![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The lead in this article states: "The commission's final report, published in 2001, states that the city had conspired with the mob of white citizens against Black citizens"
That is factually untrue. The relevant section is on pages 10 and 11 of the report.
Page 11 states: "Others — again, including members of this commission — have studied the same question and examined the same evidence, but they have looked at it in different ways. They see there no proof of conspiracy. Selfish desires surely. Awful effects certainly. But not a conspiracy. Both sides have evidence that they consider convincing, but neither side can convince the other."
In other words "some people think it was a conspiracy others don't". That's all the report says. Please amend text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.217.179 ( talk) 15:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC) the section that says "Perpetrators - White American mob" should also include "Armed blacks", the shooting at the jail started with the murder of an elderly white man by a black man. (as stated in the test, so that should be included.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.90.232 ( talk) 23:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh, the caucasity!! 108.46.129.23 ( talk) 00:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Kaelynkrandall.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 11:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Just wondering why the 'B' in black is capitalized, and the 'W' in white is not. Some kind of political statement? -- LeeBonolo ( talk) 03:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Buck Franklin actually left three written accounts of the Tulsa riot. The first as a 1922 contribution to the Parrish book reffed overleaf. The second in his 1959 autobiography 'My Life and an Era' (pub 1997). Little of the dramatic detail of the '1931' manuscript appears in either of those two memoirs. Franklin does however mention in his autobiography (p 273) that he is a writer of historical fiction. Students of the Tulsa riot may therefore at least pause to wonder if the celebrated '1931' manuscript is fact, or fiction, whilst critically comparing the three quite different accounts. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
79.79.205.235 (
talk)
13:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC) Sock of indef blocked
User:Cassandrathesceptic
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I find it strange that "Black" is capitalized while "white" is not. I understand that both words have the option of capitalization and so, whether capitalized or not, no gramattical rules are being violated, but capitalizing one and not the other seems inconsistent to me. I attempted to edit the article so both words would be consistently capitalized, but it seems like someone undid my edit. I suppose the issue may be contentious and up for debate. I, for one, think both words should either be consistently capitalized throughout the article or consistently uncapitalized. I don't see capitalizing one and not the other as being justified. 66.91.36.8 ( talk) 04:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate the exposition. I was unaware there was this prevailing default style of capitalization in American media, though I feel like, as a regular consumer of said media, I would've noticed this. I don't claim to be an expert on the matter and I can conceivably believe a particular grammatical standard has been developing right under my nose, so to speak, unbeknownst to me, so, for all intents and purposes, I will defer to the expertise of others. I still see the juxtaposition of capitalized "Black" and uncapitalized "white" as peculiar and conspiculously unnatural, but perhaps in time my brain will adjust and accept it as the new standard.
At any rate, I see someone has edited the article to have both "black" and "white" uncapitalized. To be honest, this seems the most natural and optimal solution. Admittedly, when I originally capitalized both "Black" and "White," I merely did it to keep the capitalizations consistent between the two. I worried that decapitalizing "Black" could be perceived as offensive or disrespectful (or at least not giving due respect), so I chose to capitalize "white" instead to bring the capitalizations in sync. While the consistency in capitalization was an improvement, admittedly, capitalized "Black" and "White" peppered throughout the article did not look quite right either; I dare say they looked awkward. Visually, uncapitalized "black" and "white" seem the most natural, but I suppose that could be a personal bias and perhaps each individual reader will have a preference toward what he or she is used to.
As to the "logic" behind the practice, I can appreciate the different historical paths both words (and races) have taken to reach their current incarnations, but I'm not sure I agree such historical context justifies differential treatment. I understand that words and their meanings (both connotations and denotations), grammar, syntax, punctuation, capitalization, and really all elements of language, written, spoken, and signed/gestured are wholly influenced by the individuals and societies which utilize them. I further understand the distinctions and implications that allow for "Black History Month" and "Black Pride Day" without a corresponding "White History Month" and "White Pride Day." Historically, Western/European/white culture has suppressed black history and black pride, while oppressing the black race. Modern American society recognizes this and has responded with an attempt to compensate for the injustices of its past. Some would argue that every month is "White History Month," since in American schools history is frequently taught in a biased manner from a "white" perspective with much of the mistreatment and injustices toward African Americans glossed over and many of their contributions to American society given short shrift or left out entirely. Thus, one "Black History Month" is a step in the right direction, but hardly makes up for centuries of oppression, disenfranchisement, abuse, slavery, lynchings, and so much more.
