![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I made some changes that someone asked I explain as to why they would be more neutral. I thought the point of the article was to explain the political manuever itself. So I removed three things:
Each incidence seems to obscure the focus of the article on these moves and go beyond into how these men actually appealed to parties that might oppose their moves with separate stances apart from these specifically detailed ones. I assumed that leaving open the ability to discuss these men beyond their Souljah movements leaves open much room for conjecture.
I thought that made sense. I am not willing to fight for these changes though if someone wants to restore what I changed. - Abisai
I just removed the following:
Here is why:
Now, if someone want to write a section comparing the use of "motherhood and apple pie" and "Sister Souljah moment" in politics, I encourage that person to go ahead. However, the passage above, as written, is misleading and NPOV. k.lee 04:44, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Is a "Sister Souljah moment" capable of becoming a neutral subject heading suitable for Wikipedia? -- Wetman 04:05, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
To clarify: the term "Sister Souljah moment" is used principally when commentators wish to talk about an act in terms of its political ramifications. This doesn't mean that the act is insincere or politically calculated, but rather that the speaker using the term wishes to emphasize or analyze the political effect of the act. Accordingly, discussion of the political effect belongs in the first paragraph of the article, which is why I moved it back to the top (a previous editor had moved it to the bottom). Please keep this in mind in future edits. k.lee 06:10, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
deleted my own comment on third way, missed the negations in it, nevermind. Wolfman 07:37, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"Whether sincere or not, such an act of repudiation can appeal to centrist voters, at the cost of alienating some of the politician's allies."
To me, this sentence makes it sound like the voters gained equal the voters lost. When Bill Clinton employed it, he was able to keep his vice grip on the Black vote AND gained centrist votes. It is a tactic that can work well, or disastrously, and that should be acknowledged. Emma
I changed the word "cost" to "risk" in response to Emma's concerns and incorporated her point about Clinton into the discussion. -- JChap2007 18:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Believing that "without its context" is a sufficient disclaimer as to the reliability of the perception of Ms. Souljah's quote, I removed a portion which seemed to be overly defensive of her intent and the accompanying paraphrase, which I thought even more egregious.
DrZin
Did he have a Sister Souljah moment when he criticized a segment of the Republican party for using words like "Slouching Towards Gomorrah?" If that's the case, please post it in the article as another example. --- Yes. I included this in the article, along with an example of a similar moment from John McCain. -- JChap2007 18:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Would the Dan Quayle and Murphy Brown incident count as a Sister Souljah moment? 70.20.216.43 05:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
None of the cited sources seem to contain the term "Sister Souljah moment".
No reference is provided for the coining or use of this term in any significant or notable capacity.
This entry is for a neologism (see: WP:NEO).
I do not believe this article satisfies the criteria for a Wikipedia article, and should be recommended for deletion if these concerns can not be addressed. dircha 06:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
p.s. prospect.org has a post today with many references that could probably be used to shore up this article if someone made the effort. k.lee ( talk) 18:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that Bill Clinton's comment when answering the question about how it must feel for Obama to run against two people fall under this term? He laughed and said "Even Jesse Jackson won here in 1984 and 1988." Many pundits believe that these race tactics in the last few days of the SC primary led to him getting 81% of the African-American vote, and may even ruin her candidacy while propelling him to the nomination.
I went back to this page today after visiting it the day before the primary and I thought for sure that it would be included, especially after how all the pundits and journalists on MSNBC and CNN were talking. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DLarsen01 ( talk • contribs) 22:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Fixed this a couple of times, repeating on Talk page. A columnist saying he wished a Politician took a stand and criticized people he wants them to criticize is always of dubious relevance. If we put every instance where we wanted a Pol to cut someone off at the knees, but they didn't, Wikipedia would run out of server space. -- 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 19:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
The following 2 extensive phrases in the summary/introduction are identical to the “plagiarism” entry in Taegan Goddard’s Political Dictionary, with only 1 minor wording change:
This is blatant plagiarism: either WP copied the wording directly from Goddard’s Political Dictionary, or vice versa. If it’s the former, quotation marks and citations to Goddard should be added to the article. Note that the Vennochi source is common to both WP and Goddard, but Goddard’s entry contains a citation to Schlesinger that isn’t cited by the WP article. -- Jackftwist ( talk) 18:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Google can find nothing on the web with the phrase "pungent sister souljah moment" except for wikipedia and those sites directly copying wikipedia's phrasing. Is it appropriate to delete that uncited statement? (It seems likely that "poignant" was meant, anyway.)
(Is concern about "citogenesis" a valid reason to delete relatively unimportant, uncited statements?)
Scott Lawrence ( talk) 14:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest that the Stennes Putsch be added; it seems a relevant example of a Sister Souljah moment. See:
"This "oath of legality", as well as the suppression of Nazi advocates of direct violence - the so called Stennesputsch in 1931 - added to this respectability." (Sanford L. Segal, Mathematicians under the Nazis, p. 78). /info/en/?search=Stennes_Revolt#Expulsion_of_Stennes
However, I don't have a source that specifically mentions the Putsch as a Sister Souljah moment. Can I make that judgment call? Can the community?
