Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Some Thoughts Concerning Education

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 03:22, 12 April 2007.

[edit] Some Thoughts Concerning Education

Self-nomination I am nominating this article on John Locke's educational treatise, Some Thoughts Concerning Education. It is a little bit short, but there is surprisingly little written on this work (I was concerned about original research issues if I just started quoting extensively from Locke himself). I believe that the page is well-written, comprehensively summarized and well-sourced. It is currently GA and has had a peer-review. Awadewit 02:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment The article is not short at all, the also-nominated Iridion 3D is something around half its size. It definitely will be an interesting read, right now I've just taken a quick look - references abound - I'll read it in whole later. A good candidate. Here's its peer review, if anyone's interested, a link for your convenience. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 06:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
My goodness, the size is just fine (and everything else looks to be in good order, too). What are we coming to when a nominator has to apologize for an encyclopedically-sized article, after the bloated tomes that come through here? I'll read the article tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd be more willing to support 25k on Locke than 50k on Pokemons or video games. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Read it over breakfast - concise, to the point, nothing superfluous I'd say, an excellent article. Things I have noticed: In the lead, first paragraph, one might want to substitute the word many with a (even rough) number of languages, and in the second one perhaps it would be useful to add that the mind of a child or new-born is a tabula rasa (rather the mind of an adult), although I cannot tell whether Locke had pointed that out in his work. Further, in the first sentence of the 'Class' section, addressing and addresses appear practically back to back, could either one of them be substituted with another verb? The last thing is the final section - both paragraphs start off with 'Locke's Some Thoughts Concerning Education was', I believe the second paragraph could begin with something along the lines of This publication or Locke's text, what do you think? It's just miscellanea, I know, but other than that you've got yourself a nice one here. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 06:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Addendum Sadly, an important article this one links to, on An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, is not as well-referenced (no inline references). --Ouro (blah blah) 07:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
An Essay Concerning Human Understanding might not be as well-referenced, but it is a good introduction to Locke's Essay. I haven't wanted to tackle that page myself because Locke's Essay is a very difficult work to explain in everyday language and the scholarship on it is enormous. I have only dipped my toe into it so far.
It is a good introduction, I definitely agree, it's just, you know, missing something. But I understand what you mean. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The reason I chose to say "many languages" in the lead is because the best count of the editions comes from the 1960s (as far as I know). I was thinking that more editions might have popped up since then and that Axtell, who counted, simply might not have had access to every edition "way back then." I gave the figures in the "Reception" section so that they would be available, but they are rather old. Let me know if you think I should put them in the lead and a qualifier in a footnote.
I understand, but many might mean 10 to one person and 50 to another. That's why I suggested putting a rough number, something like around 10 or over 20, you know? I noticed the count in the other section, it's just that I was missing this in the lead. But if you're reluctant to change per your comment above, I understand. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I have now changed it to "ranslated into almost all of the major written European languages" as that is really the significant point. Awadewit 16:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Good solution! --Ouro (blah blah) 16:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Added "child's mind" - thank you for pointing out that implicit assumption in my writing - Locke himself did point that out - he was not so sloppy
  • Changed the second "address" to "appeal."
  • Varied the beginning of the paragraphs in the last section. Awadewit 15:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
On the three points above - okay, thanks, great! Good work, and good luck! --Ouro (blah blah) 15:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Oppose Really nice article - but there is a lot of the author coming through in the text, and I'm not sure these are written in an encyclopedic tone. They could also be termed original research. Here are some examples:

