Talk:Rosewood massacre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleRosewood massacre is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 4, 2009.
Article milestones
May 8, 2009Good article nomineeListed
May 9, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
May 26, 2009Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Casualty estimates?[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Moni3Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

There are two mass graves. There are also deep furrows made by the draft horses, pulling a large virgin cypress trees, where bodies were laid in and covered. There were also bodies put into the water wells to foul the water, without which people could not live. High Sheriff Jim Turner, who looked into one of the mass pits put the body count at 17 or more. He traveled to Rosewood with his father, who was the county doctor. I have spent over 40 years talking to the white people who were there and documenting their stories, and I had the misfortune of owning acreage in Rosewood. I personally took a reporter and camera man from BET to the site, where we walked the rail bed to the railroad depot and then to the cemetery. Many of the county records disappeared, or were destroyed in a fire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinraftis (talkcontribs) 01:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Phillip Mann[edit]

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. 00:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Rosewood Florida rc12409.jpg[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Rosewood movie[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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))Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
You should also consider the movie being a possible product of positive discrimination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know what happened. Both, at Rosewood, and her next home. She pulled the same thing again, but the second time with different results. The movie was Hollywood, not the truth. Why people confuse history and fantasy, there is not enough room to contemplate. The movie was made to MAKE MONEY, NOT HISTORY!--Robinraftis (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History/encyclopedic v. journalism[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Population numbers don't make sense[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Found new numbers in the 1993 report that do make sense.--Parkwells (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
1920 Census numbers can be added, with a source and inline citation according to Wiki format.--Parkwells (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Specificity of language[edit]

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 [1] 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,[2] 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 [3] 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. [4]

In the current issue of Black Commentator [5], 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]


I worked on this article before, using the late 20th c. historians' report, as well as on articles about the riots in Chicago, Omaha and other cities; early and late KKK; 19th century violence and paramilitary groups in the South. Made some changes to improve the chronology of the article, as it was going back and forth between events before and after WWI (for instance, the training of black troops), as well as before and after the rise of the KKK in the 1920s. Changed some sentences to use direct voice: "Whites considered him...", rather than "he was considered..." Of course people can disagree about such changes.

  • I didn't alter substantive material, but disagree with too broad-brushed an approach equating race riots in the North with events in the South. The fact that riots occurred didn't mean violence was generally "accepted" - an unsourced statement that was in the article. There were different parties and issues involved in the different regions, for one thing. In the Northern cities, it was often ethnic whites who led attacks, especially the Irish. They were the most established among newer immigrants, and they defended their "territory" against new immigrants AND against southern blacks. (This factor was recognized in contemporary sources for the Chicago riots, for example, including official reports.) Great animosity arose among workers because blacks were hired as strikebreakers in industry; strikebreakers threatened their jobs and livelihoods. Economic causes were major factors in riots. In the South, violence tended to be perpetrated by local whites in mob violence and lynchings, of which there was a long history, in the perpetuation of white supremacy and social control, both informally, by local violence, and by state actions in disfranchisement and segregation laws.--Parkwells (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appreciate your comments. Can you explain "too broad-brushed an approach equating race riots in the North with events in the South"? Is this in reference to the historian who characterized Northern mob violence vs. Southern lynchings?
It was more about statements such as "racial violence was common and accepted throughout the US", or something like that. I agree there was a difference between Northern mob violence and Southern lynchings, and think the specifics need to be addressed. The "Red Summer" riots f 1919 were related to widespread social and economic tensions in the North, that occurred repeatedly in industrial cities, also sites of new European immigration, integration of returning veterans, the Great Migration, and blacks used for strikebreaking, as in CHicago and Omaha, for two, etc.--Parkwells (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've asked several copy editors to review the article, which I hope will be done through the next few weeks.
  • I think the lead needs to be as straightforward and concise as possible. The first paragraph is choppy and needs to be more cohesive. I think the first sentence should not mince words. I don't think the first sentence should say the Rosewood massacre was the "name of" something; it just was. Violence already implies people and property, so I'm concerned with redundancy. I'm considering Tony1's essay on how to satisfy the "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" required at FAC. I like some of your ideas in switching around the order of the sentences, so how's this for a first paragraph:
The Rosewood massacre was an incident of racially motivated violence that took place during the first week of January 1923 in rural Levy County, Florida. Six blacks and two whites were killed, and the town of Rosewood, Florida was abandoned and destroyed during what was characterized as a race riot. Racial disturbances were common during the early 20th century in the United States, reflecting a country going through rapid social changes. Florida had an especially high number of lynchings in the years leading up to 1923, including a highly publicized incident in December 1922.
I think that flows better and states clearly what the Rosewood massacre was.
Definitely better; we had a similar goal.--Parkwells (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've added material to and rearranged the Racial tensions in Florida section, but I'm not married to the structure. I am concerned that the prose accurately reflects what the sources say, however. Thomas Dye's article made a point to say that every urban area in Florida was familiar with extralegal violence, which was removed. I can send you some of these articles if you wish - just email me and I can attach the PDFs. This section can be organized chronologically, regionally, or by source. I attempted a regional structure, but if it reads better as chronologically, that's fine. I'm interested to know your thoughts. Thanks for helping with the article. --Moni3 (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Urban areas" in Florida[edit]

