Jump to content

Talk:The Age of Reason/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Founding father vs. American Revolutionary

Thomas Paine is considered a Founding Fathers of the United States; however, he never fought in the American Revolution. "American Revolutionary" is not truly accurate. We can compromise and just call him a "revolutionary" and leave off "American". I do not believe he was even in the U.S. during the American Revolution. Perhaps "French Revolutionary" would do? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 12:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

He was in the US (strictly speaking, what became the USA) from 1774 to 1781; he was briefly in France in 1781 but I believe he returned to the USA in 1782 and then back to Britain in the late 1780s.
During the revolution he published several items and served as an aide to General Nathaniel Greene.
regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Cristopher Hitchens

The material talking about how the "message still resonates" because of Christopher Hitchens is biased and a ridiculous blanket assertion. Just because one writer still uses the book doesn't mean the book still resonates - there are plenty of writers who quote ancient books, and all that means is that the message was important enough for them. Those parts need to be removed.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Christopher hitches does not deserve to be the justification for considering Thomas Paine relevant to contemporary society. His inclusion in this article is a plug for him rather than an informational note about Paine. I'm removing it. --CRATYLUS22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.139.210 (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There as been extensive discussion about which modern writers to mention in this article. During the recent RfC, archived here, the consensus was to keep Hitchens. Awadewit (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Um...

How did this pass FA without any mention of unitarianism, a major aspect discussed in most criticism about the work? I see the term "deist" quite often, but it is quite unitarian and deism is not a "religion" or anything that can be described in the manner it is used. Also, the image in "Religion and the state" is formatting against a blockquote, which needs to be changed (also an improper left image). Ottava Rima (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, the article confuses "institutionalized" with "orthodox" religion. Paine was attacking Orthodoxy. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
What sources about The Age of Reason would you suggest we use to discuss unitarianism?
Also, in the literature about The Age of Reason, the words "deist" and "institutionalized" are used quite frequently, which is why they are used here. Paine was indeed attacking the institutions of religion, as can be seen in his creed: "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." - This is one his major attacks in the book and scholars do indeed use the word "institutionalized" to reflect this particular criticism.
I've moved the image.Awadewit (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The thing about the word orthodox is that it is more than an institution - Paine criticized orthodox works of scripture in addition to various religions. He also didn't attack unorthodox Christian sects (there is nothing on Arianism, for instance). I hope this makes sense, as Unitarianism is an "institution" and yet Paine is seen as a hero by them (definitely after the UU officially adopted him as a major theorist). I would like a mention in legacy that the works of Paine (especially this) were adopted by Unitarian ministers and quoted. Here are some sources - 1, 2, 3, 4 (takes up some of the arguments in order to refute some - showing the level of debate going on), 5 (a very interesting work), 6 (an amusing source), etc. This source mentions the difference between Orthodox and institutionalized religion and "The few ministers who regarded Paine with any approval were intellectuals and Unitarians. When Pain died in 1809, the Reverend William Bentley, a brilliant Unitarian pastor from Salem, Massachusetts, praised the reviled freethinker for having been 'the first to see in what part every System was most vulnerable....". Another interesting source claiming that Carlile said - "Unitarianism was deism. The belief of the Unitarians was as remote from christianity as that of the Deists. He thought the act protected him in publishing. Had it never passed, he would never have published The Age of Reason... The Unitarian, indeed, appeared to be nothing but a Deist under a cloak". Here is another. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have taken notes on all of these sources, but I still don't have a clear picture yet of what precisely the relationship between Unitarianism and the Age of Reason was. For example, the primary sources indicate that the Unitarians were trying to distance themselves from the book while the secondary sources suggest the many Unitarians embraced Paine's book. Some of the secondary sources indicate that Unitarians embraced Paine's ideas later. I'm going to have to look for in-depth studies of Unitarianism to really figure this out. I'll be at the library next week, so I will gather the books then. Awadewit (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I have now looked at the following books. These were all listed in the "additional reading" section for the Encyclopedia Britannica article on "Unitarianism and Universalism":
  • Earl Morse Wilbur, A History of Unitarianism, 2 vol. (1945),
  • Conrad Wright, The Beginnings of Unitarianism in America (1955, reissued 1976)
  • David Robinson, The Unitarians and the Universalists (1985)

Only the Wright book even mentions the Age of Reason. It explains the debate in the US, in particular over students reading the book at Ivy League schools and the religious history encompassing the First and Second Great Awakening. There is also some material on the Arminian response, but this is very specialized, so I'm not sure it is necessary to include. Considering that two of the major histories of unitarianism do not mention the Age of Reason and the third mentions it within the historical context already given in the article, I am hard pressed to see precisely what should be added to the article. Awadewit (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Inerrancy of the Bible