  • "it is perhaps unsurprising that he would begin Some Thoughts with a discussion of children's physical needs," Unsurprising to whom?
  • "While one can apply Locke's general principles of education to all children and contemporaries such as Coste certainly did so, Locke himself, despite statements that may imply the contrary" While one can? Who can?
  • "This passage suggests that, for Locke, education was fundamentally the same for men and women—there were only small, obvious differences for women. This interpretation." Suggests to whom?
  • "Although one could argue that Locke’s statement indicates that he places a greater value on female than male beauty." Who is doing the arguing?
  • "By the end of the eighteenth century, whether one agreed with Locke or not, one had to acknowledge his widespread influence…." Again, who is arguing, who is acknowledging?-- Zleitzen(talk) 17:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
These statements are all cited and I am following scholars here. Would you prefer that these interpretations be attributed to particular scholars? I would argue that such a style would misrepresent the scholarly literature. I tried to present the scholarly consensus and not many of these ideas "belong" to one particular scholar or another. For example, almost everything you read on Some Thoughts will say it is "unsurprising" that Locke began his treatise with comments on the body. Also, in the last example you cite, anyone in the eighteenth century would indeed have had to acknowledge Locke's influence. Do you want me to include in the text the names of the scholars who argue these points? I have done that at several points in the article (mentioning Axtell, for example). It is fairly common to write in an impersonal tone to suggest widespread agreement which is what I have done here. Awadewit 18:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Awadewit. Something like "Although one could argue that Locke’s statement indicates..." reads as though the writer of the article is making that argument. A better way to phrase it would be something like "Scholars have argued that Locke’s statement indicates...", Attributing the argument to an exterior party (with accompanying source). Likewise "By the end of the eighteenth century, whether one agreed with Locke or not, one had to acknowledge his widespread influence…." could be something like "By the end of the eighteenth century, whether readers agreed with Locke's ideas or not, his influence had become widespread". I would be interested to hear other reviewers comments on this.-- Zleitzen(talk) 22:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I can change the "one's" to "scholars" where appropriate. That is fine with me, but changing to "readers" seems superfluous. Besides, even if one wasn't a reader, one might acknowledge Locke's influence from word of mouth. Also, I just want to add that in my articles about A Vindication of the Rights of Woman and Anna Laetitia Barbauld that I did cite scholars' names when I was discussing particular ideas that belonged to them and I also cited specific interpretations such as feminist scholarship when it was appropriate. Such an approach is less applicable to this article since the Locke scholarship on Some Thoughts is more unified than the scholarship for those two articles. Awadewit 03:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I have made some changes that I hope will assuage your concerns. I did not change everything, but I changed what I thought could reasonably be claimed. Awadewit 04:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Zleitzen, I wouldn't say that Awadewit's style made the author come through, as you said. I have read a fair share of scientific papers in my short lifespan and have also met here and there sentences formulated like the ones you pointed to. So I guess it's not a concern with me. However, the changes Awadewit implemented appeal to me. I'd say the tone is fine either way. --Ouro (blah blah) 05:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but I still have a problem with the below sentence, which I think identifies the author and is telling rather than showing;

"By the end of the eighteenth century, whether one agreed with Locke or not, one had to acknowledge his widespread influence."

The "one" in this sentence applies to people in the eighteenth century; it does not stand in for the author. Also, this sentence is followed by ample quotations and examples which "show" the general idea of this sentence. This sentence introduces a general idea which the following sentences then explicate in more detail. Awadewit 17:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
And this sentence, which I feel is too "weaselly" (hate that expression);

"While it is possible to apply Locke's general principles of education to all children, and contemporaries such as Coste certainly did so, Locke himself, despite statements that may imply the contrary, probably only believed that Some Thoughts applied to the wealthy and the middle-class (or as they would have been referred to at the time, the "middling sorts")."

How about this; "While contemporaries such as Coste applied Locke's general principles of education to all children, consensus among scholars is that Locke intended Some Thoughts to apply only to the wealthy and the middle-class (or as they would have been referred to at the time, the "middling sorts"), despite his statements to the contrary."?-- Zleitzen(talk) 17:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that statement is slightly misleading. It would have to read "While some contemporaries . . . consensus among most scholars..." (I would never want to claim all). But of course, it is not just scholars who have said that Locke "intended" his work for aristocrats alone. Commentators in the eighteenth century said this as well; it is silly to start listing every group who has made this argument. To single out scholars makes it sound like they are the only ones who have thought of this idea, and they are not. I'm sorry to be so difficult, but I want to be as accurate as possible (as I know you do as well). Awadewit 17:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Awadewit. I'm torn because I think that its such a great article, and I would not like to see it devalued or impeded by my hamfisted attempts to find solutions to potential problem spots. But I hope you understand my concerns in terms of the positioning of the author, and the way that those highlighted sentences come across to me (at least). I have removed my oppose to allow other reviewers to pass judgment. Good luck.-- Zleitzen(talk) 02:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments. I find all of this criticism kind of funny, because for this article I actually tried to write a true summary of the scholarship whereas in my other FAs I just quoted representative scholars by name. It's weird that I am having more trouble with an article that really is more encyclopedic, in that it leaves that kind of citation and explanation to the footnotes, than I did with articles that were less elegant. Oh, the irony. Awadewit 03:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it is a cultural.language difference, but to me, "one" is both direct and indirect and often informally refers to "oneself". So if I were to write "one has to admit that this is a great article" - I am meaning that "I admit that this is a great article". Imagine Prince Charles saying that sentence if it helps.-- Zleitzen(talk) 16:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there is a cultural difference. I agree with your interpretation of "one" in the example you gave, but interpretation often relies on context (as you are aware). In my sentence, "By the end of the eighteenth century, whether one agreed with Locke or not, one had to acknowledge his widespread influence," it is clear from the context that the "ones" are people in the eighteenth century, not myself (the author). "One" and "a person" are synonymous here; "a person" just sounds clunkier. And wouldn't Charles say, "We have to admit that this is a great article"? :) Awadewit 17:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Support. It is always a pleasure to read one of Awadewit's articles; she is making an outstanding contribution to Wikipedia. I have bad memories of studying Locke both at school and university, because I never enjoyed reading the dreary old blighter; but this article is very readable and does a sprightly job of summing up Locke's ideas in a digestible form.