The question is, does the capitalization of the word "Black" contribute toward this reparative sentiment? Is it yet another remedial gesture meant to indemnify a wronged people? Or is it an overcorrection that only serves to reinforce a discriminatory mindset, only this time in the reverse direction?
Clearly capitalization, at its core, serves to give deference and due respect to the subject. One only has to look to the Christian Bible to witness countless examples of capitalizations imbued with veneration, from "Lord" to "God," to basic pronouns like "He," and "Him." Names are capitalized out of respect for the subjects. It then stands to reason that by capitalizing "Black," we are giving due respect to that race. However, by intentionally not capitalizing "white," it further stands to reason that we are not giving respect to that race, perhaps even disrespecting it. At least, that's the logic I am perceiving (though I may be falling victim to the logical fallacy of the inverse). With this so-called new standard, we are unilaterally elevating one race above another. Whether intentional or not, this is the message implicitly sent.
Perhaps this is an instance of the pendulum swinging in the opposite direction, a necessary action before it heads back toward the center where all races will be afforded equal levels of respect in all aspects of society.
I suppose one could cite other examples of controversial, race-related issues where discriminatory treatment is warranted in the interest of justice, such as Affirmative Action, race-based scholarships, funding of HBCUs, hate crime legislation, the NAACP, etc. One could argue that there is no National Association for the Advancement of White People and that's not fair, except that you could really consider the entire US government from its inception until practically the present day as the National Association for the Advancement of White People. Even the slogan "Black Lives Matter" can be perceived as discriminatory and some see it as implying "White Lives Don't Matter" (though that is clearly a logical fallacy since the inverse of a statement is not implied by the statement). And when a white person wears dreadlocks or a dashiki it's considered "cultural appropriation," but the same pejorative label is not applied to African Americans who straighten their hair or dye it blonde. Some see this as unfair. I'll refrain from delving further into the debate of what's fair, just, right, or equitable with regard to these controversial policies, practices, and political, cultural, and social matters. Clearly these issues are very nuanced and historical context needs to be factored in. They are not just black and white, pun intended.
Perhaps the capitalization of the races falls into this category as well. Personally, I think that may be overcomplicating things a bit. Personally, I think treating the races equally in society and in writing should be a goal we should all strive to achieve.
I realize that something like a "White Pride Day" sounds a tad neo-Nazi-ish and White Supremacist-y, but I don't think it is necessarily bad to celebrate your culture even if you are white, just as long as you don't use it as a pretext to spread racist propaganda and "Superior Race" ideology. That's just my two cents.
TLDR: While differential or discriminatory treatment can be acceptable and just under certain circumstances, I don't feel this extends to the capitalization of the races. 66.91.36.8 ( talk) 22:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Uhh, how about putting back in all the journal entries of black people saying how beautiful it was to see white men die that day?
Or about the part about the mentally ill black man firing indiscriminately into buildings??? Netside ( talk) 07:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Hey, @ EricSpokane, what was your reasoning behind this reversion? Valereee ( talk) 17:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Buck Franklin wrote a much more extensive account of the Tulsa riot in his 1959 autobiography 'My Life and an Era'. It's a somewhat different story from the 1931 manuscript. Well worth reading, and quoting from. 92.18.144.69 ( talk) 13:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
The article included B/w previously, so restoring to previous version. Using B/w is not outside of policy, and at articles focussed on racial subjects it isn't uncommon; discussion happens at each article. Valereee ( talk) 13:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
More and more often Black is capitalized to refer to Black people in the United States, while white has continued to be lowercase. See for example, in the context of Tulsa specifically, NY Times doing exactly that, same for CNN, same for ABC News, while the Washington Post capitalizes both. I think the balance of sources are shifting to capitalizing Black and not white, and think this article should follow, but as a general thing I think this almost falls under ENGVAR and article wide changes need consensus. nableezy - 21:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
OgamD218, I see you've reverted again while we're discussing and before responding to other editors when your viewpoint has not yet gained consensus? Not sure why you'd do that. Valereee ( talk) 12:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Actually I found the RFC at the MOS here. I think thats wrong, but I suppose the way to challenge that is with a new RFC instead of arguing about it here. nableezy - 14:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
@ SMcCandlish: I've fixed the inconsistent capitalization, per previous RfCs. 2601:547:501:8F90:8B3:D8CE:57DE:2B93 ( talk) 23:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
@ OgamD218: See my message above regarding inconsistent capitalization. 2601:547:501:8F90:8B3:D8CE:57DE:2B93 ( talk) 23:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I see there's been some edit warring over MOS:RACECAPS. I don't have a dog in this fight, but the last discussion seemed to repeatedly bring up the possibility of an RFC, though one was never brought up.
