Talk:The Age of Reason/Archive 1

Title
Well, I was 99% sure the correct title is simply "Age of Reason," without any "the." But the page images of an 1889 edition at

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/library/ageofreason.htm

show it as The Age of Reason so perhaps the issue isn't quite as clear as I thought. To be continued... Dpbsmith (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I was wrong, it is The Age of Reason. See Talk:Thomas Paine. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Unpopular Paine

 * Paine became unpopular at the time due to this book.

Is this true? The Deism page says that The Age of Reason popularized Deism in America. Tempshill 20:32, ::*13 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it's true. The Wiki article on Paine says he became unpopular. "Popularized Deism" is relative; certainly the majority of the common people were still Christian and would be inclined to dislike him for Deism, so both statements could be true. Dreadengineer 17:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Quotes
I added two quotations from the copy of the Age of Reason at www.thomaspaine.org; I think they are good examples of the general focus and style of the pamphlet. Dreadengineer 18:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Bible as "Old Testament"
Paine criticized the entire Bible in this work, so the comment that he meant the Old Testament when referring to the Bible (which is correct in this case), is nevertheless misleading. --Blainster 00:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Um.. that note in brackets [] is part of the direct quote. Very bad form to remove it. I'm putting it back.-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  04:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with properly cited comments about The Age of Reason in an appropriate section of the article, but this quote includes an editorial insertion which is not part of Paine's text from the book. Please limit quotations in this section to quotes from the author's text, not comments about it.  --Blainster 16:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But that is what the source says. If you want it removed, find a source that doesn't include the editor's comments. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  21:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no wonder. The quotes are unsourced. Hold on, I'll add sources.-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  21:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Added.-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  21:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The editor's note is very confusing because it looks like a shoddy edit by a Christian Apologist (shoddy because of its insertion mid-sentence and the misspelling of 'Editor'). Could we perhaps have a note underneath the quote, or a footnote, explaining that the insertion is in the original; or could we remove it and replace with an ellipsis. I don't want to bias the quote but it is so much uglier with the insert. extabgrad

Also, are we certain of the spelling 'Editer'? I have a copy of TAOR which spells it correctly and am wondering if this is a typo of the online texts. If the original was in French then presumably this is a translation anyway. Extabgrad 16:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Some topics that need to be covered
Book:
 * Publication details for the 18th century

Themes and arguments:
 * Secular millennialism
 * Extension of critique of government to religious institutions
 * Relationship to 18th-century deism; Paine's arguments were not novel

Style:
 * Simple, dynamic language like that of Common Sense and Rights of Man

Legacy and effects of book: Awadewit Talk 20:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Made deism popular among the masses for the first time
 * Brief deism resurgence in America
 * Made Paine hated in America (post resurgence)
 * Paine formed the Church of Theophilanthropy in France
 * Elihu Palmer in America
 * Freethinkers

Creed
What do others think about having the "Creed" section? I thought it gave a succinct explanation of Paine's religious beliefs as laid out in the AR and it helped illustrate his tone. Thoughts? It is a very long quotation. Awadewit | talk  08:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's more of a declaration of faith in deism and the arguments he presents, than it is a creed. Can you show where Paine calls it his "creed".Pitythafoo 08:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Deisitic / Deistical
According to Websters, "deistic" and "deistical" are both adjectival forms of deism. Which one should we use? Awadewit | talk  22:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

GA review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Well done, I only have a couple of complaints, the very last paragraph reads like some of the lower quality high-school essay's conclusions that I have written/read. This certainly does not exclude this article from passing GA. For some reason I don't like the "cheaply" in the lede, but this is just an issue of personal preference. The entire article has the slant of POV, i.e. it reads like an essay that is trying to convince (instead of merely stating facts) the reader that TAoR was the source of the change in rhetorical style (among other things) in British and American society. However this particular problem is addressed for the most part by the copious in-line citation. These are just the things I noticed on a read through of the article; I in no way intend to offend the hard working editors who crafted this lovely article.

