Wikipedia:Peer review/Rosewood massacre/archive1

===Rosewood massacre===


 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I would like to bring this to FA status, and I am still consulting sources to do it. If you take the time to read the article (thanks) I am thinking about expanding the following areas:
 * Much of the testimony about the survivors' claims in 1993 and 1994 centered on the fact that they had to start over; their lives were destroyed. Many of them became manual laborers making minimum wage: domestics, shoe shiners, etc. Almost all of them had a low education level. I am wondering how much of that to include.
 * How much information should be included regarding how the survivors and their descendants viewed faith as an essential component of their lives?
 * Any suggestions would be welcome.

Thanks, Moni3 (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC) :Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Peer review/Rosewood massacre/archive1. Thank you, Moni, for bringing such an important article to my attention. I had never heard of this before, and I'm glad I read about it. Overall, I guess I feel like there is an appropriate amount of background information, but I got bogged down in the descriptions of the actual events, and then the latter sections were a mix of just right and confusion. Apologies in advance, my keyboard is being quirky today. I'm sure I've missed a few keyboard-induced misspellings. Good luck with this! Karanacs (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * comments by karanacs
 * The prose is still a little clunky.
 * It's not quite clear to me in the Settlement section whether the white residents moved because of lack of jobs (and if so, why did the black residents stay?) or because they didn't want to live in an integrated community.
 * What were the Goins brothers doing to attract lawsuits, and why did them moving decrease the population? I guess I'm not clear enough on what they did to help the increase in population and wh y they left.
 * At age 79, Robie Mortin recalled, - at this point I don't know how old Mortin would have been duing the masasacre - anywhere from 4 to 78 would be my guess.
 * I don't think I would begin the "racial tensions" section with a sentence about the massacre itself. For those who haven't read the lead (I usually read the lead last), this seems a bit out of place. I would keep this more general and then tie it in later if necessary.
 * Picky, I know, but I don't like the green background in the text box. I have bad eyes, and I have trouble reading text on green backgrounds.  Possibly a lighter shade of green would help. (I use this as my excuse for why I get lost a lot - I can't read street signs!)
 * Trammell was state attorney general, 29 lynchings went unprosecuted during his term; - how many were prosecuted? Without a comparison, it's hard to know how big a jacka** the guy was.
 * I understand where you are going with the French women story, but I think this could be made a little clearer. Going straight from a note that white women in France were happy to see the black men to a quote about attacks on women seems to skip a step.  For those not familiar with racial tensions in 20th century America, this might be confusing.
 * May need to specify in the text hat the laundress was black
 * I'm confused about chronology. Taylor's neighbor said no laundrywoman - but the next paragraph said the laundress was here?
 * Confusion again - the text first implies that James Taylor beat his wife, hen says it must be the white lover? Why would the white lover go to Rosewood? ... I see this is explained a little better.  I think that the chronology might need to be tweaked so that we have more of this information nearer the beginning/middle
 * Was it normal that the NYT would have a quote from a black man over a Florida incident like this? Was it normal for the NYT to cover this type of incident from so far away?
 * why would they place a kid in a wooden bin, essentially in the line of fire? Wouldn't she have been safer upstairs?
 * Did Sheriff Walker want assistance with stopping the riots or finishing the work more quickly? why didn't he send someone to the Alachua County sheriff rather than rely on reporters?
 * Do we need to know Aaron Carrier's death date? Was he released from jail with no charges filed?
 * I think that this is an extremely compelling story, but I'm a bit concerned at the tone that it takes. The article tells its story in a series of vignettes, so we know more details about what this child did, or that family, etc.  Then we wrap up the response section with details about what happened to some of the survivors later.  While that makes for a moving story, I don't know that it is entirely encyclopedic.  I'm wondering if we need to summarize (or generalize) a bit more so that it doesn't seem quite so sensational.
 * Maybe it is my short attention span, but I keep getting distracted by the frequent interruptions to discuss details of so-and-so. This hit me again in the first paragraph of culture of silence, where you generalize very well, and then end with a specific note about one person.  I'm not sure if that is necessary.
 * Is there any information about whether any of the children were permanently separated from their parents? It bothered me that children were sent on the train without their fathers, and I wondered if there were issues later with families being reunited.
 * Who set up the college scholarship fund?
 * As to your questions above, I think that there could definitely be more of an "aftermath" section discussing in slightly more detail how the survivors had to rebuild, especially if that was a large influence on the legislature's vote. I feel like the article might have said everything it needs to about faith, but I'm unfamiliar with the sources and don't know if there are other breakthroughs there.