I'd also point out that this has been discussed a few times at the RACECAPS talk page.
I bring this all up because I think the issue should be discussed on the talk page, rather than subject to continuing reverts in the article content, so I'm hoping this sparks discussion. It seems to me that an appropriate reaction to all this would be to either:
Hope this helps-- Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk) 15:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I removed the overloaded cleanup tag, which looked far less encyclopedic than anything in the article. There were also complaints in that tag that, to me, just seemed incredibly inapt, and weren't detailed on the talk page. (For example, I can't imagine one reasonably describing this article as a "collection of lists"; I also don't see the "overloaded IBs [infoboxes]" complaint.) That said, I have added back a few flags using the multiple issues template-- Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk) 01:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
@ Zsinj: Why are you edit-warring to reinsert vandalism that is WP:OR and unsupported by the given references?
2601:547:500:2090:653F:F926:9256:E4D3 ( talk) 01:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
[2]. Doug Weller talk 08:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Sarah Page was in fact 21 years old. Ref: https://www.centerforpublicsecrets.org/post/the-notorious-sarah-page 92.12.213.166 ( talk) 14:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
It's really just a simple question of the facts. And the evidence. The above mentioned article includes photos of a newspaper notice, marriage documents and a gravestone, each one of which is good rock-solid evidence. The obvious fact is that she was 21 not 17 as mis-reported at the time and repeated ever since. Probably best to change the text to 'reportedly then aged 17 but in fact 21' with a ref to the above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.7.105 ( talk) 16:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Lead says "The commission" without context. -- 2001:1C06:19CA:D600:2A57:8028:8B22:2039 ( talk) 16:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the background section starts with: "[...] Tulsa also supported a large number of affluent, educated, and professional African-American residents". As a non-native speaker, I suppose this is meant to convey that they had expertise in their respective professional discipline, but I find the wording weird, it sounds like being black is a job in itself. Wouldn't "highly skilled" be a better wording? Pygy ( talk) 07:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
There seems to be some quite detailed and useful testimonies of black survivors under the survivor section, giving a good historical perspective. However, why do we not have any accounts from white survivors explaining their experience? 203.46.132.214 ( talk) 04:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be a primary source from the time linked, that shows that the street was known as "black wall street." Even the source linked doesn't say it was "negro wall street." Could we verify this and add one? 2601:603:1080:BD90:BC5D:6E81:32F1:598 ( talk) 06:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Seeing as people are moving away from the term riot to describe this sort of event(even though there's a long history of it, see Atlanta Race Riots, Aleppo Riots, 1984 Delhi Anti-Sikh Riots, Elaine Riots, Salvador Peasant Riots), I get the name change, English is a living language, riot doesn't have that connotation of mass violence the way it used to to many people especially post 1992, I get it, not gonna argue that.
But I feel Pogrom is probably the best word to fit what this was, given the racial component of the event and the civilian lead nature of the event(Massacre would fit better if it was top down, this was bottom up lead by citizens, that's a pogrom) 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:91E0:70D:A479:6EF9 ( talk) 00:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Language is important. Words like pogrom, or riot, or massacre don't seem to be an exact fit to describe this event. Certainly the opening description "a white supremacist terrorist massacre" taken from a modern newspaper article by a black rights activist is factually incorrect and misleading. First because there were two massacres: the initial one when over 70 black militants shot and killed 10 white Tulsans. The second problem is that we cannot know what was in the 'invaders' minds. Describing them all as 'white supremacists' is a matter of imagination and modern speculation not fact. Indeed since initially many were formally deputized as a legitimate posse in hot pursuit of a large armed gang which had just committed large scale murder, then racism seems to have been a minor motivation if any at all. That opening description is best removed to the end of the page under 'modern views' or some similar category. 92.0.21.222 ( talk) 15:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
As I said in my post, Riot in it's original usage is the best term, there are other pages like Atlanta about similar events in the states, and pretty much all the international incidents like Delhi or Aleppo use that kind of language. The issue is mainly down to modern America post-LA riots using the term in a very specific way that Tulsa and Elaine(and honestly most race riots even if the pages haven't been renamed) don't fit, while most of the rest of the world still uses Riot in a big tent 'any sort of riotous and violent mob action' way, including violent protests, pogroms, sports riots, and race riots, and in that sense these events do fully fit under Riot.