Now for the good part...GA pass, congratulations! :)--Cronholm144 23:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Really, it reads POV-y? What I tried to do was present the scholarly consensus. Most of what is written about AR is about its language. I didn't use all of the scholars' names in the article to make this explicitly clear because that can make the article difficult to understand for the reader - the "meat" gets lost amongst all of the names and titles. I tried to just present the views of AR that scholars pretty much agree upon (those are not really "facts" in the way you are thinking of so I'm sure that they sound "opinionated.") When there are strikingly differing methods or conclusions amongst the experts, I did try to make that clear. I basically extracted the summaries of the central AR research from my Master's thesis and expanded them for this article (with some changes to the language). I have been accused of using "essay style" before. It is very hard for me not to write that way, but I thought that I had achieved the right balance here. Might you point out some of the problem statements? Awadewit | talk  23:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * While I know that I do not write stellar conclusions, I do not think that the conclusion is all that bad (I read freshman composition papers all of the time and it definitely surpasses those!). Which part sounded trite to you? Triteness is the most common problem with poorly written conclusions - is that what you meant? Or did you mean it introduces a new topic (which I think is more acceptable on wikipedia than in an essay, since articles aren't supposed to be essays)? Awadewit | talk  23:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I picked deistic by the way, hope you don't mind. Give me 15 minutes and I will clarify my points. --Cronholm144 23:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Having read through the article again, I can only say that I can feel the underlying essay style, no one point sticks out(but the fact that I managed to sniff it out without having had prior contact with your writing style affirms it, no? :) ). All possibly POV assertions have been covered by your in-lines (not just for the most part, I thought that I saw one orphan "this shows that" but I couldn't find it upon further inspection). The last sentence of the conclusion is what I have a problem with. To anyone who read the entire article, this is an almost word for word repetition of previous points. Further, I don't really think that encyclopedia articles should really have conclusions per se. What would they have to conclude about? They can sum up the article, but conclusion implies an underlying message. Anyway, I didn't mean to offend with the highschool comment, we'll go with a lazy but talented senior's conclusion :). Also, I think that this article is ready for FA in the very near future, but I must warn you that they nitpick almost every aspect of the article (in case you didn't already know). Really, the article is splendid, you should be proud.--Cronholm144 00:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify, the lede should be the place for the summary. I am not convinced that an encyclopedia article needs a conclusion at all. Then again, I could be wrong. ;)--Cronholm144 01:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I was accused of essay style months ago; I was hoping that I had fixed the problem. No one has said anything since, not even the person who made me aware of it in the first place. I think that what you are seeing as POV is simply the academic argument made about the text. It is not my POV. My POV on this text is actually quite different, anyway (hence the Master's thesis). I will remove the repetitious information from the conclusion - not all of it is a repeat, though, so I'll try to figure out how best to integrate it into another part of the article. I'm not offended by the high school comment - I just happen to know that it's not true. You might refrain from such comments, though; they may offend some people and are not particularly helpful. I have found in my years of teaching freshman composition and my extensive peer reviewing at wikipedia that it is best to articulate precisely what is wrong with someone's writing rather than simply accusing it of being "wrong" or "poor." Usually they do not know what is wrong with it or they would have fixed it themselves. You can't, for example, simply tell a student to "improve this draft," you have to tell them how and you have to point out the major problems with it. It's nice of you to say that this article is almost ready for FA, but I feel quite the reverse. It needs to be expanded (I have only the crucial elements in the article at the moment - it lacks "comprehensiveness") and I need to go over the prose sentence by sentence. I anticipate that this will take weeks, if not months. I know this because I have already written six FAs. :) Awadewit | talk  02:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You are right, I should have been more specific, and once again sorry about the high-school comment.(I don't always think before I type :) ) It looks like I am the inexperienced one, and I assure you that my comments are never intended to offend.
 * No offense taken, I assure you. Awadewit | talk  06:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I was trying to say about POV. I don't always elucidate myself as well as I should.I know its not your POV, I just thought I saw some assertions not covered by your cites, turns out I wasn't reading closely enough. I think the essay style (I think it may be the prose, but I can't place my finger on it) threw me off kilter.
 * Well, I think that these kinds of article are supposed to have a POV, actually. They are supposed to have a POV that represents the consensus of the scholarship. That seems to be the version of NPOV that literature articles take. If I were to explain each and every interpretation of AR, that would be a wildly inaccurate representation of the field, since some interpretations are not as common as others. The problems of POV in literature articles are actually quite severe; I can tell you that whoever edits the page is going to do so slightly differently. There will always be some overlap, but there will never be complete agreement on what readings of a text are important enough to include. Unlike mathematics, there is not very much agreement on the interpretations of texts - that is sort of the point, actually. No one gets tenure for repeating what someone else said. :) Awadewit | talk  06:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, that explanation helps immensely. I have become too accustomed to the (relatively) safe and stable world of mathematics. Therefore almost any opinion I read tends to jump out at me as POV. --Cronholm144 08:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I really wish you could point to some problems in the prose. What is generally meant by essay style at wikipedia seems to be the insertion of the editor's voice and an editor's own arguments into the text in the form of developed claim. I really do not feel that I am doing that here. I did everything I could to let others articulate the argument, but if I failed in that, I really do need to know where. Awadewit | talk  06:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * the hope and promise of the early days of the French Revolution had disappeared for many Britons and French alike.--narrative style
 * Should I say "Many Britons and French alike were disillusioned..." or something like that? Awadewit | talk  08:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * is emblematic of these ideals. The more moderate voices had disappeared from the scene:--ditto
 * That is direct from a source, both the emblematic part and the moderates disappearing. By the way, a history has to sound like a narrative a little bit, or it doesn't make any sense. A list of dates of crucial events during the French revolution would not explain the historical context for the reader. Readers have to understand the interactions between people and ideas. Such writing necessitates a narrative of some type - the key is to avoid a story with lots of linguistic trappings like metaphor, I think. My narratives are all standard histories of the period, by the way, often called "grand narratives" in the field. :) Awadewit | talk  08:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Paine was motivated to write The Age of Reason by what he saw of the French revolution in 1792 and 1793:--ditto
 * Narrative? No way - this is a statement of Paine's own professed motivations (I thought there was a quote in the article reinforcing this). Awadewit | talk  08:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, Paine, caught up in the French revolution, was thrown into prison for ten months in France, narrowly avoiding the guillotine.--ditto
