Talk:Death of Shedrick Thompson

As many sources point out, this may not even have been a lynching, but mutilation of a suicide’s corpse. The article needs to both re-named an re-written. Qwirkle (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Revisionism accepted as fact

This article in its current form is pursuasive writing, not neutral exposition. Qwirkle (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Removing two templates

I have removed the "Accuracy disputed" tag which you (@Quirkle:) put on it again.

1. There is a whole book making the case that this was in fact a lynching. The book also discusses _why_ the coroner's report said it was a suicide.
2. There is an hour-long documentary on exactly the same thing, interviewing witnesses and with explicit statements from descendants of the contemporaries saying it was a lynching.
3. When you put the tag on it originally, the article was 3,454 bytes. Now it is 16,950 bytes. The previous version cited 5 sources. Now it cites 46. But you find it exactly the same. That's not rational on your part. You have not given any new explanation of what is _now_ disputed or why. Your statement on your 2nd lynching template reversion — "May, as many sources say, have been desecration of a suicide's corpse, not lynching" — is identical to your first statement, which suggests you did not even look at the article a 2nd time. Your statement that "many sources say" is not correct. Those that say it was not a lynching are far outnumbered by those that say it was, and at far greater length.

Although you have motivated me to spend many more hours on it, that I could have used on other things, it is now a much better article. So although it hurt, you have helped me. Thank you. But I wish you could show some appreciation for the investment of my time in writing it, instead of only finding fault with the article.

As for the Neutrality tag, I'm removing that too, since I do not understand, nor did you say, what you are objecting to or in what way it is not neutral writing. deisenbe (talk) 09:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

It is possible to find multiple sources that aver that Bessie the Deuce is descended from reptilian aliens. The mere existence of a source says nothing. The article is supposed to objectively present the mainstream scholarly thinking on the subject, which appears to be “jury’s still out on this one.” The idea that this may not have been a suicide is to be presented, not advocated as your article does.

Next, you are once again justifying your writing based on the time you put in on it, as you did with your strange assertions about pesos and dollars elsewhere. Such things don’t always improve an article. You thought your WP:OR on money was a good thing, too, remember. Was it? Qwirkle (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

If the National Lynching Museum accepts it as genuine (https://jim-hall-author.com/2018/05/08/fauquier-inscriptions-pictured-at-new-lynching-memorial/), the jury is not still out. No one since the 1930s has said it was a suicide. I'd appreciate it if you would stop the insults. deisenbe (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

No. The museum has a rather obvious axe to grind...and disagrees with you regardng the first point you make in the article. (Look at the spelling of his name.) Qwirkle (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)