Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Age of Reason

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:32, 14 October 2007.

The Age of Reason

This article is about Thomas Paine's deistic attack on institutionalized religion, The Age of Reason. I have been working on it off and on for a while now and I believe that it meets the FA criteria. It is currently GA and has had a peer review that was extended here. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 09:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sumoeagle179 23:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support good work again and well written. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support great prose and (presumably) comprehensive though not an area I am too familiar with. Only thing is there are collections of stubby paras in the Publishing history, and the last two sections (France and America), some of which could be joined to each other as the subjects aren't sharply demarkated. However, these ain't deal-breakers cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lions and tigers and stubby paragraphs, oh my! Could you outline more clearly which paragraphs you feel could be joined together? It would help me fix the problem. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 03:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold and did a few. Actually it is tricky in the original places I mentioned unless combining paras 2,3 and 4 in Pub History but it could be argued either way - feel free to revert if you feel really strongly.cheers, Casliber (talk '· contribs) 01:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The list of modern reprints seems out of place; it breaks up the list of notes and the bibliography. Actually, I wonder if it's even necessary. I mean, there must be so many different republications, how do you know which are notable? --Midnightdreary 02:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the list really breaks up the notes and the bibliography as some of the books in it are quoted in the article - it is part of the bibliography, really. You are correct that there are many different republications, but these are the important edited ones (I'm sure I must have had a source for the list, but I no longer remember what it is). They were added at the request of another reviewer. If you decide to remove them, please retain the two that are quoted in the article. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 03:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Maybe just a quick move to just after Bibliography? I defer to your opinion on this. --Midnightdreary 03:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. Awadewit | talk 03:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A nice article; I have done some tweaking. I don't see any problem with the paragraphs, although the one giving background for Jeffersonian America could be moved to the beginning of its section.

The first sentence was supposed to give an overarching narrative - does it not do that? Awadewit | talk 20:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion about Joseph Johnson needs a source; it is not clear which of the notes in that paragraph applies. (Using Johnson Circle unqualified is unwise; the primary meaning of that, however unlikely in this context, is Samuel Johnson.)

Added note. "Joseph Johnson" is now in text (I take it you changed that - that is a good idea). Awadewit | talk 01:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the final paragraph about influence is worth its weight, and if it is included it should have Cobbett and Howard Fast, instead of the present great leap. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another reviewer asked for a paragraph about Paine's and the AR's relevance to today. That is the function of the last paragraph. As I understand it, Cobbett was more influenced by RM. Also, would you classify Cobbett as British or American? I am less sure about Howard Fast - could you direct me to some sources? Awadewit | talk 01:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cobbett? British. If the Federalists had won, and he had stayed in America, he might well be considered as American as Paine; but that didn't happen. (This may be a problem with the structure; I missed that this was divided into three.)
  - The structure is sound, in my opinion, since the responses so easily break down along national lines. Awadewit | talk 04:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources on Fast may be harder; Andrew MacDonald's Howard Fast : a critical companion would be the place to start. It does say that Fast saw himself as very like Paine, but no sentence on religious views leaps out through Google Books. I'll see if I can find a hard copy.
- For Robert Ingersoll, see Mark Twain and Robert Ingersoll: The Freethought Connection by Thomas D. Schwartz; American Literature, Vol. 48, No. 2. (May, 1976), pp. 183-193, if you have JSTOR. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And there's his editor, Moncure D. Conway.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I will look at integrating these tomorrow. Awadewit | talk 04:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is all very interesting. I'm curious to know why my sources focus so much on the British tradition of freethought but don't mention Ingersoll and Co. at all. They seem to have a British bias. (That is, if they even bother to mention what happened to Paine's reputation in the nineteenth century at all.) I have added Ingersoll. Awadewit | talk 20:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is very odd. It's not my field, but I believe Ingersoll was comparable to, say, Bradlaugh: the pre-eminent freethinker of his time, notorious enough to make a good living lecturing on it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - We need a source for Conway. The wikipedia article mentions nothing about his intellectual connection with Paine. I have included a bit about him being the first biographer, but I am not sure about the relationship between Paine's thought or rhetorical style and Conway. Do you know of anything on this front? Awadewit | talk 20:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not offhand; the only thing I've read of Conway is his edition of Paine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Added Cobbett in British section.
    - My library has the Fast companion, but I am too sick to go over there today. In a few days I can get it, though. Awadewit | talk 20:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

The title is referred to inconsistently, variously The Age of Reason, Age of Reason and even "the The Age of Reason"!? (The instances in CAPS in quotes would look less obtrusive in SMALL CAPS.)
I have followed the rules of grammar for using "the".
Using two different styles. Either works equally well, but not both. RD
I'm confused. I have used "the" when grammatically appropriate. Awadewit | talk 15:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the extra "the".

