Jump to content

Talk:Jonathan Edwards (theologian)/Archive 1

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

Complaint

This article should be the default article for Jonathan Edwards, and someone should undo the last person's movement. No other Jonathan Edwards has been well known for the last 300 years, and anyone who has, is only for a brief period. Jonathan Edwards is very popular among reformed circles today and is widely know for the great awaking, which lead to the foundation of methodist churches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.155.48.217 (talk • contribs)

Agreed, but an admin will have to do it. See below. --Flex (talk/contribs) 17:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Jonathan Edwards (theologian) → Jonathan Edwards — This should be the primary page rather than one among several on the disambig page since nearly all the links to the disambig page should go to this one. Cf. WP:DISAMBIG#Primary_topic. —Flex (talk/contribs) 17:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support per my reasoning above. --Flex (talk/contribs) 17:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per above. --Brian0324 18:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support It would be just as ridiculous to have "Thomas Jefferson (president)."--John Foxe 19:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support (although Jonathan Edwards (President) has its points ;> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support; seems reasonable (the others seem to be of significantly lower notability). I can make the switch after a few days if there isn't any objection. --Spangineerws (háblame) 23:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - when I originaly moved the page it was because in different areas of the English speaking world different Johnathon Edwards' are more and less well known. In the U.S. the Jonathan Edwards might well be the most notable. However in the U.K. there is a very good chance that most people will be searching for the Jonathan Edwards the Gold medal Winning Olympian, former World Champion, Current World Record Holder and Televison presenter. When I type "Jonathan Edwards" into Google the first two results I get are [1] and [2]. Also bare in mind that athletics is a much bigger sport (in terms of media coverage, public support) in the U.K. and other parts of the commonwealth than it is in America.[[Guest9999 01:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)]]
    • You have a fair point that the more contemporary Edwards may have greater recognition among the general populace in England, but when I google for Jonathan Edwards, all the links and "related searches" on the first page are to the theologian, save one, which goes to the musician. Add to that that there are far more biographies, scholarly articles and books, encyclopedia entries, mentions in reliable sources (cf. [3], [4], [5], but not [6]), etc., not to mention a college and chair at one of America's and the world's top-tier Universities (Yale) named for the theologian -- all of which seem to be one reliable indicator of priority. Besides, the vast majority of the links to any of the WP's Jonathan Edwards (and particularly those going to Jonathan Edwards) intend to point to the theologian, which is the criterion explicitly mentioned in WP:DISAMBIG#Primary_topic. In short, the athlete is of interest mainly in Britain and has relatively few Wikipedia links, whereas the theologian is of world-wide scholarly and Christian interest and has many, many internal links. Until the athlete gains more internal links, I think the primary page should be the theologian with a link to the disambig page, of course. We could make it say something like "For the British athlete, see Jonathan Edwards (athlete), and for other uses see Jonathan Edwards (disambiguation)." --Flex (talk/contribs) 03:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Response It is also worthwhile using Google UK, and that has, on the first page, a number of news articles[7][8] on the athlete. I think the appeal to the "world-wide" significance of the theologian is a bit weak, since we haven't seen any evidence of him being well-known in non-English-speaking countries. StAnselm 02:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support It is clear that the only real candidates for primary meaning are the Theologian and the Athlete. I checked the Google Books results - none of the top 100 were about the Athlete. I checked Google Scholar - again nothing on the Athlete. Google news is split between the Theologian, the Athlete, two other athletes, and Jonathan Edwards the new director general of MI5. Checking google web, the top 100 is clearly dominated by the Theologian; the athlete shows up about 6 times, with the highest two at 12 and 15 - having been beaten out by the musician (2 sites) and a winery (one site). Encyclopedia Brittanica clearly considers the theologian to be the primary topic; their Jonathan Edwards article is on him and other encyclopedia articles refer to him, while the athlete only gets mentions in year book coverage of the competitions, not in the encyclopedia proper. Only 2 of their 39 references to Jonathan Edwards refer to the athlete. [9][http://www.britannica.com/search?query=Jonathan+Edwards&ct=&searchSubmit.x=0&searchSubmit.y=0][http://www.britannica.com/search?query=Jonathan+Edwards+triple-jump&ct=&searchSubmit.x=0&searchSubmit.y=0]. I think we have adequate evidence that Theologian is the primary topic. GRBerry 04:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support since that's where consensus seems to be Neutral As the athlete is more well known in the U.K., the theologian in the U.S. I'm pretty sure that most U.K. users would be looking for the athlete so if the move is put through then an additional link to the athlete as well as the disambiguation page should be put in, as suggested by Flex. [[Guest9999 10:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)]][[Guest9999 10:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)]]
  • Oppose I do not think that the theologian will neccessarily be the person most people are searching for - for ease of use of all users from all nationalities using Wikipedia the name should link to the disambiguation page. Discussion at Talk:Jonathan Edwards (disambiguation) showed that many people were looking for the athlete when they typed in Jonathan Edwards - not the Theologian. Again the athlete is one of the best known athletes in Britian having won several medals - including an Olympic Gols and being one of the few - possibly only - British athletes to hold a current world record. He was also the BBC Sports Personality of the Year and appeared as a presenter on Songs of Praise a television show which has been running for over 45 years with millions of viewers each week. I do not doubt that in a hitorical context the theologian is the more improtant but I do feel that there is every possibility that the majority of people who type in Jonathan Edwards will be looking for the page on the athlete, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia it has a different readership and can hold itself to a different standard. [[Guest9999 21:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)]]
  • Support: I agree with Flex, but I don't much mind either way :). -- TimNelson 11:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The argument against moving this seems to advocate in favor of recentism rather than about the overall quality of the encyclopedia over time. This athelete's records may be broken, but the historical primary subject of the (theologian) is likely to endure beyond our lifetime.Brian0324 21:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply My arguement isn't recentism, it is - and you may well consider this worse - nowism. Wikipedia should be based on the ease of use of the people who are using it right now, not a year, 10 years or 100 years in the future. Wikipedia makes it possible to taylor the encyclopaedia to the needs of the current user - if in the future the athlete has faded from sight but the theologian remains prominent then things can be changed. However now that is not the case (or at least it is my arguement that it is not). Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (policy) we should not try to predict serach trends of the future just respond to current ones. [[Guest9999]]
  • Comment: There is too strong of a precedent with someone who has been famous for over 200 years to be bypassed by a recent athelete's fleeting fame. I'm just saying that Wikipedia should be about the long term in this instance. It's kind of diminution to say that he was just a theologian anyway!Brian0324 23:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply You cannot know that his fame will be fleeting - there are athletes who have remained famous for decades - more to the point in the new "infoormation age" is it possible to predict who will be famous in years to come. Could anyone have predicted lonelygirl15 or Tila Tequila 10 years ago? As I said before the desicion should be based upon what users are currently searching for not for a future standard - we have the ability to make the encyclopaedia as user friendly as possible for any given period of time - why not take advantage of this. If John Edwards was known as Jonathan Edwards (Jonathan isn't actually his full name - it's juts an example) I would say the name should redirect to his page as he would be the one that most people will be searching for, if he dropped out of the political lime apectrum and interest dried up the page could go back to disambigous, if he was elected president the page would probably be linked to him for some time (again I know it's not his name, only a - slightly protracted - example). [[Guest9999 23:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)]]
  • Oppose The theologian is probably the most famous holder of the name in the US, but Wikipedia does not have (or should not have) a US-centric bias. Globally, a recent multiple gold medal winner and former world record holder has the greater name recognition. I also agree with those who argue that Wikipedia's structure should reflect what people are looking for now, rather than what has previously been considered important. After all, it's not as if this decision is permanent - in twenty years time, it's quite possible that Jonathan Edwards the athlete will be prety much forgotten, and Wikipedia can be changed to reflect this. MarkSG 21:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply and proposal: I think it's more accurate to say that the theologian is likely the most famous everywhere except in the UK. But even in the UK there has been and continues to be considerable scholarly and popular interest in the theologian. It was the UK's Banner of Truth Trust that published the theologian's works in two volumes for popular consumption (not the exhaustive, critical edition that Yale is and has been in the process of publishing over the years) and its founder Englishman Iain Murray who wrote a biography of Edwards, and the famous Welsh preacher Martyn Lloyd-Jones has written about and encouraged Christians to read Edwards,[10] as has British theologian J. I. Packer (see "Puritan Evangelism" from his Quest for Godliness, etc.). I could go on, but the point is that the theologian is not only important in the US, whereas interest in the athlete seems to be nearly limited to the UK, and indeed the theologian is important to Christianity everywhere and in American even more so. Of course, all this doesn't necessarily mean your argument about the WP's structure is nullified. The thing still lingering in my mind is that the disambiguation page will list this towering figure among others in similar disciplines who share his name, but this seems to be in violation of the spirit of WP:DISAMBIG#Primary_topic. Thus, I propose again that we make the theologian the primary page with the disambig notice at the top reading something like: "For the British athlete, see Jonathan Edwards (athlete), and for other uses see Jonathan Edwards (disambiguation)." That seems to me to give adequate attention to the UK-specific interest while keeping the theologian of world-wide interest at the forefront. Lastly, I propose that if this suggestion is not accepted, we should consider other names for this page than Jonathan Edwards (theologian) since he is equally or perhaps better known as a preacher and revivalist, though his theological/philosophical contributions (esp. the Freedom of the Will) are certainly nothing to sneeze at. --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Reply: I think it's untrue to say that interest in the athlete is nearly limited to the UK. A more accurate distinction, I think, is that interest in the athlete is greater among people worldwide with interest in Olympic discipline sports. The US is unusual in this respect in not having a significant body of sports fans who are followers of the Olympics and related events; in most of the world an Olympic champion commands much greater name recognition. The theologian, on the other hand, despite being of some degree of interest in the UK as well as the US, has virtually no interest in most of the rest of the world. It's certainly not true at all to say that the theologian is "important to Christianity everywhere", as his work was carried out in a fairly small subset of global Christianity - albeit one that is a dominant form in the US. He had a significant input into US Christianity, yes, and a smaller but also significant input into UK Protestant Christianity, but outside these two countries he remains virtually unknown. That, too, is a reason why making the theologian the primary page would be, IMO, unjustifiably US-centric. MarkSG 20:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Reply: I think it is quite fair to say that Christianity in general and Reformed Christianity in particular, which is a world-wide and sizable body of Christians, have been considerably influenced by Edwards and know about him. I don't think his influence is limited to the US and UK at all. Our back-n-fourth is pretty much he-said/she-said at this point: you say the world-at-large cares more about the athlete, and I say it cares more about the theologian. I admit my claims about the athlete are entirely based on the statements I have read here, personal opinion (I had never heard of him), and cursory googling. Are there any objective metrics we can use to judge if there should be any priority? Perhaps number of citations in reliable sources? --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment: Agree with the above comment by Flex. Also, one major impetus behind this move is that we need to have something better because he was more than a theologian. I really think that he is better known as a preacher or as the president of Princeton.Brian0324 21:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