A few points and questions:

"It was the most important philosophical work on education in Britain for over a century."

  • I had to blink at that several times and scan for context to realise what it meant. Ambiguous, I feel.
Could you tell me what is ambiguous and why you got lost when you were reading so that I can fix it? I'm afraid I feel that it is fairly straightforward (but, of course, I wrote it and know what I want to say). Thanks. Awadewit 18:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I honestly didn't know whether it meant that it was the most important philosophical work on education in Britain for the century before it or for the century after it. qp10qp 20:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
But how could a book influence the century before it? This is the most common way of referring to a book's influence in general terms when you don't need to give the century or the actual number of years, but I'll see what I can come up with. Awadewit 23:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
We might say that something was the most important thing of its type for over a century, meaning that nothing as important had been written, made, or whatever, for over a century. This isn't one of my quibbles: I genuinely misread the sentence at first. qp10qp 23:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you mean "in over a century." It's all in the preposition. :) Awadewit 00:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"As England became increasingly mercantilist and secularist, the humanist educational values of the Renaissance, which had enshrined scholasticism, came to be regarded as superfluous and irrelevant."

  • Essential to say by whom. Even "by some" would do. The sentence otherwise makes a generalised statement about the views of an unspecified body of people at an unspecified time. And if this refers to Locke's age, we are talking about the age of Purcell, Hookes, and Dryden, all Renaissance men. You may reply that the view comes from a source; but that is only the threshold: generalisations should always be qualified, even when repeated from a source.
  • Here is what Axtell says (his discussion is one of the best of the cultural context of the book): "In the early sixteenth century the small but influential band of Renaissance humanist educators--only the most important being Erasumus and Colet--took their model of human excellence from a pristine early Christianity and from the classical period of Greece, when education was recognized for the first time in human history as the deliberate pursuit of a living ideal of human character. This early Tudor ideal was not founded upon a close or sophisticated analysis of the human understanding, for epistemology was still struggling to free itself from Master Aristotle, but it was grounded on a firm common-sense understanding of human nature and the various ways it develops from childhood. By the middle decades of the century this classically inspired and Christian-motivated model has quietly merged with a new set of values to produce a new educational goal, one that was to endure for more than two centuries. This was the hideal of the gentleman, a unique blend of the Greek philosopher-statesman, the Roman orator, and the Italian courtier, but with this difference: The English gentleman was dedicated to public service, not to courtly adornment or to personal perfection for its own sake. He was the Governour, the gentleman who protected English life and liberty, and guided the affairs of the nation. But as society changed and the sixteenth century blended into the seventeenth, the values and standards of English society changed while its predominant educational theory did not. A growing mercantile economy was making itself felt in all spheres of life, reinforcing the trend of secularism that was emerging at this time. Literacy, though it is difficult to be precise, was definitely rising among the lower and middle elements of society, and with it a demand for literature and education in the English vernacular. Trade, travel, and political relations with foreign nations required some skill in modern languages as well as useful knowledge of national customs, daily living habits, and plitical, religious and economic institutions and practices, all of which could be garnered from a bulging market of travel and geography books, modern histories, and guide books to practically everything. But habits of thought and practices established long in the past remained the guidelines of education; it therefore became inadequate to its taks. This occasioned the many voices of protest that resound throughout the seventeenth century, efforts to redress the balance between a society and its educational system, not the least of which was the Education." (59-60)
As you will note, this passage is extremely broad; I might be able to say "by all of the classes," but what does that really add? My sentence already suggests that it was a broad cultural phenomenon, which is what I take away from this passage. The problem is that the sources themselves have no real detail. If I start inserting details that I know, I will be violating the original research policy, I think. What do you think? Awadewit 18:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


