Talk:Tulsa race massacre

Encounter in the elevator

these references are somewhat shady. the first begins by simply calling the elevator operator, Sarah Page a woman of ill repute. "As a matter of fact, she was of exceedingly doubtful reputation"
http://digitalprairie.ok.gov/cdm/compoundobject/collection/race-riot/id/1412 june 29, 1921 on the second page, he echos the same story which was published in the Tulsa daily world that he stepped on her foot by accident. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85042345/1921-06-01/ed-1/seq-1/ TDW june 1, 1921

the second reference is a retelling of hearsay gossip injecting an erotic fantasy into the story and specifically identified as merely a matter of opinion."Damie Ford later suggested that this might have been the case..." ""I'm going to tell you the truth...He could have been going with the girl"

"Others, however, have speculated that the pair might have been lovers -- a dangerous and potentially deadly taboo, but not an impossibility. Damie Ford later suggested that this might have been the case, as did Samuel M. Jackson, who operated a funeral parlor in Greenwood at the time of the riot. "I'm going to tell you the truth," Jackson told riot historian Ruth Avery a half century later, "He could have been going with the girl. You go through life and you find that somebody likes you. That's all there is to it." However, Robert Fairchild, who shined shoes with Rowland, disagreed. "At that time," Fairchild later recalled, "the Negro had so much fear that he didn't bother with integrated relationship[s]." https://web.archive.org/web/20131210225357/http://www.tulsareparations.org/TulsaRiot.htm this is the same as above http://www.okhistory.org/research/forms/freport.pdf

So, Ideally, the two above references should be replaced with the primary source if they are to be used, the heresay interviews. Oral history interviews with: Damie Rowland Ford, Tulsa, July 22, 1972; S.M. Jackson and Eunice Cloman Jackson, Tulsa, June 26, 1971; and Robert L. Fairchild, Tulsa, April 18, 1971; all by Ruth Sigler Avery, in Fear: The Fifth Horseman. Oral history interview with Robert Fairchild, Tulsa, June 8, 1978.

The inflammatory Tulsa Tribune - state edition article stated that he scratched her arms and face, something he denied. He claimed to have stood on her foot by accident. She didnt press charges. that's all the information we have.

is it entirely appropriate to start the article with derogatory yellow journalism? is it absolutely necessary to start the story by calling Sarah Page a woman of ill repute? does the erotic fantasy really serve a useful and informative purpose except when specifically describing the sensational newspaper articles? WP:RS WP:NPOVS WP:QUESTIONABLE WP:V — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.198.13.161 (talk) 07:23, June 19, 2018 (UTC)

Should the main page be named "Tulsa race massacre" instead of "Tulsa race riot"?

UPDATE 2018-11-28: When I originally suggested the rename below to "Tulsa race massacre", I wasn't aware of the past discussion of this issue. Based on that edit history and on Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events), I reluctantly conclude that we should leave the title as "Tulsa race riot" at least for now. As an experienced editor said to me in a thoughtful discussion about this article: "There is a certain deliberate conservatism to English Wikipedia's approach, and it protects against certain kinds of threats admirably, and it also slows down some good changes too." I'll let my argument below stay here, so that at least if anyone else comes to look they will immediately see that the rename has been considered multiple times before. If common usage outside Wikipedia starts to change, then some day it will be appropriate to rename this article accordingly. In addition to the New Yorker Magazine article cited below, the article A Racial Awakening by Liz Farmer also uses the term "massacre", and even touches on some reasons why the question of how the event was classified might have made a difference for insurance purposes.

Here's the original suggestion:

Argument (possible re-usable some day) for renaming the page "Tulsa race massacre"

On 20 Nov 2018 I moved the page to "Tulsa race massacre" (with redirection, of course), giving this as the edit message:

The term "massacre" is far more accurate than "riot" for the events described in this page. The former is also a recognized usage; for example, the New Yorker magazine used "race massacre" (and not "riot") to refer to this event, in https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/11/05/americas-other-family-separation-crisis.

I then updated the text of the page accordingly, though making it clear that "riot" is also commonly used to refer to this event. Here's the edit message for that change:

Use "massacre" instead of "riot" wherever appropriate, but preserve "riot" in references and in contexts where that is the source's usage. This a specific case of the more general problem of how Wikipedia should handle the situation of an inaccurate (often somewhat evasive) term that had been used for a long time being replaced in common usage with an already-available, more-accurate term. I hope the solution here works, but recognize it may need further discussion and improvement.

