Talk:Rosewood massacre

message: The production notes, etc. on the DVD of the film version of these events say some survivors and/or descendants said there were between 40 and 150 casualties, a far cry from 14( six whites and 8 blacks). I don't have any more official, legitimate sources than that, but it's enough of a discrepancy (the other number mentioned was either 40 or 50, also a pretty big jump) that it seems worth looking into evaluating the claimed, unverifiable numbers. FangsFirst 04:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem was that it was (and still is) such a rural area that the estimates of white residents in Levy County during this time may not be accurate, and many rural counties in the South kept even shabbier statistics on black residents since most didn't vote. The authority on this should be Levy County population statistics, but the word of residents and their descendants will probably disagree for many reasons. It's not clean history, but what event really is?    Moni3 12:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Records weren't kept because blacks couldn't vote - they had been disfranchised by FL law and constitution by the turn of the century. If other estimates have been made of casualties, they should be included with caveats.--Parkwells (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that there is at least some evidence that more than six blacks and two whites were killed, I suggest changing the lead to say "At least six blacks and two whites" were killed.  Pirate Dan (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have considered this. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement did an investigation in 1996 or 1997. I don't know how in depth it was, and I did not get a copy of it. They determined, however, that the toll was six blacks and two whites (D'Orso). Black survivors count Emma Carrier and Hayward Carrier as casualties, as they did not recover either physically or mentally from the incident. I learned recently in a definitely OR word of mouth source that every once in a while someone tries to go find the mass grave that has been cited so often. I went with what the best sources have said.  --Moni3 (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualty estimates? 

message: I removed the information stating " ...and a black war veteran named Phillip Mann, who planned to settle in the town".  The wiki article for the movie based on this incident claims that "Mann", the character played by Ving Rhames in the film, was a fictional character.  Furthermore, he seems not to be named Phillip.  Furtherfurthermore, a google for "Phillip Mann" and "Rosewood" produces no relevant results.  Perhaps this article needs to be looked into farther than this one discrepancy as well.
67.60.153.104 00:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Phillip Mann

message: :Image:Rosewood Florida rc12409.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Rosewood Florida rc12409.jpg

message: At the end of the movie the white woman that started the trouble by crying rape, was apprently 
confronted at the end of the massacre by her husband. He finaly realised that the whole tale had been a lie and that she had'nt been beaten by a black man..he then proceeded to beat her himself.
That's how the movie ended...anyone know if this is true or not? Does anyone know what happened to Fannie afterwards?
MacSas (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just came to this page to ask the very same thing.  Does anyone know whatever happened to Fannie Taylor?  And does anyone know why she told the initial lie?  Thanks.    (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

text: She apparently wanted to escape responsibility for her affair, and it was easy for people to use African Americans as scapegoats.--Parkwells (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

text: You should also consider the movie being a possible product of positive discrimination.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.116.137 (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Rosewood'' movie 

message: The article's reliance on journalistic accounts seems to make it sound like a newspaper rather than encyclopedia article.  There is little context or history. I've added material on background but will do more, and also will do editing to reduce the blow-by-blow account.--Parkwells (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Parkwells. We interacted during the FAC process for Birmingham campaign. I expanded this article some months ago using the Florida Board of Regents report, and for a while, tried to find what I could on it to bring it to better quality. Right now it has 1 main source, but that source is to date the most comprehensive account of what occurred in Rosewood. Problem is that all there was in 1923 were conflicting newspaper reports. It was actually widely reported all over the US in both black and white newspapers. There may be a few books on the subject that admittedly I haven't read. I'm a bit embarrassed about it since I have access to the library at the University of Florida, but other articles and my life got in the way. I would like to see this article come to a better quality, but the main obstacle to overcome will be the lack of reliable sources. --Moni3 (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Hi, Moni - It's always a question of having enough time, isn't it?  I'll look, too. It's an important subject, and it's great that you have worked on it. --Parkwells (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you Moni that the Regents report is the best source, especially as several historians worked on it. I think that's what we should use, rather than trying to reconcile or balance various newspaper accounts ourselves. They really provided a historic context, too, which I've used.--Parkwells (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: History/encyclopedic v. journalism