I think I was thrown out by the word "Renaissance", which used the classics as a springboard to open up the sciences and arts rather than as a source of conservatism. I've just had a glance at the Wikipedia article on Renaissance Humanism (admittedly not inline sourced), which describes what I always think of as the Renaissance spirit: "Renaissance humanists believed that the liberal arts (art, music, grammar, rhetoric, oratory, history, poetry, using classical texts, and the studies of all of the above) should be practiced by all levels of "richness". They also approved of self, human worth and individual dignity." And I suppose that's why I baulked at the notion that all this was suddenly regarded as superfluous and irrelevant to education. To be fair to Axtell, I don't think he actually says as much in the extract. Clearly the key point is that the rise of the mercantile middle class created a need for a more pragmatic education than a narrow study of the classics would provide. I suspect that Locke was tilting at some kind of ossification which may have set in at Oxford and Cambridge by this time. qp10qp 22:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I would agree that part of the "Renaissance" was a resurgence of interest in classical models, but it is often good to keep in mind that the Renaissance began in Italy in the fourteenth century. By the end of the seventeenth century in England, what one might call "Renaissance ideals" had changed a great deal. Bacon, Descartes and Locke are part of a line of thinkers made possible by the Renaissance but they are actually rebelling against a key component of Renaissance thought - the superiority of the classics. During the eighteenth century, there was a dispute that came to be called the "ancients vs. the moderns" which ended this whole debate. Writers and thinkers took sides on whether or not modern art and philosophy could ever surpass the ancients (obviously the "moderns" won). One result of this dispute was the canonization of Shakespeare. Before the eighteenth century, no one in England (or anywhere else, for that matter) thought he was anything special. But during this debate, several people decided that he was an example of an "original genius" who rivalled the ancients. Pamphlet wars were fought over this topic. Footnote wars in eighteenth-century Shakespeare editions were waged. Jonathan Swift even made fun of these editors in a poem called the Dunciad. This debate was considered very serious (something akin to the culture wars now - the downfall of civilization and all of that). A second line of thinkers that descends from Bacon's rebellion against Aristotle and the classics are all of those scientific pioneers like Boyle and Newton. Finally, please note that Axtell mentions that these cultural changes affected the "lower and middle elements" who were gaining literacy, not a middle-class. It is actually very difficult to prove that there was a middle class which identified itself as such during the eighteenth century. There are reams of scholarship on this topic - was there or was there not a middle class during the eighteenth, does it matter if they self-identified and if there was a middle class, when did it develop? There is definitely no consensus on that topic. Awadewit 23:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
But Boyle and Newton weren't rebelling against Renaissance science. They were developing it.
Of course I would say, they were inventing science. There was no science in the Renaissance. There was no recognizable accepted scientific method or scientific community. But that is a whole different debate, I think. Awadewit 01:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Tell these guys there was no science in the Renaissance. The second part of what you say may be true, but the point I am getting at is that the Renaissance was a period of progress not rigid classicism. Rigid adherence to scholastic education may have been under attack in Locke's time, but not the whole Renaissance.qp10qp 02:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
All I can say is, read more than just wikipedia on the Renaissance and the scientific revolution. Also, I would refrain from calling the Renaissance a period of uniform "progress" (think Spanish Inquisition). If you want to focus on Renaissance art, for example, it was indeed the return to classical ideals, that fueled what is often labeled the "brilliance" of Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo and Raphael. But it was not until people like Bacon helped overthrow the idea of the authority of the ancients that real science could be done, although it was the rediscovery of classical texts that had helped spark an interest in empirical research. Awadewit 02:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
For various reasons, I have a copy of Vesalius open in front of me at all times.
And it would save me a lot of money if I only read Wikipedia. qp10qp 03:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
But books are better (currently); I'm willing to go broke. Awadewit 03:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
My original point was connected to whether one can without qualification make a sweeping statement merely because one or more scholars made it. Within Wikipedia policy you are entitled to place what statements you like in articles, provided you give a scholarly source. For me, this is a great weakness of Wikipedia, because it means that one or two sources can be used to make general statements. It doesn't prove the point; though it adheres to policy. Reading the extract you provide from Axtell, for example, I don't believe that the point "As England became increasingly mercantilist and secularist, the humanist educational values of the Renaissance, which had enshrined scholasticism, came to be regarded as superfluous and irrelevant" is proved by the source. The (doomed?) Attribution policy says: "Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources." Of course, I wouldn't have been able to say that if you hadn't typed the reference for me, but the statement is so generalised and extreme that I don't believe that without qualification it could be explicitly supported by any source. My own principle is to provide multiple sources for any extreme statement, or qualify it. qp10qp 00:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I have major problems with WP:ATT as well for precisely the reasons you are stating (and more) but where else is one going to get sweeping statements from? For humanities articles, sweeping statements are actually good. No one wants to read a book who comes to this article and you should see the editing of "ambiguous" or "weaselly" statements that goes on. It is simply not possible to write a nuanced article; all the nuance gets erased by peer-reviewers and FAC reviewers. In a way, every statement in this article is sweeping. Also, I only typed in part of Axtell, but you are welcome to read the entire "Introduction," all of the other works in the bibliography and a selection of books on the history of education in Western culture (which I have done, by the way) and then let me know whether you think it is unsupportable. I used that source because it is the most relevant to Locke, but I feel that the statement as a whole is supportable from Axtell's work (and my own knowledge - God forbid). If you read more widely on the topic, you might feel that way as well. The problem with listing a couple of more general sources to go with Axtell is that then I would be accused of "original research" (see the overly stringent WP:OR). Your point about multiple sources is interesting - what would you do if there weren't multiple sources? I asked this