Talk:Shadia Drury

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

Issue of Neutrality[edit]

There seems to be a rather one-sided, Straussian argument in this article.fledgist 19:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article has many verbal cues that strike one as mere cheerleading for the Straussians...I notice that no mention is made in this article nor in the one on Strauss himslef that Paul Wolfowitz, architect of the IRaq catastrophe, was a devoted student of Leo Strauss.

but your comments like "architect of the IRaq catastrophe" sounds really NPOV too. Ha--Mikerussell 03:49, 2005 August 2 (UTC)

This is not an article "about" Shadia Drury but against her, a kind of diffamatory pamphlet that I was surprised to find in place like an encyclopedia! (Franco)

I'm sorry, but I just read an interesting set of review in a Political Science magazine between Steven Smith and her, and I must say that reading this article has made me feel like she is worth nothing. This article is OBVIOUSLY BIASED and making me sick to the stomach that my academic prejudices are being determined by some ill-minded wikipedians who feel it is right to influence people on neutral ground. -n.b.

The article is tagged for weasel words. Is there anyone who cares to point out which words in this article are considered to be weasel words? Also, all of you complaining about the neutrality... what *specifically* do you have a problem with? ChrisLawson (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC) (oops, wasn't logged in)[reply]

You cannot really complain[edit]

You cannot really complain unless you try to better the article, your indignation must be based on something, "please share with the group, Franco." (You might want to sign your comments too). I can honestly say I tried to present a largely factual account of the person. I hardly regard her as a great thinker, and she makes herself quite well known for her criticism of others, yet I thought I restrained my own viewpoint. I included direct quotes from her latest work, and from her CBC radio interviews, I never distorted or paraphrased her remarks. Perhaps my editorializing is a little too much, but all articles have to begin from some viewpoint, and I think you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Assume good faith policy before condemning my time and effort. If you know what perspective she has, by all means share with the reader. As a person educated about Strauss, I find it hard to understand how bringing up George Grant, or the other points made, contributes to a "defamatory pamphlet that I was surprised to find in place like an encyclopedia!". Is it all too painfully obvious that if she, the subject of the article, calls Struassians a cult, it is valid to include that in an article? (Listen yourself, go to the CBC Radio link and scroll down to her interview and upload the audio.) It is easy to criticize, especially when you feel exempt from offering others reasons or facts behind the remarks. I suspect you may not be aware of her work, and thus are surprised others can have views divergent from hers (and perhaps yours). I primarily started the article because I was curious what others might add to my comments. (Thus I check back often hoping to see where the article will go). Personally, I have read three or four of her books and I find them all problematic. But does that prohibit me from writing an article on her? I never knew Wikipedia had such a policy, if you write an article on Leo Strauss or John Rawls, you got to like them? Such opinion seems counter productive, plutocratic and anti-democratic. Many people share my point of view on this matter. She is not a universally praised writer. But have I distorted or twisted who she is and what she does? My comments are aimed primarily to situate her in context- her background and education, where she works, her publications, and status in the university- these are all wrong, you think? If my article is defamatory, it must be “harmful and often untrue; tending to discredit or malign.” Honestly, I don’t think it is- I have a viewpoint too, that can never be erased or eliminated, I am her reader, and she must be communicating to an audience, she cannot control their reactions to her work. You really should work to educate us, not ridicule a valid attempt to shed light on a person. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and you are welcome to set things straight. My style of writing is not only consistent with Wikipedia, it demonstrates that a controversial writer can have a place in cyberspace where others are open to coming to terms with the writer on their own terms, without having a cabal of thought-controllers marking out the propaganda of the publisher and author.. --Mikerussell 03:49, 2005 August 2 (UTC)

This article is biased[edit]

I think that this article needs to be examined for its bias and very one-sided examination of Shadia Drury. There is virtually no attempt to give Drury's opinion a clear presentation and most of the text is a critique of her work and opinions. The article is of poor quality if there is supposed to be any degree of objectivity or scholarly attention to a presentation of facts that at least make note of bias.

Who is making these comments? Why not sign the article instead of having a hit and run mentality, or forcing others to look into dead end memberships created just to comment on this page- see history tab and [1]
--Mikerussell 04:49, 2005 August 5 (UTC)

This article is fair and accurate, but open to improvement[edit]

I hate to sound like I take comments, or the criticism of the article, too personally, but why don't you try to improve the article, as I stated above, anybody is free to alter the material to better suit their own understanding. The DISCUSSION page is usually a place where an explanation for an edit happens, not a sounding board for readers who don't like the article. You certainly know how to interject comments via page editing so why not alter the text, if it is "one-sided"; I challenge you to improve it. I would really like to see how others perceive her work. In my defense as the originator of the article, it is made up of primarily FACTUAL details of her life- her education, teaching, awards, as well as direct quotes from her works, and or Canada Research Chair page. I mean if the section that offends your sense of fairness is somewhere else, then edit the work. I started the article, it’s not like I hijacked the thing, my own interest in her is obviously reflected in the article, how could it be otherwise until others contribute? I kind of think nobody really reads her; they just nod their head politely, maybe they just applaud her ideological orientation, or something. I have read several books of hers, and find her portrayed accurately in the article. Her most salient feature is represented in the article, and the article is written to provoke thought, not present an entropic, encyclopedia article that means nothing but- oh yes, well done, she writes this, she said that, carry on, wondeerful, wonderful." Undoubtedly my opinion is just that, mine, but I am not some edit war- nobody has much to say but it personally displeases them, now is that not worse POV? I thought about toning down some of the comments, but really, i already have tried to be accurate and honest, so I cannot do better- why doesn't someone else try?.--Mikerussell 04:49, 2005 August 5 (UTC)