        • (ec)I think you (MarkSG) are navel-gazing too much. I tested the external evidence (above and again here) and have found that the long-jumper is already clearly far behind the theologian as a primary subject of interest to the English speaking world. In fact, the triple-jumper isn't even the athlete of greatest current interest by this name any more; that privilege goes to Jonathan Edwards (rugby player) who plays for the Llanelli Scarlets. As far as I can tell, the theologian is clearly the primary topic. I'm not even convinced anymore that the athlete is clearly second; it appears to be the musician right now. If there truly is great interest in the triple-jumper, where is the evidence of it? He only shows up in google news at all for comments he made in the past about various current athletes, not for anyone saying anything about him. Google web, which is meant to rank by likeliness that a page is something being searched for, ranks today (changed a bit from last week) sites related to various things with this name as follows: musician 1 & 8; theologian 2-7, 9-10, 20-22; triple-jumper 11 & 17; winery 12; illustrator 13 & 15; a programmer 14 & 18; a yankee group researcher 16; the college 19. This is prettly clear evidence that the theologian is in fact already the primary topic for current use; the triple-jumper is at best third in current usage. GRBerry 21:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Reply: But I think Google in the UK may return different results. --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
            • If it does, I'd certainly like to know, so I know how to evaluate google evidence in the future. If it did, we'd eliminate google web & news evidence from consideration - but I'd still say the theologian is primary based on the Encyclopedia Brittanica evidence. GRBerry 21:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
              • When I type in "Jonathon Edwards" into google.com from the UK the first to results are about the athlete. If this is not the case when someone in the USA types in the same name, it is likely that Google results differ depending on where the user is. If this is the case it's not really surprising that people searching in the U.S.A. are getting results topped by the Jonathan Edwards from the U.S.A. and people searching in the U.K. are getting results topped by his U.K. namesake - as would appear to be the case from this discussion. [[Guest9999 00:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)]]
                • And it might be informative if someone in South Africa, Australia, or any other country told us what they get. Perhaps even different parts of the UK get different results. What about Scotland, for instance? --Flex (talk/contribs) 00:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose As Flex suspected, I'm familiar with both. I've often seen the athlete on TV - Olympic (and Commonwealth Games!) atheletics is very important here in Australia. We need to be careful, not only of a US bias, but also of a Christian bias - though the triple jumper is, of course, a committed Christian. But there will be a lot of people in the UK who have heard of the athlete, but not the theologian. This is a clear example of where the disambiguation page has to be the main one. StAnselm 02:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There's been a fair bit said how JE the theologian is more important, but of course we need to decide based on NOTABILITY, which isn't the same thing. StAnselm 05:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Personally I think that they are both (athlete and theologian) clearly notable (per WP:NN), trying to say who is more notable is a bit tricky as it is not covered by the guideline and should probably be avoided. I think that from a historical perspective the theologian is more important whereas the contemporary athlete is probably more famous in large parts of the modern world. I do not think that the page location should be based on relative notability, fame or importance - notability has been well established in each case and fame and importance are quite subjective and subject to regional variation. What can be more practically looked at is the question of what most users intending to find when the type in "Jonathan Edwards". [[Guest9999 09:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)]]
  • Oppose (revised vote): per StAnselm above. We can make it like Michelangelo (disambiguation) in that it highlights the two most important figures bearing this name, and we can also rename this page to Jonathan Edwards (revivalist) or Jonathan Edwards (preacher) or whatever -- but that's a separate discussion. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Semi-support I continue to believe that this Jonathan Edwards is indeed the primary meaning, based primarily on the evidence from other encyclopedias, and secondarily on the google scholar/book results. However, the new evidence that google web results vary by country makes the case insufficiently clear that it is also acceptable to leave a disambiguation page as the primary redirect for the time being. I think the "athlete" should eventually be redisambiguated to "triple-jumper" as there are other athletes named Jonathan Edwards who are currently getting equivalent attention. I'm not sure if and how this page should be redisambiguated should it not be determined to be the primary meaning. GRBerry 14:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • See this prominent reliable source as an example: [11]. By contrast as I mentioned above, the NYTimes has virtually no references to the athlete but plenty to the theologian, so it seems reasonable to me to do a disambig. --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly support - same reasons as before. methodist church and pentecostal churches represent almost a third of the Christian population today, and the theologian is one of those contributers. the athlete seems to be only known in england, where as the theologian has contributed to the world wide church and will never be forgotten. the USA wasn't founded until after Edwards died. I agree that its time to fix this article. it should never have been moved. I also remember a tv personality with this name on American tv for several years, and no one remembers him. The athlete is still unknown and may never been world-wide; more likely, as soon as he is replaced he will be forgotten like the tv personality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.155.48.217 (talk • contribs)
