Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [mythsoc] It took six professors to come up with this?

Expand Messages
  • David Bratman
    Have you considered the possibility that this may be some Wikipedia user s idea of a joke? The professors appear to be real, but it s definitely not a book,
    Message 1 of 9 , Dec 25, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Have you considered the possibility that this may be some Wikipedia user's idea of a joke? The professors appear to be real, but it's definitely not a book, and the absence of a journal citation sounds suspicious. I wasn't able to turn it up on a quick search in journal indexes I have access to here, though as an old interlibrary-loan searcher I wouldn't definitively conclude "hoax" just yet. (I was once sent searching for the India memoirs of Prof. Moriarty's henchman Col. Moran, and I gave that wild-goose chase a thorough job.) That'd be my guess at this point, though.

      But now I have to go read stuff by Edidin, since it appears he mostly writes about the philosophy of musical performance and appreciation, a topic that's always intrigued me.

      -----Original Message-----
      >From: WendellWag@...
      >Sent: Dec 25, 2008 12:07 PM
      >To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
      >Subject: [mythsoc] It took six professors to come up with this?
      >
      >I was reading the Wikipedia entry for my undergraduate college and found
      >this:
      >
      >> One such collaboration between New College professors hailing from
      >different academic fields involved
      >> philosophers of religion Douglas Langston and Mike Michalson, analytic
      >philosopher Aron Edidin, political
      >> scientists Frank Alcock and Eugene Lewis, and cultural historian Lee
      >Daniel Snyder. The six New College
      >> professors coauthored an interdisciplinary study entitled "The Lion, the
      >Witch, and the Whorehouse: Male
      >> Prostitution and the Works of _C.S. Lewis_
      >(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.S._Lewis) " (2002). The research offered a _poststructuralist_
      >(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poststructuralism) _cultural studies_
      >(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_studies)
      >> analysis critical of Lewis' Narnia books and Christian apologetics. The
      >New College research team
      >> concluded that the representation of gender relations in Lewis' works is
      >misogynistic to the point of male
      >> homoerotism and glorifies patriarchal domination, especially over subjects
      >seen by other members of
      >> society as less likely to take on submissive roles. Their analysis
      >compares Lewis' work to discourses on
      >> gender relations in underground male prostitution rings.
      >
      >Has anybody read this?
      >
      >Here's the Wikipedia entry:
      >
      >_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_College_of_Florida_
      >(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_College_of_Florida)
      >**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
      >Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
      >(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)
      >
      >
      >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >------------------------------------
      >
      >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.orgYahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
    • WendellWag@aol.com
      In a message dated 12/25/2008 12:56:01 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, dbratman@earthlink.net writes: Have you considered the possibility that this may be some
      Message 2 of 9 , Dec 25, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 12/25/2008 12:56:01 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
        dbratman@... writes:

        Have you considered the possibility that this may be some Wikipedia user's
        idea of a joke?

        I didn't think of that. The footnote on the Wikipedia page says that it was
        published in The Journal of the American Academy of Religion. That's a real
        journal, but I can't find a reference to this article when I search their
        archives.

        Wendell Wagner
        **************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
        Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
        (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • mwilt
        On a Wiki Talk page at medlibrary (I m not a Wiki contributor so am not entirely sure how that works!) there is a brief discussion of this entry, in which
        Message 3 of 9 , Dec 25, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          On a "Wiki Talk" page at medlibrary (I'm not a Wiki contributor so am not entirely sure how that works!) there is a brief discussion of this entry, in which "AlcockMarine" responds to questions about the citation for the Lewis article:

          I was mistaken in the second reference- the title is a book chapter not a journal article. I will reinsert the section with the correct reference. AlcockMarine (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

          It still reads "Journal of AA of R" at the wikipedia site, though.

          I suspect (but it's just intuition so I may be mistaken) that the AlcockMarine user who said he would reinsert the text with the correct citation is the same Frank Alcock who is listed as an author of the article (?book chapter?) in question. Frank Alcock is on staff at New College and is (or was) director of a "Marine Policy Institute".

          Not sure what I think anyone wants to do with all this "intuition" and Googling on my part, though.

          Grin.

          mary

          **********************
          In a message dated 12/25/2008 12:56:01 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
          dbratman@... writes:

          Have you considered the possibility that this may be some Wikipedia user's idea of a joke?

          I didn't think of that. The footnote on the Wikipedia page says that it was published in The Journal of the American Academy of Religion. That's a real journal, but I can't find a reference to this article when I search their archives.

          Wendell Wagner


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Richard James
          I checked out the Wikipedia information on The College of Florida related to the article on C.S. Lewis mentioned below. I was able to find the email addresses
          Message 4 of 9 , Dec 26, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            I checked out the Wikipedia information on The College of Florida
            related to the article on C.S. Lewis mentioned below.

