Talk:Joseph Lowery

suit?

Looks like something got deleted as it jumps into talking about a lawsuit? don't have time to figure it out and revert

Deleted a few lines that were overtly political. It seems odd to be writing about the public reaction to Lowery's comments when they are only a few hours old. Ambiguous phrases such as "Some say" and "others have commented" are the tools of choice for rumormongers, but in an encylopedia one should at least cite an actual source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.17.6.155 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC).

re: "Some have commented that by abusing the grand opportunity to comment on the life of Coretta King, he demeaned himself and Mrs. King by bringing into his speech a classless political attack."

The above is still in this article. What is this right-wing horsesh*t? Has Wikipedia now become Fox News? As long as we're using that approach, here goes: "Some have said that Wikipedia has now become nothing more than a mouthpiece for the NeoCon Nazis that rule America."

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.187.35.134 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC).

Just trying to keep it politically unbiased, that's all. Remarks like "Bush supporters were outraged" are irrelevent and juvenile at best. Which Bush supporters are you talking about? Or are you simply generalizing? And how do you know the real reason for their outrage? Can you read minds?

Not only is it slanted, it's poorly written, i.e. "which was directed at helping and America's poor regardless of race." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.17.6.155 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC).

If the criticism is included it needs to be more specifically sourced than the weasel phrase "Some conservatives..." It should be very easy at this point to find a reference to a specific right-wing commentator or politician. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 05:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the most current edit. Good work.

I agree. It's refreshing to see an objective point of view result from all the editing.--TrustTruth 16:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC) this is from another person that is not computer savie so hope this works I'm just hope this falls on someone ears or eyes that might think about what this supposeable reverend said when i called a color i got my mouth washed because it was not right by ya'll standards but i quess when you are in front of millions of people doing a speech (did not sound like prayer to me) it is okay to say these things well NO IT IS NOT this is the kind of thing that is what is the right word oh thats right i'm not on a stage so i can not say that can i quess i know now where to not maybe in all that growing up i quess the rev. needs to look at his self before looking around my mom and dad said when i was growing up not to throw stones at glass house well maybe someone or somebody should grow up what is good for the goose is good for the gander thanks have a nice day,oh bye the way i'm just a 7to4 common worker painter for your knowledge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.155.230.154 (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Protect this article?

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)

Give it a couple of hours, maybe, see how persistent they are. Chronodm (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Payne College

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)

• The King Online Encyclopedia published by Stanford University says "...he studied at Knoxville College and Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical College before earning a BA (1943) from Paine College, a Methodist institution in Augusta, Georgia. The following year, he enrolled in Paine Theological Seminary to become a Methodist minister." --Dystopos (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Benediction controversy

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)

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)

I don't want to be drawn into repeatedly reverting the benediction section as others are doing, even though the offending statements really shouldn't be there in my view, but here's my reasoning. Statements that the benediction is controversial, or that there is a controversy over the last passage, should not be there at the moment. I don't dispute that, e.g., Malkin has taken issue with the benediction, but I don't think that blog posts don't rise to the level of a controversy. Nor are there news articles on Google News reporting any such controversy, either as reports or opinion (I can't be sure on this, but I've looked at a considerable number of articles about Lowery and the benediction, and I'd like to see proof to the contrary if I'm wrong). To those who want to compare this to the Coretta King funeral row, there are several differences. Firstly, that row is properly sourced. Secondly, those sources indicate that the row was much more widespread, with a centre-page treatment on Drudge and heavy play on Fox. Thirdly, those sources are transcripts of programs seen by a national audience.

Whether you agree with me or not, though, this shouldn't be decided by who is more persistent in reverting what other people write. Please stop edit warring. I've posted to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring about this. topynate (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Ok. there are now news articles and good sources for the criticism of the benediction, though we still need to be careful, because it's a WP:BLP. As to the name of the section, 'and controversy' or 'and aftermath' etc., isn't appropriate or necessary until and unless the controversy becomes as important as the benediction itself. The section above, on Coretta Scott King's funeral, doesn't have 'and controversy' in the title, even though that row was more widely reported and more widespread.topynate (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Topynate's interim solution seems reasonable. However, how are we going to determine when the time is appropriate for the use of the more comprehensive section heading and the extension of the anlaysis of this ongoing controversy? What is becoming evident is that despite the lack of coverage of this phenomenon by the MSM there is a growing list of smaller and more local news sources that are willing to report and analyze it. Are we to set a formula in terms of how many of these smaller, local news sources is equivalent to a national MSM news source in order to determine if an event is 'important'? TheAmazingMr.Ripley (talk) 06:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

i think i added to wrong are so please read suit section from the common worker but i quess that if you stand infront of milions of people it is ok but if you say it court of in other than a formal gathering it is okay NO IT IS NOT that is who i'm talking about jef —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.155.230.154 (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• As it's worded now, in the sentence that mentions that the "final passage drew some criticism ... from conservative commentators," I don't think it would hurt to qualify it by saying "mostly," "largely" or "especially" conservative commentators. Even though the loudest critics of the passage do seem to be mostly conservatives, to be fair, there have been others who have voiced criticism of the passage, as well. On a side note, I think it's also worth reiterating (at least simply here in the discussion forum for now) that the portion asking whites to "embrace what is right" is not the only portion of the passage that has received criticism. Harry Yelreh (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

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

• Certainly, which supports my basic premise that some kind of qualification should be made. Perhaps the article could say "especially among/from some conservative commentators," which would point to those loudest conservative critics but make room for notable vocal exceptions like Sullivan. The passage in question from Lowery has received a mixed reaction. Wikipedia of course can't document the opinion of everyone who has one on the matter. But as it's worded now, I don't think the article makes an adequately accurate assessment.Harry Yelreh (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Benediction transcript wording

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 [1] 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)

'But the AP is the larger, more established, and the more widely used service. 'MarkBernstein (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Is that a quote? topynate (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

King Funeral

It seems to me that, at the very least, the cited interview establishes that Lowery's remarks were not very different from the Corretta King's own remarks, and thus not inappropriate to her eulogy. It seems to me this entire section could be deleted, but to leave right-wing attack columns unanswered is wrong. The link has survived many, many edits

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Joseph Lowery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)