User talk:Jaredscribe/Diatribes

Prejudices

I don't care about the graeco-roman christian. Give me recent WP:RS from WP:CHOPSY supporting your take and I will concede my defeat in the dispute. As simple as that. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About Borg colony: I am proud of belonging to the Borg—with a few simple rules Jimbo has created a hive mind which renders the academic learning of mankind. So, yeah, inhabitants of the country X have a deep knowledge of their own country. But very few of them can render academic learning about their own country, instead of merely pushing religious fanaticism, pseudohistory, or nationalist propaganda. So, we are not interested in POV warriors who fiercely defend the honor of their own country, and not even in meek contributors who lack the bookish learning required to render encyclopedic facts about their own country. So, yes, an encyclopedia sides with academic learning, not with old wives tales of the unlearned people. As Bart Ehrman stated:

Evidence for Jesus from Outside the Gospels
LIKE MOST AUTHORS, I receive tons of e-mail. Every now and again I receive a query, normally from a Christian believer, that I find completely puzzling. What is puzzling is my correspondent’s puzzlement. Many people simply can’t understand why I would teach the Bible in a university setting if I don’t believe in the Bible.
I find this puzzling because I am so accustomed to the life of the university, where professors teach all kinds of things they don’t “believe in.” In most major universities, professors of classics teach the works of Plato, but the professors are not themselves necessarily Platonists, and professors in political science teach the writings of Karl Marx, but they do not have to be Marxists. So too English professors teach great literature even though they themselves are not practicing novelists or poets, and criminologists teach the history of crime, but they aren’t mass murderers.

Like him, I find your puzzlement puzzling: encyclopedias are supposed to be etic, not emic. That is a done deal since very long ago.

Many inhabitants know the territory, but can they draw its map? This reminds me of a joke: Immanuel Kant was a great geographer, but he has never left his home town.

Drawing the line: your insistence upon the emic might be a fruitful research methodology, but it isn't a methodology fit for Wikipedia.

And yet something: in working for a McDonald's academia does not reign supreme; here it reigns supreme for the mere reason that this is an encyclopedia and not a fast food outlet.

Besides, nobody condemns such inhabitants for making occasional mistakes when writing in English. What established editors condemn is using English words to write incomprehensible gibberish. Prose containing small mistakes can be corrected; but nothing can be corrected if the meaning is not at all apparent. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]