Talk:Thomas Paine/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Paine and Religion

Two new users (possibly the same person) have twice added out of context quotes to the 2nd paragraph of the lede. The quotes are apparently to counter the previous sentence "He became notorious because of The Age of Reason (1793–94), the book advocating deism and arguing against institutionalized religion, Christian doctrines, and promoted reason and freethinking, for which he would become derided in America."

While the existing sentence does, in fact, summarize material in the body of the article, the quotes by the new editors introduce new material not covered in the body of the article. This is contrary to the intent of WP:LEAD which states, "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article, and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article."

If the editor wishes to introduce an alternative vision of Paine's religious views, then the first step is to present the information in the body of the article. The material SHOULD NOT be simply quotes from Paine's work but should include reliable, third party information placing the material in the proper context. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Later years...

I know nothing about the topic of Paine so am commenting solely as a reader. I'm trying to understand the reasons for Paine's reversal of fortune in his later years. The section on "later years" contains the following:

"Also still fresh in the minds of the public was his Letter to Washington, published six years before his return."

Apologies if I missed it, but what is this letter? I couldn't find it discussed in the article. Thanks Manning (talk) 04:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

THOMAS PAINE - MEMORIAL STATUE IN PARIS, history

A full-size (gold-colored) statue of Thomas Paine is (or was, when I last looked, some decades ago, last clear memory in 1968 or '69)on a pedestal on Boulevard Jourdain, (Boulevard Peripherique), Paris 14, across the street from la Fondation des Etats Unis (America House).

As a very good example of incorrect political assessment it had been knocked down in May 1968, but reestablished after some weeks. Months ? The fate of that statue cannot be separated from that of May 1968, and the seminal role the America House played in its origins. 121.217.145.155 (talk) 02:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)max watts rosiek@bigpond.com

misuse of rebutted

Other than to express an opinion (a promotional use), "rebutted" is only useful where there's no question of factuality (for technical issues). Paine and his adversaries were expressing opinions. Rather than promote the opinions (or not), simply point out the existance of a typical adversary Tedickey (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tedickey, I disagree with your use of the word "rebutted." Rebutted is properly used when it describes a refutation by evidence and argument, which "Age of Revelation" was intended to do, according to its author, and technically succeeded in doing just that. I also disagree with the notion that Paine was simply expressing an opinion as opposed to promoting a thought out and argued proposition.

To demonstrate to the neutral reader the opposition Paine experienced is a more wholesome picture of the events and history.

Best Regards, Bill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wprovenzan001 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. However, "thoroughly rebutted" is nonfactual. You might consider how to support the use of Boudinot's book by citing mainstream opinions from well-known historians. (If it were thorough, for instance, Boudinot's book would be better known than Paine's). Tedickey (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, in that last edit, you were expressing opinions which aren't sourced (whether reliably or not). Tedickey (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tedickey. I'm new to Wikipedia and seem to be having problems with editing. I am attempting to remove "thoroughly" as it is subjective, but am not being successful. I think that is a fair point. Boudinot's work does not address all of the propositions posited in Paine's work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wprovenzan001 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The typical reader understands that in the context given, "thoroughly" means that Boudinot's presentation was widely accepted, and that Paine's was (to both Paine's and Boudinot's audience) discredited. Boudinot's audience by itself is meaningless (they were predisposed to accept whatever conclusion he chose). If you can provide reliable sources for that, it would be a start. Tedickey (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a place for editors to provide their own opinions and conclusions regarding causes. Rather, the guidelines require that those be drawn from reliable sources Tedickey (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Duly noted. Back to one of your comments related to "thoroughly" in the context of history; whether or not a written work is well known does not the indicator of whether or not the same work is "thorough." In this context, I agree that "thoroughly rebutted" is not appropriate. Thanks for pointing that out. I have changed the language to read simply "rebutted." Boudinot did not rebut Paine's entire work, but thoroughly (in my opinion ;-))rebutted certain propositions of Paine.

This is actaully a pretty neat process. Wikipedia seems to have it together. Wprovenzan001 (talkt) 18:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That's an improvement Tedickey (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

However, the latest has two problems: (a) using Wikipedia as a reliable source (it is not), and (b) adding an opinion regarding why Paine's ideas were/were not rejected. Tedickey (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not add an unsourced opinion as to why Paine's ideas were rejected. I simply compared two sources, which any reader can do by going to the sources. My reference to the other Wiki page is more to incorporate a linked discussion and the two references which apply to both. The two references are the references sited in the first paragraph of section five of the discussion "Age of Reason" and my reference to the "age of revelation." One needs only to compare the two sources to identify that correlation. Wprovenzan001 (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

er no: you didn't cite a reliable source (editors and their text on Wikipedia aren't qualified to be reliable sources). The "ref" link could be expressed as a regular wiki-link, however the context of your addition doesn't provide a suitable place for this. A wiki-link isn't a reference, and shouldn't be formatted as one. "One needs only..." is something that calls for a reliable source, otherwise you're injecting your own opinion. Tedickey (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

continuing - the comment that you made with the miscast wikilink is not found in the topic. So the statement doesn't provide suitable context for the wikilink (another sentence could be added to tie that to, which still leaves your comment about Boudinot unsourced). Tedickey (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

further, your entire comment is not in a good relationship to the section, which is discussing Paine's political views. It might fit into the "Legacy" section, but as it stands, it doesn't help the section that it's within. Tedickey (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

however, given the narrow focus of your comment, and the relative obsurity of Boudinot, it would be better to move your comment to the Age of Reason topic, and provide suitable reliable sources there. Tedickey (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I am going to revert all of the edits of Wprovenzan001 as unsourced and original research. In the lede he/she has suggested that only "some" folks consider Paine as a Founding Father and has proposed that the definition of a FF is contingent on having a "direct impact on the establishment of the Unites States Constitution or the establisment of any of the earliest forms of government" -- a definition that completely ignores the events that led to the Revolution. Oddly, he/she has no problem in elsewhere labelling the relatively obscure Elias Boudinot as a FF. If there are relaible sources that question Paine's status as a FF, then the info. should first be added (and sourced) in the body of the article before being added to the article lead.

With respect to Boudinot's criticism of Paine, totally unsupported by any reliable secondary sources, the issue is the significance of Boudinot's opinion. I checked four general histories of the American Revolution by Robert Middlekauff, Gary Nash, Gordon Wood, and Woody Holton -- only one of them even has Boudinot listed in the index. Wprovenzan001 needs to establish on this discussion page that Boudinot's opinion is relevant.

Wprovenzan001 should also check out WP:3RR. He/she is already in violation of those guidelines. At this point, there is a definite need to obtain consensus on this discusson page before adding back any of this material.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Date of Birth

81.154.143.62

Concerning Thomas Paine's date of birth in this article, Old Style and New Style dates explains it, but there's an even clearer explanation using Ben Franklin's birth date at this website.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  14:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a Wiki protocol on using Old-style/New-style dates? - I can't find one.
I understand the difference between Old Style and New Style dates, including the different years as given in Conways Life Page 3 "Thomas Paine was born January 29, 1736-7".

There were no Birth, Marriage & Death records, and he was not baptized, but if there was an official register, his date of birth would undoubtedly have been entered as 29 January.
If asked his birthday, before September 1752, when the calendars changed, Paine would obviously have said 29th January.
If asked after September 1752, would he have said 9th February? Do we know?