            I was able to find the email addresses of four of the professors
            listed in the Wikipedia article for The College of Florida and sent
            them an email referring to the Wikipedia paragraph. Here is the answer
            that Professor Douglas Langston sent to me this afternoon:

            >

            Thank you for calling this to my attention. As you suspect, this is a
            hoax. I had no part in such an article and certainly nothing under my
            name was published along these lines in the JAAR. I will try to have
            this material corrected.

            Douglas Langston

            >

            Hope this helps and a New Year's Blessings to all,
            Richard

            --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, WendellWag@... wrote:
            >
            > I was reading the Wikipedia entry for my undergraduate college and
            found this:
            >
            > >
            One such collaboration between New College professors hailing from
            different academic fields involved philosophers of religion Douglas
            Langston and Mike Michalson, analytic philosopher Aron Edidin,
            political scientists Frank Alcock and Eugene Lewis, and cultural
            historian Lee Daniel Snyder. The six New College professors coauthored
            an interdisciplinary study entitled "The Lion, the Witch, and the
            Whorehouse: Male Prostitution and the Works of C.S. Lewis" (2002).
            The research offered a poststructuralist cultural studies analysis
            critical of Lewis' Narnia books and Christian apologetics.

            The New College research team concluded that the representation of
            gender relations in Lewis' works is misogynistic to the point of male
            homoerotism and glorifies patriarchal domination, especially over
            subjects seen by other members of society as less likely to take on
            submissive roles. Their analysis compares Lewis' work to discourses on
            gender relations in underground male prostitution rings.
            >>
            >
            > Has anybody read this?
            >
            > Here's the Wikipedia entry:
            > _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_College_of_Florida_
          • WendellWag@aol.com
            In a message dated 12/27/2008 9:03:04 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, rvjames@kih.net writes: The College of Florida The name is New College of Florida or just
            Message 5 of 9 , Dec 28, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 12/27/2008 9:03:04 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
              rvjames@... writes:

              The College of Florida
              The name is New College of Florida or just New College. As I said, it's
              where my B.A. is from. The name was just New College when I was there. Its
              full name has changed a couple of times since I left, but most people there just
              refer to it as New College. Thanks for contacting the professors and
              straightening this out, Richard. I was about to do that, but I'm glad you took
              care of it. I must say that the business of adding the fake collaboration
              between the six professors to the Wikipedia entry strikes me as one of the most
              obscure and pointless jokes I've ever heard of. Why would someone bother to do
              enough research to use six real professors and a real journal for the place
              where this hoax article appeared?

              Wendell Wagner
              **************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
              Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
              (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Jason Fisher
              ...   The more believable the hoax, the more likely (and the longer) it will evade the legions of bots and volunteers constantly working to undo this kind of
              Message 6 of 9 , Dec 29, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                > I must say that the business of adding the fake
                > collaboration between the six professors to the
                > Wikipedia entry strikes me as one of the most
                > obscure and pointless jokes I've ever heard of.
                > Why would someone bother to do enough
                > research to use six real professors and a real
                > journal for the place where this hoax article
                > appeared?
                 
                The more believable the hoax, the more likely (and the longer) it will evade the legions of bots and volunteers constantly working to undo this kind of "information vandalism". As to why somebody wanted to perpetrate the hoax in the first place, perhaps it was vanity? "Look at me! I can affect the Internet!" (My answer to that: start a blog. :-) Or perhaps the individual has an axe to grind with the school or those professors? I don't pretend to understand the motivation, but the method, yes, that makes good sense to me.
                 
                Jason

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Steve Schaper
                Well, even the people working for wikipedia engage in information vandalism and heavy bias from time to time. Whether it is less so than dead-tree
                Message 7 of 9 , Dec 30, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Well, even the people working for wikipedia engage in information
                  vandalism and heavy bias from time to time. Whether it is less so than
                  dead-tree encyclopedias is an open question, I think. I don't know the
                  answer to that.
                • John D Rateliff
                  It s easier to sabotage wikipedia, and easier for them to fix it. By contrast, I found one error introduced into the 1970 edition of BREWER S DICTIONARY OF
                  Message 8 of 9 , Dec 30, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    It's easier to sabotage wikipedia, and easier for them to fix it.
                    By contrast, I found one error introduced into the 1970 edition
                    of BREWER'S DICTIONARY OF PHRASE AND FABLE that's still not been
                    fixed thirty-eight years later, and another that dates back more than
                    a century. Wikipedia would have both fixed in a day.
                    As with all reference books, you check the validity of what you
                    don't know by their coverage of what you do, and takes yr chances
                    accordingly.
                    --JDR

                    On Dec 30, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Steve Schaper wrote:
                    > Well, even the people working for wikipedia engage in information
                    > vandalism and heavy bias from time to time. Whether it is less so than
                    > dead-tree encyclopedias is an open question, I think. I don't know the
                    > answer to that.
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.