Talk:The Ku Klux Klan in Prophecy

Removal of quotation content

I agree that just quoting a book does not make good article and I also believe this article could definitely be improved, it's kinda been on my list to do that. Simply removing content, however, I believe doesn't necessarily improve the quality of an article either. If you would like to summarize some of the quoted text and substitute those summaries, I think in some cases that could definitely help the article. I agree that the note from the Author could be improved, perhaps by a one or two sentence summary. But I believe to simply remove the quote(s) without adding something (unless you truly believe the quote is irrelevant to the article), weakens the article. BTW - I think you've correctly identified several ideas I've missed. I now recognize there is a subtle but important difference between white supremacy and racism against African Americans. Buz lightning (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Buz, the note from the author adds absolutely nothing. It is meaningless and un-encyclopedic. There's got to be a point to the quotes. Further, if you look at Wikipedia guidelines, you need to be quoting secondary sources not primary documents and this is a primary document. Skywriter (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, what exactly is your point in repeating sambo jokes? This is not material for an encyclopedia. If you believe that it is, please show why. thanks. Skywriter (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we pretty much agree about the note from author - my point is to make sure that the information is captured, and upon a re-read of the opening section, I think it pretty much is. So I'm OK on that.

On the Sambo Jokes. Well, they are, and I suspect you agree, hugely provocative. They are included for many important reasons, the first being that they are a raw and naked exposition of the depth of the author and publisher's racism, bigotry and perhaps even further exposing some of Bishop White's own self-loathing. Wiki contributors can't on their own say "Alma White was a bigot," unless quoting some credible published source. But they can highlight some of the things she published that were significant and illuminating of Bishop White, her religious denomination, and the culture at the time. This article really needs more work because the book has a relatively small racist content when compared with the volume and tone of the anti-Catholic bigotry in the book. It needs content added more than it needs content deleted. So while I've responded as you've requested which I hope you'll find helpful, I believe the the burden is actually on you to explain why the quote is irrelevant or inappropriate to the article. Buz lightning (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't get it, do you? You may not use original sources here on Wikipedia. If you want to summarize what was said, fine. To quote it directly with the express purpose of insulting people, sorry, you don't get to do that. You need to register as a user and read the documentation for what is and is not acceptable. If you want to add this stuff, you have to find a secondary source who has written about it. You have not done that and quoting long racist tracts from a long-forgotten pamphlet does not belong in any encyclopedia. Skywriter (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've given my perspective and you seem to be simply assalting my perspective without giving your own. "Expressed purpose of insulting people?" Huh? Let's get some other viewpoints on this. Buz lightning (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course you can quote original sources. There is no ban against using original documents for verifiability and quotes. The only ban is against insulting living people, we have to make sure we don't publish rumors, so everything must be sourced to very reliable sources. What is more reliable than someone's own words. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

May I remind you both that asking your friends to comment is neither a fair nor unbiased way to seek comments from disinterested editors.Skywriter (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Getting a third opinion is a core principle of Wikipedia conflict resolution. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• comment a third opinion means an outside opinion not someone who has already edited the article.Cathar11 (talk) 09:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh you can quote briefly from original sources where relevant. This article is made up of nothing but quotes and illustrations from a pamphlet distributed more than 75 years ago. The person who wants to add more quotes wants to use sambo jokes, which are non-encyclopedic, with no value other than to insult people. It is up to that person to demonstrate why this is of value in an encyclopedia, and also why author's note and words from an intro written by a non-memorable person is encyclopedic. The writer of the previous note clearly did not read the article history.Skywriter (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed racist content and illustrations which are definitely unencylopediac.Cathar11 (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't censored. I am not sure why those quotes were chosen and they are non sequitors without any context. But, the book is notable by Wikipedia standards. If the person has an article, they are not a "non-memorable person". They are notable by Wikipedia's standards. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting scenario: When is quoting a primary source helpful in an article, and when does it become original research? At what point do quotes/images become a copyvio, or, if the material is available, when should quotes/images be moved to Wikisource rather than kept in an article? I'll think this over before reaching a conclusion, but my first impression is that quoting passages from a primary source in order to allow the reader to infer some point is very much OR and should not occur. In another context, I have seen this when someone with a very low understanding of the background will attempt to quote some paragraph written 150 years ago by Charles Darwin, in order for the reader to draw some negative conclusion about Darwin or evolution. That definitely violates WP:OR: articles need a secondary source where someone with relevant expertise has performed an analysis (they have read more a lot more than one or two paragraphs and understand the context). Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yet the article On the Origin of Species quotes from the book and provides an excerpt of the introduction. It is best to read the articles. You point to Charles Darwin which is a biography, not an article on a book. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Consider that there were no secondary or scholarly sources present in this article to put racist jokes and images in any context whatsoever. You might ask what other encyclopedia article copies and pastes every single image from a book and places it in an article for shock value? What other encyclopedia article tells two racist jokes without any commentary whatsoever to provide context? Place yourself in the position of the reader. Assume two "jokes" have been told about your ethnicity. What would you think about the encyclopedia that allowed that? Skywriter (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree the article needs more commentary. I will also endeaver to put some language around the quotes. This is a complicated book and subject and it's hard work. I could use some help with that. I thought some of your other edits were insiteful. Buz lightning (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Not being American, black or of any religous persuasion I found the content of this article gratuitously offensive and without merit. I don't believe the book itself is notable enough to be in an encyclopedia.Cathar11 (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not memorable for any reason other than to keep alive the flame of Ku Klux Klan. Skywriter (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't censored. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe it’s important to study the dark and ugly sides of humanity to learn and grow from our dark shadow. I too believe the Sambo quote is disgusting and vile which is precisely why I included it in the article, to illustrate vividly the darkness of this material. Skywriter has suggested vial material of this sort is not suitable for Wikipedia. By that logic, are pictures or graphic details of the Holocaust suitable? Pictures or details of war? Genocide? Slavery? Torture? How do we learn about and from these horrible events if we don’t put them in encyclopedias? Yes, the article needs work. Please help do the work instead of delete and run. Please help sumarize the quotes and the scholars. Buz lightning (talk) 05:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a thoroughly nasty book and your entire wikipedia career seems to have been spent promoting its content and author so don't pretend you are including items just to show how vile they are. Please remember WP:canvas when you feel your editing is being discussed and inform any interested editor and not just ones who share your viewpoint.Cathar11 (talk) 09:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and don't attack the editors for the topics they choose. Stick to arguments about notability and verifiability. Wikipedia isn't censored. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

