guardsmen."

Where's your source for this?

SOURCE??? How about it was PROVEN that the hostages ALL died from gunshot wounds. State Police murdered them all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.22.43.198 (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This source states that a) all the casualities were killed by gunfire and b) the prisoners had no firearms. --Malthusian (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm astonished you cite this source - www.libcom.org - as the basis for objective news reporting. It's hard-left propaganda site with its own interest in twisting and recolouring history. An equivalent would be citing the events of Kristallnacht entirely from the reports of the Volkische Beobachter. You have also repeatedly deleted the names of the those who were killed or injured, saying that 'wikipedia is not a memorial'. True enough but that list represents historical fact that I personally would have liked to have seen since it added to the context and the resolution of this incident.

Also concerned about the statement, "all of the deaths has been caused by authorities retaking the prison."

The statement that the "slit throats" were deliberate leaks to media has a source site footnote referencing www.guerillaunderground.com. It appears this site no longer exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterlingjones (talk • contribs) 18:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Only one Corrections Officer, Quinn, was killed by the prisoners. He died of his injuries several days after the intital uprising. During the September 13 assault on D-Yard, the prisoners killed four of "their own," speculated by many to be vengeance for non-participation in the riot, previous "snitching," or some other type of intransigence in the eyes of other prisoners. Other than that, all deaths are attributed to the State Police and Corrections Officers. While several of the hostages did have their throats slashed badly, they all survived with the exception of those shot by the authorities. As far as authorities, you can all check out tom Wicker's "A Time To Die," as it contains a wealth of information on this topic. Not only is the book filled with sources, but it is written by someone who was present for the entire incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.29.50 (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible source: Daily Mail article from 2015, quoting own material and official statements from 1971: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/hostages-died-gunshots-not-cut-throats-1971-article-1.2351968 some wiki authors are trying to rewrite history here, badly masquearading it as 'critical authoring'! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.222.30.53 (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The 2021 documentary Attica (on Showtime and streaming on AmazonPrime video) presents news coverage of the state medical examiner stating that all the 10 hostages who died were killed by large weapon gunfire - meaning law enforcement. The prisoners did not have guns.Parkwells (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure if we are allowed to use primary documents but https://www.nytimes.com/1971/09/15/archives/autopsies-show-shots-killed-9-attica-hostages-not-knives-state.html backs up the claims that people were told that throats were slit and the coroner Dr. Edland had reported that most of the deaths were due to gunshots — Preceding unsigned comment added by TempE404 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

General uprising?
So what is a general prison uprising? Are there other types that I am unaware of? That term seems to have been in the original summary submitted 3 years .. but what does it mean? C had B . C  T  04:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Is the word 'general' really cause for alarm or change? I do agree that there aren't, say, taco-flavored prison uprisings, but 'general prison uprising' works well, I think. Whampir 05:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose they meant general as "Total" - the riot took place in the entire prison. (And not in just a certain cellblock) OzOz 07:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

None of the prisoners had guns?
How can this be a fact? A prison would have a armory, and most likely the prisoners would have looted it. Plus, some of the prison gaurds in some areas of the prison carried hand guns. This fact, just shows alot of bias to the entire article.


 * In the sources section above, there's a source that claims the prisoners had no guns. Can you cite a source that counters this, rather than just supposition? Pearce.duncan 01:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a widely-cited fact in every source I've ever read, watched or heard about the riot. Yes, Attica had an armory, but the inmates were qiuckly cut off from it.  The hostage situation took place in areas generally accessable by inmates (cellblocks, exercise yards and the infirmary) but never reached areas of the facility where inmates weren't allowed (i.e. guard booths, front offices, armory, etc.)  The rioters were able to take guards hostage and threatened them with homemade blades, but no credible source on either side has ever said that the inmates obtained guns. C.J. Watson 12:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever been in a Prison? obviously not. No None of the Convicts had guns nor did security staff in the D-BLOCK YARDor within the penitenitaet itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.160.192 (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Historian Heather Ann Thompson writes that under normal circumstances "it was forbidden for guards to carry guns when confronting prisoners since guards might lose their weapons to the prisoners," but notes that on 9 September, corrections officers who retook A and C blocks and the B mess hall were armed with tear gas, rifles, revolvers, and a Thompson submachine gun (Blood In the Water, p. 62, 2017 Vintage edition). She also says that on the same day off-duty COs "armed themselves with guns from the prison arsenal as well as baseball bats and axes from a shed behind the prison." (p. 61) Aingotno (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Some missing info in the article
A couple ideas for improvement of the article:
 * Governor Rockefeller's involvement in dealing with the prison riots should be discussed. Rockefeller refused to negotiate with the prisoners and was quick to order the raid that led to the death of the hostages. It was also supposedly his office that help spread the misinformation that the hostages had their throats slit.
 * For a time after the riots ended, the guards apparently tortured prisoners in retaliation for the riots and the deaths of their fellow guards. This led to several lawsuits by prisoners who claimed to have been received such torture. These lawsuits where eventually settled in favor of the prisoners.