As stated in the article referenced by Paine Ellsworth above:-

"Did everyone change birthdays in 1752? - No. Most people were happy to keep their original dates"

So Franklin was the exception, rather than the rule, leaving the question - when was Paine born?
Arjayay (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Since we use the Gregorian calendar today, then to, say, calculate a person's age, we would use that calendar. If we use the Julian date of Paine's, Franklin's, Washington's birth, then we would be very wrong about how many years they lived. This would apply to anyone who was alive when the calendar changed in 1752. While many people did prefer to keep their Julian birthdate, some others did not. From what I've researched, the common policy was to use either the Julian or Gregorian month and day (usually Julian in the beginning, while moreso the Gregorian toward the end of the 18th century), and then to use both years in the following way:

• 1731/2 (indicates the years 1731/1732)

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  14:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• PS. Also see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Calendars

That's really confusing:-
"The Julian day and month should not (my emphasis) be converted to the Gregorian calendar, but the start of the Julian year should be assumed to be 1 January"
I think that means that, to comply with MoS, Paine was born on 29 January 1737?
Arjayay (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It has been a month since my last post on Paine's DoB, and no-one has disagreed with my understanding that "to comply with MoS, Paine was born on 29 January 1737"
Any last minute objections before I change it?
Arjayay (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Funeral procession

The source for "six people at Paine's funeral" reads:

"In a carriage, a woman and her son who had lived on the bounty of the dead – on horseback, a Quaker, the humanity of whose heart dominated the creed of his head – and, following on foot, two negroes filled with gratitude"

Which is only 5 people; so can I clarify if there is an un-listed sixth person (such as a clergyman, or the carriage driver), or should the article read "five people" rather than six? - Oisín^(Message) 16:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Antisemitism?

Paine's Common Sense includes some eyebrow-raising paragraphs about Jews. I'm not sure if they would qualify as antisemitic, though, or if I'm simply misreading them. Was Paine an anti-Semite?

Near three thousand years passed away, from the Mosaic account of the creation, till the Jews under a national delusion requested a king. Till then their form of government (except in extraordinary cases where the Almighty interposed) was a kind of Republic, administered by a judge and the elders of the tribes. Kings they had none, and it was held sinful to acknowledge any being under that title but the Lord of Hosts. And when a man seriously reflects on the idolatrous homage which is paid to the persons of kings, he need not wonder that the Almighty, ever jealous of his honour, should disapprove a form of government which so impiously invades the prerogative of Heaven.

Monarchy is ranked in scripture as one of the sins of the Jews, for which a curse in reserve is denounced against them. The history of that transaction is worth attending to.

(see [1]) Stonemason89 (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm reading this wrong, it has nothing to do with antisemitism. I'm not the brightest guy and know next to nothing about scripture, but it sounds like Paine is making an appeal to any potential Christians in that he's suggesting the very idea of a mortal king (read: not Jesus) is blasphemous and a form of false worship. And hence it is the responsibility of a good Christian to liberate himself from the rule of kings.

I really don't believe Paine was in any way an antisemite. He was however opposed to the judeo-christian religions, and that paragraph just goes to show how skilled a propagandist he really was. Even though he disagreed with Christians on an almost fundamental basis, he still reached out to them using their logic. 216.106.227.184 (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Paine and the French Revolution

I made two edits: 1) The text indicated that Paine visited France in "December 1790" - he is mentioned as being present at the Fete de la Federation on July 14 of that year [2], so I changed the date to simply "1790"; 2) Burke supporting the US Revolution but not the French one does not mean he changed his views, as they were two separate events - I changed to more neutral language.--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Surely it's 'common sense' that he was English?

How can a man, born and educated in England, who didn't step foot on the American colonies until he was 37 years old, be considered anything but an Englishman? As it says on this article, his own pamplet was signed: "written by an Englishman". Also, why isn't his birth place included below his date of birth, in the info box? Voucherman (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Paine was present at, and instrumental in, the birth of a new nation, so calling him, in summary, in the lede, "English" is inaccurate. Certainly he was born English, but he died an American. It's best for the article to explicate his journey rather than to inaccuratly pigeon-hole him in the very first sentence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The birth place wasn't displaying because of a problem in the infobox template, which I believe I have corrected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how calling him English, "pigeon-holes" him in anyway. It clearly states his significance in the American Revolution. He was English of birth, lived in England the majority of his life and was ancestrally English. Saying that he "died American" is clearly wrong. Adding the fact that he also had significance in the French Revolution and was given French citizenship. By saying he was English, it's not mentioning the fact that he was a British subject, it's just stating his clear ethnicity.

Steuben was arguably crucial to the American revolution, and became an American citizen. So why does his article open by clearly stating he was a "Prussian aristocrat"? How is he different from Paine?Voucherman (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST is not a valid argument here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it should be self-evident that they were ALL Englishman (or British, if you prefer) before 1776. The U.S. Constitution even had to specifically deal with this issue in Article II, declaring that for the purpose of being qualified for the Presidency, being a citizen of the U.S. at the time of adoption of the constiution was equivalent to being Natural Born. Thus Paine, under the constitution, was as American as George Washington or Thomas Jefferson. Paine bears no special recognition for being born an Englishman because he was in the same situation as everyone else. That he was not born in the territory that was later to become the U.S. is also irrelevent, Alexander Hamilton was in a similar situation, and he is always referred to as American and not anything else. --Jayron32 21:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

How about we compromise and call him what he actually was, an English-American. You can't dispute the fact that he was born and spent most of his life in England; however due to the fact that he played a major role in the American Revolution, is considered a founding father of the country, and last but not least chose to spend his final days and ultimately died in America his citizenship should never be called into question. 216.106.228.109 (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

A compromise which mistates the facts is no solution. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

To 216...: They all spent most of their life in Britain. The American colonies were Britain before 1776. --Jayron32 06:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion on why "English-American" is inappropriate, and the search for an alternative, takes up about 1/3rd of Archive 1. Please can we avoid going through it all again?
Arjayay (talk) 08:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Being English and being a British Subject are two COMPLETELY different things. He may not have considered himself a Britsh subject anymore, but Thomas Paine was clearly an Englishman- born and bred, and this rewriting history is frankly ridiculous. The colonies were not "Britain". They may have been British subjects, but some of them also had varying ancestral backgrounds and it would be ridiculous to try and assert them to be of one distinct European nationality. Thomas Paine was clearly an EnglishmanVoucherman (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus disagrees with you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

lets make it clear, so you're saying Thomas Paine was not English? Voucherman (talk) 03:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

No, what he's saying is that it isn't worth mentioning in the article. --Jayron32 03:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

the place where a guy was born and spent 37 years of his life is not worth a mention? I think this whole controversy violates NPOV. the article, at least needs to mention both in the opening, IMOVoucherman (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It says right in the next paragraph where he was born, and when he left. What's the problem? Oberono (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Because if he was only born in England, it wouldn't be an issue Voucherman (talk) 05:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Article –- a question for editors

This is an important article about a significant radical author and revolutionary who played an important part in the British enlightenment and American revolution. Clearly, a lot of work has already gone into this and many have contributed to the article's improvement. I'm convinced that a piece about such an important person merits Good Article status, and I'm wondering whether it's going to be worth getting together with some other editors to attempt to improve this – and possibly get it even to FA status.

