Talk:Elaine massacre/Archive 1

Untitled
Too many news accounts of the Virginia Tech massacre made the false claim that it was the worst gun violence in US history. Those reporters have overlooked the 800 dead at the Elaine Race Riot. r3 18:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * VA Tech massacre had the highest number of fatalities committed by a single individual in one event.--Parkwells (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Was it Hoops Spur(about 5 miles north of Elaine) or Mosby Spur(about 8 miles south of Elaine?
 * It took place at Hoop Spur and outside Elaine, per J.W. Butts and Dorothy James' 1961 article "The Underlying of the Elaine Riot of 1919.Parkwells (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)"

For many years--at least through the 50's, an old rusted out stake body truck, no wheels, sat on the edge of the alley that ran parallel to and north of Main Street. Allegedly, 4 dead African American men had been tied to it by their feet and drug around the streets in the colored section of town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.152.129 (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

800 dead?
Even in the early 1900s, *individual* lynchings could virtually never be permanently hushed up. Yet we are to believe that 800 people died here -- and that the numbers could still be in dispute? That the extent of the killing cannot be verified? That is a ridiculously farcical notion.

Before we start *presuming* the truth of the 800 figure, as a commentator on this page has already done, why don't we see the source for the figure? I've seen several inflammatory articles on the Elaine Riots, and every one postulates or alleges 'several hundred' murders, but not one provides even a reference.

Rather than leaping to swallow what we prefer to believe, perhaps it were best to seek evidence. Doing otherwise is acting in the same fashion as the vigilantes of Elaine in 1919.

If I can locate any valid references for the casualty allegations, I will add them. But the fact that even author Grif Stockley could only suggest 'between 20 and 856' suggests the poverty of the allegations. This event occurred practically within living memory in a nation where such things were routinely talked to death in the press.

Let's have a modicum of reason here, please.

Tallil2long (talk) 06:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It was not farcical. This was a rural area with many places to leave bodies, including dumping them in woods and a river. Blacks were attacked across the county, as white mobs spread out. The whites were not interested in accurate accounting of the massacre. The Arkansas Encyclopedia says that "hundreds" died, as does Stockley in another quote. Parkwells (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The Arkansas Encyclopedia is being misquoted in the main text.

The Encyclopedia for example makes no reference to 'some estimates of more than 800'.

Nor does it say that 100 were killed. It merely reports that the AACP Secretary wrote “White men in Helena told me that more than one hundred Negroes were killed.”

Still less does it say that 237 were killed. Though it does say that "285 African Americans were taken from the temporary stockades to the jail in Helena, the county seat".

It does however say that "Colonel Isaac Jenks, commander of the U.S. troops at Elaine, recorded the number of African Americans killed by U.S. troops as only two".

The Tuskegee Institute which made the most extensive historical study of lynchings in the USA notes that in 1919 there were just 83 lynchings on record across the whole of the USA - not all of them of black persons.

Thus the only direct evidence is for two deaths, whilst the figure of 800 would appear to be without any evidential foundation whatsoever: it is anecdotal, mere myth not fact.

A correct estimate of black deaths based on the referenced material should therefore actually be'2 to 100 or fewer'.

Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.254.229 (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, let me stick in the opening sentence of the Arkansas Encyclopedia article: "The Elaine Massacre was by far the deadliest racial confrontation in Arkansas history and possibly the bloodiest racial conflict in the history of the United States." deisenbe (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

That's fine. Though the quote in the text has not used these exact words, having seemingly omitted 'possibly' and changed 'bloodiest' to 'deadliest'. It is surely quite correct to quote this - even if there is a possibility that it might not be an unquestionably true statement. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.217.181 (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Last sentence, section 1
The last sentence of section one, "Background," very much needs to be supported by at least one citation. I would like to believe it to be false. It may, however, be true, as sad as that is, but I cannot imagine what documentation could prove it. Lacking such it should immediately be deleted. Rags (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal of duplicated material
I have removed two paragraphs from the "Background" section because the material is already provided elsewhere in the article (and also because it describes the event and aftermath, not the "background"). 850 C (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Please fix
Several months ago, editor Parkwells added this sentence fragment:


 * "The Arkansas Encyclopedia of History and Culture supports estimates of African-American deaths at"

Can an actual number be added? Having an error like this stand for months at a time is the kind of thing that undermines our project. Thanks for addressing this.

