Talk:Joseph Lowery

message: Due to the inauguration, should we protect this article? It looks like racists have left their mark. Stonesour025 (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Give it a couple of hours, maybe, see how persistent they are. Chronodm (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Protect this article?

message: It is not clear to me whether "Payne College and Theological Seminary" is one or two organizations.  One source, which I cited (and can be through Google Books) says: "He studied at Payne College and Theological Seminary in Wilberforce, Ohio".  Theological Seminary is indeed in Wilberforce, Ohio, but does not seem to have an associated college.  For now, I lumped the two together as one institution, but it seems possible that Payne College refers to Daniel Payne College, although that is in Alabama, not Ohio.  Espertus (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Payne College 

message: The article reads: "The portion asking for whites to "embrace what is right" was singled out by at least one news agency as a racist comment.[9]"  However, if you read the article referenced, the author actually says: "Even at the inauguration of a black president, we are being called racist."  So the author does not state that the benediction was racist; rather, he complains that *he* has been called racist.  Given that there's no source for this allegation, if no one can find a citation to support it I suggest that it be removed. EastVanHalen (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My reason for adding is as follows. I've seen situations like this on other pages, what would be a very small inclusion turn into a very large and ugly debate with a side that originally wanted one short sentence finding tons of links over several days time (as I'm sure will occur given talk radio has picked up on this and will be bored for awhile) and wanting to add an entire section. Leaving the sentence in seemed to be the easiest way to conclude it, provides that both sides (don't ask me what the other side would be) are included, and keeps it from being a link/citation war for what is otherwise a brief article. ChkChkChkagain (talk) 00:26 21 January 2009 (UTC)
For the record: the passage has been sharply criticized by a chorus of commentators--of course mostly conservative ones but commentators nonetheless--including Hannity, Limbaugh, Fox News, Michelle Malkin, etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.176.79.5 (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I personally don't think this alleged controversy is notable so far, but in the spirit of Help:Reverting I've rewritten the last edit to make it NPOV and remove the commentary rather than reverting. If it makes people happy to document this, and they can do it without weasel words ("some commentators" etc.) or original research (extrapolating from three or four specific, sourced complaints to a larger controversy), I don't have a problem with that. I'm not sure it's quite an edit war yet. Chronodm (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Okay, and now I've reverted the revert of my edit. Dear 74.210.32.28, if you're reading this: It's not enough to find a bunch of blog posts and conclude that there's a controversy -- that's original research. You need to find a reliable source that's already done that analysis, and cite them. Chronodm (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thus far, a handful of people have criticized the benediction on entirely ideological grounds. Others have praised the same passages. The same is true for Warren's invocation, and for nearly every passage of Obama's speech.  The fact that conservative columnists disliked Lowery's prayer, or that Warren's critics disliked HIS prayer, is not notable and will only merit encyclopedic coverage if, after two or three years have passed, these critiques are remembered as an influential watershed. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Just out of curiosity, when did wikipedia establish the precedent of waiting two or three years for determining the influence of critics on anything? Antcruncher (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the heart of WP::NOT and WP:NOTNEWS, if you want to look for precedents.  A controversy section would be merited if the controversy is notable not just today or tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life.  Otherwise, every notable person winds up with a "controversy" section written by their enemies, no matter how controversial they real may be. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Conversely, the conservative Andrew Sullivan praised the passage cited here as drawing fire from conservatives.  MarkBernstein (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

text: To say that it was mostly. or especially, criticised by conservatives, is original research; we'd have to find a source that said so, and probably link to someone who both criticised the benediction and defined themselves as something other than conservative. We don't say "It was criticised solely by conservative commentators" for the same reason. The current text doesn't specifically exclude non-cons from being critical. Can you give an example of someone who's made the benediction and isn't a conservative? I can't find any. topynate (talk) 06:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Actually, I have to reconsider. The paragraph does implicitly exclude non-conservatives, because when it talks about "mainstream media" it sets up an opposition between conservatives and, presumably, liberals. I've changed "conservatives" to "some conservatives", to exclude people like Sullivan, and I've changed the second sentence to remove the reference to "mainstream media", which I think is justifiable given that the links are to news reports and not opinion pieces. I've also made clear that it was the crowd, not the media, that found the prayer humorous. Please edit if I've gone too far and created POV in the other direction. A self declared non-conservative who criticised the benediction would be especially useful in removing all appearance of POV.topynate (talk) 06:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Why is it only whites can be racist? Blacks, mexicans anyone else can and very well be racist too. His benediction was very racist, now look at this what if it was a white man saying that "and when black will embrace what is right" everyone would be calling him a racist, am I wrong? No matter how you look at that its racist everyone can be racist not just whites, when will you people realize that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mind freak217 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benediction controversy 

message: Sorry for changing the transcription to "get back" rather than "get in back" - it was an unintentional error made when I did a POV/vandalism revert. I do hear "get back", rather than "get in back", though, and I've come across a source: the Chicago Sun-Times has a transcript  from the Federal News Service that corroborates "get back" (despite its name, the FNS isn't a Federal group). This means there are two professional transcription agencies with different wording. topynate (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 'But the AP is the larger, more established, and the more widely used service. 'MarkBernstein (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that a quote? topynate (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Partially incorrect in any case. The AP was established in 1846; the Chicago Sun-Times in 1844 :-) topynate (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But the current Sun Times is, at most, distantly related to that Sun Times, or even the Sun Times of the 1960s
If you actual look up his speech that song said "get back" over and over again. http://www.lyricstime.com/big-bill-broonzy-black-brown-and-white-lyrics.html "But as you's black, hmm brother, get back, get back, get back"
"They said, "if you was white, should be all right,
If you was brown, stick around,
But if you black, hmm brother, get back, get back, get back" So stop changing it back to "get in back". YOUR WRONG I AM RIGHT I JUST PROVE AGAIN THAT I AM RIGHT SO STOP.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mind freak217 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

text: First, please respect other editors and assume good faith.  Those who believe "get in back" was the intended reading can cite the most authoritative transcript, and roughly half the google hits. Those who believe "get back" was the intended reading can cite the Sun Times, Federal News Service, and roughly half the google hits.  The professional way to resolve an uncertain reading is to provide both readings; I propose "get [in] back". MarkBernstein (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benediction transcript wording 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Joseph Lowery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090125010723/http://abc3340.com:80/news/stories/0109/587803.html to http://www.abc3340.com/news/stories/0109/587803.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Joseph Lowery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081221130220/http://www.umaffirm.org/gcnews10.html to http://www.umaffirm.org/gcnews10.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090124035042/http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2009/01/20/rhyming-reverend-gets-last-word-at-obama-inaugural/ to http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2009/01/20/rhyming-reverend-gets-last-word-at-obama-inaugural/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130530210409/http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/19978735/joseph-lowery to http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/19978735/joseph-lowery
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060405100922/http://www.jcu.edu/news/mlk_lowery.htm to http://www.jcu.edu/news/mlk_lowery.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified