Talk:Tulsa race massacre/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Conspiracy?

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)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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)

Inconsistent Capitalization

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)

Quite a leap, that. Please look closer. I see black, Black, white and White throughout. The article is merely inconsistent, which you will encounter regularly here. It just needs a copy-edit for consistency. Feel free to do so.Lindenfall (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Buck Franklin - Three differing accounts

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

Good points. Do you have any links to sources that establish the facts? Lindenfall (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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)

Capitalization

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 mean, there isn't one right answer here, but it's not uncommon to see this nowadays in publications. It's a relatively new thing and has caught on fast. It's been discussed but I f'get where, I'm not sure there's any formal guidance, so as far as I know it's neither prescribed or proscribed.
There are logical reasons for this, and it's kind of similar why you have "Black History Month" and "Black Pride Day" but not "White History Month" and "White Pride Day" -- they are not parallel terms, because history, and it's complicated and I won't go into that here.
It looks a little bit jarring to me too, and I'd prefer replacing "black" with "African American" rather than capitalizing. But capitalizing "Black" (and not "white") is the current practice in American media generally, so it's probably best we just go with the flow here, unless or until there's a formal guidance that covers the entire 'Pedia. Herostratus (talk) 06:58, 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, this has been black washed.

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)

reversion

Hey, @EricSpokane, what was your reasoning behind this reversion? Valereee (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

reverted Valereee (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Franklin autobiogrpahy

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)

restored version with Black/white, please discuss instead of edit-warring

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)

@Valereee (talk), Here "restoring to previous version"-is not in reference to long standing content. A lone editor made the B/w change in multiple piecemeal steps-a change repeatedly fixed by other editors to either b/w or B/W-both of which are appropriate and despite claims to the contrary actually are inline with wiki policy, media and academic practices-which do not actually outright sanction B/w. A review of the RfCs on this issue seem to show a clear preference for this as well and stop just short of outright opposition to B/w. In actuality the preference for B/w is only for when referring to Black African Americans in contexts inapplicable to "whites",-this article does not fall into this categorization.
Regardless, the fact is media outlets are split on this issue while authorities on proper English are not-the later stress B/W or b/w. Even those outlets affirming B/w in general contexts have been clear that where the focus is not on a specific or unique group/cultural aspect etc of African Americans but instead as is the case in this article: an encyclopedic overview of a single historical event-an incident of violent between local whites and local blacks, the proper style can only be B/W or b/w. Even interpretations most favorable to B/w have been clear that this style should not be used when discussing races in the same exact setting and context especially in the same sentence as happens constantly under this revision.
Speaking as an editor who regularly contributes to articles involving race in the US, I have rarely seen the B/w as used here. B/w may be appropriate/applicable for articles such as Black Patriots and Black Loyalist given the context of the racial disposition. The restored format contains constant mentions of "B"lacks living in the city of Tulsa in 1921 and in the same sentence "w"hites-also living in Tulsa also in 1921-nothing separates the 2 groups but race-vs an article the subject of which is *Blacks who escaped slavery and took up arms for the Crown during the Revolution and are inherently distinguishable from the general population of *whites at the time. OgamD218 (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
You can open a new RfC to argue about what is current thinking in reliable sources. It's been changing a lot over the past couple years. Valereee (talk) 20:28, 1 August 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)