173.89.236.187 (talk) 04:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The AR Encyclopedia noted the riot was the deadliest in AR history and that there were estimates of "hundreds of deaths."Parkwells (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Elaine 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:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6H6hsLZCZ?url=http%3A%2F%2Fngm.nationalgeographic.com%2F2012%2F11%2Farkansas-delta%2Fbowden-text to http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/11/arkansas-delta/bowden-text

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Move to Elaine Race Massacare—reverted
Please refer to this explanation. El_C 18:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tulsa race riot which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC) deisenbe (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It’s now at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tulsa_race_riot/Archive_1#Requested_move_21_April_2017

Requested move 30 September 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: Moved. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Elaine race riot → Elaine massacre – Usage has decisively shifted since 2010 or so to call this the "Elaine massacre." Relevant since the 100-year anniversary is coming up, and news articles on the topic without exception describe the event as the "Elaine massacre." Compare Google news for "Elaine massacre", "Elaine riot", and "Elaine race riot." (Note: See previous RM here, which I supported at the time - but it got lost in the shuffle of a giant catch-all move attempt that didn't take into account any case-by-case scholarship.  The case for moving the Elaine incident is notably stronger than the other articles discussed in that RM.) SnowFire (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. News stories support the change. deisenbe (talk)
 * Support. I did some JStor searches, which are a little deceptive because newer scholarship cites older scholarship (which may use outdated terms), but in general it seems to support the conclusion that "Elaine Massacre" has been gradually supplanting "Elaine Race Riot" as the predominant term. "Elaine Massacre" occurred in only 9 sources included in JStor in or before 1990 but in 34 since 1990; "Elaine Race Riot" still appears as well but its usage seems to be correspondingly diminishing. blameless  23:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree: Massacre is the better term for 2 reasons. 1. Race riot over the last 50 years has mistakenly been associated exclusively with African American protests that turn violent. This is so even though historically, many 19th and 20th century race riots were instigated by white people in both North and South who took to the streets with the sole intention of killing as many blacks as possible. 2. Share croppers did not have access to defense options. They were sitting ducks with no legal recourse whatever! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.139.164 (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. The term race riot has been used since at least the early 1900s in an attempt to shift blame to the victims rather than the perpetrators. Using the title race riot makes us complicit in the resulting bias. Jacona (talk) 12:34, 1 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.

No reference supporting claims made in this article: "estimates of the actual number of black people who were killed range from 100 to 237."
I was under the impression that Wikipedia had standards for weeding out opinion-based interpretations of historical events; standards that inhibited the creation of false narratives, and re-writing history to serve a specific ideology or point of view.

I am sorely disappointed to find this article parrots without citation or reference of any kind, the claim that: "estimates of the actual number of black people who were killed range from 100 to 237."

Exactly whose estimate is this? How did they arrive at the estimate... a grave count, human remains, written records, census reports before and after, body counts??? Where are the references? Making a claim as horrific as this demands substantiation and references; irresponsible claims serve no one's best interests - save that for Twitter.

Similarly, the article on the town of Elaine, AR also carries this "estimate" without citation or reference.

Falsehoods and exaggerations in a Wikipedia article documenting a historical event do not benefit anybody's cause. The truth is bad enough - exaggerations and made-up statistics only subtract from credibility, and give deniers a foothold. This is especially true in the current environment in the USA in 2020. IF YOU CANNOT SUBSTANTIATE IT, DO NOT PUBLISH IT ON WIKIPEDIA!

