Talk:Lynching of Jesse Washington/Archive 1

Terminology

Is "retarded" an acceptable term to use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.95.129 (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Murder victim

Jesse Washington is not a murder victim

he should not be placed in the murder victim directory.

Looks to me like he was a murder victim. Sign your comments if you want to be taken seriously. Cami Solomon (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

he is not listed as a murderer? Yet he is listed as a murder victim? Doesnt seem fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.142.224.197 (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, Washington is both a murderer and a murder victim. Is that not possible? This was a cruel act and the perpetrators got away with it.71.29.253.147 (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Logically, he was both a murderer and a murder victim. He was a murder victim because he was killed by a lynch mob, not a state sanctioned executioner. Since he was convicted of murder, and as far as I know there isn't any substantial evidence to the contrary, he was a also a murderer. Worldruler20 (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

But the jury was entirely white, and therefore most likely dominated by racism. Who's to say what a truly neutral jury might have decided? Skyintheeye (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Convicted of murder doesn't always = murderer. Many innocent people have been wrongfully convicted of crimes, and many guilty people have gotten off scot-free. In this case, a supposedly mentally challenged black man was accused of raping and killing a white woman in the 1910s US South, he's immediately put on trial, quickly convicted by an all-white jury in less than 5 minutes, HARDLY anywhere near enough time to get himself a lawyer and properly prepare a defense for his case. Before a sentence was even announced, an angry white mob dragged him out and commenced his torture that led to his eventual slow, painful death. And according to this article, there is very little evidence to prove that he did indeed commit the crimes he was accused of. So saying that "there isn't any substantial evidence" to suggest that he wasn't a murderer, means that you probably skimmed the article at best, Worldruler20. And to the OP that suggested that Jesse Washington wasn't a murder victim, uh, I'm sorry, what? What's your definition of murder, then? I'd honestly like to know. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 05:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Racially motivated?

Is there any proof that this was racially motivated? It seems to me that they were just carrying out his sentence. Mortician103 (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You utter SCUMBAG piece of SHIT. No human or any other living creature should experience that kind of pain. People like you and some others here need to experience burning. I had the misfortune of having had severe burns in an accident and I can assure you it is far and away the most painful thing anyone can undergo. Btw. need I remind all of you that your holy constitution (not worth toilet paper in those days) forbids cruel and unusual punishment???? Also, I'm white, not some black radical rights guy. 1812ahill (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologise in advance to any moderators/admins for my crude language, as I realise Mortician103 has been banned, but this person just made me blow my top. 1812ahill (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. This article is very biased. 64.134.252.10 (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. There is a definite anti-South slant to this article. The attacks against white people in this article are based upon stereotypes and generalizations. All are unsubstantiated with the best sources being clearly POV. The Wilmington Journal states it is "Part of the BlackPressUSA Network " which implies a definite pro-black slant. The New York Times and New York Magazine? Can we depend on upon the newspapers from the North for reliable reporting on Southern issues? Any sort of racial motive has not been proven or substantiated by any official source; any conclusion on this comes from POV sources and racist stereotypes. In, Talk:Rob_Knox the consensus was reached that we should not include race unless officially substantiated by a court or another unbiased and substantial source. The POV in this article needs to be dealt with as well as the contradiction to Wikipedia policy. Mortician103 (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Mortician103. You really are an absolute CUNT. I have never used language like this before on Wikipedia, but your statement above really does show you to be the sort of person who might happily have written the postcard in the article. People like you are exactly what causes the world wide stereotypes of southerners. I sincerely hope you experience the pain of burning one day - maybe that will change your moronic 'oh they were only carrying out the sentence' mentality. Burn yourself. 1812ahill (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that was your conclusion - there was no consensus. Toddst1 (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, then tell me what was the conclusion? "Mention race and assume the worst when whites are the perpetrators, but hush hush when blacks are the perpetrators"? The only argument I saw besides my own above-stated interpretation was "It's not nice to mention race, dont do it". That mentality goes against Wikipedia's no censorship policy. Mortician103 (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No consensus - Sockpuppetry and manipulation of the discussion by Mortician103. Toddst1 (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how accusing someone with a differing standpoint of sockpuppetry helps your argument in any way. In any case, the way the article was written implies that his lynching was done because of his race, rather than from anger. This man murdered a woman from a small town, and it is common knowledge (?) that those who live together in small towns tend to stick closer together. Of course, I am merely speculating, but this article does as well. 64.134.252.10 (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC

Small town? Nonsense. Waco might be a "small town" by your standards but as the county seat and with a population of 30,000 it was hardly small. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CEFDB1E31F932A35756C0A9639C8B63&sec=&spon= Darkpoet (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, in regards to sockpuppetry: seeing as you're an administrator, you should first check the other person's IP address before accusing them of pretending to be multiple people. Such accusations, coupled with completely disregarding what he said, is similar to the way a child would cover his ears with his hands and yell "la la la la!" when he hears something that he doesn't want to hear. It seems very unbecoming of a Wikipedia administrator to act this way. 64.134.252.10 (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You make it sound like it's hard to sign up for an account. Darkpoet (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

lol, Wikipedia. 76.95.40.6 (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This WAS racially motivated. According to US Law convicted felons are not supposed to undergo cruel and unusual punishment. This was very inhumane and thus cruel and unusual. I rest my case. Furthermore in the South lynching was synomous with African-Americans. Lord Vader (talk) 06:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't really blame 1812ahill for losing his cool... I mean, Mortician103's ignorance is astounding. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation

This article, incredibly, has been a copyright violation from the Handbook of Texas Online since it was first put up in May 2006. While a few things have changed, much of the original text remains. Anyone up for rewriting it? Antandrus (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed all the copyrighted text, which reduces the article to a near-stub. – Smyth\^talk 11:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)