Marion Giant 1999

Marion, Indiana

Are you from Marion? No, I'm guessing you aren't. Do you know how sick and tired people in Marion (both black and white by the way) are of talking about the lynching? Most people in town weren't even alive then or if they were, they were small children. Yes, two people were lynched. But let's not pretend they were just two innocent black boys that the people of Marion decided to round up and hang like they did in the South. They were MURDERERS. Yes, the justice system should have been allowed to do its job, but even Cameron (the man who was set free) admits they were guilty. Is it really necessary to bring up something so negative over and over again when it involved a couple of murderers? There are so many positive things in MArion's past (and future) why devote a whole section to this? We've moved on in Marion, it's too bad outsiders like yourself can't.

Rather than cutting the piece out, I'd suggest expanding the entire history section to include more about the rest of Marion's past. As you rightly point out, I'm sure there are many other good and interesting things that can be said about Marion, and covering these in the article would paint a clearer, more balanced, and overall more positive picture of the town.

As for moving on, I do understand — obviously it occurred many years ago and times are now very different. I realize too that it's not a pleasant or positive thing to have in an article about one's community. However, the fact that there are bad feelings around a historical incident isn't sufficient grounds for it to be cut. Wikipedia seeks to be as unbiased as possible, so if a section purports to describe a community's history, it should describe all the significant events, both good and bad. Incidentally, if there are sources that document the mens' guilt, you can certainly include that point in the article. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 13:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I see you even removed from the Marion talk page a request to simply discuss this issue. Please note that disrupting talk pages is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines and serves no good purpose. It'd be great it we could work constructively on improving the Marion article -- like you say, there's no doubt lots of good history that should be included, and as a Marion native you'd be in a good position to provide that. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 12:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand how Wikipedia works. I'm not the "guardian of Marion history" — no one is. I just have an opinion, and so do you. Your opinion is as important as anybody else's, which is why I've been trying to be as polite and accommodating as possible.

When users disagree, Wikipedia says they're suppose to discuss it on the talk page and try to find a compromise that both can live with. I encourage you to try it, because what you're doing now (deleting everything you don't like and insulting anyone who disagrees with you) will probably just lead to your account being blocked. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 12:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As a hitherto uninvolved administrator, I have to echo everything User:Huwmanbeing has said above. If you persist in edit-warring over this issue and refusing to discuss the issue productively on the article's talk page, I will block you. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh great, someone on a Wikipedia power trip. How scary! I just want to know how someone who isn't even from Marion is in charge of maintaining this page. Honestly, what good is it doing to have the lynching on the page? People from Marion already know about it, and people researching it are going to consult a more reliable source than Wikipedia to get information. So I ask you then, why include it here? Who does it benefit? You and I both know the answer. Nobody. I have access to tons of computers so the threat of blocking me really doesn't scare me. Seriously though, I feel bad for you that all you have in life is the ability to block people on an online encyclopedia. Get off your power trip buddy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Marion Giant 1999 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 28 February 2008

Nobody is individually in charge of maintaining any page on Wikipedia. All articles are managed by consensus. I have no particular thoughts about whether information on the lynching should be in the article, although it appears to be near-unanimous from other editors that it's a notable part of the city's history. If you don't think it should be there, discuss it on the article's talk page and try to convince others of their view. I would also advise you to read Wikipedia's policy on civility and its policy on sock puppetry; I tend to ignore pissiness and threats of block-evasion from newbies, but other admins may not be as thick-skinned. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A "newbie?" Yea, I feel so bad that I'm not part of the "cool" (and I use that term VERY loosely) Wikipedia establishment. Gosh, I must have a life.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marion Giant 1999 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 28 February 2008

You may wish to review WP:NOT#CENSORED; Wikipedia articles may contain any number of inconvenient facts as long as they are properly verified via reliable sources. You should also take a look at our official policies on Civility and No personal attacks as your above message may be viewed as violating both. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Haha, what a bunch of nerds. Seriously, get a girlfriend....— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marion Giant 1999 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 28 February 2008

Girlfriend? Ha! I am a married IT professional with three kids! --Kralizec! (talk) 02:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

So you work with computers all day and then you come home and live on Wikipedia? Poor wife and kids...

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit-warring, disruptive editing, and refusing to discuss issues on the article talk page. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I will happily unblock you if you agree to refrain from making disruptive edits and to make use of the article talk page to try to build consensus rather than edit-warring. We have obviously gotten off to a bad start, but I would be more than happy to leave this behind us if you agree to make an effort to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I Just want someone to explain to me what the good of having that on there does. You'd have to be from Marion to understand the whole situation. For so long, that whole event held the town back, and was incredibly divisive. Marion has finally reached the point where both whites and blacks are ready to move on and forget that chapter of history. But it's sites like this that keep throwing it in our faces time and time again. Try growing up in a town known as the last place in the north to hang a black person and see how you feel about this article.

I think I probably understand where you're coming from but, as I said, I have no particular interest in the contents of that article one way or another. The right place to discuss this is the article's talk page. If you agree to take the conversation there, rather than adopting the tactics that you were using before, I'll unblock you and hopefully allow other editors to give you more satisfactory answers than I am able to. Deal? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me....

Good. You're unblocked. Best of luck in resolving your content disputes satisfactorily and amicably. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's still telling me I'm blocked when I try to type on the discussion page like you said.