Talk:Houston riot of 1917

message: From the article: "More commonly known as the Camp Logan Riots".  If this is true, shouldn't the article name reflect that?  —Mrwojo (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: while I believe that the IP is right to a certain extent, this section is, what I believe, not neutral.  Having read the NCAA piece verses the account written on a few other references don't exactly jibe.  The NCAA piece does need to stay in place as a reference, but needs to be reworded.  --Hourick (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworded it slightly to be more neutral but the IP keeps removing the content. I'm not adverse to changing it wholesale if reliable sources are found. Falcon8765 (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Until another proper/neutral source can be found, this is the best that can be done.  So where do we go from here? Semi-protect? --Hourick (talk) 04:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precipitating cause 

message: "The court contained an admirable geographic balance between northerners, southerners and westerners." 184.36.174.140 (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, language like that is inherently POV regardless of facts. I also note no citation for the claim. I deleted "admirable" and added a cite tag for now. I'd be inclined to delete the whole sentence but I think it will improve the article better to find citation in order to keep it if such sources can be found. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Title? Of course it SHOULD be called the Houston Massacre of 1917. This was a racially motivated massacre of white people by black males dressed in US military uniforms. All the victims - 16 of them- were ambushed. No where in Wikipedia's article is "racially motivated" mentioned, or the word "massacre". No surprise. Blacks always get a pass. As for "Jim Crow" laws...more guilt tripping. Plessy v. Ferg. was the law of the land. Wiki of course is well aware of this. White males did NOT owe blacks race-nullification! That was forced on white America with the Civil Rights Act 1964. This incident occurred in 1917. Attitudes were different. Racial separation had always existed. No one...No one prevented blacks from building towns, cities, industries, urban housing...and excluding white people where and whenever they chose to do so. Blacks were not victims because they were living separate from whites! No different than American Indian tribes living separate. No one is guilt tripping Indians for refusing to amalgamate. Human nature has always separated males into groups. And those groups were always based on race, language, religion. The structure of American society up until 1964 was completely consistent with all of human history!. So why this constant guilt tripping of white people? Clearly it is part of Wiki's policy - and is only reserved for white people. This was a terrible, horrific massacre of innocent people. How dare Wiki imply in any way these murderous, racist cowards are the victims...or imply they had just cause to level their rifles at innocent, unarmed civilians and gun them down simply and solely because of their race. Wiki needs to start describing historical events without an agenda!
Haynes entitled his 1973 paper "The Houston Mutiny and Riot of 1917".  But his 1976 book A Night of Violence: The Houston Riot of 1917 was more popular and widely cited.  The 1972 masters thesis "The Houston Riot of 1917" is also widely cited.
Look at these n-grams.  It's clear that uses of "Houston Mutiny of 1917" shot up as the 1972 thesis and 1976 book came to be widely cited, and account for the majority of uses of caps in "Houston Riot".  That doesn't mean that's what people are using in sentences, though.  
Looking in sentences, if you including the "of 1917", you don't find a lot.  In Google book search, I find these few in sentences after reviewing every book hit:
* 6 "Houston Riot of 1917"
* 3 "Houston riot of 1917"
* 7 "Houston race riot of 1917" 
(caps as shown), and that's all (no capped "Houston Race Riot of 1917" even though that's a common error in citing Haynes's book).  Many more books have "Houston riot" in sentences, of course.
The (1917) parenthetical is odd for a WP title, as no disambiguator is needed and no source does it that way.  Houston riot would probably be clear enough, and certainly fits WP:UCN.  
Online sources like this page are cool, but written by the same Haynes, so no new info over his 1976 book.
I see no evidence for an "accepted" or "proper" name for this event.  Just a few popular works cited.  
What do others find?  Dicklyon (talk) 07:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I favour "Houston Riot of 1917", as it is both the most common and WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE. I think the year should be included, but not in parenthetical form. "Houston riot" used in sentences is a descriptive usage, which is only used after the initial introduction of the "Houston Riot of 1917" or something similar. It is not suitable for an article title. RGloucester  — ☎ 07:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "most common".  As I tried to show with data above, it is most common only because of all the citations to works by that title.  It is very rare in text (6 books that I could find, compared to 10 lowercase forms with "of 1917" and dozens or hundreds of simpler descriptive references).  Dicklyon (talk) 07:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We are determining what to call this article, so descriptive usages used after the event's introduction in text are not useful. People are using "Houston Riot of 1917" in sentences, more so than any of the other options. It also is more concise than the other proposed titles ("race riot"), and more precise than simply "Houston riot", which seems like it may lead to confusion. Especially since the "1917" seems to be part of a proper name, we cannot drop it. I also noticed that "Houston riot" got many false hits, not surprisingly, such as this. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If you would avoid web search and stick to books you'd have a more clear picture of usage in reliable sources; one can find a web page to illustrate almost anything, but it doesn't contribute much to understanding the pattern of usage in reliable sources.  I'm curious why you say "People are using 'Houston Riot of 1917' in sentences, more so than any of the other options."  Do you find it in more books than the 6 I found?  What other options have you looked at?  Dicklyon (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't "avoid" web sources. I haven't got time now, but I'll get back to you later. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: For the purpose of collecting usage stats we do very much avoid web sources; that's not to say an individual source is not reliable or wouldn't be used in the article, just that the amount of duplication and the lack of good editorial oversight make the web a bad source for usage.  And as a source of "false hits" it's just nonsense to use the web to show that false hits are possible, when I've been looking at books and only counting actual hits.  I can post the URLs of all the books I counted above if you like, and you can verify that false hits are not part of the issue here; a complete red herring based on your web search.  Dicklyon (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

