User talk:Ewenss

TUCC

Aren't "broadcasted soundbites" (implying small portions) and "cherry-picked" the same thing? Only difference is one is more WP:NPOV than the latter. Grsz11 15:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The term "cherry picked" is wholly accurate because the media coverage of Wright was itself not neutral, nor was it intended to be. It was deliberately designed to "create" controversy - that was exactly the point, and that is much of the bread and butter of broadcast media because we allow it to be. To therefore use an ostensibly "neutral" term to describe a non-neutral action is what is problematic. See? Ewenss (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because something shouldn't be controversial doesn't mean it isn't. You and I both know Wright wasn't off-base, and that his comments had merit, accuracy, and most importantly, a theological justification. But it's simply the fact that a controversy developed around the sermons that makes it okay to say "controversial." Grsz11 17:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

By your words, the media caused controversy with the soundbites, which is how it is now worded. Also, it is exceedingly poor form to cite anything in an intro. The body should contain all the cites, while the intro merely provides a summary of things already cited inthe body. Ewenss (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

But that fact isn't stated in the body, let alone in the source. Grsz11 17:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Relax, note the {{construction}} tags. Ewenss (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I suggest you actually learn what an edit war is before you try to be tough and say I'm doing it. Thanks, Grsz11 13:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad move

See my comment on the article talk page regarding your move of A More Perfect Union, which I feel was completely unnecessary and ill-advised. At the very least, you should have opened a discussion about the possibility of renaming the article. A bunch of editors have been working on it, and issues surrounding the name have already come up. Bold article moves are often not a good idea - particularly on articles which are somewhat contentious as this one has been.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Can you stop your barage of personal attacks over the past few hours? Thanks, Grsz^talk 18:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh and stop edit warring. Grsz^talk 18:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:TUCC

There is no reason to archive the talk page, so please stop doing so. Also, the article is not a high priority in those projects. If you feel differently, you should appeal to each respective project regarding the rating previously given. Grsz^talk 21:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop sounding like you know what you are talking about from there behind your veil. Show me some substantial, meaty and scholarly articles you have written and then I might be inclined to give weight to things you say. I see nothing of such vein in your edit history. Ewenss (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What attack? If someone wants to have authority, they need to show the basis for it. That's life. Ewenss (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the one right above. I never asserted any kind of authority. Grsz^talk 03:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no attack, you just think it is one because I am questioning your "right" to keep throwing your weight around and reverting me based upon your assumed authority to do so. But show me the evidence of why anyone should give you the authority you assume by your actions. Actual authority here comes from demonstrating you can write substantial, meaty and scholarly articles. I currently see no evidence of that in your contributions, so you lack the authority you are trying to assume. That's not an attack. It's just how real life works. Ewenss (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed, nor assumed, any such authority. I am however, familiar with the basic tenets of Wikipedia, and am trying to get those through to you. You are attacking me, as you are inappropriately criticizing my editing. I'll ask again that you stop doing so, or you'll have to deal with somebody who actually does have authority to do something about it. Grsz^talk 03:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've actually been around much longer than you might realize and I do understand Wikipedia in depth. What I am trying to get across to you is that you might want to consider why Wikipedia has problems with retaining expert editors and not add to it. Especially in light of this, you might want to see point #5 rather than being so quick with the reversions. Ewenss (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Likewise then, I would direct you to #s 6 and 7. Grsz^talk 04:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I know its there. That's why Britannica and Encarta still exist and why WP is much less than it could be. Ewenss (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:African American lawyers

You should know that Category:African American lawyers has been the subject of several CfDs. After the most recent one, the contents were merged up to American lawyers and/or African Americans and the cat was deleted. Same with Jewish-American lawyers. See the discussion at [1]. I didn't think this was wise, but I'm an inclusionist and almost never understand why people want to delete useful articles, lists, or categories. I think that you would have more luck with a category that was made up of lawyers who focus on African American legal issues, rather than a list of lawyers by ethnicity. Good luck in any case. If you haven't been to the policy and guideline pages linked to from the Welcome section at the top of the page, I suggest that you check them out.--Hjal (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, seeing some of the other very novice things that go on around, this does not at all surprise me. I'll just say that any decision to delete - well, just note the enormous gaps at Wikipedia on things related to blacks and you'll begin to see why. There are a good many African American print encyclopedias, and there's also Encarta Africana, but apparently WP does not care to attract enough contributing blacks to compete with that. That said, I do see Category:African American politicians, which is encouraging. Ewenss (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Jeremiah Wright picture