It would mean, however, focussing not so much on petty quibbles about whether he was American, or whether British English should be used (quickly coming to a concensus on these relatively unimportant issues), but on improving the writing, referencing, punctuation, etc and dealing with any significant omissions or errors. Is anyone else up for this? – Agendum (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and I support this plan. However, from my experience on WP over the years, it's precisely the seemingly petty arguments that oftentimes doom such campaigns. That's why it's essential to remain true to Wikipedia standards for dealing with non-factual POV 'heated' issues (i.e. things, which potentially maybe true, but aren't able to be cited for our purposes)need to be kept off the record. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You may have more experience than I – and it may seem an impossible task but, on the other hand, it would be good to attempt to lift this article and get it recognised as a Good Article. We would first need to get some kind of concensus amongst a few commited authors in order to achieve this, I think. Looking at the history page, I see that a few have made worthwhile contributions in the last twelve months or so. I'm not sure that I have alot to offer in terms of knowledge of the subject – apart from the fact that I live close to Paine's birthplace and am fascinated by the man and his work, but I'm willing to collaborate and help in steering this project – without taking over completely, though. Agendum (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Towards the proposed end of improving the article, I have modified the lede. Two single sentence paragraphs were combined with other paragraphs. Also details concerning his death and burial were removed -- I retained the most significant point about his death which was the lack of attendance at his funeral and the reason for this. I had earlier removed a recent addition about property purchased in New Jersey since it does not seem significant enough to belong in the lede. All the material removed from the lede still exists in the body of the article. In fact, of more significance is the whole train of events that led to him being able to purchase the property which seems to be entirely missing from the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

A further question (from kybo61, Kansas City, Kansas) is regarding the quote: "Even some American revolutionaries objected to Common Sense; late in life John Adams called it a 'crapulous mass.'" The word "crap" did not enter the English language until 1846 according to Merriam-Webster. John Adams died in 1826. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.29.92 (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The word "crapulous", despite modern usage, has nothing to do with the word "crap", but comes from Latin "crapulosus" meaning "intoxicated". According to Merriam-Websters dictionary it means 1 : marked by intemperance especially in eating or drinking 2 : sick from excessive indulgence in liquor and the first recorded use in the English language of it is from 1536. So the quote looks genuine. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The transition between the first part of this page (where it talks about Working with John Laurens and traveling to France, and the section under the "Rights of Man" where he goes to London is jarring, as if he went to London immediately after his expulsion from the Congressional Committee on Foreign Affairs. Also the section on this expulsion needs to be developed because both Robert Morris and Governeur Morris were attacked by Paine and thus had negative motivations for their later behaviors towards him both in France and back in the United States -- so Paine's allegations concerning them were not without merit. This material needs to be developed. Moreover, considering that both were close advisers to Washington, his change in attitude towards Washington also fits in with the events. Finally Adams evolved from an enthusiastic revolutionary to the leader of the Federalist Faction and so it is entirely possible that he came to regard Paine's work as "crapulus" not on its merits but out of his enmity. Chris holte (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Holte

First, I'm a newbie at this page, so I'll tread lightly until I determine the thickness of the ice. To respond to the first question, yes in my view Paine is a topic WELL worth the effort to improve on the article. Paine was and remains a figure of enormous influence. I've made a few edits to the article over the years ... hopefully they've improved the whole ... and I have some expertise and experience in the debate around Thomas Paine that I hope will be of some value. Second, it ought to be clear that Adams was referring to Paine himself, not a particular work of his. Paineite (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Positives in Age of Reason

Greetings. Probably I could have posted here before adding this to the article and being reverted. But I do think that User:Beyond my ken is removing the positive statements from the Age of Reason from this article and I would like to know why. Why? Your edit summary says WP:WEIGHT. So you believe Paine was 100% negative and he deserved his six-people funeral? I think all you have to add is one sentence to show that Paine wasn't a atheist at all and that it was other people who've made him one, pardon me, but people like yourself? -SusanLesch (talk) 05:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Woops. My apologies, the article does say the book is "advocating deism". So I'm sorry for my above comment, but I would still like to know the answer to my question--why remove statements that reinforce Paine's positive beliefs? (Sorry, he wrote this before and after being a prisoner and so may have not exactly completed what he originally said he set out to do.) -SusanLesch (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT says that we should not give more weight to an aspect of the subject's opinions or activities than they deserve, in order to avoid misrepresentation. You seem interested in emphasizing that Paine said people should be grateful to God, but that is a very minor part of what he said, and not in any way representative of them. Many, many people through the ages have said that people should be grateful to God, but far fewer have said what Paine said and been as influential in the process. That you see "atheism" as "negative" is a dead givaway to your prejudices, but we aim here toward a neutral point of view, not to push any particular religious viewpoint, including yours. Paine was a Deist, and the article makes that clear, that you want to bowderlize him to make him religious in a different way than he actually was is your problem, not mine or Wikipedia's. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I got off to a bad start (as noted above). But now I don't think a good start was even possible given the participation of such a negative editor. Take care. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Please forgive any blunt retorts you might receive on Wikipedia, editor SusanLesch. Especially when it comes to the more volatile articles such as all of the {{Thomas Paine}} forms. You know yourself how special The Age of Reason was and is, and what an important role it played both in the forming of a new nation, and in the more personal opinions toward Paine. I would have to agree with the second revert since you had already added the part about how he wrote that "people owe God reverence and gratitude". That might be better broached in The Age of Reason article itself. However, I do agree that the first partial revert was not necessary. In my opinion, your edits actually strengthened the article, getting rid of all of those weak "ing" word ends. I would support undoing that revert, and one brief mention of "reverence and gratitude" would not add UNDUE weight, in my opinion.  — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  20:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That sounds great, Paine Ellsworth. Beyond My Ken, do you have more thoughts? Otherwise I think we could re-add one mention here (I also added a note to The Age of Reason article). -SusanLesch (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Editor Beyond My Ken, kudes to you for making me look that one up. If I understand the word correctly, it is due to Bowdler's omission of key words from the Bard's text. So "bowdlerize" has come to be a pejorative term that means "to edit out offensive content prudishly". Since this addition plays, as you say, "a very minor part of what he said", then it can hardly add to the weight of the passage. So it seems a bit bowdlerizing of you to keep editing it out, doesn't it? I'm going to revert you again, except for this passage. It can stay out of the article until we resolve the ironic dilemma here in this discussion.  — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  04:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

'Thomas Paine is a Founding Father of the United States'

The first paragraph used to read:

[Paine]..was an author, pamphleteer, radical, inventor, intellectual, revolutionary, and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States.

This seems to me to be overly mythical and non-NPOV. It is certainly significant that in the modern United States Paine is conventionally listed among the so called "Founding Fathers", but surely this has more to do with American High School historiography than it does with the actions of a man 200 years ago. You may as well start Jesus article with "Jesus was the King of the Jews".

I rephrased it thus

[Paine] was an author, pamphleteer, radical, inventor, intellectual, revolutionary and is conventionally included in lists of the Founding Fathers of the United States.

- Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.153.152 (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The user Paine_Ellsworth reverted my changes with the comment "rm unnecessary comment". I don't believe my small additions were unnecessary. "Founding Fathers" is a loaded political propagandistic term, part of the secular religion of the Modern United States. If Wikipedia is to be an international encyclopedia you can't simply present your native ethno-mythical formulations as if they are bare fact. I hope someone reads this and reverts the sentence in question to a more qualified version. -Dave 86.142.153.152 (talk) 02:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, I misread the History page. It was Tedickey who reverted my change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.153.152 (talk) 02:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The inline-cited reference source speaks to this issue:

Thomas Paine "These are the times that try men's souls". USHistory.org.

