Talk:Strom Thurmond

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconVital articles: Level 5 / People C‑class
WikiProject iconStrom Thurmond has been listed as a level-5 vital article in People (Politicians). If you can improve it, please do.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Pi Kappa Alpha[edit]

Attended Clemson before Pi Kappa Alpha was established there. He was initiated by Xi Chapter at the University of South Carolina in 1959.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Section "Post-1970 views regarding race" does not actually really properly address what the section's title claims in does[edit]

The "Post-1970 views regarding race" starts out by mentioning the fact that post 1970, South Carolina African-African American voters could no longer be ignored as voting block by white senatorial candidates in the state which does little to inform us on Thurmond's personal views on the subject. It then it goes on talk how he hired a black women to his staff but does little to answer whether this was a result of his changing views on race or simply tokenism at play here. Finely, it ends with a statement about how he never repudiated his past views on racial segregation, implying his views on race never really change that much post-1970 and that he was simply being pragmatic as well disingenuous by hiring a token African-American on his staff to make it appear as if his views had changed without actually having done so. What the section really needs is any actually statements he made on the subject of race and whether many people truly believed at the time that him hiring the black staff member was a true sign of change vs simply tokenism. If he made no statements on race during this time and was simply silent on the matter we should be clear that it unclear just what views on the subject were post-1970's since hiring a single black staffer is clearly proof of any significant change in an of itself.--Notcharliechaplin (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glad this section has been removed/revised, but I do feel like there could be a section which deals a little more in-depth with the issues of his racism. It seems like the best we can do is talk about how he is not NOT a racist? I just find it somewhat troubling and discouraging that in an approximately 20k word article about the life of an objectively racist octogenarian senator, the word "racist" appears a grand total of TWO times. Marcberm (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statutory rape[edit]

Just because a man was a Senator does not mean his crimes get described with euphemisms. A 22-year-old man impregnating a 15- or 16-year old girl is statutory rape. It is not neutral to describe that crime as "Thurmond initiated a sexual relationship with her," nor "she became pregnant by Thurmond," as others have proposed. If a man kills a girl, Wikipedia does not describe it as "she became dead by him." Thurmond committed statutory rape in 1925 and nobody has ever suggested otherwise. Wikipedia should say so plainly. JamieMcCarthy (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to Wikipedia, the current age of consent in South Carolina is 16. I wasn't able to find a definitive source for the age of consent in the 1920s, but according to this article on children and youth in history, most of the Anglo-American world had the age of consent at 16 by 1920. Of course, this contemporary article points out that "Submitting to coercion, especially of an aggravated nature, is not consent." Based on the age range of Carrie Butler in the article, this is a borderline case.... I just noticed that the situation is discussed twice on this page, once in the final paragraph before the contents box (stating she was either 15 or 16), and once in the final paragraph of the "Early Life and Education" section (stating she was 16). Dorfird (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we need to refer to a higher power - what's the convention here? Because if you label Strom Thurmond a statutory rapist, why would you not do the same thing for Benjamin Franklin? Or Mick Jagger? Considering he was neither accused nor convicted, I think it's an unfair term to introduce to the article. The relevant information is that in 1925 a rich 22 year old slept with his 15-16 year old servant. That information tells you all that you need to know, and it's clumsy to inject a legal term in there (eg 'murder) when no charge was rendered. (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no controversy when the page for William Walcher explains he was "murdered in 1080," though murder is the term for a specific crime, for which no one was in that case convicted. And because the basic facts are acknowledged by all parties including the Thurmond family attorney, there is no controversy in explaining that Thurmond almost certainly committed statutory rape. Upon further research, it turns out there was a short window of possibility for Carrie Butler's birth date and other circumstances which would technically result in no crime having been committed. (Her birthday, which is unknown, would have had to fall before roughly January 12th.) I have updated the page to acknowledge that fact and added documentation. Meachwhile, I direct attention again to WP:EUPHEMISM, which specifically directs us not to use terms like "make love." I am undoing the "slept with" change for that same reason, and I would ask editors to this page to please not continue to find euphemisms. JamieMcCarthy (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think William Walcher is a good example, as there's no wiggle room when it comes to defining how he was forced out of a burning church into the hands of a bunch of aggravated Northerners, but it could just as easily be worded as 'killed' and the article would retain the exact same meaning, and perhaps have more clarity. Presumably no charges were rendered as we have incomplete information, so we can't be 100% sure that ascribing a particular term is correct, so the broadest terminology or simply the basic details - "William was killed by a group of Northumbrians while escaping a church they'd set ablaze" are preferable, because they're a) factually correct, b) unambiguous, c) not looking to (anachronistically or not) apply social constructs to historical events. "Strom impregnated his 15/16 year old maid in 1925" is what happened. Misapplied charges of statutory rape can ruin lives, the term shouldn't be bandied about unless categorical fact. If there's a question over this, as you've uncovered, wouldn't it be better to cut it from the into and include a controversey section for this specific detail? (talk) 13:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The contributor above was concerned that misuse of the term "statutory rape" might ruin lives. It's a bit late for that now: the perpetrator has already gone to his eternal reward and is unlikely to be pulled from his 64 virgins on the basis of a Wikipedia entry.
We should consider the context in which the impregnation occurred. South Carolina had for the past two centuries had a majority of black residents but almost no black voters (due to the exercise of "states' rights") and so all the legislators, police, judges and jurors were white. A black man who raped a white woman could have committed a capital crime: but a white man who raped a black woman would not have been regarded as having committed any offence at all. Any complaint would have had serious repercussions for the victim, as still happens in Sharia Law jurisdictions like the Persian Gulf states. NRPanikker (talk) 11:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The age of consent in South Carolina in 1920 was 16, according to the GMU article. Since the South Carolina age of consent was 16 in 1920 and is 16 now, it's a fairly safe guess that the age of consent was 16 in 1925. The only other somewhat plausible possibility would be that the 1925 SC age of consent was 18. And that would only be the case if the SC age of consent was raised to 18 at some point from 1921-1924, and then got reduced back to 16 later on. I am about 99.999% sure that the South Carolina age of consent was not lower than 16 in 1925. (Since Georgia was the only state with an AOC lower than 16 in 1920.)