Inerrancy

Contrary to an edit-battling editor's attempt to remove the "inerrancy" link from the lead, I feel it should be preserved, since there is no claim made that the Age of Reason is anything but "timeless" in this respect. Whether or not the term "inerrancy" was coined later, disputing the inerrancy of the Bible is precisely what the great book does.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  15:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. "then current understanding of the Bible" is not a precise wording and links to Biblical inspiration, which is not the same idea as Biblical inerrancy. We need to convey the idea of what Paine was doing, not unfailingly stick to eighteenth-century vocabulary. Awadewit (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
TYVM!  —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  15:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You may well have a point that that is what the book does now --disputing the inerrancy of the Bible-- but that is not what the text claims (it claims the effect then) and it is not as precise a wording. The Age of Reason really just challenged (something like) the authority of the Bible-- something along the lines of what every Christian believes. Inerrancy of the Bible is a includes the idea of the authority of the Bible-- so The Age of Reason does challenge Biblical inerrancy but not directly. So to say The Age of Reason challenged inerrancy then would be wrong but even to say it challenges inerrancy now is just weasel words. Lots of Christians do not believe in inerrancy and to claim a link between inerrancy and Christianity itself is very misleading, beyond being just POV. Carlaude:Talk 21:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You have just agreed in the above statement that the Age of Reason does indeed challenge Biblical inerrancy, so I'm not sure why you keep removing this statement from the lead and replacing it with less precise version that links to a different term and makes a different argument. Moreover, the statement "The Age of Reason; Being an Investigation of True and Fabulous Theology is a deistic treatise, written by eighteenth-century British radical and American revolutionary Thomas Paine, that criticizes institutionalized religion and challenges the inerrancy of the Bible" does not suggest that all Christians believe that the Bible is inerrant. Awadewit (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Did you read what I wrote? Let me put it this way.
The Age of Reason also challenges the idea that Benedict XVI is the rightful Pope. Why don't you add that in also? It only challenges these ideas (that there is a rightful Pope, or that there is Biblical inerrancy) that some Christians believe because it challenges the basic ideas of Christianitiy that all Christians believe. To just subtitute in more colorful terms and ideas for effect, that are only techniclly correct is a classic case of weasel words! Why don't you say The Age of Reason is "considered by some people to be the greatest book ever written," because someone must think that. Or you could say it "sold less than a 10 billion copies in the first year," beacuse it didn't sell more that that number.
From the article the reader can tell that The Age of Reason is an attack on all of Christianitiy, or at least the Christianitiy of its day. Do you agree or disagree. If you do not see this you will have to say why.
To claim in the lead that it attacks Biblical inerrancy when the article shows The Age of Reason to be point to Christianitiy in general, implies that these two are equated or at least fundamentally related-- and that Christianitiy is attacked by attacking inerrancy-- and it does not.
This would not be so much an issue if Biblical inerrancy was well understood, but it is not, even by many Christians. Carlaude:Talk 23:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
If Biblical inerrancy is not well-understood by many Christians, then the link to it would be appropriate and necessary on those grounds – so that Christians and others could read more about it and understand it better. The lead is a summary of an article. To challenge Biblical inerrancy is, in large portion, a summary attack upon Christianity, because the Bible holds the root belief system of Christians. They believe that the Bible is the Word of God who inspired its writers. It is the Truth and the Way. Therefore, to attack the inerrancy of the Bible is to attack the root belief system of Christianity, and Judaism as well. There is nothing "weasely" about the term. The Bible is either completely inerrant, partially inerrant (in which case it loses all credibility, for in this case, who knows what is and is not Truth?), or not inerrant. Any Christian who believes that the Bible is not completely inerrant must have many problems dealing with that idea, for if one or more Biblical claims are in error, then again, who knows what is true and what is false within the supposedly "inspired Word of God"?  —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  19:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Carlaude, the wording and link are perfectly clear, accurate, and appropriate. Please stop removing or changing the established text without consensus when the majority of editors responding have supported it. Doc Tropics 23:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I did stop, but how can it possibly be "accurate and appropriate" unless"The Age of Reason" attacks inerrancy directly? Carlaude:Talk 23:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Here is one statement from the article that supports this claim (with sources): "Using methods that would not become common in Biblical scholarship until the nineteenth century, Paine tested the Bible for internal consistency and questioned its historical accuracy, concluding that it was not divinely inspired. He argues that the Old Testament and the New Testament must be false because they depict a tyrannical God. The "history of wickedness" pervading the Bible convinced Paine that it was simply another set of human-authored myths and not the revealed word of God." (Smylie, 207–209; Claeys, 181–82; Davidson and Scheick, 64–65; 72–73.) Awadewit (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
[I'm adding Carlaude's response back in. I don't think it was talk page vandalism, as it was just continuing the discussion.] Awadewit (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll begin by pointing out that it is rather my edit that is supported these quotes. Paine rejected the claim of "divinely inspired" or "revealed" word of God based on its "internal consistency and... historical accuracy..." in other words he tested the Bible's reliability. I am sure you can understand the difference between claiming "Wikipedia is inerrant" and "Wikipedia is reliabile" or even the difference between claiming the "Encyclopædia Britannica is inerrant" and the "Encyclopædia Britannica is reliabile." None of these quotes are synonyms for or tring to describe "inerrancy." They are describing him testing the reliability of the Bible-- and maybe its moral character. (If he only wanted to show the Bible was not inerrant, his task would have been simpler, and I suppose, he would have stopped a lot sooner-- as long as he still thought "tyranny" had to be an error.)
My edit, you recall, was a link to the page Biblical inspiration, and "divinely inspired"-- a claim that Paine rejected according to your first quote-- is redirect to Biblical inspiration. Carlaude:Talk 04:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
An amusing side note is that Milton did the same as Paine and came up with opposite results. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Responding to Carlaude, Biblical inerrancy as a term covers the concepts of "internal consistency" and "falsity". In a one-sentence summary of the book, we cannot hope to cover all of what Paine was doing, but this is at the heart of what he was doing. I would also like to point out that the wording you suggested was "the then current understanding of the Bible", with an "easter egg" link (see WP:PIPE). The phrase "then current understanding of the Bible" is too vague to convey the specific ideas that Paine was attacking. Could you suggest another first sentence that encapsulates what Paine was doing throughout the Age of Reason? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I reverted another recent change to this sentence which introduced what purported to be a direct quotation. I did so because the quote wasn't sourced and wasn't properly integrated into the paragraph. Given that several concerned editors are currently discussing the topic right here, it seems reasonable to request some kind of consensus before such changes are introduced to the text. Thanks, Doc Tropics 19:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes you did revert my attempt to resolve this impasse. The quote is directly from The Age of Reason. I am not sure how to source it properly. What does "wasn't properly integrated into the paragraph" mean? What I introduced was "The Age of Reason; Being an Investigation of True and Fabulous Theology is a deistic treatise, written by eighteenth-century British radical and American revolutionary Thomas Paine, that criticizes institutionalized religion and wrote that "the Bible is not entitled to credit as being the word of God"." It does not purport to be a direct quote, it is a direct quote. 38dwkdkw9so0wkd (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC) 38dwkdkw9so0wkd (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for coming to the talkpage. I see you're a brand new editor, so please don't be offended or frustrated that your edit was reverted. This is a fairly normal part of the BRD cycle and article improvement. "Properly integrated" was specifically a reference to the addition of the phrase "...and wrote that..." which is , technically, improper grammar. That can be fixed quite easily, and we can add a ref (source) if you provide info about which edition and page number you're quoting from. However, there are 3 other editors involved in this discussion and before making any further changes to the article itself, they need a chance to respond to the discussion and the changes that you've proposed. Especially when an article has reached FA status and is considered one of WP's best, we need to be sure that every single change we make is an actual improvement. It may seem slow and cumbersome, but in the long run it seems to work. Thanks again, and happy editing. Doc Tropics 19:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
The quote is from all editions. I used the links at the bottom of the article. They are unpaginated. My intention was to be able to remove the "weasel words" tag from the introduction of the article. That would be "an actual improvement". I am done here. 38dwkdkw9so0wkd (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help - the weasel tag was unfortunately misleading. We are actually debating what the first sentence should say. I am hesitant to include a quotation, as that might not represent a summary of the work as a whole and is generally a bit wordy for the first sentence of an article. What do other people think? Awadewit (talk) 20:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
"Weasel words" is not misleading. "Biblical inerrancy" is misleading. Tags should not be removed just because you don't agree with them. They need to stay until the issues are resolved.Carlaude:Talk 20:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I apologize, Carl, because I truly don't find the "Biblical inerrancy" description as "misleading", nor do I understand why anyone would consider it "weasel words". I assume we've all read WP:AWW, and I just can't find a relationship between that style guideline and the accused description. What do you see that I don't?
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  20:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
But the issue is not one over weasel wording (there is no wording that fails to attribute the source such as "some people say that", etc.) - the issue is over what to cover in the first sentence of the lead. Mistagging the sentence leads to confusion on the part of other editors who want to help out. You are misidentifying the issue at stake. Awadewit (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
In short, I still prefer the current text and don't see a significant issue with its phrasing. I appreciate 38dwk's effort to "resolve this impasse", but I'm not sure that really is an impasse, just a minor (and presumably temporary) disagreement over a a single phrase. To me, the phrase Biblical inerrancy still seems the most cogent summary available. Doc Tropics 20:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Short quotes like the one editor 38dwk... suggests would be okay if we all agree that it helps to summarize the book. It might go well at some point in the second paragraph. It would definitely need to be sourced with a particular edition and page number.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  20:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Awadewit, to me this seems like a desire to use the lable "inerrancy" because it is a buzzword, not because it really applies or is understood. See my comments below. How would it be about "what to cover"? What else could the first sentence cover? Carlaude:Talk 23:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
This is hardly a buzzword - it is simply a very precise formulation and has been used by others (see Jayen's sources below, for example). Awadewit (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I wrote detailed complaints on the two soures (neither of which began as a book) last night... and they seem to evperated in cyberspace. I will have to recreate them when I have a chance. Carlaude:Talk 16:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
If you think it is a "precise" term why aren't you willing to use it with any precision?
Let me put it this way... to most (or all?) Christians, you couldn't just show the Bible to be not inerrant to show it is not from God. Most Christians (then and now) are willing to beileve the Bible is from God, even if it-- or the copy of it we have now-- has a few minor errors and thus isn't inerrant. Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason sets out to show that the Bible is not from God by proving a harder case... that the Bible is not even reliable! Why would you want to claim that The Age of Reason criticizes the Bible for having (in essence) at least one error? when you could say, as Smylie did, "The Age of Reason... criticizes institutionalized religion and challenged the Bible for its inconsistency and historical inaccuracy."? Carlaude:Talk 16:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I left this article alone for a bit after the Michael Moore discussion, hoping to allow Awadewit a bit of breathing-space, but I feel compelled to retun to the fray. I note that some of my unfinished business on the talk page has been rather prematurely archived, but that allows me to make those points anew.
The opening sentence of the article says the book "criticizes institutionalized religion and challenges the inerrancy of the Bible". The truth is that it declares the Bible to be immoral nonsense. I think it fair to call the current statement so much of an understatement as to be an untruth. One of the archived contributions, from Scottindallas was
I haven't read "the Age of Reason" though I am very interested in Deism, ... This article has not raised my interest in this book ...
I find that last sentence a devastating but comprehensible criticism. From the first sentence on, Paine's message is watered down, diverted onto side-issues and made to seem boring. It's an exciting book which makes a penetrating attack on the Bible, both on its credibility and its morality, but you'd hardly realise that. I'd hate to think that this misrepresetnation was deliberate, but it certainly would suit some people's agenda. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the dullness of the article is the result of the use of so much jargon: the "fabulous mythology" of the Bible is reduced to Biblical inerrancy. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Are encyclopedias supposed to describe such books with "colorful" and "exciting" descriptors? Or should such books be described using cool, reliably sourced and unbiased facts? Just because one reader did not find himself instantly propelled to read the book is no reason to deviate from a tried and true format and wording.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  18:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know, as I had no desire to read The Age of Reason until I saw SamuelTheGhost's comment above, as I assumed it was a dry doctrine on deism "that criticizes institutionalized religion and challenges the inerrancy of the Bible". That inspired me to check out what actually Paine wrote, and found it wonderfully straightforward. If you say stuffy academic wording is encyclopedic (why use common language when you can use jargon instead), then you are right. I guess encyclopedias should be boring. (What about Judism? It does not have the same take on the Bible that Christians do, yet in this article appears to subsume Jews under Christians, although Paine mentions Judism specifically.) —Mattisse (Talk) 20:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, yes, the encyclopedic tone is supposed to be rather dry - it is supposed to be neutral. It is not supposed to be anything like Paine's tone. I included several large quotes from Paine's work, however, to help the reader understand what Paine's style is like. There is also an entire "Rhetoric and style" section which explains Paine's style. If one reads the entire article, one will get a sense of what Paine's book is like. Awadewit (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I see. If we say that "inerrancy" sounds boring and remote, that is another thing. I had looked for some more sources using "inerrant":
"Deists ... Thomas Paine ... Age of Reason ... They rejected the idea that scripture could be an inerrant source of truth"
"a scathing condemnation of literal and inerrant interpretations of the Bible"
Thomas Paine in The Age of Reason (1794/95) wrote from the perspective of a deist and was scathing about the Bible calling it a book of 'lies, wickedness and blasphemy.' He was critical of the miracles, the virgin birth and the resurrection - seeing them as all impossible and against reason. This approach is relevant to those Christians who take the opposite view, calling every word of the Bible true - an approach known as the inerrancy of the Bible.
Reading the last one of these, I have to admit that calling the Bible a book of "lies, wickedness and blasphemy" sounds a bit more arresting than a discussion of its inerrancy. ;) --JN466 21:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps something like "... and launched a scathing attack on the Bible" would get the point across. JN466 21:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
But this would be viewed as POV. Note that someone came by during the TFA day and changed "claim" to "say", explaining that "claim" was too POV. In articles about religious topics, every word has to be chosen carefully. A phrase like that will certainly be viewed as POV. Awadewit (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I take your point (although I feel one would be hard-pressed to argue that "lies, wickedness and blasphemy" was not scathing). If we want to avoid words like "scathing" as something that could be interpreted as a POV assessment of Paine's writing, we have the option of quoting him directly, letting him speak for himself. I believe it wouldn't be undue weight to quote that. His "lies, wickedness and blasphemy" statement is quoted in well over 100 books, including scholarly works (examples: [1], [2], [3]). It is a famous quote from the book. JN466 16:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I think letting Paine speak for himself is a good idea, as it avoids the POV problem. I'm a bit confused at this point - do you think we should put this quote in the lead? Awadewit (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it would fit there; what do you think? I think I have been convinced though that Paine did more than "challenge the inerrancy" of the Bible; he attacked the Bible. So if we can find a way of strengthening the "inerrancy" statement in the lede, this might help us convey better how confrontational Paine was. The quote I think might be worth including in the body of the article as an illustration of his attacking style. --JN466 17:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
What do you think about the "Irreverent tone" section? Awadewit (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
It's a possibility, though I would prefer to leave that section to the discussion of humour and ridicule. But we are already discussing the "wickedness" theme unter "Paine's analysis of the Bible"; so here an attempt to incorporate this material there:

Paine's analysis of the Bible
After establishing that he would refrain from using extra-Biblical sources to inform his criticism, but would instead apply the Bible's own words against itself, Paine questions the sacredness of the Bible, analyzing it as one would any other book. For example, in his analysis of the Book of Proverbs he argues that its sayings are "inferior in keenness to the proverbs of the Spaniards, and not more wise and economical than those of the American Franklin".[1] Describing the Bible as "fabulous mythology", Paine questions whether or not it was revealed to its writers and doubts that the original writers can ever be known (he dismisses the idea that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, for example). Using methods that would not become common in Biblical scholarship until the nineteenth century, Paine tested the Bible for internal consistency and questioned its historical accuracy, concluding that it was not divinely inspired.
Paine also argues that the Old Testament must be false because it depicts a tyrannical God. The "history of wickedness" pervading the Old Testament convinced Paine that it was simply another set of human-authored myths.[2] He deplores people's credulity: "Brought up in habits of superstition," he wrote, people "in general know not how much wickedness there is in this pretended word of God." Citing Numbers 31:13–47 as an example, in which Moses orders the slaughter of thousands of boys and women, and sanctions the rape of thousands of girls, at God's behest,[3] Paine calls the Bible a "book of lies, wickedness, and blasphemy; for what can be greater blasphemy than to ascribe the wickedness of man to the orders of the Almighty!"