Not sure why you feel the need to rephrase it so that it is not so straightforward, 86. Thomas Paine was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America. His pamphlet, Common Sense, was published during a time of great fence-sitting. There were only a few radicals either on the side of the Crown or on the side of Independence for the colonies. Thomas Paine's words literally yanked people down off the fence. One was either appalled by Common Sense and sided with the Crown, or one was inspired by it to conquer great odds in the quest for freedom from tyranny. Thomas Paine earned his place as a Founding Father and the title is more than well-deserved.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  06:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The edit was an example of Wikipedia:Weasel_words, and did not add to the content (other than to imply that perhaps the statement was untrue) Tedickey (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

We ought to be guided by WP:RS. Try this for a start. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Samuel, and that's an excellent source. I do not see how US History dot org is less qualified, though. What are your thoughts?

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  01:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It's less academic and is perhaps open to the charge of "American High School historiography" as said above. But in this case, there is no problem; both can be cited if necessary. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It is done.  —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  10:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I'm new to the subject of Thomas Paine. However in my googling it would appear that his openly anti-religious sentiments are the cause of ongoing hostility from religious groups, who consequently want to discredit his status as a "Founding Father". The comment above that states "Founding Fathers" is a loaded political propagandistic term, part of the secular religion of the Modern United States." might be reflective of that. Manning (talk) 04:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I just thought I'd drop in and point out the statement made by John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, "History is to ascribe the American Revolution to Thomas Paine." That makes him, unequivocally a Founding Father. F33bs (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(Long) Comment - This issue seems to have since been settled, but I happened to have been researching this subject today, and thought I might as well contribute my findings (in a somewhat sloppy format...sorry):

"Paine understood what the people wanted or needed to hear better than any of the other Founding Fathers."

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 1 by Edward Craig Pg. 184

"...America's pre-eminent Founding Father."

Thomas Paine: Common Sense For The Modern Era by Ronald F. King and Elsie Begler Pg. 61

"Thomas Paine was one of America's most controversial Founding Fathers."

The Constitutional Convention of 1787: a Comprehensive Encyclopedia of America's Founding, Vol. 2 by John R. Vile Pg. 549

"He agreed with Thomas Paine (1737-1809), a widely respected intellectual and American founding father, who said..."

Ralph Waldo Emerson: The Father of The American Renaissance by Jamie Poolos Pg. 54

"A political writer and one of the Founding Fathers, Thomas Paine..."

The Louisiana Purchase: a Historical and Geographical Encyclopedia by Junius P. Rodriguez Pg. 271

"One of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Paine, said..."

Said by President Ronald Reagan during a speech at Sheraton Twin Towers Hotel, 1983. As cited by: American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and The Making of a Nation by Jon Meacham Pg. 226

"If you created a list, in order, of the most important founding fathers, [...] Thomas Paine and Patrick Henry are probably in your top five, as is Alexander Hamilton."

The Quotable John Adams by Randy Howe Pg. IX

"Thomas Paine was probably the most radical of all the Founding Fathers."

American Public Service: Constitutional and Ethical Foundations by Sheila Kennedy and David Schultz Pg. 17

"Paine was the best known [American] revolutionary of his day."

A History of Western Political Thought by J. S. McClelland Pg. 329

98.89.44.136 (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, 98! Thank you very much for that solid response!  — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  06:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to add from a historian's point of view that there is a specific and general sense of the phrase "founding father." Specifically it means one of the founders who attended the 1787 Constitutional Convention, thereby founding or establishing the government as we know it. You'll find this definition in many dictionaries as well as legal sources, for example: founding father — n ( often capitals ) a person who founds or establishes an important institution, esp a member of the US Constitutional Convention (1787) Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition 2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins or Main Entry: found·ing fa·ther Function: noun often cap both Fs : a leading figure in the founding of the U.S.; specifically : a member of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc. And then there is a more general sense in which people like Thomas Paine are sometimes included. I have no doubt that Paine would have been pleased to have been known as a founder of the nation and believed himself to be worthy of the adjective. And on balance, I believe he deserves it. Paineite (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

One quick read of Paine's Common Sense, plus a little research about the impact of the pamphlet, should in my estimation give anyone the sense that Thomas Paine was an integral Founding Father of both the war of independence from tyranny and of the United States of America. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  23:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I had thought the term "Founding Father" referred only to those who signed the Declaration of Independence. In that regard, Paine really isn't a Founding Father. His Pamphlets are Historically significant, but I don't know if he ought be called such.

Also, to the above, his "Age of Reason" was not Anti-Religion. he openly described himself as Religious. It was merely Anti-Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, and is primarily a Diestic and Enlightenment Document. Though I should caution further, being a Deist doesn't mean you are not also a Christian. The endless arguing over whether Jefferson was a Deist or a Christian irritates me as its clear that he was both. But Paine was clearly not fond of Christianity, however he did believe in God. Even if he didn't, the word "Religion" is not the same thing as "Theism".

Still, I'd be in favour of removing the "Founding Father" comment myself, not due to the above, but simply because he was not actually invovled in the Signign of the Declaration of Independence.

SKWills (talk) 03:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

This is covered in the article about the Founding Fathers of the United States. There are seven who are considered to be "key" Founding Fathers. That article goes on to list many more who were involved in the founding of a new independent nation against all odds. Among those "other" Founding Fathers, we find Thomas Paine. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  03:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed sourced text

I am remooving the follow text from the article:

Shortly before his death, a friend found Paine passed out in a New Rochelle, New York tavern, bearing "the most disagreeable smell possible." The friend carried Paine to a tub and washed him three times before the smell receded. He had not cut his nails in years.<ref>Made in America by Bill Bryson, ISBN 978-0-380-71381-3, Chapter 3, page 47. HarperCollins, 1994</ref>

for these reasons:

• It's not clear to me that Bryson should be considered a reliable source for such an anecdotal story (it would be useful to know what Bryson's source was);
• It's a single incident, unrelated to anything else in the article;
• Without a cause for the behavior -- was Paine depressed, an alcoholic, suffering from senile dementia? -- it doesn't particularly shed any light on the subject, or his character.

I have no interest in hagiography, but I also don't think that our article should denigrate an important historical person without substantial support behind the information. I would urge that the information be kept out of the article until it can be verified or supported with a citation from a more authoritative source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

+++

I removed the following plus reference

His writing of "Common Sense" was so influential that John Adams reportedly said, "Without the pen of the author of 'Common Sense,' the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain.”

The quote is sourced to the New Yorker but it doesn't have a historical reference. Indeed this 'quote' is said to have appeared in the 1950s. Paine and Adams wrote copiously. Their writing has survived and is well referenced. I haven't seen this remark appear in any serious biography of Adams or Paine. Unless it can be referenced to Adams' writings is should be treated as yet another later creation ascribed to a founding father to lend it greater weight. There are however good and well sourced quotes. A better one is from John Adams' letter to Abigail Adams of March 19, 1776 (almost exactly 2 months after Common Sense was published in which he wrote "I could not have written any Thing in so manly and striking a style," going on to describe it as "clear, concise and Nervous" (Nervous in the archaic sense of 'vital' and 'lively') - quotes and referencing courtesy John Ferling's 'Setting the World Ablaze'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.15.20 (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing your well founded opinions on this. I am sorry we had to hand out warnings, but please remember that we can't read your mind, so any unexplained removal of sourced content has to be treated that way. Your argument seems sound and I would not mind if you exchanged the current quote with the one you provided above. Just please remember to use the edit summary, so other editors know the rationale behind your edits. Thank you. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Memorials

Nearly half the Thomas Paine#Memorials section is about a non-existent statue. I propose this is either removed, or heavily trimmed.
I suggest:-

In October, 1992 the construction of a privately funded memorial to Paine, in the grounds of the US Capitol, was approved. As of January 2011[update], the memorial has yet to be built.