 * This is not narrative, this is actually a statement of fact (even the guillotine part - he was slated for death but escaped that fate through dumb luck). That the sentence joins together a series of events that happened sequentially into one sentence does not make it a narrative in the way you are thinking. Awadewit | talk  08:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Paine maintains that his overarching method in The Age of Reason is the application of reason to all aspects of religion--ditto
 * Again, I am simply reiterating what Paine himself says; I am paraphrasing part of the AR - this is not narrative. Awadewit | talk  08:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * An almost immediate backlash,--ditto
 * Again, it is important for the reader to understand how events are connected to each other and this mini-timelime can be found in every source regarding AR. Awadewit | talk  08:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Paine was largely responsible for changing the rhetoric and the audience of religious debates—they became increasingly harsh, humorous, and "vulgar." And no longer were religious disputes for the educated elite alone.--ditto. BTW is it proper to begin sentences with coordinating conjunctions?
 * Again, this is not narrative writing at all (I am pretty much incapable of writing a narrative). This is a broad statement of the effect of Paine's book. You seem to think that any statement which makes a claim about change over time is a narrative. That is not accurate. It is precisely the cause-effect statements and the change-over-time statements that are interesting about history. Awadewit | talk  08:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Why does everyone always ask if you can start a sentence with a conjunction? I know that they tell high school students and sometimes college students "never start a sentence with a conjunction," but that is a rule that is meant to be broken. The only reason it is usually given in the absolute is because so few people can do it well. I tend to use conjunctions at the beginning of sentences to emphasize the contrast with the previous sentence or to make a particularly dramatic point. Awadewit | talk  08:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It is the tone of the prose that is not typically encyclopedic(i.e. matter-of-fact and boring); you seem to employ a more narrative style. However I don't think that you should change it, it would rip the heart out of the article, and {insert deity here} knows that heart is something that the majority of WP articles lack. :) Let me clarify my critique with the fact that I am the son of an English major, but I have no aspirations to become one myself. I think like a mathematician first and foremost, so all of my comments are slanted by my own confused notion of what constitutes good writing. --Cronholm144 08:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is nice that you don't think my writing is boring, but that is precisely what it is. I have seen good narrative writing and this is definitely not it. I will try to be more vigilant, though; as I revise, I will try to make sure that absolutely nothing else creeps in. My roommate is a physics-math major, so I very much understand where you are coming from. And, by the way, good writing can mean a lot of different things. There is not just "one way" to write well - but I'm sure you already know that. Awadewit | talk  08:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was the best I could do,(I know most of them are statements of fact, but that was what was there). I am clearly out of my league and element, but trust me you have not seen boring prose until you have read some of the mathematics articles I have edited. Your words may not elicit visions of beauty, but it flows well and has the elegance that comes from skillful application of the language. --Cronholm144 09:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate it. I thought the formulas were supposed to be things of beauty and elegance, so wouldn't at least that part of a mathematics page not be boring? :) Awadewit | talk  10:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Some are elegant (Euler's formula), some are not (Zaimi-Marku inequality), mathematics is a language too, capable of beauty and ... well, ugliness. In most cases you are correct, the math is what redeems the article. :)--Cronholm144 10:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yikes, more comprehensive, I will stick to writing stubs, starts, and Bs. Anyway don't hesitate to give me a call if you want my inexperienced eye. Cheers and once again congratulations on GA. --Cronholm144 02:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I tend to be pretty thorough when I write an article; I can't imagine doing anything less. Awadewit | talk  06:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Peer review revisited
Following the premature archivization of the peer review, here are some comments on the remaining issues:
 * I think the new political/intellectual context section is a substantial improvement. Separating the general backdrop of deism from the more specific "Paine's intellectual debts" appears to work.
 * Do you think that "Paine's intellectual debts" should come earlier? I wasn't sure if the current placement was effective or not. Awadewit | talk  13:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, either. The subsection is a bit different from the others in that section, so if it would make sense to work this into the "Intellectual context", give it a try.  My overall impression is that it works as it is now (since the "intellectual debts" follow after more thorough subsections detailing the structure/arguments), but putting it into the context section could work even better.  Sorry, no definite answers on my part here... --Markus Poessel 13:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Every time I try to integrate it, it feels too specific for "background". We'll see what others think. Awadewit | talk  02:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "Structure and major arguments" also reads much better now, in my opinion. The "Creed", which, in the very first version I read, was a bit apart, now fits in quite naturally. The imbalance I remarked upon earlier (arguments vs. context) has certainly been taken care of with the new, expanded description of the arguments themselves and with moving the deistic context into a different section.
 * "Paine's vulgar style" – the immediate explanation of "vulgarity" helps, but I still think the title is not general enough. In my view, a well-balanced and structured treatment would feature: (a) a title that encompasses the whole section, (b) an introductory paragraph that re-iterates what has already been said, namely that Paine's style is one of the most important and influential elements of this work, and (c) sub-sections for the different important aspects of Paine's style (where I would have no problem with the "vulgarity" subsection being longer than the others, if that's the most important aspect).  Currently, there is a title that only tells part of the story, no summarizing introductory paragraph, and a structural imbalance where one aspect (vulgarity) gets most of the top-level space - and is, as far as I can see, not clearly delineated from the first sub-section (Plain speaking) - while the other aspects have only subsections.