Please note that I have taken out the reference to the New Testament at the beginning of the second paragraph above. When Paine says "Bible", he often means the Old Testament (cf. e.g. p. 25: Thus much for the Bible; I now go on to the book called the New Testament.) I wasn't able to find references to the presentation of a cruel or tyrannical God in the NT in Paine's book, hence the deletion. The above proposal also dispenses with the concluding sentence we currently have in this section; if it were deemed important, I guess it could go into the Reception section. JN466 12:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I support Jayen466's paragraph above. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I've tweaked it slightly. JN466 15:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I like it too. The emphasis on the Old Testament and the examples and bit quotes help immensely to convey the tone of Paine's work. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I've copied the proposal and editors' responses so far to the bottom of the page, where they are a bit easier to find. Please let's continue the discussion down there rather than up here. Thanks, JN466 16:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll say! Plus giving examples, sure helps: "He was critical of the miracles, the virgin birth and the resurrection - seeing them as all impossible and against reason." Show rather than try to describe with words like "inerrancy", a "doctrinal position". Is Paine's article meant to be a "doctrinal position" or treatise? He says it is "my thoughts upon religion". And that is what it reads like:
"When I am told that the Koran was written in Heaven, and brought to Mahomet by an angel, the account comes to near the same kind of hearsay evidence and second hand authority as the former. I did not see the angel myself, and therefore I have a right not to believe it."
Wow, it sounds like he wanted the common person to read it! The whole thing is written in common, straight forward language. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
And that is what the lead says: "Most of Paine's arguments had long been available to the educated elite, but by presenting them in an engaging and irreverent style, he made deism appealing and accessible to a mass audience." - We cannot put these examples into the lead, but there are examples later in the article. Awadewit (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
An article that makes an undull read sound dull isn't better or more accurate. Go ahead and quote Paine's use of jargon rather than theological terms foreign to his day and not understood today. (Of course if you still think you need to avoid jargon, then you can just say he "criticizes the Bible for having at least some error.") Carlaude:Talk 20:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Seems like Paine did not use jargon in The Age of Reason, but this article on his work does, perhaps to made it "encyclopaedic", as stated above. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
It's not easy to get the balance right. In WP, we often have the opposite problem, articles using inappropriately loose language. It is quite a refreshing change to have a WP article accused of having been written with too much restraint! As a way forward, perhaps there might be merit in looking at ways we could "spice up" the lede first of all – v-e-r-y gently, without falling prey to the temptation of moving to the opposite extreme. --JN466 23:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The article would have to be rewritten to rid it of the very establishment cast. The phrase "the educated elite" - I guess there was educated group that were not elite and had the arguments available. Why is revival linked to Revival meeting, when Paine makes it clear he is taking on all established religions? —Mattisse (Talk) 00:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
There were deistic revival meetings. Paine even helped start a church himself, the Church of Theophilanthropy. He was not a terribly consistent writer. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "establishment cast" of the writing. The writing is professional and encyclopedic. Awadewit (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
"Rewritten"? As my Uncle Joe used to say, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" My gosh, Mattisse, first you argue to delete one of the items that gave the article some "panache", and now that it's gone, you cite the article for being too "establishment cast". I truly do not understand how you can want it both ways.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  17:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Accusations of inconsistency often reflect a misunderstanding or distortion of the ideas of the person criticised, and that's what I see in this case. Paine did indeed help to start the church of Theophilanthropy. The text of the article uses the word "revival", in its ordinary sense, then arbitrarily links it to something very different. The meetings of the church of Theophilanthropy were quite unlike Revival meetings, both in form and in content, since revival meetings are explicitly Christian and biblical in focus. I think the link dishonest and I'm glad Mattisse pointed it out. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not accusing Paine of anything. I am simply stating what scholars have said about Paine - they also emphasize his inconsistency. According to Paine scholars, Paine sacrificed internal consistency for rhetorical effect. Harry Hayden Clark's essay "Thomas Paine's Theories of Rhetoric" is a good place to start to explore this idea. Moving on to the link. The article uses the appropriate link - revivals are not always Christian and the scholarship on Paine refers to the "Deistic revival" that occurred because of this book. Here is a quote from Walters' Rational Infidels that supports the link: "Elihu Palmer, a blind renegade minister, is largely responsible for moving deism from academic enclaves to the popular forum. Beginning in the early 1790s, Palmer launched a nationwide crusade for deism which, ironically, had all the rhetorical fervor of an old-fashioned religious revival. He stumped the Eastern seaboard from Maine to Georgia, touting the religion of nature and harshly condemning Christian doctrine and ethics. In addition, he founded deistical societies in state after state to continue spreading the word in his absence, and edited two deistical newspapers, each of which enjoyed wide circulation." (10) Awadewit (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Did you read the link that you sent the reader on with Revival meeting?
"A revival meeting is a series of Christian religious services held in order to inspire active members of a religious body and to gain new converts. These meetings are often conducted by members of American Protestant churches and those educated or influenced by them; missionary works of such churches often conduct revivals in Africa and India."
Please at least be responsible for what you give the reader when wikilinking. Further, your quote of Harry Hayden Clark's essay puts Paine's ideas in a dismissive light by describing Elihu Palmer's behaviour (and by analogy Paine) as he "stumped the Eastern seaboard from Maine to Georgia, touting the religion of nature and harshly condemning Christian doctrine and ethics." That is not the flavor Paine conveys in his work, and that is not describing Paine's behavior. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Awadewit quotes Walters' Rational Infidels as saying " (Elihu) Palmer launched a nationwide crusade for deism". The casual use of the word "crusade" is a real give-away, since the text of Elihu Palmer's Principles of Nature contains repeated denunciation of the actual crusades. For Walters to use the word in that way shows his total lack of sympathy for his subject. This is the nub of the matter; Awadewit's "Paine scholars" are all too often people who are trying to belittle and distort Paines's work. The question is, can we then treat them as WP:reliable sources? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we can. These are the scholars who have published on Paine. These are the most reliable sources. It doesn't matter if you dislike their views, that is the material published by scholars. Awadewit (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • These are the scholars who have published on Paine.
    • What, only these? You have selected those you are familiar with and think appropriate. Somebody else could have used different scholars, with a completely different message
  • These are the most reliable sources.
    • Just putting them in italics isn't enough to make them so
  • It doesn't matter if you dislike their views
    • It's not a question of my dislike of them, it's a question of their dislike of Paine. The point is, as you must be aware, there is a large and influential constituency in the USA who believe in the USA and in the Bible. They are therefore made uncomfortable by the fact that the founding fathers of the USA often had attitudes to the Bible ranging from lukewarm to hostile. There is therefore a market, within and outside academia, for narratives which resolve this, either by downplaying the importance of the person or by downplaying their anti-Bible views. In Paine's case my impression is that it has tended to shift from the first of these to the second. For wikipedia we are bound by both WP:RS and WP:NPOV, but there is scope for argument as to how to interpret these in practice. I think we should start with WP:NPOV, and use our sources to support that. One of the easiest ways in which we could move in that direction for the current article is to have more fact, less interpretation. More on the content of the book itself, often using direct quotations, and proportionately less on the context.
SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Although there are cases where I think the words are wrong, it's more a matter of balance, in the ways I've just outlined above. Content is drowned in context. But real life is getting in my way just now, so it may be a day or two before I have time to answer at greater length. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

<edit conflict> (I agree with SamuelTheGhost)

Agree. I think this type of misunderstanding of his work pervades the article, plus the undue concentration onChristianity and Biblical inerrancy to caste ""my thoughts upon religion". It is misleading. And in the lede it is doubly bad.
Paine says, "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church."
Thus revival meetings is a complete misunderstand. And the unnecessarily dry, redundant wording like "educated elite". Not all Wikipedia aticles are academeically dull and dry, even when they are on difficult topics. I bet the Encyclopedia Brittanica does not use "educated elite" and "Biblical inerrancy". And Paine avoided terms of religious jargon like "central dogma" for Theophilanthropy. Ironically, this article on his work is written in just the style he was trying to avoid. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing misleading in the article. The article accurately conveys what has been published by Paine scholars and I have provided quotes to demonstrate that. You can disagree with the scholars all you want, but that is irrelevant for this article. Moreover, this article is written in a professional, encyclopedic tone. Wikipedia policy dictates that. This article should not be written in the same tone as The Age of Reason. Awadewit (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with SamuelTheGhost above. The wording is misleading in places and gives the article an inaccurate slant. And it is also very much a a matter of balance. A "professional, encyclopedic tone" does not have to be dry and full of jargon. You don't need Michael Moore blurbs to "add more wit and verve". How about some Thomas Paine blurbs? And I suggest the removal of the religious cant that Paine avoided and that are wikilinked to misleading, poorly written articles. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Please list what is inaccurate - please show this by comparing to the sources. Also, please note that there are extensive quotes from Thomas Paine in the article already. There is no "religious cant" - there is only precise language. If you want to rewrite part of this article, please do so in a sandbox and let us see the new version rather than continuing on with these vague complaints. We really aren't getting anywhere here. Awadewit (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Tangential Michael Moore discussion
I know your heart's in the right place, Mattisse; however, the caution here is "improving" the article right, smack out of Featured Article status. What is in the article works. Moore "should have" been preserved, but that may or may not be an improvement. I still doubt that Moore's removal was an improvement, especially in light of all this present commentary. The article needs Moore, or a Moore-like substitute. It needs precious little else.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  18:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The Moore issue has been resolved, so let's leave that. Awadewit (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad you see it as resolved, Awadewit. And I shall leave it, as you wish. I'm sure you do see the irony in all this discourse, correct? First, several editors claim that a controversial, colorful figure should be removed, now some of those same editors claim the article isn't colorful enough. If we're not careful, we're going to "improve" the article right out of FA status.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  19:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I find it interesting that some of the very editors who strongly allied against the inclusion of the two Michael Moore blurbs, valid claims that actually added some excitement and energy to this article, now seem to be condemning the article for being too staid or bland. If you want to add more wit and verve to The Age of Reason article, then all you need to do is restore the Moore blurbs. I shall gladly do it for you if you like.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  17:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Please see Michael Moore for the consensus opinions given that it would be original research and therefore inappropriate to include Michawl Moore in this article. To make a dull article more interesting is not a reason to violate a thoughtful consensus. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Please see my answer just above to Awadewit. If you'll recall, I was a part of that discussion as a "previously uninvolved" editor. I only caught the "tail end" of it, I realize; however, there was no true consensus reached. There was merely a "majority", not a true consensus. As of this moment, the Moore issue is considered to be resolved by its most avid advocate. So further discussion about it is moot.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  20:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
You remind me of an old riddle:
Keep on flogging, it doesn't mind, it's dead. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I have never seen before a page with such the ablity to go on and on and yet do nothing. Carlaude:Talk 23:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes to article

If you would like to make a change to the article, please propose it here and support it with a reliable source. Let's organize the above conversation. Awadewit (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Like this? Carlaude:Talk 23:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ Paine, The Age of Reason (1974), 60–61; see also Davidson and Scheick, 49 and Fruchtman, 3–4; 28–9.
  2. ^ Smylie, 207–209; Claeys, 181–82; Davidson and Scheick, 64–65; 72–73.
  3. ^ Numbers 31:13–47
  4. ^ Smylie, 207–209: "Paine tested the Bible for internal consistency and questioned its historical accuracy, concluding that it was not divinely inspired"

How about this slightly different wording: Awadewit (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


This makes him sound like a typical modern liberal Christian. He called the Bible "lies, wickedness and blasphemy". to describe that as saying he "challenges the internal consistency and historical accuracy of the Bible" isn't using encyclopedic language; it's lies and wickedness on your part. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Please avoid personal attacks - thank you. Please note that I am trying to achieve a consensus with Carlaude here - this is only a slight revision of what s/he proposed and uses encyclopedic language. We do not use inflammatory language like Paine did. Awadewit (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I do think it makes him sound like a modern liberal Christian. And he was challenging the historical accuracy of more than the Bible. He questioned the historical accuracy of all religious texts. The focus on Christianity reduces his focus from religious doctrine in general, in my opinion. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Please propose an alternative opening sentence. Awadewit (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I didn't mean to offend you, and I apologise if I did. If you reach agreement on these lines with Carlaude, however, that will not constitute a "consensus" of editors on this page, since at least two of us dissent from it strongly. An alternative might be something like:
I'm sure this can be improved upon, but I think it's a better balance. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Bible's reliability

While the one-sentence summary of the book may not cover all of what Paine was doing, my point is that inerrency has a very particular meaning and it isn't at the heart of what he was doing. But I can see a need for something less vague then "the then current understanding of the Bible."

