Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rosewood massacre/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:27, 26 May 2009 [1].

---

Rosewood massacre

Nominator(s): Moni3 (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Rosewood massacre/archive1

I think this article is ready for FA. I puttered on this article a few years ago before I started writing a lot of the articles that have reached FA already. This one I had to leave for many months. It makes me very depressed. Submerging myself in all its intricacies, however, helps a bit. I'm not sure what else to say about it. Moni3 (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Question which I'll ask here rather than on your talk or the article's talkpage to save anyone else asking: Is "massacre" the accepted name for the event? Looking over the ever-cheerful Mass racial violence in the United States, there seem to have been a lot of more serious incidents in this period (Houston Riot (1917), Chicago Race Riot of 1919, Tulsa race riot etc) which aren't given the "massacre" title. (It's not a period I know much about, and I know nothing about how the naming of this kind of event is determined.) – iridescent 19:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Massacre is the accepted term for the event in history books since 1994, with the understanding that the event has only been covered in history books since 1994. The most conservative term was used by the historians who wrote the report given to the Florida Board of Regents. They called it "The Incident Which Occurred at Rosewood". Newspapers in 1923 called it a race riot, race war, or racial disturbance. --Moni3 (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment Some MOS tweaking needed in the references: Sasata (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Support Other than the non-use of pp. for page ranges, I can't find anything to complain about. This was an especially interesting article for me to read because I remember watching that 60 Minutes bit when I was a boy, and it brought back memories of the conversation I had afterwards with my dad. Sasata (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• pages ranges should be pp., not p.
• "et al" should be "et al."
• the reference Jones et al, "Documented History of the Incident Which Occurred at Rosewood, Florida in January 1923" is repeated many times in the refs; to save many characters, just put a year instead of the full title (like Jones et al. (1993), pp. 24–25.)
• In the bibliography, the author name format used (ie. Jones, Maxine, Rivers, Larry, Colburn, David, Dye, Tom, Rogers, William (1993)) makes it very hard to distinguish first and last names. Use a book citation template, or manually separate authors with a supercomma (the semicolon).

• The "Documented History of the Incident Which Occurred at Rosewood, Florida in January 1923" source has a companion called "Appendices" that is bound separately. However, it was released in the same year, so giving the year would not clarify which source I'm using.

How about specifying them as 1993 and 1993a in the bibliography? Sasata (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• I use pp. to denote skipping pages so some very helpful editor does not come along and put endashes where commas are (which has happened).

That's what the revert button is for :) Besides, it's just as likely a helpful editor will come along and change it to the correct pp. format. Sasata (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Will work on some others. --Moni3 (talk) 12:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• The sources provided by Jones, et al should be clearer by use of anchor ref links. I think I addressed everything else. The revert button, by the way, is how you get accused of owning the article. --Moni3 (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be a stickler for seemingly insignificant details, but the "et al" needs to be followed by a period (it's short for et alii). Use of the revert button in the fashion I mentioned should of course be accompanied by a friendly note explaining the rationale for the revert. I'll stop talking now before I'm accused of being a MOS wonk :) Sasata (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Too late. You are branded a wonk forever. Periods added. --Moni3 (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Support. You said: "I'm not sure what else to say about it." You could say that the article has been peer reviewed by several superb editors (and also by me)! Moni has – as always – done some impressive research and composition work on this article. (She even went and took some pictures for it.) The article is a thorough and well-written treatment of a hideous event in Florida history, so I vote "aye". Scartol • Tok 17:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• I'm pretty sure D'Orso should be alphabetized with the D's not the O's.
• http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/AbstractNotFound.html?CFID=8559976&CFTOKEN=74833296 deadlnks