Comments please
Arjayay (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I think it's quite OK, since it's about plans for a memorial, which have been authorized by the US legislature. If the article needs expansion of information about other (existing) memorials, that's fine, but there's no reason to delete what's there about the planned memorial at this time. (At some point in the future, if it never materializes....) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

19 years of a non-existant statue and counting - when is "never"?
I cannot see that we need so much detail, (resolution numbers etc.) even if the statue is ever built.
Arjayay (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Greetings. And thank you for posting your concerns/comments here before simply "deleting" as some people are wont to do!

As the potentially offending party, I would like to shed some light (well, LOTS of words) on why I wrote the section as I did. Unsurprisingly, I concur with the idea that expanding the remainder of the monument section in the main entry is a better way to balance the ratios than cutting factual material. On that note, I will pledge to locate others of the myriad small monuments which exist in hidden corners around the world. Aaanyway: I initially wrote the section mentioning "in the mid 1990's" and left it without the legal citations. Then, since Wikipedia is an "information" source, I concluded later that for the TYPICAL Wikipedia reader, the precise information was more appropriate than my generalizations.

However, I also see that here in the DISCUSSION section there are also some more sophisticated participants with divergent opinions about Paine himself. For that more thoughtful, participative WIKIPEDIAN the "facts" of the story of the memorial legislation/law can provide in the main entry, a bit of resource for those who like read between the lines and see some nuance, all while avoiding putting any "controversy" in the main page of this controversial man.

Surely we can all agree that Paine A) was an irascible individual who B) influenced, inspired, bothered, and confounded a great number of people...and still does, leaving definition of his exact importance unresolved and unfinished (not unlike his statue) C) that he had "some" role in the formation of the United States, which (in theory at least) prizes the "individual," and the relationship between man and his government.

Therefore, the "memorial story" seemed to me entirely relevant to posterity of the whole "Paine story." Namely, that the vehicle of Thomas Paine was powerful enough that essentially one individual (while he was never a tax collector, I dont know if "man-of-many-trades" David Henley was even a PhD in history!) through his mix of moxy and force of will (somewhat like Paine himself) basically on a budget of metro fares (couldn't even afford a taxi, let alone a K Street lobbyist) could get a left wing New York liberal Congresswoman and a right wing Western Senator from a predominantly Mormon state to join and cajole a supermajority of US Senate (perhaps the only time where Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, and Jesse Helms showed up together) and a majority of the House (including Bernie Sanders, Claude Pepper, Bill Archer and Phil Crane) to be ORIGINAL cosponsors of legislation allowing Paine (a "Drunk, Atheist, Founding Father, Hero, Enemy of George Washington, Liberator of Humankind" etc etc...depending on which side of the debate one falls...) to be memorialized in the single most prestigious area of the Capital of the United States.

Area One is where you will find Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson and FDR, along with the Korean and Vietnam memorials. The aforementioned coalition resulted in passage by unanimous consent of the Congress and signed (twice!) by the US President (George Bush). The legislative citations, though space consuming, allow the researcher to obtain the entire Congressional Record, including the text of over 100 letters ranging from Fred Friendly (essentially the founder of CBS News), Robert MacNeil, George McGovern, Dr. Thomas Clarke, Dr. Eric Foner mixed in with the equivalent of Ms. Macgillicutty, the 5th grade history teacher in Peoria) all by one "Citizen of Virginia" who was liked by as many people as disliked and living in the country Paine called his final home, if not helped establish.

So, that my Wikifriends is why I wrote the memorial entry as I did. The memorial story is in fact a modern Paine story about government, individual petitioners, and the building of coalitions of the disparate...and never quite finishing the job. I hope this serves to justify its continued inclusion. Best, GrinchPeru (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Without entering yet into the discussion of the relative merits of the material on the now defunct Washington Monument project, I have added a first paragraph with a more accurate and well-sourced account of the first and longest-lived of the extant Paine monuments. The hope is to continue to edit and contribute to the improvement of this important wiki subject. And some comment on the discussion above will follow shortly. Paineite (talk) 04:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a Freemason

The topic of Paine's membership in the Freemasons fraternity was covered very briefly in the Archives. The article itself, however, while mentioning the essay "Origin of Freemasonry," doesn't address whether or not Paine was a Mason. The Reliable Sources Noticeboard has no discussion on the reliability of the Philalethes journal, but there's an article in the Fall 2010 issue (and it appears scholarly to me) that elaborates on Paine's membership in the fraternity – ultimately concluding that, while he was friends with Masons and had a keen interest in the fraternity's origins, he was not himself a member. Rather than create a new section devoted specifically to discussing Paine's membership/nonmembership in the Freemasons, I suggest editing the line in the "Religious views" section that reads, "He also wrote An Essay on the Origin of Free-Masonry (1803-1805), about the Bible being allegorical myth describing astrology:" such that it reads, "Though not himself a Freemason, Paine also wrote...." Would the more senior editors here object?—Biosketch (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done. And thank you, Biosketch!  — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  16:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

With respect, it is most accurate to say that we "do not know" whether Paine was a freemason or that "there is no proof" that he was a freemason. The simple fact is that we do not know. The characterization of the Philalethes article mentioned above is correct. There have been a number of claims, however, for Paine's membership in the fraternity. The biographer and author Charles Phillips Russell (1884-1974) stated flatly that Paine was a member of the Lodge of Nine Sisters in Paris, France. His source, however, seems to have been suspect -- insofar as I can tell, a masonic informant with no written documentation. On the other hand, the theory is plausible since Paine was so close to Ben Franklin (himself four times master of the Lodge of Nine Sisters) and to Nicholas Bonneville an active mason with whom Paine lived and worked for a period of time. There is also a turn-of-the-last-century article by a prominent New York City freemason who wrote that he was in possession of a letter written by his ancestor, a surgeon in the Continental Army, who witnessed Paine's initiation. Research into that letter continues. The French historian Bernard Vincent agrees -- we simply do not know. Paineite (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Reading the essay again, I feel I misrepresented the author's actual intent. He did not formulate a positive claim to the effect that Paine was not a Mason; rather, he argued against the positive claims made that Paine was a Mason. I've edited the text accordingly, and also replaced the italics with quotation marks (per MOS:ITALIC) and dewikilinked the title, as the link was to a Wikisource page that doesn't include "On the Origin" among its texts (Wikisource:Thomas Paine).—Biosketch (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

In July 2009 there was a meeting in Lewes, Sussex, as part of a festival to mark the bicentenary of Paine's death and there was a presentation on this subject by a local freemason. He concluded that Paine was not a Freemason (certainly in England) and there was no record of his membership in local lodges. I think it's also worth observing that there is nothing in Paine's life to suggest that he belonged to the Freemasons. He was a polemicist and bluntly spoken, he had a reputation of being prepared to engage with all and sundry in debate whether in the assembly or the tavern. However most tellingly Paine recieved no preferment, had to fight tooth and nail to get recognition for his efforts from congress and died in penury. His brother masons would have been expected to have ensure that he didn't sped his last years destitute, but they conspicuously did not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.15.20 (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing this information to the discussion. Do you know of a source that others may access in order to read about the meeting in Sussex in 2009? Otherwise, though, your logic – here and in your other comment further up – strikes me as sound.—Biosketch (talk) 06:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

quote from "An Essay on the Origin of Free-Masonry"

The quote doesn't have a source, and as someone pointed out, has a typo. here's a source (lacking the typo of course) TEDickey (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

(Removed remarks on the above posting that qualified as vandalism 36hourblock (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC))

yeah i dont think you should tell him what happened its gonna start stuff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.160.24.20 (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Paine advocated a French invasion of America

The article by Mark Philp in the Oxford DNB published by the Oxford University Press states thus:

"His sense of the increasing betrayal of France by the American administration, now under his long-standing enemy John Adams, may have driven him to the ultimate form of sedition—an article appeared in Bonneville's newspaper Le Bien Informé in September 1798 advising the government on the best means to conquer America."

