Talk:Jeremiah Wright

I'm not sure what this has to do with Creation Science. And if this is just an excuse to use Senator Obama's middle name in prominent type for the purposes of a "guilt by associate" with Saddam Hussein, then the community will have to decide whether to keep this article or its self-respect. ~ MD "Webster" Otley (talk) 08:10, 8 April 2008 (PDT)

Jeremiah Wright is a PREACHER of the Christian faith, and as far as I can tell a creationist. His theology which is very bizaar needs to be analyzed, talked about, and pointed out to be wrong when it is. How funny that you gripe about how I might be equating Barack Obama and Saddam Hussein which I am not in any way, shape or form, but you don't seem interested in debunking the nonsense that this preacher espouses reagarding 9/11 and Jesus' race, etc. Why your comment focuses more so on Barack Obama rather than Jeremiah Wright's theology is beyond me. --Tony 11:43, 8 April 2008 (PDT)

I never said that his theology should not be discussed. But I don't see any connection to the creation issue, either in the text you have written, nor in the headings for the text you haven't written yet. This is not "ChristianWiki", but "CreationWiki". In the upper left-hand corner of the page, it clearly says, "Encyclopedia of Creation Science", not "Encyclopedia of Christianity".

In a heading for a section you haven't even written yet, you have Sen. Obama's middle name displayed rather prominently. It seemed rather odd to me, since the middle name of the person this page is supposedly about isn't even on the page, and Sen. Obama seems to typically use his first and last name only, like most Americans. So I mentioned the most obvious reason for highlighting that name, and said that "if" that was the case, then we have a problem.

Where you came up with "equating" I'm not sure -- I can only assume it's either a deliberate distortion of what I said, or reflective of some disorder that would cause you to actually believe that's what I said. Or maybe you simply don't understand what "guilt by association" means.

Again, I don't have a problem with debunking nonsense, but everything has its place, and you have not explained why this is the place for an article on a non-player in the arena of creation science. You don't even know if he's a creationist or not, by your own admission! ~ MD "Webster" Otley (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2008 (PDT)

Now I have either a disorder or I am dishonest, insulting me so far. It was actually a bit harder for me to find Rev. Wrights middle name at the time I initially created the article which is why his isn't listed.

In saying that I have every right to put or not put anybody's full name anywhere I want when in this article as long as it is reasonably referencing a creationist or creationary topic. There is no mention of Saddam at all in the article and I haven't even finished the article in any way, you suffer lack of evidence to back up your claim it would seem, you might want to take a wait-and-see attitude. What you think I am doing by putting Obamas middle name in the article actually makes YOU seem like you are deliberately trying to distort the tone of the article. I wouldn't think Obama is like most Americans, he is running for President.

Wright was the senior pastor to one of the biggest churches in the U.S. and has also been quite consistent with his creationist statements when he refers to a world and universe that was CREATED. If you don't think Wright was and is a player in the creation science movement when he was senior pastor of a megachurch for 36 years and just had national attention for weeks on end, and is the pastor of a Presidential nominee of the United States of America you have another thing coming.

I admitted no such thing, I said as far as I can tell Wright is a creationist. --Tony 12:38, 10 April 2008 (PDT)

You said, "Jeremiah Wright is ... as far as I can tell a creationist." That is a fairly strong admission of uncertainty.

You also keep saying that I have made some "claim" about your use of Sen. Obama's name. Please read what I actually said. I even used bold type it to make it easier: "if this is just an excuse to use Senator Obama's middle name ... ."

Sure, you have the "right" to use any part of anyone's name. So what? Nobody is trying to take away your rights. But not everything that is permissible is beneficial. And this is a wiki, where the name of the game is collaboration: why should I not question something that seems out of place?

From the "About CreationWiki" page: Furthermore, almost any topic or content can find a home on this site provided that it be written from the uniquely creationist point of view. [emphasis added] So, just b/c the subject of an article can be asserted to be a creationist does not make the article appropriate -- you have to be able to say something about him that's uniquely significant because we are writing as creationists (not "as Christians"). The purpose of the CreationWiki is to provide an encyclopedic archive of information relevant to the study of creation apologetics. You have yet to assert any relevance to apologetics. Ken Ham and Richard Dawkins are prominent in the use of science and related fields to address the issue of creation vs. evolution. Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin prominently allowed their creation vs. evolution views affect their work in science and related fields. Wright was a pastor to a big church, which has a Presidential candidate among its members, and he has had the attention of the politically-obsessed part of our nation for a few weeks. He got that attention by making some highly inflammatory remarks, none of which has more than passing relevance to the creation-evolution issue. And since Obama has publicly admitted that he believes in evolution, Wright's supposed creationism is either nonexistent or irrelevant to Obama's potential Presidency. ~ MD "Webster" Otley (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2008 (PDT)

No uncertainty, but affirmation that he IS more so than not. --Tony 12:24, 15 April 2008 (PDT)

The brevity of your response is quite refreshing, but you've still to articulate a reason for inclusion of this article in CreationWiki that relates to our purpose. ~ MD "Webster" Otley (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2008 (PDT)

You have been nothing but sarcastic and insulting to me since this conversation began. Actually it matters not if I think the article is allowed and for whatever reason, I have written Ashcraft a question regarding such and will wait for his response. --Tony 23:17, 16 April 2008 (PDT)

I'm sorry I've been so harsh. I asked what I thought was a reasonable question, you jumped down my throat, and I overreacted. Please forgive me. ~ MD "Webster" Otley (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2008 (PDT) (I tried to post this a minute ago, but there was an edit conflict -- you posted your note while I was typing mine.)