So it's basically about whether you want to go with the international language or the American language on the incident — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:5054:2A99:3576:E40F ( talk) 19:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
The Tulsa event is historically problematic because despite being a very real event it has been subject to journalistic sensationalism, dramatization, politicization, and folk myth.
Editorial selection is therefore challenging, not least since if we think we already know the story we are likely to be influenced by that questionable foreknowledge to include elements which confirm our expectations, and to omit or ignore material which runs counter to our expectations.
But despite those difficulties this wikipage is still by far the best source of information about the Tulsa event of 1921 available on the Internet.
There are however some areas which should be improved:
1.The title Tulsa Race 'Massacre' is fine; that is the official designation the event now goes by. But the word 'massacre' needs to be used with care and discretion in the general text, first because there were in effect two massacres, one of whites and one of blacks; and indeed the second of those might be equally described as a 'battle' rather than a 'massacre'.
2.The Klu Klux Klan rightly gets a mention, it's exactly what we would expect. But what about the role of the African Blood Brotherhood? At the time it was the ABB which was widely blamed for the whole debacle. Meanwhile the ABB claimed that in the aftermath there were indeed secret mass graves - but of white casualties, not of black! Here's one link, but there are many others:
3. 'Buck' Franklin's celebrated account of the bombing of Greenwood rightly gets given prominence. It was given extensive publicity when it was discovered. It's content is exactly what we would expect. But any college student who quotes from it will himself/herself surely get shot down in academic flames if he or she fails to mention that, puzzlingly, Franklin published a very different and totally contradictory account of his experiences in his autobiography 'My Life and an Era' (Available from Amazon). Far better, and academically proper, to quote from both.
These criticisms aside I'd like to emphasize that this wikipage is by far the best source of information available about this complicated, confused and confusing subject. All other sources are far less trustworthy and/or omit key information. Well done wikipedians. 92.26.176.67 ( talk) 12:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The lead in this article states: "The commission's final report, published in 2001, states that the city had conspired with the mob of white citizens against Black citizens"
That is factually untrue. The relevant section is on pages 10 and 11 of the report.
Page 11 states: "Others — again, including members of this commission — have studied the same question and examined the same evidence, but they have looked at it in different ways. They see there no proof of conspiracy. Selfish desires surely. Awful effects certainly. But not a conspiracy. Both sides have evidence that they consider convincing, but neither side can convince the other."
In other words "some people think it was a conspiracy others don't". That's all the report says. Please amend text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.217.179 ( talk) 15:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC) the section that says "Perpetrators - White American mob" should also include "Armed blacks", the shooting at the jail started with the murder of an elderly white man by a black man. (as stated in the test, so that should be included.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.90.232 ( talk) 23:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh, the caucasity!! 108.46.129.23 ( talk) 00:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Kaelynkrandall.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 11:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Just wondering why the 'B' in black is capitalized, and the 'W' in white is not. Some kind of political statement? -- LeeBonolo ( talk) 03:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Buck Franklin actually left three written accounts of the Tulsa riot. The first as a 1922 contribution to the Parrish book reffed overleaf. The second in his 1959 autobiography 'My Life and an Era' (pub 1997). Little of the dramatic detail of the '1931' manuscript appears in either of those two memoirs. Franklin does however mention in his autobiography (p 273) that he is a writer of historical fiction. Students of the Tulsa riot may therefore at least pause to wonder if the celebrated '1931' manuscript is fact, or fiction, whilst critically comparing the three quite different accounts. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
79.79.205.235 (
talk)
13:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC) Sock of indef blocked
User:Cassandrathesceptic
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I find it strange that "Black" is capitalized while "white" is not. I understand that both words have the option of capitalization and so, whether capitalized or not, no gramattical rules are being violated, but capitalizing one and not the other seems inconsistent to me. I attempted to edit the article so both words would be consistently capitalized, but it seems like someone undid my edit. I suppose the issue may be contentious and up for debate. I, for one, think both words should either be consistently capitalized throughout the article or consistently uncapitalized. I don't see capitalizing one and not the other as being justified. 66.91.36.8 ( talk) 04:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate the exposition. I was unaware there was this prevailing default style of capitalization in American media, though I feel like, as a regular consumer of said media, I would've noticed this. I don't claim to be an expert on the matter and I can conceivably believe a particular grammatical standard has been developing right under my nose, so to speak, unbeknownst to me, so, for all intents and purposes, I will defer to the expertise of others. I still see the juxtaposition of capitalized "Black" and uncapitalized "white" as peculiar and conspiculously unnatural, but perhaps in time my brain will adjust and accept it as the new standard.