--Cab88 01:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As revealed in the 2021 documentary Attica, which had access to audio tapes and transcripts of conversations between Rockefeller and President Richard Nixon, Rockefeller was in direct communication with Nixon, who emphasized law and order and wanted the prison retaken. Rockefeller would not even go to the prison, although encouraged to do so by prominent friends among the observers committee.Parkwells (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, as noted above, some prisoners sued the state (this is also covered in Attica). After years, the state finally settled in 2000, awarding some compensation.Parkwells (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

NPOV
The opening paras to this article are biased "humble demands"... etc. An encyclopedia should not make value judgements re: the prisoners demands. Any objections before I add the NPOV tag? KristoferM 19:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the following three sentences:


 * One of their most humble requests was for unrationed toilet paper.
 * The riots also revealed for the first time how American prison systems operated in regard to race issues, as many of the prison guards were seen as bigots.
 * Overall, this riot was shocking in how it exposed the racism of the prison system as Attica was a northern prison which many felt would be free of racism.

which were the only obvious examples of npov I could find, and I removed the npov tag. How does it sound now? The article's tone does seem slightly sympathetic to the prisoners, leading with the conditions of the prison instead of, say, examples of the crimes the inmates had previously committed, but I don't think what remaining PoV there is warrants the tag. Charles (Kznf) 19:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Continuing NPOV dispute
I'd feel better if someone cited the sources for comments such as the fact that the prisoners were given a bucket of water a month for a shower, etc. It's not a NPOV problem if it is a fact, the problem is that we do not know if it is a fact. KristoferM 19:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Then it is a verifiability problem, not POV. Richard75 23:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Why reference back to movies?
NPOV? Were reforms put into place? Did they get extra toilet paper? Why does EVERY historical event chronicled by Wikipedia have to make reference to pop music and movies? I suggest a click here, and a pop-up box will appear to show those wanting to assimilate trivia the frivolous stuff. Wikipedia; I am tiring of your aligning serious fact with pop art. GRoberts


 * It may be the pervasive influence of Hollywood. The ,most important cultural centre.  It is not novels or poems but movies. Chivista