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ha! Haaaaaaaaaa. D'Orso in the Os...I don't know what to say on that...except that it's moved. And the hyperlink on the article is gone. --Moni3 (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - How is the "Unsung Heroes" award named for Sheriff Walker? Was his first name "Unsung"? Kaldari (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Why, yes. Unsung is a common name here in Florida, much like Cletus. My third cousin twice removed's sister-in-law's uncle's name is Unsung T. Bucephadiddly. The way the source refers to it is the Robert Walker Unsung Heroes Award and the John Bryce Unsung Heroes Award. I am quite happy to make that clearer. --Moni3 (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support I peer reviewed this and find it to meet the FA criteria. Well done on yet another important topic article, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support Comments - this is an engaging, albeit disturbing, mostly well-written article; I have a few comments on the prose:

I think "incident" is too weak a word. It implies a single, distinct event. Perhaps this could be deleted from the first sentence, "was an incident of racially motivated violence", what do you think?

Here, "Although state and local authorities were aware of the violence while it took place," - I think "while it took place" is redundant", as is "for the activities in Rosewood."

Here, "To avoid lawsuits from white competitors,", I am left wondering what lawsuits and why.

I think "small-knit" should be "close-knit", but this might be because I'm English.

I don't understand the "plank" in "The village had about a dozen plank two-story homes".

Is there a word missing in this sentence "The transgression of sexual taboo combined with the arming of blacks to raise fears among whites of an impending race war in the South"?

This is not well-written:— "Northern response to the urban influx of blacks was related to their frequent use as strikebreakers".

Why the "ethnic" in "ethnic whites"?

We have "as well as" instead of a simple "and" at least three times in the article.

There is redundancy here, "Sheriff Walker deputized some of them, but was unable to initiate them all."

I think "asylum" is not quite the right word, how about "refuge"?

We have "a number of" instead of "several" at least twice.

Here, "A standoff lasted long into the next morning", should this be "The standoff..."?

Here, "none publicly acknowledged what happened", should this be "what had happened"?

This is not well-written:— "One legislator remarked that mail opposing the bill was an unprecedented ten to one."

Graham Colm ^Talk 16:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I changed everything except for the sentence about Sheriff Walker. This was a point made in the source that logistically he was just not able to deputize every single person who came to assist in the search for Jesse Hunter. As a result, those who were not deputized were taking the law into their own hands. If you would like me to clarify that I can, but I think the distinction should be made that not everyone out searching was doing so extra-legally, but it was impossible for the sheriff to control large groups of people.

Please see the other changes I made to assess if they meet your criteria. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response Moni; I am proud to add my support. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support. One minor quibble, though: What is a "pencil mill"? Is it a factory that makes pencils, or just a particular type of sawmill? (Pencil milling doesn't shed much light on the matter…) – iridescent 23:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yah. Makes pencils. Cedar pencils. --Moni3 (talk) 23:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Who says Wikipedia isn't educational? (I used to live a couple of blocks from Dixon Ticonderoga's factory – don't think we ever called it anything but "the pencil factory" – but Google Proves Me Wrong.) – iridescent 23:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment "Rumors circulated that black soldiers overseas were received warmly by French women, which struck at the heart of Southern fears." Great Googly Woogly! That looks "challenged or likely to be challenged" to me. Is it a quote? Ling.Nut (talk) 05:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, what? Are you pointing out a citing deficiency or grammar issues? --Moni3 (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Not only should this definitely be cited, in fact it should definitely be framed as a direct quote. It is pure opinion.
• In addition, where did the bit about racial disturbances being "common" come from? Can you define "common"? You mean "widespread" or "frequent", or both? Precision is a necessity... Who says they were common? If they really were common, then many sources should say so. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have no problem citing it, but the paragraph it is in is taken from an article that is 17 pages long. Several pages discuss the armament buildup and the effect it had on race relations. The sentences preceding the section in the paragraph that quotes the UF historian verbatim read, "Compounding white anxiety and hostility, rumors circulated in 1918 that black soldiers had been warmly received in Europe and had their way with white women in France. White militants back home warned other whites that black veterans would no longer be content with black women when they returned from Europe. Such claims by militants tapped into one of the great fears of southern white men." To quote him directly would be quoting the entire paragraph, which I don't want to do. I think the historian's statement about the importance of Southern womanhood and all that bullshit should be quoted directly. He's writing about the cause of the Rosewood massacre, attributing it to specific anxieties so his quote is very important there.
• I'm kinda just blinking at your second request. Either that section is so poorly written that it is not blatantly obvious that racial conflicts were common, or .... I don't know what the disconnect is. The Racial tensions in Florida section is well-cited with excellent sources, bolstering the topic sentence that racial conflicts all through the U.S. were common. Is it your contention that the facts presented in this section do not support the statement that racial conflicts were common, widespread, and frequent?
• FWIW, I'm not resisting. I want to understand what it is you want and satisfy what you're asking for. --Moni3 (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I suggest something like the ff: Rumors circulated that French women warmly received the sexual advances of black soldiers overseas, which in historian InsertName's opinion "...tapped into one of the great fears of southern white men." As for "common," well yes, I challenge it. I'm not saying I challenge any facts herein; I'm saying "common" is far too broad and powerful a word. If you use it, you must define it, and if you define it, the word "common" becomes redundant/unnecessary. So define it or drop it. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I rephrased the issue with the historian.

