User talk:Kungflufighting

October 2023
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.  Acroterion   (talk)   11:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * Hello, my edit is constructive given the inflammatory nature of the content. My edit provided historical context which benefits the reader.  Are you the author of this biography or the appointed gatekeeper?  I ask because I would like to offer an expanded edit to the intro paragraph of this page.  Thank you. Kungflufighting (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Any editor may dispute inappropriate changes, and consensus of editors and sources.on that article have has long held that it is inappropriate and disruptive to use the lead sentence as a forum for exculpation of a hero of the Lost Cause. .In any event, his repentance had no effect on the KKK, and is is mentioned later in the lead section, and in the body of the article. Your assertion that mention of his participation in the founding of the KKK is "infammatory" (how?) and needs some kind of watering-down is at odds with the prevailing views of Civil War historians, which is what Wikipedia must adhere to.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It is inflammatory to tell half the story when association with KKK is the subject of your intro paragraph. I called for more complete, accurate historical context; you call that “watering down.” I don’t need to water down Forrest nor anyone else, but you need to expand the historical facts in this article for the benefit of the reader. You seem to be defensive about exculpating someone associated with the “Lost Cause.”  Objective history doesn’t fear seeking facts and publishing them, even if at odds with personal preferences.  This article is a good example of why Wikipedia should be consumed very skeptically.  I’ll make some edits and you see if you can handle historical accuracy.  Meantime, please consider whether prevailing views of Civil War historians might allow for greater accuracy and objectivity in this and other related articles. Kungflufighting (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's up to you to show other editors that your edits reflect a prevailing view of Forrest among reliable academic sources, and that they reflect due emphasis.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)