message: The text says there were about 25-30 families, but 700 people.  That doesn't make sense - even large families usually didn't number 23 members each, which is what that would amount to.  If there were 15 people/family, that would be about 450 people in 1923.--Parkwells (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Found new numbers in the 1993 report that do make sense.--Parkwells (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't intend to be contrary, but there was a cencus of the town of Rosewood, and the 1920 count put the population of Rosewood and Wylee (neighboring 'whistlestop') at almost 700, and it differentiated between white, black, and mulatto.  The Native Americans were counted as black.  In those days, the tax collectors also went door to door.  Records were made, but finding them now is the key.--Robinraftis (talk) 02:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 1920 Census numbers can be added, with a source and inline citation according to Wiki format.--Parkwells (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Population numbers don't make sense

message: Moni3, who has contributed to this article, has rewritten the lede to remove the word "pogrom" in favor of a vague description that contemporary scholars regard as concealing what transpired. 
Moni3 argues  that the term pogrom does not apply broadly to ethnic groups who are targeted for killing or removal (ethic cleansing) such as is the subject of this article on Rosewood. Moni3 suggests the term pogrom applies specifically to one ethnic group. This is contrary to the dictionary definition, which conveys that pogrom is often associated with but not limited to the Jewish experience.
I believe the lede in the current iteration tiptoes around the issue and that the lede should directly explain this history without euphemism. There is plenty of precedent for this, and in fact, this is discussed in the current issue of Black Commentator. 
The review  in the Washington Post of Elliot Jaspin's Buried in the Bitter Waters: The Hidden History of Racial Cleansing in America refers to events such as the Rosewood massacre as ethnic cleansing and pogroms.
Ohio University Press, publisher of historian Charles Lumpkins' book American Pogrom: The East St. Louis Race Riot and Black Politics uses the word pogrom in the title, and the topic addresses exactly the kind of episode described in this article re: the ethnic cleansing of Rosewood.
Historian David Levering Lewis, who has won the Pulitzer Prize twice along with many other awards, use the word pogrom to describe an incident of ethnic cleansing similar to Rosewood. 
In the current issue of Black Commentator , William Strickland, a professor at University of Massachusetts Amherst, points to the very practice of watering down the language that is the problem with the lead of this article. He writes:
 The problem is that non-mainstream history is an embarrassment to the national myths that make up America's identity so it is banished from the  national memory; hidden from national view; concealed behind what Du Bois called The Veil.  What we are left with is invented history, abetted by various "masking devices" such as historical patterns that go uncommented upon; euphemistic language such as "landed gentry" instead of slave-owners; "racial riots" instead of pogroms; "violence" instead of murder; "harassment and intimidation" instead of racial terror, ad  infinitum.
Nine years ago, Los Angeles Times reporter Claudia Kolker called the ethnic cleansing that took place all across the US a pogrom in this article titled, "A Painful Present as Historians Confront a Nation's Bloody Past"Tuesday, February 22, 2000 Kolker wrote:
With a mix of revulsion and urgency, people in communities from Florida to Oklahoma, Missouri to Texas, are also beginning to study their bloody pasts. The outlines often are similar: an individual lynching turned into a full- fledged pogrom. In some riot-wracked towns, such as Harrison, Ark., black populations vanished so completely-- having fled or been murdered--that scholars liken the results to ethnic cleansing. 
With all due respect, I ask that the lede in this article revert to the direct language--either pogrom or ethnic cleansing-- that respects the losses endured by the people of Rosewood and their descendants by stating explicitly what occurred without describing it in lesser terms that veils what went on there. Comments? Skywriter (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good gracious, this and the perplexing note on my talk page is a whole lot of bluster for a word. I'm going with what the sources characterize this as. Not general sources about race relations, but the best sources about the Rosewood massacre. The best source so far is the report given to the Florida Legislature, that called it "The Incident Which Occurred at Rosewood". Maxine Jones (who contributed to the legislature report) and Kevin McCarthy, historians at the University of Florida, call it a race riot. I protested the use of "pogrom" because never in my life heard or read the term to refer to race relations in the US South. It doesn't fit. I'm adding information to this article with the criteria for featured article in mind. Specifically, the language will be pored over numerous times before it gets there. The note I left on your page was to explain that the article will be in flux. It probably won't stay this way for a long time. --Moni3 (talk) 12:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it makes more sense to use race riot rather than pogrom, or an anachronistic word such as ethnic cleansing.  Wikipedia has many articles about incidents in the US characterized as racially motivated violence, race riot or lynching. Despite what some of the historians claim, I don't think it's appropriate to set up a new category of application for this incident.  Was it related to what we now call ethnic cleansing or pogroms?  Yes, you can say that, but it doesn't makes sense to backdate the terms for this one event, out of all similar events in US history.  Since several historians worked on the commissioned report for the legislature in the 20th c., it seems appropriate to use their language.  I changed the language in the lede sentence to "several days" to indicate the scale of the event.--Parkwells (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The other issue about word choice is that "ethnic cleansing" usually suggests that government is leading the attacks, and the government seemed involved in many of the pogroms in Russia - Rosewood was mob violence. The local government didn't do enough to protect people, but that's a different issue.--Parkwells (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Specificity of language 