 * For some reason there is a tendancy to add a reference here whenever anyone hears the word "attica" on their favorite TV show. I think that the standard ought to be that the work in its entirety, be it song, poem, movie or whatever is about Attica.  It's really not necessary to catalog every mention of the prison ever uttered in any media. Charles (Kznf) 18:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I also think that it might help if the section were renamed something more substantial than "cultural references". I think it's the vagueness of this section title that might be causing some of the problems. Charles (Kznf) 18:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I for one found the article trying to figure out WTF the Attica... chant in Dog Day Afternoon was about; I didn't get it. Cultural references are a more important part of internet articles like wikipedia than we might be used to in other contexts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.13.193.220 (talk) 05:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Exactly. The Attica chant is a direct reference to Dog Day Afternoon, and only an indirect reference to the Attica Prison Riots.  That is why the article first lists DDA, and directly people to that article (which has it's own cultural references section) and then lists direct cultural reference. Charles (Kznf) 19:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Attica Chant
Okay, I found a few references that stated that the chants of "attica attica" in some movies were references to the Dog Day Afternoon movie, but then I read this: http://www.courttv.com/archive/press/attica2.html which indicates that it was a chant before Dog Day Afternoon. In any case, the chant itself seems to have outlasted, in cultural memory anyway, it's own context. Is this due more to the Dog Day Afternoon, or due to it's popularity at protests which DDA merely dramatized. Anyone who lived through the period care to cmment? Charles (Kznf) 18:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is apparent that the cultural reference of the chant and its placement in an article of historical importance is furthering the larger conversation / debate about the overall placement and function of endless pop-culture references in Wikipedia articles. I would leave this one unresolved for now, as it is, centrally, a chant that was used at that time to attach claims of police brutality. The time period following the Attica revolt was a period of fractured inattention to the traditional social consciousness movements of the previous decade, and the chant itself was very much a part of that fracturing. It is also of hostorical importance, however minor, that the chat as used in both "Dog Day Afternoon" and "Saturday Night Fever" occurs in a tongue-in-cheek manner, demonstrating the fatigue and disillusionment prevalent in the 70's with respect to protesting as a whole. I say keep it... for now. 70.157.138.155 15:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly right. I would love for this article to incorporate a section that deals with the chant *before* Dog Day Afternoon.  When and where was it used in the contexts of protests?  A section like this would be much more relevant that all of the trivia-crud that this article attracts.  Charles (Kznf) 20:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And in that vein, I've renamed the section to try to discourage the adding of every episode of House MD or King of Queens that references Dog Day Afternoon. Charles (Kznf) 01:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up the film and TV references, putting all references to the chant into a single paragraph (details about specific episodes are interesting for fans of the shows, not for people interested in the event itself). I also removed some irrelevant character analysis of Saturday Night Fever for the same reason. Schoolmann (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Riot or riots?
All the references I see call this a riot (singular), not riots. Why is the plural? Having the plural title certainly makes for a very confusing lead paragraph. I'm tempted to move (rename) the article to "Attica Prison riot", but I wonder if there's some bit of wiki-history supporting the present title. Comments? --CliffC 22:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd support a move to the singular Charles (Kznf) (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Riot isn’t really appropriate. It was a massacre. Police stormed in and killed everyone, including hostages. JonesyPHD (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

im doing a essay
what was the demands on the riot of attica in 1971 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.208.14.238 (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The introduction of many weasel words in this article is driving me nuts. Remove them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.82.29.245 (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Weasel words" isn't clear. Name them.  I'm removing the "non-NPOV" until you do.  Twins Too! (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Vonnegut Attica reference
Kurt Vonnegut references Attica and the Attica riots heavily in Hocus Pocus (book). He uses 'New York State Maximum Security Adult Correctional Institution at Athena' as a none too subtle substitution. --Piepie (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Movie
I've seen movies about prison riots but I don't think one about this specifically. Still, I wonder, are there any which are credited as having been inspired by this? Oh wait found em, TV movies. It seems extremely notable. Nym (talk) 09:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV
This article makes no reference to the political inclinations of the rioters. An eyewitness account from a prisoner in Attica during the riot states that the leaders of the riot were a small group and that they were political radicals. The overall tenor of the article tends towards arguing that the group rioted because the conditions were so bad. However, if this was a group that was inclined towards violent behavior and revolutionary overthrow of authority, then the causation for the riot is thrown into serious doubt. Given the complex causation of historical events, it is not neutral to exclude this information. This attribution of the riot to violent revolutionaries within the prison, in a larger context of violent revolutionaries emerging in American society at that time, is widely-enough recognized to require recognition. Repressed worker (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It would not be surprising that a disenfranchised and repressed class of people would be resentful. That the resentment was directed against those in positions of power, who control the repression, is not surprising. And this is different from a characterization of the group as an armed ideological element motivated by an opposing viewpoint. Leadership is usually small, and followers can be attracted for many reasons. But I think it is clear that the trigger to the event was random ongoing abuse, a last straw, not a planned campaign of political indoctrination. Spokesmen will always arise, and while it cannot be assume that they speak for all, one can only assume that here they spoke for many, if not most. The reports of "togetherness" seem true, and so that underscores that the spokesmen reflected a common feeling. ( Martin | talk • contribs 11:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC))