As for the common issue, I can replace "common" with "widespread and frequent". But it's pretty clear to me that the section supports that racial conflicts were a way of life all over the U.S. between 1880 and 1930. Rural or urban, North, South, or Midwest, racial violence occurred in numbers that are shocking for today. I apologize here. I don't know what you want me to do in this section. --Moni3 (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Essentially, you're gonna have to write an entire article about the fact that racial violence was "widespread and frequent... all over the U.S. between 1880 and 1930. Rural or urban, North, South, or Midwest..."; moreover you're gonna hafta back it up from top to bottom with profuse, high-quality references. Barring that, you need to drop all use of "common" or anything synonymous. We can't just say it's so without documenting it explicitly and in tremendous detail. That is a disservice to WP:V. It's also a disservice... in a strange and ironic way.. to the victims of aforesaid violence... their cause is better served by watertight documentation than by broad assertions that we have not yet gotten around to carefully supporting. Ling.Nut (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm really confused here and I don't know why. I think this section summarizes both the national and local atmospheres that led to the eruption in Rosewood. It shows that there were widespread (23 cities in one year! Christ, the mob hanged the mayor of Omaha when he tried to intervene in a lynching in 1919) racial conflicts, that the Klan was going through a major renaissance, and the state government of Florida ignored race problems (21 lynchings within a political term) and by doing so made them worse. A governor ran and won! on a platform of white supremacy. In U.S. history, this is... this appears to me to be as given as saying there was massive social upheaval in the workforce between 1941 and 1945. Florida had one of the worst records of lynchings of any state or territory in the U.S. and it was not particularly noteworthy at the time. The only folks making a fuss about it were in the newly established NAACP. I think this section establishes quite well that Florida's problems were not remarkable, while at the same time staying focused on the events to follow.

