Talk:Tulsa race riot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oklahoma Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Oklahoma, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Oklahoma.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article is of Top-importance within WikiProject Oklahoma.
This article is supported by Taskforce Tulsa.
WikiProject Secret Societies This article is within the scope of WikiProject Secret Societies,
a WikiProject which aims to improve all articles related to Secret Societies.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low-importance within Secret Societies articles.

This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Please read this statement

This article has a checkered past when it comes to Neutral point of view issues and Edit wars. The result of this activity was an irretrievably damaged article that needed to be nearly completely replaced.

The result of this overhaul left the article as it reads now, minus a handful of typographic corrections. The entire current article is based on a single piece of source material: Final Report of the Oklahoma Commission to Study the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921. This article is therefore accurate based on the source cited, but needs additional material with verifiable sources to fill in the gaps and to assure neutrality.

Because this article has proven to have subject matter that is very sensitive to some contributors (and rightfully so), and because of the contentious history of the article itself, virtually all new material added will need verifiable sources cited. For details on cited sources, please review Citing sources. Please review No original research. Also, please reframe from deleting or overwriting existing material without first posting your intentions on this discussion page. Any deletion without discussion and consensus to delete will result in an immediate reversion. Thank you for being curtious, and happy editing. Thanks, Master Scott Hall 05:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You have no authority to make this declaration, Scott. Tulsino 02:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is EVERY massacre in the US against Black people called a Riot? This is a massacre, plain and simple. Mass Graves, Government coverups, and rounding up people to be shot. MASSACRE. -Unsigned

The mass graves are a pure urban legend. In fact, this whole article is pretty biased towards the more sensational and rumor-laden aspects of the riot. Government coverups, psh. Next you're going to spout that idiotic old wives' tale that there were bombers flying over the city. -RannXXV 04:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I am framilar with the subject and I assure you that there are no mass graves and there is a consensus among black and white survivors of the riot that the "aerial bombers" legend is a hoax. MafiaCapo 21:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

How can anybody state a fact regarding this incident. There may have been mass graves, we don't know for sure because there was never an attempt to find out if there were. There may have also been air attacks, there were citations of aircrafts hoovering over Greenwood in a white newspaper; we will never know for sure if these aircrafts were involved in the distruction of Greenwood because no one, who wouldn't be considered biased, that was present there could give us such facts. The main point of having such an event written is just to know what happened (using what few facts we do have), and what we should work toward as humans; not to criticize the beliefs of what each person might believe happened or push your own beliefs. My point, however, is that any sensationalization or downplaying of the event will seem bias to someone, especially when it is not backed by something other than personal accounts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garlickgrl (talk • contribs) 17:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] So-Called Vandalism

So. I see User:Dtasripin has brought his POV-based edit war over here, along with accusations of vandalism. Very well, I will not touch the article further, save to add the markers that it is not of proper quality and is not NPOV. -RannXXV 21:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

And there we go. Now, if someone cares to start sourcing the claims of mass graves to any sort of evidence, hopefully credible evidence, and clean it up to use less sensationalist language, maybe it will become a Wikipedia-quality article. -RannXXV 21:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tulsa Race Riot overhaul

I have made a very honest attempt to turn this article into a solid and hopefully neutral encyclopedic piece. In the process, I am certain that many facts and figures have been missed. I hope that other contributors will continued to add, in good faith, additional factual, NPOV information to this important article. I have added a 'Controversy' section to facilitate other points of view, and encourage contributors to use the Talk/Discussion page to work out differences and conflicts of opinion. This article has the potential to become a significantly educational article and a great asset to the worldwide readers and users of Wikipedia.

I pulled most of the facts and figures directly from the Race Riot Commission Report. I realize that there are many differing points of view on this subject, but I used what appeared to be the most neutral source available to build a basic structure for this article - to provide a framework for future changes and additions. I am not attempting to establish this source as the only source for credible facts on this sensitive subject.

I also invite those who excel at writing scripts and templates to add the appropriate citations to this article. This is another reason I tried to stick with a single source this early on - to make it easier to cite sources.

Thanks --Master Scott Hall 22:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unknown user: 68.0.119.82

Thank you for your contribution to this article. Based on the points made in the statement at the top of this discussion page, your contributions can not stand as is. The edit concerning Dick Rowland after the riot will be reverted. You may replace this material without overwriting existing material if you are able to provide a cited source. The edit concerning the dumping of bodies will stand pending citaion of Reliable sources. If no sources are provided within a reasonable amount of time, this edit will be reverted as well.