The quote may look less obtrusive in small caps, but that would be altering the quotation. I checked my source again and those words are definitely capitalized. I have a feeling they were meant to be obtrusive. Awadewit | talk 01:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would it change it? It's the usual treatment (see CMOS) for absorbing CAPS to avoid undue weight. RD
I don't think any undue weight is being given here. I am following standard scholarly practice in not altering quotations as well as WP:MOSQUOTE. Awadewit | talk 15:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't until the third par of the intro that we learn this is a book.
You don't think the "written by" and "published in three parts" gives it away? Awadewit | talk 01:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't :)) And it also needs to say early on what kind of book it is. RD
"deistic treatise" now added to first sentence. Awadewit | talk 15:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unhappy about the way sophisticated notions like deist, revelation, and inerrancy are dropped into the text without explanation. Clarity about these is central to understanding the article.
Do you mean in the lead or throughout? Awadewit | talk 01:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd introduce them gently, with general explanation in the intro; with much more detailed explanation the body. RD
Not everything can be explained in the introduction. The most important word of those three, deist, is partially defined through example. I think that the sections go on to explain them better. Awadewit | talk 15:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The close, even cosy, relationship between non-conformism and radicalism (a dominant and recurrent feature of British politics for three hundred years) is not explored.
Do you think a few more sentences in the "Historical context" section would make the break between Dissent and radicalism in the 1790s clearer? Awadewit | talk 01:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They were on more or less parallel courses for a very long time: one assailing religious hetrodoxy; the other political conservation. As the Church and the State were (and still are) interlinked in the UK, they can be seen simply two prongs of the same groundswell for reform. RD
Yes, but as this page is on The Age of Reason, it is important to tie this book to that history. This book helped break those ties briefly, as I explain in the "Political context" section. As I cannot present all of British religious history as a background, I had to limit myself, so that is why I asked whether a few more sentences would be what you think are necessary or are you envisioning an entirely new subsection entitled "Religious history"? Awadewit | talk 15:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Intellectual context: eighteenth-century British deism section is seriously under-referenced.
Since this is just a cursory overview, I don't really think it is. Awadewit | talk 01:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Four hundred words with two refs. It's refs that demonstrate that something is not original research. RD
There are references from three separate sources. What is it that you want exactly? This is a standard account of eighteenth-century deism. 15:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see more detail about the book's content, and less detail about its context. The lengthy quote from part one could be replaced by paraphrase. :--ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 22:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has been raised before, but I'm afraid nothing can be done about it. The published scholarly work on The Age of Reason is mostly about the book's rhetoric and its reception. I added the long quote in an effort to give readers a flavor of Paine's arguments and argumentation style. If we start adding long explanations of the content, we will be veering into WP:OR.
Who said anything about long? :) RD
The sections on Paine's "Creed", on "Reason and revelation", on "Paine's analysis of the Bible", on "Religion and the state", and on "Paine's intellectual debt" are all about the content of the book. What do you feel has been overlooked? Awadewit | talk 15:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:
- "The Age of Reason presents common deistic arguments; for example, it highlights the corruption of the Christian church and criticizes its efforts to acquire political power." Does Paine write "the Christian church"? That seems kind of odd, since there are so many Christian churches. Also, it's my understanding that "church" refers to the building, while "Church" refers to the institution.
  - The book is a confused mass. Sometimes Paine distinguishes between Churches and sometimes not. I would say that generally he does not. You are correct about the capitalization. That is fixed throughout. Awadewit | talk 01:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "In 1796 Daniel Isaac Eaton published Parts I and II, at a cost of one shilling and six pence" Shouldn't that be "...Eaton published Parts I and II, and sold them at a cost of..."?
  - Fixed. Awadewit | talk 01:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not much of a friend of Wiktionary links in general, but I think the two links to the Wiktionary entry on "vulgar" are completely unnecessary in this case. Why not link vulgarism?--Carabinieri 22:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The definition of "vulgar" being discussed is no longer common. I think the wiktionary link is necessary. The first definition for "vulgar" works well where as vulgarism is a whole article and the lead is misleading. In the eighteenth century, the word "vulgar" did not yet mean "coarse", etc. Awadewit | talk 01:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unless you're quoting "vulgar", what's wrong with "popularized"? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Vulgar" was such an important word in this debate - it was used by both sides - I feel it is important to retain that vocabulary (scholars use it as well, by the way). At the end of the article, I even explain how these words changed meaning with The Age of Reason and the trials surrounding it; I quote Joss Marsh's book, Word Crimes: "The Age of Reason struggle almost tolled the hour when the words 'plain,' 'coarse,' 'common,' and 'vulgar' took on a pejorative meaning." Awadewit | talk 02:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Support now. I'm amazed by the regularity with which you add FA quality articles to Wikipedia!--Carabinieri 22:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.