We are in agreement that this book is thoroughly nasty. I sent requests for comment to all editors of the article. Johnuniq's response is from one of those requests. I don't know how to add a tag that is a general request for comment. But I'd like to know. Buz lightning (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Do self published books deserve a wikipedia entry???Cathar11 (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think some do. Buz lightning (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This article violates Wikipedia policy on self-published content that attacks others. WP:SelfPublish . This article specifically violates Wikipedia policy in that it is a self-published tract that makes claims about third parties (Catholics and Jews). This article should be deleted on the basis that it violates core Wikipedia policy.[1]Skywriter (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:SELFPUBLISHED policy is about references and sources used IN an article not about THE TOPIC OF the article. Buz lightning (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• previously uninvolved opinion: I noticed this by following a link from WP:EAR. Having reviewed this, I offer the following comments, in no particular order, for whatever good they may do:
  • It seems patently obvious to me this article cannot be speedily deleted; it does not meet any of the possible rationales. If you believe this article should be deleted, then WP:AFD is where you'll need to go (but see below before you do).
  • Skywriter, you are misunderstanding WP:SELFPUBLISH; this is a policy about whether TKKKIP can be considered a reliable source (answer: it can't, except in a limited way to demonstrate information on what it contains), not on whether it should have a Wikipedia article.
  • The decision on whether there should be an article is based on WP:NOTE, particularly, WP:BK. I know little about this subject, so I won't opine; this is just meant to guide discussion onto the correct path.
  • We don't decide whether or not an article should exist based on the distastefulness of the subject matter.
  • I note that many, if not all, of the current references seem to be about the (obviously notable) author, not the book. At some point, if no reliable sources can be found that actually discuss this book, then I suspect an AFD discussion would likely result in "delete". If they can be found, then I suspect it would result in "keep". I suggest everyone glance aat WP:BK, as there are other complications.
  • I see no evidence that Buz lightning is "pushing" this book and/or its POV. If you've got evidence to that effect that I've missed, by all means let me know. If your only evidence is the subject matter he chooses to write about, then this is a seriously unfair characterization that probably borders on violating some policy somewhere. I strongly urge everyone to drop that line of discussion.
  • I do not believe the verbatim quoting of the two Sambo "jokes" is appropriate to an encyclopedia article. I also do not believe all of the illustrations should be put into a gallery at the end of the article. This should be an encyclopedia article about the book; not a regurgitation of the book. "Wikipedia is not censored" is not an obligation to put such material into an article; that decision is subject to consensus.
  • There are dispute resolution methods available if concerned editors cannot come to a consensus. Perhaps if discussion is focused on the right path, they won't become necessary, but if not, they're the next step.

