Talk:Martin Ssempa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Africa / Uganda (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Uganda.
 
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
Explanation for inclusion in WikiProject LGBT studies: Of LGBT interest due to being a notable advocate of the Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Notability[edit]

Martin Ssempa is a major religious leader in Uganda and is a celebrity in the Evangelical Christian Community in the United States, he's well know in the AIDS activism community. He's testified before the US Congress on PEPFAR--a program from which he recieved funds, been appointed to a post by the First Lady of Uganda, leads one of the largest churches in Kampala, has been spoken several times at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church on AIDS, and was subsequently used against Warren for his desire to remove gays from Uganda by force when Warren was selected by Obama to give the Inauguration Convocation, plus he's currently one of the leaders of a religious coalition to change Ugandan law in major ways--like censoring the Press. Ssempa is associate with Rick Warren and Janet Museveni, but he is notable in his own right as well. He is regularly interviewed by major Ugandan media like The Independent, New Vision, and the Monitor. I'm in the still working on this article, I just spent two hours on the lead. I have multiple sources that I haven't even used yet; I'm not even half done. Please give me time to finish. Then make up your minds on deletion, I'm sure you will find that Ssempa is notable. Desiderata Occulta (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, but be aware of reliable sources policy. Rd232 talk 23:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Is Ssempa a bastard?[edit]

I'm confused. It seems there is difficulty in stating that Ssempa was born a bastard. The sentence that we currently have states clearly that Ssempa was born to a single mother and the wikipedia article describes a "bastard" as an illegitimate child. I don't see why there should be a problem in describing this fact in this way? Contaldo80 (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This from New Vision Online, a leading Ugandan news source at http://www.newvision.co.ug/PA/9/657/631662 Ssempa has said “I was born out of wedlock, that’s all my late mother told me. I know the pain of growing up without a father.” It's obviously a notable fact as Ssempa seems to make something of it in his pastoral work, along with citing the story of his siblings' deaths from AIDS. The term "bastard" is encyclopaedic - it's not slang - and is not necessarily perjorative if used in the correct sense. I'm for reinstating. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Whether a term is encyclopedic has no bearing on whether it is a common slang word, or a derogatory one. The word bastard is more commonly used in its pejorative context than in any other. The article that you mention states:
A bastard is an illegitimate child, and the word is also used as a derogatory term for an unpleasant person. The term can also mean a mongrel.
As for the word "mongrel":
Among humans, mongrel and mongrelize are derogatory terms for the mixing of races.
These are hardly the pleasant words to describe someone born to a single parent. What's wrong with simply relating that he was born to a single mother, as the source indicates? Say he was born "to a single mother as a bastard" is not only inflammatory, it's redundant. What's wrong with ending the passage at "single mother"? There is no reason for this language other than to be inflammatory. Please stop reverting it. Nightscream (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I really can't understand why you have a problem with this. To restate: "A bastard is an illegitimate child, and the word is also used as a derogatory term for an unpleasant person." It is also used as a derogatory word but the term itself is simply the common dictionary word for someone born out of wedlock. It is not derogatory, or inflammatory, if used in the correct sense. Ssempa is factually a bastard and it is only your personal perception that seems to regard this as inflammatory. I would ask you to stop reverting what is a fair and valid term. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can't understand my position on this, then perhaps it's because you don't want to, since I just explained it to you. The word is more commonly used as a derogatory term, far more often in common speech than it is used for its other connotations. I already said this above. If you dispute this, then why not explain why? I also pointed out that the addition is redundant. Again, if you dispute this, then why not offer a counterargument? Instead, you simply repeat the same thing you said previously, and pretend that you didn't read my last post. I don't think your position has any merit, but in the interest of objectivity, I'll request a third opinion before proceeding. Nightscream (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


Third opinion here. Referring to Ssempa as a "bastard" in the article is definitely inappropriate. What it really boils down to, Contaldo80, is two-fold. The first is that our threshold for inclusion verifiability, and decidedly not truth. Just because something is true doesn't mean it should or has to be included. Second, there's our biography of living persons policy, especially the do no harm part. Whether it should be or not, bastard is a word that means something negative (not just a connotation) first and an illegitimate birth a distant second. Saying it would draw attention to the fact and put WP:UNDUE weight it. The only case I can imagine it being something to include would be if the person themselves strongly identifies with the concept and word itself. Moreover, from a grammatical point of view, we really should avoid stating the obvious. ~ Amory (utc) 02:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Self-published sources do not meet requirement of verifiability[edit]

According to Wikipedia standards, it would appear that most if not all of the references from Ssempa's website are neither reliable nor neutral. The standard regarding self-published sources also means that the blog references must be removed as well. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 14:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

some self-published sources do indeed meet WP:V, such as under WP:SPS. It would seem this article's info does meet that requirement. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
To quote from self-published sources guidelines: Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Most of the sources provided do not meet this standard. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 01:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I've done some simple research on Google and found evidence of most of the information included here have been backed it up in many other places...such as PBS.org, http://www.newvision.co.ug, and aidsmap.com, just a few of the multiple sources I found. In addition to backing them up, I also corrected the self-published links to their proper pages. Is this a bit better? Please advise. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Third-party sources that meet the reliability standard should not "back up" unreliable sources; they should be used instead. Also, the information referenced must be limited only to what the reliable-third party sources state, otherwise you fall into the problem of original research and synthesis. If you look at my user page, I've listed a lot of resources that new editors might find useful. It would also be helpful if you registered, it is free and makes some tasks easier. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 05:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice. I will certainly look at those resources, although I am not a "new editor". (I prefer to remain just an IP, as you can note from my user talk page). In the meantime, as you know, I've done some research and included the links, so you are welcome to remove any unsourced or unreliable information from this article. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've done some more work. The formatting of the references is terrible, I know that, but I've removed most of the subject's own Self-pub'd references...have included reliable sources...and rewrote some vague and leading information to appropriately reflect the correct info provided. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 07:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Bastard or not, he sure has a knack for bringing people together for an uplifting exchange of ideas, truly in the spirit of christ our lord and saviour, who, I might add, in a technical sense is also recorded to be a bastard/illegitimate/single parentage child but has as yet to go on record howling that the homosexually inclined members of his flock are in any way involved in the consumption of excrement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.191.241.1 (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Giving up fame?[edit]

I mean, he know is INfamous all over the world. I have not changed the article, but someone should delete that comment. It's simply untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.61.35.192 (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

EAT DA POO POO[edit]

No references about it? 201.215.17.232 (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Second.67.190.86.13 (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Eat da poo poo video[edit]

I feel it's quite strange that there is a section on parody videos but no mention of the original "eat da poo poo" video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=euXQbZDwV0w . Shouldn't there be some mention of the video at all?-175.136.120.126 (talk) 10:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the normal video on YouTube is why Mr Ssempa has achieved this fame in the first place. Paddiiee (Patrick Carney) (talk)

Yes, it can be mentioned, but it shouldn't receive undue weight in the article. As well, the YouTube video can be mentioned, but it can't be used as a reference, as it will likely post a copyright issue. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Medical Education[edit]

Since his only medical degree is an honorary degree...and he has NO formal medical training...is it not incorrect to label him as a medical doctor in the very first sentence of the article? RaggTopp (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)