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)Reply[reply]


The peer review seems to have been archived, so I'll add these here rather than perturb the article.

Comments: (in addition to earlier discussion on my talk page here):

  • Payments appear out of balance as stated in "However, the bill eventually provided $1.5 million to pay $150,000 to each person who could prove he or she lived in Rosewood during 1923, and $500,000 for people who could apply for the funds after demonstrating that they had an ancestor who owned property in Rosewood during the same time", an earlier version says "and a $500,000 pool for the descendants", emphasis mine; seems that the word "pool" should be worked back in.
  • Revisiting my talk page objection to the word "instigate" in "The Rosewood massacre was instigated when a white woman in Sumner claimed she was assaulted by a black man", as suggesting she had the end of precipitating the massacre in mind when she made the assault claim, how about "caused", or if you need a $2 word, "precipitated"? Better yet, we can remove the passive voice so disdained by reviewers with "The immediate cause of the Rosewood massacre was a claim by a white woman in Sumner that she was assaulted by a black man." Best, CliffC (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't see how instigated means someone had an end result in mind, but I don't necessarily care that much about "instigate". I didn't like "initiate" however. It was too ineffective. Precipitated is fine. I need a word that will equal a powder keg, not a college application process.
  • I'll reword the "pool" issue.
  • Btw, the peer review just says "archive" at the end for easier archiving. It's still open. It will remain open for a month or so and close itself. Thanks for the comments. --Moni3 (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On your substitution of 'provoked' for 'instigated' - that word is perfect! What a great language we have. CliffC (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rosewood massacre/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article is of course really very good. I actually found myself re-reading some sections for clarity's sake -- and perhaps the whole "I can't believe this actually #^@!& happened!" element was there, as well. Here is how it stands against the criteria:

  1. Well-written: For the most part; see issues below.
  2. Factually accurate and verifiable: Yes.
  3. Broad in its coverage: Yes.
  4. Neutral: Yes.
  5. Stable: Yes.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes.
Comments re
  • The population of Rosewood peaked in 1915 at 355 people. Both Sumner and Rosewood were part of a single voting precinct; in 1920, the combined population of both towns was 344 blacks and 294 whites. Is it necessary to mention the shared voting precinct, especially since blacks weren't allowed to vote? It seems a little random to me.
  • Communities created their own centers: in 1920, the residents of Rosewood were mostly self-sufficient. They had three churches... What is meant by "centers", exactly? I also think that their self-sufficiency should be better tied to the fact that they had churches, etc., etc. Semi-colon, perhaps?
  • Rumors circulated that black soldiers overseas were received warmly by French women. These struck at the heart of Southern fears. "these" is ambiguous here; combine the two, maybe, with "striking at the heart..."?
  • Neighbors remember Fannie Taylor as "very peculiar". This is only one of the examples of present tense being used to describe the survivors' words, actions, and such. The last section in the article states that there's only one survivor left, however, so perhaps the uses should be looked at closer.
  • The white mob burned the black churches in Rosewood. Philomena Goins' cousin Lee Ruth Davis heard the bells tolling in the church as the men were inside setting it on fire.[14] Even the white church in Rosewood was destroyed. Is it strange to think that this is misleading? If there was only one white church in town, then weren't all the churches in Rosewood (black and white) burned/destroyed?
  • was collecting turpentine sap by the side of the road when a car full of whites stopped and asked his name. He gave the name everyone used, "Lord God", and they shot him. "the name everyone used" is confusing, and may need further explanation if it's to be given context -- was this common practice in that area during the time?
  • W. H. Pillsbury's wife helped smuggle people out of the area, with secrecy. Slightly awkward: "wife secretly helped smuggle"?
  • In 1982, an investigative reporter from the St. Petersburg Times named Gary Moore drove from the Tampa area to Cedar Key looking for a story. slight rewording for easier reading, how about "an investigative reporter named Gary Moore from..."?
  • she threatened to disown him, shook him, then slapped him to punctuate her feelings about it. awkward. "enraged, she threatened to disown him..."? Then there won't be a need for the weird "punctuate her feelings about it" thing.
  • E. R. Shipp in The New York Times uses Singleton's youth and background from California to explain his willingness to take on the story of Rosewood...: "uses" may not be the most accurate verb. "points to", maybe?
  • Reception to the film was mixed. Critics commented on the fictionalization of the story of Rosewood as it "assumes a lot and then makes up a lot more".[61] The film version alluded to many more deaths than even the highest counts by eyewitnesses. I believe it's customary to refer to film/book plots in present tense, right? Also, the use of "as it" is a bit difficult here. "fictionalization of the story, which 'assumes a lot and then...'"?

