Jump to content

Talk:In Praise of Polytheism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GOCE copyedit request

[edit]
  • "In Praise of Polytheism" has provoked discussion and controversy in Germany. Among its critics have been the scholars Jacob Taubes and Richard Faber [...] Is Faber still alive? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Taubes is not.
 Done. Leaving as is. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He believed the solution to the modern issues of meaning was to rediscover systems from the ancient world. Slightly edited. What are "issues of meaning"? What systems are being rediscovered? Maybe wikilinks will be useful? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote; tell me if it's any better. "He believed a lack of meaning in the modern world had resulted in cultural decay, and that the solution was to rediscover systems of meaning from the ancient world, notably polytheism."
checkmark Done by requester. Looks good to me. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Myths are stories, and are not primitive precursors to knowledge; knowledge is about finding truths, and storytelling is how humans engage with known truths in their lifeworld. New knowledge will therefore only lead to new myths. ClockC Currently consulting with the help desk to determine Wikipedia's stance on views that aren't attributed but are obvious as to where they're from. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added attribution.
checkmark Done by requester. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conversely, polymythical thinking is a separation of powers, where different stories keep each other in check and the manifoldness of the individual can exist. Is there a better word than "manifoldness" that we can use? Would "diverse" work? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Manifoldness" is part of how Marquard defines an individual; he's talking about a manifoldness that defines each individual rather than a diversity of different individuals. But it can probably just be removed, it's not important for the rest of the essay. Here is the original sentence if it helps (Marquard 1989, p. 94): "By that very means (divide et impera [divide and rule] or divide et fuge [divide and drive away], at any rate: liberate yourself by separating—that is, by making sure that, as they act on you, the powers that stories are keep each other reciprocally in check, and thus limit this action) humankind acquires the opportunity for freedom that goes with having a manifoldness that is in each case one's own—that is, with being an individual."
 Done. Enclosed "manifoldness" in quotes to make it clearer it's Marquard's words. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This countermovement will never offer a solution, because it merely submits exotic mythology to the monomyth of progress and thereby confirms its domination. ClockC Might want to be attributed but still waiting on external input. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added attribution.
checkmark Done by requester. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added attribution.
checkmark Done by requester. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to religious studies scholar Burkhard Gladigow, the opposition it faced became so sharp because Marquard specifically proposed polytheism as a political solution. Somewhat edited. What does "sharp" mean in this context? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "intense"; is that better?
checkmark Done by requester. I removed "so" as an intensifier. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "turn of the 20th century".
checkmark Done by requester. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marquard, a professor of philosophy and proponent of scepticism and pluralism, belonged to a tendency in German philosophy which viewed the issues of modernity through the concept of political theology [...] It appears you're using the second definition of "tendency"? Would "sub-organisation" still describe it appropriately? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using the first definition, but perhaps some other word is more suitable, or "belonged" should be replaced with something else. The source is very clear in that the philosophers were not organised together or saw their work as a collaborative effort, but there was a tendency among them to share some views, language and points of reference.
Trying to replace "tendency" with "part [of German philosophy]". How does it look? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a current of German-speaking philosophers in the 20th century who addressed concerns about meaning in the contemporary world by discussing modernity in religious terms. Would "trend" describe "current" just as well? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It could sound a bit dismissive though, as if it was a superficial trend that (thankfully) is over now. It could also make it sound more broad and mainstream than it was.
Switched to using "group" for the time being, as it doesn't necessarily imply any sense of organisation. How's it look? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My intention was to use the same meaning in both places.
Switched to "group" as above. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Answer to all three questions above) "Part" looks good. I'm more unsure about "group". The source kind of treats the philosophers as a group, but also stresses that they really weren't a group. Perhaps we can step around it by writing something like "Several German-speaking philosophers in the 20th century made it a convention to address concerns..." and "They were inspired by the secularisation theorem..." Ffranc (talk) 11:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
checkmark Done by requester. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to your responses! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your work, Tenryuu. As for the summary, there is an FA rated article about a philosophical essay collection, Political Animals and Animal Politics, with summaries under the heading "Contributions". They're written like I've tried to write here, although I agree that more attributions were needed. (There are also two FA rated articles on books that could be useful: Getting It: The Psychology of est and An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory). I also want to add that the word "myth" is used a lot in the essay in singular form. I saw that you changed a couple of instances from "myth" to "myths", which somewhat changes the meaning, from the concept of myth to particular myths. Ffranc (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ffranc: Reorganised questions on resolution status. It doesn't seem there's much talk about tone in summaries, so I'll leave that for the FAC reviewer to determine. In regards to the plurality of "myth", my apologies. Feel free to change those back; maybe it'll be better to introduce the first instance of "myth" in the singular with "the concept of myth"? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ffranc: Did a final copyedit. Seems like everything's in order. If there's nothing else I'll consider the request complete. Good luck on the GAN! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Ffranc (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:In Praise of Polytheism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs) 05:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I will be reviewing this. Thank you. — The Most Comfortable Chair 05:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  • Avoid linking "German" twice.
  • First line of the second paragraph is too long. Consider splitting it into two or three sentences.
  • "what it calls" — It seems unclear to me what "it" would indicate here.
  • I would also recommend splitting the second sentence into two sentences.
  • The third paragraph can be written differently. As of now, it emphasizes on three individuals instead of giving a summary of reception in a general manner. There is an argument to mention Taubes' bit since he wrote a response to the essay a few years after it was published. However, mentioning the other two people, presumably not as notable, gives undue focus to them as individuals instead of general comments pertaining to reception of the essay.