question on the talk page of WP:NPOV because one of the pages I'm working on right now has that very problem, in a way - there is no scholarly consensus and to represent one person's article as a "school of thought" is ridiculous. What to do? No one responded to that question as far as I know. Awadewit 01:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a crucial question, and it's a shame we're in different camps on it. By all means use sweeping statements, but make it clear that they come from a source or group of sources instead of wording it so that they sound like the article's own point of view. That's all. The reason I don't have to read the whole of western scholarship to know that the statement in question can't ever be directly and explicitly supported is because by its very nature it cannot be proved. "...came to be regarded as superfluous and irrelevant", unless we say by whom, is a valueless statement; and if we say by whom, it thereby becomes explicitly sourceable. And what are we sourcing? Not that a thing "came to be regarded", but that a scholar said that it came to be regarded. It is a precise distinction. When you say "you should see the editing of "ambiguous" or "weaselly" statements that goes on", you are misrepresenting the process. I can't speak for all such edits, but I have noticed editors adjusting your otherwise excellent articles to make sure that the style is more purely encyclopedic. qp10qp 01:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we are in different camps, but on a different question than the sources. The article is going to have a "point of view" no matter what sources I provide. It is inevitable. I have provided a summary of the scholarship as I see it, but someone else writing the article would obviously write a different summary of the scholarship. As a historian, you must know that summarizing scholarship is never easy and that few people rarely agree on it. Moreover, my statement is one that applies to the culture at large during the eighteenth century and is obviously meant to be read as such; it is not "valuless" - it becomes extremely problematic when one starts to say that that middle class regarded the classics as irrelevant (which then implies that only they did and that there was a middle class - both highly disputable statements). Once you start listing groups, you leave others out by implication. Also, I do not want to attribute this idea to one particular scholar; it does not belong to anyone in particular - some ideas do and some do not (again, you must know this). Also, I am not misrepresenting the process of editing at wikipedia. You can review the discussion at the Mary Wollstonecraft article (I think it is in one of the archives) over her depression to see what I mean. That is just one example. Finally, "encyclopedic" is a nebulous term in terms of style. Awadewit 02:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
When I spoke of the article having a point of view, I didn't mean so much by the way it chooses and presents its sources, structure, etc. That's true as well. I was speaking about the writing itself. An article has a real author and an implied author. The implied author in this case is "Wikipedia", a big, sensible, objective, all-knowing, reliable voice. The real author is each editor, in our weakness. To write a good encyclopedia article we have to do all we can to prevent our own voice intruding on the implied author's; and we have to construct and protect that implied author's voice so that it does not go to the dark side. In other words, we must not abuse or ventriloquise this implied author's voice by making it say bad things, giving it its own point of view, allowing it generalities, vaguenesses, partiality, slanginess, nationalism, whatever. The policies, in their way, guide us on how to manage this. The English language doesn't help: if we write a sentence without an actor, the implied author becomes the actor by default. And the reader might slip into believing that Wikipedia has decided that "it is considered, legend states, it seems, widely, apparently, the truth is, is not, in fact, was possibly, most people believe, all people believe, it became rare, common, unknown, remarkable", etc. So I believe that encyclopedic style is the opposite of nebulous: it has to be pinned down hard, every sentence tacked in place, without a loose phrase. qp10qp 03:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you are preaching to the unconverted choir now. I am in literary studies and therefore I do not believe that we can prevent "our own voice from intruding" on the article. I would also dispute that the implied author is "wikipedia" since it is common knowledge that "anyone can edit" wikipedia. Many readers are aware that wikipedia is not a monolithic voice like Britannica (even though that really isn't either, many readers are less aware of it). Also, the news coverage of wikipedia's failings has made people aware of its lack of objectivity as do the tags on its pages. Furthermore, there is no way to avoid making wikipedia say "bad things" because we are often unaware of our own biases, not only on a personal level, but also on a larger cultural level. Reading reference works from hundreds of years ago often puts this in perspective. Take a stroll through Samuel Johnson's Dictionary or the first Britannica. Awadewit 03:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC) - By the way, see tiny revisions to the article.
Crumbs! 42!! qp10qp 03:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I was talking of the implied voice from a structural point of view. In fact there are probably four or five voices and four or five "readers". And, sure, we will never get it right. I enjoy the challenge myself. As a scholar, you may think of this "encylopedic style" as inferior; I don't blame you, but I've started to find some beauty in it, I must say. It stretches me. And I think nuances are possible within that style and can be smuggled through FAC. qp10qp 03:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there are an infinite number of actual readers. :) Stanley Fish talks about communities of readers; who knows how many of those there are. Actually, precisely because I am a scholar, I try not to think of any one style as "better" or "worse" than another. I tend to think of them in terms of their characteristics and functions. The problem I have with the word "encyclopedic" is that it gets thrown around here a lot and there is no real consensus on its meaning (not surprising - the same is true of "essay style" - as if there is one "essay style"!), so everyone just sort of does their own thing and then insists that others follow their idea of "encyclopedic." It is a bit of a problem. I think that wikipedia should try to define their ideal writing style a little more clearly. Right now, the MOS is a mess of pages that offers very little guidance; the citation pages particularly annoy me. Awadewit 03:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"Following in the intellectual tradition of Francis Bacon, reformers such as Locke argued against Cambridge and Oxford's decree that “all Bachelaur and Undergraduats in their Disputations should lay aside their various Authors, such that caused many dissensions and strifes in the Schools, and only follow Aristotle and those that defend him, and take their Questions from him, and that they exclude from the Schools all steril and inane Questions, disagreeing from the antient and true Philosophy [sic].”[4] More families began to demand a practical education for their sons; by exposing them to the emerging sciences, mathematics, and the modern languages, these parents hoped to prepare their sons for the changing economy."