actually I did try to make a few changes to 'tone' things down a bit--Mikerussell 05:46, 2005 August 5 (UTC)

Added Bibliography[edit]

I added a list of works that I used in the article (writing Aug 4th 2005). Anybody who wants to edit the article, might also want to add additional sources which they feel reflects their edits. --Mikerussell 05:14, 2005 August 5 (UTC)


NPOV Tagging[edit]

{{NPOV}}

I removed this tag from the top of the actual article, since it is misused. The anonymous User has not tried to edit the article, or explain the reasons for objections. Until an 'edit war' takes place-until someone has the interest to change or edit the article, it seems like it is totally illogical to apply a tag because someone doesn't like the article, while the contributors have been open and forthcoming about the sources and intention of the article.--Mikerussell 03:55, 2005 August 9 (UTC)

I am not going to repeat myself, but my reasons for writing the article, and the reasons for its validity is above. It seems even more foolish to let someone apply the above NPOV tag when they do not even identify themselves. The only edit this User makes- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=80.189.60.138 is to add the NPOV tag. How can a valid exchange of opinion take place when people have this style of expressing themselves? It reeks of censorship, instead of an attempt to better the article. Just not liking the content does not give a person the privilege to brand the article as flawed, thus giving the newer reader a prejudiced view of the content, content that can be edited by any party deeming it worthy of their time, effort and thought.--Mikerussell 04:11, 2005 August 9 (UTC)

Current Interpretations section added[edit]

I created this section after an anonymous editor edited out a lot of material, yet introduced very little insight into Drury's own writing. I tailored my remarks to fit within the context of the article, and hope the person who does not like the comments- will ADD, as opposed to simply censoring thought. I would really like to know what suppoerters of Drury think she is up to. If the article is one-sided, it is not my fault; rather, it may just be the lack of merit in Drury herself that results in this condition. Surely a brilliant thinker from the cosmopolitian megapolis of Regina has many students and admirers who can further her own teaching in an article on Wikipedia, no? --Mikerussell 18:02, 2005 August 9 (UTC)

I have little or no interest in Shadia Drury, or her work. I am, however, interested in stopping flagrantly biased writing from colouring Wikipedia (even when it is couched in the traditional weasel fashion of "some/others say"). As for me deleting rather than adding -- that is often the best way to improve an article, particularly one as horribly slanted as this one. Just because I didn't add something, does not give you any leverage in your argument... quite the contrary.
Current interpretations -- whose? Yours? They certainly read like yours, rather than as a balanced and informative view of her work.
As for not explaining on the talk page -- I explained in the edit summary. I felt it covered everying, from your apparent claims of telepathy to these things I believe-style opining. I stand by my grandiloquence comment... what does "high above the maddening battle" add to the article, other than a rather irritating and unnecessary rhetorical flourish and bias? As for the talk page comment: "Surely a brilliant thinker from the cosmopolitian megapolis of Regina has many students and admirers who can further her own teaching in an article on Wikipedia, no?" 'nuff said. You might try toning that down a bit.
As well as re-adding the npov tag, I plan to submit this page to the "Pages needing attention" list. It's over-crowded, and a seemingly much ignored part of Wikipedia, but hopefully it will bring in a few more voices (from any side) to balance out your 'strident' views.


Who are you? You go by digits a lot at work do you? “Hi, I’m 80.189.44.199 , how are you?” You have a very poor self-image if you cannot create some identity beyond an anonymous jerking and jiving of an indignant ideologue upset over comments about a 200,000 population prairie burg? You ever been to Regina? I have, it’s small baby, it makes Saskatoon look good, and I will tell you, it doesn’t look that good- needs a gigantic carwash, you know, dusty and dry as hell. If that offends you then too bad, it is only in the TALK page. You know identifying yourself is not a pointless exercise in personal vanity, in my opinion; rather, it simply gives the reader, your potential collaborator, some glimpse of where you are coming from. My page only touches upon who I am, but at least a person gets a feel for me- and my bias- because everyone comes from somewhere- there is no such thing as a ‘generic encyclopedia writer’. At any rate, you need to be more forthcoming, if you expect anyone to take your claim to authority seriously. There is no accounting for taste, and my writing style has been published, so I am very used to rejection, I have often been criticized and it fails to surprise me that my style doesn’t always please the average reader looking for some ‘encyclopedidioticiaca’. Encyclopedias have a long history in literature, and the word is not synonymous with ‘objectivity’ or ‘boredom’. Your apparent view that you know what an encyclopedia article should be like, is rather pretensions, and self-ironical. I would hardly call your lack of insight and lack of addition to the article helps the reader come to terms with the author at hand. Plus, you admit you’re ignorant of her. Why don’t you take a stab at editing somebody you know of then? What’s in it for you? By all means I would ask that you forward the article to the Needs Attention Page, but you really should try to reconcile your authority and your self-admitted lack of knowledge about Drury? I will try to edit more in the future. --Mikerussell 00:04, 2005 August 10 (UTC)