The History Makers site wrote in to complain about that image. Thus, the deletion. They also wanted the Marine Corps pic gone too but I told them that one was PD by virtue of being a US gov't work. howcheng {chat} 20:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, they can complain all they want--judges determine fair use, not copyright holders, and they do not even hold the copyright to that but Jeremiah Wright does. But what I'll do is replace their version with the one at PBS. Ewenss (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'm not convinced this is even valid fair use on our part. I've opened up a discussion at WP:FUR#Image:Jeremiah Wright July 1973 - First Vacation Bible School at TUCC.jpg. howcheng {chat} 21:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a discussion related to removing/deleting the original version of Jeremiah Wright's bible school photo? Or was that a behind-the-scenes determination? TheslB (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It was an ORTS behind the scenes thing. But that's irrelevant now. I got the photo from another place. Ewenss (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What I have added is not "just nonsense". It is absolutely true that Wright was allegedly quoting Peck, go listen to the sermon, please. And what exactly does "un-American" mean? Do you describe a statement as "un-British" or "un-German"? What do those terms mean? What is the difference between these terms? --Tkhorse (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit at WP:V, but...

Refs (including notes) in mid-sentence on WP are generally used only when it would be confusing if they were at the end of the sentence (for instance, when several refs apply to the same sentence). There was a long discussion recently on WT:CITE, and the subject comes up a lot at WP:FAC. Thanks for reading WP:V carefully, though, we need more of that. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

TUCC

Copy the material you're working on to User:Ewenss/Sandbox, work on it there, and then replace it. This works a lot better than just deleting content. Grsz^talk 04:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't keep material up that contains some errors. Ewenss (talk) 04:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, we fix it, rather than just deleting it. Grsz^talk 04:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If you email me I'll explain further. It'll be reworked, I assure you. Ewenss (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Grsz^talk 04:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What's your opinon on Wright's statements yesterday? Grsz^talk 20:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think they are a window into a significant segment of the older generation of blacks. To me, that is something to understand, not politicize, although everything has political implications. When I taught at Northern Marianas College, most of my students were Chamorro. One thing I learned during that time is that every people group really does have its generation gap. Some of the older generation were very set in their ways; ways a lot of us would find offensive or at least a bit "backward", while the younger generation typically thought very differently. Yet the younger were culturally very respectful toward their elders, sometimes to a fault. Same with African Americans, generally, I think, although no generalization is fully fair. Obama very deftly brought out this generation gap dynamic in his race speech, though he said it in different terms than I am here. Ewenss (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

And yet, like many are saying, it seems like Wright is purposely trying to harm Obama. Grsz^talk 20:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course. Their worldviews are very different. Older generations have enjoyed power and influence, have spent lifetimes in their pursuits, and typically fight against change because it threatens what they've been about all their lives. The younger generation must typically struggle to take power from the hands of their elders and bring change. And there are often iconic moments where "breaks" are made between the generations gap. That's the bigger picture in this "controversy", I think. We watched one such break today. Ewenss (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Leonard Horowitz

You dispute the neutrality of the article on Leonard Horowitz. What exactly would you suggest? In every case where Horowitz has been notable (since around 1992, anyway), I find he's made himself somewhat notorious. In letting him and his defenders speak for themselves, I give him leeway to identify himself to any reasonable person as a quack and a conspiracy theorist. Am I neutral? No, I can't be, when it comes to quacks and conspiracy theorists. Is the article neutral? That's a different question. If your measure of "neutrality" here is that it might make Horowitz look like a guy with his good points and bad points, in about equal measure, I don't think the article will ever get there. He's a quack and conspiracy theorist, and he shows no signs of getting better with time. I think the further and longer anyone digs, the worse the picture will be. Did he really get an MA from some Beacon College? Why does he describe that degree in three different ways? Did he really serve on the faculties of Tufts and/or Harvard at any time? This is mentioned on some websites he doesn't run, but not (no longer) on any of his own. Is it perhaps because Tufts and Harvard complained about these claims of his? Who knows?

