Talk:Madge Oberholtzer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States / Indiana (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Indiana (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
 
WikiProject Indiana Historical Society (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indiana Historical Society, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indiana Historical Society-related articles and topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Secret Societies (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Secret Societies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Secret Societies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Crime  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

Non-encyclopedic stuff moved from article:

Okay, Madge is on my grandmothers side. What I'm placing in here is what I have known from family stories,documentary's online, and from the History Channel(broadcasted on television).Note nothing on this information has been plagurized.

User:Someone else


Erm, you added a date of birth, and then removed it... Was it wrong? -- Oliver P. 03:56 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yes. -- Someone else 04:13 3 Jun 2003 (UTC) (err, well, at least I don't have any reason to believe it is right...)
Oh, okay. By the way, you did realise that my question was preceeded by an implicit "Well done for sorting out that article", didn't you? ;) Sorry, terribly rude of me there, jumping in with some nit-picking question after you'd done all the hard work... -- Oliver P. 04:17 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Well, I certainly hope you realize you'll need to try a great deal harder than that if you wish to achieve rude, let along terribly rude!<G> But thanks for the now-explicit clap-on-the-back. The edit conflicts were a bit harrying, when they go away I think there's a bit more work to do here:) -- Someone else 04:23 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Interesting story. Wikipedia is a good place to put on record those bits of history that are known to contributors but didn't make the official history books, as I did in Dog Tax War Ping 23:49 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Factual accuracy: poison?[edit]

The article says that Stephenson "made" Madge take poison, but in the "prosecution's opening statement" external link as well as the Klan history book I am currently reading (Hooded Americanism by David M. Chalmers) it says that Madge purchased the poison herself and took it without telling Stephenson. Where does the information that Stephenson made Madge take poison come from? silsor 01:43, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Cross of Fire[edit]

I'm just wondering how much of this article is based on Cross of Fire rather than the factual accounts. I've no idea how close the film was to the reality. --MacRusgail 17:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Stephenson and the two Major Parties[edit]

Contrary to what used to be indicated in the article on D. C. Stephenson, Stephenson was affiliated with the Democratic Party from 1920 until 1924. He of course became Grand Dragon in November 1922. His switch to the Republicans came when an opportunity opened to leverage his position as Grand Dragon to take control of the Republican Party, almost two years into his leadership of the Indiana-area Klan. His attack on Oberholtzer occurred in March 1925, less than a year after he affilitated with the Republicans. For most of the period during which he was politically powerful, he was a Democrat. To suppress mention of his affilitation with the Democrats is simply an exercise in bad historiography. —12.72.68.229 10:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Really who cares. The Tweedledum-Tweedledee nature of American politics is pretty pathetic. --MacRusgail 17:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Various sorts of people will care, amongst them some who are neither Republican nor Democrat, but simply want Wikipedia to be as accurate as possible. —12.72.68.209 23:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Silliness from across the Pond[edit]

Mr. Stephenson was invaribaly acting on the part of the KKK and the attack was in line with some of their policies, perhaps the article should be more forgiving of Mr. Stephenson, it's not neutral and seems to make a big deal out of Oberholtzer's occupation and goals regarding illiteracy, it's prostituting her occupation as a way of making her the absolute victim, it should be facts. She was a teacher, she was helping combat illiteracy, she was raped and so on and so forth.

JBAK 13:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You are substituting for fact haphazard speculation that cannot be fit to the facts.
  • Had Stephenson's attack been in keeping with Klan policy, then most of the membership would have applauded, rather than defecting.
  • The Klan was opposed to the empowerment of blacks, not literacy in general. Any presumption that an illiterate in the '20s was black is offensive.
  • Stephenson courted Oberholtzer; this courtship was what enabled him to lure her to his home, whence he kidnapped her.
Further, the entry does not make “a big deal” out of Oberholtzer's goals — it identifies what the H_ll she actually did, which is especially useful as many on-line sources make the mistaken claim that she was a secretary (or indeed that she was Stephenson's secretary). And you contradict yourself in claiming that the attack was explained by an occupation that you don't want to be reported. —SlamDiego 06:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Evidently, you're a very troublesome person.SlamDiego 03:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Events of the case[edit]

Is it me or do the first 3 paragraphs beneath the header "Events of the case" seem somewhat out of order, or merely slightly muddled? — Preceding unsigned comment added by U91731 (talkcontribs) 19:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not you. I just revised the section, hopefully for the better. Thanks for bringing it up. --CliffC (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Redundancy[edit]

The single paragraph of "Early Life" and the first three paragraphs of "Events of the Case" are completely redundant, reiterating essentially the same information several times. 18:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commonlaw504 (talkcontribs)

Poison/Infection[edit]

The opening states she was killed by infection, when its actually unknown and poisoning was more likely. This ends up sounding biased because there are basically two schools of thought. Doctors testified to both in the case. Please edit. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/stephenson/stephensonaccount.html ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flashhat (talkcontribs) 00:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Why is this page listed under Cannibalised people? I couldn't find a clear reference to cannibalism in the text, other than that Stephenson bit her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.185.54.54 (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)