 * Thanks, Karanacs. Somehow I missed this until just 45 minutes ago. I'm not sure why. I've made some edits since your initial review (the green quote box is gone, for example and a map is in its place), but the overall structure is the same. I just wanted to clarify some stuff.
 * The Goins brothers owned thousands of acres in Levy County. That is apparently what they did to attract lawsuits. I can add some info there.
 * I am having some difficulty with the disparate information in the best sources. I'm trying to reconcile that, but I'm not able to in some cases. Some of your questions are very good, and I do not think I am able to answer them. I don't know why the Levy County sheriff would ask reporters to relay his plea instead of sending word a different way. It is my impression that the sheriff wanted the unrest to end, but his stunningly negligent telegram to the governor makes me wonder what he was thinking. I don't know why Sylvester Carrier would put a child in the line of fire.
 * Are you suggesting that the chronology in Fannie Taylor's story section be changed? Part of the difficulty of sources is that two opposing sides are telling two very different stories. I am approaching it now trying to tell one, then telling the other. Is this more confusing than telling part of one, then the other, the next part of one, the next part of the other?
 * The portion regarding the coverage in newspapers throughout the US can be expanded. Journalism was still entrenched in a yellow phase where editorial and objective story were mixed. All newspapers that reported on Rosewood, regardless of Southern, Northern, or African American, played very loose with the facts and employed sensational tactics when compared with our current journalism standards. There is some comment that Northern papers relished lynchings and racial unrest in the South, but for different reasons.
 * The Reaction section has been expanded (not sure if it was before or after your review), but I am unsure about your issues with the anecdotes. Are you saying you would leave out the information about what happened to certain key players? In a related issue, in the Culture of silence section, some of the stories of survivors are told and you comment that it wavers between details of individuals and overall encyclopedic effect. I understand how some of this is sensational, but yet it is not. I left out details that I considered were so over-the-top gruesome that they bordered on the gratuitous (people in Cedar Key keeping body parts in jars for many years later, for example, or a string of bad luck befalling white perpetrators that, while may have something to do with the culture of silence, started to sound more like ghost stories - and not good ones).
 * I also felt as if it was necessary to show a cause and effect relationship between what the survivors endured and what they were asking for in compensation. I think it's worth it to keep this info for that reason, but wonder if it could be rearranged.
 * It is difficult to ascertain what happened to children other than the 9 survivors who were extensively interviewed. Many of the families were not traditional families. Grandparents took care of children while parents were away; aunts and uncles were called Mama and Papa. One of the hardest parts of writing this is trying to untangle the family connections of everyone related to everyone else.
 * Thanks so much for the review. Sorry again I missed it...??? --Moni3 (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a single note. About the time Singleton's movie came out, I remember reading an article about Rosewood in Harper's that discussed the stories floating about at the time about Rosewood, & contained a memorable phrase about how this massacre had evolved into a story that could have been written by Faulkner. It might be worth the effort to track down that article & use it here. -- llywrch (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * llywrch comments
 * I'll do my best to find this. Thanks for the tip. --Moni3 (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Since 1993, Harper's has 3 articles that mention Rosewood, but none in association with Singleton's film. Their articles address racial reparations, and Rosewood does not appear to be a substantial topic. Might it have been in another publication? --Moni3 (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops. It was the New York Times. --Moni3 (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I won't claim that my memory is infallible, but I know Singleton's movie is mentioned in the article -- it may have been in production at the time. Since his movie came out in 1997, & I had let my subscription to Harper's lapse by then, it is likely one of the 3 you found. (The only other periodicals I was reading at the time was the London Review of Books, & Paris Review; I doubt it was either of those.) Sorry I can't be more precise about the article. -- llywrch (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I had heard of this, but did not know much about it until I read the article. Generally well done, here are some suggestions for improvement.
 * The language still needs work in places - just in the lead, it seems like the town was largely destroyed first, then abandoned (they could have rebuilt, but did not) but the sentence is  Six blacks and two whites were killed, and the town of Rosewood was abandoned and destroyed during what was characterized as a race riot. perhaps ...and the town of Rosewood was destroyed during what was characterized as a race riot, then abandoned. would be clearer? Or the town's residents abandoned it as the attackers destryed the houses. Not sure what is best / most accurate
 * I owuld add to the lead that the alleged attack on the woman that started all of this was in Sumner, not Rosewood - see by unsupported accusations that a white woman [in Sumner] had been beaten and possibly raped by a black drifter, white men from nearby towns lynched a Rosewood resident
 * The fourth paragraph of the lead is one sentence and should be combined with another or expanded to improve the flow of the article
 * The initial settlers of Rosewood were mixed black and white. I am pretty sure this means both black people and white people intially settled Rosewood, but it could be read as persons of mixed race initially settled Rosewood - I was not sure if the original settlers were people like, for example, the Lumbee (of disputed heritage at least)
 * Sumner is linked twice in two paragraphs in the Settlement section, I would also put its distance from Rosewood in at the first mention of Sumner, not the second.
 * I would give the distance to Perry - we know distances to Cedar Key, Sumner, Gainesville - why not Perry?
 * I would add the year of the interview to At age 79, Robie Mortin recalled, "Rosewood was a town where everyone's house was painted. There were roses everywhere you walked. Lovely."[4] so perhaps In a 1995 interview, 79-year-old Robie Mortin recalled, "Rosewood was a town...
 * I would provide a little context for the Fannie Taylor's story section. Even one sentence like "The Rosewood massacre began with an event in nearby Sumner, when ..." As it is, it is a little jarring to read as currently written.
 * I would also make it clear(er) that Fannie (and James) were white, probably in the first sentence to mention tem by name.
 * Awkward grabbed her revolver and ran next door to find Fannie bruised, beaten, and scuff marks all over the white floor. how about grabbed her revolver and ran next door to find Fannie bruised and beaten; scuff marks were all over the white floor.
 * Can you elaborate on the official report in Taylor's official report stated her assailant beat her about the face... - was this a police report? a deposition?
 * Would it help minimize confusion if it read Taylor's laundress was named Sarah Carrier, [a black woman from Rosewood] whom the white women in Sumner called "Aunt Sarah".
 * I think it also needs to be clearer that the Taylor incident anmd initial lycning were several days before the actual attack that destroyed the town
 * More later - am calling it a night.

