Talk:Greenwood District, Tulsa

NPOV issues.
The tone of this article carries a heavy tone of "evil whites destroy innocent blacks.", when it sounds like this was moreso the result of an escalation of racial issues that resulted in blacks having a wealthier district of theirs burned down.

I'm not excusing the actions of these people. In fact I think this incident is tragic. However, the tone of the article is not encyclopedic and almost borders on storytelling. For example...

No one was exempt to the violence of the white mobs; men, women, and even children were killed by the mobs

This line, in my opinion, is not neutral or encyclopedic. In particular, this line seems to imply that the white mob went out of it's way to murder women and children. Is this true, or were they simply indirect victims?(IE died in the fires caused by the mob, got caught in ensuing gunfire etc). I think something along the lines of "African American women and children were among the victims of the conflict." would be a more neutral line instead of having such a "The heartless white man butchered women and children" tone to it. This is, of course, assuming they didn't purposely target women and children. But then I'm not sure this line is even necessary at all as it's sole purpose seems to be to emphasize cruelty.

The riot began because of an alleged assault of a white woman, Sarah Page, by an African American man, Dick Rowland.

Why is the word "allegedly" used here, but not elsewhere? It gives implication that this is, in fact, a lie and an excuse for the white mob to burn down buildings. Is the rest of the article established fact? If so, then I rescind this, but it just seems odd to place this one line as "rumor" and imply the rest as fact unless it actually is. In particular, the article is implying that the white people were fabricating a reason to assault Dick Rowland or destroy Black Wallstreet. But then says...

There was an argument in which a white man tried to take a gun from a black man, and the gun fired a bullet up into the sky.

Is this established fact? It just sounds a bit like the story that anyone would say to avoid saying they fired their gun first.

but the residents of Greenwood were not going to allow anyone to kick them while they were down,

Sounds like storytelling. Again, I can't express enough that I think this event is tragic, but the article still needs to remain neutral.BeardedScholar (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence you point to never says that the mob went out of its way to kill women and children. It simply states they were killed. You are reading bias into something which has absolutely no bias in it. As for your second complaint, it's 'alleged' because there was never any proof Dick Rowland did that, and it's not 'alleged for other things because there is proof for those other things. Most people who have looked into it have determined that Dick Rowland had tripped on his way to a segregated bathroom, and a white store clerk misconstrued it as assault. Using 'alleged' in this situation is not only not biased, and presenting the incident as fact would be far more biased and inaccurate. If you don't even realize that, then you have no business messing with this article, and should do some basic research. As for all of the rest of it, you have made it very clear you do not understand the facts of what happened here. Before you complain about 'established fact' and making cries of it not being neutral, you should learn what the facts actually are. Otherwise it just makes you sound extremely stupid, and like someone who is biased toward the white rioters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.147.210.162 (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Overly passive phrasing
Overly passive phrasing downplays (whitewashes?) the violent destruction of governmental order; more candid phrasing is appropriate.


 * Between 75 and 300 people, mostly black, were killed, hundreds more were injured, and 5,000 people were left homeless.
 * Between 75 and 300 Americans were killed, hundreds more were injured, and the homes of 5000 were destroyed, leaving them homeless.


 * their slaves or people of color living
 * Africans held enslaved or living


 * his position as a sheriff's deputy did not protect during the race massacre.
 * the authority vested in him as a sheriff's deputy was violently overwhelmed in the race massacre


 * he lost everything
 * the terrorist mob destroyed all he had built.


 * $55,000, was lost
 * $55,000, was destroyed


 * lost nearly $200,000 in the 1921 race massacre.
 * the mob destroyed nearly $2.7 million in real estate (in 2018 dollars), and much of his life's work.

LoneStarNot (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Black Wall Street
Larry Elder (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdOpCa_AQ8U) makes the claim that the term "Black Wall Street" was only first applied to Greenwood after the riot and the rebuilding. Is this so? 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:F89C:8F5C:A581:52F4 (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Black Tulsan journalist Mary Parrish used the term 'the negroes' Wall Street' in 1921. But the term 'Black Wall Street' only seems to have first been used in the 1980s. 92.26.176.67 (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Reparations
"In 2001, a final report was released that highly recommended that victims’ descendants receive full reparations." -- Was this ever acted upon? 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:F89C:8F5C:A581:52F4 (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)