I would propose: (with Biblical inspiration as the link article]])

Notes

  1. ^ Smylie, 207–209: "Paine tested the Bible for internal consistency and questioned its historical accuracy, concluding that it was not divinely inspired"
1) What is your definition of Biblical inerrancy? Do you think the Wikipedia article has a good definition at the beginning, for example? "Biblical inerrancy is the doctrinal position that, in its original form, the Bible is totally without error, and free from all contradiction". Awadewit (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
2) We need to avoid putting content in the footnotes. The phrase "tested the Bible for internal consistency and tested its historical accuracy" can be represented through the clause about Biblical inerrancy, in my opinion. Awadewit (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
3) I don't have a problem trying to work "divinely inspired" into the sentence somehow, but I think we need to be very careful how we link it - "Bible's reliability" is broader than "Biblical inspiration". It is another "easter egg" link. Awadewit (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


  • Comment: Works for me. This integrates the two related concepts well.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  21:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that is an improvement. JN466 21:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
1) It seems to be a good summary of Biblical inerrancy, but not a good definition... but it doen't matter what I think or you think, only what sources think.
3) I don't care if you link to "divinely inspired" or not. It is just (part of) what Paine is challenging, in my opinion and Smylie's.
2) This is not "putting content" in the footnotes... this is citing content with footnotes... But if you want more content try this: Carlaude:Talk 23:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
If I gave a speech a town meeting or something on the in which I in one persons summary "tested the Wikipedia for internal consistency and tested its historical accuracy" and then a newspaper summerized my speech as "challenged the inerrancy of Wikipedia" would this make any sense? or would Wikipedians call fowl? The purpose in including the pharse on "Biblical inerrancy" seems only that it is a buzzword, whereas "Wikipedia inerrancy" is not an buzzword. What other difference is there?
"Biblical inerrancy," "Biblical inspiration," and/or "Divine inspiration" are all theological terms with particular meanings that are standard topics and chapter names in texts on systematic theology. Smylie, writing when he did, could have chosen any of these terms to tell us what Paine was challenging but used the term "Divine inspiration." If you are so sure that Paine also challenged "Biblical inerrancy" please go find a source to support that idea, per WP:V. Carlaude:Talk 23:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Interesting analogy, Carl! It's also interesting to note that Wikipedia is not the Bible. It is not the supposedly Holy Word of a deity. Wikipedia is not taught to Christian-birthed youngsters practically from the time they first learn to read. Nobody puts their left hand on the Wikipedia and their right hand in the air to swear to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". I do hope you can see the difference and how it adversely affects your argument. It is precisely the inerrancy of the Bible that Age of Reason attacks.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  01:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Here is one such source (published 1900), using the word "inerrancy":
  • [4] ("'Age of Reason', in which were presented all the stock arguments against the inerrancy of the scriptures")
Here is another (published 2007):
  • [5] ("'Age of Reason', a cutting attack on established religion and the inerrancy of the Bible")
Does this address your concern? --JN466 23:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Age of unreason

Should Age of Unreason be mentioned? --Error (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting! I want to read those books! As for including them in the article, do you know of any secondary sources that connect the Age of Reason to the Age of Unreason, say, for example, book reviews? Awadewit (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The link may work well in the See also section? (If there was a See also section. <g>)
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  19:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Heh heh, I actually like that idea. It didn't quite seem like "Unreason" was appropriate for the body of the article, but a mention in "See Also" seems like the perfect way to include a link to it. Barring any strong disagreement I'd encourage you to add that. Doc Tropics 19:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, a glance at WP:SEEALSO tells us that "generally" such a section would include only links that are not found anywhere in the body of the article. So it would depend upon whether or not editors agree to include the link in the body of the article with brief explanation.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  20:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I am a bit wary of linking it. Might we not end up linking lots of books that allude to the Age of Reason in this way? Shouldn't we have a bit of a higher threshold for linking? Awadewit (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
It's entirely possible (even probable) that my interpretation is wrong, but I had the impression that "See Also" sections were for exactly this type of situation: article links which are too tangentially related to be incorporated into the main body of text, but which are nonetheless closely-related enough to be of interest to the article's readers. Given this understanding, I would support the placement of the link in a "See Also" section, but not in the text. If my understanding is flawed then I'll certainly reconsider  : ) Doc Tropics 21:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm just worried that the section will mushroom out of control. There are actually a lot of books that play on Paine's title. What criteria should we use for linking to them? Awadewit (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Not to worry. Google search of "Age of" returns only 141 million hits. <g>
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  21:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

That seems to answer our question then: with fewer than 150 million possible links, concerns about the section mushrooming out of control are clearly unfounded. If it had been more than 150 million I would have worried....

OK, seriously now, Awadewit your concern is totally legitimate and should certainly be addressed before any changes are made, I just couldn't resist a bit of tomfoolery. My first thought is that we might establish some kind of litmus test for inclusion based on how closely the "intent" of the proposed linked article matches Paine's intent in Age of Reason. I'm not suggesting that "intent" is the best or only criteria, just a possible useful starting point for consideration. Doc Tropics 22:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the best criteria. Many writers play on the title for effect, but are not writing within the same ideological bent as Paine - why are we leaving them out? Also, there is the intentional fallacy to consider - I don't want to be the one deciding what anyone's intent was - do you? This is why I would want to stick with the sources. If the sources justify including it in the article, I say we do that, otherwise I'm not sure it is worth the trouble. Awadewit (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-25/The Age of Reason

I have proposed that WP:MEDCAB help us out here. Awadewit (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed revision of the section on Paine's analysis of the Bible

This proposal was buried in a thread high up on this page, so I've placed a copy down here, to facilitate discussion. I've copied editor responses posted so far along with the proposed text:

Paine's analysis of the Bible
After establishing that he would refrain from using extra-Biblical sources to inform his criticism, but would instead apply the Bible's own words against itself, Paine questions the sacredness of the Bible, analyzing it as one would any other book. For example, in his analysis of the Book of Proverbs he argues that its sayings are "inferior in keenness to the proverbs of the Spaniards, and not more wise and economical than those of the American Franklin".[2] Describing the Bible as "fabulous mythology", Paine questions whether or not it was revealed to its writers and doubts that the original writers can ever be known (he dismisses the idea that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, for example). Using methods that would not become common in Biblical scholarship until the nineteenth century, Paine tested the Bible for internal consistency and questioned its historical accuracy, concluding that it was not divinely inspired.
Paine also argues that the Old Testament must be false because it depicts a tyrannical God. The "history of wickedness" pervading the Old Testament convinced Paine that it was simply another set of human-authored myths.[3] He deplores people's credulity: "Brought up in habits of superstition," he wrote, people "in general know not how much wickedness there is in this pretended word of God." Citing Numbers 31:13–47 as an example, in which Moses orders the slaughter of thousands of boys and women, and sanctions the rape of thousands of girls, at God's behest,[4] Paine calls the Bible a "book of lies, wickedness, and blasphemy; for what can be greater blasphemy than to ascribe the wickedness of man to the orders of the Almighty!"

Please note that I have taken out the reference to the New Testament at the beginning of the second paragraph above. When Paine says "Bible", he often means the Old Testament (cf. e.g. p. 25: Thus much for the Bible; I now go on to the book called the New Testament.) I wasn't able to find references to the presentation of a cruel or tyrannical God in the NT in Paine's book, hence the deletion. The above proposal also dispenses with the concluding sentence we currently have in this section; if it were deemed important, I guess it could go into the Reception section. JN466 12:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I support Jayen466's paragraph above. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I've tweaked it slightly. JN466 15:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • This is fine with me, but I do think we should add the sentence back on "Paine’s arguments against the Bible often undercut his own earlier works, which rely to a large extent on appeals to Scripture; but as Paine scholar David Wilson writes, "Paine often sacrificed logical coherence to immediate polemical advantage." - This is an idea that is repeated in Paine scholarship and should be emphasized - Paine is a polemical writer, not a careful arguer. What is important about this statement is that it is sourced to secondary sources. Awadewit (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not keen in adding that sentence back at all, and particularly not in that form. Allegations of Paine's inconsistency should be given only as opinions attributed to his critics, not as facts. So the David Wilson quote could be acceptable as it stands, but the previous part also needs stating as someone's view. Since this criticism has been made, it is right that it should be included somewhere, but I see no reason why it should be emphasized. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Wilson is not a critic - he is a scholar. We can certainly attribute the sentence to him in the text, if you want. I should point, however, that Wilson is far from the only scholar who makes this point. If you want, I can add multiple refs to this point. Would you prefer I do that? The reason it should be emphasized is because it is emphasized in the scholarship on Paine, by the way. Awadewit (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you're asking me to believe that "scholars" don't grind axes. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I am asking you to abide by WP:RS - we use scholarship to construct articles. Moreover, you have provided no evidence that this particular scholar is "grinding axes". Awadewit (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Paine is a controversial character who expressed strong views about subjects where we all have opinions. I don't think anyone can approach him in a completely neutral way, except perhaps people who really don't care about those subjects, and they are not likely to choose him as a subject for their scholarship. I therefore regard all Paine scholars as biased one way or the other, and I've already explained earlier on this page why particular biases should go down well in the modern USA. By and large we can treat Paine scholars as reliable sources on strictly factual matters, like most details of his biography or the text of what he wrote, but when it comes to interpretation they will often find what they choose to look for. Respecting WP:RS as far as we can, therefore, but bringing WP:NPOV into play, we can reproduce their judgements with attribution, but not accept them as facts. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a banal statement - all scholarship about every topic has a bias of some sort (and I would like to note that you have provided no evidence of the particular accusations you have made - you have not analyzed their works in any detail or shown published criticisms of them). Wikipedia presents what has been published on a topic, showing the different sides in proportion to their inclusion in reliable sources. I have asked you before, what views have not been included in this article? Awadewit (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with SamuelTheGhost, although you choose to call his statement "banal". Whole generations of "scholars" can have a particular slant regarding the subject. "Scholars" are not immune to opinions. They often do have "axes to grind"—by belonging to various schools of thought, for example. Members of a "school" will have similar opinions. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
There are, of course, scholarly schools, but, as of yet, no one here has explained what the schools of Paine scholarship are or how we need to take them into account. Rather than these broad statements about scholarship, which don't really help us figure out what to put in the article, could those of you who feel that are schools of Paine scholarship please list what they are and how we should balance them. That will help us move forward here. Awadewit (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
It might be more constructive to get back to where this started. All I said is that interpretations of Paine's writings need to be attributed to the person who made them. I don't think you've actually contradicted that.
Anyway I've got to close now, so I'll let Mattisse carry on the discussion. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Does this proposal have to go through mediation, or is there sufficient consensus for implementing it? Awadewit, what do you think? JN466 19:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm okay with it for the most part, Jayen. I do note that your final sentence, with a quote, is not sourced. It replaced the previous concluding sentence that was sourced. Rather than take out the Wilson sentence, why not restore it and use your final sentence as a typical example?
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  21:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you referring to the quote from Paine? —Mattisse (Talk) 22:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Paine was (kind of) self-contradictory there because in earlier years he himself had argued that God had placed base instincts into man. JN466 23:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Which is precisely what was brought out in the sentence you removed, isn't it? And this is why I suggest that the sourced claims in the Wilson sentence be restored and your final sentence be used as an example.
      •  —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  02:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Yes, that is precisely it. But the commentary is kind of biased, isn't it? There is a difference between
          • (1) arguing, as I suppose Paine had in earlier years, that God had created man imperfectly, with base instincts that lead people to commit crimes of passion, and
          • (2) committing rape and murder and then saying, It was God's will that those people should be killed, and those girls should become possessions of our men, who have slaughtered their brothers, fathers and mothers.
        • That is one reason why I would rather have that critique in the reception section. The other reason, already stated earlier, is that this section is expressly billed to the reader as Paine's analysis of the Bible, rather than Paine's critics' analysis of Paine. JN466 00:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's the quote in the concluding sentence. And I see that the quote has been sourced. Bravo!
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  02:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not keen to present critical appraisal in this section, which purports to describe Paine's analysis of the Bible. I'd rather include it in the Reception section if that's okay, just so we let Paine have his say first. JN466 23:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I've added a reference. JN466 23:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles must be based on secondary sources per WP:V. We can't just choose what quotations we want throughout the article - this will make the article our interpretation of the The Age of Reason. Awadewit (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:V doesn't say that. WP:NOR has
Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source.
This means that we can directly quote from The Age of Reason provided we don't tell the reader what to make of it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but we cannot have the bulk of a section founded on primary sources. Slowly, the presentation of Paine's argument is being presented through primary sources in this section. We are explaining what his argument is rather than letting secondary sources do that. Note the statement "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." - That is essentially what we are doing through implication when we rely so extensively on quotations from The Age of Reason. Awadewit (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
That particular passage is widely quoted in the secondary literature; a secondary source quoting it is cited. As in the secondary source, the statement is quoted without further analysis, allowed to speak for itself. I think that is appropriate. --JN466 00:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi, I picked this case up from the mediation queue a bit ago. I apologize it took me a while to get around to this; my brain has been fuzzy. The medcab request is here for anyone who wants to read it. The content issues brought up there are primarily regarding diction, tone, and depth of the article. The bigger concern appears to be talk page structure more than anything: as new sections are created, old ones get ignored but their issues remain, so every new section tends to have some baggage of the one before it.