Hope this helps. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I made some fixes. In the Settlement section, I added a bit about the two largest families, hoping to prepare the reader for who is black and who is not, and introducing them to the names. I addressed most of your comments, but I need to figure out how to state some of the other issues. Thanks again! --Moni3 (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Finishing up Looks better already. Overall well done and this is already much better, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it would be clearer to have Rosewood was settled in 1845, nine miles (14 km) east of Cedar Key, near the Gulf of Mexico. read something like Rosewood was settled in 1845, nine miles (14 km) east of Cedar Key, which is on the Gulf of Mexico.
 * This needs a reference: In cities such as Chicago, ethnic Irish, the most established of the newer immigrants, led the violence against blacks.
 * How about this for clarity: Black survivors recalled that Mrs. Taylor's white visitor was a man named John Bradley, who knew he was in trouble and had gone to Aaron Carrier's house for help as [from] a fellow veteran and Mason.?
 * In the Escalation section, what happened for the 3 days bewteen the first lynching and the attack on the Carrier house? Was the attack a result of the NY Times story? Was there a siege those three days?
 * There may be problems with the two photos of the historical marker - I know that such Pennsylvania markers have been removed from Commons for being copyvios if they were erected after a certain date (and 2004 seems too late). Might want to ask someone who is more knowledgable on images and copyright than I.
 * I wonder if it would help to add dates to some of the headers, so perhaps Fannie Taylor's story: January 1, 1923?
 * WP:HEAD says not to repeat the name of the article in headers if possible, so "Events in Rosewood" or "Razing Rosewood" may need to be changed for FAC. I think things like "Rosewood Victims v. the State of Florida" are OK as that is the name of the case.

