Talk:Tulsa race massacre: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m →‎top: Talk page template cleanup (incl. repairs from previous cleanups)
Line 60: Line 60:


The last paragraph of the [[Tulsa race massacre#Background|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? [[User:Pygy|Pygy]] ([[User talk:Pygy|talk]]) 07:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the [[Tulsa race massacre#Background|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? [[User:Pygy|Pygy]] ([[User talk:Pygy|talk]]) 07:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

== No inclusion of "white" accounts under the survivor section? ==

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? [[Special:Contributions/203.46.132.214|203.46.132.214]] ([[User talk:203.46.132.214|talk]]) 04:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:51, 23 November 2023

Sarah Page, the 17-year-old white elevator operator

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)[reply]

There is no other substantiation of this; Most sources, including Wikipedia, say she was 17. Doubtful that the above link is considered a trusted source. Wikipedia has a newspaper clipping that says 17.2601:645:4300:EE90:405C:C41F:FF4F:4A73 (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Most sources, including Wikipedia, say she was 17" oh well then. Herostratus (talk) 06:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, the Center for Public Secrets is definitely on a crusade. If there was some reason for them wanting to present the person as 21 instead of 17 (which I suppose is possible... maybe to present her as a grown woman who ought to be able to handle things like this and is liable as an adult for her actions and was more likely to have been deliberately evil rather than just scared, or whatever), then I wouldn't trust them not to. That's in addition to not knowing how rigorous their fact-checking is, thus simple error is also a possibility. Herostratus (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK. Reasonable point. We do have people whose birth date is disputed -- Gene Tierney, Sonny Liston, Stan Kenton, Jackie DeShannon, many other I'm sure. The usual solution is we usually say "December 7, 1942[refs] or December 7, 1943[refs]". If we're stone cold sure that we know the date but that's there's a false date floating around, we would be like "December 7, 1942[Note A]" and Note A would explain the situation. Or maybe no note, just explain the situation in the body text. (And leave a hidden note for future editors, and/or possibly a FAQ note on the talk page.)
For the latter, we need to have good refs for 21, and have no good refs for 17. For the former, we'd need to have good refs for both.
I don't consider the Center for Public Secrets reliable. I personally consider Find A Grave reliable for pictures of headstones (but little else), but the Wikipedia considers Find A Grave unreliable for everything, as the content is user uploads and there's zero fact-checking (and the photographer could have the wrong person, or even in theory be deliberately hoaxing). We'd need a photo from Tulsa government or the Tulsa Globe-Democrat or something like that.
So you're going to need to find some better refs. What you have isn't even worth a note. I have insufficient confidence that the guy didn't just make it up or just heard it somewhere. Herostratus (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The commission"

Lead says "The commission" without context. --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:2A57:8028:8B22:2039 (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wording

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)[reply]

No inclusion of "white" accounts under the survivor section?

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)[reply]