Talk:Watts riots

message: This article doesn't make sense, as it lacks a vital piece of information: was Marquette Frye black? Perhaps you all already know, and the events that followed indicate that was the case, but the article doesn't state it at any point.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.246.228 (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The introductory paragraph indicates the riots lasted six days and did $100 million worth of damage. The description of the riots says the riots lasted five days and did $200 million worth of damage. One of the external references at the bottom estimates damages from $50-$100 million. Could somebody who knows more about this topic try to clean some of this data up? I came to this page solely to learn more, not because I am an expert, and therefore I think I'm somewhat unqualified. I would be very interested to read this article if an expert could add some more concrete information. Thanks! BucInExile 22:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsistencies

message: My grandfather, Joseph Thompson, was the third officer to arrive on scene at the initial arrest, could that somehow be worked into the article?--Acebrock 20:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you could get a source and make a well-written piece about the events of the arrest, it should be fine. Good luck! 69.115.70.39 (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  could this be added? 

message: Did this event happen in '65? Other sources I found says this happened in '66.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.119.191.219 (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leonard Deadwyler 

message: From the background section, first paragraph. It mentions one police officer arriving, then the crowd getting violent with police officers, plural.  When did more officers arrive, it goes from waiting for the impound to arrive to a group of hundreds.  
The riots began on August 11, 1965, in Watts, a neighborhood in Los Angeles, when Lee Minikus, a California Highway Patrol motorcycle officer, pulled over Marquette Frye, who Minikus believed was intoxicated because of his observed erratic driving. Frye failed to pass sobriety tests; including walking in a straight line and touching his nose, and was arrested soon after. Minikus refused to let Frye's brother, Ronald, drive the car home, and radioed for it to be impounded. As events escalated, a crowd of onlookers steadily grew from dozens to hundreds.[1] The mob became violent, throwing rocks and other objects while shouting at the police officers. A struggle ensued shortly resulting in the arrest of Frye, Ronald, and their mother.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by KVND (talk • contribs) 09:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear paragraph

message: I integrated most of the information in the Day-by-Day Timeline and the Government Intervention section into The Riot section. None of the information in the day-by-day was cited and some of it was not very compelling (i.e. "rioting continued"). The information in the Government Intervention section was also not cited and it was very very specific about the national guard. I found the 50-page report that is probably the source of that information and I put it as one of the references in The Riot section so those that are interested in reading about the national guard involvement can do so. Please let me know if you think that was a horrible idea. Thanks!Rachel librarian (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections Merged - Day-by-Day & Government Intervention 

message: This was marked as unsourced in the article. I have first-hand knowledge but no sources. If my parents were still alive I would have sources. We moved from South Central Los Angeles in 1957 to Inglewood. Inglewood was a "whites only" suburb of Los Angeles. I also worked in the phone company office that served parts of Watts during the riots. Here is what I know.
My dad volunteered as a Reserve Police Office in Inglewood as well as his "day job" where he had to drive from Inglewood to a 99% black area north of Watts. My mother sold real estate in Inglewood.
Along the Los Angeles-Inglewood border (Morningside Park part of Inglewood) there were signs along residential streets that no black (it probably said negro -- it's been a long time) were allowed on the streets after dark. The reason was that many people in the area had (black) maids and such and it was to say they needed to go home rather than live-in. I asked my dad and we looked this up. It was actually on the books as a traffic ordinance (because black people would be a traffic hazard).
On the north border between Inglewood and Los Angeles one street (as I remember, 64th street) was the dividing line. There were black people living on the LA side but not the Inglewood side. My mother had been told that she could not show houses to black people in Inglewood as "they were not allowed".
I don't have any sources but it would seem likely that someone would have a photo of one of the "traffic ordinance" signs. 
Nicafyl (talk) 14:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  De-facto segregation 

