Talk:Thealogy

This is a great, meaty article, such that my first reaction was to look on Google to see if it had been swiped from somewhere.

The problem with it is that it is decidedly not neutral point of view. Can we, please, (at least lightly) rewrite it with that in mind? --LMS

Hi Lawrence, that was quick - feedback within minutes! I will assume your first comment is a compliment since it is not my habit to plagiarise other scholars. You refer to it as great and meaty - I did not think I was limited to brief definitions only. If so I will do that from now on. My usual habit for encyclopaedia articles is to put a short opening section which will satisfy superficial or moderate interest so a reader can opt not to continue if their interest does not go further.

The neutral point of view is oh dear highly problematic and I note the justifiably lengthy exploration of it as I followed your link. I did not see any coverage there of the rigorous discipline expected of post-modern and feminist scholars (such as myself) although I admit I only skimmed about 3/4 of it.

I belong to the school of thought that tries to be honest about one's partiality rather than trying to present an impossible and misleading neutrality. If a writer's bias (which is inevitable) is clearly shown, readers can take account of it and adjust their reception to suit their own bias, thus enabled to take control of the text as receivers. Neutral style gives a spurious authority that intimidates the reader.

In fact I have found already in deleting all first person grammar from my writing so far in submission to Wikipedia I sadly watch my text become far more authoritarian in tone than is my wish and I can't say I like that. Owning what is personal observation as such is so much gentler and more democratic than "It can be said... " or "Some people comment that ..." which sounds like a claim to authority. I'm genuinely unsure how to handle this but willing to learn.

But surely the Wikipedia process itself will produce alterations and additions and deletions by those not in sympathy with my standpoint. This will pull my text more towards what you want won't it? I have only submitted this in the clear understanding that it's a collaborative draft.

Shan Jayran, University of London

---

Yes, in my idiolect, "great" and "meaty" are good qualities for articles to have.  :-) We most certainly do want more than just definitions, and the reason I like this article is that it goes into some depth into a subject that we hadn't yet heard much about. It could, of course, go into even more depth, by giving more details about the arguments (for instance).

I would like to ask you, gently, please to reconsider the neutral point of view. It is our policy and has been from the beginning, first of all; but it's also not something that you need find any objection to. I sincerely believe that no one has yet given a serious criticism of it, on philosophical grounds, that did not evince a basic misunderstanding of what the policy is. Post-modern feminist scholars should not disagree with it on grounds that it asserts the possibility of objectivity--because it does not. (If you think it does, I would be very curious to see your arguments!) In fact, one might just as well think that it is founded on the view that there is no objective truth and therefore only perspectives, which out of politeness if nothing else we should try to express sympathetically. A few different firm believers in objective truth have strong misgivings about Wikipedia's nonbias policy, in fact, precisely because it doesn't assert as objective truth what they believe to be objective truth!

It seems to me that the only people who disagree with the policy are those who think--for whatever reason (and it certainly needn't be a philosophical reason)--that it is very important that we make Wikipedia express some definite point of view on some controversial issues. The problem is, Wikipedia is an international and collaborative endeavor. We don't own articles here. Despite your great work, you do not really "own" your thealogy article: you've donated it to the project and thus to the world at large. You've given your consent that other people can work on it freely. Accordingly, many of us working on Wikipedia take at least some small personal responsibility for what appears here.

So, when you say, "I belong to the school of thought that tries to be honest about one's partiality rather than trying to present an impossible and misleading neutrality," while I respect and admire the sentiment, it's a bit irrelevant here. It describes, perhaps, a fine approach to writing signed journal articles, but we aren't writing signed journal articles--we're writing unsigned, internationally collaborative, encyclopedia articles. We aren't "owning" articles here, and partiality is contrary to the policy that makes it possible for us to work together and arrive at consensus.

You also write:

In fact I have found already in deleting all first person grammar from my writing so far in submission to Wikipedia I sadly watch my text become far more authoritarian in tone than is my wish and I can't say I like that. Owning what is personal observation as such is so much gentler and more democratic than "It can be said... " or "Some people comment that ..." which sounds like a claim to authority. I'm genuinely unsure how to handle this but willing to learn.

I understand, and writing in a neutral fashion is certainly a learned skill. We have long had a rule (or policy) against first person writing precisely because it implies that the writing is the speech of just one person--which, on Wikipedia, it isn't. I sincerely believe that, in the context of an encyclopedia, it is rather more authoritarian for someone to say "I believe that such-and-such," as if the person's opinion were--in the grand scheme of things--particularly important for the readers of a general encyclopedia article to know about. On the other hand, if we say such things as "a majority of 'thealogists' would say that..." then we are just being given a report about what a majority of thealogists would say; we aren't being cajoled into agreeing with them. We are left free to make up our minds for ourselves.

Best regards,

Larry Sanger