 * I forgot to change the title. It has been altered. This section is really quite difficult to write, as many of the topics overlap significantly. "Plain speaking", for example, can be considered a kind of vulgarity. I have separated it, however, from the general discussion because Paine's "plain speaking" seems to have Quaker roots. That does not necessarily mean that many readers would not have seen it as simply "vulgar", though. I will keep working on this. (By the way, I think just as many people know the older definition of "vulgarity" as know what Riemiann (sp?) geometry is. :) They would not be confused.) Awadewit | talk  13:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Much better already. Still, my feeling is that what is currently the first paragraph should become the only introductory paragraph (perhaps with a longer list of stylistic techniques employed... satire etc.), and that everything that comes afterwards should go into one of the specific subsections.  The last paragraph before "Vulgar language" could may be become a catch-all subsection of its own.  I have no problem with having "plain speaking" in addition to "vulgar language"; it might work better if it were lumped together with the Quaker narratives to become a new subsection "Quaker influences" or some such, though.  As for Riemannian geometry, my main point was that, upon hearing the word, people will know they don't understand it; upon hearing "vulgarity", many will think they do, even if they don't (not if the word is used in this context, for example). --Markus Poessel 13:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See what you think of the new arrangement. There is that little paragraph of miscellaneous that I don't really know what to do with. See if you think it works where it is. Awadewit | talk  02:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's certainly improvement, all in all. But, reading this whole section once again, some sentences still seem to me displaced: if "vulgar"'s short for "well accessible for lower/middle classes", then the text that stands in no subsection yet (so far) at the beginning should instead be put into "Vulgarity" (or "Vulgar language"). In "Vulgar language", on the other hand, "irrev'rent tone"'s too early, since it has a section of its own - so move it there, and only keep those statements in the lead (the section's, not the article's, that is) that really give a summary, or else characterize Paine's style in gen'ral. "Paine's rhetoric had broad appeal" - if that's a consequence of vulgar style, this too should go into the "Vulgar language" part. The irony, and use of "we" – is there a word for tools of rhetoric in general?  If yes, a catch-all section with that word as title, following the present lot, could offer shelter to these paragraphs which, in the lead, look somewhat out of place. --Markus Poessel 19:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid none of this is really that simple or straightforward. Wikipedia's artificial subsections make it quite difficult to write literature articles. For example, I can't discuss "vulgarity" only in the vulgarity section - it is relevant to other topics. Also, Paine's text had broad appeal, but not only because of its "vulgar" language. I'll think about this some more, but I really wish I didn't have to have subsections at all. They really hamper an explanation of Paine's language. Thanks for all of your help. Hopefully more tinkering will improve the article. Awadewit | talk  21:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I see what you are saying, but there are plenty of scientific terms that people think they understand, but they don't, such as "gravity". By the way, I just saw "vulgar" used in this way (without explanation) in an introductory literary criticism essay today, so I don't feel so bad. :) Awadewit | talk  02:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That's it, really – most of the issues I raised in the peer review have been resolved, so I have high hopes for the last major issue, the style section. --Markus Poessel 08:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Michael Moore
I don't see how the Age of Reason influenced Michael Moore at all. As far as I know, Moore doesn't usually comment on religion. If someone has evidence of this, cite it in the article. I'm removing it for right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krobilla (talk • contribs) 21:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The sourced statement referred to Michael Moore's style, which was influenced by Thomas Paine's style. I am reinserting the sentence. Awadewit | talk  00:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Did Michael Moore tell you that he was influenced by Thomas Paine? Or did you merely cite some completely irrelevant "Richard Porton" critique of Farenheit 9/11. What does some random essay on Farenheit 9/11 have to do with The Age of Reason?! What in the world does Michael Moore have to do with The Age of Reason?!  I think it's pretty clear throughout your entire article that you are trying to taint the opinions of people who are curious about The Age of Reason. Either that or it's amateur hour at Wikipedia.  I'm very serious about this.  I believe that propaganda is best saved for Fox news not Wikipedia. Several people have removed your MM comparison but you keep putting it back up. Why are you, Awedewit, so insistent on comparing Thomas Paine to Michael Moore? Please don't try to claim you aren't doing so, it's obvious that you are.  What is your objective?Pitythafoo 09:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please cease attacking me personally - it is not productive. If you read the three articles cited in the article, they all deal with Michael Moore's style, which is what I say in the article is Paine's major influence on twentieth-century American culture. A quick search on google will reveal how often this comparison is made. The Porton article, which is from a peer-reviewed source, actually says that the Paine-Moore comparison is common, which is why it is a good source to use - it is a published statement of the commonness of the comparison. Awadewit | talk  10:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me?! Are those references (socialist worker online; some small paper in Madison WI ?!) supposed to be taken seriously? If this comparison is so common, why has no one ever heard it and why do people keep trying to remove it and again, why are you so insistent on maintaining its inclusion?Pitythafoo 10:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I was trying to give easily accessible references on the web. But you seem to have missed the larger point - the reference I have had since the beginning is peer-reviewed and makes the statement that this is a common comparison. That is all I really need. I now have three sources. That is ample for this claim. There is nothing controversial about saying that Michael Moore's style is Paineite. Awadewit | talk  11:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The quality of your references is far more important than the quantity. As a masters thesis scholar you should know this. It's like someone writing an article about Darwin's, "On the Origin of Species" and citing some obscure quote from Kent Hovind to compare Darwin to a controversial figure. It's very easy to find multiple references to support and irrelevant idea. You should know this. Citing a "peer reviewed" critique--that has been posted on an obscure  website--of the movie Farenheit 9/11 does not make the comparisons legitimate or even relevant. You are missing the larger point--this is not a common comparison and multiple people have tried to or at least sated a desire to remove the references to Michael Moore. However, you are extremely resistant to any edits to your article.  Your resistance simply bolster my opinion that you have a deeper agenda here and are not neutral in your article.Pitythafoo 18:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the quality of the source is more important - that is why I originally used only the peer-reviewed source that claimed many others had made the comparison (I only added the others at the behest of the reviewer yesterday). Actually, you seem to have a misunderstanding of the link to the peer-reviewed source - it is not actually posted there - that is just an abstract of it. That article is in a well-respected film journal and is an excellent source. I provided the link as a courtesy so that people could see the sentence to which the article was referring. To assess the validity of the source, you need to look at the journal itself. I am resistant to removing edits that are well-sourced and have been carefully considered without first hearing a good reason. If I hear a good reason to remove it, I will be happy to do so. Awadewit | talk  22:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Author's Neutrality
Please stop editing the page without discussing content changes first, particularly since you are not adding any citations. Changing content on such a large scale makes all of the citations currently in the article meaningless. You are not providing new citations, so readers will assume that the citations in the article match the text you have inserted. Unfortunately, they no longer do so. Please stop so that we can work this out! Awadewit | talk 07:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[I am reinstating the previous message that was erased by User:Pitythafoo. Awadewit | talk  08:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Pitythafoo, it is generally considered bad form to erase text from talk pages. Awadewit | talk  08:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Who is "Awedewit"?! Did Awedewit write this article? This article on the Age of Reason is obviously written by someone who is probably religious and subversively trying to discredit the book. The article contains numerous opinions of it's author(s).