Note: I have heard these details mentioned, and don't doubt their validity. But in order to develop and maintain the credibility of this article and Wikipedia in general, all material must come from reliable sources and be verifiable. Thank you, Master Scott Hall 05:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: The edits made by User:68.0.119.82 have been reverted based on reasons discussed above. Thanks, Master Scott Hall | Talk 04:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unknown User:128.32.14.36

User:128.32.14.36: Thank you for your interest in contributing to this article. As has been stated above, due to the sensitive nature of the subject matter in this article, and its long history of edit-warring and POV complications, any deletions or otherwise altering of existing content will be reverted unless first discussed on this talk page and a consensus reached with fellow contributing editors. This, coupled with your history of questionable edits, makes the motivations behind your most recent edits highly suspicious. Based on these points, your recent edits will be reverted. If you do not agree with this action, please discuss it here.

Perhaps, if you wish to change this editor's suspicion about the motivations behind your editing habits, you could consider contributing quality content (in other words, adding new, neutral, verifiable information) to this and other articles instead of strategically deleting/modifying/quasi-vandalizing content in an apparent effort distort its intended purpose. Another step toward gaining general acceptance and credibility would be to identify yourself and sign your work. Thanks, Master Scott | Talk 15:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] poorly cited

one citation at the end of this article is not sufficient. citations are needed throughout the article.

Tulsino 02:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

  • What purpose would it serve to have [1][2][3][4][5]...[999][1000] peppered all through the article, when they all point to the same source? I think Mr. Hall's explanation at the top of the talk page -- the one you struck-thru -- is valid and appropriate. On the other hand, it probably *is* appropriate to add the "cite sources" template to the top of the article. --Robertb-dc 17:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The [1][2] etc would show what really appears in the sources and what doesn't. I am new to this article and when I see questionable statements have no option but to read the whole cited report. Tulsino 05:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV claim

An anonymous IP address added a NPOV tag to the "Looting and burning" section. I don't see why, and they didn't bother to tell us here. Does describing a defense as "valiant" constitute a pro-defender POV? Are "countless" and "many" too unclear? Maybe so, but if there are no concrete suggestions on how to make it more NPOV, then I think it would be appropriate to remove the tag. --Robertb-dc 16:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subtle POV shift?

The tone of the article was changed, in a rather subtle way, by an anonymous user's recent edits. The descriptions of the whites seemed to change from "mob" to "community" -- and the blacks changed from a "community" to a "mob". I would be tempted to chalk it up to a difference in wording, except for this change:

Before:

In the most generally accepted account, Rowland tripped upon entering the elevator and, in an effort to prevent himself from falling, grabbed the arm of Page, who subsequently let out a startled gasp or scream. In a less-accepted account, among others, it has been suggested that the two had had a lover's quarrel, but very few, on either side of the debate believe that any kind of actual assault occurred.

After:

It has been suggested that the two had a quarrel, and it is believed that the young lady was assaulted.

This incident, the spark that ignited the entire event, has been changed from saying that "few believe there was an assault" to "she was assaulted". To me, this shows the other edits in a different light altogether. With that in mind, I am reverting all the changes by 72.185.200.99 (whose only recent edits are to this article). Please note any objections here, as I am only trying to revert possible vandalism, not inject my own POV. --Robertb-dc 18:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  • What's the deal? There are at least two recent reverts where the paragraph above has been changed to:

It has been suggested that the two had had a lover's quarrel, and few believe that any kind of actual assault occurred.

As before, the change is accompanied by several other, more subtle POV shifts. Why the need to move blame to the victims? It's been almost a century, folks. I think we white folks should be able to accept by now that people the same color as us did some awful things back then. On the other hand, I guess it could be worse. --Robertb-dc 15:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • And again! With almost the same revisions. It seems there is one person out there who has a vendetta against this article. Keep spittin' in the wind, dude. Keep on spittin' in the wind. --Robertb-dc 13:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"I think we white folks should be able to accept by now that people the same color as us did some awful things back then." - Robertb, I would not ascribe the most neutral point of view to you, especially given this statement. Validate your claims, then make revisions. By the way, I can guarantee you there is more than one person that has a problem with the article as you write it. I can swear to you that I only use one IP address (believe this if you choose, I do not care), and have no affiliation with the reasonable others that feel these revisions are more reflective of a neutral POV.24.161.233.224 04:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you for stepping up and acknowledging the changes! I respectfully disagree, however, with your assertion that you are making the article "more reflective of a neutral POV". Let's start with an example that is far closer to the borderline than many of the others:

Before: Whether or not an actual assault had occurred, Dick Rowland had reason to be fearful. Such an accusation, rightful or not, in those days was enough to incite certain segments of the white public to forgo due process and take such matters into their own hands. Upon realizing the gravity of the situation, he fled to his mother's house in the Greenwood neighborhood.