I think this is a reliable source, the Oxford DNB is used for many Wikipedia articles.--195.43.48.142 (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Bonneville did published an anonymous wacky plan for a small French squadron to attack American cities. However attribution to Paine was false as shown by Mariam Touba, "Tom Paine's Plan for Revolutionizing America: Diplomacy, Politics, and the Evolution of a Newspaper Rumor" Journalism History. Volume: 20. Issue: 3-4. 1994. pp 116+. Philp never saw this article. Touba says the story first appeared in a Boston Federalist newspaper, "J. Russell's Gazette" in 1799 and was used to attack Jeffersonains. It gave the plan and claimed the author was Thomas Paine. Touba states, "Although some recent scholars have lent credibility to this attribution, textual and circumstantial evidence does not support the claim of Paine's authorship." [p 116] Rjensen (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Touba's counter-statement does not "prove" the attribution was false - we have different opinions from different sources - the idea that "historians agree" (as used in a previous article edit summary) is risable. One (or a group of) historians opinion(s) does not "trump" the other historians opinion(s).
As Touba states "some recent scholars have lent credibility to this attribution". People may, therefore, come to Wikipedia seeking more information about this. The fact that this has been claimed should be represented, alongside the fact that there are counter-claims that this is wrong. This is NPOV which is what the article should be, rather than one-sided .
Unfortunately, this is not the only area where controversial material about Paine has been challenged and/or removed - e.g. Freemasonry, Slavery and his attitude to Washington; leaving a suspicion that Paine's history is being sanitized. Arjayay (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If the source is a minority- or fringe opinion, then the "proportionately" in the first sentence of NPOV is the guideline that others would refer to TEDickey (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Er No - this is not a "fringe" opinion, I'm not even sure it is the "minority" or how this could be tested. However, whilst acknowleging that "extrordinary" claims need to be presented WP:VALID makes it clear that "it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic".
This is a common enough "claim" to be considered as a "significant viewpoint" so needs addressing - by presenting both sides and letting the reader decide, rather than sanitizing the article.Arjayay (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If it's common, then perhaps you can provide some sources. I found none, other than random gossip such as Wikipedia talkpages TEDickey (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm currently reading Steven Blakemore's Crisis In Representation, Thomas Paine, Mary Wollstonecraft, Helen Maria Williams and the re-writing of the French Revolution (1997) Fairleigh Dickinson University Press isbn=978-0838637142 which I added to the article, but it immediately got deleted. Arjayay (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"Crisis in representation: Thomas Paine, Mary Wollstonecraft, Helen Maria Williams, and the rewriting of the French Revolution" seems to be the exact title. Whether it's fringe or not can be gauged by seeing critical reviews of the book. Also, a scholarly work would cite its sources, which might be directly available TEDickey (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Oh - and as User:Rjensen admits above "Touba states "some recent scholars have lent credibility to this attribution"" I don't know who Touba is referring to, but this clearly establishes that this is not just one scholar, but several. Arjayay (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

[outdent] what happened is that the Federalist press spread the story widely circa 1800, and a few historians repeat that up without looking into the sources. Touba is the first scholar to look into the validity of the charges using primary sources in Paris, Amsterdam and London & US. And the first to devote more than two sentences to the topic. Touba's article makes all the other references obsolete. Rjensen (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

What source(s) does Blakemore use? TEDickey (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

New style/old styles dates

I does seem rather odd to use new style dates for events before 1752 when that wasn't the system that people were actually using at the time. I'll change them if there are no objections. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm used to seeing these on topics which span the calendar change, for quite a while. Though I see that Edmund Burke uses the NS template, which I'd not seen before. Perhaps there are competing notions on how to document it. TEDickey (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Calendars states
- "Dates of events in countries using the Gregorian calendar are given in the Gregorian calendar."
- "The Julian day and month should not be converted to the Gregorian calendar"
- "the start of the Julian year should be assumed to be 1 January."

Paine's birth was in England, when England used the Gregorian calender, so MoS requires the use of the Gregorian Calendar.
The source cited for Paines DoB is Conway, Moncure D. The Life of Thomas Paine. Volume 1, page 3 (1892) which states "Thomas Paine was born January 29, 1736-7". It can be no surprise that editors repeatedly change the DoB, as it contradicts the cited source.
With regard to the year, to comply with MoS, Paine was born in 1737.

Referring back to the archive Talk:Thomas_Paine/Archive_2#Date_of_Birth no-one has disagreed with my understanding that "to comply with MoS, Paine was born on 29 January 1737", or raised any obections to it being changed, since I proposed it on 20 February 2010. I think 23 months without any objection has established consensus.
Arjayay (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It was the Julian Calendar which was used at the time of Paine's birth. The MOS says "Dates before the adoption of the Gregorian calendar on 15 October 1582 are normally given in the Julian calendar. The Julian day and month should not be converted to the Gregorian calendar, but the start of the Julian year should be assumed to be 1 January". The Gregorian calendar was not adopted in Britain until 1752, and so presumably by this rationale which should have Paine's DOB as '29 January 1737'. So the lead section and infobox are OK, but the 'Early life' section is incorrect. That would seem to consistent with the conclusion of the previous discussion (which I failed to spot, sorry). NotFromUtrecht (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the inconsistency - I'd changed the Lead and the info-box but missed the "Early life" section. - Arjayay (talk) 10:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

American Revoltuionary War

How did the American Revolutionary War effect men, women, white colonists if different social classes, free african americans, slaves, and native americans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.58.17.194 (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Guaranteed income?

Whoever wrote into several of these pages that Paine argued for a guaranteed minimum income or welfare, should I think read the relevant passages again, where I believe he'll find that Paine only said people should be compensated once, because all the land in England was owned. In this he was no doubt following Harrington. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.245.178 (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Founding Father? - Thomas Paine couldn't even vote?

"Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Thomas Paine. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. TEDickey (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)"

Got this nasty smug message from some liar. It's a well known fact that Thomas Paine wasn't a citizen of America, and it came up multiple times in his life. First, he moved back to England and maintained citizenship there for a time. Then he moved to France and received citizenship there. He was denied benefits in America because he wasn't a citizen. Towards the end of his life, he couldn't vote because he wasn't a citizen. And he never held office or became a citizen during the brief time he was here, because in America at that time you couldn't hold office or be a citizen in most places if you were not a Christian. Although overlooked by most of the ill-read, Common Sense was also written, as it is titled, by "An Englishman", so his greatest work, (sic), ALSO says he wasn't an American Citizen.

Most modern books seem to style Thomas Paine as "a citizen of the world", "world citizen", or "citizen paine" - which is more French.

I can't see how it has escaped some of the self styled editors of wikipedia that Thomas Paine - "founding father" - isn't even a citizen?