A few days later, Srnec reverted the page rename, with this change message:

reverting move: should be discussed - surely whites can 'race riot', too?

Agreed -- let's discuss it. My original edit messages give the reasoning behind the change, but I can expand on them here. I confess I didn't fully understand Srnec's edit message for the reversion (since my reasoning for the original change had nothing to do with the race of the people doing the slaughtering: it would have been a massacre either way), but on my talk page Srnec left a more detailed note:

I reverted your move because the term "Tulsa race massacre" is much less common, so I think a discussion is necessary to determine if it is nonetheless a better descriptive term. I myself am agnostic: a "riot" does not need to be (indeed usually isn't) two-sided and the level of violence, death and destruction here seems to be on the same order of magnitude as the 1967 Detroit riot or the 1992 Los Angeles riots. But then maybe the Tulsa incident has more in common with, say, Kristallnacht (not a riot) than America's other race-related riots.

I will address two separate questions here: one, which term is definitionally more appropriate, and two, historical usage (in the specific context of similar events) related to those definitions and how that usage is changing.

As far as definitions go, I think it's a pretty clear case. The event in Tulsa is more accurately described as a "massacre": that's the narrower and more specific term, and it completely matches what happened -- this is pretty much what the word "massacre" is for. One could say that it was also a "riot" in the sense of being a "violent disturbance of the peace, by a crowd", but the really significant thing in Tulsa was that people (almost all of them African-American) were violently killed, i.e., it wasn't just that shop windows were broken and property destroyed, etc. So it's a "massacre": an "indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people". When there is a choice of two terms, and one of them more closely matches the thing being described, then, all other things being equal, we should use the narrower, closer term. We wouldn't say "World Event II", we would say "World War II", because although it was an "event" it was also an instance of that subset of events known as "wars".

I agree with Srnec's reasoning by analogy with Kristallnacht, and also point out that some of the other events that some Americans have historically been called "race riots" were also massacres. The use of the term "riot" has in some cases been deliberately -- though perhaps unconsciously -- avoidant. Something like the New York City draft riots might be a much closer call: it started as just a riot, and then became something more in between a riot and a massacre. But what happened in Tulsa is more clear cut, in any case.

The recent choice of "race massacre" that I cited in the New Yorker is a sign that a once-common term is now being understood as having been avoidant language all along, and that a more accurate term should be used if available. I'll offer another example: across the American South, many historical markers referred to slaves as "servants". For example, you could go to Monticello and see plaques and pamphlets describing what life was like when Thomas Jefferson lived there, and those documents would often refer to slaves as "servants" (they've apparently fixed this now, but it was still true when I visited many years ago). This choice of language was the norm for a long time, even though it was less accurate. It's analogous to the "riot" vs "massacre" question here, in that it obscures what actually happened and thus weakens historical memory. A reader is less likely to think of a "riot" as targeting a particular group than they are to think of a "massacre" as targeting a particular group. But the vast majority of the deaths in the Tulsa event were indeed within the targeted group: African-Americans living in Tulsa in 1921. Therefore, I argue that Wikipedia should choose the more accurate term (as the New Yorker magazine did), and not unwittingly cooperate with a particular political agenda by describing the event in a way that obscures what actually happened.

One could argue, of course, that historical accuracy is also a political agenda, but that particular agenda is one that Wikipedia has long openly allied itself with. I guess what I'm really saying is that Wikipedia should serve its political agenda instead of someone else's, and Wikipedia's agenda is making accurate information available to as many people as possible.

@Srnec: that's why I propose that the main name for the page be "Tulsa race massacre". I appreciate your invitation to discuss, and am interested to read counterarguments.

Best regards,

--Karl Fogel 17:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kfogel: I never got around to responding to you before you posted your update. I too was unaware of the previous discussions. Since you have "retracted" for now your proposal to re-title the article I will not give a detailed response. I agree that historical accuracy is part of Wikipedia's agenda. "Pogrom" strikes me as a good compromise term, but its usage is still too restricted to anti-Semitic attacks. Looking at the previous move request, I agree mostly with User:SnowFire that the articles should have been nominated individually and there are probably some that should be moved. Srnec (talk) 02:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

no, it shouldnt be renamed. it has been historically referred to as the tulsa race riot. it is referred to currently as 'the tulsa race riots' including in the modern report published by the state of oklahoma. furthermore, the 'massacre' was initially reported in what the head of the national guard referred to as 'yellow journalism.' no such massacre took place, you can refer to the tulsa daily world in the week before and after the fire, i have previously posted these articles as references in the article. the reports from the national guard state that they didnt find many people murderred during their brief investigation of the scene as had previously been reported in tabloids, just a few people who were known to police and whom the daily world reported in an interview as being itinerant criminals. deaths were suggested in the red cross report to largely have been a result of the fire or circumstances following the widespread homelessness. 49.198.45.217 (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

black residents of Oklahoma argued for participants in the incident to be prosecuted as rioters in 1921. the emotionally charged, inflammatory language proposed is not technically or legally relevant but a political stunt.