message: Race riots in the 1920s occurred more in nearly rural small towns and villages than larger cities: Wauchula, Perry, and Rosewood were small towns, and Ocoee was rather small.  It seems an overstatement to say "in the 1920s residents in most urban areas were familiar with racial violence", unless you mean familiar in terms of general knowledge, because of media coverage.  More mob violence and lynchings seemed to be taking place in villages than in larger cities of Florida.  It's not clear if such villages are meant to be included in the definition of "urban areas".--Parkwells (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Urban areas" in Florida

message: Parkwells, you made two edits yesterday that I anticipate will get the attention of FA reviewers.
1. You reiterated the point about disfranchisement among blacks as the reason they did not vote in Rosewood. It is made again two paragraphs later. It needs to be in one place only, otherwise it is redundant. 
2. Although the information about the Irish in Chicago is now cited, it also seems to me to be going in a direction that the section ultimately does not go. I understand you contributed heavily to the disfranchisement article, but I'm concerned about focusing attention in this article. How important is it to mention the Irish in Chicago when we're really addressing what happened in Levy County? 
Let me know. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 12:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy editing during FAC 

message: Moni, congrats on bringing the article up to FA!  You did terrific work.--Parkwells (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Parkwells, for your comment as well as copy editing and general article assistance. If it ever gets on the main page, it should be an interesting day! --Moni3 (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, congratulations this is a really excellent article - I enjoyed reading it AND became much more knowledgeable of an improtant topic while doing so!·Maunus·ƛ· 20:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Congratulations on FA

message: The term "pencil mill" is used a few times in this article, including a picture. What the heck is it? An admittedly quick Google search didn't seem to bring up much of anything. A (very brief) explanation would be nice. Matt Deres (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources use this term to refer a factory that makes pencils. There were two in Cedar Key. --Moni3 (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  If in doubt, go with the obvious, eh? :-) It just sounded weird to me; you don't think of pencils being milled really; assembled or manufactured seem more natural. Anyway, thanks for replying. Matt Deres (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pencil mill 

message: I do no think this sounds right: "The town was abandoned by black residents during the attacks. As of 2009, none has returned." Maybe because that was 86 years ago and most of the people that survived the massacre are dead anyways? Norum (talk) 09:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: None ever returned. There is one survivor still living. Until she dies, I suppose the sentence should read as it is. Do you have an alternative? --Moni3 (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This does not sound right 

