User talk:Grsz11/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

WikiProject College football May 2008 Newsletter

The College football WikiProject Newsletter
Issue VI - May 2008
Project news
From JKBrooks85

Welcome to the latest issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter! I hope that you're enjoying regular updates about the goings on of college football on Wikipedia, but if not, feel free to add your name to the "no delivery" section on the newsletter signup page.

I encourage everyone to make regular visits to the College Football Portal and perhaps make it your Wikipedia entry page instead of using the Main Page as your gateway. Nominations for selected articles and pictures are always welcome, and can serve as a great way to show off that new article you just shepherded to Good Article status or the great picture you took the last time you were at a game.

Comments and suggestions on improving the newsletter are always welcome, and help me improve it on a monthly basis. Keep contributing and editing, and don't hesitate to contact me or post on the College Football Wikiproject talk page if you need help or just want someone to look over your article.
New high-rank articles

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Correction

A change should be made to the introduction of the article, Trinity United Church of Christ. It states that the church is predominately Black, whereas it is actually exclusively Black. Predominately implies that the majority of members, but in reality if you are not Black you cannot become a member of that congregation. To verify you are welcome to go to their website as well as find the information on CNN. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.64.170 (talk • contribs)

Ha, if you can bother to find a source that proves this, you go ahead and add it. Grsztalk 06:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That one is easy, it actually says it on the TUCC website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.64.170 (talk) 06:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh really, where? Grsztalk 06:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I will do a small search, but here is a small quote from their webisite (TUCC.org)

"We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land,"

I am not sure how someone that is Caucasian, Asian or anything but black could be part of a congregation that is "unashamedly black"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.64.170 (talk) 06:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Does that say "We are a congregation that is exclusively black"? No, it doesn't. Is the Roman Catholic Church composed only of Romans? I'm positive you cannot find a source that proves the church only allows, and is only composed of black individuals. Grsztalk 06:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There are a few definitions of "exclusive" one of those is a place that caters to a specific type of clientel. If the statement that "we are unashamedly black" and "we are an African" people does not suggest that they are catering to a certain group of people, then I am not sure how much more clearly that should be stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.64.170 (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Most meanings of "exclusive" mean that the organization "excludes" people. As Jeremiah Wright said at the National Press Club yesterday:

We have members of other races in our church. We have Hispanics. We have Caribbean. We have South Americans. We have whites. The conference minister -- please understand the United Church of Christ is a predominantly white demonstration. Again, some of you do not know United Church of Christ, just found out about liberation theology, just found out about United Church of Christ, the conference minister, Dr. Jane Fisler Hoffman, a white woman, and her husband, not only are members of the congregation, but on her last Sunday before taking the assignment as the interim conference minister of California, Southern California Conference of the United Church of Christ, a white woman stood in our pulpit and said, "I am unashamedly African."

Trinity is unashamedly black in the same sense that many Catholic churches with strong ethnic ties are unashamedly Polish or unashamedly Irish or unashamedly Hispanic. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The words, "we are unashamedly Black"....and "we are an African people" makes me think that it includes only those that are Black or of African descent. In contrast to that statement, I have included the statement of another Christian organization, the KKK (with whom I strongly disagree), "Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America!". That is their banner statement from their website and it sounds to me like an exclusionary statement. I suppose you could say that both "religious organizations" are open to all, but I think a majority would feel they are both "exclusionary" groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.64.170 (talk) 06:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that Trinity UCC has more white members than the KKK has black members. Your interpretation of "unashamedly Black" is incorrect — it's not about excluding whites, but about overcoming black shame. And although Jeremiah Wright has emphasized past injustices performed by white Americans on Black Americans, I don't think he's ever lynched anyone or burned a cross on their lawn. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with anything even related to saying something nice about Rev. Wright (I say this least the "other side" of this argument tries to accuse me of being a Rev. Wright apologist, I'm far from it) but I have to agree with you about the edit about being TUCC being "exclusively black" is not accurate. The "evidence" provided from their website don't qualify as somehow saying they have a ban on white people becoming members. Smart Ways (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

please

please restore the AFD on Cate Edwards.

We should treat all equally. Having them considered at the same time helps. Otherwise, we risk killing a black person's article and keeping the white person's even though both people's claim to fame is exactly the same.

Also, you are not suppose to remove AFD's. So please put it back. Watchingobama (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ya know, I am not even sure exactly how this Cate Edwards vs. Malia Obama thing got started but I find it incredibly offensive to say that someone is somehow trying to "kill a black person's article and keep a white person's." That kind of racial polarization is very unnecessary. And, for the record, the difference between the two is that Cate Edwards is an adult who campaigned for her father and John Kerry in 2004 and has been quoted as having opinions of her own. Malia Obama, on the other hand, is a 9 year old who, rightfully so, has not been on the campaign trail alone nor has been quoted by the press. So, their "claims to fame" are different. A better comparison, if this is really that big of a deal to you, would be between Malia Obama and either Emma Claire and/or Jack Edwards (neither of whom have articles). Smart Ways (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I only just got your message about Children of American Politicians. Looks like it's been integrated into the Malia Obama AfD. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For this revert.  Frank  |  talk  19:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. He has a habit of that. Grsztalk 19:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Working together on Wright

Since there's recently been a lot of edit warring at Jeremiah Wright controversy, I've made a post about working together constructively at Talk:Jeremiah Wright controversy#Working together. I know that your focus is mainly on Barack Obama, but I'd appreciate any feedback you have there. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

In all honestly, I won't be editing that article much anymore, atleast for the time being. I started my summer job and will very soon be working 12 to 15 hour shifts. When I do make time to come here, I'll probably only make small, odd edits. Grsztalk 22:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
There needs to be a solid realization and a dispensing of naivety about something, namely, that there is a highly vocal group of two or three people there with a lot of time on their hands whose interest in the article is to get it into a form that is as damaging as it can possibly be out of, transparently, political purposes. Every edit, every argument given, and every action they take is toward that end, and you should assume that by now and that all other ethics like fairness and neutrality are far second considerations. They view the article as a battleground and play by whatever "rules" will reach that politically-driven end. You don't "work with" such people; you overcome them. This is simply realistic and hard facts given the nature of the article, the current political context, and the "anyone can edit" nature of Wikipedia. What I would like to do is replace the article with a highly scholarly (and readable!) article that draws solidly upon the rather large body of biographical material about Wright that was published pre-controversy, none of which is included in the current political "battleground" article (!), while also withholding no punches in explaining the sides in the current politically-driven controversy. Ewenss (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"Removed implication of multiple drafts"

Your edit summary isn't really accurate, since it doesn't imply that. But I forgive you.►Chris NelsonHolla! 06:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)