 * Yes, I did write the bulk of this article. It does not reflect my personal beliefs regarding religion nor does not (I hope) reflect my personal beliefs regarding The Age of Reason. If you would like to have a civilized conversation about what should be in this article and what scholarship it should be based on, I would be more than happy to do so. Awadewit | talk  08:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What in the world does Michael Moore have to do with Thomas Paine?!


 * Please see the peer review of this article. I have found that readers often want to understand the connection between eighteenth-century texts and the present day. 08:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is so worthless it's disgusting.


 * Please explain what is incorrect or could be improved in it. Let us work together. Awadewit | talk  08:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the references to Michael Moore and "Awedewit" threatened to ban me from Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitythefoo (talk • contribs)


 * You are removing sourced material without explanation or discussion. That is not the best way to start off on wikipedia. I would be more than happy to work on the article with you, but only if you are willing to cite your sources and have a calm and friendly discussion. Awadewit | talk  08:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There was nothing calm or friendly about the way you accused me of vandalizing your article and threatened to ban me from Wikipedia.Pitythafoo 09:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please accept my apology - I intended my first message to be calm and friendly. I'm sorry that it did not come across that way. I only escalated when you did not respond to it and kept altering the article. Awadewit | talk  09:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Guys, please be civil to each other. Pitythefoo, please do not edit other people's comments unless they are simple vandalism or grave personal attacks, etc. Awedewit, I actually agree that opinion of one author that Paine influenced Michael Moore does not warrant inclusion of Moore's portrait and a long section on Moore. It is against WP:UNDUE. Please discuss the inclusion rather then edit war. I can protect the article if needed Alex Bakharev 08:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There isn't "a long section" on Moore - there are about two sentences. Because the connection between Paine and Moore is so obvious, I would rather find more sources than remove the sentences. Can you give me some times? I will remove the picture. Awadewit | talk  08:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have removed the picture and inserted two more sources. I have removed the POV tag. The entire section is not under dispute and the Moore sentence now has three sources. Awadewit | talk  09:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. I agree that that it is neutral now (at least as far Mooe is concerned) Alex Bakharev 11:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Romving the picture and citing three irrelevant, obscure sources does not make the comparison neutral. That's like saying Fox news is neutral because Anne Coulter says it is! The references to Michael Moore are not popular, common or relevant.Pitythafoo 19:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is such a joke that it's not even worth discussing. I did not vandalize anything, I simply changed small parts of the article that are clearly written by someone who is trying to subvert the very logical, practical, absolute and irrefutable arguments presented in Thomas Paine's Age of Reason. If you want proof, then read the book, followed by this article. I was in the process of making minor edits and over the course of 30 minutes (yes, only 30 minutes and I type very slowly) "Awedewit" issued to me 3 warnings to stop changing his/her article, then in a blatant abuse of editorial control, banned me from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitythafoo (talk • contribs) 08:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there is a slight misunderstanding here. This article is based upon the work of major scholars on The Age of Reason; they do not agree with you that the work is "irrefutable", for example. Wikipedia is about "verifiability", by the way, not "truth" (see WP:V). The reason I asked you to stop editing was because you were changing the meanings of sentences, intentionally or not, quite drastically. Also, the citations were becoming meaningless as you were changing the sentences. There is no reason to impugn an article that is carefully written and carefully sourced. Awadewit | talk  08:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Would those be religious scholars? The only source for Paine's arguments is the bible itself. Nothing he says about the inconsistencies in the bible can be refuted. Nothing. They all exist and can be verified by referencing the bible.