article XLV. 2558. RIOT DEFINED. Any use of force or violence or any threat to use force or violence if accompanied by immediate power of execution by three or more persons acting together and without authority of law, is riot.

R.L.1910, § 2558. 175.36.196.38 (talk) 09:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Srnec and Kfogel: After reading the discussions and looking up the definition of both massacre and riot, both could be used for the title however after conducting a google search riot is defined as such "a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd" and massacre as "an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people". If we consider historical accuracy to be the "political agenda" of Wikipedia then we should also consider we are not restricted to the opinion of the accounts from Tulsa citizens of 1921. Much like in a court case if science or technology evolve and shed new light on past verdicts we should use our knowledge of current day in reporting accuracy of this event that went unrecorded for many years.

First, there were no immediate investigations or legal proceedings by law enforcement or the local government leading up to or following the deaths which would have removed the need for this discussion because it would have clarified the causes of death. Second, we know this historical event involved the deaths of multiple people in a way they could not realistically defend themselves against i.e. no support from local law enforcement and the local government, and use of airplanes in attacks. This information in itself is more characteristic of a massacre whereas a riot traditionally involves failure by law enforcement to stop a mass of people destroying/stealing property, inadvertent loss of life as a result of damage to materials, and support by the government/law enforcement to include at a minimum due process prior to finding of guilt and retribution. Third, considering the social perspective of this time in American history and that history is usually written (omitted in this case) by the victor, logically can we rely on use of "Tulsa Race Riots" or "Yellow Journalism" by authorities of this same time and place if they didn't feel the need to denounce or prevent the incident to begin with? Black Oklahoma residents of 1921 arguing for use of "rioters" instead of "murderers" is also not as credible, considering if you just witnessed your community burned down and its residents killed, how likely are you to criminalize white citizens of the city you live in when you are too afraid to report the incident and there is no guarantee this type of event will not happen again?

A way to reality check this is; how would this event be labelled if it happened in today's time? Multiple people die following a city's reaction to a two-person disagreement, no investigations are conducted prior to or immediately after the deaths, and technology not accessible to those dead was used in their killing. The amount of property damage may be why some see this as a riot instead of massacre so it really comes down to what is most significant about this event the deaths or destruction of property?

@Meters: This paragraph more directly addresses if riot or massacre are commonly used for this event.

In short, both riot and massacre could be used, historically riot was used, however current day definitions more closely match massacre and the decision by white and black Tulsa Oklahoma residents of 1921 to euphemize massacre with riot is more a reflection of their omission of the event through fear, ignorance, and dated social perspectives than because of a desire for historical accuracy. —  comment added by Mawfia (talk) 05:02, February 11, 2019 (UTC)

Please learn to indent and sign your talk page posts. Meters (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not a question of which word fits the situation better. It's a question of which term is commonly used as the name of the event. See WP:COMMONNAME. Meters (talk) 05:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

John W. Franklin

an eyewitness account was discovered in 2015, authored by Buck Colbert Franklin, a black Greenwood attorney at the time of the riots. His grandson and the cultural historian and senior manager at Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture, John W. Franklin, was paraphrased by Allison Keyes in an article in the Smithsonian, as stating something along the lines of, "[the american people] has been in denial over the fact that people were cruel enough to bomb the black community from the air, in private planes, and that black people were machine-gunned down in the streets." John Franklin was apparently not referring to his grandfathers document as proof to support this, but making a general statement. This may be confusing for some readers, as it is confusing for me, why they would jump into stating this without proof, and with the consensus of a number of historians disavowing such a belief. This is especially disturbing as a stanford graduate and holding a prestigious position as a historian in the case of Franklin, and Allison Keyes, as a journalist.