After: Whether or not an actual assault had occurred, Dick Rowland had reason to be fearful. Such an accusation, rightful or not, in those days was enough to incite certain segments of the public to forgo due process and take such matters into their own hands. Upon realizing the gravity of the situation, he fled to his mother's house in the Greenwood neighborhood.

Removing the word "white" from the paragraph below makes it less accurate, not more neutral. Although if you have evidence of black mobs lynching whites for alleged offences, it would be very interesting to read. NPOV does not mean making everyone look like the good guys.

I would also very much like to know what is wrong with my talk page statement. It clearly upsets you, and I'm curious why? --Robertb-dc 20:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

To respond: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina_civil_disturbances_of_1876. There you go -evidence of black mobs lynching whites, with a link. There are plenty more instances. Mob violence went both ways, although that is beside the point here, or should be. The talk page statement did not so much upset me as it did reveal your own bias. Your talk page statement, while I agree, makes it seem that we through this article we (as humans, whoever reading this, whatever their color may be) should accept that whites did awful things to blacks, and you wish to convey that through this article. This is not what Wikipedia stands for. Wikipedia strives for historical objectivity, not a push for a modern agenda, however admirable it may be. A historically objective article allows the reader to make his or her own decisions about the occurances of the past; your article, as written, serves to make these judgments for them, and that right there is the main source of my disagreement. Hope this clears things up. Respectfully, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.161.233.224 (talk • contribs).

  • It's not my article. In that spirit, let's see what the rest of the community has to say about the issue. Meanwhile, thanks for the link! Also, may I suggest creating an account? You're able to address me by name, but I can't extend the same courtesy to you. I would also suggest you learn more about Wiki formatting standards, like using [[South Carolina civil disturbances of 1876]] instead of creating an external link. Your knowledge of what makes Wikipedia work on a technical basis has no bearing on this discussion, of course, but some might think it implies a lack of familiarity with other Wikipedia policies. --Robertb-dc 14:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Upmost Importance

This article is listed under Oklahoma pages of "unknown importance". This is a critical turning point in race relations in this state. It is of highest importance, IMO. Hopquick 03:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Now it makes sense

I wondered why this article had been subject to so much revisionism (as detailed above), but it makes sense now. As detailed in this Tulsa World article, the parties to the lawsuit against the state, asking for the reparations recommended in 2001, were recently before the US Congress in an attempt to extend the Statute of Limitations for the case. This, apparently, brought out the worst in some editors, making edits like the ones detailed above, changing "very few, on either side of the debate believe that any kind of actual assault occurred" to "it is believed that the young lady was assaulted", along with other more subtle changes. Reparations are always a touchy issue, so I guess it's inevitable that the Wikipedia article would become embroiled in the fight. At least now we have a better idea of the reason behind the POV shift. --Robertb-dc 19:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Are there still no other sources to be found for this article? I would say it fails NPOV and encyclopedic style miserably. I came here because I followed a link from Roy Belton, however that case is not mentioned in this article. Also, I certainly assume the "statement" at the top of the page is meant to help, but it comes across as ownership. Ursasapien (talk) 09:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with revision

There are plenty of sources for the riot and the ensuing looting and burning. Unfortunately, this is a highly politicized topic that has become even more divisive since the Race Riot Commission shifted its focus from looking for the truth to reparations. The Commission report is a true compromise since it seems none of the groups really agrees with it. There are a variety of arguments with it, from the unpublished manuscripts like William O'Brien's Who speaks for us? : The responsible citizens of Tulsa in 1921. Jenks (Okla.) : William M. O'Brien, 2002 and Norris, Robert D. The Oklahoma National Guard and the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921 : a historical, tactical and legal analysis. Tulsa : [s.n.], [2003], and Gates, Eddie Faye. Riot on Greenwood: The Total Destruction of Black Wall Street. Sunbelt Eakin, 2003. None of these agree with the others. However, Commission's report is the version of events that was accepted by the Legislature.

Among the major issues still under dispute are whether the Klan was directly involved; the number of people killed in the Riot; the presence of mass graves; if there was an active conspiracy to destroy the Greenwood district, to keep the African American victims from rebuilding, and to cover up the events; and the disagreement between "white evidence" and "black evidence".

It is generally believed that the Klan was behind the burning and looting even though there is no provable Klan presence in the state until a few months later (according to the late Danny Goble in the latest edition of the Historical Atlas of Oklahoma (2007), the first official incident of Klan related violence was in Muskogee, in July). People tend to point out that Tulsa had a huge Klan presence in the 20s, but overlook that the Tulsa Klavern (no.2 in the State) was created at the end of August, 1921, with the induction of 300 members. Is it possible that there were Klan members operating behind the scenes at the Riot? Sure, but if they were there it can't be proven.