Aristotles ( talk) 21:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
It's quite possible this was a 'widely used term' in the 90s, but there are almost no references to the term in the decades since. This article could do with some editing to make it clear that this is a "dead meme". 122.58.89.12 ( talk) 14:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I made some changes that someone asked I explain as to why they would be more neutral. I thought the point of the article was to explain the political manuever itself. So I removed three things:
Each incidence seems to obscure the focus of the article on these moves and go beyond into how these men actually appealed to parties that might oppose their moves with separate stances apart from these specifically detailed ones. I assumed that leaving open the ability to discuss these men beyond their Souljah movements leaves open much room for conjecture.
I thought that made sense. I am not willing to fight for these changes though if someone wants to restore what I changed. - Abisai
I just removed the following:
Here is why:
Now, if someone want to write a section comparing the use of "motherhood and apple pie" and "Sister Souljah moment" in politics, I encourage that person to go ahead. However, the passage above, as written, is misleading and NPOV. k.lee 04:44, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Is a "Sister Souljah moment" capable of becoming a neutral subject heading suitable for Wikipedia? -- Wetman 04:05, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
To clarify: the term "Sister Souljah moment" is used principally when commentators wish to talk about an act in terms of its political ramifications. This doesn't mean that the act is insincere or politically calculated, but rather that the speaker using the term wishes to emphasize or analyze the political effect of the act. Accordingly, discussion of the political effect belongs in the first paragraph of the article, which is why I moved it back to the top (a previous editor had moved it to the bottom). Please keep this in mind in future edits. k.lee 06:10, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
deleted my own comment on third way, missed the negations in it, nevermind. Wolfman 07:37, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"Whether sincere or not, such an act of repudiation can appeal to centrist voters, at the cost of alienating some of the politician's allies."
To me, this sentence makes it sound like the voters gained equal the voters lost. When Bill Clinton employed it, he was able to keep his vice grip on the Black vote AND gained centrist votes. It is a tactic that can work well, or disastrously, and that should be acknowledged. Emma
I changed the word "cost" to "risk" in response to Emma's concerns and incorporated her point about Clinton into the discussion. -- JChap2007 18:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Believing that "without its context" is a sufficient disclaimer as to the reliability of the perception of Ms. Souljah's quote, I removed a portion which seemed to be overly defensive of her intent and the accompanying paraphrase, which I thought even more egregious.
DrZin
Did he have a Sister Souljah moment when he criticized a segment of the Republican party for using words like "Slouching Towards Gomorrah?" If that's the case, please post it in the article as another example. --- Yes. I included this in the article, along with an example of a similar moment from John McCain. -- JChap2007 18:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Would the Dan Quayle and Murphy Brown incident count as a Sister Souljah moment? 70.20.216.43 05:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
None of the cited sources seem to contain the term "Sister Souljah moment".
No reference is provided for the coining or use of this term in any significant or notable capacity.
This entry is for a neologism (see: WP:NEO).
I do not believe this article satisfies the criteria for a Wikipedia article, and should be recommended for deletion if these concerns can not be addressed. dircha 06:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
p.s. prospect.org has a post today with many references that could probably be used to shore up this article if someone made the effort. k.lee ( talk) 18:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that Bill Clinton's comment when answering the question about how it must feel for Obama to run against two people fall under this term? He laughed and said "Even Jesse Jackson won here in 1984 and 1988." Many pundits believe that these race tactics in the last few days of the SC primary led to him getting 81% of the African-American vote, and may even ruin her candidacy while propelling him to the nomination.
I went back to this page today after visiting it the day before the primary and I thought for sure that it would be included, especially after how all the pundits and journalists on MSNBC and CNN were talking. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DLarsen01 ( talk • contribs) 22:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Fixed this a couple of times, repeating on Talk page. A columnist saying he wished a Politician took a stand and criticized people he wants them to criticize is always of dubious relevance. If we put every instance where we wanted a Pol to cut someone off at the knees, but they didn't, Wikipedia would run out of server space. -- 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 19:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
The following 2 extensive phrases in the summary/introduction are identical to the “plagiarism” entry in Taegan Goddard’s Political Dictionary, with only 1 minor wording change:
This is blatant plagiarism: either WP copied the wording directly from Goddard’s Political Dictionary, or vice versa. If it’s the former, quotation marks and citations to Goddard should be added to the article. Note that the Vennochi source is common to both WP and Goddard, but Goddard’s entry contains a citation to Schlesinger that isn’t cited by the WP article. -- Jackftwist ( talk) 18:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Google can find nothing on the web with the phrase "pungent sister souljah moment" except for wikipedia and those sites directly copying wikipedia's phrasing. Is it appropriate to delete that uncited statement? (It seems likely that "poignant" was meant, anyway.)
(Is concern about "citogenesis" a valid reason to delete relatively unimportant, uncited statements?)
Scott Lawrence ( talk) 14:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest that the Stennes Putsch be added; it seems a relevant example of a Sister Souljah moment. See:
"This "oath of legality", as well as the suppression of Nazi advocates of direct violence - the so called Stennesputsch in 1931 - added to this respectability." (Sanford L. Segal, Mathematicians under the Nazis, p. 78). /info/en/?search=Stennes_Revolt#Expulsion_of_Stennes
However, I don't have a source that specifically mentions the Putsch as a Sister Souljah moment. Can I make that judgment call? Can the community?
Aristotles ( talk) 21:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
It's quite possible this was a 'widely used term' in the 90s, but there are almost no references to the term in the decades since. This article could do with some editing to make it clear that this is a "dead meme". 122.58.89.12 ( talk) 14:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)