  • The gist here isn't clear to me. I am not sure what the intellectual tradition of Francis Bacon is in this context (I would have thought him a Renaissance man), and other readers might be in the same boat. Reformers "such as Locke"; and who else? Is the point that Locke opposed the universities' insistence on Aristotle? How does this link to the issue of families seeking an education for their children? (I can guess the connection, but I sense a missing link.) The quote may actually form an unnecessary blockage at this point.
  • I've tried to improve this. Let me know if it is better. Awadewit 18:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Much better, I think. It helps the reader more. qp10qp 22:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"The widespread popularity of Locke's Some Thoughts Concerning Education during the eighteenth century suggests that many of the views within it already pervaded European society. Rather than produce a wholly original philosophy of education, Locke, it seems, began by bringing together and popularizing several strands of seventeenth-century educational reform.."

  • I'm not sure that is clearly written enough. Does this mean that Locke was popular in the eighteenth century because such views were generally popular anyway (which would downplay Locke's influence)? Or does it mean that his views had built up such a reputation that they had a wide influence on eighteenth-century society? The next part seems to imply that Locke had picked up views already extant in the seventeenth century, so I don't see how it follows. If Locke began by popularizing, does this refer to his spreading of his ideas before he wrote the work? What form did this popularization take? How do you begin by popularizing something. Is this linked to the popularity mentioned at the beginning of the passage (in which case, might the two parts be reversed, so that the chicken comes before the egg?).
  • I've tried to revise. Locke's Some Thoughts popularized some curricular suggestions and child-rearing methods that had already been suggested, but he did contribute some important new ideas - his emphasis on virtue and reason is particularly "Lockean," for example. You have to decide for yourself, I think, if the fact that Locke's influence is lessened because his book was not totally original (no book is, of course). Since it was this book that made this set of ideas available to a huge number of people, I think a good argument can be made that it was indeed influential, even if Locke didn't originate each and every idea. Awadewit 18:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
That part reads much better now, overall, I think. But I still don't believe that this sentence is clear: "The widespread popularity of Locke's Some Thoughts Concerning Education during the eighteenth century suggests that many of the views within it already pervaded European society." I still can't tell from that wording whether you mean Locke was popular because such ideas were already in the air, or that (since we are talking about the eighteenth century, and his book would have been widely circulated over time) Locke had helped popularize such views to the point where they had become pervasive. qp10qp 22:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really sure how to make this sentence clearer; the grammar is explicit - "the popularity....suggests" - to me it is clear that it is the fact that the book permeated the culture that indicates Locke was repeating some ideas that already had wide acceptance, not that Locke's book was doing was the popularizing of other ideas (although, of course, he did that as well, as I say in a different sentence). The other key phrase is "already pervaded" - it is in the past tense. Awadewit 23:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
But that's the conundrum. The book was written in the seventeenth century and we are talking of ideas that already pervaded the eighteenth century. In other words, those pervasive ideas might have stemmed back to Locke. I know now that that is not what you meant, but, once again, I am only informing you of a sentence I had to stop and reread several times.
What if I take out "eighteenth century"? Awadewit 01:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Tiny points:

"Locke was convinced that children could reason early in life and that parents should address them as reasoning beings."

"In the Second Treatise on Government (1689), he contends that it is the parents' duty to educate their children and to act for them because children are irrational when young, that is, they have not yet acquired the ability to consistently act rationally; but it is also the parents' obligation to teach their children to become rational adults so that they will not always be fettered by parental ties."

  • Even though the overall point is clear enough, I noticed a clash between "children could reason early in life" and "children are irrational when young".
Children can reason, they just have to be taught to do it and they cannot do it consistently. Awadewit 23:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
See if you think the revision is better. Awadewit 23:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that sorts it out. qp10qp 00:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"According to James Secord, an 18th-century scholar, Newbery included Locke's educational advice to legitimize the new genre of children's literature. Locke's imprimatur would ensure the genre's success."