 * The references I used are all well-respected academics, not theologians. You can see this yourself on the page - the notes and bibliography are there for this very purpose. What is interesting about Paine's argument is that it is not just about the Bible itself (by the way, he did get some things wrong - his knowledge of history and Biblical languages was sorely lacking). Much of his argument is about the imperative to use reason and the evils of institutionalized religion - such arguments are separate from the truth or falsity of the Bible. Awadewit | talk  09:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me?! A very significant portion of The Age of Reason is dedicated to discrediting the bible by clearly pointing out its numerous inconsistencies and fallacies. You pay virtually no attention to this in your article. When I tried to add such information you repeatedly deleted it. What is your objective? Seriously!Pitythafoo 10:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:V and WP:ATT. Wikipedians write about what scholars write about. Scholars do not spend a lot of time discussing the minutiae of Paine's Biblical analysis. The bulk of scholarship regarding the The Age of Reason discusses its rhetoric and its reception. Wikipedia articles are supposed to accurately represent the published material on a topic - that is what this article does. Please read those policies. Thanks. Awadewit | talk  10:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not an administrator - I cannot ban anyone from anything. Awadewit | talk  08:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You certainly threatened to ban me from the article. And since I'm new to this, I believed you.Pitythafoo 08:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure what you mean. I can't do that, so I wouldn't threaten to do it. Awadewit | talk  09:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You certaily did threaten it, then you erased the threats and now you're lying about it.Pitythafoo 10:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not erase the threats - as I explained below, you can look in the edit history and see them. Here is a link demonstrating that I did not erase the warnings. I am not lying. Please do not falsely accuse other editors. Thanks. Awadewit | talk  10:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * IN case you forgot what you wrote, here are your fasle accusations and threats, verbatim:
 * 1. "Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to The Age of Reason, you will be blocked from editing. Awadewit "
 * 2. "This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to The Age of Reason, you will be blocked from editing. Awadewit"
 * You did lie. I have never vandalized Wikipedia or your article. All of my edits were concise and legitimate. You clearly had a fit, started an "edit war", accused me of ::::vandalism and tried to get me blocked from the article.Pitythafoo 11:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We can let others decide. Here is why I became concerned:


 * Removing sourced material without comment - Your first three edits removed sourced material about Michael Moore without comment.
 * Eliminates the idea that Paine and the deists shared the same arguments
 * Eliminates the key explanatory phrase "even God" from the sentence
 * Introduces "god"; deists used "God"; eliminates the familiar "neither sufficient nor necessary" argument
 * Dramatically alters statements on revelation - they no longer reflect the scholarship quoted
 * Deleted an entire section
 * Paine calls it a "creed" - you changed it to "declaration"
 * Eliminated tenets of belief in Paine's creed
 * Replaced Paine's own word ("creation") with "nature"
 * Thank you for citing this example. This is a clear attempt by you to mislead and associate Paine with a belief in divine creationism. That is why you include a reference to the "Bible" and "divine" creation (your words). This sentence is misleading--Paine did not believe in creationism as it is discussed and debated today. He believed that nature is the only irrefutable evidence that everything was created by a god not your "God".Pitythafoo 19:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sentence under dispute:"The Bible of the Deist", he contends, should not be a human invention such as the Bible, but rather a divine invention—it should be "creation."
 * Quote from pg. 185: "Does not the creation, the universe we behold, preach to us the existence of an Almighty Power that governs and regulates the whole? And is not the evidence that this creation holds out to our senses infinitely stronger than anything we can read in a book that any imposter might make and call the Word of God? . . . The creation is the Bible of the deist. He there reads, in the handwriting of the Creator himself, the certainty of His existence and of the immutability of His power, and all other Bibles and Testaments are to him forgeries."
 * Paine did not believe in creationism as Americans know it today (I assume that is what you are referring to). However, he did believe in a creator-God. Moreover, the words you deleted are Paine's own words - see the citations provided. Also, I am following the convention of using "God" (rather than "god") that is in Paine's own works (note his creed reads "I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life" - cited in article) and in the scholarship on Paine. (Stop assuming I believe in God - it has already been explained to you that my belief or unbelief is irrelevant to this conversation as is your own.) Awadewit | talk  22:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Removed "tyrannical God" and replaced with "chronologically impossible" events
 * Paine spends a very large amount of time disputing the chronological incongruencies of the bible, yet you omit this in your article and focus on a more minor facet of The Age of Reason. This is reidiculous--it is so obvious that you have an agenda here and will spend every minute of your time trying to control the content of this article o serve your less than neutral goals. I don't havve any more time to debate this with you. You and your propaganda win.Pitythafoo 19:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The three scholars cited in the notes at the end of that passage do not spend much (if any) time analyzing Paine's discussion of chronological inconsistencies of the Bible. Because I am attempting to fairly represent the published work on this book, I can only discuss what they discuss. By changing the topic of the sentence, you implied that these authors discussed these topics when they, in fact, do not. If you have sources for this topic, please list them and we can add a discussion of Biblical chronology to the article. Awadewit | talk  22:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Removed quotation and replaced with other details not mentioned in sources cited
 * Removed entire section
 * Removed Paine's own examples and replaced with vaguer language