  • Support - clearly the most prominent person on that list, without even a question. He's the most famous preacher in US history (even more so than John Wesley). To put a recent sportsman on par with this person in terms of disambiguation would be a serious disservice to the quality of the encyclopedia (and, to be quite frank, a worrisome show of anti-Americanism). This would be the equivalent of having an American long jumper on par with William Pitt (a page which, incidentally, is diambiguated, but only because there was the elder and younger). The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment if Brad Pitt used his birth name of "William Pitt" then I would suggest that "William Pitt" should direct to his page as he is by far the most famous, in the U.K., the U.S.A. and everwhere else and would be the subject of by far the most searches. This would be despite the politicians being far more important (in my opinion) in a historical sense. The simple fact is that in U.K. (and from this discussion likely Australia, New Zealand and other parts of the common wealth) the athlete will be the person that people are looking for. I really think that people are overestimating how well known the theologian is outside of religeous Christians in the U.S.A. So far only one person I've asked has even heard of the man and they didn't know who he was. Ask yourselves this - how many important Hindu (600 million worldwide) or Muslim (1 bilion worldwide) theologians can you name? I fully accept that the theologian will be more importnat in historical terms but currently the majority of users may well be searching for the athlete - or another Jonathan Edwards entirely. Please note that even the user who requested this move has changed his opinion based on the discussion. [[Guest9999 (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)]]
  • Oppose - the current situation works just fine. If there was to be a primary occupier of the Jonathan Edwards page, I'd go for the triple jumper. - fchd (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I agree with Guest9999 and fchd. In my experience most people talking about Jonathan Edwards would be talking about the athlete. He is very much a "household name", at least in the UK. I'm sorry to say that the theologian is not a household name in the UK, and I expect the same is true in many countries. Wikipedia can't be allowed to assert that theology is more important than sport. Let's keep it balanced, and keep it all with the disambiguation page. Sam Staton (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • A quick comment/query. What about the links (from main/portal/template spaces only) to each article as well as those directly to the disambiguation page? I think the total population will probably give us a better picture of the overall primary topic. I don't have time right now to check myself, and don't want to opine based on which one(s) I knew about before looking at the disambiguation page. GRBerry 18:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I checked, and it looks to me like the links to the theologian are significantly more in number than all to the others put together. --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • The link count is, upon review, significantly distorted by links from navigation templates. For example, Jonathan Edwards (academic) is only directly linked by 3 articles, but is also in a template that is on 30 pages. The theologian is linked from 13 articles and 1 minor portal page. The athlete is in four different navigation templates, which are on lots of articles, making it hard to figure out what the true links to his article are. I think there are more Wikipedia links to the athlete's article, even after discounting for the template links, than to the theologian's article. But I also think that Wikipedia links isn't even a important measure - the important measure is the general reader's likely interest, and the google test is better for that. GRBerry 04:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Technical question: How do you come up with your link counts that exclude templates? Do you count pages that have a template and a link in the text? --Flex (talk/contribs) 05:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
          • I did manual subtraction, so I may be undercounting the folks with nav template. I considered temporarily removing them from the templates an getting a clean article text list - but decided that wasn't worth doing. Since there are no nav templates that include the Theologian, the possible undercounting doesn't change my belief that the Athlete has more text links. But, as I said above, counting wikipedia links is the wrong approach. As described at WP:CSB, we have systemic biases, making Wikipedia link counting incorrect. Relevant biases include those for pop culture topics, recentism, and for religious topics, and the overall effect of the bias is impossible to determine. So we need to go look at the real world, not at current wikipedia links. GRBerry 14:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
            • I agree with you about systematic bias and recentism, but I think link count (minus templates) can still be a useful measure. Anyway, Template:Calvinism includes the theologian, though it doesn't seem to add that much. [Update: I believe I have may have overstated the number of links to the theologian vs. the others, but I am not convinced that the athlete actually has more after excluding templates. In any case, the disparity is not as great as I originally suggested.] --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • There is some older relevant discussion at Talk:Jonathan Edwards (disambiguation). GRBerry 04:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Is there any way to tell which article (that for the athlete or that for the theologian) most people are looking for when they type in Jonathan Edwards. Page views or something? When I type "Jonathon Edwards" into Google (from in the UK - I don't know if that makes a difference) the Wikipedia page for the athlete is the first result and the page for the theologian is the third result. [12] Aren't google rankings somewhat based on how many people view a page? I agree in a Historical context the theologian is more important and he is probably more well known the America but in terms of ease of use of Wikipedia I think that linking to the disambiguation page is the better option. If in the future interest in the athlete has waned but interest in the theologian has remained then the link could be changed. About half of the people who took place in the discussion at Talk:Jonathan Edwards (disambiguation) were searching for the athlete or belived that currently the theologian would not be the most searched for person with the name. [[Guest9999 20:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)]]
      • Not that I'm aware of, though the number of edits (including vandalism!) in their respective page histories may give some indication -- the athlete has over 600, the theologian has almost 1000, though it appears the latter history may be truncated since the article is quite tlong when it was "moved" from Jonathan Edwards in the earliest revision listed. --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • To my mind those figures are not significantly different. Considering that theology is a more controversial topic than athletics you would expect the article to be more heavily edited. I don't know if it's relevant but isn't the fact that the page is a vandal target another reason why it should not be used as a page a large proportion of people will visit just to be redirected. The more stable disambiguation page would seem like a better option. [[Guest9999 22:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)]]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Samuel Davies

