Talk:Thurman Ruth
![]() | A fact from Thurman Ruth appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 March 2008, and was viewed approximately 338 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sorry about reverting it, but the whole point of the article had been removed
editThis article is about the moment in time when gospel singers crossed over to secular venues in the history of entertainment, and not about the particular groups involved. It has more to do with the Apollo Theater and the secularization of gospel music, the details of which I will add on when I have the time. Regards, Mattisse(Talk) 18:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, the article is by definition a biography. If it were solely about the secularisation of gospel music, it should be titled "The secularisation of gospel music". Please, let's not argue about this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- O.K. I will change the name to reflect his secularization of gospel music because that was what Thurman Ruth was all about. He recognized the R&B entertainment value of gospel and arranged to get gospel groups in commercial theaters in the R&B circuit. Mattisse(Talk) 23:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Fine. The last hour or so never happened. Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, as you so nicely stated in you last edit summary, "the whole point of the article has been removed." If you can try to remember that you are not the only editor here, and the "whole point of the article" is from your point of view. Please try to remember that there are other editors here with there own goals and thoughts. The commandeer an one day old article because it is not, in you holy point "reflecting" the correct point of view is not the way Wikipedia works. Although no one "owns" the articles, there are points of etiquette and common politeness accorded other editors that are expected in editorial behavior. Behaving like a steamroller is not one of them. Mattisse(Talk) 00:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- "Sorry about reverting it, but the whole point of the article had been removed" - those are your words, not mine. All very sad and strange. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, as you so nicely stated in you last edit summary, "the whole point of the article has been removed." If you can try to remember that you are not the only editor here, and the "whole point of the article" is from your point of view. Please try to remember that there are other editors here with there own goals and thoughts. The commandeer an one day old article because it is not, in you holy point "reflecting" the correct point of view is not the way Wikipedia works. Although no one "owns" the articles, there are points of etiquette and common politeness accorded other editors that are expected in editorial behavior. Behaving like a steamroller is not one of them. Mattisse(Talk) 00:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
As an outsider, it seems that this article is about Ruth, and that if you want to talk about the commercialization of gospel, that would be a second article. This is, in my mind, a biography. --Falcorian (talk) 05:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Gospel Music Hall of Fame?
editPlease correct me if I'm wrong, but neither the list of inductees at the International Gospel Music Hall of Fame - here - nor the one at the Gospel Music Association Hall of Fame - here - nor the one at the Southern Gospel Hall of Fame - here - nor the Texas Gospel Music Hall of Fame - here seem to mention him. Have I missed something? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- However, he certainly was inducted in 1993 into the United in Group Harmony Association (UGHA) Hall of Fame - here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)