Jump to content

Talk:Kim Burrell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 84.216.25.59 (talk) at 04:16, 15 March 2017 (→Obvious hypocrisy: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kim Burrell. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 02:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The site was under a previous owner/artist in 2010, repaired with better date from 2012— removed spurious trailing characters from URLs (":80") per MoS. WurmWoodeT 22:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Homosexual Rant

Could someone please mention her anti-gay sermon, which is important and getting a lot of attention. http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other/kim-burrell-calls-gay-people-%E2%80%98perverted%E2%80%99-days-before-appearance-on-the-ellen-degeneres-show/ar-BBxMdMF http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-4079248/Gospel-singer-Kim-Burrell-faces-backlash-calling-homosexuality-sin-sermon-church-founded-Houston.html http://wjla.com/news/entertainment/kim-burrell-under-fire-for-comments-about-gays-and-lesbians

I'd do so myself but someone keeps reverting everything I write on wikipedia except on talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PUNk Limited (talk • contribs) 16:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This wikipedia article on Kim Burrell in general needs to be reviewed as it reads as very self-promoting/self-congratulatory as if she is having it written for herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.247.4.228 (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has suggested that the section on her anti-gay sermon contains too much detail and that we should simply note that she referred to gay people as "perverted" and leave it at that. I disagree. It seems obvious to me that a section about someone's "controversial" statements should provide sufficient detail about what those statements actually were. Simply saying that she used the word "perverted" could be interpreted as her making one politically incorrect remark. On the contrary, she gave an entire sermon on homosexuality in which she repeatedly yelled "You are perverted!" (explicitly referring to gay people) and said "if you play with it in God's house, in 2017 you'll die from it." That is nontrivial information that is essential for understanding the tone and content of the sermon and for distinguishing it from a some merely "politically incorrect" comment.23.242.207.48 (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming to the Talk page. I have reverted the language until a WP:CONSENSUS is built to change it. Per WP:UNDUE, and WP:BLP, it could be argued that having a level-2 heading for this material is overkill. See also WP:RECENT. However, the controversy has gotten more press than Burrell usually receives, so I guess we can leave it at Level 2. The source quotes Burrell as saying: "...That perverted homosexual spirit, and the spirit of delusion and confusion, it has deceived many men and women, and it’s caused us pain on the body of Christ. ... You as a man, you open your mouth and take a man’s penis in your face, you are perverted… You are a woman and will shake your face in another woman’s breast, you are perverted". So, I agree with you that she called homosexual people "perverted" more than once. But this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. We only need to say things once, and articles must be written neutrally. You also quote Burrell as saying: "if you play with it in God's house, in 2017 you'll die from it." This is more problematic. She seems to be referring to the "spirit of sin" and *implying* that this means homosexual sins. She later issued a denial stating that her words were misconstrued. We must be careful not to editorialize. I think it is better to simply give a cite in which the exact language is accurately quoted, and let readers reach their own conclusions about exactly what she meant. I think it throws into question the neutrality of the section to state, without qualification, that Burrell said that gays will die in 2017. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, accusing others of edit warring and threatening to report them (as you did in your reversion) is not appropriate and is rather hypocritical given your string of reversions. Repeatedly undo-ing someone's edits and saying "you better not undo my edits or I'll report you for edit warring!" is childish and unproductive. Let's try to avoid that kind of personal attack, and instead stick to the issue. I started this conversation on the talk page for precisely that purpose. Furthermore, by undoing all my edits (including the fixing of broken links and the updating of mundane objective information such as a peak chart position of one of her albums) you have made it hard to interpret your reversions as at all constructive.
One word does not make a rant. Thus, merely mentioning that Burrell used the word "perverted" is not enough for a reader to understand why Burrell's comments were described as a rant. I'm baffled by why you are uncomfortable even using the common adverb "repeatedly" to refer to something that--as you acknowledged--occurred more than once. That's simply what "repeatedly" means. And your characterization of her statement "in 2017 you'll die from it" as not specifically referring to gay people does not seem compatible with the actual context of the quote: "Anybody in this room who's filled with the homosexual spirit, beg God to free you. Play with it in 2017, you’ll die from it." I will clean up the mess from your reversion, but will do an additional edit to include the full quote so there is no misunderstanding about what was said. I hope this is an acceptable compromise. If you choose to make further edits, please do so more surgically rather than via blanket undo across multiple versions, and please justify your edits here on the talk page rather than making threats and edit-war accusations. 23.242.207.48 (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, you first violated WP:BRD. What you have written now is worse that what you had before, and it is certainly not supported by the references. I didn't threaten you. I reminded you that you seem to have behaved badly in several other instances, and that you should be careful about edit warring, or you will likely be blocked. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your OPINION is that it is worse. I provided EXACT quotes of what was said. To claim that is "overselling" is absurd on its face and certainly requires better justification that you have provided. Perhaps you can explain your objections some other way--without accusing me of "behaving badly" or other such silliness. 23.242.207.48 (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please also justify your claim that the provided quotes are "certainly not supported by the references." In fact, they come DIRECTLY from the video embedded in the cited Huffington Post article. So it appears that you're just plain wrong about that. 23.242.207.48 (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You say there were "numerous similar statements". The refs do not support that. The full quote is, IMO, overkill, and I have objected to it, per WP:BRD. Do not edit war about it. If several other editors here agree with you, and none with me, then you will have a WP:CONSENSUS to put it in. But if you continue to put it in without a consensus, you are edit warring, for which you may be blocked from editing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is absurd. Why do I need editors to agree with me but you don't need anyone to agree with you? You are a consensus of one. My edits are no more "edit warring" than your repeated, unjustified removal of accurately sourced content. Please stop pretending otherwise. We're all special, but you're not more special than anyone else. In any case, you have objected to the phrase "numerous similar statements," which I have now removed and reverted to your preferred "other statements," to accommodate your objection. You have not given any substantive reason for your other reversions (e.g, removing the word "repeatedly" or removing the direct quotes from the sermon), so I have not retained them. If several other editors here agree with you, and none with me, then you will have a WP:CONSENSUS to put it in. :) 23.242.207.48 (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ssilvers above that the quotes provided by the anonymous IP are not adequately supported by the references provided. I also think the anon IP is edit-warring and clearly has a history of doing so judging by the messages on their talk page. I have not counted their unjustified reverts but I think it is more than three. Jack1956 (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made a single unjustified revert. In fact, all my edits are justified here on the talk page. It is your revert that was unjustified--why should the word "repeatedly" not be used for something that occurred multiple times for example? Moreover, claiming my talk page is evidence that I'm "edit warring" is ad hominem. The quotes I inserted from the sermon are not only mentioned in the cited sources, but can be heard in the video embedded in the cited Huffington Post article. Furthermore, every in every edit I've made--including the most recent--I have tried to accommodate your objections (e.g., reverting the phrase "numerous similar statements") whereas your response has been blanket revisions that removed relevant and accurately sourced content, accompanied by accusations of edit warring. 23.242.207.48 (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An embedded video is not a good enough source to add this controversial material to an article about a living person. We already state the key information about the incident. People can watch the video for themselves. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the quote and cited a reliable secondary source (the Washington post) so that the embedded video is not the only verification. Shall we consider this settled? 23.242.207.48 (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is an excellent reference. I filled out the cite for you. You should have put it on the Talk page here first, instead of edit-warring for it, but I guess you don't want my advice. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I aligned the few "manually" coded cites by switching them to "cite web" templates (Web 2.0). And made the lede more clear, it was worded far too NPOV, making it seem like "much ado about nothing", and the situation is certainly not "no harm, no foul". Also, since (most/average) readers may not get past the lede, such readers are otherwise left with a false impression. WurmWoodeT 22:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bio needs an overhaul