The Samuel Davies succeeding Jonathan Edwards as President of the College of New Jersey (Princeton University) is not the Ohio politican to whom this citation is linked. He is rather the person discussed in this link -http://etcweb.princeton.edu/CampusWWW/Companion/davies_samuel.html - and should be so cited. 70.157.82.108 (talk) 07:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

71.1.208.56 (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC) The article lacks discussion of Edwards childhood (the only son in a family of many daughters, son of a pastor), or his education (Yale in the wake of a controversy, "The Great Apostacy"), his brief pastorate in New York City, his courtship and marriage, his coming to Northampton to serve with his esteemed grandfather. And the material on Gender issues shows the imposition of modern values and concerns not necessary for an historical understanding of Edwards in his own context. This article needs significant revision. 71.1.208.56 (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC) John Carpenter 71.1.208.56 (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

reading style

how was sinners in the hands of an angry god read? ("I would like to add that someone should add on what styles he used in his sermons, and writings. And cover other things about him, like tone, themes, and whatever else may be helpful."...someone else) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.121.10.190 (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

the slavegirl Venus

With respect, I consider Venus relevant to Edward's life and our understanding of him, not just "an interesting but unrelated factoid." Also, the article is currently rather sketchy, and the info about Venus is one of many things I've learned about Edwards' family that I intended to insert. Regards,Rich (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I meant that it was utterly unconnected and out of place within the article. I'm not opposed to that fact appearing somewhere in the article, but it didn't fit where it was and seemed from its placement at the top of a section like it might be a POV push (not an uncommon thing in an article like this). So, how does it fit in an encyclopedic summary of Edwards's life and thought according to reliable sources? When that question is answered, its proper placement (or omission) should be obvious. --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I concur that it was unconnected to its placement there. There ought to be room in this article for a fuller description of his family/household. We have his marriage at the tail end of "Early life", a mention of his daughter Jerusha at the tail end of "Great Awakening", a bare statement that he had a large family in the 3rd paragraph of "Later years", and a short bit on his daughter Esther and husband in the 4th paragraph of "Later years".
That is a paltry discussion of his family, and probably far too little. If he had a large family, why are only two daughters mentioned? In that context, any mention of a particular slave anywhere in the would be undue weight. With a real section on his family mention of owning one or more slaves might have a place. But I'm quite certain that the religious work for which he is known will be far more important than the family, so I doubt the family merits more than a paragraph or so. GRBerry 21:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Unconnected, or choppy in style perhaps, but definitely not "utterly" unconnected. I chose to put it in 'Later Years' because that's where it fit chronologically. With an article so near stub level as this one, just about any really new info would stand out like a sore thumb until we've had the time to integrate it, add context, create a new section, etc. I believe the information on Venus is an important truth about Edwards that should be in here, as long as the article has progressed passed the stub level.-Otherwise it will be an untoward omission!-I mean, J Edwards was an utterly sincere man who thought long and hard on right action. It will be very strange to have info about him owning a slave to be left out, in part because slaveowning seemms such a strange contradiction to us, at least for a man of Edwards goodness. I'm not sure I'm getting this across...let's see..when the info about Venus is left out, the reader is not getting vital information about how ok slavery was in the 1740s of NewEngland, because this was Edwards, not just anyone. The reader needs an indication of how alien to us it was, or else the article is badly lacking. Further it's an important lesson in humility for all of us. Regards, Rich (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
First, this article is well above stub level in my estimation. It's not FA quality, certainly, but I find your argument that "any new information is a good thing" to be unpersuasive given the length, substance, and decent quality of the article as it now stands.
My point is that not every single citable fact about Edwards needs to appear in this article, which is an encyclopedic summary not an exhaustive biography. Moreover, facts about Edwards's relation to any number of other notable topics (say, his views on the French and Indian War or his understanding of what "baptism for the dead" means) do not need to appear in this article.
That being said, there is nothing obvious that would prevent the fact of his owning a slave from having a place in the article, but so far, there is no obvious ground or logical place for including it. There is no indication (from reliable sources, preferably) of its importance in the overall scope of his life and thought. Your argument about communicating that slavery was considered normal back then is not the point of this article and is not a justification for including it here (though it might be in an article about American slavery).
Consider the parallel case of the article on John Calvin. Formerly, it had a description (with citations) of his treatment of purported witches -- namely, he advocated executing them in accord with his understanding of the Bible. When the article was recently rewritten from reliable sources in order to get it to FA, that paragraph was omitted. Is how witches were viewed and treated back then a noteworthy topic? Certainly. But does it belong in the article on Calvin? No, even though it gives additional information, because it is not as important in the overall scheme of things. It is not an untoward omission intended to hide a conflict with modern values; rather, it is putting weight on the most important topics for a summary article and omitting true facts that have less bearing on the subject as a whole. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I claimed the article is scarcely above stub class, you don't think so. You may be correct. But it is pretty sketchy. An article about someone as notable as Edwards doesn't need to be and shouldn't stay a "summary article." As far as Calvin goes, I think the witches information should be included. Why have just a summary article on Calvin?? Also, keeping the witches material out of Calvin article fails to capitalize on a strength of wikipedia--its connectedness-you could link Witchcraft from John Calvin. This helps combat the impression of history as a disconnected but tight little thing instead of a vast crazy jumping around thing. The same goes for including Venus in this article and linking it to Slavery; we should make the connections, I mean the links. You earlier said the edit about Venus was unconnected. Well I'm in favor of things being connected, but not by leaving things out. We don't have much of a length restriction on Wikipedia.As far as reliable sources, I got it from a bio that won a Pulitzer and I cited it. Winslow found the bill of sale in the Yale University archives.Regards, Rich (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