Carrie Butler was 16 when she gave birth, which indicates there's a 3 in 4 chance since actually got pregnant at 15. Pregnancies take 9 months. I've unfortunately been unable to find any info about exactly how many months she was past her 16th birthday when she gave birth. Less than 9 months past her birthday would mean she got pregnant at 15.

Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Saint Joseph, etc. actually lived before ages of consent were raised in the 1880-1920 period. Therefore, it's actually more fitting to call Strom a statutory rapist than the other guys.

~~Wikidude87654321~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidude87654321 (talkcontribs) 03:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

proposed deletion[edit]

I believe this page should be taken down because it contains false information, I will request for it to be deleted. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not going to happen. It is clearly an article about a notable person. If there is incorrect information we'll fix it, not delete the article. What specifically do you think is incorrect? Meters (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see the user has already asked for admin help on his talk page and been answered. The user has already been pointed to AFD, RS, COI and how to request edits. Asking a second time is not going to change the answer, Meters (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Switching parties[edit]

In the preface it's stated that in 1964 Thurmond switched parties for a second time. No where is mentioned when, why of form where he switched the first time. Also if I try to look it up, nothing comes up. I suggest to remove the part "for a second time". Or add the first time and what happened en when.

KeijersJ (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thurmond split from the Democratic party to run for president as a third-party Dixiecrat candidate in 1948. Afterward, he went back to the Democratic party. This is covered by the article in the 'Run for President' section, though not identified clearly as a party switch. The article's top-right infobox also identifies his 'political affiliation' with the Dixiecrat party. —ADavidB 19:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thurmond was a member of the Democratic Party until 1964 when, as a well-known proponent of Jim Crow laws, he joined the Republican Party for the remainder of his legislative career.

This insinuates the logical fallacy that because Thurmond supported Jim Crow laws, the Republican Party supported (or supports) Jim Crow laws. In fact, a considerably higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats opposed Jim Crow and voted for Civil Rights legislation, according to wiki's own article on that legislation: The clause "as a well-known proponent of Jim Crow laws" should be removed or this should be otherwise re-worded to remove anti-conservative bias. Tpkatsa (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed, and done. —ADavidB 16:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Length of article[edit]

The current length of this article is 114,764 characters. Just for comparison, the current length of the longest Featured Article (Hillary Clinton) is 110,304 characters. I agree that Thurmond's political career is much longer than that of Hillary Clinton, but I do want to reorganize this article to somewhat 80,000 to 85,000 characters. I read the article, and made some changes re-organizing it's sections, which, in my opinion was necessary. With that done, I wish to do the following:

  • Reduction in length – Per WP:TOOBIG Articles above length of 100,000 characters "Almost certainly should be divided". We can have a detailed article on United States Senate career of Strom Thurmond, but for now, various things in the prose needs to be removed. (final length should be somewhat 80,000 to 85,000 characters)
  • Shifting content to appropriate sections – Currently, various incidents of his nth senatorial term are mentioned in the section on his mth senatorial term. There was a subsection named Carter nominees under Nixon administration. This is something, which could be fixed by a thorough read of the article.
  • Adding citations – I don't see citation a major issue with this article, as we have various citations. But almost all citations needs to be re-formatted properly. Some expert studies and books also needs to be included.
  • Thorough copyedit – Definitely required.

I'll be editing this article. Please let me know of any issues or concerns. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]