Seamusdemora (talk) 08:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. However, there are several sources in the article that provide numbers. I've used one to update the article. The original claim, 100 to 237, came from this source already in the article as well. I'll add it to the notes. Jacona (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add, that the 100-237 number was sourced by the very first reference in the article, and accompanied that same information in the infobox. This begs the question whether Seamusdemora actually looked at any references before claiming that no references in the article supported the number.Jacona (talk) 12:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Please let me answer your question: "Yes, Seamusdemora actually did look at the references..." However - if you read my objection, you must have noted that it is not founded on the references provided - it is founded on the fact that none of these references provide any basis for the estimates. Unsubstantiated estimates of a death toll cannot be substantiated simply through repetition. An "estimate" with no basis is substantially the same as rumor or speculation.


 * As to the use of the "100-237 African Americans killed" in the cited Arkansas Senate's Resolutions, please note that in both resolutions, the language used refers to these numbers as an estimate. These Resolutions are not the Arkansas Senate's endorsement that the estimate is valid. The Arkansas Senate did not develop an estimate - they simply repeated someone else's estimate. And let's not overlook the irony in accepting the government's recent resolutions as factual, while condemning that same government's statements a century earlier as lies and misinformation.


 * The article mentions Walter White's report in The Nation from 1919. The title of the article was "Massacring Whites  in  Arkansas", The Nation, December 6, 1919, pp. 714-716, but it was not included in the references. White was an NAACP member, and according to some accounts, "snuck into Phillips County by posing as a reporter" a short time after the incident occurred. Presumably, White had access to Black survivors, and would have gotten their views on the numbers killed. In this published article he wrote: "... the  final  death  roll  showed  five  whites  and  twenty-five  Negroes  killed,  although  some  place  the  Negro  fatalities  as  high  as  one  hundred.". Similarly, the Encyclopedia of Arkansas contains no reference to the number "237" in the article cited.


 * Further to the point that unsubstantiated and non-attributable "estimates" should not be included here consider this: Court proceedings related to this incident were conducted over a period of 5 years. During that time, one could easily imagine that at least one witness might have testified as to the numbers killed, and defended that estimate under cross-examination. Yet - neither this article, nor any of the others cited reference such testimony. Similarly, numbers of "100-237" dead in a community of this size would seemingly be difficult to conceal. It strikes me as unusual that, in the 100+ years since this incident, no data has emerged that would provide a basis for estimating a death toll of that magnitude. Including the "237" figure in this article based on hearsay or unsubstantiated "estimates" would seem to be a discredit. Would it not be better to eliminate figures that cannot be substantiated or sourced to witnesses?


 * I will say again that unfounded estimates - estimates with no basis - estimates that cannot even be attributed to an individual - have no place in a Wikipedia article. This seems particularly true when it plays a part in a controversial subject. This article is not up to Wikipedia standards - or, if it is, then I am sorely disappointed to learn of those standards. If there is a basis for these numbers, then by all means the estimates should stand. But if there are not, revisions are needed.


 * There are other statements in the article that, to my thinking, are inappropriate. One example: "... state officials concocted an elaborate cover-up". Again, statements such as this, without corroboration, show clear bias. That may be the opinion of some, but such a statement made without support reduces credibility.

Seamusdemora (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The Smithsonian says "at least 200" were killed. here. The Supreme Court of the US said the trials were a sham [here]. Jacona (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

-


 * The Smithsonian says... but the Smithsonian offers nothing else - no sources, no basis. If Smithsonian wants to publish such figures, I guess that's what they get to do. I have seen published estimates of 400 and 800 deaths... and why stop there? But here on Wikipedia, there is supposed to be a standard. I feel we should try to meet that. That doesn't mean the other reports can't be cited, but those reports should be identified as "uncorroborated sources/estimates". That classification can be done with little or no ambiguity. This may call attention to what passes for information today.


