Jump to content

Talk:Orangeburg Massacre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Orangeburg massacre)
Good articleOrangeburg Massacre has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 21, 2023Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 24, 2023.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Orangeburg Massacre was the first time police shot and killed students on an American university campus?
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 8, 2013, February 8, 2016, and February 8, 2024.

Untitled

[edit]

The linguistic similarity is the reason for the inclusion of the term, which I failed to redirect in the first edit. However, the term "massacre" implies POV and so is properly handled (which should serve as a useful model in cases such as this article but of course this asks too much from the romanticists). --TJive 22:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am reverting the scare quotes (as you term them, too) and changing the link to the name of the page.DJ Silverfish 14:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my mind. Shootings doesn't look right. Massacre is the more common term for killing unarmed people. DJ Silverfish 14:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was being ironic. And it doesn't matter what you think "looks right". If it doesn't conform to NPOV (much less the actual name of the link) it needs changed. --TJive 21:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your irony was not "very obvious". Anyway, the link is fine as it is. DJ Silverfish 19:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall saying my irony was "very obvious".

Anyway glad we agree. --TJive 23:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can't bear the slightest possibility of equivocation, eh? --TJive 05:59, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Critisism

[edit]

Moved here from page - needs references, better writing, etc. Jack Bass needed to ask some of the people that were involved in the massacre. Even though I haven't read his book.I think that the book is a some what false account of what happened that night. My teacher told us that there was a platform in front of a building and that an Orangeburg police officer went onto the platform and took out his revolver and shot at the building. To make it seem like the students at SCSU shot back at them. Shortly after,the building was torn down. The goverment didn't want anyone to do a forensic test and see that the angle the shots came from that it couldn't have came from the campus. Pollinator 00:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like pure speculation that can't really be validated in my opinion. - Deron Dantzler 03:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I used to teach history at Orangeburg Wilkinson HS a few years ago, and used to hear all sorts of versions of what initiated the shooting from my students. My favorite: One officer slipped an fell, discharging his revolver as he did so. The other officers heard a shot, looked over to see the first officer going down, and then opened up on the crowd in front of them. But that was hardly the only version. To me, the key lesson was always how basically good intentions on the part of both McNair and the SNCC were scuttled by the highly charged environment that was Orangeburg. With emotions running that high, and neither side willing to give an inch, somebody was bound to screw up and thus a bad outcome was almost inevitable. 71.68.212.110 (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Bullet308[reply]

All college students?

[edit]

The article says the three students killed were college students, but wasn't one of those killed a high school student? Badagnani 00:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, Delano Middleton was a 17 year old high school student. [1] and [2] Thanks. --Knulclunk 16:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article should state what kinds of students each was, and their ages. Badagnani 17:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.--Knulclunk 17:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Will add more soon. --Knulclunk 02:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking?

[edit]

It appears that this article was blanked at some point without explanation. Everything including categories was deleted. Somebody really wants to censor this article. Skywriter 00:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

School Shooting

[edit]

"School shooting" seems like the wrong description for "attack type". Is there a non-POV term for "heavy-handed police response to violent yet unarmed protesters"?--Knulclunk (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

27 or 28?

[edit]

The article text states that 27 people were injured in the massacre, but the info box says 28. Which is it? I recall being recently taught in a high school Vietnam War class that the injury count was 27. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornman7001 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the injured number at 30 on other sites and such with names so I am curious what the real count is. Also, according to this article: http://www.foxcarolina.com/news/15252407/detail.html a new name was added to the injured list in 2008 so it should (I suppose officially) be 28. Novadestin (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smithsonian Article titled Soul of the South written by Paul Theroux from July-August 2014 - states that "....27 were injured, some of them seriously, all of them students, riddled with buckshot."