ALL Wikipedia articles are summaries. That's the nature of ALL encyclopedias, including this one. We're not writing detailed monographs on specific topics here. As for Calvin and witches, I wouldn't be put out if some mention were included, but it's not a major topic for him. Moreover, we can add things ad infinitum to the article. Should we include factoids like that Calvin of Calvin and Hobbes is named after him, or that he is the pope in His Dark Materials, or that his annual salary in Geneva included seven barrels of wine, or that his commentary on Daniel takes a preterist approach? All of these would, in theory, increase its connectedness, but simultaneously they put in things that are of relatively minor relevance to Calvin himself, diminishing the focus of the article (cf. WP:UNDUE). Each of these factoids rightly exist in more relevant articles and are reliably sourced, but they don't necessarily all belong in the article on Calvin because we simply cannot and should not try to say everything about the man there. Similarly with Edwards, that factoid doesn't appear to me (and another editor above) to be of major relevance here, though it might be in, say, Christianity and slavery. --Flex (talk/contribs) 01:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Of course all wikipedia articles are summaries.But because of my desire to assume good faith towards you I've been trying very hard to figure out what you mean by summary article. I've been trying to find out do you mean this, or do you mean that, by summary article. One could say that a thousand page article on a particular fire hydrant in Knight's Landing, California, is a summary because a history of the millions of sextillions of atoms making it up is left out.If I have you wrong I'm very sorry, but this is what I'm wondering--You say this should be what you call a summary article, so it can be kept a short article, and thus justify keeping mention of Venus out? Please note that on 18 February 2009,the post of yours I'm replying to now, this article was shorter than the Jonathan Edwards article in the 1963 Britannica. But wikipedia has more space in its hard drives than 1963 Britannica had on its pages. There is plenty room to add plenty more to the article until the recommended maximum length is reached.--If I am reading you wrong, I apologize! (Even if I am reading you right, i still assume good intentions.)..Now for a request: Please humor me by not referring to Edwards buying Venus as a factoid or comparing it to a popculture item like how a cartoon got its name.I don't think Venus being bought by Edwards is a factoid at all, it's an important historical fact, even if it wasn't a big issue to Edwards and his family and contemporaries. (I bet it was a big issue to Venus and her family though.) In fact, rather than in factoid, it is conceivable, at least to me, that Edwards purchased Venus as a way of protecting or helping her.(I really have no idea.)But a good encyclopedia article is a thing that could stir up some research that would shed light on Edwards motives and tell us something about Venus. Regards, Rich Peterson75.45.106.99 (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia is a summary of accepted knowledge, which means it must necessarily omit true facts of relatively minor relevance to the subjects, which would otherwise diminish the focus and encyclopedic nature of the article. I called this item (and the ones about Calvin above, not all of which are about cartoons) a factoid because it seemed (and continues to seem) that it was quite unconnected from the rest of the article. There is no indication of its importance for Edwards's life. It seemed just thrown in there, and it makes one wonder, Why is this here in such a bare form, unless it is to stir up our modern sensibilities against slavery to lessen the man? It could be illuminating on some aspect of his character, whether he protected and helped her or beat her daily, but it is entirely lacking such context. As I said, I am not opposed to the matter appearing here in principle, but as it stood, it was merely a disconnected fact, and one pregnant with cultural baggage at that. --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
"My pet-peeves are giving minor issues undue weight and adding tangentially related external links." My apologies Flex, I finally read the above on your user page and understand where your coming from, although I don't agree, except partially. The thing is, Wikipedia can't be born fullgrown out of our heads like Britannica, it has to start —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard L. Peterson (talk • contribs)
    • (..piecemeal, at least sometimes, so there will be awkwardnesses, choppy writing, important stuff that seems stashed sideways into the article, until the article approaches maturity. But that in no way means that just because something important seems like "what the heck does that have to do with the rest of the article??", that it should be omitted.And, I say that if a modern reader is likely to find the fact about Venus notable, or illuminating, or shocking, or give valuable perspective,make him turn his back on Edwards and Christianity, make him humble and a more devout Christian, we should include it. On the other hand the things that contemporaries of Edwards found notable ab whatever, out Edwards were his preaching his thinking and his piety. Even if it were that modern readers had no interest in such things(but they do)I would say include it as well.)My previous post was at a public library and I had to logoff after 15 minutes, so it got chopped at the words "it has to start", so I resumed just now with the words "piecemeal, at least", after remembering what I had been saying.Rich (talk) 08:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
My concerns with this edit are better expressed above: it is a charged piece of information that completely lacks context or importance. If it said (to make up a fiction), "While living with the Mohicans, Edwards raised baby seals, which were a staple of the Mohican diet and were clubbed to death according to custom," ... well, that could be relevant or not. The question is how and why does it belong here? If it were inserted in the way the fact about Venus was, it would seem out of place as well as laden with modern cultural meaning that would arouse prejudice against him. Perhaps he had some hand in making their deaths more humane or whatever, but there's no obvious reason why this particular charged fact should appear without some indication of its relevance. Did he increase the humaneness of their deaths, did he club them himself, did he get a sickness that would ultimately kill him from eating the meat? It doesn't have to be fully formed, but a pregnant but not obviously relevant fact like that needs more context. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Locke and Edwards