Missing Info
I remember reading this article some time ago, and there seems to be some information missing now. I think there were references to guards being taken hostage and raped by some prisoners. I don't know what petty things you're all squabbling about, but the only thing that matters is the relaying the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.172.101 (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Riot?
I am surprised that there isn't already a paragraph that questions the use of the word riot. The prisoners took control, attempted to negotiate over what are generally seen as minimal demands, and Rockefeller, with Nixon's approval, launched an assault. Shooting lasted 120 seconds and resulted in 40 dead, or 1 every 3 seconds, plus injuries. Some additional injuries and deaths later, by guards. ( Martin | talk • contribs 10:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC))

No mention of Dr. Edland?
Dr. Edlund was instrumental in dismantling the police backed report that prisoners had killed the majority of inmates/hostages. He risked his career to ensure the truth was known:

https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2016/09/12/john-edland-attica-riot-hero-and-victim/89963672/

https://blog.expertpages.com/expertwitness/an-expert-witness-who-made-a-difference.htm

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/hostages-died-gunshots-not-cut-throats-1971-article-1.2351968 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.177.103 (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this man is important part of history and should be included. JonesyPHD (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review
The lead of the article did a good job of providing background information and insight into what the rest of the article will be about. This article is well organized, with well-lengthed sections filled with supporting details. Many names and phrases are linked to credible sources. The tone is neutral leaving the reader to create their own opinions based on the unbiased report the historical events that occurred.

Confusing
The uprising

Memorial in front of the prison to the officers and other prison employees who died in the uprising. At approximately 4:20 a.m. on Thursday, September 9, 1971, 5 Company lined up for roll-call. Hearing rumors that one of their companions Was this Ortiz?was to remain in his cell after being isolated for an incident involving an assault on prison officer Tom Boyle after he was hit in the face with a full soup can by inmate William Ortiz, a small group of 5 Company inmates protested that they too would be locked up and began walking back towards their cells.

The remainder of 5 Company continued towards breakfast. As the protesting group walked past the isolated inmate Ortiz, they freed him from his cell. They then rejoined the rest of 5 Company and proceeded on their way to breakfast. A short time later, when the command staff discovered what had occurred, they changed the usual scheduling of the prisoners to what?, but did not tell prison officer Gordon Kelseywhat difference did this make if they were just going to the yard anyway?, the correctional officer in charge of leading 5 Company to the yard. Instead of going to the yard after breakfast as they usually did, the prisoners were led there I thought that they weren't going to the yard? to find a locked door, puzzling them and the correctional officer Kelsey. Complaints ?led to anger when more correctional officers led by Lt. Robert T. Curtiss arrived to lead the prisoners back to their cells. Officer Kelsey was assaulted and the riot began. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.92.210.18 (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

How many demands were there?
Lead suggests 28 but the body suggests 27. There is a cited source but it is not linked Carlinmack (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I did some research and found that there were 27 demands from source, which I have access to through my institution. I have cited this in the article, but if anyone would like to read the demands for free they are available here https://libcom.org/blog/attica-prison-liberation-faction-manifesto-demands-1971-06012012 If you would like I PDF of the source I cited, email me from my user page Carlinmack (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

"Big Black: Stand at Attica" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Big Black: Stand at Attica. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 25 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 15:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Change the title to Attica Prison Massacre
There’s no real justification for calling it a prison riot, when police stormed in and clearly killed everyone, including the hostages, then lied about it. JonesyPHD (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Howard Zinn NPOV?
The Howard Zinn quote in the background section seems dubious as its used in place of "encylopedically"-stated facts. A People's History of the United States is famously partisan. We introduce arguments regarding its validity by using it.

I haven't made a change because I'm not certain it's necessary, but I think it's worth discussing. TLarish (talk) 02:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Better Sourcing Needed
Especially in the introductory paragraphs, a number of sources for definitive historical claims are not present. I suspect that proof for the claims could be found in the previous citation, but they should be flagged regardless. Hosanna.galea (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Fire Semester 3
— Assignment last updated by Worm Insurrection (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

More Information
I wish the page included more information about the overall event and not how it shows up in popular media. For example, maybe add more about some of the demands that the Attica prisoners requested. It is also extremely confusing to see who is focused on and who is not. What happened to all of the other leaders? Why are only a few of them included in detail? TempE404 (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Confusing References
Do we need an external links section? It feels redundant to the rest of the references? TempE404 (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)