The biography is fluffy, bloated, and very unencyclopedic (e.g., "Unfortunately, this contract yielded only a guest appearance"). The story about Burrell praying over a woman who "miraculously" started breathing is especially silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.207.48 (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And "often said to be this generation's Ella Fitzgerald?" What a joke. How "often" is that actually said? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.207.48 (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I removed some of the unreferenced stuff and a copyvio, but this bio is obviously missing some important information about this person that probably could be found by checking out these google news hits: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Kim+Burrell%22&biw=1536&bih=755&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F29%2F2016&tbm=nws -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of the bio--about how she performed at 1 year old and had double pneumonia--also sounds suspiciously like some self-aggrandizing nonsense. The only provided source is an obscure blog called "gospelflava." 23.242.207.48 (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2017

In the section about the controversy over her homophobic rant it says "Ellen DeGeneris, a lesbian, banned her". This is offensive. Ellen's sexuality has NOTHING to do with her stance on tolerance and equality or her belief that attacking people for being different to you is not ok.She would take this action regardless of her own sexual orientation just like she would ban someone for attacking black people or disabled people. Nor is her sexuality anything to do with her show so there's absolutely no excuse for "labelling" her so rudely. The correct way to describe Ellen is "talk show host" or "winner of LGBTQ humanitarian awards" or "noted equality activist" or leave out a descriptive word because it's not needed. By stating "a lesbian" you are diminishing her as a person (and all LBGTQ people by extension) and making it all about Ellen being gay instead of about this singer being a bigot. I know it's all the rage these days to be racists & bigots and treat people who are not straight white men like dirt but I would hope Wikipedia was above all that. Please change this. Thank you 122.151.220.27 (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it's not "diminishing", but rather gives a reason to her cancellation. JTP (talk • contribs) 02:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. DeGeneres did not cancel the appearance because she is a lesbian. Plenty of straight people have criticized Burrell, and other appearances have been cancelled. The info was also unreferenced and uncontextualized. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2017

Please add into the LGBT comments section that the CW has dropped her television talk show from it's lineup. 2602:306:CE95:57B0:B5AB:1888:58DA:CAC0 (talk) 04:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - Mlpearc (open channel) 04:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious hypocrisy

Isn't gluttony also a sin according to the same bible?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kim_Burrell&oldid=770396027"