text: I'm going to defer to you on capitalisation, in this case, though I think there is a good argument for capitalisation. However, I think that the year must be included. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's real big of you, but if you would actually state your agreement, and/or say that you've learned something about the technique of using sources to figure out when something has an accepted proper name, it might  make it a lot easier to avoid future problems about such things.  Dicklyon (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather not see this as win–lose, but a productive discourse in which all are willing to question our assumptions and examine the evidence dispassionately. We should take what RGloucester says in good faith. Dick, it's a lot of work to list these examples descriptively: thank you. Tony (talk)  04:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the sources here support capitalisation, but I'm willing to compromise and drop my support for capitalisation in return for maintaing the year, but converting to "of" format. I think that the year is more necessary, so I'd rather bargain for what I think is more important to the integrity of the title. RGloucester  — ☎ 04:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough; I will propose Houston riot of 1917 (or 1917 Houston riot if you prefer) when I get around to it.  Still got a few others going, and it's a lot of work, as Tony notes.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer using "of", as it appears in sources that way the vast majority of the time. RGloucester  — ☎ 06:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Or in 16 books that I can find, anyway.  That's fine. Dicklyon (talk) 06:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

text: Actually, if you scan some categories such as :Category:African-American riots in the United States, you'll see that it's not unusual to lead with the date; many types  of events are done this way.  I don't think of it as disambiguation so much as description, contributing to WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and WP:PRECISION.  But I'll stick with the "of", even though the claim that it is "common" is hardly supportable from sources.  Dicklyon (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I would rename them, then. It doesn't play well with the rest of WP's article titling practices.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What should this article be called? 

message: Please see section above: Talk:Houston_Riot_(1917)#Usage_examples_from_books and the discussion above that.  If you find any uses in books to add to those enumerated above, please report them here.  Dicklyon (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Houston

message: Overwhelming majority lowercase in sources is clear:  .  Dicklyon (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Watts

message: Overwhelming majority lowercase in sources is clear: .  Dicklyon (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Hough

message: It's too rare in books to see much in n-grams, but what we do see supports lowercase: .  Dicklyon (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Cicero

message: This is where it gets interesting, since the overwhelming majority of book hits in the search "Detroit Race Riot" are to source titles such as
* The Detroit Race Riot of 1943
* What Caused the Detroit Race Riot?
* The Detroit Race Riot: A Study in Violence
* The Background and Causes of the 1943 Detroit Race Riot
* Detroit Race Riot
Furthermore, almost all the hits are about the 1943 riot.  Even adding 1863 to the search finds a lot of discussion where "Detroit race riot" refers to the 1943 one.  
So I did a bunch of searching and compiling of individual usages in text, starting with first 2 pages (10 per page) of book hits:
Book search for "Detroit race riot"
:uses in text lowercase:
* "in the Detroit race riot of June 1943"
* "The most authoritative reference to the 1943 Detroit race riot is..."
* "...on the theme of the Detroit race riot article..."
* "Following the 1943 Detroit race riot,"
* "...shortly before the Detroit race riot,"
* "and Detroit race riot" (in index)
* "it was the Detroit race riot of 1943 that..."
* "Detroit race riot" (in index)
* "Detroit race riot" (in index)
* "Detroit race riot of 1943"
:no uppercase uses in text found in first 20 book hits
more specific search for 1863
"Detroit Race Riot of 1863"
:3 uppercase in 10 total hits:
* "...when the Detroit Race Riot of 1863 broke out..."
* "The Detroit Race Riot of 1863, in which many blacks were..."
* "...more of it burned in the Detroit Race Riot of 1863,"
:no lowercase "Detroit race riot of 1863" found in the 10 total hits
broader search: 1863 "Detroit race riot"
first 20
:lowercase in text uses in first 20 book hits:
* "the riot of 1863" and same book "the 1863 draft riot"
* "an account of the Detroit race riot"
* "On March 6, 1863, the Detroit race riot, the major riot in the midwest, began. "
* (identical copy of the one above)
* (yet another copy of the same text in a different magazine)
:uppercase in text uses in first 20 book hits:
* "...that lit the Detroit Riot of 1863 was..." (and "Detroit Race Riot (1863)" in index)
Conclusion from usage data:  While caps are somewhat more used with the 1863 event, there's no support for the idea that "Detroit Race Riot of 1863" is an accepted proper name for it.  It's found that way in only 3 books.  We are free to use a descriptive title of our choosing, and "Detroit race riot of 1863" is probably a good choice. Dicklyon (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Detroit

