Battle of Honey Springs

	This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Chicago Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

How could President Johnson's administration have handled the riots in a different and perhaps more efficient manner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nliconti (talk • contribs) 17:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that given the circumstances they handled the riots well. Riots had broken out all over the country and things were spinning out of control. I believe that the government reacted in a precautionary manner in order to quell the riot before it spread. Who knows what would've happened if they had not sent in federal troops or imposed a curfew? This being said, I think that the order to the police to "shoot to kill" was a little extreme and slightly unnecessary. Overall, I believe that the government did their best to control the riots. Oliviafoster (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is some information in “After Effects” instead of “Riots”? An example would be:

“The stores that were looted were mostly black stores in black neighbourhoods. The rioters mostly targeted white-owned businesses, especially those who were known to sell cheap merchandise at high prices, or engaged in predatory credit practices. Men’s clothing stores were hit hard, as well as liquor, furniture, appliances and food stores. Some stores avoided being looted by writing “soul brother” on their windows to show their support for the rioters”

Would this not be more appropriate in the “Riots” section?

Were there any long-term effects of the riots? You mention deindustrialization and disinvestment, how extensive was this?

As a suggestion, the “After Effects” paragraph could be better organized. For example, have one paragraph dealing with damages (building damage, deaths, and arrests), and another about what stores were targeted and how stores avoided being looted. --Beth Hollwood (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion! I will make those changes. According to http://www.communitywalk.com/location/roosevelt_road__riot_april_68_1968/info/195623, the long term effects of the riots include that they: increased the pace of the area's ongoing deindustrialization, public and private disinvestment, while causing most local black residents who could afford it, to leave the area. As a result, North Lawndale's population declined from 124,937 in 1960, to 47,296 in 1990, and 41,786 in 2000. However, people who either could not afford to leave the community, or who were committed to the area remained. Many local residents have continued to fight to improve the housing, and bring public and private services to the area. Hope that helps!

These two sentances: "The stores that were looted were mostly black stores in black neighbourhoods. The rioters mostly targeted white-owned businesses, especially those who were known to sell cheap merchandise at high prices, or engaged in predatory credit practices." appear to be contradictory. Does it mean that the black stores (that is, stores that sell things to black people) in the black neighborhoods were white-owned, or are the two sentances drawing a distinction between the stores that were looted and the stores that were targeted by rioters? I'm confused by this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.254.175 (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"There were 36 major fires reported between 4:00 pm and 10:00 pm alone."

Who was burning buildings before MLK was shot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.211.150.57 (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]