message: I edited out the reference to black codes.  The black codes were not the laws that disenfranchised black citizens in Rosewood and elsewhere from the late 19th century on.  The openly discriminatory black codes had been passed in the 1860s immediately after the Civil War, and all had been struck down by the Reconstruction Congress.  The later laws passed disenfranchising blacks in the 1890s were not called black codes, because, although their real intent and real-world enforcement were aimed squarely at African Americans, they were carefully drafted to maintain a pretense of race neutrality and thus avoid the 15th Amendment's strictures.   Pirate Dan (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading a separate source now, (FLORIDA BLACK CODES by Joe M. Richardson Florida Historical Society: The Florida Historical Quarterly volume 47 issue 4). Give me a bit to reply, please. --Moni3 (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My source sent me to another. Admitting that the intricacies of Reconstruction is not my forte, you are correct that Black Codes were imposed in 1866 and rescinded in 1867. Richardson makes such a strong point about how bigoted the post Civil War Florida Congress was and what low opinions they had of freedmen that such restrictive legislation must logically point to the poor opinion government had of the rights of black citizens in 1923, which would extend to general (white) public opinion. I am now looking to a link between Black Codes and government hostility or indifference for the blatant injustices endured by black Floridians. --Moni3 (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits appear to address the subject adequately.  Did your source mention if Florida had a grandfather clause allowing whites to vote without paying the poll tax?  My understanding is that this was common in the South, but I don't know about Florida specifically. Pirate Dan (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That source does not, but a quick search of the same publication brings up an article from 1995 titled "Disfranchisement, Women's Suffrage and the Failure of the Florida Grandfather Clause" by Tracey E. Danese that discusses the grandfather clause in detail during 1915 and 1916. If you would like the article, I can email it to you. You can try this link, too, but it might not work. --Moni3 (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears from that source that the grandfather clause was not put to a vote until 1915, and was then rejected by Florida voters.  Thus, the article's description of many poorer whites as well as African Americans being excluded from the franchise is likely correct.  Thanks for the link.  Pirate Dan (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Not "black codes"

message: Maybe link "well-publicized incident in December 1922" to the appropriate article. 92.129.155.132 (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no article for the Perry lynching (that I know of). It is discussed in the last paragraph of Racial tensions in Florida. --Moni3 (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  link 

message: On my first and second readings, the phrase The town was abandoned by black residents during the attacks. As of 2009, none have returned. made me think that Rosewood remains a ghost town with no inhabitants.  It's implied later in the article this is untrue.  Is it an abandoned town or no?  Could someone rephrase these 2 sentences to be more precise on this count?  Tempshill (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the black residents or their descendants have returned to live there. What do you think would make that clear? --Moni3 (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need "as of 2009." After seven decades we can safely say "no-one returned." Richard75 (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I was going for accuracy. There is one survivor still alive. --Moni3 (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that that is better; the only ambiguity I felt was whether anyone lived there at all. Our article on Rosewood, Florida makes it clear that the place has been abandoned. Perhaps we could rephrase the sentence to make it clear that nobody came back at all? Matt Deres (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not quite abandoned. There's an active Baptist church there. John Wright's house is still standing and occupied. There are some mobile homes and a storage facility along Highway 24. It's still very rural. The only remnants of the black settlement is a cemetery off the main highway that has some crumbling headstones of the Goins and Carrier families from around the turn of the 20th century. --Moni3 (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "none have returned" 

message: The word "seeking" is misspelled here. Because it is link-enabled, I at first assumed there was some ulterior reason for the misspelling. However, the article does not bear that out, nor does the disambiguation page for "seaking." If this is a reference to a specific misspelling in a pertinent document, that should be explained explicitly. Otherwise, the spelling error should be corrected. I'll be happy to correct it if there are no objections here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boegiboe (talk • contribs) 03:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You've been tagged by the vandalism fairy. . A simple undo will suffice. --Moni3 (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Seaking Justice" 

message: According to the book Emancipation Betrayed by Paul Ortiz (University of California press) there was a similar incident on a much larger scale in the town of Ocoee, FA on November 2, 1920.  The entire community was wiped out, and between 30 and sixty African Americans and two Whites were killed(Page 221-223).   69.122.132.127 (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's mentioned briefly in this article in the Racial tensions in Florida section. --Moni3 (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation to the Ocoee Massacre 

message: An editor added this mystery novel published in 2001 as one of the representations of the Rosewood story, but another editor deleted it because of lack of citation. I was curious about it and found the book and its author discussed in a 2008 published book of interviews with 24 Florida crime writers, as the author has had several mysteries set in Florida, with some recurring main characters. She uses the form to deal with complex social issues.  Such mysteries are one of the ways in which complex events continue to be studied and interpreted through popular literature, and I think it is worthy of inclusion, especially as there is a recent book about it.  The interview covered much of the author's process in doing research and writing the novel. She used the state's investigation as part of the setting of the novel's action and events. I cited the 2008 source, but an editor removed all of this material, source and all. This is certainly the type of information that can be added to an article. A second source is weaker, a site called Book Review.com.Parkwells (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Rosewood's Ashes''

