Talk:Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas

Neutral?

No admittedly I am a little biased, but this article doesn't come off to me NPOV to me. It makes a point to refer to it as "state-sanctioned" without a source which comes across to me as the person who wrote the sentence trying to say "This shouldn't have happened." Again my personal feelings may be getting involved if so I apologize. Just need someone to take a look to either confirm or disprove my worries, at which point I will remove the tag. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Another way...} 10:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Would "state-designated" be a more neutral wording? joe•roe^t•c 11:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

State-designated would probably be better. The idea is to convey that this is a ritual supported by the state.Smallman12q (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Except it wasn't it was supported only by the Governor on personal grounds from what I understand. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Another way...} 21:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I had assumed you had a problem with the "sanctioned" wording because it can imply a decree backed by force (obviously not the case here). According to the cited sources it was an official proclamation by Perry in his role as Governor, i.e. the head of the executive branch of the Texas state government. So it doesn't have the force of law, but it's him exercising legal authority. Not like he just said "hey let's all pray for a bit" in an interview or something. joe•roe^t•c 10:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the problem is with neutrality, but with imprecision. "The governer asked" and "state sanctioned" aren't very precise about how "official" this even was.--345Kai (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

"Cross-cultural context"

The line, "Rituals intended to invoke rain, of various kinds, are common to many societies," was restored and justified as providing "cross-cultural context." By that logic, should we put a notice on, for instance, every religion-based war that "Wars are often motivated by religious differences?" It's not specific enough to this topic to be mentioned (especially such a passing mention). I think that's what the See Also section is for, so I'm moving this reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.27.44.2 (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If we had an article on "Wars motivated by religious differences" I think yes, absolutely. More realistically that article would probably be linked in the lead, something like "X was a religiously motivated conflict..." I think you'll agree that kind of contextual linking is ubiquitous. The point is to link to the general article, to say to the reader: hey, look, this is a specific instance of a broader phenomenon, you can find more information about it here. I only wrote it in a separate sentence ("notice" is a bit dramatic, isn't it?) because I couldn't think of a neat way of fitting it into the lead. And it seemed to go well with the preceding sentence establishing the context of state-sanctioned prayer in US history.

I suspect it only looks irrelevant or intrusive (to you) because we aren't used to seeing aspects of "our" society (that is America, the West, whatever) discussed as anthropological phenomena. Would you be so insistent that rainmaking isn't linked in the body if this were, say, an article on the Regional Commissioner of Singida calling for a province-wide mapolyo a mbula? It's systematic bias in action. joe•roe^t•c 16:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hm, that's a leap. (And, OT, but I don't particularly look at a prayer ritual as having anything to do with *my* society.) I just think it's unnecessary to explicate that, HEY, THIS HAPPENS OTHER PLACES, TOO, in every article (including your example). A See also ref seems sufficient to me. But that's clearly not to do with any interest in a streamlined article, it's just because of my monumental ethnocentrism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.27.44.2 (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Because a 200 word article is in dire need of streamlining? You've made it abundantly clear that you don't think this particular fact is necessary ("irrelevant", "not specific", etc), but can you give me an actual explanation of this strange criteria of relevance you're using, preferably based on an existing policy or guideline, and bearing in mind that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia? If not I'm going to go ahead and restore the content. Why do you find "HEY, THIS HAPPENS IN OTHER PLACES" so much more contentious than "HEY, THIS HAS HAPPENED AT OTHER TIMES" (the preceding sentence)? joe•roe^t•c 07:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No sources were supplied for this supposed "cross-cultural context". It's pure original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia articles, whether 200 words or 200,000. Reverting. Fat&Happy (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources are in the linked article and I think including them in this one is an unnecessary repetition, but if you insist I will find some representative ones to cite here. In the meantime, WP:PRESERVE. Also, reverting an edit discussed on a talk page without joining that discussion is very unhelpful, as is re-reverting immediately after explaining yourself without allowing time for anyone to reply. I'm going to revert once more, and I hope you will leave it like that until there is consensus to remove the statement (since the original stable state of the article was inclusion), if needs be through asking the opinions of uninvolved editors. joe•roe^t•c 16:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources you supplied, presumably from the linked article, confirm a fact, but not it's relevance to this article. That would make the addition synthesis, which is considered original research and therefore not acceptable. There has been no consensus to add this "cross-cultural context" to the article. The article had a "stable" version without it for over four months until you added it in early September; nobody other than you has supported the addition; nobody else has restored the disputed phrasing when it was deleted, and the "discussion" above seems to consist mostly of "I think it belongs and won't let it be removed without a clear policy saying it must be." Well, {{WP:OR]] and WP:SYNTH are clear policies – ones that cannot be overridden by consensus, even if one existed. Yet you continue to edit-war the contested material into the article after these policies have been cited, violating WP:3RR in the process. If you insist this is relevant to the article, please provide reliable sources discussing that relevance; without such sources there is no justification for retaining the disputed material. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

