Talk:Springfield race riot of 1908

message: I have reverted the changes by 71.240.20.10. This user changed all of the terms like "African American" and "black" to "colored" and "Negro". The former terms are currently the most accepted terms to refer to Americans of African descent. The latter terms have fallen out of favor, and often have negative connotations. While those were likely the terms used at the time of the event, this is a modern encyclopedia and should therefore use modern terminology, unless directly quoting a primary source. The main secondary source used to write this article does not use "colored" or "Negro". Also, in the edited version, terms like "black-owned business" or "black neighborhoods" were replaced by terms that refer to businesses and homes that were rented by black people. The source I used referred to them as black-owned. Why was this changed? Mycota 18:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are fake web sites that employ faked terminology such as "black-owned" to propagandize events such as riots in order to place a new slant on such events and to thereby create a history of the United States which is different from the true history.  The aim of many people is to employ the Internet to produce a new history of the United States which obliterates the true history of the United States.  71.240.20.10 19:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Can you show us your evidence that these are "fake" websites? Actually, can you explain what you mean by "fake". If a website exists, it is real. That's pretty much the definition of reality. The criterion should be whether it is a trustworthy source. This is a very well-documented historical event, and the documentation supports the way the article is currently written. But feel free to comb through the documentation until you find reference to the fact that all of the residents and business "owners" did not truly own their homes and businesses. Then cite it once you have made the changes. That's how things are supposed to work on Wikipedia. Mycota 00:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Original vebiage" 

message: Merritt says that Springfield was the only 20th c. riot of whites against blacks in which white deaths were greater than blacks but, as another editor noted, that also occurred in the July 1919 riot in Washington, DC. Have added the cite for the DC riot, and moved this comparative discussion to the end of the article.Parkwells (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: 20th-c. riots

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tulsa race riot which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 02:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: Moved lengthy quote - several paragraphs - from Independent to body of article. [User:Parkwells|Parkwells]] (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Lengthy quotes do not belong in Lead

message: It is not obvious to me that using pogrom, a word associated with European events and from another language, as a synonym for this race riot advances understanding of the events. The US had numerous of its own race riots.Parkwells (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: A pogrom is a definition of an event.  It is not synonymous with race or only applicable to a particular region.  As such, the definition should not be skewed by one's own personal belief of what it means.  It means what it means, and by all definitions, this was a pogrom.Justbean (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete pogrom

message: There seems to be too much detail, mostly alleged, about the attacks on the Ballard household and Jamison. I'm not sure these are needed when the substance of the article is about the rioting by whites. This is not a newspaper, and such material could be summarized.Parkwells (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: TMI about individual attacks

message: It's clear that editors have worked very hard on this article, but it is buried in contemporary newspaper accounts and quotes. It lacks the perspective of later academic studies, written at a remove from the events and drawing on thinking that might provide perspective lacking from contemporary newspaper accounts. There is an over-reliance on these primary sources, including use of census records to trace the later lives of participants and victims. The article should not be based so much on newspapers of 1908 and 1909. What have scholars found out about it? What is their perspective? So much detail and quotes from newspapers causes the loss of overview. For instance, a headline suggests that the immigrant Raymer was used as a scapegoat, but that is not discussed in the article, although it has likely been a topic of scholars.Parkwells (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Concern about detail and sources

message: — Assignment last updated by Bee217hardcore (talk) 04:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Content Area Literacy