Page move

[edit]

OPPOSE. I see that the page has been moved and returned twice to Orangeburg Massacre. As Orangeburg Massacre seems to be the generally accepted term for the event, I see no reason to change it. The number of victims hardly seems to matter in this case. Has the event been historically called anything else? For example, the more famous Kent State Shootings, though often called Kent State Massacre, is commonly called the less POV Kent State Shootings as well. I am unsure if the Orangeburg event has similarly neutral name.--Knulclunk (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has no such less POV term in common use. I attribute this mostly to the fact that "The Orangeburg Massacre" as a phrase just sounds better than any alternative...it just kinda' rolls off the tongue, dont you think? In the same way that "The Kent State Shootings" flows better than "The Kent State Massacre". Even though the body count at Kent State looks more like a "massacre" than Orangeburg ever really did.

Citations and neutrality dispute

[edit]

I've added 3 citations from primary sources that address the question of violence and weapons in the crowd. Since this seems to be the most controversial aspect of this article, I'd like to remove the two notations on citations and neutrality. The previously cited sources were recent, which could leave them open to POV questions. I hope this clears things up. Ynottry (talk) 04:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Ynottry[reply]

media coverage

[edit]

Quoting from the page: Linda Meggett Brown wrote that subsequent events in the spring of 1968: the assassinations of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy, the Democratic presidential candidate; and the Tet Offensive in Vietnam, overshadowed the events at Orangeburg.[6]

The Tet Offensive was in January, 1968, so not subsequent to the massacre, nor in the spring. 71.53.58.24 (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Date inconsistency

[edit]

In the Background section of the article it states that the shooting occurred in February of 1968. The sentence following that says that "In the fall of 1968" there was a move to convince the owner to desegregate and that he "was unwilling to desegregate; as a result protests began on in early February 1968." Since this event led to the protests of February 1968, it could not have occurred in the fall of 1968 because that would be after the protests/massacre. I would guess that it should say "In the fall of 1967." Since I don't know this for a fact, I haven't changed it, but someone should change it to the correct year.

I will change this typo/grammar error:

"began on in early February 1968"

Ileanadu (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charges

[edit]

It appears the charges were "Imposing summary punishment without due process of law". Any RS for this? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC).

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Orangeburg 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: 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) 21:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Orangeburg 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: 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) 18:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

[edit]

Why are all the pictures of All-Star from 2015? Are there not any pictures from 1968 or an adjacent year? 199.120.30.203 (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Violence

[edit]

Does it talk about how the protesters were being violent and flipping over cars and stuff though? 2600:387:C:6E11:0:0:0:C (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

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

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 06:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I'll read through this article and post a review within the next few days. Then we can see how close it is to the good article criteria and what we can do to get it to good article status. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SilverStar54, I've posted a review of the article below. Overall, it looks pretty good. I've left notes about each of the good article criteria and what the article still needs to meet them. Most of them are pretty typical issues for GA nominations and should be easy fixes. If all of these issues are addressed, then I'll mark this as reviewed and designate it as a good article. Feel free to reply to any of the points directly if you need clarification or have something to add. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! I'll read through your review and make the necessary changes this week. SilverStar54 (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thebiguglyalien: I've finished making the requested changes. I did have a couple notes/questions:
  • The "Orangeburg 1968", photography and publication by Cecil J. Williams citation was from a previous version of the article. There were no in-text citations for it so I've removed the source.
  • Good point about the shotgun slugs, I honestly don't know what I should call these things. I know very little about guns and ammunition, but I'm under the impression that "shot" and "slugs" are incompatible (aren't slugs solid?). Yet Bass and Nelson seem to use "slug" to refer to a round of buckshot. When they're first describing the ammunition (pg 65) they call the 00 buckshot "about the size of .32 caliber slug", but later they call what hit Carson "eight buckshot slugs" (pg. 71) and on pg. 67 refer to "A buckshot slug physicians at first mistook for a rifle bullet..." I'm not sure how to interpret this.
  • The relevant info on page 10 of Bass and Nelson is just before the break: "...the student NAACP chapter, which that fall had more than 300 members."
  • The "40" figure is indeed in Stahler.
SilverStar54 (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is looking really good now. I've made a few small edits to the wording, so feel free to look them over and change them if you wish.
  • I'd hardly say that I'm an expert on types of ammunition myself. I'm going off of the shotgun shell article, which says they may be filled with either "shot" or with a "slug". What I'm going to do is just remove the word "buckshot". That way it's accurate regardless of what type of specific ammunition they're using.
  • It's not important, but you could add Template:Inflation to the dollar figures, which will add "$X in 2022" after the amount and update itself over time.
  • I checked the new images for good measure, and they're all good. I notice that two of them were uploaded by the accounts of the politicians in them, but that shouldn't be an issue as long as you don't work for them or anything like that.
You can make any further changes based on the points in this review if you like, but I'm satisfied that it meets all of the good article criteria, and I'm going to designate it as a good article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well-written