You changed some very significant sentences and deleted entire sections. At wikipedia, we do not consider deleting sections minor. I left the messages on your talk page and here after I started to see these edits mount. Awadewit | talk  11:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As I have never used Wikipedia before, I was completely unaware that when I responded to the messages that "Awadewit" sent me, the entire communication between us was attached to the article and visible to everyone. It was never my intention to delete Awdewit's initial comments to me. It was simply my naivety in this process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitythafoo (talk • contribs) 08:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It might be best to read some of wikipedia's helpful guidelines and instructions before editing. That way such misunderstandings will not occur again. (Try "Community portal" at the left.) Also, please sign your posts with four tildas ~ Awadewit | talk  08:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: (Awedewit's statement) "Please stop editing the page without discussing content changes first, particularly since you are not adding any citations. Changing content on such a large scale makes all of the citations currently in the article meaningless. You are not providing new citations, so readers will assume that the citations in the article match the text you have inserted. Unfortunately, they no longer do so. Please stop so that we can work this out! Awadewit " It would have been nice if this were how Awedewit actually initially contacted me. On the contrary, Awadewit wrote me very terse, threatening warnings claiming that the small edits I made were vandalism to his/her article and that I would be blocked by him/her.Pitythafoo 09:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is the first message I left you on your talk page: "Please discuss substantial changes, such as the ones you are making to The Age of Reason, on the article's talk page before making them. Also, please provide edit summaries describing the changes, such as "correcting factual error". Currently, your edits appear to be vandalism. I am going to revert them until we can sort out what needs to be changed. Awadewit | talk 06:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)" Awadewit | talk  08:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is clearly unobjectively written with the goal of subversively discrediting Thomas Paine's Age of Reason with conjecture, personal opinion and superfluous references. It is clear that since Awadewit--the author of the article--has editorial control and the authority to block edits that he/she deems unfavorable, the un-objective nature and credibility of the article is not going to change anytime soon, if at all.Pitythafoo 09:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I cannot block any edits, as I said. I would not want to discredit The Age of Reason in any way - I wrote my Master's Thesis on it - I think it is a wonderful, amazing book. If this article truly is flawed in some way, I would obviously want to fix it. Please list your specific objections to it - what is biased, for example? Thanks. Awadewit | talk  08:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If this is the case, then how did you block e from the article? Why did you curtly threaten to ban me from Wikipedia? Why did you delete your accusations of vandalism and threats to have me banned?Pitythafoo 09:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you see the "history" tab at the top of each page? That will allow you to see what was changed on each page. I did not block you from the article. I asked that the article be semi-protected so that only established users could edit it until we could sort out this problem. An administrator, an arbitrator of sorts, decided on the validity of the claim, and agree to semi-protect the page. With regards to your talk page, someone else seems to have replaced my warnings with their own warnings regrading the 3RR rule. I don't know why they did that. Usually messages are left up. By clicking on the history, you can see who erased my warnings and ask them why they did that. By way of explanation, I threatened to ban you because you refused to respond to any of the messages I left on your talk page or on the article page. If you had responded to the first message I left, all of this could have been avoided. Ce la vie. Awadewit | talk  09:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If I responded to your threat in the 10 minutes you gave me? You obviously monitor your article very, very closely and combat alterations to it.Pitythafoo 10:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have 2 serious questions, Awedewit, and would like honest, sincere answers--What school did you write your master's thesis for? (I just want to know if it was a religious school) and do you believe in religion (any religion)?