  • Not clear to me there whether the "would" refers to Newbery's intention or to what subsequently actually happened.
Both, hence the word. Awadewit 23:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"Moreover, compared to other educational programs, such as The Whole Duty of a Woman (1696) and Rousseau’s Emile, which was still to come, Locke’s educational theory appears to have a liberating potential for women."

  • The Whole Duty of a Woman (1696) perhaps needs a phrase introducing or describing it. It's not within my terms of reference as a random reader, though the fault could be mine.
See if you think the teensy bit I added is enough. I don't think it's worth a big thing - it's a minor example. Unfortunately there is no page to wikilink to and I don't want to bother creating one right now (I'm not fan of creating one-sentence pages). Awadewit 23:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The title of the book is sometimes abbreviated and sometimes not. Should the style be consistent?
I tried to use the full title at the beginning of sections and paragraphs and to shorten it in the middle of paragraphs. It seemed clunky to repeat the full title, since it is rather long, all of the time. This is a common practice in the scholarly literature. Awadewit 23:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't find "posit" an encyclopedic word. Possibly just a matter of taste.
Hardly a slang word; why isn't it encyclopedic? Awadewit 23:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Jargonish. IMO. qp10qp 00:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
From what discipline? Awadewit 01:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "that is" works after the dash, in my opinion, but not following a comma, as in two cases in the article. Once again, could just be personal taste.
For me, "that is" would NEVER go after a dash! Awadewit 23:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Never say NEVER. ("In his Essay Locke posits an “empty” mind—a tabula rasa—that is “filled” by experience.")
(Only joking.)

qp10qp 23:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Cute. Not an appositive phrase, though! Awadewit 00:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Crumbs. It looks like I've become more language-nitpicky than Tony. What's the world coming to? qp10qp 00:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it must be an excellent article, if I am reduced to such quibbles. Many congratulations. qp10qp 21:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support on the basis that it appears to be admirably well-written. There may be issues with respect to other criteria, though. Tony 23:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Would you mention your other concerns so that I can attempt to address them? Thanks. Awadewit 23:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't being clear: I see no other issues, but I haven't looked for them—just examined the prose in a few places. I still support. Tony 08:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am close to Support, after review of a few minor issues. (I read the article last Wednesday, and am only now finding time to type up my comments from my hard copy, so some of this may have been attended to in the interim.)
    • WP:MSH issues—There is a section heading called "The Body" (use of The) and another called "Summary" (not very encyclopedic). In the lead, I found content that might help make the section headings more consistent, more encyclopedic, and more conforming to MSH (bolding mine).
      • Some Thoughts Concerning Education explains how to educate that mind using three distinct methods: the development of a healthy body; the formation of a virtuous character; and the choice of an appropriate academic curriculum.
    • Can the section headings be changed to:
      • Methods of education
        • Healthy body
        • Virtuous character
        • Academic curriculum ?

Let's not be too pedantic. See what you think of the new headings (also since the "summary" is a summary, that is what I called it - why is that unencylopedic?). Awadewit 20:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

    • WP:WTA—I saw several occurrences of the word "claim"; can each of them be reviewed per "words to avoid"?

I am using this definition of "claim" from the Oxford English Dictionary: "‘Often loosely used (esp. in U.S.) for: Contend, maintain, assert’." Awadewit 20:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

    • Axtell is listed several times in Notes, but not included in Bibliography.

Yes he is - "Locke, John. The Educational Writings of John Locke. Ed. James L. Axtell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968." Awadewit 20:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

    • Bibliography shouldn't be double-spaced.

I find it easier to read, but I'll remove the spaces for you. Awadewit 20:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

    • WP:GTL recommends See also at the end of the article, above notes, refs, and links. GTL allows leeway, but the aim is to have Wikified content ahead of non-Wiki content. Since it's only one article, can See also be moved up to conform to WP:GTL ?

Done. Awadewit 20:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

    • More importantly, along the lines of some other issues mentioned above, I got really tangled up in trying to determine what you (Awadewit) said, what a referenced article said, and what a referenced article quoted another author as saying, particularly in the sections, "Gender" and "Reception and legacy". Most of this confusion could be cleared up without having to change your article text; rather, by adding some quotes from the sources to the footnotes, which will make it more clear to the reader exactly what the source says. Can direct quotes from the sources be added to the three Axtell footnotes in the "Gender" section and the first Ezell footnote in the "Reception and legacy" section? I can't always tell if you're making statements about Locke's legacy and Locke's views on gender, the authors you cite are making those statements, or the authors you cite are quoting others.

