User talk:JayFout

Welcome!

Hey, JayFout, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions. I hope you like the site and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful (some of them may sound stupid, but I recommend you check them out):

The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Tutorial
How to write a great article
Manual of Style
The Sandbox — A great place to experiment
WP:Village pump — A good place for help

While editing, please remember:

Be Bold, but not reckless in updating pages
No personal attacks: be upset with the contributions, not the contributor

You should introduce yourself here at the new user log. I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name, the date, and the time.

For your first edits, I suggest searching for articles that you think might interest you. You could also be audacious and try a random page.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome and happy editing! Cbrown1023 01:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anglicanism COTM[edit]

The Anglicanism Collaboration of the Month has been reactivated! Please consider going to the page to either vote for one of the nominated articles, or nominate one yourself. Thanks! Fishhead64 02:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repentance[edit]

Fr Fout, although I have issued an apology on the discussion page I created for the entry on David Hart, I felt that I should contact you apart from that venue on this matter, which, judging by the rhetoric, seems to have become personal between us, which I regret. I have indeed behaved as a pompous, condescending ass towards you (and others), and I apologize. While I disagree with you about what sort of authority a Ph.D. confers, it is, as David himself put it to me, unworthy of a UVA doctor to act in this way. (However, since we are both Episcopalians, perhaps my views on the Ph.D. can best be expressed to you this way: in earning a Ph.D., a community of scholars approves you as having earned a place among them--the four signatures on your dissertation and the seal on your diploma attest to this; in the same way a bishop is ordained by the laying on of hands by a community of bishops, thus conferring on a priest episcopal authority. This is the apostolic succession: authenticity of doctrine assured by succession of persons. (I am, of course, bracketing the Holy Spirit here--as you know, all analogies break down at some point.) Perhaps "authority" was the wrong word for me to use for what a Ph.D. confers, but the terminal degree is the only "official" way into what UVA president John Casteen called at my commencement, "the ancient and venerable community of scholars." When somebody asks me with regards to my field, "Who told you you know anything about it?" I can answer, "The graduate faculty of the University of Virginia." No such answer is available for those not holding a Ph.D. It is this authority of which I wrote, although I freely admit now that I was wrong to have invoked it.) I would like to impose on you, however, to clarify how NPOV is carried out in editorial practice so that, should I ever screw up my courage to make another edit on WP, I will conform to it. In particular, I do not understand how a paragraph like the one on David's writing style, which is merely the opinion of one of his former students at Duke, does not violate NPOV (please note, I am NOT suggesting that the paragraph be removed or changed). My experience with this article is that one is free to add uncited complimentary remarks, but uncited derogatory remarks are automatically attributed to bad faith or personal grudges. If that is not the case, could you please explain the editing policy and how it played out here? Secondly, you say that one does not have to be a Ph.D. to contribute to WP, one merely has to know what one is writing about. Fair enough. But who decides whether one knows what one is writing about? In the case of the Hart article, it seems that you and a cabal of Hart fans decided that I did not know my subject, and I will concede that you are correct. But the question of authority unavoidably arises at this point. What are your credentials for vetting the edits of others? Mere acceptance as a WP editor? Does this not make your views, which go uncited (and are mainly behind the scenes) for the most part, just as much mere opinion as the rest of the edits to the article? On a different topic, I would like to observe that I did in fact understand your rhetorical move in noting the presence on WP of the Varsity Lines--that if they belong so does David Hart. My response questioned your premise, namely, that the Varsity Lines articles belong on WP just because they are there. My contention was that since they, in my view, clearly don't belong that they were an infelicitous example for you to use to show that David Hart does. Of course I no longer hold that view. Now some of the preceding may sound harsh, but I do not mean it to. I am hampered by the hermeneutics of suspicion that is always entailed by what is in effect email. So let me close by saying again that you were right and I was wrong, that my questions above about editing are genuine and not meant to be sarcastic or disparaging in any way, and that I apologize for the sorry way I have acquitted myself in this entire episode. uvaphdman 16:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)uvaphdman[reply]

Uvaphdman: Thanks very much for this. As I mention on the DB Hart talk site, apology accepted -- which in more theological terms means 'I forgive you'. I do, and it is water under the bridge to me. I look forward to your future contributions wherever they may surface. Since we are a member of the same guild (and church), I may well meet you face to face someday (indeed, we may have already met, since I don't know your name), and look forward to having a laugh about it all when we do. No worries.

Of course, on a talk page, even as I tend to bang on, there still isn't space to do justice to the whole range of meanings and value of a PhD. In what I said, I was trying to explain one of my intuitions about it, but not trying to say everything. All of which is to say, I do agree with you in the PhD's value v-v being ingrafted into a community of scholars -- really, a profession in the Medieval sense. That is tremendously important to me! It seems to me that one of the most salient features about these professions -- law, medicine, theology -- is that they are set apart for the good of others, so it is a sort of authority, but authority for service. So our expertise, while real, is intended to build others up, not build ourselves up or exalt ourselves over against them. I certainly feel this way about priesthood, and I think the analogy with being a theological scholar is sound. (BTW, I thought your analogy about apostolic/ scholarly succession was apt.)