Refs, links and cats all seem to be in order. Overall, great work! Because the above comments and suggestions are fairly minor in scale, I have no issues with promoting this article to GA-status at this time. Best of luck at FAC, and let me know if you'd like me to take another look. I really enjoyed reading the article in full, although now I'm utterly depressed. Sigh. María (habla conmigo) 16:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed. I am employing a very brief window of opportunity that I can work on this article. It is extraordinarily depressing. Thank you for reading and reviewing it, however. I fixed most of what you commented on here. Otherwise, can you clarify:
  • Single voting precinct: while you are right, the black residents of Levy County probably did not vote, the 1920 Census is used as an official count of who owned land where in the towns of Sumner and Rosewood. They listed them as a voting precinct, and on paper I'm sure the residents of Rosewood were listed on voter rolls. However, I do not believe Rosewood residents attempted to vote per the disaster in Ocoee. If the way this is worded is terribly confusing, I am happy to try to adjust it, but since the majority of evidence about Rosewood was provided by eyewitnesses, Census information and tax registrations seem to be the most neutral evidence available.
  • I wouldn't say it's terribly confusing, but it did give me pause. If you think it's notable enough to mention it, however, I suggest giving a little more context to make it seem less random -- just as you did above. :) María (habla conmigo) 02:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Mingo Williams has been characterized as less urbane than the residents of Rosewood. Sources indicate that most black residents and some white ones employed nicknames such as "Man", "Aunt Sarah", "Lord God", etc. Do you think this warrants an explanation? The brief verbal exchange was included to illustrate what prompted the carload of men to kill him. Gary Moore speculates maybe the carload of men thought Williams was being disrespectful by telling them his name was Lord God.
  • Yes, an explanation would help greatly. I assumed that the whites thought Williams was disrespecting them, but that was just my assumption; the fact that "Lord God" was a nickname of sorts needs to be made clearer, or else it does sound like Williams was being facetious. Again, you do a great job summarizing the intricacies of the exchange here on the talk page! Just condense it a bit and there you go. María (habla conmigo) 02:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Let me take another look at my sources on the churches in Rosewood. Something about it is tickling my accuracy trigger.
Thanks again, Maria. --Moni3 (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, I must ask that Google Maps be used: "Robie Mortin, Sam Carter's niece, was seven years old when her father put her on a train to Chiefland, 40 miles (64 km) east of Rosewood". Chiefland is located 20 miles from Rosewood, and the map "Map of Rosewood, Florida and the surrounding towns" must also be updated. It is quite erroneous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinraftis (talkcontribs) 20:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copy editing during FAC[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Congratulations on FA[edit]

Moni, congrats on bringing the article up to FA! You did terrific work.--Parkwells (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Pencil mill[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

That portion of Florida was rich with virgin forests. Thus, Teddy Roosevelt designated the area as a National Reserve. The cedar trees (Cedar Key, get it) were cut down, and they made the blanks, as they were called, that were glued together with lead in the middle, thus making pencils. All the mills in Cedar Key (Atsena Otie and Way Key) did was to take the fresh cut cedar and shape them then they were shipped to the finishing plants to be glued and painted.--Robinraftis (talk) 02:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This does not sound right[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

I just thought they were all deceased by now. Norum (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the 1990s, a retired black Washington DC police officer moved to Rosewood with his family, which included his grandchildren. They were the only blacks in the area, the only black children in the Cedar Key school (K-12). He chose to move after only a year, to find a better environment for his grandchildren. Even Bo Diddly told me that they would not be in the area after dark.--Robinraftis (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not "black codes"[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]


Maybe link "well-publicized incident in December 1922" to the appropriate article. (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Evidence against John Bradley?[edit]