I dispute YOUR neutrality in this matter. Every Talk page entry here so far is connected somehow with Jeremiah Wright, who in defense of his "HIV-invented-by-US" sermon statement mentioned an excellent source on public health mistreatment of African Americans (Harriet Washington's "Medical Apartheid") in THE SAME BREATH as Horowitz's "Emerging Viruses". If I were Harriet Washington, I'd be absolutely livid about that association right now. I don't see where she has said anything about HIV having been engineered in U.S. biowarfare labs. She's a reputable researcher, so I can't imagine she would.

You can continue disputing the neutrality of what I've been writing about Horowitz, but if you're waiting to read anything better about him than what I've already written (mainly, his publication record prior to his descent into quackery and conspiracy theory), if nothing less than hearing some more good news about him will convince you of balance, then you'll probably always consider this article lacking in NPOV no matter how comprehensive it becomes. The way things are going with Horowitz (who has since added even more alphabet soup to his degree list, and is claiming decoration in some Hospitaller Order of highly disputed provenance on his YouTube video page), digging will just turn up more resume puffery, more quackery, more conspiracy theories.

The fact is, Wright cited this guy's conspiracy-theory book as support for a nutcase theory. That doesn't make Wright a nutcase. It does suggest Wright's got a certain lack of NPOV himself, however. (After all, in his sermon, he said that the Tuskegee experiment subjects were *intentionally* infected with syphilis by the U.S. government. Can you turn up any credible evidence of that? Where did HE get that idea?)

The public deserves better than the virtual Horowitz resume that stood for Horowitz's Wikipedia entry not so long ago. You want more NPOV on Horowitz? Well, maybe you could put in some time on the article. Things get better on Wikipedia because people WORK, doing what I've been doing 8-10 hours a day for the last few days: researching, verifying, trying express facts without bias. That's hard in Horowitz's case, because he's no prize. He's despicable (or, if he's insane, seriously pathetic -- I don't claim to know which). I've been trying. Why don't YOU give it a try? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakushima (talk • contribs) 06:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have left the following notice on the discussion page for Leonard Horowitz: "Ewenss tagged Leonard Horowitz for disputable neutrality, but hasn't appeared on the discussion page for the article to say why and to discuss it. His absence might be in part because of a recent one-day ban he was under for not observing revert rules on another (related) topic. I'll give it a couple days, and if he doesn't show up and give reasons, I'll take the notice down and consider the dispute resolved. Unless of course somebody puts up another one. :-(" Yakushima (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring and 3RR violation.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

After a review of the last few days' edits to Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy, I've reluctantly concluded that you (and others) violated the three-revert rule. Please don't consider this block an attack — I feel strongly that you have important contributions to make to Wikipedia, and I hope we can continue to work together. However, edit warring is counterproductive, and damages Wikipedia's collaborative environment. I have also blocked another editor who was reverting your changes, and am continuing to review the article history. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Working together on Wright

Since we've recently had some problems with edit warring on Jeremiah Wright controversy, I've made a post about working together constructively at Talk:Jeremiah Wright controversy#Working together. I'd appreciate it if you could add any thoughts you have there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ewenss, I'm afraid that I've been called away from my regular Wikipedia work, including the work on the Obama-related pages. My mother is in the hospital, and it's pretty serious. I don't know when I'll have the time or energy to work seriously on Wikipedia. I hope that if the problems continue you'll be able to call on other admins for help. I hope to work with you in the future, but right now Wikipedia can't be a priority for me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"Academia" - J. Wright controversy