Within that, there is a temptation, it seems to me, to encourage the illusion that we are authorities/experts not merely in our own well-defined area, but on broader issues too, and perhaps even be condescending to people who might be quite brilliant in their own way, but are 'unqualified'. It seems that there is wisdom and humility in allowing truth to be articulated in whatever form it appears, and not merely letting 'the usual suspects' dominate the conversation. And besides, we might well be experts (granted, I haven't finished yet...), but that doesn't in itself make our pronouncements unassailable. Weighty, yes; if well-considered, then worthy of respect, certainly. But it's also *possible* we might be wrong. In the scheme of things it is usually another scholar (generally a PhD) who will do us the favour of pointing out where we've gone wrong. But it might be someone 'unqualified' to do so, too, and I think we all would prefer to be right than wrong, even if that meant admitting being corrected by someone out of the guild. In saying all this, I am not pointing a finger at you, I am simply trying to fill out some of what I think on the matter to give some context to my oblique comment on the DBH talk page.

On a tangent, there are actually a few people who are officially 'unqualified' in the British system -- i.e. they failed their viva -- who have gone on to do some noteworthy work. I think of Mary Midgley, who has written some wise and insightful philosophy, and Karen Armstrong, who has been widely read on issues of faith. Both failed their vivas at Oxford, I think.

As for your other questions, I should state up front that I am a Wikipedia editor only in the sense that you are -- i.e. I edit Wikipedia. I have no status, title, or affiliation with Wikipedia personally or institutionally. I've sort of put it together through trial-and-error experience, reading a few tutorials, and trying to model my work on better articles that I've seen, here and in other reference works. Here is an article on Wikipedia's NPOV editing. As for the specific paragraph you mention, I don't think it is particularly well-written or NPOV; it gushes. It also doesn't say much. I had a look at it earlier and thought I might improve it, but the demands of my (increasingly small!) non-Wikipedia life called and I left it stand with just a few small changes. And I am only one contributor/editor. I may get around to improving it this week, but I think it unlikely as I am incredibly busy the first two days, and away in France the rest of the week.

Wikipedia really is an amazing thing -- a world-wide encyclopedia, edited by everyone, unlimited by parameters such as paper pages and shipping weight. It is really incredibly significant and even hopeful, but also fragile as it requires vast numbers of people to be able to say something articulate and correct on a topic and hash out disagreements and difficulties on that same topic with other people they don't know. On one level, it's a wonder anyone can ever say anything on WP! All of which is to say, I am not an 'authority' in the sense you might envision, from your comments above, i.e. having some editorial power over what is added, etc., or at any rate no more power than anyone else. I happen to be interested in DBH's writing, so I tagged his page 'watch', so I could be apprised of additions to his article: not to police them, but to see what was added. My authority (or power) is no more (or less) than anyone else's.

Which is why I think it is important that WP work and talk always be about the content and not the contributor. With the semi-anonymity of the internet, it almost doesn't matter who contributes what. But there are certain conventional standards adhered to: truthfulness (which is really verifiability) for one, NPOV for another. And so I edit, you edit, whoever else edits, and hopefully the end product is pretty good. Or else there is a disagreement on the edits, a conversation, and the end product still ends up being pretty good. There are some tremendously good articles on WP, well-sourced and a real education to read. Obviously DBH's article has a LONG way to go. But that's why, I think, the question about 'who contributes' and 'who decides about authority' can be bracketed: if the article is well-written and informative, who cares? Of course, someone with a PhD in the area, with some solid writing skills, might be better positioned to write such an article, but maybe not. I guess the content itself decides, it acquits itself through its show of quality. (So the article is about the words, not the person behind them: ah, pure textuality! :-))

Re: the Varsity Line -- fair enough. I was partly trying to be tongue in cheek in citing it, perhaps introduce some humour to the discussion, as well as make a serious (but certainly contestable) point. But the parameters of WP are such that, it seems to me, if there are enough people interested in British railways (and I'm constantly surprised how many there are) that they want to write an article on an abandoned branch line, fine, who's going to stop them? Now, some articles are deleted on WP for being a mere vanity page, or for being so obscure as to be basically useless. I don't know how those decisions are made. You were right the the earlier recension of the DBH page came dangerously close to a vanity page; then the discussion became delete or improve? And we've had that discussion.

The impersonality and supposed anonymity of the internet certainly do give rise to a hermeneutics of suspicion. FWIW, I take you to be entirely sincere in what you've written, and appreciate your writing. Hopefully what I've written has been helpful, clarifying, and encouraging.

