Jump to content

Talk:King assassination riots

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Latriceetheresa.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

[edit]

Article is a little weird-looking right now. Maybe this will resolve with a little more development. I am curious if anyone knows a better way to format the transcript in the LBJ/Daley call. groupuscule (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Silent majority connection

[edit]

I removed the bit about how the riots contributed to Nixon's campaign concept of "silent majority". See Talk:Silent majority#King riots influence? for my reasoning. Basically, Clay Risen expresses a very unusual viewpoint, not at all mainstream. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Binksternet, I respect your edits here and I agree with your decision on Silent Majority. I think there is probably legitimate material connecting riots to a conservative backlash of some type, but it should be factual & better sourced. Thanks especially for your detailed explanation on the Silent Majority talk page. (I agree a little less with removing the section on "Literature," since at least two sources describe under-coverage as itself a historically important fact. However, I don't care enough to put up a big fuss!) Peace & blessings groupuscule (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

City by city

[edit]

Is there any reason Indianapolis, Indiana isn't listed as one of the cities where a potential riot was thwarted because of Robert Kennedy's unplanned speech during his 1968 Presidential campaign? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should Oakland, California be listed in the city by city section? There are now some Google hits about the shootout with Eldridge Cleaver and the subsequent police murder of Bobby Hutton while in custody. Researchers might come here to find out more. Blumrosen (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions Hutton in the "Connection to local issues" section. Were there riots in Oakland after King's assassination? I wasn't able to find any sources that say there were. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 12:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A major riot happened in Portland Oregon Why is no mention made?

Black Power movement

[edit]

This is considered the unofficial beginning of the Black Power movement should we say that in the infobox? Mangokeylime (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considered by whom? What do reliable sources say about the relationship between the riots and the Black Power movement? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just added a little blip about it in the Impact section. Heres a link to some info about King's assassination and black power.. http://www.ushistory.org/us/54i.asp Mangokeylime (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Events

[edit]

Levy never refers to the events as a single "Holy Week uprising" but as multiple "Holy Week uprisings". Also, he doesn't capitalize "uprising"; he uses "uprising" as a common noun (not a proper noun). Furthermore, I've never seen anyone else refer to this series of events as the "Holy Week Uprising". I propose that we change the name of the events to "Holy Week uprisings". Thatsme314 (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on King assassination riots. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphen in title

[edit]

Pinging editors involved in the name change since 2020: JamesLucas Sumanuil

Every source I found does not hyphenate the term as "King-assassination riots": Google Books search, Google Scholar search

Leaving aside hyphenation rules and their interpretation, I think the article title should stick to how it is used in the majority of reliable sources.

Thoughts? Fredlesaltique (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The hyphen is simply ungrammatical. For example, it's Kennedy assassination conspiracies and not Kennedy-assassination conspiracies, and Tunisian bread riots, not Tunisian-bread riots. - Sumanuil (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sumanuil: I mean I agree, but I think the more important guideline with titles is sticking to reliable sources, yeah? (Like you said, a one-year-old child is a child that is one year old but a King-assassination riot is not a riot that is King assassination.) Cheers, Fredlesaltique (talk) 03:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But should sources override grammatical rules? "Specie" is not going to become the singular of "species" just because sources are prone to back-formation. - Sumanuil (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was more thinking for titles.
I don't know that specific example, but if a majority of reliable sources across different fields (scientific, newspapers, etc.) are using something one way, I would just go with those so as not to distract a reader. Usage is always changing anyways. But I was more thinking for titles. Fredlesaltique (talk) 06:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When I moved the article a year ago, my thinking was two-fold:
  1. Standard grammar calls for the hyphen. With due respect to my fellow Wikipedian, Sumanuil is simply incorrect. When a multi-word phrase ending with a noun functions as a single adjective, a hyphen is required. 20th century has no hyphen, but 20th-century events does. There’s no shortage of examples here on Wikipedia (fifty-move rule, small-world network, small-cell carcinoma, public-key cryptography, value-added tax, etc.), and I’ve never seen a style guide that argues otherwise. It doesn’t matter if the first word is naturally an adjective or a noun, and it doesn’t matter if the noun is proper.[a]
  2. The lack of hyphen causes ambiguity about this event and other events. I didn’t make this particular change just to make the punctuation “correct” (although I frequently, and happily, make edits for that reason alone). In this case, I think it is worth making clear to the reader that the term ‘assassination riot’ is not some sort of common thing that they might be familiar with or find in a dictionary—you can’t find that term in a dictionary, and there is not even a redirect for it here, because there is no obvious target for such a redirect. Contrast this with the term ‘race riot’, which has both an entry in Merriam-Webster and a well targeted redirect here on Wikipedia. Of the things that are (or once were) deemed to have been race riots, we can find specific instances such as the Tulsa race riot[b] or the Omaha race riot of 1919. Here the lack of a hyphen is important because it would be absurd to suggest that the “Omaha race riot” was a riot of some group called the “Omaha race”. The ability to communicate a meaningful distinctions through the differences in hyphenation is small but significant benefit. Not hyphenating King-assassination riots as convention dictates reduces clarity everywhere.
A couple other thoughts:
  • This title is a bit odd no matter how you slice it. The exact phrase (with or without the hyphen) is used elsewhere, but not all that often. I note that some more discerning writers opt for ‘post-King-assassination riots’.[c]
  • I’m far from convinced that the hyphen’s presence is even remotely likely to have an adverse affect. No one who reads the phrase ‘King assassination riots’ and comes to Wikipedia to learn more is going to see the hyphen and think oops, this isn’t what I was looking for. And, contrary to Sumanuil’s edit summary, no one is going to think this was riot led by an individual named King-Assassniation if for no other reason than ‘assassination’ isn’t capitalized.
Cheers —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 01:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to leave aside questions of hyphen usage, grammar, etc. (I do appreciate that JamesLucas took the time to wrote out their rationale, though). For any article title, I think we should follow what the subject is called in reliable sources. As the Manual of Style (WP:CRITERIA) states:

"Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. There is often more than one appropriate title for an article. In that case, editors choose the best title by consensus based on the considerations that this page explains."

As I mentioned in my first comment, sources do not use a hyphen (I cannot find any that do). I propose to follow their usage. Cheers, Fredlesaltique (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The hyphen does no harm, in cueing the reader that it's about riots related to the King assassination, as opposed to some assassination riots related to King. Sure, it would be understood either way, and sources often don't bother with the hyphen when it's not really important, but as I read MOS:HYPHEN, it's a good idea to use the hyphen when it helps to grammatically clarify the intended meaning. So why not leave well enough alone? Dicklyon (talk) 06:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fredlesaltique: As requested, I’ve added a couple examples of ‘post-King-assassination riots’ (in the footnotes). I want to take the moment, though, to expound a bit on my first bulleted point above noting that neither version of the title being discussed is particularly widespread. Site-specific Google searches of chicagotribune.com, latimes.com, washingtonpost.com, and newyorker.com turn up no results for either the hyphenated or unhyphenated version of the article title.[d] I appreciate that there are more unhyphenated hits in Google Scholar, but we’re still looking at a sample size of about 12 confirmed hits. I don’t think this establishes some overwhelming standardization. —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 01:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ There are some interesting nuances when the word strings get longer. The 40-Year-Old Virgin gets two hyphens, but New York–style pizza uses an en dash to show the connection without hyphenating the multi-word proper noun because, at least in this era, we find ‘New-York’ to be distracting. (That was not always the case though: hyphenating proper nouns was previously standard enough that the nations leading newspaper used to be The New-York Times.)
  2. ^ The article once titled Tulsa race riot is now, thankfully, renamed Tulsa race massacre. It’s not unreasonable to think that other articles will also be renamed in time. I’m using the term for comparison here because it works well, baggage-laden or not. ‘Bread riot’ is analogous, but the redirect (to Food riot) is weirdly cased as of this moment, so I eschewed it.
  3. ^ @JamesLucas: What sources? Fredlesaltique (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    @Fredlesaltique: Here are a couple:
    1. Rich, Frank (15 May 1997). "Reverse Exodous". The New York Times. Retrieved 3 March 2021.
    2. Cole, Susan G. (22 February 2017). "James Baldwin was nobodys Negro". Now Toronto. Retrieved 3 March 2021.
    —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 01:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  4. ^ Not all newspaper archives are as searchable as The New York Times’, but this probably covers at least the last decade or so.

Again, no prominent sources appear to use "King-assassination riots", which would seem to indicate that it [King Assasination Riots] is in fact grammatical. Regardless, I think the title should not deviate from standard usage, and I see no good reason to go against it in this case. Again, I understand if you feel it's not grammatical, but I'd encourage you to be open to the possibility. Fredlesaltique (talk) 05:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 April 2021

[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 03:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


King-assassination riots → King assassination riots – Reliable sources consistently use the term without the hyphen. No reliable sources use hyphenated "King assassination riots." (This is a move back to the original article title). Google Books search, Google Scholar search Fredlesaltique (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I can't find any information.

[edit]

Was this the biggest race riot in your country up until the BLM race riots? I can't find the death toll of the BLM riots as the media seem hellbent on pretending they're all just incidental and people just fell over dead (in the nothing to do with Islam way they'd portray terrorist attacks) burying the actual figures. But I'm sure us foreigners, and history, would like to know the truth of what happened there. 2001:8003:3631:7400:50FD:2CD8:8930:2A5B (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:King_assassination_riots&oldid=1256560811"