message: In many articles about major events or historic controversies, the section that deals with adaptations or representation of the events in art and culture is called "In popular culture".  I understood there was interest in Wikipedia in using such standard headers, and renamed the section "In popular culture" that included discussion of films and books about Rosewood. An editor removed that. This article's having achieved FA status two years ago does not mean it should never change.Parkwells (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Pop culture sections are in general deprecated, especially as an article develops (in this case it has developed to featured status). Additionally,  bulleted lists are not used where the information can be presented in paragraph form. On a related note, the section name "In popular culture" doesn't add anything "media representations" doesn't already convey.--Cúchullain t/c 19:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So have it all be in paragraph form. These were obviously not suggestions for pop culture in the sense of a list of TV, song and game references. The editor's comment: "Absolutely not" is hardly part of the "more open and collaborative" culture Wikipedia claims to want to encourage (see top of page). While you may think "Media representations" is better than "In popular culture", I think the latter is more direct; in addition, it appears in many Wikipedia articles and doesn't take anything away from the content. Movies and novels are part of popular culture, and this was not a list of trivial facts.Parkwells (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Well, there was also a formatting issue with how you divided it, so it's a bit difficult to tell what you were trying to do. Your edit left the "Rosewood remembered" section with a single subsection that was only two sentences long, and divided the rest into "In popular culture". I don't think adding the pop culture section is an improvement, and in fact I don't think I've ever seen an "In popular culture" section that benefited an article. Good articles discuss the impact of the subject, including in popular culture, according to significance; pop culture sections tend to attract ephemera.--Cúchullain t/c 20:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a formatting error.Parkwells (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Header: In popular culture

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Watts Riots which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 04:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: the opening paragraph: "Racial disturbances were common during the early 20th century in the United States, reflecting the nation's rapid social changes."
"reflecting the nation's rapid changes" is a euphemism.  Is it too much to state: "reflecting the middle and lower southern state's intransigence accepting as equal those of different color" ?
The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments passed within a 5 year span after the civil war were willfully circumvented by these same, mostly, southerners.  Do you need all the wiki articles on Reconstruction? 
Regards, Philip
Psw808 (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  euphemistic 

