Talk:Mary Cover Lawry

Synthesis claim

StAnselm Regarding this edit, the content was not developed from synthesis.

Content that you removed:

1) Lawry stated that it was not her job to concern herself with maintaining order, enforcing rules, or inspire conversion. 2) Women were thus able to operate and understand the viewpoints and actions of the missionary men and the indigenous people. 3) According to Chilla Bulbeck, "it was the British women in India who humanised the Raj, who civilised it."

Content from the source:

1. "But as Mary Lawry points out, her job was not conversion. Neither was it the job of the District Officer's wife to maintain order. In other words, women were not the explicit purveyors of colonial domination that their husbands were: British menfolk provided the iron of rigid rule and railroad."
2. "Their wives and sisters supplied the irony: the double view granted only to those who stood always slightly to one side, able to picture themselves inside the regime and outside it."
3. "It was the British women in India who humanized the Raj, who civilized it.174"

I believed that I paraphrased the content, but you may disagree with the way I reworded the content - or think it's undue weight based upon the source's conclusions. Upon reflection, for instance, I think that the third sentence could go.–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC) –CaroleHenson (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

So Lawry said her job was not conversion. But she was not a District Officer's wife, so we can't say anything about her role or otherwise in maintaining order and enforcing rules. And then we have a general statement about missionary women, without the justification of applying it to Lawry. That's what synthesis is: "Missionary women were X. Lawry was a missionary woman. Therefore Lawry was X." It's logical, but not allowed. StAnselm (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

StAnselm, Gotcha.

How about: "Lawry stated that it was not her job to inspire conversion. The missionary women did not concern themselves with maintaining order or enforcing rules. They were able to see the viewpoints of both the missionary men and the indigenous people." I think that's better and put that into the article here so see how the content flows - taking into account the other descriptions of the role of women vs. men.

I think this works based upon the description of the role of men vs. the role of women from the same source.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that it applies to Lawry, and I don't think the source is saying that either. Perhaps if we have "Missionary women generally did not..." - but we don't have a reliable source saying that this was the case with Lawry. StAnselm (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I changed two sentences to one that is a quote: According to Chilla Bulbeck, "women were not the explicit purveyors of colonial domination that their husbands were: British menfolk provided the iron of rigid rule and railroad."–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

It looks like I found the book (Lawry : 200th anniversary : Rev. Walter Lawry at Parramatta Mission) (2018) that was made from Elizabeth de Réland's thesis / research for her thesis that was in Further reading "Holiness and Hard Work: A History of Parramatta Mission, 1815−2015" (2018), with Mary Cover Lawry's biography starting on page 97. I am betting there will be more information to help clarify her role.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC) Changed "is in" to "was in" and underlined it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)