Oklahoma was definitely racist during this period, and there were a large number of lynchings that took place, including that of the above mentioned Roy Belton, a white man. There were also a lot of other incidents of a similar nature, such as the assaults on a number of people accused of being members of the IWW.

The disagreement about the number of people killed, I believe, confuses the number of people who were directly killed, and those who died as a result of the riot, but that's my opinion.

If there were hundreds to thousands of people killed, that leads us to the question of mass graves. Several sites were identified in the folklore as being grave sites, and while Clyde Snow had originally received authorization to dig those sites, that authorization was pulled when several of the Race Riot Commission objected to digging (according to several witnesses at the meeting in question, the reason for the objection was the realization that if the sites were dug and no bodies were found, it might hurt the case for repercussions).

There has been a long standing belief that there was an active conspiracy, particularly among the white elites to destroy the Greenwood district, to keep the African American victims from rebuilding, and to cover up the events. I doubt there was any active conspiracy, but I have no doubts that the there were those who were willing to take advantage of the situation. Tulsa, going into the 20s still had a strong reputation of lawlessness. For example, a federal report made in 1921, before the riot, listed a number of brothels on both sides of the tracks centered on the area where the shooting took place all night long after the initial riot. One thing that is not often discussed is that the Commission examined the property records and discovered that while many people lost their property in the looting and burning, the majority of those properties were white owned rental properties. It is also frequently obscured that the African American citizens rebuilt bigger and better than before. The final demise of the Greenwood District (as did the decline and demise of many Black communities in Oklahoma) eventually came about after desegregation. The current vacant district was cleared during "urban renewal" in the late 60s and early 70s.

Finally, one of the arguments that were sparked during the Race Riot Commission was between "white evidence" (written documentation) and "black evidence" (oral traditions).

It's a messy topic, and it may take many more years before there is any true consensus.--68.0.71.149 06:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Out of the Ashes

The Tulsa based dance and youth arts group, Nubian Heritage Arts, based in Apache Circle in North Tulsa, is launching a year of art pieces, spoken work, dance, sculpture, and more as a commemoration and awareness of the 1921 riot. The mission statement of Nubian Heritage Arts is to educate and empower underserved youth, through arts education. NHA is currently planning entertainment, workshops, and outreach to public schools in this vein. NHA is a 501c3 non profit organization. Find out more by emailing nubianheritagearts.com. 68.0.119.114 02:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inflation-ised dollar estimate

I'll stay away from all the arguments about POV et al and update the dollar amount that equates 1.8 million 1921 US dollars to $17 million of today. As with all such figures, they erode with time, and as it's about a 2000 estimate, I have adjusted the figure for 2007 dollars to $21 million. Was it necessary I told you so? Eh. Aragond (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

The following is not clear: "Private and armoried guns," Do you mean guns taken from the National Guard armory?Fconaway (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thx. Tried tweaking it (don't know, successfully). --Justmeherenow (talk) 06:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Mmm. The National Guard has always maintained that none of their weapons were removed and used by the rioters. Moreover, in the report of the National Guard commander, LTC Rooney indicated that a machine gun was supplied by MAJ Daley who indicated that "we dug it up", and Rooney assumed it came from the Police Department. It was "not in repair and could only be used only as a single shot piece." And for the record, there is no proven evidence that any incinerators were used. Marccarlson (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit]  ????

Just like everything else "negro" based in this world, things are covered up. We will never know what actually happened. The World will twist things to pity the "negro's", thats how America is now. I am not racist by any means. As far as suing Tulsa and/or The State of Oklahoma??? I think "negro's" should be happy how America had turned out. They now have more right's than White people. So for all the sympathizer's look at the world and tell me who needs more right's

Trey

  • The history of the Race Riot has been one of the white folks generally doing the "covering up" in Tulsa.Marccarlson (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question about Capitalization

I'm not going to change the edits because I'm really not sure about the interpretation for the Manual of Style for Wikipedia, but I believe that it's based on Chicago. I think that the Chicago style says that proper names should be capitalized. The generally accepted name for the event is the Tulsa Race Riot, with the caps (the OCLC/World Cat subject heading, for instance is "Tulsa Race Riot, 1921.". If the Wiki style is to put the proper names in lower case, that's fine, but if so, "Tulsa Race War" should be in lower case. Could someone who is more knowledgeable on this please comment? Marccarlson (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:CAPS states: For page titles, always use lowercase after the first word, and do not capitalize second and subsequent words, unless: the title is a proper noun. Now the question becomes, is this title a proper noun that would be capitalized irregardless of context. Ursasapien (talk) 07:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)