Talk:James Steen (planter)

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

DEATH OF JAMES STEEN

On 20 June 2012, editor 99.36.192.7 made what amounts to a fraudulent edit of the wording of a passage, included in this article about James Steen, from Lyman Draper's book "Kings Mountain and it's Heros". The original passage included the phrase "In the summer of 1781, while endeavoring to arrest a Tory, in Rowan County, North Carolina, he was stabbed by an associate, surviving only a week." The editor, 99.36.192.7, altered the passage by deleting the above phrase, and replacing it with the phrase "According to his grave, he died in the Battle at Kings Mountain. He was married to Eleanor Bogan about 1762 in South Carolina", making it appear as if this passage was Draper's writing.

The point of this comment is not just to correct the error, but to also bring attention to the dishonesty involved; there should be no place in Wikipedia for this type of deceptive editing, intending to add unjustified validity to one or another side of a disputed fact.Kenwg (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Add topic