For now, all I will do is keep some structure here so discussion doesn't get Hopelessly Confused (I am, at any rate). That includes reducing personal attacks and sarcasm, since folks'll can get into loops over those (e.g., "banal", etc.). So, if you'll permit me, I'll do all the major complaining on the part of other parties when it comes to conduct, and let everyone discuss the content so long as discussion A isn't happening at the top of the page, while discussion B is happening at the bottom.

Does this sound alright? Are there any content issues to bring to the table (or up from underneath it)? Xavexgoem (talk) 01:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC) And if there are, can you use bullet points? ;-)

In the request Awedewit naturally defined the issues as she see them. Although diction, tone, and depth of the article are to some extent indeed in dispute, I'd characterise my concerns in terms of balance. That is, balance between the description of the content of the book versus the context of its writing and the age in which it was written (where I'd like a shift to the former), balance between discussion of Paine's critique of the Bible's morality versus his critique of its credibility (ditto; we seem to be in the process of rectifying that somwhat) and balance between a positive versus a negative appraisal of Paine and his book. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
If you could please be extremely specific about what you would like to see added/deleted from the article, that would be most helpful. Perhaps you could even propose sentences and paragraphs, with sources? Awadewit (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Well let's start with this suggestion for the opening sentence, copied down from above:
Since there has been so much debate over how to characterize the work in this opening sentence, I was thinking it would be a good idea to collect a series of sentences from secondary sources and see how the majority summarize Paine. We can all do some research here and that way we can be sure we are representing the work neutrally and not putting forward our own interpretation. What do you think? Awadewit (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy with the idea of making the collection as a means of illuminating our discussion, but seeking for a consensus rather than imposing a "majority" position. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit unclear on what you are saying. Are you suggesting that even if the majority of the sources describe Paine's book in the same way, you would not endorse following the sources? Awadewit (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Please don't look for trouble. Let's just see what they do say. Being "a bit unclear" won't do you any harm at this stage. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Folks, let's not confuse means with ends. It's fine to come up with ideas; it doesn't have to be a majority vote at the end, and I agree that that is a poor idea. But if someone comes up with something that everyone agrees with, then you have a consensus and, for all intents and purposes, a majority rule. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
To be clear, I most emphatically did not propose a "majority" vote about what we should include. What I said was "I was thinking it would be a good idea to collect a series of sentences from secondary sources and see how the majority summarize Paine." - That is referring to what the majority of the sources say, not what a majority of the editors on this page say. This kind of confusion is why I was trying to clarify SamuelTheGhost's response. Awadewit (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps not so much emphasis on what the "majority" of sources say. That is where the problem is. We must take into account "schools" of thought, "scholars" who summarize each other etc. It would be interesting to see the variety of opinions. But the "majority" of "sources" say should not necessarily determine a consensus here. Besides, all "scholars/critics" are not of equal weight. Also, I do not think the opinions will vary so much on Paine. The question is how dry and jargon-filled is it desirable for this article on his work to be. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
And that is why I have asked you to outline what the schools of thought in Paine scholarship are. As someone who has read extensively on Paine's Age of Reason, I have never seen such schools of thought referred to. This is contrast to Austen scholarship, where clear schools of thought, such as "feminist criticism", "postcolonial criticism", etc. are clearly identified. I am curious as to what you feel the schools of Paine scholarship are and who you would identify as the most important Paine scholars. Please explain in detail. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

← Before we go on, I need to ask if this is the most pressing issue. Is there any subject that we can all agree needs dealing with first? Is there anything that is more likely to have a quicker consensus? We can always come back to old stuff. For example, the requester made a note about "biblical inerrancy" versus "challenges internal consistency and historical accuracy of the Bible" in the lede (among other options, I imagine). As much as I loathe one-word disputes, I'm hoping we can reach a quicker consensus on that matter before we dive into the deeper stuff. Does that sound alright to everyone? Xavexgoem (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC) My fear at the moment is that we'll start with topic A and expand to B-Z without ever solving the A bit :-p

This is nicely circular. My proposal for the opening sentence, above, was in response to precisely those "one-word" issues. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad we came full circle ;-) So does the proposed sentence above (boldface) sound appropriate to everyone? Xavexgoem (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
As I said, since there has been some disagreement about the content of that sentence, I would prefer if we went back to the sources and searched out summaries of The Age of Reason and worked from there. Perhaps we could give everybody 3-5 days to do some research? Awadewit (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. We can have a bulleted list by then to get a view of the variety. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
My original alarm was over using the term "biblical inerrancy" in the lede. I think an article on Paine's work should not be filled with religious jargon. I would be happy to address the smaller issues as Xavexgoem suggests. Giving us all a 3 to 5 day research assignment is not realistic. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
It's just a thought. It could be a five minute research assignment for all I care :-p Just as long as we get somewhere :-)
In the meantime, I suggest we focus the discussion on the smaller issues so we have something to agree with, and multitask the other stuff. Sound right? Xavexgoem (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
How long woud it take everyone to find sources? Do we need something more like 2-3 weeks? (Considering almost every issue will require a search through the sources, we should all have sources on hand.) Awadewit (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I recommend just posting them as you get them until everyone feels they've done a satisfactory job. I can set up a structure for that. I don't want to hold anyone to a deadline. Besides, there's danger in drawing this out too far. Gets folks frustrated. Trickling in some evidence of potential results is probably best, imho Xavexgoem (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

On lede

Proposed:

I also don't like calling it a treatise as it is not generally referred to as such, and seem unnecessarily formal. And why use "counterposes" instead of "contrasts"? —Mattisse (Talk) 22:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What's a better option than treatise, do you think? Xavexgoem (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I think "work" would do. Is our goal to make this as formal as possible? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
That works. Probably not the point to make this overly formal, although it is just one word. If this gets contentious, though, I'm going to insist on using sources as a stopgap. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, "work" is very vague - I would prefer to be more precise than that, that is why I had originally chosen "treatise". Any printed text can be a "work" (novel, short story, history, play, etc.) "Treatise" is more specific. Awadewit (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, "treatise" is very precise. Are you saying The Age of Reason is equivalent in depth and treatment to Darwin's On the Origin of Species? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Gotcha. Hadn't thought of it that way ^^; Xavexgoem (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Not all treatises are of equal depth or profundity, clearly, just like all novels. Awadewit (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Clearly, it is not an attempt to be formally comprehensive. Paine was a pamphleteer. It is more of an opinion piece, trading on emotions. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
One of the reasons that I keep suggesting that we look at how the sources describe the work is to see if it is really the case that, for example, "it is not generally referred to" as a treatise. If that is the case, we can use the sources to choose a better word - what do they use? Again, I would plead with everyone to collect some sources and work from there. Tomorrow, I can go to the library and pick up some books and begin this process, but I cannot do so tonight. Awadewit (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Treatise: "a formal and systematic exposition in writing of the principles of a subject, generally longer and more detailed than an essay."[6] From The Age of Reason: "Most of Paine's arguments had long been available to the educated elite, but by presenting them in an engaging and irreverent style, he made deism appealing and accessible to a mass audience." If Age of Reason is considered "formal and systematic exposition" as is On the Origin of Species, then then word "treatise" is fairly meaningless, I think. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
How about "a tract"? Failing that, "a little book"? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The Age of Reason; Being an Investigation of True and Fabulous Theology is a deistic pamphlet, written by eighteenth-century British radical and American revolutionary Thomas Paine, that criticizes institutionalized religion and challenges the legitimacy of the Bible. Published in three parts in 1794, 1795, and 1807, it was a bestseller in America, where it caused a short-lived deistic revival. British audiences, however, fearing increased political radicalism as a result of the French Revolution, received it with more hostility. The Age of Reason presents common deistic arguments; for example, it highlights what Paine perceives as corruption of the Christian Church and criticizes its efforts to acquire political power. Paine advocates reason in the place of revelation, leading him to reject miracles and to view the Bible as an ordinary piece of literature rather than as a divinely inspired text. It promotes natural religion and argues for a creator-God.

Most of Paine's arguments had long been available to the educated elite, but by presenting them in an engaging and irreverent style, he made deism appealing and accessible to popular audience. The book was also inexpensive, putting it within the reach of a large number of buyers. Fearing the spread of what they viewed as potentially revolutionary ideas, the British government prosecuted printers and booksellers who tried to publish and distribute it. Paine's ideas nevertheless inspired and guided many British freethinkers of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and, judging by the works of contemporary writers like Christopher Hitchens, their influence and spirit endures.