message: Thank you, Dick. I get this result, too, for <the watts riot> in ngram. It is indefensible to argue that WP should surrender its house-style and go with minority usage in this case. Tony (talk)  00:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The "house-style" favours capitalisation when it is necessary. It is necessary here for a variety of reasons. What you've provided isn't evidence at all, as many of those usages may be descriptive, rather than referring to this particular event. Britannica capitalises the Watts Riots. Per WP:UCN, "Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used". We must write in the encyclopaedic register. Britannica uses capitalisation, and so should we. We're not writing a rag paper. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a more precise ngram, with lowercase "the" at the start, to more thoroughly weed out title-case titles. The evidence it shows is overwhelming. RG is now suggesting that "the watts riots" might contain a significant proportion of other Watts riots. Like which ones? This is clutching at straws.No admin could sanely close this as a do-nothing RM given that the opposers offer no credible logic or evidence against the move. And Gloucester is now twisting MOSCAPS around to favour his agenda ... so that don't unnecessarily capitalise becomes capitalise when necessary. And he hasn't shown why it's necessary, aside from a series of "I am right, you are wrong" arguments above. Tony (talk)  06:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The guideline says "avoids unnecessary capitalisation". That means that capitalisation is required when it is necessary. Per WP:UCN, as I cited above, we're writing in the encyclopaedic register. Britannica capitalises it, demonstrating that the capitalisation is more suitable to that register. Therefore, capitalisation is necessary to maintain our stature as an encylopaedia, and to coincide with sources that are referring to these particular events. RGloucester  — ☎ 07:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *Tony, as it stands, no sane admin would close this in favour of the move, because there isn't anything remotely approaching a consensus. Quite frankly, I'm shocked you'd even attempt to make that statement. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *Luke, the first thing to say in response is that an RM is not a numbers game. It depends on what the participants are saying. This is why a closer is required, rather than an automatic vote-counting machine. Tony (talk)  14:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *Correct, it isn't just a numbers game. However, there are two people in support, and almost everyone else who has !voted has voted no; and your dismissive comment of "the opposers offer no credible logic or evidence against the move" is utterly inaccurate and unhelpful. The fact that only one person so far has explicitly taken the same viewpoint as you should indicate that we who opposed may actually have a point, right? This discussion isn't filled with brand-new accounts either. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well that's like saying it's not a numbers game, but then again, it is. Tony (talk)  14:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you realise that interpretation of MOSCAPS is determined through consensus of editors at pages up for discussion. The only reason you succeeded in some of the moves you've mentioned is because they were little-watched pages with few contributors to the discussion. Per agreement with the initiator of this request, this RM was broadly advertised. Now we have a larger swath of the Wikipedia community participating, and it is clear that the decapitalisation cabal is not representative of mainstream interpretation of the MOS. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *No, Tony, it isn't saying that. What it is saying is that consensus is that the existing setup does comply with the guidelines, and that your claim of "the opposers offer no credible logic or evidence against the move" is clearly bogus. IF that were the case, then there would be far more supporters. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

text: I too would support decapitalising the "Carnation massacre". I think it is best that we decide here what articles are clearly at descriptive titles. That's one of them. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal analysis has found that the following articles are at descriptive titles, and should be decapitalised: Carnation Massacre, Seattle Mardi Gras Riots, and Keddie Murders. These are clearly descriptive titles that should not be capitalised, and which do not have capitalisation used frequently in sources. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Further evidence of downcasing in the lit

message: Please see Talk:Carnation_Massacre#Requested_move_13_December_2014 and advise if my attempt to ping did not generate a notification for you.  It did not for myself, but maybe it's not supposed to.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Follow up

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Houston Riot (1917) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 18:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: That RM closed with comment The result of the move request was: consensus to move the pages, except no consensus in this discussion to move Watts Riots at this time, per the discussion below. If a new request is needed for Watts Riots based on the new evidence, please proceed, but I think we're getting to the point where it may be helpful to take a break and come back later.
For future reference, the evidence that had been presented there is copied here.  The part on occurrences in encyclopedias was added at the end, so was not yet reflected in comments.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Future move considerations

message: See the section #Future move considerations above for data saved from previous discussion at Talk:Houston Riot (1917)#Requested move 14 December 2014.  Add new data here.
Note that the data on usage in encyclopedias was collected too late to influence the prior discussion, where RGloucester had argued that "WP:UCN tells us that we must give weight to other encyclopaedias".  Such weight would clearly be in favor of the proposal to move to lowercase, consistent with all the other evidence. Dicklyon (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Data

message: I am goinng to add the pov tag because this article is in breach of the neutrality policy all the way through. It is beyond reasonable doubt that it was written by people who are on the side of rioters rather than law and order. I am not going to get further involved because I am not American and have no special interest in the topic, which I came across by chance, but in its present state the article brings wikipedia into disrepute. 81.99.182.245 (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to be specific about problems. What is the number one most offensive sentence and we can start with that. Rjensen (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-neutral all the way through

message: This page features a lot of testimony from police and state officials on accounts of the riots, but no reciprocal accounts are given by people who participated in or witnessed the riots in the same section detailing the actions of policemen. Also, using language such as maintaining order might appear neutral, but it hides the the violence that police use to enforce that "order". Could more descriptive language be used to illustrate the violence that police visited upon the black population of Watts during the riots. Jdevin07 (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have the sources, you can make the edits yourself. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions about Riots Begin Section

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . Community Tech bot (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The Watts Riots (referred to as the Watts Rebellion) is referenced in episode 5 of the Japanese anime series Haruchika. A character's grandfather is said to have traveled to America in 1966 and experienced the riots. Though they took place in 1965, this error may be intentional because the subplot related to the riots is a red herring. 
I have no experience editing Wikipedia but I figured it was a reference most people wouldn't catch since the anime is not particularly popular and American race relations are not a topic covered by anime very often.
Someone more qualified than me can verify the scene referring to the riots by watching episode 5 starting at 14 minutes 32 seconds (it is available for viewing on Funimation's YouTube channel.
Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.176.251 (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural Reference