 * It's a fact that none of us today will ever know the true death toll in Elaine (absent some revelation). The estimates range from a low of maybe 11 (IIRC) to a high of maybe 800. Perhaps it's enough just to say that? I can think of no useful purpose served by joining in with the "speculators" to claim "this is the answer". Speaking only for myself, I feel Walter White's report offers (at least subjectively) the most credibility simply because he was there shortly after it happened. In fact, the quote from his report I cited above, followed by a statement that there are numerous uncorroborated and widely-varying "estimates" might make a reasonable summary of "the numbers". And it's honest - we don't know, and we can't know.


 * As far as the original trial being a sham, I have no objection to citing a statement from the Supremes to that effect. I also feel that once the subsequent legal proceedings got underway (after Governor appointed COL Murphy as counsel, etc) things improved dramatically. It took far longer than it should have, but eventually it did get done properly. This part of the story is typically ignored; it seems our society today puts a premium on demonizing people instead of looking for some good. But excuse me for drifting - that's off-topic for this conversation.


 * That's all I've got for now - back to you.

Seamusdemora (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

PART 1
Re this statement in the article: "Although official records of the time state that eleven black men and five white men were killed,[4] estimates of black people killed ranged into the hundreds.[2][1]"

The reference [4] is stated as: [https://www.jstor.org/stable/i40001406?refreqid=excelsior%3Ae74f1e8915e811bc2e30279463d9071b Rogers, O. A. (1960). The Elaine Race Riots of 1919. The Arkansas Historical Quarterly. 19 (2): 142].

REFERENCE [4]
The term "official records" is never used in the relevant passage from this citation. Rather, on page 143 it simply states, "Five whites and eleven Negroes were reported killed, ... "

Therefore, the statement should be revised to read as follows:

The balance of the sentence should also be revised, but that will be covered separately in Part 2.

PART 2
The second part of this sentence states, "estimates of black people killed ranged into the hundreds.[2][1]"

The reference [1] is stated as: Arkansas Assembly, 2017 The reference [2] is stated as: Elaine Massacre, Arkansas Encyclopedia of History and Culture; accessed April 3, 2008.

REFERENCE [1]
Reference [1], aka SCR6, is a Resolution adopted by the Arkansas State Senate in 2017, and authored by Sen. Flowers. It specifically states that "an estimated one hundred (100) to two hundred thirty-seven (237) African Americans were killed", but provides no basis for this estimate. Further, according to the Bureau of Legislative Research for the Arkansas Legislature, the basis for this estimate is not documented. With all due respect, an "estimate" with no basis from someone who had no direct knowledge of, nor access to witnesses can not be considered as a reliable estimate - it is simply a guess - a conjecture - a speculation. That this speculative statement was included in a resolution of the Arkansas Senate does not change that fact.

REFERENCE [2]
Reference [2] is an article in the CALS Encyclopedia of Arkansas. It contains numerous "estimates" (most with no basis) of deaths including:


 * 1) "Although the exact number is unknown, estimates of the number of African Americans killed by whites range into the hundreds; five white people lost their lives."
 * 2) "Colonel Isaac Jenks, commander of the U.S. troops at Elaine, recorded the number of African Americans killed by U.S. troops as only two. In contrast, the correspondent for the Memphis Press on October 2, 1919, wrote, “Many Negroes are reported killed by the soldiers….” "
 * 3) Walter White wrote in the Chicago Daily News on October 19, 1919, "“White men in Helena told me that more than one hundred Negroes were killed.” "
 * 4) "... the modern view of most historians of this crisis is that white mobs unjustifiably killed an undetermined number of African Americans."