@Nableezy thank you for providing those links for this discussion. I agree with much of what you said as well. I feel it is important to emphasize that CNN actually does not adhere to the same policy as NYT, like WaPo; the policy of CNN is to capitalize both "B/W". I personally would not have noticed this in the CNN Article had I not read that this was their policy and will note that the convention rarely appears. This is also due to the fact that as I said previously, the "B/w" writing approach some media outlets have adopted includes an official admonition against using white and Black in the same sentence/or only a minimal number of sentences-that is the exact opposite of how this article ends up being however. Accordingly it should be noted that use of B/w appears only 2-3X in the same sentence in the NYT and never at all in the ABC article. Further, Wiki is an encyclopedia and encyclopedic standards do not condone this approach, nor do proper the MLA or APA collegiate writing guides. Despite what was said above, I do not need to open up a new RfC just bc another editor disagrees with the multiple ones that are still in effect. The change goes directly against wiki policy and cites inaccurately to media (once again NOT encyclopedic) policy. To go deeper they change even imposed "B/w" on quotes within the article that did not use them and is highly inappropriate. I am inclined to recommend that these portions of the article be re-written as B/W or at least re-phrased in those areas to be "white vs Black" however in its present form this article is not adhering to any recognized or accepted literary form. OgamD218 (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
We dont follow any one outside style guide as far as I am aware. If there isnt guidance in our manual of style then I still think this would best be treated as an ENGVAR issue and whatever we currently have stays absent a consensus to change it. I think it probably is worth bringing up in some MOS talk page on how best to approach this at a wider level. As far as citing media, in general Id agree for historical facts scholarly sources are preferred. For issues of style though, up to date sources are preferred, with preference still going to academic sources. Im sure there are more recent journal articles on this topic, Id just have to look more to find them. But IMO, Black is usually capitalized in more up to date stories, white is sometimes, not never not usually, also capitalized as White. So I would say Black should be capitalized here, and I dont have a strong preference, so far, on white. Would like a wider range of sources to be looked at. But as with all things on Wikipedia, consensus should be sought through discussion, not edit-warring. I havent really looked at the article history enough to say any one or two or twelve people are edit-warring, but at this point I think the reverting should stop, regardless of the version in the article. nableezy - 23:54, 3 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)

I began by reverting only a portion of the text (one where the inconsistency of this approach with any recognized style including the one claimed to be being utilized is most glaring (E.G. "10 whites and 2 Blacks") but given the odd way you decided to revert it in the first place it takes multiple steps and I assumed to maybe not continue in consideration of other editors weighing in. My viewpoint has long since gained consensus, despite your claims to the contrary this (1) is a recent change, one that countless other editors keep correcting, (2) it is not a proper application of any recognized style; (3) even it was would that change the fact that previous RfCs and MOS have found against its use. The burden is on you to effectuate and viable alternative or defend why a change to this style should be made. OgamD218 (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
You have two editors disagreeing that this viewpoint has long gained consensus. Valereee (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Wait, what RFC or MOS directive is there against capitalizing Black and having white lowercase? nableezy - 13:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
And to be clear, I think the balance of sources support capitalizing Black. I dont actually see how that can be in dispute. And as far as style guides, Columbia Journalism Review: Why we capitalize ‘Black’ (and not ‘white’), Associated Press: AP says it will capitalize Black but not white, NYT: The Times will start using uppercase “Black” to describe people and cultures of African origin, both in the U.S. and elsewhere (note it says We will retain lowercase treatment for “white.” While there is an obvious question of parallelism, there has been no comparable movement toward widespread adoption of a new style for “white,” and there is less of a sense that “white” describes a shared culture and history. Moreover, hate groups and white supremacists have long favored the uppercase style, which in itself is reason to avoid it.). I dont think there is any case to leave Black as black in this article. nableezy - 13:59, 5 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)