Comments from Scartol

Fantastic research as always, Moni. I'm learning a lot of things I probably should have known about my home state. (We had a governor named Napoleon?) I feel a little weird piling on more comments after all the reviews that have come in, but here goes.

Lead


 * Spurred by unsupported accusations that a white woman had been beaten... I'm nervous about "unsupported accusations", because it feels editorial. Is there another word we could use, like "vague" or "suspicious"? Or maybe we could leave out "unsupported"?

Background


 * One caption reads: This pencil mill in Cedar Key was a part of local industry. It feels a bit uncertain of itself. How about "an important part"?


 * Woo! Gainesville! (Although I suppose I shouldn't "woo" for these mentions, since they usually involve the Klan and/or hideous acts of white supremacy.) Any way to work La Fiesta into this article? =)


 * Social tensions were frequently expressed in violent suppression of blacks. I agree with this, but I don't know if it's worded as effectively as possible. I wonder if it's actually necessary; the earlier sentence segues just fine into the sentence about lynching.


 * Sometimes it's U.S. and sometimes it's US. Should be one or the other.


 * The quote from Colburn mentions "an attack" right after the point about black soldiers being welcomed warmly by white French women. Feels incongruous. (My guess is that he was referring to the alleged attack on Fannie Taylor?)

Events in Rosewood


 * I think it would be good to mention in the first paragraph of "Fannie Taylor's story" that they had a baby.


 * Taylor's neighbor also reported that her laundrywoman did not come that day. The "her" is unclear; presumably it refers to Taylor? Shouldn't this be sourced? Maybe it should be worked into the first sentence of the next paragraph: "The neighbor also reported the absence that day of Taylor's laundress, Sarah Carrier, whom the white women in Sumner called "Aunt Sarah"."?


 * I removed the phrase "and was not connected to any of the previous events" from the bit about Mingo Williams, because it felt extraneous. Feel free to replace it if you feel it necessary.


 * Lee Ruth Davis heard the bells tolling in the church as the men were inside setting it on fire. Can we get a short phrase description of who Lee Ruth Davis is? (The present wording makes me feel like I should know.)


 * Despite Walker's message to the sheriff of Alachua County, he informed Hardee by telegram that he did not fear "further disorder" and urged the governor not to intervene. Who informed Hardee of this: Walker or the sheriff?


 * I removed the phrase "For an undisclosed reason," at the start of the sentence about Walker insisting he could handle the situation. Seemed superfluous; feel free to re-add it.


 * James Carrier, Sylvester's brother and Sarah's son, had suffered a stroke and was partially paralyzed. Is this background, or did he have the stroke while in the swamp?


 * The subhead on one NYT article reads: "Florida Mob Deliberately Fires One House After Another in Block Section". Is this supposed to be "Black Section"?

Seeking justice


 * ...together with his many articulate and heart-rendering television appearances... The phrase is usually "heart-rending". If Dye said the less-common phrase, then that's what he said and that's what the quote should be. But perhaps it's a typo?


