Talk:Theocon

VfD

On April 11, 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Theocon for a record of the discussion. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article should be kept, as this term is in use as of the posting of this talk comment. The term was encountered in the online version of the New York Times, in the "Opinionater" blog op-ed section. Searching for a definition, this article came up as the number one hit on Google. The simplicity and conciseness in such a short article is perfect for a pop term (and this term still has its pop) plus there are links to other related sources. The article is completely unbiased and objective. I see no reason to delete an article that defines a term that is in current use.

peterr 10:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not "completely unbiased." The term comes from political rhetoric. It is more often used by one group to describe another, usually disparagingly. To claim that a group is in fact whatever label their opponents put on them is extremely biased. Theocon is a term of art; it is not the person. RughRieder 18:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

What I really mean by unbiased is that the author of this article doesn't imply that a positive or negative connotation is associated with the term. Also, because the origin of the term is cited, and a quote from the “coiner” that helps to convey its meaning is included, I don’t think the definition’s accuracy is in question.

That it can be used (or misused) disparagingly in political rhetoric, is perhaps deemed a disparaging label in all contexts, I don’t disagree with. The point here though is to provide the definition in an unbiased manner. For a pop-term especially, the reference to the source containing its genesis is valuable, as the undisputed definition can be provided for a new, if temporary, addition to our language.

You say “to claim that a group is in fact whatever label their opponents put on them is extremely biased” may be true, but the evil of bias is not in the term itself but rather perpetrated by the “opponents” that would label the “group”. I share your distaste for ugly and negative political rhetoric, but we’re getting philosophical when we consider how the term may be misused or that “theocon is a term of art; it is not the person”.

peterr 10:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

We appear to generally agree that "theocon" is a term and not a person, so further discussion might be moot in this context. I shall clarify my perceptions as a courtesy, and to promote better understanding of the value of precise description.

I maintain my argument that the article would be biased if it described persons in terms preferred by their opponents. That one editor did not detect the bias does not mean it is not present. I perceived an apparent bias from the same syntax another editor claims reveals no bias. Some editors detect bias in text that fails to use gender-neutral terms; others claim no such bias is betrayed by repetition of routine gendered references to otherwise gender-neutral concepts.

My allegation of bias arises from what I recognize as misappropriation of agency. I would be less likely to cite bias if the claim that a theocon is a person who holds a certain belief was advanced by the person so described embraced the moniker, rather than in circumstances where a moniker is used to describe a political foe. I would still criticize the approach that says a descriptive term is a person just as I would criticize an approach that says a map is the place a map describes.

To recognize that a term is sometimes used disparagingly, as I recognized here, is not to presume the term is "misused." I represent no opinion, in this context, about proper use of political rhetoric in political discourse, nor about the merits of disparaging language in popular discourse. My comments advocate accurate descriptive terminology for use in an ostensibly factual, descriptive text such as this.

I advance no opinion about the merits of ugly or negative political rhetoric. Mine is a purely clinical analysis that the term is used in some contexts to highlight and sometimes to devalue certain parts of an opponent's ideology. I certainly don't intend to advocate disdain for negative political rhetoric. To do so would be to introduce a personal view, which not only would be an inaccurate representation of my views in this matter, but which would be inappropriate in this context. The important factor here is that the term arose from partisan political rhetoric and not from a political science department of a non-partisan educational institution. In that regard, what we are describing here are the views of pundits that claim some political actors are motivated by theological beliefs. We do not cite references to academic political scientists who say theology is the basis of some conservative ideology and that those holding such theologically motivated conservative views are "theocons". Even if we do find and cite such authority, it is a limited authority unless it describes a broad consensus among all political scientists. Older and more widely used terms such as "Marxist" and "communist" are better recognized as accurate political descriptors by a consensus of political scientists. Even with those terms, in my volumes, I would steer toward the side of caution and precision, and not follow the direction of popular discourse. In articles about Marxism and communism, I would include sections explaining that the suffix "-ist" is appended to the term when it is used to describe a person holding those ideologies. I would be more likely to describe a social role as the person holding the role when it is a broadly accepted concept, such as "a doctor is a person licensed to practice medicine."

At least as far as my research indicates, my preferences for description of terms as terms instead of anthropomorphizing the descriptor is consistent with the approach used by most encyclopedias for the past century. My conclusion that the phrase "a theocon is a person" is an innacurate descriptor is based in my reading of other encyclopedias that explain concepts as concepts rather than to explain concepts as persons the concept attempts to describe.

Whether "we are getting philosophical" seems irrelevant. Why should an editorial effort not be informed by philosophical appreciation? How could an editorial effort not be informed by philosophical understandings? Are not institutional preferences for neutral point of view, verifiability from reputable published sources and open collaborative editing informed by philosophy? Philosophy indeed informs editorial activity -- in this matter the philosophy I offer is one that places highest value on most accurate descriptions. A human being is best described as a Homo sapiens, while terms used to describe political views of a person are best defined as terms and not as persons. The advice is rooted in standards offered by numerous usage guides that discourage anthropomorphizing concepts. RughRieder 18:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)