I should say, finally, I really respect these most recent interactions we've had, and do look forward to your further contributions. And it might be good fun to get a drink at AAR/SBL sometime. JayFout 22:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your gracious forgiveness, and thank you also for what you have written about the WP editing criteria, which was indeed helpful, clarifying, and encouraging. I would like to say that I am in entire agreement with your second paragraph. A PhD should not be (but often is!) a temptation for arrogance or for making arguments merely from authority. I also freely admit, however, that I have succumbed to the temptation more than once, and this may have been one of those times! However, you may find that once your doctorate is in hand (especially if you spend nine years on it working through a divorce, the death of your mother during your comprehensive exams, and major depression) you may discover for yourself just how piquant that temptation can be. Not an excuse, but a reason. And one positive result of this contre-temps is that the DBH article is substantially improved. BTW, my name is Bart Odom, and I am from Texas. Your name sounds vaguely familiar to me, but whether we know each other or not it would be my privilege and pleasure to meet you. Thanks again for being open to a cordial resolution of these issues. uvaphdman 10:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)uvaphdman[reply]

You're welcome. I'm always glad when the internet can be not just a forum for flames, but (just possibly) friendship.

My comments on arrogance in PhDs comes partly from my own thinking about myself and my temptations. I think part of the temptation lies in a defensiveness, which I think can often given to us by those around us. This might partly be through being self-professed intellectuals who often find they live in an anti-intellectual culture, so we may feel embarrassed of our gifts, or as if they are not valued. It might also be partly due to others implying that we are somehow delaying with getting on with 'real life' or avoiding work (as if a PhD wasn't more than fulltime work in itself). I know I heard from more than one person -- thankfully not those closest to me or who knew me best -- 'you're going back to school again?' And it sounds as if you had far more than the usual stresses (which are considerable) to contend with during your degree. (I have not had anything quite of that magnitude, but had to move my wife and daughter (I am mid-thirties) across the Atlantic Ocean...and a few other headaches which I will gladly share another time. And, of course, my degree is not yet complete!) All of which is to say, I quite agree with you: there are all kinds of good reasons and explanations for arrogance in PhDs, and not all due simply to a PhD's pride -- but no excuses.

My first name is actually Jason, that's what I usually go by IRL; the last name is as my WP id has it. Your name sounds familiar too, but I can't quite place it, whether in church or guild or what have you.

If you google my name you'll find my weblog, and there can find a link to e-mail me. Do let me know if you'll be in San Diego for AAR/SBL, and we can get that drink. I'd also like to hear more about your work - I don't remember if you said what area in theology/religious studies you worked in? JayFout 17:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason, I found your blog, but the contact link is broken (or at least invalid in Mac OS X) so I could not find your email address. If you can think of another confidential way to provide it, however, I agree that email would be easier than WP posts. Your remarks about the temptations facing PhDs are, as usual, well observed. I don't think I will be at the AAR convention, sadly, but perhaps providence will provide us an occasion to meet. As for my area of religious studies: like you, I started out wanting to work on systematics, but during the course of my studies at UVA my interests changed. I read your profile, and I don't think you'll like it, but I discovered Wittgenstein and Richard Rorty (who as you probably know has little use for religion generally and Christianity specifically) and took the linguistic turn (or drank the Kool-Aid). My dissertation is called "The Concept of Rortyan Christian Ironism," and it takes Rorty's concept of liberal ironism and argues that it can not only be seen as a legitimate form of Christian spirituality, but that it can be construed as a Christian virtue under Christian criteria. I say you won't like it because one of the places that LW and RR lead is to the view that systematic theology (like, say, epistemology) is largely a misleading waste of time (no disparagement to your work intended). I am a neo-pragmatist anti-representationalist linguistic Rortyan ironist who argues that theology, like philosophy, should be viewed as therapeutic, as scratching where it itches (LW), not as describing God or reality as it they are (space does not permit an argument, but this is not the same as apophatic theology, or learned ignorance). So my interests are in postmodernity (I can't say that I agree with you that postmodern concerns are best described as hypermodernity) and its interactions with traditional Christian formulations especially as they pertain to Christianity as it is lived by the faithful. I don't know how far along you are in your Ph.D. work, but I certainly wish you the best. Do you have a dissertation topic in mind yet? uvaphdman 03:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)uvaphdman[reply]

JF, you did correctly decipher my email code and I responded to you, but have not heard back. Since you have been making wiki-edits I wonder if you got my return email. Best, uvaphdman 16:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)uvaphdman[reply]

What?[edit]

What are you talking about? I didn't delete or leave anything blank? I just removed spam that was there.

That's right, and I'm sorry for my mistake. It appears that we were both working to restore the same page at the same time, and my warning was sent to the wrong person. I have also responded on your talk page. JayFout 09:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anglican collaboration of the month[edit]

The current Anglicanism collaboration effort is St. Luke's Church (Smithfield, Virginia)

Voting for the next collaboration is going on now. (Vote here)

Wassupwestcoast 01:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Cambridge meetup[edit]

Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 1. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge meetup[edit]

The second Cambridge meetup is confirmed for this Saturday, 3pm, at CB2 on Norfolk Street: Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 2. Hope to see you there. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Hello JayFout! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 940 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

David F. Ford - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]