The article (par. 3 under "Early Life") repeats what has been a commonplace since Perry Miller's short bio of Edwards (which I'll add to the biblio, in spite of its idiosyncratic reading of Edwards, because of its important role in Edwards' rehabilitation among scholars): that Locke was a major philosophical influence on Edwards. I take "influence" here to suggest much more than just Socratic stimulation regarding certain philosophical problems. At any rate, this is how Miller and, it seems, Hopkins before him view the lineage. But anyone familiar with Locke and Edwards' ontologies will find pause here. The first affiliations that strike me in Edwards' philosophy are with English neo-platonism and Continental rationalism, not Lockean empiricism. Recent scholars have given grounds for a much more modest account of Locke's impression (sorry, couldn't resist) on the young Edwards. See especially Norman Fiering's Jonathan Edwards Moral Thought it Its British Context and his paper, "The Rationalist Foundations of Edwards' Metaphysics" in Jonathan Edwards and the American Experience, ed. Hatch and Stout. I propose, then, to amend the sentence so as to weaken the suggestion of substantial inheritance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.41.12.180 (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with your opinion of Edwards vis-a-vis Locke. I think that Perry Miller's emphasis on Enlightenment rationalism and Edwards come out of the context in which Miller was rehabilitating the Puritans. His theory was not developed--forgive me--tabula rasa, but was in reaction to the academy. I suspect that now that the Puritans have been revived, we needn't as strongly push Miller's implicit formulation: Enlightenment=good, Edwards' thought=enlightenment; ergo, Puritans=good. All academics aside, this is a small point, maybe a quibble: can we both agree that science broadly affected Edwards? And, if we view his science here through Edwards' primarily theological view on life, should the emphasis be on how science and the natural world was part of Edwards' reverence and worship of God (as made clear in Marsden's bio, which is a superior reading to Miller anyway)?
Ok, I edited the other page, trying to lean the natural science discussion towards a direction Edwards would have probably been more familiar with anyway. If you like it, we can leave it and delete this section of the talk page.

--Jim37hike (talk) 07:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Dubious claim; disputed that he is "one of America's greatest intellectuals"

[dubious – discuss] In the intro paragraph this claim is made, and the only citation is to a biography on him by George M. Marsden. Marsden has a clear conflict-of-interest in trying to make the subject of his book seem important. This assertion also seems to violate WP:NPOV. Although some sources may describe him as such, most lists of American intellectuals do not include mention of him. (As one crude test, google has 427 hits for <"list of American intellectuals">, but 0 hits if <Jonathan Edwards> is included.) This claim should be omitted.

Perhaps you should expand your search? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/edwards/ , http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/mwt/dictionary/mwt_themes_420_edwards.htm . Markvs88 (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
If describing the subject of a biography in good terms is a conflict-of-interest for the author, then virtually no biographies would be reliable sources. In fact, carry it through and there is no such thing as a reliable source at all. 216.8.142.204 (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Marsden is considered to be one of the foremost historians of evangelicalism, and his biography on Edwards won the Bancroft prize, probably the highest honor the historical academy can bestow--since the Bancroft committee tries to give the prize to books that change the field, this would indicate that a simple bio on Edwards (and, as a corollary, Edwards himself) was probably important. Marsden, for his part counts Edwards as that great of an intellectual because of his reach--the Awakenings, which Edwards in part started, would be transformative, even as the theological debates between Edwards and "Old Brick" Charles Chauncey characterized the religious debates that went on in the US until the rise of romanticism and the transcendentalists in the 1830s. Check out the New Haven Theology, for instance, or the Calvinist-cum-Arminians like Finney, who techincally were Calvinist in origin, but totally weren't in practice. Edwards's numerous works on revivals--both as descriptors and analysis--also set the tone for evangelicalism into the 19th century. Finally, Edwards's bio of David Brainerd was read to encourage missionaries literally all the way into the 20th century (actually, if memory serves, even the famous Jim Elliot read it). Hence, Marsden uses the reach and depth of Edwards writing, and the impact of his thought, to prove his greatness.
Or, take Perry Miller, who basically brought the study of Puritans back from nothingness in the 1940s-1950s, also thought that Edwards was that central to the colonial era. Miller classified Edwards as the greatest of all the thinkers of colonial America, because Edwards single-handedly reworked Puritan theology. Edwards "grasped with a flash" how Enlightenment thought threatened classic Calvinist orthodoxy, and encouraged him to reinterpret the Calvinist faith, adding more elements of human will in salvation, thus leading to the Great Awakening.
I think that's the kicker--both Marsden and Miller agree that Edwards was a very influential intellectual, even though they disagree on why. Pick up nearly any text on early American religion, the late colonial era, or New England, and Edwards' influence looms large. With the many "great misomers" that are doubtless out there in history, I would contend strongly that this is not one of them. There are more references that can be cited, and numerous other authorities to consult on this particular topic, but I have yet to come across any modern historians who doubt Edwards' personal influence. (More common, actually is the T. H. Breen school, which just tries to downplay the influence of New England and elevate colonial Virginia instead, but that, obviously, is unrelated to the question of if Edwards himself is great or not.)
Oh, as an afterthought, add Edmund Morgan, another great historian, to the list. His "The Puritan Dilemma," if memory serves, holds Edwards up as one of the last intellectuals to grapple with the paradox of how Puritans could build a "city on a hill" in a fallen, Calvinist world. Add it all up, and most historians give Edwards the title almost without a thought--it's almost a cliche of the discipline, by now, if anything--but if one wants to overturn this opinion, I suggest writing a historical article to disprove the theory, rather than submitting an unsubstantiated opinion that generally stands against the interpretation of the historical literature.