Hi Ewenss,

The "Academia" section on the Jeremiah Wright controversy article was reduced in size and revised today. I know you have spent a lot of time writing most of the section and feel you should have been consulted prior to these edits. Other editors, including myself, feel the section was too long. I personally think that all the "Reaction" sections were getting to long and that very important facts relating to the actual story of the controversy have received little or no mention. The impact on the church - bomb and death threats, the media hounding members at their homes and TUCC retaining a PR firm are some examples. Wright's comments at the National Press Club Q&A that caused Obama's strong response distancing himself from Wright is another example of the omission of some of the more important aspects of the story. . I thought you should be informed of this so you can contribute to the discussion on the talk page. IP 75 75.31.210.156 (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"Academia" - draft

Academia

Some academics sought to expand public understanding about Wright and the black religious tradition, while separating both from the political controversy. In 2004, prior to the Wright controversy, Anthony E. Cook, a professor of law at Georgetown University[54] who specializes in the intersections of race, law, and religion in American culture, provided a detailed comparative analysis of the full 9-11 sermons of Jerry Falwell, T.D. Jakes and Jeremiah Wright. Cook noted that the overall intent of Falwell's and Jakes's sermons was to use the the Christian religion as a justification for the War on terror, while Wright's overall intent was to side against war and to get listeners to engage in introspection about their daily behavior and relationship with God.[55] After the political controversy erupted, Georgetown University sociology professor Michael Eric Dyson stated that Wright's comments "have to be read as the bitter complaint of a spurned lover. Like millions of other blacks, Wright was willing to serve the country [in the military] while suffering rejection." Dyson goes on to argue that "Wright's critics have confused nationalism with patriotism.” Nationalism is the uncritical support of one's country regardless of its moral or political bearing. Patriotism is the affirmation of one's country in light of its best values, including the attempt to correct it when it's in error. Wright's words are the tough love of a war-tested patriot speaking his mind — one of the great virtues of our democracy."[56] J. Kameron Carter, associate professor of theology and black church studies at Duke Divinity School, stated that Wright "voiced in his sermons a pain that must be interpreted inside of the tradition of black prophetic Christianity."[57] Martin E. Marty, an emeritus professor of religious history,[58] criticized the "incomprehension and naiveté of some reporters who lack background in the civil rights and African-American movements of several decades ago".[59] He went on to place Wright's comments in context of his church: "For Trinity, being 'unashamedly black' does not mean being 'anti-white.' [...], He noted that 'being shamed', and 'being ashamed' are debilitating legacies of slavery and segregation in society and church" (see Black shame). Marty also argued that Trinity's Africentrism "should not be more offensive than that synagogues should be 'Judeo-centric' or that Chicago's Irish parishes be 'Celtic-centric'."[60] Bill J. Leonard, Dean of the divinity school and professor of church history at Wake Forest University, stated that the whole Wright affair illustrated "what we should have known after twenty years or more of discussing religion in the political square and at political election time: that American religion is very messy, and it doesn't fit all the categories and its very layered; there are many ways to look at it and we all read it in different ways with different glasses." Leonard stated that Wright "was standing and speaking out of the jeremiad tradition or preaching in the U.S.," which he said "dates back to the Puritans" and that both "black and white ministers have used since the 1600s in this country." Leonard explains that the jeremiad tradition dealt with woe and promise and moral failure not only in the church but in the nation." [61] James B. Bennett, an assistant professor of religious studies at Santa Clara University, describes how Wright follows in a "rhetorical tradition" that has "a long history in the speeches and writings of African-American leaders who are exalted by black and white Americans alike". Bennett says Martin Luther King, Jr. shared similar feelings with Wright concerning some US activities, saying, " 'the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government,' " and that " 'America was founded on genocide, and a nation that is founded on genocide is destructive.' "[62][63] Michael Eric Dyson notes that on the Thursday Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated, he was working on a Sunday sermon entitled "Why America May Go to Hell."[64]

Edited version: 641 words. Original version: 797 words.

Hi Ewenss,

Please give me your opinion on the above draft. I think it communicates the issues in a more concise manner that focuses the 'Wiki' reader on the substance of the topics. The Leonard section could also be tighter. I like that it ends with the title of the MLK speech. Did you see Happy's comments on the article talk page?

Take care, IP 75 75.31.210.156 (talk) 09:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ewenss, Do you feel that James Cone should be included in this section? IP 75 75.31.210.156 (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)