 * It would be good to have a little background on who and/or when Florida began considering the compensation bill at the start of "Rosewood Victims v. the State of Florida".


 * James Peters, who represented the State of Florida, argued that the statute of limitations applied because the law enforcement officials named in the lawsuit — Sheriff Walker and Governor Hardee — had died many years before. Perhaps it should be: "...that the statute of limitations had expired"? Also, I assume Peters represented the State in court? (A distinction would be good, lest readers assume that it refers to a legislative body.)


 * I added a "he said" to the phrase "One survivor interviewed by Gary Moore...". If it was in fact a she, please correct it.

Rosewood remembered


 * The final paragraph of the discussion of the movie could use a topic sentence at the start. Right now it feels at the outset that critics generally didn't like it; but then the Crouch review is very positive. Maybe something like "Critical reaction was mixed"?


 * The Real Rosewood Foundation awards people in Central Florida who preserve Rosewood's history. Oh, now I see why you're working so hard on this. You're aiming for one of them there foundation awards! =)

Bibliography and etc


 * I'm used to seeing cities included in bibliographical entries. Is there a reason they're excluded here? (It's not a big deal to me, I'm just curious.)


 * There might be a problem claiming PD on File:Sara Carrier.jpg. It was surely taken before 1923, but can we prove that it was published in a print source (book, newspaper, etc)? If not, then my understanding is that we have to go with the author +70 years rule, which would be tough, considering we don't know who took it. Maybe can offer more actual help on this.


 * We might also have a problem with File:Cedar Key Faber Pencil Mill.jpg and File:Turpentine workers in Florida.jpg and File:Cary Hardee.jpg. Same sort of situation. (I personally think if we can nail the date the photo was taken to 1923 or earlier, that should be enough. But other folks — with more experience and expertise than myself — apparently disagree.)


 * Kudos on going out to get those photos of the Rosewood area. The city marker is especially nice with the sky and everything.

Good luck with this — an excellent article on a most important story. Scartol •  Tok  15:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Scartol. I've addressed some of your very good points. Others I have to do some searching, and some I'm just a bit stumped.
 * Fannie Taylor, according to Philomena Goins, caused a fuss bringing her neighbors. Sarah Carrier spoke up about who left the house and was silenced either by the sheriff or Taylor herself. Taylor then promptly fainted and was taken to a neighbor's house and sedated. This is taken piecemeal by at least three sources. I suppose I can use "contested allegations"...let me think on this one.
 * I'll try to find some way to connect the quote from Colburn and a brief description of Lee Ruth Davis.
 * The NYT article is "Block" section. I don't understand why some of the 1923 headlines are worded the way they are.
 * I'm nervous about changing wording regarding legal issues. Is it difficult to understand the way it is stated?
 * I know Lizzie Jenkins. I met her three or four years ago. The IT guy who updates my work computer was married to a descendant who received settlement money. I only found that out yesterday. I was friends with a woman who used the services of the same pro bono lawyer from Holland and Knight back when I lived in Tampa. Just odd coincidences that I'm learning. But oh yeah. I'm totally in it for the award. If I get it, I'll split it in half with you. Or just cremate it and send you the ashes in a vial or something.
 * I just have to say that I drive to Cedar Key because my art is in a gallery there, and every time I get skeeved out by Rosewood. I always feel like I'm going to get shot while taking pictures there. Thanks Scartol! Your copy edits are invaluable. --Moni3 (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

CliffC comment: (in addition to earlier discussion on his talk page): Payments appear out of balance as stated in "However, the bill eventually provided $1.5 million to pay $150,000 to each person who could prove he or she lived in Rosewood during 1923, and $500,000 for people who could apply for the funds after demonstrating that they had an ancestor who owned property in Rosewood during the same time", an earlier version says "and a $500,000 pool for the descendants", emphasis mine; seems that the word "pool" should be worked back in. Best, CliffC (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)