At any rate, I see someone has edited the article to have both "black" and "white" uncapitalized. To be honest, this seems the most natural and optimal solution. Admittedly, when I originally capitalized both "Black" and "White," I merely did it to keep the capitalizations consistent between the two. I worried that decapitalizing "Black" could be perceived as offensive or disrespectful (or at least not giving due respect), so I chose to capitalize "white" instead to bring the capitalizations in sync. While the consistency in capitalization was an improvement, admittedly, capitalized "Black" and "White" peppered throughout the article did not look quite right either; I dare say they looked awkward. Visually, uncapitalized "black" and "white" seem the most natural, but I suppose that could be a personal bias and perhaps each individual reader will have a preference toward what he or she is used to.
As to the "logic" behind the practice, I can appreciate the different historical paths both words (and races) have taken to reach their current incarnations, but I'm not sure I agree such historical context justifies differential treatment. I understand that words and their meanings (both connotations and denotations), grammar, syntax, punctuation, capitalization, and really all elements of language, written, spoken, and signed/gestured are wholly influenced by the individuals and societies which utilize them. I further understand the distinctions and implications that allow for "Black History Month" and "Black Pride Day" without a corresponding "White History Month" and "White Pride Day." Historically, Western/European/white culture has suppressed black history and black pride, while oppressing the black race. Modern American society recognizes this and has responded with an attempt to compensate for the injustices of its past. Some would argue that every month is "White History Month," since in American schools history is frequently taught in a biased manner from a "white" perspective with much of the mistreatment and injustices toward African Americans glossed over and many of their contributions to American society given short shrift or left out entirely. Thus, one "Black History Month" is a step in the right direction, but hardly makes up for centuries of oppression, disenfranchisement, abuse, slavery, lynchings, and so much more.
The question is, does the capitalization of the word "Black" contribute toward this reparative sentiment? Is it yet another remedial gesture meant to indemnify a wronged people? Or is it an overcorrection that only serves to reinforce a discriminatory mindset, only this time in the reverse direction?
Clearly capitalization, at its core, serves to give deference and due respect to the subject. One only has to look to the Christian Bible to witness countless examples of capitalizations imbued with veneration, from "Lord" to "God," to basic pronouns like "He," and "Him." Names are capitalized out of respect for the subjects. It then stands to reason that by capitalizing "Black," we are giving due respect to that race. However, by intentionally not capitalizing "white," it further stands to reason that we are not giving respect to that race, perhaps even disrespecting it. At least, that's the logic I am perceiving (though I may be falling victim to the logical fallacy of the inverse). With this so-called new standard, we are unilaterally elevating one race above another. Whether intentional or not, this is the message implicitly sent.
Perhaps this is an instance of the pendulum swinging in the opposite direction, a necessary action before it heads back toward the center where all races will be afforded equal levels of respect in all aspects of society.
I suppose one could cite other examples of controversial, race-related issues where discriminatory treatment is warranted in the interest of justice, such as Affirmative Action, race-based scholarships, funding of HBCUs, hate crime legislation, the NAACP, etc. One could argue that there is no National Association for the Advancement of White People and that's not fair, except that you could really consider the entire US government from its inception until practically the present day as the National Association for the Advancement of White People. Even the slogan "Black Lives Matter" can be perceived as discriminatory and some see it as implying "White Lives Don't Matter" (though that is clearly a logical fallacy since the inverse of a statement is not implied by the statement). And when a white person wears dreadlocks or a dashiki it's considered "cultural appropriation," but the same pejorative label is not applied to African Americans who straighten their hair or dye it blonde. Some see this as unfair. I'll refrain from delving further into the debate of what's fair, just, right, or equitable with regard to these controversial policies, practices, and political, cultural, and social matters. Clearly these issues are very nuanced and historical context needs to be factored in. They are not just black and white, pun intended.