George Grant and 'Maddening Battle'[edit]

I trimmed my earlier comments and reinserted the comments refering to George Grant and Drury's latest book; removed excessive verve and re-emphasis on her lack of insight to her own project. But these additions are hardly biased, just not to the liking of the above anonymous editor, easily offended by Saskatchewan jokes. Why don't they add some counter-balancing opinion in the section instead of playing the fool with the delete key? --Mikerussell 00:18, 2005 August 10 (UTC)

Suggested Change of Education Description[edit]

While her Canada Research Chair website [http://www.uregina.ca/arts/CRC/] lists her education as such: "BA Hons., MA, PhD (York Canada)", her philosophy department faculty page [http://phil.uregina.ca/dept/sdrury.htm] lists her education thus: "BA Hons, MA (Queen's), PhD (York)". On the main Wikipedia page, she is described as having recieved all her degrees from York, but it is likely that the description on the CRC page meant to describe only the school from which she recieved her PhD, thus leading me to believe that she recieved her other degrees from Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario.

Also, the education section seems to lead into a discussion of York University that seems rather superfluous, given that this article isn't about York.

Good work anonymous stranger- feel free to change the info yourself when you have such solid proof. The U of R page clearly makes the comments about York rather unnecessary, or at least more about Queens might be added, to balance her educational background out. --Mikerussell 03:10, 2005 August 12 (UTC)


Latest Edit(s) for 'neutrality'- Vandalism or Edit war ?[edit]

This article has really become a wave of entropic edits designed to stifle opinion, since the opinion expressed seems to upset a group- (or maybe just one or two people)- of readers. They do not identify themselves or defend their edits. Very odd. I have seen many edit wars in Wikipedia, but never one where one of the sides refuses to identify themselves and have no edit history beyond the one time edits. That, I think most would agree, is what a vandalism problem is like- one anonymous side continually deleting what threatens them. The article- unfairly- reflects rather badly on the subject, Drury, since so many edits have been made to censor thought, as opposed to extrapolate and advance a positive view of her project and work. If you took out what I wrote, you would have a driveling couple of neutered lines that resemble a dictionary entry not an encyclopedia. This latest neutrality 'improvement' by [2] sounds so ridiculous, it's almost comical: Many readers of Drury's work feel she has a good grasp of the topics her writing sets out to cover. Well that is a rabid endorsement. Why not design a template for every writer, that could be used to help Wikipedia universally improve itself, such as: Many readers of [X’s' (place name here)] work feel s-he has a good grasp of the topics their writing sets out to cover. This could save all the time and effort wiki-users put into to actually reading and reflecting, and give more time for censoring divergent ideas and opinions. I tend to think the history of this article is a tale in itself about what my original edit of Shadia Drury indicated. At least Wikipedia’s older edits cannot be edited from the curious reader's view, all one has to do is click on HISTORY tab and then the version that is dated. I would probably try to rewrite the edit now, I mean Current Interpretations as a heading now seems a little foolish, since little interpretation is present in the heading. But I won’t, I am glad the article is at least started and I imagine it will take shape over the long haul to better reflect Drury’s true standing and merit as a thinker.--Mikerussell 02:53, 2005 August 14 (UTC)

Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada[edit]

I added acknowledgement of her election to the Royal Society of Canada to the first section.

http://www.rsc.ca/index.php?page_id=96&lang_id=1&first_name=&last_name=&academy=&institute_name=University+of+Regina&year_election=&submit=Search&order_by=academy&order_dir=ASC

I'm unsure if "fellowship" is supposed to be capitalised, according to the RSC's regulations, or whether they apply here. --24.57.207.21 00:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, one may want to add FRSC as a postnomial title, but I think this should reflect whether she chooses use it, of which I am unaware. --24.57.207.21 00:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Leo Strauss[edit]

The section on Struass is a little thin. We should expand her criticism to actually explain what she find objectionable about the Straussians as opposed to simply acknowledging that they're a "cult" (her words, not mine). Donknotts7878 (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shadia Drury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Socrates[edit]

Not just Strauss - she did a hatchet job on Socrates (of all people) as well. She seems to thrive in this niche of outrageous reactionary scholarship, for which fundamentalists christians are always willing to cough up money. The Achilles heel of the right is that the academic quality of the work is invariably piss poor, but hey, it's not like the punters will notice.137.205.101.81 (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shadia_Drury&oldid=1207041543"