I'm a bit disturbed by the article saying, seemingly as fact, that John Bradley and Fannie Taylor "got into a fight that day and he beat her." The two witnesses mentioned, Philomena and Arnett, are not quoted as saying that Bradley beat Fannie Taylor, or that they heard or saw an altercation while Bradley was in the house. They only say that Bradley was there that morning, and that Fannie Taylor had bruises when she emerged from the house later. Furthermore, it appears that they saw Bradley leave the house after sunrise, and thus after Fannie Taylor's neighbor heard the scream and found Fannie Taylor beaten, but with nobody but the baby in the house. That would suggest that Bradley arrived only after Fannie Taylor had already been beaten. From the article at present, I see exactly as much evidence for the Bradley-did-it thesis as for the white lynch mobs' Jesse-Hunter-did-it thesis: none.

Is there additional evidence against Bradley that I'm overlooking?

Pirate Dan (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I intended this portion of the article to reflect two separate realities in the two communities. What one believed: that Fannie Taylor was raped, robbed, and beaten by a black man, and the other believed: that Taylor had a white lover who probably did it. If the language is not clear I can rewrite the sentences to reflect these beliefs, as in: the black community of Rosewood understood that Fannie Taylor had a white lover and they got into a fight that day and he beat her. --Moni3 (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would agree with that change, and would also suggest changing "understood" to "believed," as more precise. Pirate Dan (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was very brief in constructing the intricacies of what happened to Fannie Taylor. After a short walk and some thought, some added detail here: Sarah Carrier, as a laundress, was required to boil the laundry in 1923. She traveled 3 miles from Rosewood to Sumner and started a boiling pot: a black kettle that sat outside the house. She and Philomena Goins arrived before daybreak to start this, as they usually did. Sarah and Philomena heard the train stop and saw the man arrive at the Taylor house. They stayed outside and tended the pot and the laundry. As a matter of course, they did not look up. Arnett Doctor stated in an interview with the historians that Sarah walked over to the window and witnessed part of the altercation between Fannie and John Bradley. They began yelling and she slapped him, and he responded by beating her. He makes it seem as if it was a pretty fair fight between them in that Fannie was fighting as hard as John Bradley was. Sarah went back to the pot and kept her head down but they noticed John Bradley leaving the house and stepping over a short fence or gate, then began running after he left the yard. He left by the tracks towards Rosewood.
Fannie Taylor emerged screaming some minutes later and claimed the story of the black man. Sarah Carrier was relatively well-respected in both Rosewood and Sumner. It was her age rather than her race that gave her some credibility to interrupt Fannie and correct her. Fannie denounced Sarah and told her to leave immediately. Shortly after, Fannie fainted and was carried to a neighbor's house where she was later sedated and unavailable to comment when authorities arrived to investigate. Another source states that Sarah felt that she had enough respect to lift up the window and shout at the men who surrounded her home several days later, to shame them to go home. One account states she was shot when doing this. --Moni3 (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very interesting. That certainly could put a lot more meat on the bones of the Bradley-did-it hypothesis. On the other hand, I can see your reasons for hesitating to include it in the article; it could muddy the waters a lot given that Sarah, the actual witness, was murdered, and the second-hand story came out only when historians interviewed Arnett. Then also, this version is clearly incompatible with the neighbor's story, and the neighbor's story itself is questionable given that her name doesn't appear, so comparisons of the two conflicting versions could end up consuming too much of the article. And in the end, the article is supposed to be about the massacre in Rosewood, not who beat up Fannie Taylor. I defer to your judgment about whether to include this information. Pirate Dan (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
John Bradley, a white man, heads to Rosewood after leaving Fanny's. He meets up with Sam Carter, a black man, who along with Aaron Carrier, another black man, drives him to a river in a wagon to help him get away. Were these men friends? Carter is somehow, coincidentally, the same guy who hides the escaped convict Jesse Hunter? Carrier is coincidentally the son of the woman who does Fanny's laundry? Dogs lead the posse to Carrier's house. They also lead the posse to Carter's house? The text doesn't seem to make sense. Anon, Tue Aug 4 19:46:23 CDT 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aaron Carrier wasn't Sarah's son, he was her nephew. The article is fairly clear that Carter, Aaron Carrier, and Bradley were all three Masons, a brotherhood that looked out for each other. And there is no real evidence that Carter ever hid Jesse Hunter; Carter only said it under torture, and significantly he was unable to lead the mob to Hunter. The article also never says anything about the dogs leading the mob to Carter's house, they never picked up on Hunter's scent at all. (Even the lead to Carrier's house seems questionable; did the mob have a piece of Hunter's clothing to give the dogs the scent?) Carter was evidently just a convenient scapegoat who was tortured into making a false confession, hardly an unusual thing. Frankly, after Hunter escaped, I don't see any reason to believe that he ever came to Rosewood at all . Pirate Dan (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I see, Aaaron was her nephew. Still odd. The Mason theory seems like a stretch, as white and black Masons were not integrated. The text says dogs led the posse to both Carter's and Carrier's homes. Perhaps dogs were following a scent from Fanny's house? Carter's forced confession may have been false, of course. Note that the survivor's story also has Carter hiding a man on the run. It seems to me that the survivor's version is no less fanciful than the mob's version, substituting a white fugitive for a black one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Historians recognize that the escalating event is confusing and as I posted previously, almost two completely distinct realities. Survivors' descendants recognize that there are some questions about the Mason story because white Masons did not extend their brotherhood regularly to black Masons. Arnett Doctor is fairly confident that Aaron Carrier would have considered a mason of either race a brother, but the question remains if John Bradley would have considered Carrier a brother enough to go to him. Any employee of the railroad would probably be familiar with people living along the tracks as they often put wares at the depot or along the tracks to sell to folks in the rail line, such as how John and William Bryce became familiar with residents of Rosewood. Then the railroad people would sell what they bought in Gainesville. The prevailing theory is that at least one dog followed the scent from the Taylors' fence to Aaron Carrier's house; Bradley went to Carrier because he realized he would be in trouble. He asked Carrier to help him and Carrier employed Carter to assist him. Gary Moore's 1982 newspaper article is more vague about why the mob detained Aaron Carrier, and suggests that Sarah's story conflicted with Fannie's, making Sarah a target and by extension, Aaron. --Moni3 (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bradley did not beat Frannie. Frannie's son told me so.--Robinraftis (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"none have returned"[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
I was going for accuracy. There is one survivor still alive. --Moni3 (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