Perhaps the capitalization of the races falls into this category as well. Personally, I think that may be overcomplicating things a bit. Personally, I think treating the races equally in society and in writing should be a goal we should all strive to achieve.
I realize that something like a "White Pride Day" sounds a tad neo-Nazi-ish and White Supremacist-y, but I don't think it is necessarily bad to celebrate your culture even if you are white, just as long as you don't use it as a pretext to spread racist propaganda and "Superior Race" ideology. That's just my two cents.
TLDR: While differential or discriminatory treatment can be acceptable and just under certain circumstances, I don't feel this extends to the capitalization of the races. 66.91.36.8 ( talk) 22:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Uhh, how about putting back in all the journal entries of black people saying how beautiful it was to see white men die that day?
Or about the part about the mentally ill black man firing indiscriminately into buildings??? Netside ( talk) 07:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Hey, @ EricSpokane, what was your reasoning behind this reversion? Valereee ( talk) 17:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Buck Franklin wrote a much more extensive account of the Tulsa riot in his 1959 autobiography 'My Life and an Era'. It's a somewhat different story from the 1931 manuscript. Well worth reading, and quoting from. 92.18.144.69 ( talk) 13:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
The article included B/w previously, so restoring to previous version. Using B/w is not outside of policy, and at articles focussed on racial subjects it isn't uncommon; discussion happens at each article. Valereee ( talk) 13:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
More and more often Black is capitalized to refer to Black people in the United States, while white has continued to be lowercase. See for example, in the context of Tulsa specifically, NY Times doing exactly that, same for CNN, same for ABC News, while the Washington Post capitalizes both. I think the balance of sources are shifting to capitalizing Black and not white, and think this article should follow, but as a general thing I think this almost falls under ENGVAR and article wide changes need consensus. nableezy - 21:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
OgamD218, I see you've reverted again while we're discussing and before responding to other editors when your viewpoint has not yet gained consensus? Not sure why you'd do that. Valereee ( talk) 12:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Actually I found the RFC at the MOS here. I think thats wrong, but I suppose the way to challenge that is with a new RFC instead of arguing about it here. nableezy - 14:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
@ SMcCandlish: I've fixed the inconsistent capitalization, per previous RfCs. 2601:547:501:8F90:8B3:D8CE:57DE:2B93 ( talk) 23:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
@ OgamD218: See my message above regarding inconsistent capitalization. 2601:547:501:8F90:8B3:D8CE:57DE:2B93 ( talk) 23:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I see there's been some edit warring over MOS:RACECAPS. I don't have a dog in this fight, but the last discussion seemed to repeatedly bring up the possibility of an RFC, though one was never brought up.
I'd also point out that this has been discussed a few times at the RACECAPS talk page.
I bring this all up because I think the issue should be discussed on the talk page, rather than subject to continuing reverts in the article content, so I'm hoping this sparks discussion. It seems to me that an appropriate reaction to all this would be to either:
Hope this helps-- Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk) 15:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I removed the overloaded cleanup tag, which looked far less encyclopedic than anything in the article. There were also complaints in that tag that, to me, just seemed incredibly inapt, and weren't detailed on the talk page. (For example, I can't imagine one reasonably describing this article as a "collection of lists"; I also don't see the "overloaded IBs [infoboxes]" complaint.) That said, I have added back a few flags using the multiple issues template-- Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk) 01:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
@ Zsinj: Why are you edit-warring to reinsert vandalism that is WP:OR and unsupported by the given references?
2601:547:500:2090:653F:F926:9256:E4D3 ( talk) 01:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
[2]. Doug Weller talk 08:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Sarah Page was in fact 21 years old. Ref: https://www.centerforpublicsecrets.org/post/the-notorious-sarah-page 92.12.213.166 ( talk) 14:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
It's really just a simple question of the facts. And the evidence. The above mentioned article includes photos of a newspaper notice, marriage documents and a gravestone, each one of which is good rock-solid evidence. The obvious fact is that she was 21 not 17 as mis-reported at the time and repeated ever since. Probably best to change the text to 'reportedly then aged 17 but in fact 21' with a ref to the above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.7.105 ( talk) 16:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Lead says "The commission" without context. -- 2001:1C06:19CA:D600:2A57:8028:8B22:2039 ( talk) 16:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the background section starts with: "[...] Tulsa also supported a large number of affluent, educated, and professional African-American residents". As a non-native speaker, I suppose this is meant to convey that they had expertise in their respective professional discipline, but I find the wording weird, it sounds like being black is a job in itself. Wouldn't "highly skilled" be a better wording? Pygy ( talk) 07:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
There seems to be some quite detailed and useful testimonies of black survivors under the survivor section, giving a good historical perspective. However, why do we not have any accounts from white survivors explaining their experience? 203.46.132.214 ( talk) 04:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be a primary source from the time linked, that shows that the street was known as "black wall street." Even the source linked doesn't say it was "negro wall street." Could we verify this and add one? 2601:603:1080:BD90:BC5D:6E81:32F1:598 ( talk) 06:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Seeing as people are moving away from the term riot to describe this sort of event(even though there's a long history of it, see Atlanta Race Riots, Aleppo Riots, 1984 Delhi Anti-Sikh Riots, Elaine Riots, Salvador Peasant Riots), I get the name change, English is a living language, riot doesn't have that connotation of mass violence the way it used to to many people especially post 1992, I get it, not gonna argue that.