message: The term "massacre," titling this article, misrepresents the incident being described. this term was used by none of the actual Rosewood participants, whether victims or perpetrators (they spoke of a "race riot" or even a "race war," or simply "that thing at Rosewood.") The "massacre" usage emerged vaguely in exaggerated local legends in later decades, then after the incident's rediscovery by mass media in 1982 it was used as a shorthand term while knowledge of what had actually happened at Rosewood in 1923 was still fragmentary. In public forums, the term was introduced by the Florida journalist who discovered the Rosewood incident, Gary Moore, in his expose article of July 25, 1982, in the St. Petersburg Times, where he was a staff writer. It was also used a year later when Moore took the still-coalescing Rosewood evidence to the television program "60 Minutes" and was background reporter on a segment airing Dec. 11, 1983.  Ironically, Moore later reported that resources furnished by CBS News allowed him to trace a number of new survivors of the incident whose generally agreeing depiction conclusively contradicted impressions of a classic massacre. Moore said there was discussion of this at 60 Minutes taping on-site at Rosewood, but the audience requirements of television seemed to preclude adjustment from the original, legend-based impression of the incident. The resulting 60 Minutes script, apparently written by field producer Joel Bernstein and voiced by commentator Ed Bradley, said at its opening, "perhaps as many" as 40 people were killed at Rosewood (a barely justifiable gloss of the changing ambiguities in the early evidence), but the script closed with a flat assertion: "40 people died here," which was known at the time to be false. The real death toll, resulting not only from informant descriptions and (sometimes questionable) death certificates but from extensive tracing of community residents, was eight, of whom six of the dead were black and two white. This was not an impulsive or bigoted assumption but the repeated result of testing the possibilities from a number of different perspectives, by successive examiners ranging from university historians to the Florida Department of Law Enforcment, and the result agreed closely with survivor consensus. During this process over the course of the 1980s and into the early 1990s, Moore himself abandoned the term "massacre" and spoke against it, as shown by his update article of March 7, 1993, in Tropic, the Sunday supplemental magazine of the Miami Herald. By then the case was receiving new national publicity in the Rosewood claims case in the Florida Legislature, which assigned a team of historians from the State University System to review the evidence. They, too, carefully avoided the "massacre" terminology, titling their widely quoted report of Dec. 22, 1993: "A Documented History of the Incident Which Occurred at Rosewood, Florida."
The term "massacre" is generally understood to mean a mass mowing-down of targets at a single stroke, whether a small number as in the "St. Valentine's Day Massacre" or hundreds or thousands in the landmark massacres of the world. The week-long Rosewood incident, by contrast, involved a series of individual homicides: Sam Carter killed Jan.1; Sarah Carrier killed Jan. 4 in an apparent target panic during a nightriding aggression; Poly Wilkerson and Henry Andrews (whites) killed a short time later on Jan. 4 as a home invasion was repelled; Lexie Gordon killed in a spree shooting elsewhere in the wee hours of Jan. 5; Sylvester Carrier killed after a series of firefights as daybreak came on Jan. 5; Mingo Williams killed 20 miles away around noon on Jan. 5; and James Carrier killed on Jan. 6. 
The Rosewood incident of January 1-7, 1923, was a very serious case of racial injustice and mob violence, but sensationalized terminolgy cheapens this solemnity--and, indeed, insults the suffering of victims of real massacres worldwide. 
Rosewood was almost a complete secret when unearthed in 1982, owing to the fitful phases of racial controversy in American history. After it came back into public prominence, a number of other such bygone cases were unearthed across the South and beyond, especially by journalist Elliot Jaspin (Bury Me in the Bitter Waters, 2008). Jaspin, complaining that preoccupation with the Rosewood case was tending to obscure the prevalence of racial de-population incidents elsewhere, suggested useful terminology for the phenomenon in general. Taking into consideration the misleading governmental implications of the term "ethnic cleansing" (from the Balkans in the 1990s), Jaspin has suggested for incidents such as Roseewood the term "racial cleansing." This also answers those who might object to a more technical-sounding but less impactful term: "forced de-population." It is perhaps a measure of general avoidance of this topic in American culture that no institutional certification of Jaspin's suggested terminology has occurred. 
It is noted here that in Wikipedia's history of internal discussions on how to characterize the Rosewood events, extensive discussion occurred on the term "pogrom"--though remarkably little knowledge of the field involving pogroms was exhibited in the discussion. The passion suggested by this--in the absence of real knowledge--points in a more difficult direction: 
The Wikipedia entry "Rosewood massacre" is not only mislabeled but is filled with demonstrable fact errors, which apparently arose as passions generated by the subject matter overrode Wikipedia's internal monitoring. The entire article should be removed and refashioned from the by-now documented facts. The present attempt to remedy only the article's execrable lead (do readers really need to be told that a massacre is volent?) is in a sense a test toward the larger goal. 
Complete revision is imperative.Borbollon (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted the additions to the article by User:Borbollon, which were along the lines of the comment above. I'm not opposed to the article containing revisionist views and questions over the historical details of the incident, but they have to be properly sourced. The material added lacked references to reliable sources, and was not written from a neutral point of view. Regarding the title, it has been widely called the 'Rosewood massacre' in historical sources and media coverage, fairly or otherwise, and Wikipedia has to reflect that. Robofish (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description as a 'massacre' 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Rosewood massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080918030112/http://www.floridamemory.com/PhotographicCollection/ to http://www.floridamemory.com/PhotographicCollection/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140410115151/http://dlis.dos.state.fl.us/library/bibliographies/Rosewood_bib.cfm to http://dlis.dos.state.fl.us/library/bibliographies/Rosewood_bib.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120616073213/http://www.libs.uga.edu/hargrett/lilliansmith/lsawardwinners1.html to http://www.libs.uga.edu/hargrett/lilliansmith/lsawardwinners1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rosewood massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080317111258/http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/102197/2b3rosew.html to http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/102197/2b3rosew.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: Have only just learned of the Rosewood event after looking at various Florida scholarship programs. I'm not very active on Wikipedia and don't have time to relearn formatting so wanted to at least mention it here and let someone else more expert on the topic and Wikipedia add the Rosewood Family Scholarship Program to this article in case they believe it should be added. FYI - While the link is for a 2020/21 PDF, the url looks generic, like they will replace the same link with future year PDFs.
--remando (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, using a link to a report of the State statute. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. - Donald Albury 00:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scholarship