"Seaking Justice"[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 03:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've been tagged by the vandalism fairy. [6]. A simple undo will suffice. --Moni3 (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relation to the Ocoee Massacre[edit]

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). (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's mentioned briefly in this article in the Racial tensions in Florida section. --Moni3 (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rosewood's Ashes[edit]

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 (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Header: In popular culture[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Well, there was also a formatting issue with how you divided it,[7] 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)Reply[reply]
That was a formatting error.Parkwells (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Looking at the overall article content, I added the following (the material in quotes in the following) to the Lede: Racial disturbances were common during the early 20th century in the United States, associated with the nation's rapid social changes "and movement of labor to northern cities, as well as the South's disfranchisement of black voters and reinforcement of white supremacy." This was to convey the breadth of changes; these are all supported by the content of the sections in the main body of the article. These changes were removed.Parkwells (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Parkwells, sometimes I just don't get what you're doing. I was frankly astonished to find your edits today and I cannot imagine how any experienced editor thought they might be an improvement to an article, let alone an FA. But you seem to like to go to GAs and FAs and make unnecessary changes. You've done this to several articles I've worked on and it always seems like a battle. Why on earth would ...? I don't get it.
That's your opinion - I made suggestions and editing changes. You fundamentally reject anything anyone else offers. It must be frustrating for you to work on Wikipedia. Thank you for your "open and collaborative" manner.Parkwells (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And now make three topic headings for the same issue.
These were not three topic headings, but three additions to the same sentence. They would let someone who only read the Lead know more about the issues.Parkwells (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So it appears you edit disfranchisement articles or something so you felt it appropriate to make the language unnecessarily detailed in the lead, as if the word disfranchisement and the issues of black migrants to the North isn't already mentioned numerous times in the Racial tensions in Florida section. Why does this need further emphasis in the lead? Why is it not sufficient to state that the country was undergoing rapid social changes in the lead to summarize the issues in the article? Why introduce clunky prose like associated with the nation's rapid social changes and movement of labor to northern cities, as well as the South's disfranchisement of black voters and reinforcement of white supremacy. That's a ponderously tongue-twisting and redundant sentence that requires more wording to explain it.
So make it smoother; it's not redundant - each of those is a different but related issue.Parkwells (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't even know how to address the "In popular culture" idea... Seriously, what were you thinking?
Seriously, why are you exaggerating so much? It appears in many articles.Parkwells (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How is a fictionalized event (account) of the Rosewood massacre notable? Have the sources you used stated that the novel is somehow worth mentioning? Did you access any source that was not highlighted in GoogleBooks? Michael D'Orso's historical account received an award from the University of Georgia. John Singleton's film directed a lot of attention to Rosewood and it was reviewed extensively in newspapers. These issues are cited by sources. What would readers to this article learn about the Rosewood massacre from the mention of a fictionalized version of it? Do you think the author of the 3-paragraph review at could spell Sumner correctly? Twice? --Moni3 (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moni, the issue is when you work on an article, you don't think anyone else should ever make any changes or have anything to add. You consider all changes "unnecessary". Your comments are highly colored and not collaborative. The article has been up for two years - do you think no one will ever have another idea about it that could be added, even if it was not one you thought of? Some of your leads in other articles are very detailed - my suggestions reflect the content of the article. If you don't want your article changed, don't work on Wikipedia. "Frankly astonished?" - come on, it's not that bad; it's a difference of opinion. The "In popular culture" idea is because I've often seen that term used, and it's more direct than "Media representations".
Every example of how the Rosewood story has penetrated or been taken up by popular culture does not have to have the weight and academic studies of the Singleton movie to be considered here (and the movie had its own critics). There have been many fictional accounts of other major events; Rosewood's Ashes may be the first novel of many for this one. A reader of the mystery might be pulled into the story about Rosewood, or think more about it, especially if they are curious after reading this article. Telling about it also lets readers of the article know that other readers may come across the story from fiction, not this encyclopedia. Fiction works in a way different than a Wikipedia article, as you know. Rosewood's Ashes can be more fully described; the author did considerable research. In fact, it appears that she kept to the facts of the state investigation better than Singleton did, although she allowed one dog to survive. I said the Book thing was weak and am perfectly willing to take it out. Probably most recent books, like the 2008 one on Florida writers which I cited, are now available on Googlebooks. Do you think that means they are not valid to use as sources? The interviewer clearly thought the novel was worth mentioning and stressed the serious nature of the subject matter. Why do you think it is so wrong to tell about a novel inspired by the publicity of the state investigation? It's not a blip on a cartoon. Parkwells (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, as for when you work on an article, you don't think anyone else should ever make any changes or have anything to add that point is utter bullshit. I would fucking love to have someone to collaborate on articles, but it's rare indeed to find editors willing to do the work necessary for it to be at a level near FA quality. Also, the issue of collaboration seems to be different for many editors. What if you tried, instead of making changes to an article that has been assessed as GA or FA, making suggestions on the talk page of the article? Collaboration is a discussion and a process. Editors should bounce ideas off of each other, ask "what if the article said this?" or "have you considered...?" and have the comfort to argue amiably, think about things, and change their minds. I feel actually very uncomfortable being the only editor to shape some of the articles I write. I should not have that responsibility to myself, but where are the editors willing to read the same sources or find new ones of excellent quality, familiarize themselves with the Manual of Style, and work relentlessly on improving the prose? Collaboration doesn't mean accepting changes only to avoid conflict. That's just settling for less.
At one point, I had an abundance of good will on Wikipedia and an apparent endless supply of patience. That time is gone, which is why I limit my time here and will probably not write another article. It's fairly exhausting just to maintain the articles I've written. I know I'm grouchy, but I'm not impossible. I just don't understand why there are so few editors willing to adhere to very high standards.
So collaborate with me then (and stop accusing me of pushing POV, per the talk page of Palmetto Leaves, when I do nothing of the sort. That pisses me off and makes me think you don't know what you're talking about.) Stop accessing and doing that weird formatting thing putting lists or trivia in FAs. Put your suggestions on the talk page, then be prepared to have a discussion about them. Let's collaborate if you want, but it's got to be respectful of the sources, material, and Wikipedia's highest standards. --Moni3 (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It can be frustrating. I'm dealing with some editors on the Thomas Jefferson and related articles who want to explore what they consider "viable alternatives" to the historians' consensus of his paternity of Sally Hemings' children. They want to turn everything inside out.Parkwells (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rosewood's Ashes - the reason I thought this was worthy of some discussion in the article was not because of the book's influence on culture, but because it represented the penetration of the Rosewood story into popular culture. One person was inspired by what she read to explore further. She did a lot of research and created a story related to the terror of the original event as well as its continuing power and racial issues that led to the long-term secrecy.Parkwells (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't envy your participation in any discussion about Sally Hemings and Jefferson and can only imagine the logical acrobatics that it takes to deny they were involved.
There certainly is room to discuss how fictionalized versions influence perceptions of the actual event, but as usual, we can only reiterate what reliable sources have stated. Two paragraphs discuss the fictionalized events surrounding the murder of Emmett Till (which I rewrote, then parsed the notable versions as mentioned by sources in the article and deposited the rest in the Further reading section simply because they have not been included by sources). Kirkus reviews, The New York Times book review, Publisher's Weekly, and lit reviews in Florida newspapers--like this one from the Gainesville Sun--would all be great sources to use to see if Rosewood's Ashes had an impact. Critics' and reviewers' opinions are notable. The more the better. I don't have the time and access to vast databases of newspapers and academic journals that I did when I wrote the article, but if you're very motivated to include this book, the public library would be able to find these for you. --Moni3 (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The lede should really be trimmed down, and it should have citations (although, maybe not necessarily required). These excerpts belong under the heading 'Background': "Racial disturbances were common during the early 20th century in the United States, reflecting the nation's rapid social changes. Florida had an especially high number of lynchings in the years before the massacre, including a well-publicized incident in December 1922," "Rosewood was a quiet, primarily black, self-sufficient whistle stop on the Seaboard Air Line Railway," and "Racial disturbances were common during the early 20th century in the United States, reflecting the nation's rapid social changes. Florida had an especially high number of lynchings in the years before the massacre, including a well-publicized incident in December 1922." They tell us nothing essential about the 'Rosewood massacre' and are essentially background information. I would make the changes right now, but since there is an ongoing discussion about the lede, it seems better that I make note of these problems here. (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trimmed down to what? "This thing happened"? The lead is actually quite short for the length of the article. And no, it does not need citations if the issues the lead summarizes are fully sourced in the body of the article. Only statistics that are not repeated in the article and quotes should for sure get citations in the lead. --Moni3 (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I gave suggestions as to what should be moved to other parts of the article, or removed if already in the article. I do readily concede that citations are not necessary (or required) in the lede, but I did not go through the article to verify that the statements in the lede were sourced below the lede. I may be able to do so, as time permits. (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As time permits. Well, absolutely. And I can't think of anything sarcastic to say about this, so let me just say it straight out: read the entire article before you start criticizing the lead and making suggestions about what to take out. The lead is a summary of the concepts presented by the best sources about this topic, so you don't get to make decisions about what to remove, especially...and gosh, really...especially if you've not read the body of the article. The sources are the best, you know, sources about what should be covered. To have the best discussion about this, ideally you would also read the sources because then you would know if my summary of them