--Jim37hike (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Location of Edwards's sermon

In which Enfield did he preach his sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"? The article says at the top that it was in Massachusetts, but in the body of the article it gives the location as the Enfield in Connecticut. This should be clarified, unless he did give it in both towns in July of 1741, then which this should be noted. 65.198.87.80 (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

At the top of the article, you'll notice that it says Edwards' church was in Northampton, MA and his primary influence on the great awakening began there, in 1733-35. He gave his famous Sinners sermon in a later wave of revival in 1741, in Enfield CT--at the top of the article, it doesn't state where the Sinners sermons was given, but does connect it with the 1741 period of the G.A., and Whitefield's revival tour. I would argue that since the beginning of an article is setting out the important details (and that is clarified as Enfield, CT later in the article), the important fact is already made: Edwards' being deeply involved in whitefield's tour. Edwards gave the sermon many places on the revival tour, so the impact of the sermon and its connection with the revival is more important to be made clear in the intro two paragraphs, rather than the first place (of many) where it was given.
Here's the text again as a refresher (w/ citations removed), which should help demonstrate my point: Edwards played a critical role in shaping the First Great Awakening, and oversaw some of the first fires of revival in 1733–35 at his church — First Church — in Northampton, Massachusetts. Edwards delivered the sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", a classic of early American literature, during another wave of revival in 1741, following George Whitefield's tour of the Thirteen Colonies.

--Jim37hike (talk) 07:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Importance of Women

This section has no citation. I believe it should be taken down unless there is documentation of Edwards' view of women. Hateloveschool (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Progeny

Most people today DO NOT consider eugenics a psuedoscience. We do not think there is any practical use for breeding for certain racial characteristics and we find it morally reprehensible, but that does not mean eugenics as a whole is a pseudoscience. We still practise eugenics in the form of animal husbandry, and there is a currrent trend towards ethical reassessment of eugenics based on non-racial factors. ["I don't think one ought to bring a clearly disabled child into the world." - Nobel prize winning geneticist John Sulston] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.37.6.251 (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

SPRING CLEANING: Just to give everybody the head up, I embarked on a clean-up mission for this talk page. It had basically fallen almost totally silent the last year or so, and the most recent requests have all been fulfilled. Also, I have a... PROPOSAL TO REMOVE: Since we're doing spring cleaning, are there objections to deleting the "Requested move" section? The thread has been dead since 2007--long enough to move on. Anybody else agree that we don't need this section anymore? The Edwards page is looking really solid, so I figured it was time to clean the slate for future work on editing/emphasis rather than old and bygone threads. Jim37hike (talk) 06:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Article accuracy and references.

This article relies on references that omit the page numbers. The article is also written with unsupported statements such as; "Sarah's spiritual devotion was without peer, and her relationship with God had long proved an inspiration to Edwards.". While I have no intentions to try to neutralize an article to a point where importance to religion is displaced, I think such profound statements should be carefully referenced. Otr500 (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we can remove/delete the objection. I wrote that sentence and the following one about Sarah--both come from the Marsden text. The citation simply follows the next sentence--I was following Chicago Style's practice of bundling citations so the text isn't littered with citations after very sentence. I did all that editing in August 2009, and everything I quoted had a citation from my reading of the Marsden text (I've read other sources on Edwards, of course), unless it was a really general, widely known statement. If an editor is inclined, I suppose we could add a citation after every single sentence, but I think that would be make for a distracting read. Jim37hike (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Stockbridge Pastor

As an example of the documentation for the date of his installation as pastor at Stockbridge, see Jonathan Edwards: A Life, Page 365 : Jonathan Edwards: A Life. I believe the previously stated 1750 is incorrect. - Dunc0029 (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

We can delete/remove the above objection. The date now correctly reads 1751--Edwards arrived there that Spring/summer. See Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life, pages 365, 371, 375. Jim37hike (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Edwards' views on slavery

I would like more clarity in the article on Jonathan Edwards' theological/intellectual/ideological and personal views on slavery in the colonies, especially in comparison to the views of George Whitefield. I would suggest that this topic should have its own section in the article. Thanks. -96.26.108.183 (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Nationality

"Caucasian" is not a nationality. Not even in the Caucasus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.207.130 (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Enlightenment?

"Recent studies have emphasized how thoroughly Edwards grounded his life's work on conceptions of beauty, harmony, and ethical fittingness, and how central The Enlightenment was to his mindset."

Am I missing something? How can The Enlightenment be central to a person who preached almost only about Satan and hell?

The Enlightenment is called like this because it aimed to make people stop believing exactly in such superstitious nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.7.152 (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

NO PERSONAL ATTACKS, PLEASE. Rjensen (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 22 August 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Rough consensus not to move at this time (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

– It looks like during the previous discussion (almost ten years ago) the greatest argument against was that Jonathan Edwards (athlete) was more well-known outside the US. I don't really agree with that argument to start with given the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline on long-term significance, but the athlete is now retired and presumably less well-known now than in 2007. JFH (talk) 02:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: Announcement of this discussion appears at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theology and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jonathan_Edwards_(theologian)/Archive_1&oldid=1136266352"