And what, my opinion is void? We have one for, two against, I don't think you can fairly accuse me of being obstructive or going against consensus. Regardless of whether anybody else vocally "supported" my edit (when does that ever happen?) it had been there for some time and this discussion was started when someone else removed it. That is all I meant when I invoked BRD and tried to maintain the article at the last stable version until we can reach a new consensus.

You say it's WP:SYNTH, I disagree. This is the first time you've brought it up, previously you said it was "pure" OR and before that the anon IP was even more vague in calling it "not specific", so please, give me a little leeway to address the moving target and don't twist things to make it look as if I'm digging my heels in and edit warring. I am not.

So, back to the matter at hand. It is not synthesis or OR. The only thing that is being implied beyond what is explicitly sourced is that a prayer for rain is a rain ritual, and that is true by definition. You're demanding a level of sourcing that is unreasonable and way beyond what is required by WP:V – since when have sources been required to establish the relevance of material to a subject? It's a purely editorial decision. I've explained above why the information that similar practices to the subject of the article are widespread is relevant and the latter fact is now sourced as you requested. joe•roe^t•c 21:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

When there were no sources at all, it was pure OR and I said so. You then added sources for the existence of rainmaking rituals in two cultures. Neither source draws any correlation between these physically active rituals and common prayer or meditation; equating the two involves interpretive synthesis on your part, and at that point I correctly changed my description from "pure OR" to "OR by synthesis". Your target had not moved; it remains as the provision of sources supporting inclusion of your content. The description of how the target had been missed changed because the sourcing rule you were violating changed. (Note, for the record, that the linked mini-article also contains no discussion of simple prayer as a rainmaking ritual, and in fact cites only one major culture (various American Indian groups), along with a second unsourced aside.) While we're coatracking in other topics, why not go all the way and list everything that people have been known to pray for? Maybe, since the general topic is rain, a few mentions of rainmaking, from cannon to cloud seeding, would also be instructive? Or, we could try staying with the specific topic of the article.

You refer to WP:BLUE. The sky is blue. Stipulated. That does not give us free rein to modify the articles on the U.S., British, and French flags by mentioning that they are "red, white, and blue – the colors of molten steel and fall foliage, cocaine and ice, and the daytime sky above as well as the goddess Kali". All of those statements can be sourced independently, but yes, relevance to the article needs to be demonstrated in the sources to avoid synthesis. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

And so we're down to the actual issue: you draw a distinction between "physically active rituals" and "common prayer". Isn't prayer physically active? You have to do it, it does just happen. Aren't other forms of ritual "common" in their respective societies? What you're really doing, like the anon IP, is drawing a distinction between "us" and "them" (we pray, they dance, so they can't be the same thing!) which goes against Wikipedia's second pillar.

But... I'm going to officially step away from this one. You clearly have no interest in reaching a compromise solution and I have no interest in playing an endless game of whack-a-mole with a self-appointed gatekeeper. Relevance was the original point of dispute and now we've returned to it and you haven't given any rebuttal to my original explanation of why this is relevant other than sarcastic (and faulty) analogies. joe•roe^t•c 08:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110924085402/http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/DM_state.htm?TX%2CS to http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/DM_state.htm?TX%2CS

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) 22:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)