There were plenty of people fighting for the American side, including the French. Let's not threw in inaccurate facts into an article, either because of ignorance or outright wanting to lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.139.70.237 (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The source, which appears highly reliable, claims that Paine was a Founding Father. If you try to qualify the claim that Paine was not a Founding Father because he didn't consider himself to be American, you are voiding a well-sourced claim and your actions will probably be reversed. You need a reliable source claiming that Paine was not a Founding Father. Do you have a source indicating that Paine didn't consider himself a Founding Father because he wasn't American, or that a healthy number of experts do not consider him a Founding Father because he wasn't American? If not, you probably should leave it out.

And even if the person who warned you claimed the sky is green, calling him "some liar" while calling his edits "nasty [and] smug" is not allowed per the policy banning personal attacks. It's best to assume the person who warned you, User:Tedickey, either knows something you don't know or was simply mistaken. CityOfSilver 19:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is Hitchens on the influenced list?

He's not a renowned writer, he has not contributed anything to literature. This is quite insulting to a great historical figure. I have removed him from the list.

It's sourced, and topical. So far your edits have been to remove things without discussion and obtaining consensus, so I've reverted this one. TEDickey (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Missing images

Of the seven photos under the "Memorials" section, I am missing the second, third and fourth i.e.

• ThomasPaineFarmhouse1.jpg
• Paine Historical Society 2.JPG
• 01 Paine burial location.jpg
  

Is this just my browser/skin settings (XP IE8 Vector)? or are these missing to other editors?
I looked for the image files, which were added to the article on 23 May 2012, in en.wikipedia and Commons, but cannot find them in either.
I'm doubly confused, because links to missing images e.g. deleted or renamed images, usually show in red, but these appear in black.
Arjayay (talk) 10:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I tracked down the missing images, which were removed following an SPI (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (8th)) although I still don't understand why they were not red-links. Arjayay (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

"The" Father of the American Revolution? Wasn't the Revolution already, you know, in full swing quite a bit before Common Sense??

Hello. The sentence "Thomas Paine has a claim to the title The Father of the American Revolution because of Common Sense..." doesn't quite make...well...sense due to the following fact pointed out in the very next paragraph: "The pamphlet came into circulation in January 1776, AFTER the Revolution had started." (emphasis mine.) How can someone claim that Paine is "The Father" of a revolution that was already started and ongoing well before he ever published his famous pamphlet? And what's even more objectionable, why would someone claim that Paine is "The" Father instead of simply "A Father" (among many more actively engaged) revolutionaries? It seems to me that the sentence above represents NPOV and is not actually grounded in fact, but in some Paine admirer's wishful, if rather revisionist, thinking. Thanks114.158.149.78 (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Paine successfully redefined it from a protest movement seeking reform to an independence movement that rejected reforms. That was a critical development and historians give him the credit, Rjensen (talk) 05:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Rainbow flag

I think his proposal of a rainbow flag should belong in the article, but as its not a well known fact, i will propose it here first (this section is in the rainbow flag article, where i just added it):

He had proposed that the rainbow flag be used as a maritime flag, to signify neutral ships in time of war.

Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

"philosophes": Typo?

A sentence in S2.1 reads "Paine also used a notion of "common sense" favored by philosophes in the Continental Enlightenment". Is "philosophes" here just a typo for "philosophers", or is something different meant? I am reluctant simply to change it. Si Trew (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

See philosophes. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. If that is the intended meaning, in its restricted sense, then I think it should be linked; but "philosophes in the Continental Enlightenment" is a tautology. Si Trew (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

"philosophes" in the Continental Enlightenment" works fine for me; to leave out "in the Continental Enlightenment" will confuse some readers who don't know exactly what "philisophe" means & wonder if it is a typo (it was the French term for 18th century intellectual & has been widely used by historians) Rjensen (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It confused me. I wondered whether it was typo partly because philosophe wasn't linked. But the philosophe article itself states that there is disagreement about what exactly it means.

Philosophe should probably be linked: WP:UNDERLINK suggests linking "articles explaining words of technical terms, jargon or slang expressions/phrases—but you could also provide a concise definition instead of or in addition to a link" (my italics).

But that is not the whole solution; I can't think of a concise definition, but a link is no use in e.g. printed text. If it were my decision, I'd rewrite the para to avoid the word. Si Trew (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, having reread Rjensen's opening sentence– are you suggesting putting "philosophes" in quotes? And as a link? The quotes above aren't balanced, so I am not sure. Si Trew (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm recommending: [[philosophes]] in the Continental Enlightenment. If they don't know the "philosophe" word, then users should learn it now because it's an essential term when dealing with a very influential writer who spent critical years in France. Rjensen (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the linking will at least remove the question of whether it is a typo. But linking is not a cure for introducing specialist words without explanation. (It's the only use in the article.) It's not relevant whether readers know, or should know, the word: they shouldn't need to play guessing games. Had I been sure what was meant, I wouldn't have started this conversation: which I'm happy to let rest, if you are. Si Trew (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

With this edit I have linked philosophe, on which I think we all agree to do. Si Trew (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Word choice in the lead

I was struck by the choice of "rhetoric" in the following sentence in the lead:

"His ideas reflected Enlightenment era rhetoric of transnational human rights."

To me, the word "rhetoric" connotes "just words" or "typical language", thus somewhat minimizing the importance of the ideas he took from the Enlightenment. I am not a historian, but I thought the ideas of the Enlightenment were both revolutionary and new and changed the course of history. It is true that he used rhetoric to effectively express his ideas, but if the ideas in his pamphlets were just rhetoric, he would not have had such an impact on so many people. I think a more precise, more meaningful word than "rhetoric" should be used here. I also think "transnational human rights" could be expressed in such a way that the average reader would easily understand. Something like:

"His ideas reflected ideas (or ideals) of the Enlightenment such as ....", or

"HIs ideas reflected the Enlightenment concept (or ideal) of...."CorinneSD (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Religious views

This section consists almost entirely of (uncited) quotations from his own writings. Since that is tantamount to original research it would be preferable to have all of those quotes exchanged with some editor-written prose based on reliable secondary sources. This is especially important since, as far as I understand it, there are some controversies amongst scholars regarding his religious beliefs. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've added citations for a book published in the 19th century that contains several of these writings, which is freely available at this Google Books link Flakblak (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. But I wasn't asking for more primary sources, I was asking for some reliable secondary sources regarding his views. All those quotes and works by him may or may not suffer from a serious case of selection bias. The only way to avoid this is by presenting secondary sources. The reader can consult Wikisource to read Paines writings on the matter, here it is relevant to provide information about what the contemporary view is among scholars. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

I wish to open for discussion the deletion of an edit noting Paine's appearance in the story "Thermidor", Issue 29 of The Sandman (Vertigo) appearing in The_Sandman:_Fables_&_Reflections (I will have to supplement this Talk post with the exact page citation). I open the discussion as to why this ought not to be included in the Thomas Paine article.One-Off Contributor (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't all about trivial mentions - it's about notability. If you want to discuss the edit, your best route is to provide some reliable source that discusses Paine's role in the story, i.e., some (nonanonymous) literary criticism or review. TEDickey (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Very well. See, e.g., "Dreamland : When Neil Gaiman Writes the Last Chapter of 'The Sandman' This Fall, the Greatest Epic in the History of Comic Books--Seven Years and 2,000 Pages--Will Come to a Close." by Steve Erickson, Los Angeles Times, September 3, 1995, available at http://articles.latimes.com/1995-09-03/magazine/tm-41687_1_neil-gaiman; "Historical Context of Sandman: Fables and Reflections" by Will Herren, available at https://popculturenotguns.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/marchblog/; "Those that Lead the Blind: Gaiman on Government" by Stuart Warren, available at http://sequart.org/magazine/20243/those-that-lead-the-blind-gaiman-on-government/; "Referencias históricas, literarias, mitológicas y folclóricas en The Sandman" by Raul Martin, available at http://www.zonanegativa.com/referencias-y-personajes-historicos-en-the-sandman/. I would also note that Paine's appearance in this work already appears elsewhere on Wikipedia predating my set of edits (see, e.g. List_of_The_Sandman_characters#Historical_figures). These reliable sources ought to be more than sufficient to establish notability.One-Off Contributor (talk) 09:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Those appear to be trivial, in-passing mentions. For instance, there's nothing that could be used to develop a topic discussing Paine's role in the comic (or even the reasons why Paine is mentioned at all -- there are many trivial mentions of other persons in those pages). By the way, Wikipedia is never a reliable source TEDickey (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