But I feel Pogrom is probably the best word to fit what this was, given the racial component of the event and the civilian lead nature of the event(Massacre would fit better if it was top down, this was bottom up lead by citizens, that's a pogrom) 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:91E0:70D:A479:6EF9 ( talk) 00:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Language is important. Words like pogrom, or riot, or massacre don't seem to be an exact fit to describe this event. Certainly the opening description "a white supremacist terrorist massacre" taken from a modern newspaper article by a black rights activist is factually incorrect and misleading. First because there were two massacres: the initial one when over 70 black militants shot and killed 10 white Tulsans. The second problem is that we cannot know what was in the 'invaders' minds. Describing them all as 'white supremacists' is a matter of imagination and modern speculation not fact. Indeed since initially many were formally deputized as a legitimate posse in hot pursuit of a large armed gang which had just committed large scale murder, then racism seems to have been a minor motivation if any at all. That opening description is best removed to the end of the page under 'modern views' or some similar category. 92.0.21.222 ( talk) 15:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
As I said in my post, Riot in it's original usage is the best term, there are other pages like Atlanta about similar events in the states, and pretty much all the international incidents like Delhi or Aleppo use that kind of language. The issue is mainly down to modern America post-LA riots using the term in a very specific way that Tulsa and Elaine(and honestly most race riots even if the pages haven't been renamed) don't fit, while most of the rest of the world still uses Riot in a big tent 'any sort of riotous and violent mob action' way, including violent protests, pogroms, sports riots, and race riots, and in that sense these events do fully fit under Riot.
So it's basically about whether you want to go with the international language or the American language on the incident — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:5054:2A99:3576:E40F ( talk) 19:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
The Tulsa event is historically problematic because despite being a very real event it has been subject to journalistic sensationalism, dramatization, politicization, and folk myth.
Editorial selection is therefore challenging, not least since if we think we already know the story we are likely to be influenced by that questionable foreknowledge to include elements which confirm our expectations, and to omit or ignore material which runs counter to our expectations.
But despite those difficulties this wikipage is still by far the best source of information about the Tulsa event of 1921 available on the Internet.
There are however some areas which should be improved:
1.The title Tulsa Race 'Massacre' is fine; that is the official designation the event now goes by. But the word 'massacre' needs to be used with care and discretion in the general text, first because there were in effect two massacres, one of whites and one of blacks; and indeed the second of those might be equally described as a 'battle' rather than a 'massacre'.
2.The Klu Klux Klan rightly gets a mention, it's exactly what we would expect. But what about the role of the African Blood Brotherhood? At the time it was the ABB which was widely blamed for the whole debacle. Meanwhile the ABB claimed that in the aftermath there were indeed secret mass graves - but of white casualties, not of black! Here's one link, but there are many others:
3. 'Buck' Franklin's celebrated account of the bombing of Greenwood rightly gets given prominence. It was given extensive publicity when it was discovered. It's content is exactly what we would expect. But any college student who quotes from it will himself/herself surely get shot down in academic flames if he or she fails to mention that, puzzlingly, Franklin published a very different and totally contradictory account of his experiences in his autobiography 'My Life and an Era' (Available from Amazon). Far better, and academically proper, to quote from both.
These criticisms aside I'd like to emphasize that this wikipage is by far the best source of information available about this complicated, confused and confusing subject. All other sources are far less trustworthy and/or omit key information. Well done wikipedians. 92.26.176.67 ( talk) 12:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)