Only two (2) of the CALS Encyclopedia's "estimates" are attributed (#2 & #3). Only #2 could be said to be substantiated, and Colonel Jenks recorded statement reflects only the number of African Americans killed by the U.S. Army troops. What we are left with is a reference ([2]) that does not support the statement made in this Wikipedia article. That is to say, while the reference [2] supports the Wikipedia statement in question, the reference itself provides no basis to support its "estimates". This all amounts to hearsay. Hearsay has no place in a Wikipedia article - even if it comes from an (ordinarily) reliable source.

REFERENCE [14]
Walter White and Ida B. Wells-Barnett, both prominent advocates for civil rights, visited Arkansas in the immediate aftermath of the Elaine Massacre, talked to black people who lived through the event, and prepared written accounts of what they saw and heard from those people. In some cases, their accounts provide statements relative to the numbers killed that are at least attributable to a source. Wells-Barnett's pamphlet titled "The Arkansas Race Riot" is currently listed in the references as item [14], but the estimates of numbers killed is currently ignored in this article. White's account (at least one of them), titled ""Massacring Whites" in Arkansas" was published in the Dec 6, 1919 edition of The Nation, and does not currently appear in the references at all.

Following are passages from "The Arkansas Race Riot" by Ida B. Wells-Barnett that pertain to numbers killed during the riot:


 * "Scores of Negroes killed by white Rioters...", rear cover page of the pamphlet.
 * "More than 100 were killed by white mobs...", Ch. X, p. 55
 * Frank Hicks' motion to set aside the guilty verdict against him contains the following statement: "... from four or five white men and a large number of Negroes were killed, from 50 to 100."
 * In William Wardlow's statement: "There was over eighty men, women and children killed and burned up by fire.", Ch. IV, p.16.

Stated as a range of values, the survivors' accounts of the numbers of Negroes killed is:
 * On the low end: "50"
 * On the high end: "More than 100"

REFERENCE [34] (TO BE ADDED)
White's account from ""Massacring Whites" in Arkansas" has only a single passage pertaining to numbers killed:

"... the final death roll showed five whites and twenty-five Negroes killed, although some place the Negro fatalities as high as one hundred."

The estimates from sources [14] and [34], may be summarized as follows:

To summarize all other estimates made of the numbers of Negroes killed in the Elaine Massacre:

Would someone care to propose alternative language, or take issue with this proposed revision? Shall we discuss it first, or should I make the proposed changes? Do we need to review the guidelines on Reliable Sources?

END DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED REVISIONS
Seamusdemora (talk) 05:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Seamusdemora (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC) Seamusdemora (talk) 05:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

As I've received no feedback on my proposed changes, I'll assume everyone is OK with them as proposed. If I've not heard anything by Jul 22, I'll go ahead and post these proposed changes.

Seamusdemora (talk) 07:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Seamusdemora (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Far from being OK with them, I believe they have been dismissed as WP:NOTFORUM, and too rambling and disorganized to address.Jacona (talk) 11:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see the definitive academic source for "None of those estimates referenced here have provided any evidence to suggest that estimates made by eyewitnesses are substantially flawed.". Also I have no idea what the references are that you number because I don't have time to figure out what goes with what. Cite them properly and use  to keep them in this thread.  Doug Weller  talk 12:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Doug - when I said "None of those estimates referenced here...", I only meant that none of the references listed in this article have provided that evidence. That's obvious from reading the referenced articles; no research is required, only reading. None of them dispute the eyewitness' claims. They also provide no basis for the estimates they do make, but apparently that doesn't matter here as once a source is deemed "reliable", then anything they say must be accepted as valid.
 * Doug - when I said "None of those estimates referenced here...", I only meant that none of the references listed in this article have provided that evidence. That's obvious from reading the referenced articles; no research is required, only reading. None of them dispute the eyewitness' claims. They also provide no basis for the estimates they do make, but apparently that doesn't matter here as once a source is deemed "reliable", then anything they say must be accepted as valid.