Background

[edit]
  • "addressed concerns about meaning in the contemporary world" → "addressed concerns about the meaning of life in the contemporary world".
  • Unlink — "sociologist" per MOS:OL
  • "had written that the lived modern world" — Perhaps you intended to write something else instead of "lived" here?

Summary

[edit]
  • Unlink — "world history".
  • "Marquard believes when people recognise that myths are stories, it becomes possible to identify modern polymythical thinking, which exists, for example, in the scientific study of history and in novels." — A little too many punctuations for a good flow. Maybe rewrite it like "Marquard believes when people recognise that myths are stories, it becomes possible to identify modern polymythical thinking, which exists in fields like the scientific study of history and in novels."

Reception

[edit]
  • "According to the religious studies scholar Burkhard Gladigow" — It is redundant to mention "the religious studies scholar" as it is already in the first line of his article.
  • "In 2016, the literary scholar Stefanie von Schnurbein" → "In 2016, Stefanie von Schnurbein"
  • "apostasy" could be linked.
  • "Alois Halbmayr wrote his doctoral dissertation" — Mention the year.
  • In the image, mention positions of the people. As in, "from left to right" or something like that.
  • "or if Marquard had been drunk when he conceived it." — this should either be in quotes or written more formally. A way for the latter would be to write it as "or if Marquard had been inebriated when he conceived it".

Sources

[edit]
  • A few of them are missing the language parameter.
  • A few of them do not require page numbers, such as "Marquard, Odo (1989). "In Praise of Polytheism...", as that is covered in "Citations" above.

This has been an intriguing read and it should pass. Thank you for your diligent work. — The Most Comfortable Chair 14:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Most Comfortable Chair: Thank you very much for the review! I have done my best to address everything above. Please let me know if I missed something, or if something needs further work. Ffranc (talk) 08:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    It is a detailed article that covers a variety of topics in a concise and informative manner. It is an engaging read and meets the criteria. Thank you for your work. — The Most Comfortable Chair 08:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that the essay "In Praise of Polytheism" dismisses all similarities between Enlightenment philosophy and striptease? Source: Marquard, Odo (1989). "In Praise of Polytheism (On Monomythical and Polymythical Thinking)". Farewell to Matters of Principle: Philosophical Studies. Translated by Wallace, Robert M. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 91. ISBN 0-19-505114-9. Mythonudism strives for something impossible; because, it seems to me, every demythologization is a well compensated process: the more myths one takes off, the more myths stay on. That is why I have doubts about the striptease: doubts (to put it more precisely) about the idea of the enlightenment (late in world history) as a striptease operating with myths. This idea, I said, is itself a myth; so it is time to find a countermyth to it. - this particular page isn't part of the Google Books preview, but web searches for parts of the quote will yield some snippets from a Scribd.com upload. Of course, there is also piracy.
    • ALT1:... that a modern Gnostic disapproved of the essay "In Praise of Polytheism" because he thought it repeated the apostasy of the Roman emperor Julian? Source: Taubes 1983, p. 464, quoted in Gladigow (2001, p. 146) (accusation, in German: "Die Rekurse auf Mythos post Christum sind in Wahrheit nur Wiederholungen der Apostasie Julians") & Styfhals 2019, p. 264 (Taubes as a modern Gnostic; also p. 2: "...Taubes, as a modern Gnostic...")

Improved to Good Article status by Ffranc (talk). Self-nominated at 09:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Everything looks good. If you want, you could link striptease and Enlightenment philosophy, but it's definitely optional. I prefer ALT0 because stripping is more interesting than ancient Rome in my opinion.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 04:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:In_Praise_of_Polytheism&oldid=1212542387"