Talk:1967 Detroit riot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Was it a Rebellion?[edit]

The Was it a Rebellion section seems like an editorial. It uses intentionally persuasive language and isn't fit for the entry. Even so, the topic is pertinent and should be addressed in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editeditedict (talkcontribs) 15:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The use of the word riot in the Wikipedia entry about events relating to the arrest of African-Americans who wanted to welcome home Black Vietnam War veterans and the killing of up to 2 dozen African-Americans in Detroit by the US government in 1967 related to those violent arrests is not correct. Riot uses intentionally persuasive language which casts the victims as perpetrators. The term rebellion is factual and should replace the word “riot.” Worldpeaceforyou (talk) 05:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Worldpeaceforyou and am prepared to second a motion to move. Forty years later, we began to hear people questioning whether it was improper to term the rebellion a "riot" and fifty years later many local voices came out preferring "rebellion." Perhaps our title is behind the times. - phi (talk) 08:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Photographers[edit]

I am suggesting that these photographers be added to the entry Two photographers Lee Balterman Ira Rosenberg Organicwater2 (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Here is a more comprehensive list of photographers that were part of the Detroit Free Press Pulitzer Prize winning team: Tony Spina, Jerry Heiman, Jimmy Tafoya Ira Rosenberg, Ed Haun. and: Dick Tripp Thenommos (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Caucasian[edit]

"Caucasian" is a proper noun and should always be capitalized. But anyway, since people outside the U.S. might not understand the term, it's probably better to just use "white." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.102.177 (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2005


White is not a proper description of any people group on earth. It is not a scientific term, and holds no objective criteria. It focuses on skin color, which is something only done by racists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.205.148.10 (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Far left ideological agenda...[edit]

the far left, pro black (to be clear, when the phrase "pro black" is used, it should be received as someone receives the term "white supremacist", etc. IE a racist ideology) agenda in this article is blatant. The SJW nonsense needs to be removed from this article, and historical revisionism needs to be removed. I abhor all racism, that's the motivation for this statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.205.148.10 (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

DUMB[edit]

I'm sure popular music's take on these events might seem of importance to some high schoolers today. But IMHO, as someone who lived through them, I think it has ZERO PLACE in this article. Don't you have editors to remove these gratuitous remarks that keep cropping up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.145.174 (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)