General comments:

  • I've done some basic copyedits and added some links to the article. Reviewers generally don't do more than that so as to be a neutral party when evaluating the article.
  • There are a lot of footnotes in this article. Ones that get into minute details are fine, but some of them could probably be incorporated directly into the text instead so that it's easier for the reader to see all of the information and how it relates.
  • Either SCSC or State College is fine, but the article should be consistent.

Lead:

  • The first sentence is rather long. It should usually just give a basic description of the what, when, and where. Then the second sentence can go into details like how many people were injured or killed.
  • The lead should only include content that's included and sourced in the body. Does the body support Despite public pressure, the results of investigations by the FBI and SLED were never fully disclosed?

Background:

  • Tensions had reached their breaking point – This feels slightly idiomatic. It can probably be reworded in a more straightforward fashion.
  • and a club called BAAC, the Black Awareness Coordinating Committee – It doesn't have to say "a club called". It can just say "and the Black Awareness Coordinating Committee (BAAC)".
  • The NAACP chapter was large but moderate – "but" suggests that these are contrasting fact even though they're not directly related. This should be reworded to something like "The NAACP chapter took a moderate position, and it was the larger of the two with over 300 members." That way the two different aspects are distinct.
  • To the white community and Black middle class – This is the only instance where "Black" is capitalized as a racial group. Capitalized or not are both acceptable per MOS:RACECAPS, but ideally it should be consistent throughout the article.
  • the state of civil rights in Orangeburg was lagging behind most areas in the south — "lagging behind" feels a little informal.
  • this was seen as a major disappointment – This should clarify who saw it as a major disappointment. I imagine there were certain groups that were quite happy with the disparity.

Struggle to integrate All-Star Bowling Lane:

  • The heading for this section is a little wordy and "struggle" carries strong connotations.
  • All-Star Bowling had a lunch counter that definitely was covered – This could be reworded to be more formal. Maybe something like "but the existence of the food counter legally required integration as an eating establishment". I also suggest moving this footnote to the text, since the food counter is relevant to the sequence of events.
  • that called out the bowling alley – "called out" is informal
  • without a "club membership" – Scare quotes should not be used in articles per MOS:SCAREQUOTES. If something is false, then the article should explain the situation directly with a source to support it.
  • and other cities – This links to Birmingham campaign. This is an Easter egg link, which should be avoided.
  • Washington Post reporter Jim Hoagland reflected – This should clarify when he reflected on this. I see that the source was published in 1968, so it would be shortly after the events. But the way it's written, it could be talking about a reflection written a generation later.

Shooting:

  • and at Livingstone's warehouse across from Claflin College – This leaves me wondering who Livingstone is and what his warehouse has to do with this.
  • gathered around the bonfire in a "jovial" mood – It's unclear to the reader why "jovial" is in quotes.
  • In either case, the students began to turn and run – The article doesn't say what actually caused the students to run. Were they reacting to a noise, like the alleged shot in the air or the whistle?
  • The text says that they fired buckshot from Remington Model 870 shotguns, while a few used carbines and one fired a pistol, but Bass & Nelson also describes the use of shotgun slugs, and slugs are mentioned in the table.

Public reactions and media coverage:

  • The reaction of the students and of Civil Rights leaders was very different. – I would suggest removing "very" as it doesn't really change the meaning. This whole sentence could probably be removed without losing any information, but I'll leave it up to you whether the paragraph reads better with or without it.
  • Martin Luther King blamed the massacre – I assume this is referring to Martin Luther King Jr., not his father? If so, it should use the name he's known by.
  • was seen as an essentially local issue – "essentially" can be removed for concision without changing the meaning.
  • had no idea about how to handle – "had no idea about how" feels informal. I would suggest "did not know how" or "were unable".