 * My beliefs (if any) and where I attend school are not relevant to this discussion. The quality of the article is. I would greatly appreciate it if we could move the focus off of ourselves and onto the specifics of the article. You obviously feel strongly that this article falls short of what it should do. Please explain where you think it misrepresents the main lines of thought of Paine scholarship. Thanks. Awadewit | talk  09:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your beliefs are VERY relevant. Wikipedia should be a source of neutrality and objective articles.  It is my opinion that your article is quite possibly very heavily influenced by your religious and political beliefs. I meticulously read the entire article and it is my opinion that it is very underhandedly subversive.  You claim that some deists accept revelation, etc... etc... on go on to underhandedly interject your personal opinions into the entire article.  If you want to know what I disagree with all you have to do is look at the history page to see the edits I made.  It should be very clear, especially to you since you had a fit and reported them as vadilism. FYI a major tenet of deism is the rejection of revelation on the basis that it can not be proven, observed or confirmed.Pitythafoo 10:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You have no idea what my religious and political beliefs are. Stop accusing me of sneaking subversive ideology into the article. It does not inspire goodwill. I ask you again: what are the problems with the article? Please cite places where it disagrees with the major Paine scholars. Awadewit | talk  10:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Policing "your" article 24 hours a day, slanderously accusing editors of "vandalizing" "your" article and starting revert wars does not "inspire goodwill".Pitythafoo 23:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect regarding deism in eighteenth-century Britain, as far as I know. Not all eighteenth-century deists rejected revelation. See the notes in the article appended to that section for sources on that. Awadewit | talk  10:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Pity, the editors' background should not be shown in the wikipedia articles. Wikiarticles are sort of belletrized explanation of material found in reliable sources (and sometimes just matters of universal knowledge). Awadewit has happened to found materials faithfully presented in the article. You are welcome to present another materials. We could also discuss who to better present material in unbiased and neutral matter. Alex Bakharev 10:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Pitythafoo, please refrain from making such attacks on Wikipedia. There is no relevance and may appear as harassment to ask the religious beliefs of another editor. Also "This article on the Age of Reason is obviously written by someone who is probably religious and subversively trying to discredit the book" is very inconstructive and hurtful so please stop. -- DarkFalls talk 10:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair, I won't ask anyone what their religion is and how it might influence their articles. However, it is clear that Awedewit is trying to exact a dictatorship over editorial control of the content of the article. Please review my edits to confirm that I did not "vandalize" it and remove the block on the article.Pitythafoo 11:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have provided a list above. Awadewit | talk  11:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Author's rejection of edits he/she deems unfavorable
The Age of Reason consists of two parts--the first, written without access to a bible for reference and the second, which is a revision of the first edition. Paine rewrote The Age of Reason specifically for the purpose of citing specific passages in the bible which contain verifiable fallacies and extreme incongruence. 93% of the second version is spent outlining such problems with the bible. That's 93% ! This can be verified by merely looking at a copy of the book. I tried to add information pertaining to this to the Wiki article and Awadewit repeatedly deleted it, calling it, "the minutiae of Paine's Biblical analysis" and claiming that it is irrelevant! Shouldn't a Wiki article include a neutral description of what accounts for 93% of Paine's own writings?!Pitythafoo 21:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Per WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:ATT I have written an article that reflects the current scholarship on Paine's The Age of Reason. As I have suggested, I think that you should read wikipedia's policies before engaging in such substantial editing.
 * The Age of Reason has three parts, by the way, and the second part is not a revision of the first part (see description of publishing history in article). If you were to read the article, you would discover that according to scholars, Paine had many reasons for writing the book, among them his stated reason: to stem the tide of unbelief and immorality in France.
 * What source do you have for this figure of 93%? We should add that, if you have a reliable source.


 * What source?! Why don't you re-read my initial claim then open Paine's revision of The Age of Reason and start counting pages! I already stated what the source is. Do I need to reference some obscure online article to confirm that what's written in The Age of Reason is actually written in the Age of Reason?! No! It is your opinion that a description of what accounts for 93% of Paine's revision is not needed in this article.  It is my opinion that a description of what constitutes 93% of Paine's revision of his own book is very relevant.  Anyway, it's obvious that you have nothing better to do than monitor and police "your" article like a dictator.  I give up. You and your propaganda win.  I have better things to do with my life.Pitythafoo 23:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried to add information to to the article that is relevant to what constitutes 93% of his revision of his own book! And you kept deleting it! You keep trying to exact some kind of authoritarian control over this article. It's ridiculous!
 * I stated that the minutiae of Paine's Biblical analysis is not as relevant as his rhetoric or the reception of the book because scholars focus on those issues. I have focused on what the published experts have focused on (again, per wikipedia policy). Awadewit | talk  22:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are the author's (Awadewit) own words as excerpted from his/her complaint about me: "I spend most of my time at this article reverting removals of this material by vandals". The author monitors this article like a hawk and reverts all edits that he/she does not like, calling ALL such editors "vandals". Why is Awadewit so resistant to accepting edits? Why is Awadewit so excessively controlling of this article? The fact that Awadewit wrote this article does not grant Awadewit the entitlement to execute authoritarian control over every aspect of the article's contents. These facts only further bolster my opinion that the author is not neutral and is trying to impress his/her own un-objective slant onto this article for the purposes of swaying the opinions of people who are curious about The Age of Reason, but lack knowledge about it. Again, this is my opinion and I have explained numerous times why it is such.Pitythafoo 21:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As other wikipedia editors will know, monitoring articles is a daily affair. Vandalism is rampant on wikipedia. Without such monitoring, articles deteriorate. I do not revert all edits - I revert edits that remove sourced information without discussion or blatant vandalism. I have already apologized for presuming you were a vandal when you removed the Michael Moore material. I have tried to assume good faith now, but you are not providing sources for your claims and you have repeatedly insulted me without cause.
 * As I keep saying, I will engage you in a discussion about the article, but you must be specific - what sentences in the article fail to accurately represent Paine scholarship? Please be specific - you have yet to do so. Awadewit | talk  22:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Turning a new leaf
I think we'll all be happier if we let bygones be bygones, and if we don't fight over who is more dedicated to improving the article. None of us owns the article, to be sure; but it's gracious and courteous to consult one other, here on the Talk page, when we wish to make significant changes. We should give each other the benefit of the doubt, no? We can all afford to be patient and let the article develop on its own pace; even if that's slow, it's better that the article creep always forward, rather than jerk forward and backward quickly. I'm sure that we'll progress forward if we focus together on the material and less on the editors.

Forgive me, Pitythafoo, but I think you may find Awadewit a powerful and insightful ally, whose thinking is not too far from your own. I'm sure that she will improve upon you with better acquaintance, and her energy will be something that you prize someday. Months of acquaintance with her gives me confidence that she has no hidden agenda here, and that she would welcome your insights, suggestions or questions, if Talked over calmly and with references. Please temper your temper, take a fresh look at the article, and in the calmness, distill your criticisms and questions into their finest, most scholarly form. Serenely Willow 22:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)