Talk:Harry Emerson Fosdick/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Is it possible that a Baptist minister would be the minister of the First Presbyterian Church? Surely this isn't accurate. 152.11.226.16 14:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC) I also question stating that Riverside Church was Park Avenue Baptist Church. Please provide explanation or reference. Morningside Heights is a long way from Park Avenue.152.11.226.16 14:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As for Baptist preaching at Presbyterian church- please refer to Fosdick's autobiography - "The Living of These Days", p132. "They asked me to become the minister of the newly formed church. I declined because I could not make the creedal subscription necessary to be a Presbyterian clergyman, and had no desire either to leave my professorship or to change affiliation from a comparatively free to a very stiff denominational system of ecclesiastical control. Then they called me to be simply the Guest Preacher. Dr. Alexander would be made minister, one or more associates would be called to carry the parish work; my responsibility would be preaching alone..." 69.182.34.139 (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

When I read the question (two paragraphs above) I remembered that he was not pastor but only preacher. I thought I would go find the appropriate place in The Living of These Days, but then I saw that it was there in the first response. I am a little suprised that, in the two years since this was resolved on the talk page, no one has fixed it in the actual article. Sterrettc (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

He was a racist, a crook and an eugenicist

The article is weak and biased.This man was a racist, a crook and an eugenicist.Being linked to a person such as John D. Rockefeller and recieveing many money from Rockefeller, he couldn't be a good man.For an introduction about this bad preacher, the book "Preaching Eugenics" is a good choice.Racial segregation, Eugenic sterilization, anti-miscigenation laws all were supported by this bad american protestant.The fact that support to eugenics was normal among protestant and jewish clergy in 1920 and 1930 doesn't changes the fact of this despicable preacher was a crook and a racist.Agre22 (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)agre22

I have read Fosdick's autobiograph The Living of these Days and his essays in Christianity and Progress and I saw nothing to indicated that he was a racist, a crook, or a eugenicist. Sterrettc (talk) 01:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I have now read an excerpt from Preaching Eugenics where it mentions Fosdick, and it seems clear to me that Fosdick was arguing against eugenics, not for it. Sterrettc (talk) 01:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harry Emerson Fosdick. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928020541/http://www.fpcnyc.org/merger.html to http://www.fpcnyc.org/merger.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fosdick Time.jpg

Image:Fosdick Time.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed JGHowes ^talk - 15:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC) Now at Commons as File:Harry Emerson Fosdick Time cover.jpg, in public domain.  JGHowes  ^talk 13:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)