Hope this is of some use. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Floquenbeam! I too was previously uninvolved in this article until yesterday. I did not remove the Sambo jokes because they are distasteful. I removed them because they don't belong in an encyclopodia. Another editor did not remove dozens of images copied and pasted from this book directly into this article because they are distasteful. They were removed because Wikipedia , at least at one time, was not a place for advocacy or WP:SOAP . I concur that self-publishing alone is not among policy grounds for exclusion from Wikipedia nor is censorship. Attacking individuals is, however, not permitted, and this author's self-published books do attack individuals though most of those attacks are carefully not inserted into this and all the associated articles. Further, WP:BK bears directly as the subject of this article meets none of the criteria for inclusion. WP:NOT and WP:SOAP also bear directly, along with its associated links and categories, seen here in overview, [2] What we have here are two apparent proponents (Norton and buz) writing numerous articles on each of the 35 books by this self-published author. I am not going to get deeply into the weeds here. It is up to Wikipedia to decide how many articles are useful on the subject of this one woman and her fringe church. Alma White is not Mark Twain and self-published though he was, and unquestionably notable though he is, Twain has nowhere near the number of articles and categories on Wikipedia that White does, including lengthy quotes and images from her 85-year-old, out-of-print books.Skywriter (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

{{Merge | Alma Bridwell White| date=January 2010}} It doesnt deserve a seperate page and should be merged with the author's pageCathar11 (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep apart The Alma White article is too large already. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep apart This book covers a wide area of topics - KKK, Protestant Supremacy, White Supremacy, Women’s Equality, anti-Semitism, nativism, racism, religion used to justify intolerance. The promotion of these combined (mostly dark) ideas in one book is rather unique, according to the cited scholars. While these topics are powerfully sensitive, like other human atrocities - The Holocaust, slavery, war, torture - I (and the referenced scholars) believe the topic and this book to be culturally important, albeit dark. The important reason to detail a painfully dark book such as this is to acknowledge these awful things occured and learn from them so they don't happen again in some other way. Additionally, the person who added the merge tag also has repeatedly deleted (in good faith) most of the content of the original article. It seems to me to be inappropriate to do both. Buz lightning (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Delete.WP:BK, WP:NOT and WP:SOAP bear directly as this article, along with its associated links and categories, seen here in overview, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pillar_of_Fire_Church , meets none of the criteria for inclusion. The question for Wikipedia is "do each of Alma White's 35 self-published books (drawn from her self-published newsletters that attack individuals as well as other people's religions) each deserve unique articles on Wikipedia? Or should book summaries be included on the author or church page? Much of this material is mentioned only in passing in several books and that is the extent of its notability. This article does not meet quality guidelines for subject notability separate from page on author or the church itself, which appears to be better-written than this and some of the other Wikipedia pages on this subject. Wikipedia can, however, popularize this dead author by continuing to publish countless articles on her and her hatred of Catholics, Jews and everyone else she hated. That could help make her famous if not notable and someone could make money by reprinting her books. We could also look at how much space other encyclopedias allot to her and her church. Lots of intriguing possibilities.Skywriter (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. This book does not meet the guidelines at WP:BK. The references such as they are only mention the book in passing, reproducing chunks of the book does not help. None of them support the book's notability. The book could be mentioned in the bibliography section of the article on the author. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. This book has no merit or notability.Cathar11 (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Question So how does this work? I assume the AFD supercedes the merge discussion? I've commented in the AFD in favor of merging and redirecting to a different target than Alma White, but AFD seems a bad place for such content-based discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment about two or three lines would need to be merged as the rest of the article is already duplicated there. I think the same would apply to her other publicationsCathar11 (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Neal

Lynn S. Neal, assistant professor of religion at Wake Forest University in her book discusses, "the image 'The Men Who are Refusing to Bow to the Great Image' from the book The Ku Klux Klan in Prophecy by Alma White. The author claims that the image raises questions about the history of religious intolerance in the United States through a fusing of biblical myth, American identity, and Klan ideology. Efforts by the Ku Klux Klan to promote the Protestant religion and its moral ideas are detailed, with a specific focus on the ways that Klan members justified their goals."

This quote is odd. The references says it comes from Neal's article, but it is written in the third person in the quote as if it is coming from a review of the book by a third party with "The author claims that the image raises questions". Can anyone clear that up? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed the following: ... Lynn S. Neal, assistant professor of religion at Wake Forest University in her article discusses, "the image 'The Men Who are Refusing to Bow to the Great Image' from the book The Ku Klux Klan in Prophecy by Alma White. The author claims that the image raises questions about the history of religious intolerance in the United States through a fusing of biblical myth, American identity, and Klan ideology. Efforts by the Ku Klux Klan to promote the Protestant religion and its moral ideas are detailed, with a specific focus on the ways that Klan members justified their goals." ...

I cant quote the article, I am not at the Rutgers library, and I am not going to look it up a second time. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Killer iaan mae is the killer in you

A020780 ResWdo9 Billy rain bolt 2603:8001:46F0:8AB0:30AF:640B:8C60:50BC (talk) 05:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)