is accurate and I placed appropriate emphasis on the body of literature about the topic. That's a zillion in a one chance, in my experience, but I really am going to insist you read the article at least before entertaining further suggestions. --Moni3 (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pardon me, I should have said that I did not cross-reference every claim in the lede with the body of the article. There is no evidence that it was characterized as a race riot within the article - a citation would be helpful in establishing its characterization as a race riot. Describing it as "characterized as a race riot" needs a citation, because if you are the one characterizing it then it violates WP:NOR. Furthermore, I do not know why you reverted my citation to a particular referent in the lede. That was appropriately sourced information and, as far as I can tell, there was no reason for you to revert that - at the very least, it is informative to reader. I will restore both parts individually, so I that in the event you revert one part, or both parts, fellow Wikipedians can get an idea of what exactly you are objecting to. (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This isn't a question of a particular person characterizing this as a race war, and I'm just outer-limits flummoxed how you could seriously suggest that's my opinion to call it a race riot. "Race riot" is the closest U.S. English equivalent to what occurred, and it was used as a contemporary description for mob violence that was common in the North around the 1920s. This kind of violence is described by sources in the article. "Race riot" sounds like a dated term now because racially motivated mob violence like this is extremely rare in the U.S. The closest English equivalent to what occurred in Rosewood is probably pogrom, but because that term is typically used to describe events in Eastern Europe, it does not fit in this instance. For the lead, "race riot" summarizes succinctly the motivation behind the massacre.
The lead does not exist for you to pepper it with unnecessary citations to sources that are far lesser in quality than what is used in the body of the article. The source, the 93-page report given to the Florida Board of Regents, is linked in the bibliography for anyone to read. The 93-page detail you added is halfway accurate: an accompanying 400 pages of interviews and historians' commentary was also submitted. Moreover, the fact simply does not need to be cited in the lead and just because it can be does not mean the article should be stuffed with simplistic summaries of information that is more fully explained by more comprehensive sources. Moot point, but the citation also does not match the citation style in the rest of the article.
I'm reverting your changes. --Moni3 (talk) 05:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I will explain. It says the Rosewood massacre was characterized as a race riot. Was is the past-tense of be and in this context means that someone characterized it as a race riot when the event happened, or that at one time it was considered a race riot, but is no longer considered one. The goal of the ‘who’ tag was in the hopes that we could show that, e.g., “the Levy County Gazette described it as a race riot, on such and such a date.” This event can be called all sorts of things (it is not always called a “massacre” even). If it is a race riot, then it should be called one outright, as there is no reason to obfuscate its status as a race riot. If it is no longer considered a race riot, and is now considered a massacre instead, which might have some categorical significance to some, then a citation would show the dated nature of the term as applied to this event.
These kinds of clarifications are not significant in storytelling, but they are important in qualitative research.
As to the second point, thank you for pointing out that there was a link to the report in the bib, as I had not noticed it. Do you think it would be possible to link to it in the lede for the sake of clarity? I knew that there was a 461-page volume of appendicies and supporting documentation, along with the 93-page report, but I didn't want to ruin the readability of the lede by adding all that. It could also be added in addition to what I wrote, so I don't see why deleting my contribution rather than adding that little nugget of information would be appropriate. Also, I don't think there is an explicit rule against this, but I am sure that deleting legitimate, verifiable citations because they do not meet stylistic expectations is not very constructive.
Don't take this the wrong way, but please read WP:OWN and consider whether you are engaging in community collaboration or not. I noticed that you have been generally dismissive of changes to this article, rather than working in a collaborative manner with would-be contributors. (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Moni's reversion. We don't need to link to the report in the lead if it's linked later in the appropriate section of the body. If anything including only one citation in the lead gives it the appearance of being undersourced, which it clearly isn't, as everything is explained and cited appropriately in the rest of the article.--Cúchullain t/c 13:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Read all of WP:OWN. All of it. Last section included. I participated in the discussion to include that section because I get accused of owning articles fairly often. Not because I refuse to allow other editors' edits, but I uphold the integrity of the articles I've written. Too few editors recognize the difference and way, wayyy too few editors understand what article integrity is. Write a featured article. Write 20. Review other articles to be featured. After a couple dozen experiences writing and reviewing, you will understand what article integrity is.
As for the issue of passive wording about "characterized as a race riot", it can be rephrased. If you did not quite understand what it meant, you should have asked on the talk page. Instead, without having read the entire article or cross-checked it, or whatever you were doing, you just tagged it. Let me know what you think of this. I think it applies. --Moni3 (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well put.Cúchullain t/c 12:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that essay is neat. Did you write all of that yourself? If so, let me compliment you on your creativity and writing skills. Although, it definitely doesn't meet encyclopedic standards, or academic standards, I think that we can probably find sources for some of the claims in it. Was that an invitation to assist you in that task? (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

