Talk:Trinity United Church of Christ, Chicago/Archived Talk 1

Cleaned up controversy section.

Removed some unrelated information in the controversy section. There was excessive references to Peck's credentials for some reason, possibly in an attempt to show that he's not anti-American. Removed the additional quote that didn't cause controversy. Added an additional one to support the second allegation by Wright that also caused controversy. I also recommend that reference number 13 be removed as it's a blog with little information related to the sentence that cites it. It's simply an extended video. It also is titled "CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC & Fox News LIED" so I don't think it meets NPOV or reliable source guidelines. Ryratt (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"Damn" (moved from article space)

We need a citation for the specific Hebrew word and the Book, Chapter, and verse citation of where it appears in the context Rev. Wright used. I could not find "damn" in An Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, nor Strong's concordance, nor the NASB concordance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.153.203 (talk • contribs) 04:58, April 1, 2008

Unless a reliable secondary source has identified the Hebrew word in question, I'm afraid that our doing so would be original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. If you can find another source which goes into the matter in more depth, that might be OK — but it might also stray too far from the subject of Trinity UCC. (I can see arguments on both sides of that.)

Anyway, if you do find what word Hopkins is referring to, please let us know here on the talk page — even if it's not accepted as text for the article, I'd be interested as a matter of theology. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The original research will be remove by me if not substantiated soon--Die4Dixie (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Two changes made while cleaning up references

While cleaning up some of the references, I noticed a few ambiguities in sources and made changes accordingly, but I figure that they should be discussed here as well.

First, Trinity's website (in the "Pastor" page) says that Trinity's membership exceeds 6,000, but this article and this one from the UCC's newsletter say that it has over 10,000. Both sources have a good claim to being reliable, but I decided to go with the larger figure because it seemed likely to me that the undated Pastor page on Trinity's website just hadn't been updated. (That seems more probable than, for example, the church losing 4,000 members since the UCC newsletters were published in 2007.)

Second, since all the sources seem to indicate that Rev. Moss has become Pastor and Rev. Wright has retired, I changed the tense in that section. However, I couldn't find anything that said exactly when the handover took place; sources in late 2007 and early 2008 said that Wright was "planning to retire" or "retiring", but sources in February and March 2008 refer to Moss as Trinity's "new pastor". If anyone knows exactly when the pulpit reins were formally passed, that would be useful to the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

AP article

This AP story might have some information which could be useful to editors of this article. Incidentally, it gives Trinity's membership as 8,000. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

10,000 is the now infamous hyperbole that we have seen discussed on the Wright talk page.--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Dispute tag

Same problems that have been seen on the Wright page. The statement that wright quoted Peck is patently false, misleading, duplicitous, and mendacious.Please do not remove the tag until this is resolved--Die4Dixie (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It does not say that Wright quoted Peck, it says that Wright claimed to quote him. I removed the tag for this reason. Grsz11 16:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The tag says do not remove until resolved . It is not resolved, back in it goes. --Die4Dixie (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What is there to resolve! You certainly aren't trying! Stop using the tag for your own pleasure. I explained it to you...it doesn't say he quoted Peck, which is the only POV claim you've made. Grsz11 17:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

How fucking stupid purposely obtuse can you be. The same legitimate arguments from the Wright page apply here. It will come out. Leave the tag, as it is in dispute. I dispute that he claimed to quote Peck. That is the dispute. It still remains.--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you read? Read the transcript. I'm sure you have, so read it again. Then if you still think everybody is making up the fact he said he was quoting, come back here and explain yourself. Grsz11 17:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

::: Your sly, slick Philadelphia lawyering edit warring are a real drag. How can you possibly dispute that I dispute something. You are a bad faith editor who has been administratively warned for your edit warring recently. Seems like you have to do this on every page you are at until stopped. i will see this resolved, or the dispute tage will be there.--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not interested in dragging this on. I don't see how you can make accusations following these personal attacks. You'd think it was my fault Charlton Heston died. Grsz11 18:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The section dispute tag will suffice.--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved and tag removed.--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I am going to do a major overhaul of these sections to make them scholarly, contextualized, and fair, so you might just ignore the sections as they are for now. C.m.jones (talk) 03:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Speller

The section on Speller is suspect. The citation says that it was accessed on 4/4/08. I went to the University of Chicago site, and could only find it referenced to in a Bibliography, and no online source has been linked to it. Not saying it doesn't exist, but if it was accessed this week, then please provide link to the information.--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Found it through Proquest. $41.00 a copy . I am requesting a copy through interlibrary loan. Please reflect on the works cited that it must be purchased. I'll re examine the section when I have a copy. (all 200+ pages, not the 24 that proquest offers free)--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, something not available on The Great Google? But sound academic work is never created thereby because the best materials from which to craft such are not free. And any second-year college student should know how to find and instantly access databases of dissertations. But when you get to college, if you plan on going, you'll learn that sort of thing. C.m.jones (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Retired to the post of Senior Pastor?

From 1972 to early 2008, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was pastor of Trinity UCC.[6][33][34] In February 2008, Wright retired to the post of Senior Pastor, and the Rev. Otis Moss III became Trinity's Pastor.[1][35][36]

This wording seems to imply that when Rev. Wright retired his title was changed from Pastor to Senior Pastor. The Trinity Pastoral Staff page is cited as evidence for this. [1] However, that page does not mention his retirement at all, and in fact has not been updated since his retirement. [2] A look at the page on Internet Archive's Wayback Machine shows that he has been referred to as Senior Pastor as far back as August 2003, the earliest version of the page in the archive. [3] Dforest (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)