SIDEBAR DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN DOUG WELLS & SEAMUSDEMORA, JULY 2-3, 2020

 * Quick comment. If no official records are mention in sources we can't use the term in the article. The fact that CALS doesn't cite all its statements is irrelevant, we don't ask that of reliable sources. We don't use the covers of pamphlets. I'm not sure that we need much more than the ranges although I could be convinced otherwise. Of course we'd need several sources to back that up.  Doug Weller  talk 11:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * So - are you saying that Wells-Barnett's interviews, and White's piece in The Nation can't be cited? Really?!


 * Here's the problem with "the ranges": they've increased substantially in 100 years. And they've seemingly increased without any basis. Is "hundreds" credible? Do "estimates" that offer no new information - estimates that offer no **basis** make hundreds credible? Just because a lot of people repeat it, does not necessarily make it factual.


 * Honestly, after your comments on my talk page following the last edit, I am getting the feeling that you won't accept anything I submit. Ruling out first person accounts from the people who lived through the massacre because they're in a pamphlet seems off-kilter to me. Would you accept transcripts from the trial? And are you saying that CALS is unquestioned because they quote other sources? I really would like to understand the rules you're using Doug, because in my read of the guidelines, I don't get anything as rigid as what you *seem* to be saying. Maybe I'm wrong - maybe we got off on the wrong foot?


 * Your thoughts or comments?

Seamusdemora (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * No, I said nothing about the interviews or White. Why couldn't we use the pamphlets? I think we could use them. I am saying that I think if you asked at WP:RSN they would say we can use CALS. It's not our role to decide what's credible, by the way. Have you read WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR yet? Doug Weller  talk 18:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Wonderful! That's progress.


 * "Not our role to decide what's credible" You cannot be serious... look at the graphic of the old newspaper headlines in the article, please. What do they say? Do they say they are "credible"... do they offer them without comment? No - they are labeled as follows: "Inflammatory headline in the Arkansas Gazette, October 3, 1919" Inflammatory... really? Yet doubling, tripling, quadrupling estimates made by those who were lived through this disaster is NOT inflammatory? The same rules must apply to all.


 * The way you describe "credible" **sounds like** once someone earns the "credibility sticker", then they're allowed to publish (or be quoted) regardless of what they say - without question. The estimate "hundreds" is baseless. It is not supported by any documentation, it is not supported by any evidence, it is not supported by any written accounts from witnesses. These "estimates" are simply parroting someone else's "estimate". If enough say it, does that make it true? Please tell me this is not what you're saying... I really need to hear that. Because the more this goes on, the more you "qualify" what's OK, and what's NOT OK, the more confusing it becomes.


 * I have read WP:NOR, but I can't see how that relates to this discussion. Maybe you could explain your point?


 * I have read WP:VERIFY also. It's very relevant to this discussion. But I see nothing in it that suggests reliable sources cannot be questioned, cannot make a mistake. It is not "Original Research" to recognize that a referenced, reliable source is parroting other sources, when those other sources also put forward "estimates" that have no basis of support. That's simply "reading" for content and meaning.


 * back to you...

Seamusdemora (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * It is our role to decide what's a reliable source, so yes, my use of "credible" might be confusing. If you are unhappy about CALS, take it to WP:RSN. Doug Weller  talk 14:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Three things, and then let's reset this thread somehow - we're running low on indents!
 * One - is it just my reading, or have you just walked back your earlier statement that "It's not our role to decide what's credible, by the way."?? Or - is it that a designation of "reliable" automatically confers "credibility"? Please explain.
 * Two - my unhappiness is not with CALS in particular. My unhappiness is with the use of unsubstantiated, unsupported, unsourced "estimates", used to inflate numbers with no basis in evidence. Is there nothing in Wikipedia's rules to cover rumors - or "estimates" with no basis?
 * Three - you did not address my comments regarding the caption applied below the image of the Arkansas Gazette: "Inflammatory headline in the Arkansas Gazette, October 3, 1919". How do Wikipedia's rules allow labeling one reliable source as publishing inflammatory headlines, and giving carte blanche to another to publish unsupported rumors? In other words, would it be permitted to label CALS "estimates" as inflammatory, in the same way that the Arkansas Gazette's are? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seamusdemora (talk • contribs) 20:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

REFERENCE [5]
Reference [5] is cited for several controversial statements in this article.