(Discussion was closed "without prejudice against reopening move requests individually or in small groups").

Requested move 9 February 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Number 57 21:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rosewood MassacreRosewood massacre – In this context, massacre is mostly lowercase in books, with most uppercase uses being only in title-case citations to articles and books such as "Rosewood ; Like Judgment Day: The True Story of the Rosewood Massacre and Its Aftermath" and the PBS documentary "The Rosewood Massacre: The Untold Story" and the 60-minutes episode "The Rosewood Massacre" and the History Channel documentary "The Rosewood Massacre", while a great majority of uses in text are lowercase, suggesting it is not usually treated as a proper name by most authors. Per the lead advice of MOS:CAPS, then, we should use lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support per this ngram. This is another one where is looks like a close call - the clear trend through 2008 was increased uppercase against decreased lowercase. Seven years later, the lines may have flipped (O, would that ngrams updated its results!) and uppercase predominates. But we don't know. And it's close enough that we should go with lowercase for now. Dohn joe (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Be careful what you wish for. It will be a big problem if they update n-grams based on their more recent book collection, as you can see [8], since the more recent books mentioning this topic are mostly collections of wikipedia articles, so the stats will reflect what wikipedia has been doing in recent years. If you look for the non-wikipedia ones, there are only a few, with 2 lowercase and 1 uppercase, as far as I can see. Dicklyon (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's disappointing. If that result is representative of searches broadly, then I'm afraid that ngrams will be decreasingly useful as a tool to measure contemporary usage. Hopefully someone can figure out how to weed out Wiki-bias on Google Books.... Dohn joe (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For widely mentioned topics, the number of wiki mirror books will be only a small influence, but for topics like this that are mentioned in few books each year, it will be a problem. Care is needed if/when they expose new n-grams. Dicklyon (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


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)Reply[reply]

Description as a 'massacre'[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]