There are numerous articles already written and of varying quality that address the race problems in the U.S. during this time, and some of them are linked from this section. How do you suggest that for this article, the Rosewood massacre, I have to write another article to satisfy this issue? It defies logic. Am I completely misunderstanding what your point is? --Moni3 (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. I seem to have overlooked the text in which you established that racial attacks were both widespread and frequent throughout the US, and throughout the time period (a long one) you gave. Please point that text out to me. Thanks Ling.Nut (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This section. --Moni3 (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the article as currently written does a fine job of establishing the shameful history of racial violence in the US and Florida at the time (shameful is my opinion, article is NPOV). I also think the language and refs are fine in this respect. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ruhrfisch, in my view Ling's criticism is not valid. There is nothing in this well-referenced and neutral article that can be seriously challenged. Racialism is a true, and yes, a shameful part of American—and British—history; it's not fair to expect Moni and this article to re-establish and re-verify facts that no historian would contest. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• The "Racial tensions in Florida" section is very well done. It clearly establishes that Florida was a hotbed of racial violence ca. 1920. I appreciate the good research and good writing. However, your WP:LEDE says "Racial disturbances were common during the early 20th century in the United States." You mention the entire US plus the whole of the early 20th century. The only thing I see to support this extremely strong assertion is a link to Red Summer of 1919. That incident covers only a set of incidents (possibly causally linked) in the summer and autumn of 1919, and hardly warrants the sweeping language that you employ.
• However, I wonder if you guys are beginning to mistake me for some sort of race-issue troll. No, there's a very clear difference between "anal" and "asshole", and while I confess to the possibility that the former may describe me, I humbly suggest that the latter does not. :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 01:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I have seen your work before and respect it (and you) and in no way think you are a troll. I am puzzled though, as I also note that the "Racial tensions in Florida" section of the article has print refs that seem fine and has national scope links to Black Codes (United States), Great Migration (African American), White supremacy, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and in addition to Red Summer of 1919, the Chicago Race Riot of 1919 and Omaha Race Riot of 1919 are linked. I can see adding a link to Jim Crow laws, but I think the article makes it clear that it was not just laws, but extrajudicial violence that was a problem in the country and state. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for pointing out additional links. I'm splitting my time between editing Wikipedia and trying to abuse a research paper until it sufficiently approximates a publishable state; the former is suffering, as I skim/scan. However, I still see three links to violence in three places in 1919; that hardly justifies painting the entire US throughout the entire early 20th century as a land of lynchings... Ling.Nut (talk) 03:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Thank you for pointing this out - I do not see "racial disturbances" as being limited to lynchings, but I will leave this to Moni3 to resolve. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Ling.Nut, darlin', I don't think you're an asshole. I just want to understand what you want changed. The first footnote is a categorization of the types of racial violence by historian David Colburn. Lynchings were more common in the South. Riots or flashes of violence against entire communities were more common in the North. I can take that out of the footnote to place it in full text. I can mention some of the other Northern-type riots (Tulsa, Houston, etc) in the years around the Red Summer of 1919. I can change the wording of "racial disturbances" in the lead to "racial violence". I have no problem establishing that racially motivated violence in all its forms was indeed common, widespread, and frequent. I have to understand what your objection is before I can change anything, however. I'm getting a glimmer now, but our exchange yesterday may have turned into one on the Tower of Babel. Am I closer to what you want? --Moni3 (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Some changes made. Don't look for that footnote because I put it in text. --Moni3 (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Comment Taylor-Bradley-Carrier. Taylor was the white woman; Bradley was her white lover; Carrier was a black guy who in an act of infinite stupidity helped Bradley. Dogs followed Bradley's trail to Carrier's house; Carrier gets lynched. Is that more or less correct? You... left the white man unnamed all through the Taylor story, even calling him "the man"... Ling.Nut (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Taylor was the white woman, right. Bradley was her white lover, according to the historians' report delivered to the Florida Board of Regents (there was also a black family named Bradley in Rosewood, with one named John, for extra confusion). The white Bradley went to the home of Aaron Carrier who solicited assistance from Sam Carter; both were Masons. It is the testimony and stories from black survivors that the white John Bradley went to Carrier's home because he knew him to be a Mason as Sam Carter was. Aaron Carrier and Sam Carter, according to survivors' stories, would have lended aid to any Mason who requested it regardless of race, although similar consideration would probably not have been given to any blacks in similar trouble. The structure of the section is the way you described it. Are there questions or clarifications you are requesting? --Moni3 (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the structure is misleading. The earlier paragraphs lead one to believe that no one knew the identity of the white man (Bradley, Taylor's lover). Later paragraphs reveal it. This info should be revealed earlier. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.