@Nableezy, I feel like I'm remembering another more recent RfC, too. Valereee (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
If there some more recent consensus on this then Id be interested in seeing it, would save the trouble of bringing it up as an RFC now. nableezy - 17:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Ugh. You're going to make me do work? ;)
I know I commented there multiple times, lemme see if I can find it. Hm...WP makes finding this kind of thing soooooo easy... FWIW, the consensus as I recall it was basically no consensus for or against B/w and that it was something that could be discussed at a given article. Valereee (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm not finding it. Going around in circles trying to. I want to say @SMcCandlish was there and might be more likely to remember? (Sorry for the ping if I'm misremembering, SMc!) Valereee (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
There was consensus against use B/w conflicting spellings in the same article, which leaves the pre-RfC status quo: a choice on a per-article basis to use b/w or B/W. We should probably just RfC this again to get a clearer result. The general site-wide default would be b/w, which already dominates in our articles, and which is consistent with the MoS principle to not capitalize things that are not near-universally capitalized. However, some made an argument that these terms, when naming ethnic groups, are acting as proper names and should all be capitalized. There was virtually no support for capitalizing "Black" by itself, and a lot of push-back against the idea as a politically charged recentism and Americanism. The full discussion is in the MoS archives somewhere. There were actually multiple discussions. Just use the archive search feature: [1]
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the links! I think there was ongoing discussion of B/w, though, somewhere? Because I feel like I remember multiple disagreements over whether any RfC had gained consensus against B/w. I'm pretty sure it was 'no consensus against' B/w, somewhere, sometime not long ago. Valereee (talk) 12:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
I think maybe it was Black/White, black/white, Black/white again? that I was remembering? Valereee (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, looking through many of the recent discussions, there's actual disagreement about whether or not the most recent RfC actually gained consensus against B/w, ever. Maybe we really do need another RfC on that actual question: is it ever up for discussion at a particular article whether B/w is the most appropriate style. The problem, of course, is that it probably comes up most often as an issue at articles dealing with racial issues, and as an ENGVAR issue at those articles. Valereee (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to be purely combative-standing policy though not perfectly clear, does not favor B/w. I am going to complete the reversion back to w/b for but to reiterate, I agree that perhaps this issue should be revisited, alternatives such as B/W might be better to purs and it may even be better to attempt to re-word much the sentences containing "black" and "white" to avoid use of these words altogether when possible-E.G. use "African-American" instead perhaps?.OgamD218 (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
I didn't think you were being combative. And you're correct that current policy as written doesn't favor B/w, and it's quite possible an RfC would clarify what wasn't clarified in the closure of the RfC. I happen to disagree with SMc on that closure, which is why I knew he'd be able to point us in the right direction.
I do not think we can avoid using the terms black and white in this article. That's one of the issues for me: this is an article about race in the US. Be careful not to change capitalization that was in quotes, btw. And consider using B/W rather than b/w, as b/w is falling further and further out of use in RS in favor of B/w and B/W. Valereee (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
I think there is some support for B/W in RS, but considerably more for B/w. I also think the argument on Americanism is silly, this mostly applies in an American context and can very easily be dealt with through WP:ENGVAR so as not to necessitate wide-ranging changes in articles not America-centric. I also think this is another failing of Wikipedia in recognizing its own systemic biases, in which a largely male, largely white, largely American and European editor class decides things on subjective grounds. The supposed NPOV bit had an "All Lives Matter" ring to it, at least IMO. nableezy - 18:48, 9 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)

MOS:RACECAPS

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.

  • In mid 2020, the issue was discussed, but the closing admin actually considered a far narrower issue: whether to require capitalization of "B/black". (See second paragraph of closing statement.)
MOS:RACECAPS actually directly comments on this proposal, saying (in note h):
A June–December 2020 proposal to capitalize "Black" (only) concluded against that idea, and also considered "Black and White", and "black and white", with no consensus to implement a rule requiring either or against mixed use where editors at a particular article believe it's appropriate. The status quo practice had been that either style was permissible, and this proposal did not overturn that. The somewhat unclear proposal closure was refined January–April 2021 and implemented, after a February–March 2021 overhaul of the rest of this section
Note: I could be having a brain lapse, but the bolded text doesn't make a ton of sense to me. It seems like it's trying to say "no consensus to implement a rule either requiring or prohibiting mixed use," but I'm speculating. I've asked on the talk page of MOS:RACECAPS to check.
  • In early 2022, there was a discussion that involved a few of the editors involved in this page's above debate. The editors debated whether Black/white had been ruled out by the June 2020 debate, and, by my reading, a majority of editors pointed out that mixed capitalization was the most opposed option in that debate, while a minority of editors seemed to suggest that it was mandatory mixed use that was opposed, and, regardless, the ultimate result was no consensus.

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:

  1. Debate whether MOS:RACECAPS allows mixed capitalization on this talk page (potentially using any appropriate dispute-resolution tools), or
  2. Start a discussion on MOS:RACECAPS asking that the guideline be changed to explicitly allow/bar mixed-use capitalization.

Hope this helps--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

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)

Vandalism and edit warring by Zsinj

@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)

The reversion of obvious vandalism (your removal of sourced content) is an exemption to 3RR. Describing the Tulsa race massacre as right-wing terrorism is supported by the last reference of the paragraph. You, on the other hand, removed the content four times. I will seek an uninvolved admin to adjudicate. ZsinjTalk 01:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
@Zsinj: Quote the passage. 2601:547:500:2090:653F:F926:9256:E4D3 (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

State superintendent of education doesn't want this taught as being about race

[2]. Doug Weller talk 08:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)
"Most sources, including Wikipedia, say she was 17" oh well then. Herostratus (talk) 06:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)

"The commission"

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

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)

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)

"Black Wall Street"

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tulsa_race_massacre/Archive_3&oldid=1217221539"