Talk:Peekskill riots/Archive 1

Archive 1

Older

This line seems ambiguous:

and, just months before the concert in 1949, he had appeared at the World Peace Conference in Paris, stating "it is unthinkable that American Negroes will go to war in behalf of those who have oppressed us for generations . . . against a country which in one generation has raised our people to the full dignity of mankind."

To which country is he referring? -- Viajero | Talk 17:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The Soviet Union, apparently.

see: google and [1], [2]...

 — Davenbelle 08:35, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Red scare

What he hell is the deal with this Red Scare edit war? I've seen it removed and readded zillions of times without anyone giving a single justification for either edit. If you're going to edit war at least discuss it in the talk page! I included it when I originally wrote this article, but I'm not married to having it remain if someone can give me any indication of why it should not stay. I'm going to re-add it if I don't hear anything soon. -R. fiend 19:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be good to make some reference to the heightened tensions of the immediate post-war era - I had used the word 'hysteria', which has been edited out. Unfortunately, I don't find the Red Scare article really fits the bill either (it reads, even to an English Socialist, as a bit POV). Linuxlad 00:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"Red Scare" is imprecise and inaccurate. In the context of post-WWII anti-communism, it is most closely associated with another pejorative, "McCarthyism" which is altogether irrelevant and immaterial to the event in question (and it's date). As for why there is an edit war, it is simply that this (mainly) anonymous user chooses to interfere (and usually revert) with any political article I choose to work on, no matter how slightly. It is not particularly a content dispute and I doubt he will be bothered to glance at the talk page. --TJive 06:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The term "Red Scare" is simply a compromise to TJive's pro-American bias, which he inserts daily at wikipedia.

anti communist v anti black

Someone has made a change to anti-black here - but it seems pretty clear (eg from the Pete Seeger comment, and its use by Doctorow in 'Daniel') that most people saw the driver as anti-communist; but apparently there was a strong KKK presence, so some measure of anti-black feeling was probably there and may deserve mention?? Linuxlad 11:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of external link

I strongly object to Duplicity's deletion of an external link to a blog post I wrote about the Riots. He claims I have a conflict of interest in inserting this link. This is not so. Linking to my post benefits me in no way whatsoever. My blog is non-profit & I derive no benefit fr. any links to it here or anywhere.

I grew up near Peekskill & am an expert in local history & Cold War history. I wrote one of the most comprehensive essays on the riots to appear anywhere online which contains documentary photographs not available in the Wikipedia article. The comments section for this post has comments written by actual witnesses of the riots.

In deleting this link, Duplicity has impoverished the experience for Wikipedians interested in learning more about the critical event in 20th century American history.

I am restoring this link & before anyone removes it again please contact me.Richard (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Location of Event

The very first sentence of this article calls into question the name of the event, by saying, "that took place at Van Cortlandtville, Westchester County, New York," however, this area was known as Peekskill at the time of the event. This should be clarified in the article, and also in the wiki article of Peekskill. --71.168.124.11 (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

3

Robeson is said to be black. He seems to have had three races in the family tree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.49.237 (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Robeson considered himself all Black. He also did not living during an era (1898-1976) where be could be multi-racial. That said, via his own words, he would have always chosen to be Black identified if there were options. His native American and white ancestors are mentioned in his main article.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent Revisions

The statements of user Str 1977 were not right-wing or biased, but basically simply true. Could somebody please stop Catherine Huebscher in her manic Stalinism? --Radh (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me a big part of the issue is that Str1977 decided to rewrite large parts of the article, including removing about 5 KB, without discussion. If he would care to start a discussion here on the controversy we might be able to get somewhere. Comments about "Stalinism" are not helpful, by the way. -R. fiend (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

"Basically simply true?" Whitewashing an event so white supremacy looks good? That's why there is Conservapeadio. Radh simply stalks me and follows me from article to article. If he has issues he can write out his concerns word for word, and point out line by line things he feels are incorrect. In the meantime Radh: stop following me around wikipedia. Please get a life!Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)