I have added substantial referenced statements to the article including instances of hyperbole that franklin uses. no other reports exist to cooberate the use of operational machine guns, only heresay of the use of one machine gun, which was for a 'show of force' but it was not operational, did not have an operational water cooling rig or feeder and could only be fired single-shot and was in possession by the national guard in the morning, not at night. franklin reports that he he saw multiple flashes and concludes these must be multiple machine guns. he states that he saw the ground covered in burning turpentine balls. but this is what many of the building roofs were made of, a mixture of pine tar, pitch, cotton and softwood. today covering a dwelling in incredibly flammable materials might sound unreasonable because of fire codes devellopped around 1905 after the establishment of underwriters associations which collectively bargained for building insurance and were able to dictate building codes to some extent by refusing to negotiate with cities that failed to institute their building reccommendations.

I referenced Plano,texas because it's perhaps the only modern city that still used traditional wooden roofing across 70% of its residences and has been heavily criticised for using such an antiquated construction material. in the tuberville PhD, he says that large collections of such buildings were destroyed in an almost routine fashion which is why you dont see large collections of such buildings anymore.

this is a relevant addition to the article because it has been cited by the smithsonian magazine as prooving the area was firebombed when the reliable cited sources indicate that in a large urban conflagration, specifically with the types of buildings constructed in the greenwood area at this time, fires will appear to start from the rooftops even when they are not bombed. previously, this smithsonian reference was used instead of a direct link to franklin's report. but their claims that franklin's conclusion that they must be under attack from the air because planes+fire=bombs isnt a logical conclusion as per the following discussion i have added to the article that provides a historical understanding of the cause of the fire. 175.36.196.38 (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Original research

I've started a discussion at WP:NORN#Tulsa race riot original research about a fire. There may be more OR in the article as I've not checked the edits about Franklin. Doug Weller talk 08:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The most recent edit is full of OR about what isn't in documents, etc. As well as " Furthermore it curious that witnesses claimed Brady dedicated the tarring and feathering to, "the women and children of Belgium." The reference to Belgium may be a reference to the WW1 occupation of Belgium by Germany." Where's the source? Doug Weller talk 17:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Part of it in here --Askedonty (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Askedonty: good work. So the OR statement that "it is curious" is just that, original research. Doug Weller talk 18:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

NPOV tags must have specific discussion there

and the one for "New eyewitness account" does not. The IP has said at WP:NORN that I'm trying to avoid an ongoing NPOV by saying their edits are original research, but I still haven't a clue what they mean. Doug Weller talk 08:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

NPOV issues, eg misrepresentation of a source to discredit a source in this article

I'm trying not to get in an edit war with the IP adding original research, but keep finding more problems. For instance, the IP wrote ".It was reported, in an indie magazine in its first year of publication, by a freelance reporter described in the Columbia Journalism Review as,"having never done a lick of journalism before,"[31] citing an entire archive as a source, that a UCLA investigator reported seeing "five dead negroes", including one man who was dragged behind a car with a noose around his neck.[32][citation needed]The reporter has since died and the magazine closed after less than seven years of publication in 2017". This seems clearly an attempt to discredit the journalist and the following text is original research arguing with the journalist.

But if you look at the source,[1] you'll find a different view of the journalist:

"Here’s the kicker: Chapman had never published an article in his life. He explored Tulsa’s history as a hobby. Should he be allowed to call himself a journalist, or to say he conducted journalism?

Fuck, yes. The act of journalism doesn’t require a career. It requires a 42-year-old Lee Roy Chapman hunched over a 90-year-old document in the Western History Collection at the University of Oklahoma. And when that act of collection and contextualization gets refined through skill and craftsmanship, journalism takes on even greater qualities. Chapman’s 3,500-word article forced all of Tulsa to address its racial divide. At its height, journalism does not simply displace power or shed new light; it is power and it is light." Doug Weller talk 17:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

my point is that the author was not a reputable journalist from a reputable news source. as per the gentlemanly rules, I did not make any personal attacks upon the author, merely stated that the source is not from a reputable journalist. I should add to the article that the article was syndicated internationally with it being mentioned in associated press articles by various reputable news agencies and multiple books on the topic of the history of greenwood/tulsa however the reputability of the source has never been questioned. recently tulsa city has begun renaming streets and public places based on this single image which has been regarded as absolute proof that Brady tarred and feathered a black man. if you read the obituaries of the late Mr. Chapman, the author of that section in the CJR was the owner/founder/editor of the Land Press and personal friend of chapman. I feel its best to be cautious of such sources as they begin to border on heresay. there's no shortage of misquotations and misrepresentations in the oklahoma commission report which is why i've used legal and accounting documents from the archives of the state of oklahoma. I've especially done this whenever I found an author make a quotation, looked it up and found figures or statements did not match so that I didnt end up with multiple duplicate references with different content all citing the same source. 175.36.196.38 (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