  • Foner, Tom Paine and Revolutionary America - refers to AR as a "pamphlet" (245), First paragraph of analysis begins "As in so many of his works, Paine said little that was strikingly new in The Age of Reason. His expression of the deist's faith was eloquent, but hardly original....He condemned existing religious institutions for attempting to 'terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit,' and he insisted that basic tenets of Christianity--revelation, miracles, and divine inspiration of the Bible--were incompatible with reason. For the Bible and revelation he substituted Nature and natural laws as the source of religious knowledge....If part one was generalized and reasonable in disputing the tenets of Christianity, part two was a book-by-book refutation of the Scriptures, in a tone of outrage and ridicule. And, as always, Paine wrote in a manner designed to reach a mass audience...." (246)
  • Dyck, "Introduction", Citizen of the World - summary phrase describing AR: "a frontal assault on the Christian religion and the authenticity of the Bible. The points raised by Paine were ones that scholars had been debating for hundreds of years. But Paine, for the first time, presented these doubts and arguments to the common man, creating a gigantic stir in both England and America." (9)
  • Spater, "European Revolutionary, 1789-1809", Citizen of the World - summary of AR II - "completing his attack on Christianity, along with all other kinds of revealed religion, and defending his own version of Deistic-Humanism. Although it was not one of his more original works, The Age of Reason was to be one of Paine's most influential." (61)
  • Harrison, "Thomas Paine and Millenarian Radicalism", Citizen of the World - description of AR - "He wrote the first part of The Age of Reason to assert 'true' as opposed to 'fabulous' theology, and to warn the French against rushing into atheism. His arguments to prove the existence of God were in the mainstream of natural theology...Paine's great contribution was not that his theology was original, but that he reached out to artisans and labouring people and linked theological with political radicalism." (80-81)
  • Joel H. Wiener, "Collaborators of a Sort", Citizen of the World - AR is referred to as a "theological writing" in opposition to Paine's "political tracts" (107)
  • Claeys, Thomas Paine: Social and political thought - description of AR - "the text...is a frank confession of deism, and especially the contention that God's only revelation lay in nature, not the Bible." (177); AR referred to as a "tract on religious controversy" (193)
  • Wilson and Ricketson, Thomas Paine - start of a summary of AR I - "He professes disbelief in the creeds of all churches...He speaks boldly against institutionalized religion, which was set up, he claims, 'to terrify and enslave mankind', and against priests...In contrast, Paine praises the 'chastity' of the 'mind' and describes true religion as the product of the 'mind of man' communicating with itself....Paine proposes to deal with two matters in part I: 1) a rejection of 'revelation' as interpreted by institutionalized religion as the basis of all true and superior knowledge; and 2) advocacy of a 'new revelation', which is reason. After briefly stating his own Deistic profession of faith, he proceeds to the first of the two issues." (84-85); part II is an analysis of the Scriptures (94)
  • Woll, Thomas Paine: Motives for Rebellion - short description of AR - "violent attack on organized religion, especially on Christianity" (37)
  • Davidson and Scheick, Paine, Scripture, and Authority - opening description of the AR - "The Age of Reason was, by any measure taken in its time, an irreverent book on the subject of religion....The Age of Reason was a sequel to Paine's famous previous writings, especially Rights of Man. For all of his religious pretensions, if serious religious argument in The Age of Reason, Paine intended the work to provide one more testament to human freedom and political justice. The Bible and Christian churches--all religions, finally--were for Paine great agents of superstition, political oppression, and civil injustice....The Age of Reason was, in short, a political treatise with a strong religious design. This religious design was constructed with an eye to subverting the political system dependent on religion, with an eye to liberating humanity from ages of oppressive control by the despotic triumvirate of scripture, church, and state." (17-8)
  • Fruchtman, Thomas Paine - description of AR I - "Paine objected to organized religion, indeed to Christianity itself, and especially to Christianity's distortion of what appeared to Paine as simple, true facts about God and his creation" (325); Paine is referred to as "acid" and "venemous" in his book (326-7); description of AR II - "the main difference between the two was in the detailed, close exegesis of scripture that Paine undertook in the second part, exposing the contradictions and deep-rooted lies that he found in the Bible. Both parts were an extended rebuttal of religion, but in Part Two Paine provided an analysis and running commentary on almost every passage of the Bible. His goal was to reveal the mythologies, falsehoods, and superstitions of both the Old and New Testaments, of Judaism and Christianity, though he reserved his most caustic and uncharitable remarks for the latter." (336)
  • Hawke, Paine - description of AR I - "It was a small book--no more than fifty-five pages in the original English edition--filled with a moral outrage directed mainly at the Old Testament....As usual, Paine said nothing in The Age of Reason that had not been said before...Paine's uniqueness, it has been suggested, 'consists in the freshness with which he comes upon very old discoveries, and the vehemence with which he announces them.'...The elite, a historian remarks, 'saw Paine's latest offense as surpassing all his previous outrages...He ridiculed the authority of the Bible with arguments which the collier or the country girl could understand.'" (293-4); description of AR II - "This time he moved slowly from one Biblical book to the next, pointing to signposts along the way...In the solemn march he pauses occasionally, sometimes for a short sermon, sometimes to toss a taunt at clergymen...then, with 'but to return to my subject,' moves on. No wit or homely metaphors lighten this deadly serious attack, but the judgments are lively." (313)
  • As you can tell from this survey of material, there is no general agreement on what genre Paine's work belongs to - that is why I have left the word undecided (initially I chose "treatise" because that is the word used by the only scholars to have published an entire book on The Age of Reason). I have included the parts of the lead above that deal with the description of the AR so that we can compare it with the sources. I changed "inerrancy" to "legitimacy" in the hopes of resolving that argument. However, I do feel that the current lead does a good job of reflecting how the sources describe the text. If there is disagreement on this point, at least we can now debate the issue with some sources. Awadewit (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Awadewit has provided an interesting and valuable set of quotations above, and indeed we could probably create an excellent article using those secondary sources alone. They are not the only possible sources, however, so it would not be wise to start using any sort of voting procedure amongst them. I cannot rival Awadewit in her familiarity with Paine scholarship, but a fairly quick surf of the internet has allowed me to create the following list of people who, I believe, have commented in writing on The Age of Reason. If we used many of them, the balance of opinion might come out differently on several points. The list is:

I appreciate that not all of these count as "scholars", but quite a few of them do. Apart from their testimony about the book, many of them might be seen as interesting for the "legacy" section. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note that some of them are already in the legacy section. We obviously cannot list everyone who has commented on this book. Currently, the "Legacy" section lists those people whom historians and literary critics have deemed important. Awadewit (talk) 02:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you both. The article would indeed be more interesting and reflective if we examined a wide range of opinion. Awadewit's samples already allow us to view such variety in just what the "work" is called (pamphlet, small book, book, work, treatise etc.) and wonderful to see that some did not feel compelled to pigeonhole its "genre". —Mattisse (Talk) 19:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Eric Foner in Tom Paine and revolutionary America calls it a "pamphlet" and a "work". (245, 247). Sorry, I see it is already have it listed. He also says "elite" - so we can get rid of the "educated elite" as redundant. He uses "popular audience" which is more apt, rather than "mass audience" which is a 20th century term that means something else. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Changed "mass audience" to "popular audience" about. I happen to think "educated elite" is important as the sources always specify the elite as being part of salon culture or well-versed in deistic arguments. "Elite" can mean many things - "educated elite" specifies which one. Mattisse, what material from the above writers do you think we should include in the article? Awadewit (talk) 02:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Can we agree to use the sentences for the lead I proposed above? I have chosen "pamphlet" (a word also proposed by Mattisse above) over tract or treatise since there was opposition to treatise. Foner uses this is word in his very accessible Tom Paine and Revolutionary America and he is a well-known Paine scholar. Awadewit (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I see your current proposal as a slight change, but in the right direction. I'm happy for you to put it into the article, without prejudice to anything else I might wish to say, such as, for a start, the following remarks.
  • Re-reading the lead, I'm struck by its excessive number of repetitions of the words deism/deistic. Do a "find" on "deis" and you get 6 hits in the lead; it's too many.
  • "The Age of Reason presents common deistic arguments; for example, it highlights what Paine perceives as corruption of the Christian Church and criticizes its efforts to acquire political power." That's not a "common deistic argument" at all. It's a Protestant argument. That sentence could well be omitted.
  • "in America, where it caused a short-lived deistic revival" is almost exactly repeated by "resulted in only a brief upsurge in deistic thought in America." Once is enough. And the link of "revival" is unnecessary at best, and dubiously honest.
SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Point 1 is done with, anyway. Can someone edit those changes through, bearing in mind BRD? Xavexgoem (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Bearing in mind BRD, because it can be to anyone's benefit to edit in 1 thing that everyone agrees with and 2 things people don't, just so you can see who outright undo's the change ;-)

<edit conflict>

Agree with SamuelTheGhost's take on this matter . Plus I suggest: "The Age of Reason is not atheistic, but deistic: it promotes natural religion and argues for a creator-God." You don't have to say what it is not. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I have cut the atheistic sentence. I can't see a way to cut any more the "deistic" descriptions - to do so would be to lose specificity. However, if either of you have some alternate suggestions, let us hear them. Awadewit (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I have cut the second reference to the American response. Awadewit (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Corruption of the church is indeed a common deistic argument and this is important to Paine's argument. See, for example, Herrick's description of deism in The Radical Rhetoric of the English Deists. Point 5 of his 7-point definition is the "primitive religion and the priestcraft hypothesis". By this deists meant, according to Herrick that "the original, pristine, and universal religion of reason was gradually lost to humanity. Deist hypotheses explaining this loss were varied and often complex. However, most asserted a massive, ancient, and universal conspiracy by “priests” to dupe a naive populace into accepting miracles, rituals, bizarre doctrine, and enslaving superstitions. All of these elements were propagated to ensure the maintenance of priestly power." (Herrick 32); "Clerics are thus responsible for much social ill and individual confusion through their self-interested efforts to create religions that require access to God through secrets, mysteries, miracles, and, of course, priests...." (Herrick 33) Awadewit (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Revival is the word used by many of the sources. I have already provided a quote for that, but I will do so again. Here is a quote from Walters' Rational Infidels that supports the link: "Elihu Palmer, a blind renegade minister, is largely responsible for moving deism from academic enclaves to the popular forum. Beginning in the early 1790s, Palmer launched a nationwide crusade for deism which, ironically, had all the rhetorical fervor of an old-fashioned religious revival. He stumped the Eastern seaboard from Maine to Georgia, touting the religion of nature and harshly condemning Christian doctrine and ethics. In addition, he founded deistical societies in state after state to continue spreading the word in his absence, and edited two deistical newspapers, each of which enjoyed wide circulation." (10) Awadewit (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

← I'll be away for an hour or two, but my suggestion at the moment is to edit stuff into the article that we're agreeing with. Play it by Bold, revert, discuss... don't want to get stuck with discuss, discuss, discuss. More talk page != progress. And if you folks do edit things in, be careful with the undo button... revert portions selectively. This is the best way to determine consensus. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No one is taking exception to the word "revival"; it is the wikilinking it to revival meeting that is the problem and the repetition of concepts. As SamuelTheGhost said: "in America, where it caused a short-lived deistic revival" is almost exactly repeated by "resulted in only a brief upsurge in deistic thought in America." Once is enough. And the link of "revival" is unnecessary at best, and dubiously honest." —Mattisse (Talk) 20:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have already removed the second mention and I provided a quote that justifies the link - the quote describes the desitic revival in terms of a religious revival. Readers would not necessarily know all the connotations of the word without the link, which is entirely justified given the source above. There is nothing dishonest about following sources. Awadewit (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I am perfectly willing to bow out. This has gotten very nasty. (Have you looked at revival meeting? Just curious how seriously you take your job, as we are talking about the lede of an FAC.) Therefore, I am willing to detach. I will unwatch this page. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Extended content