message: *Support as nom.  MOS:CAPS, MOS:MILTERMS, and WP:NCCAPS all seem clear that we don't capitalize generic words like riot unless sources show that they are part of proper names.  Dicklyon (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've quoted WP:UCN, and am merely saying that we must follow policy. We must weigh sources appropriately, and encyclopaedias are given more weight when determine how to title an article. As the major English-language world encylopaedia for many decades, Britannica is an excellent source to consult in this regard. There is a difference between the encyclopaedic register, the journalistic register, and the academic register. We write in the encyclopaedic register, and how other encyclopaedias title their article can give us insight in how to write in that register. "Watts Riots" is capitalised by Britannica even though it does not capitalise many other such riots. There is a reason for this. We must maintain our standing as an encylopaedia. RGloucester  — ☎ 07:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not go ahead and examine each one here, as you suggest? I have provided the data.  Or would 6 separated discussions somehow be preferable?  Dicklyon (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

text: Tony, that's just short of helpful; if I may, here are links to some of your recently articulated reasons that might apply here:  "since capping is minority usage, and our guidelines say to cap only where necessary. No necessity is evident here.", "nowhere near consistently upcased in sources, as would be required (that's just one reason).", "usage stats gathered properly, and WP's house style. ", and Talk:Pottawatomie Massacre#It's very simple: MOSCAPS lays out, in effect, two tests.  What did I miss?  Dicklyon (talk) 06:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Postscript: Is anyone who wants to cap "riot" seriously suggesting that in the main text all references to the riot should be rendered as, for example, "the Riot", "post-Riot debate", etc? Seriously? That would be the logical outcome. Tony (talk)  01:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

text: ...which is a question for another day.  Let's discuss of the "proper name" question first.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

text: What does "shoehorn" mean here?  Did I not use the mulit-move template per its intended purpose, for a group of related articles with similar moves?  And why not the Watts riots?  Did you not find the evidence compelling, or did you not look?  Dicklyon (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey and discussion

message: Regardless of what is popular, this is **not** a riot. Soldiers looting state supplies and doing battle with members of the state has a very specific term in English, "rebellion." If we're going to be impartial, we would use that term regardless of the racism of past generations. I vote to reopen this issue of article naming. To continue this trend is to whitewash intent and confuse the issue. Acceptable names include "mutiny" or "revolt." We even go into detail about the use these terms under the Rebellion page. Perhaps revolt is the most accurate? Evan Carroll (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racist name 

message: There are two sentences that I find confusing and I'm hoping that someone might be able to clarify them.  First, under the heading "Precipitating causes", it states "Sparks, searching for the fleeing suspects, entered the house of local resident Sara Travers.  He did not find the suspect but after exchanging words with Travers he struck her and dragged her outside in her nightgown.  As Sparks and Daniels called in the arrest from an area patrol box, they were approached by Private Alonzo Edwards. Edwards offered to take custody of Travers, but was pistol-whipped repeatedly by Sparks and then arrested."  Why would an Army private living at Camp Logan be in a position to "offer to take custody" of a civilian woman from the police?  This sounds nonsensical to me, although I don't have access to the source cited.  And second, under the heading "Wilson's clemency and commentary", the last sentence reads "Whites who defended Houston from the illegal actions of the rioting blacks were not charged for their actions."  This makes no sense.  Why would people who are defending their city from illegal actions of rioters be charged with a crime?  Can anyone help? Bricology (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the first account sounds a little odd. The source is The Crisis, pages 14-16. The accounts differ a bit - some say that Private Edwards just approached the two officers, while one says he "asked if he could take her." I'd have no issue with changing that line to something more generic instead of using that one version. Rtoddfox (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two confusing sentences need help 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Houston riot of 1917. 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/20120225060303/http://www.stcl.edu/library/1917riot/index.html to http://www.stcl.edu/library/1917riot/index.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) 23:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: If Sergeant Vida Henry committed suicide, how does that square with the fact that his skull was bashed in and there was a bayonet wound to his shoulder? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: postmortem desecration probably Mdrewcaffin (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Incongruity