References

NPOV riot participants

In the state of Oklahoma, according to the statute below that has been in effect since 1910 without change, only participates in a riot if they do so "without authority of law" as the national guard and police acted with the authority of law, they cannot be perpetrators.

article XLV. 2558. RIOT DEFINED. Any use of force or violence or any threat to use force or violence if accompanied by immediate power of execution by three or more persons acting together and without authority of law, is riot.

R.L.1910, § 2558.

NPOV participants: black residents

participants has been changed to white mob, black residents. there is definitely an NPOV issue in this article in which some editors and academic sources wish to represent every black citizen of tulsa as completely innocent. there was violence committed by both 'black' and 'white' residents of tulsa. I contend that according to Oklahoma's Riot statute, that any group of three or more who take unlawful violent action constitutes a riot. I presented evidence to show that there were black rioters. there should be consistency in the use of terms mob and residents. either the participants were white residents and black residents or white mob and black mob. 175.36.196.38 (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

We rely on what secondary sources say about the subject. Policy doesn't allow us to take a primary source such as the riot statute and allow us to label people according to our interpretation of it, right or wrong. Doug Weller talk 15:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD WP:SECONDARYNOTGOOD primary sources can be used. for example I have used sworn statements penned by attorneys and reputable law enforcement officers signed by corroborating witnesses and submitted as testimony that is of official record and sourced from official state archives. although it is definitely a matter of perspective in the case of eye witness testimony, it is wiki policy that such references can be used if you say it is what the particular party said rather than definite fact. I have been unable to find any modern secondary sources discussing the involvement of black rioters but black residents of tulsa who were employed as trusted persons submitted signed statements under penalty of perjury and loss of reputation within the following fortnight of the event gives some credibility to the sources. if a thorough discussion of the topic existed I would use it. This is also acceptable as many of the secondary sources also simply reference and quote a single primary source, with no synthesis of different accounts, studies or other investigations, as proof of their points. in such cases it's not really a secondary source but a quotation or paraphrase of a a primary source anyway.

The use of different levels of severity of involvement seems unjustified given the evidence presented that an organised group of black residents also rioted. 175.36.196.38 (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I would give examples of other articles that use the phrase, "Parties to the civil conflict." 1968 Chicago riots and 1968 Washington, D.C. riots, in the section of King assassination riots may be better examples. In such cases proof exists of some fairly extreme violence perpetrated by law enforcement officers yet is a more objective and tame rendering in the infobox. labelling the national guard and police force as perpetrators of the violence in the case of this incident, in the infobox, without proof of any such involvement is factually incorrect and WP:POVPUSH. I would suggest that the infobox format used for the king assassination riots articles be adopted for this article and the listing of 'white' rioters and 'black' rioters be included. 175.36.196.38 (talk) 04:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Should article title mention alternate names?

My great grandmother hid her African-American maid in their Tulsa basement in 1921 fearing for everyone's life, and she barely ever spoke of it again out of fear - this fear censors us before we speak up, it silences our views due to very real threats of lethal violence, and though it's an unpopular opinion in the state of Oklahoma, it is my firm point of view that calling this a "Race Riot" is an erasure of genocide akin to calling what happened in Auschwitz a "religious riot."

To avoid outright denial of genocide, Wikipedia needs to respect the objective view point that many people do refer to this as a pogrom[1]; many do refer to this as a massacre[2]; we exist in large numbers and we will not be erased from the encyclopedic record.

I understand that the majority of people do ignorantly call this a "Race Riot," yet there are so many of us who refuse that name - how can it be a riot when the police and national guard were participating, given that the legal definition of a riot is that it's in violation of police orders?

To be encyclopedic and neutral in point of view, it's vital to keep the article's mention of the alternative names for this incident, especially including pogrom and massacre.

I was disappointed to see that this article was whitewashed in January of 2019 as all alternative names were erased from the article, and I implore the objectively neutral Wikipedia community to recognize the alternative names of this ethnic cleansing incident.

[1] https://daily.jstor.org/the-devastation-of-black-wall-street/ [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2018/09/28/feature/they-was-killing-black-people/?noredirect=on