Unreferenced pieces of junk

Per Xavexgoem's advice, I started changing items in the lead I think we agree on. Please let me know if I erred. Awadewit (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • What changes did I make that you disagreed with? The link to revival meeting was already in the article and you have continued to discount the source that I have brought up in response to your concern. I am reverting your change back to what was originally in the article. Note that I only made changes regarding what we had agreed to (see diff) - you, on the other hand, changed what was still under dispute. Awadewit (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • SamuelTheGhost and I both disagree with the link to revival meeting. The article is an unreferenced piece of junk. From doing a google and google scholar search the term appears to have become popular much later than Paine and is ofter associated with American slavery. If you can find a reliable source that links Paine with revival meetings, I will change my mind. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The quote comes from a book - Kerry Walters' Rational Infidels. Far from being "an unreferenced piece of junk", it is an academic book published by the chairman of the philosophy department at Gettysburg College. Note that it says he is "the author or editor of 19 books and over 100 articles in scholarly journals, magazines, and newspapers." Without a doubt this is a reliable source. Awadewit (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Please bear some responsibility for the articles to which you wikilink. Do not wikilink to unreferenced pieces of junk. If you want to wikilink to revival meeting, then fix it up, give it at least one reference. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • This is unreasonable expectation - we do not require all linked articles to be of a particular quality. If you want to improve it, please do. There is no policy saying I am responsible for every article linked to this one. Awadewit (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I could not find reasonable sources that linked Paine to revival meetings, or that linked his pamphlets to revival meetings. I could not conscientiously link to an unreferenced piece of junk. I never do. I alway check wikilinks before I use them. I either don't use them or fix them up. Others have the same standards I do. I am not alone. You have lower standards. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Please stop the personal attacks. I'm glad you improve every article you link to, but I do not have time to do that nor is it required by policy. Finally, I gave you a reliable source that showed the deistic revivals in America were akin to religious revivals. You cannot ignore it (as you are continuing to do). Awadewit (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • If it is below quality and I cannot fix it up, I do not link to it. Other editors have the same standards in FAC; I am not alone. I am sure there are others that have your standards. That is a statement of fact and not a personal attack. I assumed you had the same standards and now I know you do not. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Mattisse, you don't even have these standards, so please cease this line of argumentation (which I have never heard articulated at FAC). I just looked at some of the articles you list on your userpage as articles you created. I have already found links to unreferenced articles, so this is clearly not a standard you hold yourself to, so stop pretending it is in order to get rid of a link you don't personally like. Awadewit (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Awadewit, please do not imply that I am lying. I do have those standards, and when I edit an article for FAC, we discuss this among ourselves. Of course, I edit many science-related articles and I think the standards are higher in those articles. I would not put effort in copy editing an article that had low standards in this regard. Those are my standards. Please do not dispute with me what my standards are. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Mattisse, I looked at the articles you claim to have created and the articles you list you worked on to get to FAC. They link to unreferenced articles. For example, Rashtrakuta Dynasty links to Madhya Pradesh, Kailash Temple, and Ashoka the Great, all of which are in desperate need of citations. Now, I did not click on every link, but I have to say I was surprised to find these after your claim that you don't link to unreferenced articles like these. Now, let's get back to talking about something actually required by policy, which this is not. Awadewit (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Awadewit, your are getting personal. Those were all articles for a certain editor who I refused to continue copy editing for, thereby incurring the wrath of the FAC people, my refusal even being mentioned recently, although those FACs are a couple years old. Further, in past years the standards for referencing were lower (if you remember). I think you should not be commenting on this issue that caused me to have an RFC and go before ArbCom here. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Mattisse, I have no knowledge of the past history of these articles, nor did I participate in the RfC or the ArbCom case, if you remember. I'm simply looking at what you claim here in comparison to the articles you list on your userpage. If you like, I can choose a different article - there are more. The most important point is that on Wikipedia we link to articles whatever state they are in and it is clear that you yourself do this in FAs and in articles you create all on your own. Now, I think we should end this particular line of discussion as you cannot point to any policy that requires me to improve every article that is linked from this one. Awadewit (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Awadewit, this is ridiculous. There is no need to examine my history to prove or disprove my statements about my professed standards. Have you heard of assume good faith? Is your attempt to discredit me going to improve your article? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop the threats of RfC and ArbCom, please. Please stop with the AGF'ing, and the AAGF'ing and the AAAGF'ing. I see no talk of personal editor history here.

I'll be frank: the burden of "unreferenced piece of junk" falls on Mattisse or SamuelTheGhost, since (at least) Mattisse has brought it up. I have never known a dispute to be caused by a wikilink because the article linked to is an unreferenced piece of junk. So's everything, at some point, and this is an ancillary problem, at best.

Now, where do we go from here. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at revival meeting which appears in the lede of an FAC? Do you really think that what something wikilinks to is unimportant? I have seen Tony, the FAC guru, object to such links. I will bow out of this discussion and unwatch the article. Thanks for your help. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I have looked at the article, and indeed it is an unreferenced piece of junk ;-) Linking to it gets writers to change it for the better. I agree that's a weak argument for keeping the link, but in the interest of the wiki I think it's probably best. My opinion doesn't mean much, so anyone please disagree and provide a rationale that will convince people of your side. All that aside, I think there are larger issues to be discussed that are more essential. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The tone of this talk page is starting to get a bit alarming. I really hope SamueltheGhost's comment to Mattisse on her talk page does not reference anyone wanting to murder Awadewit. Perhaps part of this mediation should be time off from the discussion from all sides for a few weeks. --Moni3 (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Frankly, it would be better for me to finish this mediation sooner rather than later. The school semester begins in a few weeks and, honestly, I have family issues requiring my attention. I would like to see this resolved. However, if we are going to take a break, can we at least define a specific timeline? Awadewit (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The Age of Wheezin'

That's what I did through most of my reading of those last discussions. Throughout all of the time I have watched and tried to help improve this article, I have noted that many of us sometimes appear to stray from the beaten path of working together toward the same end: that of improving the Wikipedia. And I also note that this is, at its skindeep level, only an appearance, not a reality. Surely there is some way we as editors can come to grips with this finely written featured article about a notoriously controversial work by an intensely hated (by most of his contemporaries) and just as intensely loved (by those of us who count him among the most patriotic of Americans) poor, skinny English writer. For some of us it's hard to believe that the same man who wrote Common Sense also wrote The Age of Reason, but he did. And it's our "job" to see that any reader of any age who comes to this reference work to learn a little something about this book gets what they came here for. Isn't this the bottom line?
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  01:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts on Process and on Reliable Sources

Three days away and a lot gets said! Some responses:

  • I'm not convinced by Xavexgoem's idea "Play it by Bold, revert, discuss... don't want to get stuck with discuss, discuss, discuss." Discussing things on the talk page is slow and can be annoying, but previous experience here and elsewhere shows that eventually some progress can be made. The alternative to "discuss, discuss, discuss" soon becomes "revert, revert, revert", otherwise known as edit warring. Of course we can make agreed changes incrementally, but we have to be patient and talk things through. I'd like to know Awadewit's view on this specific point.
  • I'm grateful for the attempt at "mediation" but this discussion is going to last for a long time, whether or not the mediation does. I don't think it's correct to set "timelines"; most of us have real lives to live, in between our wikiwork, but none of us can demand that WP waits for us. On the other hand, if, as I suggest, the work is mostly here on the talk page, and there is a general convention of patience when something is said needing a reply, it should be possible for us to make progress without any interested editor's being squeezed out.
  • I'm rather shocked at Awadewit's reintroduction of the citation from Walters' Rational Infidels which I criticised above (23 July), without her taking any notice of what I said there, so I'll have to say it again at greater length. The quotation has "Beginning in the early 1790s, Palmer launched a nationwide crusade for deism which, ironically, had all the rhetorical fervor of an old-fashioned religious revival." Let's just remind ourselves about the crusades. They were fought mainly against Muslims, but campaigns were also waged against pagan Slavs, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians, and political enemies of the popes.[5] The crusades were Christian violence at its worst, with frequent massacres of innocent civilians. Palmer himself knew all this (as did Paine). So when Walters describes Palmer's tours as a "crusade", he is, if you take it at all literally, lying, or even if you argue that he means it in some metaphorical sense, being poisonously insulting. Walters himself, though apparently not wiki-notable, is known as the author of books with titles like "Finding Perfect Joy with St. Francis of Assisi" and "Jacob's Hip: Finding God in an Anxious Age". In short, he is not remotely a dispassionate scholar; he is a not very scrupulous Christian propagandist. As for his "ironically", he might equally have said "which, ironically, had all the enthusiasm of a crowd at a baseball game" and Awadewit could put in that link too. It appears that Walters' speciality is dumping his version of God on historical characters who rejected it. He does something similar in "Benjamin Franklin and His Gods".
  • This raises the question of the reliability of Awadewit's other sources. Very few of them are wiki-notable (only Eric Foner of those mentioned on this page, I think). If Awadewit is willing to lose Walters and argue that the rest are more scholarly, I might be partly convinced. But we're still up against the fact that, basically, we're having to take her word for it that these are the best sources. They're certainly not the only ones, as I've demonstrated above. So blind obedience to those sources is not a reasonable option, and, at least here on the talk page, we have to be willing to consider things on their merits, then cite sources to back our conclusions.
  • On the general point about the link "deistic revival" if we consult Wikipedia:Linking#Piped links and Wikipedia:Piped link it is clear that policy is to avoid using any link where the piped text is other than a disambiguation of the displayed text. That is, quite apart from all our other objections, to conform to link policy we should write for example "deistic revival reminiscent of a Christian revival meeting". But for reasons given above, not that either.

SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ Smylie, 207–209: "Paine tested the Bible for internal consistency and questioned its historical accuracy, concluding that it was not divinely inspired"
  2. ^ Paine, The Age of Reason (1974), 60–61; see also Davidson and Scheick, 49 and Fruchtman, 3–4; 28–9.
  3. ^ Smylie, 207–209; Claeys, 181–82; Davidson and Scheick, 64–65; 72–73.
  4. ^ Numbers 31:13–47
  5. ^ Riley-Smith, Jonathan. The Oxford History of the Crusades Oxford University Press, 1999. ISBN 0192853643.
  • Frankly, my life is so intense right now that I must know if we are taking a break (and, if so, how long) or whether we are continuing. This is basically the only thing I am working on onwiki. If this mediation were not occurring, I would have taken a wikibreak for the next month or so. I am committed to this mediation, but I need to know precisely what is going on. Awadewit (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Neither of us can commit other editors, but if you want to take some time off, I'm not going to edit the article in your absence. The most I might do is prepare some arguments here on this talk page, or have discussions here with such other editors as might show up. The mediation was at your request, so if you want to ask for it to be abandoned or postponed, I won't argue with that. There are still issues I want to pursue, but I'm in no hurry. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Note that I said "I am committed to this mediation". I simply need to know the timeframe so that I can schedule accordingly. Moni3 proposed a two-week break - does that work for you? Awadewit (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • John Kipps, The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, Vol. 52, No. 1 (Jan., 1995), pp. 207-208 - "This important book in the history of American religious philosophy offers clear, intriguing portraits of six deists through a judicious use of out-of-print materials and a thoughtful interpretation of deism's rise and fall."
  • Richard Rankin, Journal of the Early Republic, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Autumn, 1994), pp. 419-420 - "This is a well-organized and well-written piece of scholarship, and the author's grasp of primary sources is deft and convincing. This work will assume its place alongside Henry F. May's The Enlightenment in America (1976) as an essential study of the an important subject."
  • You seem to misunderstand the WP:RS policy - it does not matter if the authors are "wiki-notable" - it matters if they are experts on Paine, The Age of Reason, and related fields. You are welcome to challenge any of the sources here. If you do not believe that I have found the best sources, please list the sources that are better and the material that should be included from them. Awadewit (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I have no problem using the phrase "deistic revival reminiscent of a Christian revival meeting" in the article. I'm not sure how that violates policy - perhaps that could be a compromise? Awadewit (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Not for anything, Awadewit, but I wonder why you associate the revival of deism caused by this book with a Christian revival meeting? Paine did briefly revive deism, but isn't "revival" herein used in a much more general manner? (as in revival?)
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  10:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know anything about this subject, but I'm watching this page and I know about content disputes and writing a featured article. It seems that though it would inconvenience you to engage in this drawn out discussion while you would rather have a life, it helps nothing on this talk page to air your frustration with such hyperbolic statements as what you posted on Mattisse's talk page, Samuel. If you honestly are so enraged that you are considering violence, you need to take a break. If that was colorful and poorly chosen figurative language, that may still warrant a break from what is being discussed.
From my experience writing articles and meeting objections on content on talk pages, it appears to me that Awadewit is doing all the work getting sources and explaining them while none are offered in return that refute what they say. Making matters worse, as always, are the personal issues involved in writing a high quality article such is an FA and reading sharp criticism, particularly when it starts to orbit plainspoken language and reflects satire, sarcasm, and... however you would categorize that murder comment. We're all volunteers here. Anyone who constructs a featured article has put an extraordinary amount of time, effort, and in my case, money, into it.
When I check in on this talk page, arguments seem to be revolving around words and phrases in the lead. These do not appear at face value to be significant issues, entire concepts or sections, yet nothing is getting solved. Time away from it might also shift some perspective. I am most defensive and my indignation escalates when criticism about article content is rapidly countered. When time has passed and I have an opportunity to reflect on issues, I am more inclined to accept other ideas. I would have demanded you provide better sources than what are used in this article weeks ago to give your argument some legitimacy. As I said, Awadewit has been working as hard on this talk page than perhaps what went into the entire article.
There are no deadlines. The article has already appeared on the main page. I suggest two weeks and then return to see how important single words and phrases are. --Moni3 (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Both STG and I have agreed to a two-week break (see above). How does this work for Jayen and Paine Ellsworth? Awadewit (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for askin', Awadewit! In truth, I've been out on other projects most of the time, so there's been little time to do much more than lurk. I did make a comment above that hopefully hints at searching for ways to deal with this article and with editorial differences of opinion that include amicability and harmony. Life's too short for some of the goings on I've read on this Talk page. I do think that Samuel's comment on Matisse's Talk page has been taken out of context by some, for I am hard pressed to believe that his allusion was anything other than steam-letting-off metaphor. This is by no means an easy article to deal with; progress will only be made if all involved are willing to let bygones be water under the bridge. If we cannot do this, then even the tiniest of molehill edits can become insurmountable barriers to article improvement. If a two-week break can facilitate the elimination of antagonism and the commitment of everyone to work together in a spirit of harmony, then let's embrace it. There is always something else to do in the meantime.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  06:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources for this article

In the discussions above there have been several mentions of sources, and discussions, explicit or implicit, as to what WP:RS means in the context of this article. I'd like to pursue that discussion here, so that we can have an agreed basis for development of the article.

  • The primary source is the text of The Age of Reason itself. We need not shrink from direct use of that source. The text is stable and widely available, so there is no problem of verifiability. Paine writes with great clarity, in an English which is only very slightly dated, so it is always plain what his words mean. We need to be true to what he said.
  • Nevertheless, in accordance with Awadewit's correct insistence, wikipedia policy, and common sense, we need to use secondary sources. This is to assist with selection of material, to provide ready-made summaries, and most importantly, to give us the context in which the work was written.
  • The problem is, there are too many secondary sources, hundreds if not thousands. We need to make choices amongst them. We base our selection of the secondary sources partly on who wrote them, but partly on their credibility based on our understanding of the primary source. We look for sources from reputable writers, often working in reputable institutions. This helps to guarantee quality. But are there any significant differences in type? Awadewit wrote:

There are, of course, scholarly schools, but, as of yet, no one here has explained what the schools of Paine scholarship are or how we need to take them into account. Rather than these broad statements about scholarship, which don't really help us figure out what to put in the article, could those of you who feel that are schools of Paine scholarship please list what they are and how we should balance them. That will help us move forward here. Awadewit (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

  • My answer to her question is yes, there are two schools, namely the Christians and the non-Christians. To see that the Christians must be prejudiced against The Age of Reason it suffices only to observe how Paine demolishes the basis of their faith. Any Christian critic must find fundamental fault with the book, or abandon his own faith. The bases of Judaism, Islam and other revealed religions are equally attacked, but as far as I am aware their devotees have simply ignored the book. (I'd be interested to know of any counter-example). It also seems to be the case that non-Christian non-deists, such as atheists and agnostics, have not found the book offensive nor mounted criticism on those grounds, even though Paine explicitly intended an attack on atheism.
  • To exemplify how Christians are in fact prejudiced, let's take the quotation from Kerry Walters' Rational Infidels which Awadewit has twice given us on the talk pages, namely:

Elihu Palmer, a blind renegade minister, is largely responsible for moving deism from academic enclaves to the popular forum. Beginning in the early 1790s, Palmer launched a nationwide crusade for deism which, ironically, had all the rhetorical fervor of an old-fashioned religious revival. He stumped the Eastern seaboard from Maine to Georgia, touting the religion of nature and harshly condemning Christian doctrine and ethics. In addition, he founded deistical societies in state after state to continue spreading the word in his absence, and edited two deistical newspapers, each of which enjoyed wide circulation.

  • We note first that Walters is certainly a Christian. I've already given my critique of his use of the word "crusade", which is at best insensitive. Another obviously tendentious word is "renegade", with its overtones of betrayal, rather than a more neutral word such as "former", whch would have the same meaning.
  • The word "ironically" also shows his lack of understanding or sympathy. Paine and Palmer were deists. This meant that they rejected claims of revelation and the false assertions of priestly and other authority supposedly based on that revelation. They did not reject religion; on the contrary, they wanted to reinvigorate true "natural" religion, and to cultivate the natural religious feeling and ethical standards which they observed to be widespread amongst ordinary honest Christian folk. There was therefore nothing "ironic" about the fervour that Palmer's meetings generated, and to find it ironic is effectively to sneer at what he was doing.
  • I am not suggesting that Christian critics are unusable as sources, but I am suggesting that such soures must be used with care. It should normally be acceptable to cite them in purely factual matters, but their expression of value-judgements need to be qualified by a mention of their Christianity.
  • Looking at the authors used as sources in the article as it now stands, we observe that Kerry S. Walters, James H. Smylie and James A. Herrick are all clearly Christians. Most importantly, since they are used so often, so are the "Paine scholars" (as they are there called) Edward Davidson and William Scheick. The preface to their book makes clear their Christian backgound, and their desire to discuss Paine's ideas not in any way to further them, but on the contrary to explain them away. They are trying to find his "personal pretext", which they base on a totally unfounded claim of conflict with his father.
  • The question arises as to where some better sources are. A simple and brief answer is to look in the bibliography of the Thomas Paine article. There are of course plenty of older sources of appreciation, some of which are given in the legacy section. Of newer works, those by Vincent, Larkin or Keane seem worth investigating for a start.

If we can get some sort of consensus on the issues raised here, we can proceed to review the article bit by bit. I should like to make clear that there are many parts of it which I totally support, and that the changes I would wish to see are in general individually quite minor, though cumulatively creating a change of tone.

One specific but pervasive point I'd like to make now is the over-use of the words deism/deist. In the whole of The Age of Reason these words occur just 16 times. In the current form of the article, very much shorter than the book, these words occur 45 times in the main body, and a further 7 in the notes and bibliography. Quite apart from the stylistic infelicity (a bit of a nervous tic), this gives the impression that deism is something external that Paine and others imposed on their view of reality, rather than just a word which describes how they did see Creation. One clear place where the usage could be reduced is in the references to other 18th century thinkers, who all seem to have been lumped together as "deists" whether they were or not. Hume, for example, I'd call an agnostic (though the word hadn't been invented). But the others could often better be described as "philosophers" or "freethinkers" or "rationalists" which would provide a bit of variety and often be more accurate.

That's my opening agenda. It would be good if those who wish to reply should say so soon, but of course I'm happy to take the discussion slowly. Tom Paine has been dead 200 years, so he won't worry if we take a month or two to get this part of his epitaph right. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

  • There are not thousands of reliable sources published on The Age of Reason - which is good for us. When I was researching this book for my Master's thesis, I was easily able to read just about everything published on the AR - there is actually very little published on it (especially in comparison in Common Sense). It is true that the AR is mentioned in a lot of works, but this is not the same thing. We need to use works that focus on the AR itself. Awadewit (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I share STG's concern with using Christian sources, but I don't agree with his solutions. He is welcome to look into the background of every scholar I have used here. Unfortunately, we don't know the religious faith of all of them and I also worry about impugning the scholarship of Christian writers simply because they are Christian, especially if such criticisms have not been raised by other scholars. STG attacks the Walters book using a single paragraph, but other scholars who reviewed it have found no fault on that front. Again, I'm not going to engage in a dispute over that paragraph. I'm going to cite what other scholars have said, which is that it is an "important" work in the field. In the reviews of the book (which I cited above), no one made any mention of any Christian bias. We need to make sure that we don't eliminate sources based on our own views. STG may not like how Walters has presented the material, but we need to abide by what scholars have said about these books, not our own interpretations. On this book, they have said it is excellent. Awadewit (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I do not think we should identify critics as "Christian" unless other scholars label them that way. Since scholars themselves do not do this kind labeling, we should not do so here - we would be inventing a dichotomy that does not exist in Paine scholarship. I would like to point out that most scholars do not discuss the ideas of books in order to "further them", so STG's criticism of the Christian scholars really doesn't make that much sense (think of scholars who study pro-slavery narratives - they are not trying to "further" slavery). If any of the Christian critics have a religious axe to grind, we need to find evidence of it in reviews of the books. Other scholars will have picked up on it and will have called them on it. Awadewit (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • When I asked for "Paine schools", what I meant was schools identified as such within the scholarship itself. STG has identified two separate strands of scholarship (Christian and non-Christian), but Paine scholarship does not distinguish between these. If the differences were vital, scholars themselves would point them out. In scholarship about the Catholic Church, for example, books clearly state "Catholic theologians state...." or "historians argue....", indicating that there are different groups with different views (the Roman Catholic Church article attributes them as such). That is precisely the kind of language NOT used in Paine scholarship, so I do not think that there are identifiable schools of Paine scholarship. If we did this, we would be performing original research - organizing the scholarship into groups and claiming that the scholars had an agenda. There is no published evidence of this that I am aware of. If we want to claim that Christian scholars are biased and producing biased scholarship, we must have published evidence of that fact, as it is a huge aspersion to cast on a scholar. Awadewit (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think we should vary word usage for stylistic reasons, but if you find sentences where you think the use of the word "deist" is incorrect, please list them and let's discuss their usage. Awadewit (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph by paragraph

I don't think we're going to get much further now with discussing generalities, although the above position statements are useful. Let's move on to specific proposals, paragraph by paragraph, and leaving the lead aside for the moment, since we've already spent some time on that. Looking at the next paragraph, "Intellectual context: eighteenth-century British deism", I was struck by the surprising words "Saying that early Christianity was founded on freedom of conscience ..." Do we have a source for that? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The footnote at the end of the paragraph covers the entire paragraph. You are welcome to look up the material. Awadewit (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Age_of_Reason/Archive_4&oldid=1136384507"