Cplessinger

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures), as you have to the article Strom Thurmond, please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.  Frank  |  talk  17:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed vandalism warnings, my mistake. You have a edgy content dispute going; keep it to the Thurmond talk page, use civil language, find correct sources (review WP:RS) and you may prevail. Jusdafax 18:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Strom Thurmond

It may be helpful to read Talk:Strom_Thurmond#Wasn.27t_this_man_a_racist.3F in relation to whether or not it is appropriate to label Thurmond a "racist", especially in the lead paragraph of the article. Nobody denies that he ran for president as a segregationist. Few deny he had views consistent with segregationists - which some would call racism. The man lived 100 years; those aren't by themselves enough to call him a racist. In any case, such an edit would need citations from reliable sources.

Finally, regarding your edit summary ((It's not vandalism and not unverified as you insinuated with your message to me. It's also not vandalism to call a spade a spade (which I think is ironic in this sense).)): I didn't insinuate anything - I explicitly stated that your edit was vandalism, and I want to be clear that I was specific in choosing to use that template. You are making edits for which there is no WP:CONSENSUS, which is disruptive. We don't decide wording around here by what we as editors think. We go by what the sources say. If you can find suitable sources that label Thurmond as a racist, let's have a discussion about it on the talk page. Until then, when your edit is reverted - multiple times - and you're given warnings about it on your talk page, it's a good idea to investigate why that's happening. And you certainly didn't put anything in to support that claim when you made the edit in the first place, so yes - it is unverified.  Frank  |  talk  17:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article itself has plenty of cited examples demonstrating his racism, or did you miss the point of several sections of the article? Christopher Plessinger 18:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The word "racist" appears nowhere in the article, and the word "racism" appears only as a category in which the article appears. Aside from the fact that what you are suggesting constitutes original research, that hardly qualifies as strong enough to call him a racist in the lead of the article. (And, remember that Wikipedia is not a source anyway.)  Frank  |  talk  18:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That is absurd. By your own yardstick, I should not accept an entry into Wikipedia at all that there even was a person born named Strom Thurmond until someone produces verifiable information establishes that there was, in fact, a Strom Thurmond. Why haven't you deleted the article yet, Frank? Christopher Plessinger 18:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read WP:FIVE, and then look at the Strom Thurmond entry, which has 16 sources, 8 additional reading listings, and more links to external sites relating to him.  Frank  |  talk  18:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)