Talk:Hough riots

Question of Communist Influence

This needs more references/citations. Even if a Communist-aligned author claimed responsibility for actions contributing to rioting, historians must have written about this event, causes and contributors. The Communists could have been trying to take advantage of a situation that existed without them - as it did.--Parkwells 22:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I slightly changed the wording for the reference to the book. I'm not sure why a referenced, publication requires a citation. A citation simply directs you to a source. Giving the name, author and date of a published book is a citation itself? Also, many other citiations were already annotated with proper citations. There is significant historical references to communist influence in the Hough riots, and they have been properly cited.Angncon (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Because you have cited from primary FBI sources and a book by a former member of the Communist Party, for instance, rather than historians writing about the event, it looks POV and as if you are doing original research (OR), pulling data to support your own conclusions. You're supposed to rely on scholarly sources, not groups who have their own agenda. Time magazine is journalism, not history. --Parkwells (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)--Parkwells (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more. Articles included in Wikipedia should only allow citations to scholarly or professional publications. I would be the first in line to argue for this standard. The reality is that if we held all Wikipedia articles to this standard, then 99.99% of them would require removal, to include about 75% of this article. Remember, this is the same Wikipedia that routinely uses citations from Al Jazeera to explain events in the Iraq War. As far as original research, according to Wikipedia OR produces 'new' knowledge. No new knowledge is presented in the article regarding possible communist influence. Only direct citations from a Federal Grand Jury investigations, several FBI reports, an author with knowlege of the riots, and the findings of a U.S. District Court. No original research, no new knowledge. Angncon (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Just thought there might be studies other than the FBI's own reports. I understand what you mean about the "standard" being one many Wikipedia articles could not meet.--Parkwells (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Who is Bertram Gardner? A statement is attributed to him without sourcing. Was he a contemporary observer (appears so from context) - in what capacity?--Parkwells (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the section headline to Alleged Communist Party involvement.THD3 (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Good source for looking in to the communist question

• The Politics of Urban Violence: Critiques and Proposals

Can anyone get a copy? futurebird (talk) 05:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The monograph was written by James N. Upton. He has written several articles as well as books on the civil rights riots of the 1960's. He is currently an associate professor at Ohio State University in the Department of African American Studies. Generally, he discusses the root causes of the racial riots. Among the chief reasons he noted were (paraphrasing) unequal labor markets, housing markets, educational systems, and the public policy responses to discrimination and poverty.

None of the citations in this article (except for the Time magazine reference) dispute any of Mr. Upton's claim to the true causes of the riots. What is presented in this section is how Communist organizations attempted to co-opt the riot, and further incite violence. Fueling racial riots was a very common tactic that has been used by numerous Communist organizations in both America and abroad; for decades before the Hough riots. Additionally, these type of incitement have have been routinely discussed in the open by several Communist organizations.

The issue comes when Communist influence is exposed, it degrades and diverts attention away from the original (true) cause of the problem. While several movements have embraced this increase in capabilities, the civil rights movement of the 1960s has generally avoided any association with Communism. This is nowhere more evident than when the Weathermen Underground (suspected of having Communist ties) attempted to associate themselves with the civil rights movement. In reaction, the Black Panther Party defamed the Weathermen as an "unorganized, ignorant group with little or no knowledge of proper or effective resistance."

So here we stand. Is it worth discussing in the article that there is evidence that the Hough riots, among others, had Communist influence? Personally, I feel that it is valid with these caveats. There is an clear delineation between the Communist and civil rights goals; there is no evidence that the two organizations ever worked together; and that Communist organizations were involved only to the extent that they attempted to co-opt the civil rights cause. Just my thoughts.Angncon (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of those issues in relation to previous linkage or ties between communism and the civil rights movement. Hoover made the FBI far more concerned with proving King had ties to Communism than finding Klansmen who murdered and assaulted people. My concern with THIS article is that the portion about Communist influence is given outsize coverage related to exploring the background of the other issues that people faced in Hough, as you outlined above. As you noted, people get conveniently distracted by the issue of Communism. It may be better to have a Background section that provides more context before getting into the details of the riot. I don't have the numbers right now, but am sure Cleveland and Hough by then faced the usual problems in the Rust Belt of massive losses of jobs with industrial restructuring that had earlier supported middle class life for many working blacks, as well as discrimination in housing, etc. as you note. With civil rights legislation, expectations began to rise that something would be done about some of the structural issues. There is no need to be looking at Communism, for instance, when you can see blacks were kept off the police force, had miserable housing and services, etc.--Parkwells (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right about the article needing balance in the "communist" section-- it makes it seem like th whole thing was really caused by communists and that simply isn't the case. They just jumped on the bandwagon. futurebird (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Category - Crime in Ohio

This seems like too general a category to apply to the Hough Riots, which deal with a specific incident. It doesn't help to make the categories so broad that everything gets swept into them.--Parkwells (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are speaking about the communist influence, the cititations reveal that while communists did not start the riots, they certainly exacerbated them to the point where they became a national issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angncon (talk • contribs) 19:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

My point about the categorization was that the Hough Riots shouldn't be classified under a category "Crime in Ohio", which seems much too general. --Parkwells (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between "root causes" or "underlying causes" of the riot and the event that sparks it. Many riots are started by a singe event or a couple of agitators, but their underlying causes are often wider (often long histories of problems and lack of access to the mainstream political system). I don’t think that without the conditions that underlie the Hough Riots the "communists" could have just walked in and started a riot. From the sources it does appear that they were a factor in sparking the riots. I have tries to re-arrange the sections and worked on the language to put the communist connection into context. --SasiSasi (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Time magazine reference

In the "Communist influence" section, I deleted a sentence that the "police and FBI received word that something was going to happen", and its related reference by a Time magazine article. When I looked at the article itself, the discussion about planning referred to a later Cleveland riot under Mayor Stokes. This is inaccurate and misleading.--Parkwells (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "her" :
  • ''[http://www.nhlink.net/ClevelandNeighborhoods/hough/history.htm Hough Heritage]''
  • [http://www.nhlink.net/ClevelandNeighborhoods/hough/history.htm Hough Heritage]

DumZiBoT (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

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 04:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Houston Riot (1917) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Event names

If different names like "uprising", "rebellion", or the like are to be included, there need to be citations to that. - Tim1965 (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)