What is "The Monkey Cage"?
Reference [5] was claimed to be published in The Washington Post under the title, "The white press has a history of endangering black lives going back a century". However, the article appears under a heading labeled: "Monkey Cage * Analysis". It's an interesting label for this heading, but use of the "Monkey Cage" label is explained (in part) as follows:


 * “Democracy is the art of running the circus from the monkey cage.” — H.L. Mencken


 * The Monkey Cage’s mission is to connect political scientists and the political conversation by creating a compelling forum, developing publicly focused scholars, and building an informed audience. Using the discipline’s research, we help make sense of the circus that is politics.

In reading, it becomes clear that "The Monkey Cage" is NOT "The Washington Post". Their relationship is not clearly defined, but "The Monkey Cage" is NOT governed by the same journalistic standards as The Washington Post, nor do any editorial lines of communication go through The Washington Post. "The Monkey Cage" makes the following statements:


 * "TMC is an independent site currently published here at the Washington Post."


 * "If your proposed piece fits with our guidelines, please email us (monkeycageblog@gmail.com) with a one- or two-paragraph pitch"

The Monkey Cage explains who can write for "The Monkey Cage":


 * "... We are especially committed to cultivating and publishing contributors from historically underrepresented groups as well as contributions about issues that have been neglected in the past."

This statement might cause one to wonder if "The Monkey Cage" actually publishes material that represents both sides of a "conversation".

What does the reference [5] article say?
The article's premise is that the "white press" has a century-long history of endangering black lives, but the article is rife with unsubstantiated claims, inaccurate citations and deliberate misrepresentations. Without a shred of proof, or a single reference, the author accuses "Arkansas’ white political establishment" of a conspiracy. She further states that the numbers killed in the Elaine Massacre were "at least 237", citing a flimsy source that never mentions the figure of 237.

For the reasons cited above, Reference [5] should be revised iaw WP:NEWSBLOG, and attributed to "Megan Ming Francis" rather than the Washington Post. Further, as the author "Megan Ming Francis" has misrepresented her sources, and made biased, inflammatory, unsubstantiated claims, Ref [5] should be removed as an unreliable source. The author also uses this article to promote a book she has written. It seems that "Megan Ming Francis" happily engages in the same sort of unfounded, inflammatory rhetoric that she accuses the "white press" of committing. The article reads like a conspiracy theory:
 * Ref [5] contains both unfounded and demonstrably false statements; e.g. "the white press has a century-long history of endangering black lives", and incorrectly cites a reference for the statement "at least 237 [African Americans killed by whites and federal troops]"
 * Ref [5] is NOT a product of the Washington Post - it merely appears as a tenant blog on their website.

Seamusdemora (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I thought about responding, but with the way the edits have jumped around on the page, and the huge amounts of verbage, I don't see that it's really possible to have a meaningful discussion. I really can't even tell the proper place to post this response, so I've placed it at the end. I apologize if it seems out of place.Jacona (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * No need for apologies. And yes, I suppose it did get "wordy", but based on Doug Weller's comments I felt more verbiage was needed. I feel that it's definitely possible to have a meaningful discussion. In fact, that's one of the reasons I've tried to explain my views in some detail.


 * You may have noticed that I've proposed an edit in the heading "SUMMARY OF PROPOSED REVISIONS #1, #2 & #3:". Perhaps that is a place to make comments, and begin a discussion? I've added a sub-heading below the proposed revisions that we could use; or if you prefer another location, please place them wherever you'd like.


 * Seamusdemora (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)