Talk:Chicago race riot of 1919

message: There's quite a bit more on this at Lynching in the United States, including a photo and more detailed discussion of certain aspects of the events.--Bcrowell 16:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: anyways!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.63.110.194 (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: more at [[Lynching in the United States]]

message: What is needed is not more about the details of the events, but the context and background.  Walter White's article is excellent for that in the sources.--Parkwells (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Need more context

message: You found some powerful photos and made excellent additions to the article.--Parkwells (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: The terminology in this article is all over the place - "African American," "Irish," "black," "white," etc.  A glaring example is the photo caption that begins "A white gang looking for African Americans..."  This needs to be cleaned up and made consistent.  If they are "whites," then they are looking for "blacks."  If they are looking for "African Americans," then they are "European Americans" or "Irish Americans."  96.35.172.222 (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomenclature 

message: We should clarify if the committee proposed was actually formed and if so was it the  Chicago Commission on Race Relations. Rich Farmbrough, 02:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Committee

message: After a careful screening of the article, I found a few specifics that were missing but easy to provide. I edited one, but maybe others will watch for the remainder?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exoskeleton2013 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specifics 

message: The change of name of this article makes no English sense.  It is correct English that a 'proper name' is capitalized and a 'proper name' is the name of a particular person, place of event.  This article is about and thus the name is the name of a particular event.  The name change needs to be reverted. Hmains (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Oooops! Agree with Hugh, "race" should also be lower-cased then. My apologies. "Charleston riot" is instead correct: "Charleston" is a proper name, while "riot" is not. By the way "race riot" is also a common noun--Darius (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong name change

message: It does not seem to be the case that book editors and authors agree that this descriptive term is a proper name.  See book n-grams.  The idea that "correct English" is to capitalize proper names is true, but the determination of what's a proper name is not so simple.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Data

message: This is a good informational article and how it portrays the racism in this country during that time from a historical standpoint. However the article it self is presented with anger and racism toward people that are not African American. Particularly people with light skin.
As all the references to Caucasians people are derogatory under the picture captions. for example "White boys" or "whites" Where all the people with dark skin are referred to as African Americans which acknowledges there humanity, identity and an equal people of the human race as it should. However the Irish immigrants or Irish Americans are only referred to as Whites or white boys stripping them of there racial identity and just assigning a slang word to them no different then honky or cracker. If you want to group all the Irish, German French etc. in to one  category to refer to them, Wouldn't it be more constructive to use a non racist term like Caucasian?
Rex  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.213.222.94 (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chicago Race Riot of 1919 content 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Chicago race riot of 1919. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060615060650/http://www.chipublib.org:80/004chicago/disasters/riots_race.html to http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/disasters/riots_race.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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: I have tried to incorporate information that I believe is relevant and have had it removed with the last person removing it calling it a "creepy fixation". It is not MY creepy fixation but that of the white men of the time. Everyone talks about how the film Birth of a Nation (1915) has scenes depicting the fear of a black man showing sexual interest in a white woman. And many lynchings were over accused rapes of white women. So, including  in the article that the young men in the raft were naked seems relevant to that issue that was so prominent at that time. Please advise without pejorative remarks? Pmdavis500 (talk) 04:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not shown that anyone at the time commented on it, nor have you provided any modern source or scholarship that has commented it.  So, it does on the evidence presented so far appear to be solely your editing fixation. You rely solely on a single unconfirmed primary statement that is vague, at best, nor does stripping to your underwear or even naked to go swimming with other boys, and no women at all, let alone white women, suggest sex. And you provide no sources at all that make the interpretive or commentary claims you make about that statement. What makes you even think that stripping down to go swimming was unusual, there is no reason to think that was not ordinary. On this record, your addition violates multiple Wikipedia policies. Ping  who reverted these edits. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

text: You still have not provided any modern source nor scholarship that has commented on it, nor have you provided any source at the time that cared about boys removing clothes to go swimming, at all.  There is no reason why the people at the time must care about that, and no evidence that they did care about getting ready to go swimming.  You have provided nothing sourced to support your connection, you have turned a solitary vague primary statement about boys getting ready to go swimming, as people were known to do, and then leaped to sex.  Nowhere does the Chicago magazine article say anything about sex, nor does it even say naked, nor does it make the interpretive sex commentary you do (it is mostly a collection of primary statements). We can't take that vague primary statement and then make that leap to sex, not without reliable secondary sources that analyze that particular primary statement as exactly that. Despite what you may think you're doing, it's rather like you are inventing an excuse for the drowning, an excuse found in no sources. The sources don't even agree with you, they say it was breaching the beach segregation (and in that, it does not matter what one is wearing, at all, what matters is race, just race), not what the boys were wearing. (Besides, there is noting to suggest in the record or sources at all, that if these bathers had been girls breaching segregation, it would have been any different.) And that's just the raft, according to that witness it was not what happened on the raft itself that made it all blow-up, rather there would have been no days of interracial violence, if the black police officer had not been prevented by the white police officer from making the arrest. Your Emmet Till example goes entirely against you, for Till we have multiple secondary sources directly about sex and words of the murderers directly about sex -- we do not have that, here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trying to Add Material About the Raft