Subsequent protests:

  • On March 7, BACC (see background) – An article generally shouldn't refer to itself. We can trust that the reader either saw what BACC stood for above or can go back and look for it.
  • The city remained occupied by hundreds – "occupied" implies military occupation and martial law, which probably isn't what was happening here. Maybe say that they "maintained a presence in the city" or something like that.

Court cases:

  • who continued to insist on his right to refuse business to black patrons – This wording makes it sound like he had such a right and insisted on protecting it. Maybe "who insisted that he had a right to refuse business".
  • convicted of a charge of – "of a charge of" reads awkwardly.
  • He served seven months in state prison, getting time off for good behavior – This would be clearer if it listed his original sentence first and then his time served.
Verifiable with no original research

Most of the sources appear to be high quality. There are just a few things that should be looked at:

  • IMDb is user-generated, and therefore it is considered to be a generally unreliable source. Citations to IMDb must be replaced.
  • A thesis can be a reliable source, but they often aren't. I suggest replacing these if possible.
  • I'm not sure what source "Orangeburg 1968", photography and publication by Cecil J. Williams is referring to. Can more information be added to this citation?
  • I notice that there are a lot of primary sources, published as events were happening or by parties that were involved. This isn't necessarily a problem and doesn't require any immediate changes, but it's something to keep in mind, because it's harder to put the event in context when using these sources.
  • If Hammond's location on the map isn't represented in the source, then it's original research, and it presents an inaccurate picture even with the footnote.
  • There are a few instances of four or five citations in a row. What you can do is bundle them by writing a footnote saying "Cited to multiple sources" or something like that and putting the citations in the footnote. It's not a big deal, but it makes the article look cleaner.

I've spot checked several of the sources to see how the article compares to them:

  • Bass & Nelson (1984) – Checked ten uses. Pages 22, 45, 64, 77, 81, and 93 check out.
    • Page 10: This page has nothing to do with what's cited here. Was this source placed by mistake?
    • Page 28: This source doesn't say 40, but I assume that the other source attached to this sentence does. If it does, then no issue here.
    • Page 43: Total property damage amounted to less than $5000 is copied verbatim from the source. Direct copying or close paraphrasing of sources can become a plagiarism issue, so this needs to be reworded. I also notice that this page dispels a myth that students tipped cars: that might be worth adding here.
    • Page 79: This page does not support that there were deliberately false or misleading statements by South Carolina officials.
  • Sellers (1990) – Checked all three uses. Pages 206 and 210 check out. Page 208 supports some of the text, but it could be clearer which of these citations is supposed to support what here.
  • Watters & Rougeau (1968) – Checked four uses. Pages 7, 9–10, and 21 check out.
    • Page 4: The article says A student then broke one of the alley's windows. It may have been unintentional, caused by the press of the crowd knocking the student into the glass, but the police interpreted it as deliberate vandalism. The source says Someone kicked in a glass panel of the bowling alley door. Police seized a student presumed to have done the kicking, grabbing and jerking him roughly. These are two different claims.
    • Page 18: This only supports the black power advocates quote. The citation should probably be moved up to align with that.

These spot checks are generally okay, but there are a few very big discrepancies in there, which generally shouldn't happen with GA.

There are also several strong claims that require special attention to their sourcing. These are all items that should have high quality sources no later than the end of the sentence:

  • their conservative college president – Does the source specifically call him conservative? Ideological labels are tricky, and generally they should only be used if it's explicitly supported by the source.
  • but represented the most progressive edge of the student body – Same as the previous point. Do the sources describe it as "progressive"?
  • There was at least one occasion (possibly more) – Does the source explicitly say that there were "possibly more"? If not, it's not our place to speculate or try to infer.
  • The meeting they had with students is generally considered a failure. – By whom?
  • The reaction of the white public nationwide was mainly indifference or support for the actions of the police. – The citation for this should explicitly say that this was the general reaction of the entire white public nationwide.
  • Major riots in Detroit and Newark the previous summer had soured white liberals on the course of Civil Rights movement. – Same as the previous point. It needs a citation that explicitly says that "white liberals" rejected the Civil Rights movement as a whole because of those riots.
  • the Orangeburg students were cast as violent rioters who needed to be stopped by whatever means necessary – Does the source explicitly say that coverage cast them as "violent rioters"?
  • This narrative was widely accepted by the white media and public in the weeks following the event. – The source here says it was accepted by the "mainstream media", not the "white media and public". Whether there's any difference is debatable, but we're limited to what the source says happened without our own interpretation.
Broad in its coverage

The article adequately covers each aspect of the events, before, during, and after.

The list of victims takes up a lot of space but doesn't provide much encyclopedic information to the reader. Instead of a table, the same source could be used to write something like "the victims were high school and college students ranging in age from 15 to 23." And then a sentence or two could go into more detail about the students that have notes attached in the table, describing the nature of the deaths and other significant details. Likewise with the list of patrolmen. The sentence that nine patrolmen were charged would be sufficient, especially since none of them are notable.

Neutral

There are no serious issues of undue weight, but there are some wording choices that present opinions or implications, which should be avoided in Wikipedia articles to maintain an impartial tone.

General comments:

  • The word "claim" is used a few times in the article. This should generally be avoided because it suggests we're casting doubt on what they're saying. When in doubt, just use "said".
  • The word "even" is used several times for emphasis, but this risks editorializing and should be avoided when possible.

Background:

  • had just emerged victorious from a years-long struggle – This reads as laudatory
  • campus life was liberalized – This seems editorialized
  • the crushing disparity between funding – This is opinion/interpretation, which should not be made by the article

Struggle to integrate All-Star Bowling Lane:

  • The article should state plainly what happened to escalate tensions following the arrest. Right now it depends solely on a quote from someone who was there telling it from their perspective. After describing the events, then the quote can be used to give more detail.
  • Unfortunately, the police had called a fire truck as backup – An article should never use "unfortunately" to describe something.
  • There was a notable lack of media coverage – Describing it as "notable" is slightly editorial. It would be better to say "There was little news coverage" or something like that.

Public reactions and media coverage:

  • Cleveland Sellers in particular was targeted by the state as a scapegoat – The article should not accuse anyone of scapegoating. Something like "the governor's office blamed Cleveland Sellers in particular" would work.
  • This narrative was widely accepted by the white media and public in the weeks following the event. – "narrative" often carries a negative connotation, and it might be better to swap it out.
  • Historian Jack Bass pointed out that – Much in the way "claim" casts doubt, "pointed out" implies that the person is correct. "Said", "argued", or "suggested" would work better here.
  • Moreover, the victims at Kent State – Is this sentence still going over Bass's opinions? If it is, it should make this clear.
  • Survivor Thomas Kennerly also points out that – "points out" can be replaced
Stable

There are no recent content disputes in the article's history or talk page.

Illustrated

All images are relevant and free to use. Captions are sufficient. Great work on the maps.

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.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle talk 22:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by SilverStar54 (talk). Self-nominated at 19:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Orangeburg massacre; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • IMO the hook unnecessarily links the Kent State shootings and will divert the majority of views to that article rather than the new GA which is great work and warrants lots of views. How about an alt hook like one of these:
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: None required.
Overall: I think ALT2 is the best choice, but ALT1 is also approved – nice work, SilverStar54! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Addition about photos at night

[edit]

@Ben76266 @Adflatuss, I don't want to start an edit war, but I don't agree with this recent addition. The claim that "no one expected the shootings" isn't true, several observers were worried there would be violence and there were several journalists on the scene. It's true that there were limited photos/videos made of the events because it was at night, but that's already discussed in a sentence in the last paragraph of the section. I'm open to moving/reworking that sentence, but I don't think we should repeat ourselves. SilverStar54 (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see it is repetitive. 〜 Adflatuss • talk 13:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Orangeburg_Massacre&oldid=1205142901"