"News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources. Accordingly, Erickson's article from the Los Angeles Times would clearly constitute a "reliable source" under Wikipedia guidelines. Further, I must beg to strongly differ with your assertion that the articles were "trivial, in-passing" discussions that do not identify Paine's role or why he is mentioned in text. For example, Warren carefully analyzes Paine's role in text:

"Given that this story cycle is about the implications of rule instated by democracy, the primary interest is the notable conversation between Just and Thomas Paine, an American colonial philosopher known for his work The American Crisis. St. Just’s words rebuff the claims of Paine, which decry the madness of the revolution, with a justification of violence for freedom. The irony of this is that, for pure unadulterated freedom to be enjoyed, tyranny must be employed to stamp out dissonance among the masses that could compromise the status quo. St. Just’s implication is that freedom is a sum of stipulations that typify a “free” individual. These rights are restrictions, however, in and of themselves. True freedom only results in unadulterated chaos. In order to curb total anarchy, assemblies like the Committee for Public Safety, must be erected, but these sadly perpetuate a hopeless cycle of authoritarian rulers seduced by the divine right of kingship. Here in the Reign of Terror, God may not rule, but divine Reason does, and declares those that will rule in favor of her." More fundamentally, this subsection deals with instances where Paine is mentioned in popular culture, and therefore by its very subject matter would not be expected to require substantiation in scholarly analysis of the sort necessary "to develop a topic discussing Paine's role in the comic". Given that many of the other line items in the "in popular culture" section of this very article do not even have explicit citations in the references section of the Thomas Paine article, my edit is of similar type and therefore it ought to be reinstated.One-Off Contributor (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a lot of words - far more than the coverage of Thomas Paine in the mentioned comic. If there were in fact nontrivial coverage, it would be interesting to discuss, but all I'm left with is your cut/paste from various tangential sources TEDickey (talk) 09:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

'The Age of Reason'

The section labelled 'The Age of Reason' makes no mention of Paine's work of that title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.179.156 (talk) 02:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Common Sense

Hello. I restored the lead to say that Common Sense is the all-time best selling work in America. Somebody came by here and qualified this claim to say the bestselling book "of the period". This was the editor's belief, which is fine but will need a source to remain in Wikipedia. I realize "all-time bestseller" is an extraordinary claim, so it is now cited. As background in his book about another Paine title, Christopher Hitchens writes about Common Sense, "The result was a bestseller on a scale hitherto unknown and, according to Paine's biographer Harvey Kaye, not since surpassed." Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Also to use the qualifier "in America" I consulted a copy of Kaye's Thomas Paine and The Promise of America which does say Common Sense is the all-time bestseller in America. I'll add the quote to the article. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting programme on Tom Paine - source for this article?

I'm just listening to an edition of BBC Radio 4's 'In Our Time' which has three academics discussing Tom Paine's Common Sense. This might be a useful source for this article, especially some of the citations saying 'better source needed'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06wg9dw

Academics:

• Kathleen Burk, Professor Emerita of Modern and Contemporary History at University College London
• Nicholas Guyatt, University Lecturer in American History at the University of Cambridge
• Peter Thompson, Associate Professor of American History at the University of Oxford and Fellow of St Cross College — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.124.87 (talk) 09:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it has just been added at List of In Our Time programmes by User:Richard Zsigmondy. Unlike most BBC programmes, it is permanently available to download. I know of no available transcript, however, so I guess there may be WP:OR or WP:POV issues to address in terms of providing verbatim quotes? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

there are no OR issues if the source is cited. (OR means no footnotes or a secret source.) POV issues arise when a perspective is suppressed, not when it is quoted. Rjensen (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

All sounds fine, then. Do times typically need to be quoted for audio/ visual sources, analogous to page numbers for written sources? I guess we wouldn't quote Bragg anyway, only one or more of the experts? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I have never seen a time stamp here re audio source. just quote the experts--they are very good. Rjensen (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

In Popular Culture section

While I certainly don’t agree with the rationale for IP edit, the section as it is now is just an accretion of factoids. Wikipedia doesn’t have a unified notion of what popular culture sections are supposed to consist of, but uncited trivia definitely isn’t it. Things should be cited, and preferably should include the cultural significance of the mention, as provided by the cited source. I propose removing most of the section; none of the uncited factoids meet Wikipedia standards for WP:NOTABILITY. Strebe (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Concur!  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  04:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Thomas Paine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060927084319/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/paine_letter_to_washington_01.html to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/paine_letter_to_washington_01.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130529155142/http://www.iona.edu:80/library/about/collections/archives/paine/ to http://www.iona.edu/library/about/collections/archives/paine/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  04:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Blue plaque in Grantham

In case anyone finds it useful, I recently took this photo of the blue plaque honoring Paine's time in Grantham as an excise officer. Kelly ^hi! 18:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a very clear image. Perhaps it could be added to the article somewhere? I see that the one at the White Hart Hotel, Lewes is already embedded in the text, but this one does not seem to be mentioned. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Old style and new style

On the top of this talk page is a big notice basically asking people not to start another discussion on old-style and new-style dates. It seems to me that there would be less of a tendency to do so if the footnote in the article explained the difference in years clearly, instead of obliging the reader to go through numerous talk page archives to have it explained. I am editing the footnote accordingly. Scolaire (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Thomas Paine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.alfordwindmillhotel.co.uk/thomaspaine.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  05:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Thomas Paine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060929122148/http://www.ushistory.org/paine/index.htm to http://www.ushistory.org/Paine/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928201911/http://morristown.org/tompaine.htm to http://www.morristown.org/tompaine.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061009051212/http://www.lewes-town.co.uk/listingdets.asp?mode=next&reckount=4&searchwords=&dir=5&typeid=C to http://www.lewes-town.co.uk/listingdets.asp?mode=next&reckount=4&searchwords=&dir=5&typeid=C
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314111152/https://www.dot7.state.pa.us/ce_imagery/phmc_scans/H001127_01H.pdf to https://www.dot7.state.pa.us/ce_imagery/phmc_scans/H001127_01H.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160202031348/http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/leisure/stage/8893318.Dorset_s_heart_of_darkness__Graham_Moore/false%3Dno/ to http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/leisure/stage/8893318.Dorset_s_heart_of_darkness__Graham_Moore/false%3Dno
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.shakespearesglobe.com/education/discovery-space/previous-productions/new-world

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Redundant Citations

There are several citations of the same 1892 biography of Paine by Moncure Daniel Conway and I'm too lazy to clean them up 71.236.207.46 (talk) 05:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Thomas Paine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100525192322/http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/cover-story/bring_the_paine-38411579.html to http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/cover-story/bring_the_paine-38411579.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120117175937/http://www.tompainelegacy.org.uk/programme.html to http://www.tompainelegacy.org.uk/programme.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  10:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)