Relevance

Tony, I have the same misgivings that "Webster" Otley has: I'm not sure that this is relevant to the creation story. If I might suggest, you ought to join Conservapedia and publish your findings there. (The article Conservapedia:Jeremiah Wright is linked here for your convenience; as you can see, it is, by any definition, a stub.) I understand your misgivings about Jeremiah Wright. But we don't have time to swat every fly in American politics.--Temlakos^Talk 23:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete it if you want, but he is considered a prominent Christian leader in the United States, and was head of one of the biggest churches in the United States, who has made creationist statements! That doesn't warrent a biography and analysis of his views, specifically theologically? --Tony 23:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

All right, let's examine each of your points in detail:

1. A prominent Christian leader? He is actually a controversial figure, and in most Christian circles through which I happen to move, he does not have the respect of a Ken Ham or even a Kent Hovind. I venture to point out that, before the 2008 United States federal election campaign, very few people who were not members, regular attenders, communicants, or similar affiliates of his church even knew his name. I certainly did not know his name until someone (I never found out who, but I suspect Hillary Clinton's campaign manager or one of his underlings) posted to YouTube his incredible rant, rave, and top-of-the-lungs screaming sermon against the United States. And ever since then, he has lost the respect of any serious Christian whom I know.
2. Head of one of the biggest churches in the United States? True, but not relevant, if I may so observe. Many pastors are heads of large churches. That doesn't make them authorities on theology or anything else.
3. Has made creationist statements? You'll have to spell those out in detail. All I've heard in his recorded statements are certain statements that I will not repeat here, and I'm sure that Chris will not care to have them repeated in any page of this project. Furthermore, his politics do not derive from creationism at all. If anything they derive from the political philosophy of Karl Marx, who famously declared that religion is "the opiate of the people" and that the government has to step in to be the chief caregiver if it hopes to get people unhooked from the church.

I seriously doubt that anyone would come to CreationWiki to find out about The Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

They might, however, come to Conservapedia for this. If you don't have an account over there, then I encourage you to apply for one. Joining them is even easier than joining CreationWiki. I linked to CP's article on Wright for a reason: to show you that CP has very little on him, and that your contributions to their article on Wright would be quite valuable.

In sum: I recognize that you have some things to say about Jeremiah Wright that need to be said. But I don't think that CreationWiki is the right place to say those things. Conservapedia, however, is a good place.

Now I've had my say. Now why not first post here exactly what Jeremiah Wright has said that sounds like a creationist statement. You might even have come up with something that a creationist would indeed want to check out.

Here is my suggestion: Limit the discussion here on CreationWiki to Jeremiah Wright's "creationist statements," and whether he even understands creation and creationism nearly as well as he pretends. And then, by all means:

1. Join Conservapedia.
2. Publish everything else you have to say about Jeremiah Wright there. (If you have any trouble with anyone, I'll set a watch on the article and will act accordingly; I am an administrator there, too.)
3. On this article, leave an InterWiki link to the Conservapedia article as a "related link."

In that manner, anyone interested in pursuing the political angle can go to a forum that has a wide-enough scope for that kind of discussion.--Temlakos^Talk 00:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Latest discussion

To Tony Sommers and anyone else concerned:

Mr. Ashcraft has expressed an earnest desire that this article be cleaned up. I admit that I haven't thought about this article again since May. Mr. Ashcraft, for his part, does not want this article deleted. It needs improvement, and, in my judgment, you're the man to do the improving.

If Jeremiah A. Wright has indeed made statements that one might construe to be creaitonist, then we need to know what those statements are. That very thing turns The Rev. Mr. Wright into a far more complex figure than I initially supposed.

Concerning his relationship with the President-elect: you might want to ask Mr. Ashcraft directly whether he would allow you to write an article about Barack Obama. If I might suggest, the middle name rates a quote only at the top of a biographical article, where any biographee gets his full name quoted. Beyond that, the most relevant thing about him will be his likely public policy as ragards religion, creation, evolutionism, etc.

I'll be watching this article closely for awhile.--Temlakos^Talk 03:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Link updates

I still fail to see any relevance to "Creation Science", the stated purpose of this wiki. Would someone care to make the connection clear? ~ "Webster" Otley (talk) 00:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, to reiterate Chris Ashcraft's position according to the information just a few inches away from your statement: "Mr. Ashcraft has expressed an earnest desire that this article be cleaned up. I admit that I haven't thought about this article again since May. Mr. Ashcraft, for his part, does not want this article deleted. It needs improvement, and, in my judgment, you're the man to do the improving."--Tony 00:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, yes, I saw that. However, since that notice doesn't even mention creation, evolution, or science, it's completely beside the point. Furthermore, that comment serves as an indictment of your efforts: the article evidently needed to be cleaned up, and you have not done so; it "needs improvement", and you have not provided any. If "you're the man to do [it]", you're certainly not showing it.

Back to the original subject: given the opportunity, you fail to show cause why this article belongs here. Since Mr. Ashcraft chooses to exercise strict editorial control, rather than trust the community, he can do as he pleases, but regardless of the fact the he has accepted its presence, the fact remains that you have not given any valid reason for him to do so. Having witnessed your repeated refusal to justify its presence, I can only conclude that you know perfectly well that this article doesn't really belong here, and that your defensiveness and spastic references to Mr. Ashcraft's approval are your feeble attempts to distract from that simple fact. ~ "Webster" Otley (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Now I have to prove Ashcrafts's positions? He is the Sr. Editor on this Wiki. I don't need you poking and prodding me all the way through until I clean it up.--Tony 01:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)