What I have quoted from Axtell in the "Gender" section are actually quotations from Locke; as I say in the text, the quotations are from letters he wrote. I have now changed the footnote to "Qtd. in" although perhaps it would be better to do "Locke, John. "Letter..., etc?" Ezell does not quote Leibniz, she just relays the information that I have given; she also does not give a citation for it. I would not cite someone citing someone else without acknowledging it, I can assure you. Awadewit 20:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

    • I think you need an en-dash on this date range, but I got into trouble changing your dashes once :-) Writers as politically dissimilar as Sarah Trimmer, in her periodical The Guardian of Education (1802-6), and Maria Edgeworth, in the educational treatise she penned with her father, ...

I changed it, but it looked the same when I changed it. Let me know. Awadewit 20:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

    • Where do we find refs for James Whitchurch and Sarah Trimmer in Reception and legacy?

The James Whitchurch quotation comes from Pickering - note that it says in the footnote "Qtd. in Pickering." I have added a note for Trimmer.

  • Overall, very nice work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's definitely an en-dash now; WP:MSH solved; still concerned about the word "claim". This is what Wiki says about using the word "claim"; perhaps the Oxford English Dictionary wasn't consulted when that was written, but it's our guideline, understandably, as it conveys a POV. Also, I wasn't confused only by the direct quotes being handled differently in different citations; my confusion is also text that is not directly quoted. Unattributed examples are:
      • This passage suggests that, for Locke, education was fundamentally the same for men and women—there were only small, obvious differences for women. (What does ref 37 say?)
      • Although Locke’s statement indicates that he places a greater value on female than male beauty, the fact that these opinions were never published allowed contemporary readers to draw their own conclusions regarding the “different treatments” required for girls and boys, if any.[39] (Does ref 39 say he places a greater value ... ?)
      • Who says this? Moreover, compared to other educational programs, such as best-selling conduct book The Whole Duty of a Woman (1696), the female companion to The Whole Duty of Man (1657), and Rousseau’s Emile, which was still to come, Locke’s educational theory appears to have a liberating potential for women. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

On the "claim" issue. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the dictionary used for the wikipedia policy, "claim" means "To state to be true, especially when open to question; assert or maintain" (this is the definition mentioned on the policy page). This is the whole point, really, for Locke - these points are open to question. In the Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke famously wrote in the "Epistle to the reader" that "I shall always have the satisfaction to have aimed sincerely at truth and usefulness, though in one of the meanest ways. The commonwealth of learning is not at this time without master-builders, whose mighty designs, in advancing the sciences, will leave lasting monuments to the admiration of posterity: but every one must not hope to be a Boyle or a Sydenham; and in an age that produces such masters as the great Huygenius and the incomparable Mr. Newton, with some others of that strain, it is ambition enough to be employed as an under-labourer in clearing the ground a little, and removing some of the rubbish that lies in the way to knowledge;--which certainly had been very much more advanced in the world, if the endeavours of ingenious and industrious men had not been much cumbered with the learned but frivolous use of uncouth, affected, or unintelligible terms, introduced into the sciences, and there made an art of, to that degree that Philosophy, which is nothing but the true knowledge of things, was thought unfit or incapable to be brought into well-bred company and polite conversation. Vague and insignificant forms of speech, and abuse of language, have so long passed for mysteries of science; and hard and misapplied words, with little or no meaning, have, by prescription, such a right to be mistaken for deep learning and height of speculation, that it will not be easy to persuade either those who speak or those who hear them, that they are but the covers of ignorance, and hindrance of true knowledge." - I think that it would be odd to claim that Locke thought he was writing the truth when he wrote he was "aiming" at it and that he was contributing towards finding it. He did not think himself infallible. Also, the entry on Locke at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a site which is peer-reviewed by academics, uses "claim" multiple times precisely in the way that I do. (Finally, WP:WTA is guideline, not a policy, therefore it does not have to be blindly followed.) Awadewit 02:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

On footnote 37: I think this is perfectly clear. In the text I quote from a letter that Locke wrote. The footnote references the page in Axtell's edition of Locke's educational writings where one can find that letter. Awadewit 02:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I have changed these footnotes to read "Locke, John. "Letter to Mrs. Clarke..." I hope that this makes the source more clear. Awadewit 17:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't find my copy of the Leites article at this moment, but I assume that it discusses Locke and gender issues on those pages, yes. Do you have some reason to doubt that it doesn't? Why do you want this source quoted for you and not every single secondary source on the page? I don't really understand. Awadewit 02:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

After searching for an hour, I have found the Leites article. Those two pages discuss gender in very broad terms. The sentence I wrote is a combination of a restatement of Locke's quotation and Leites' broader arguement. I will offer some quotes:
  • "I would nonetheless argue that Locke believes his method of moral education is fit for all. Locke's statements concerning the purpose of his book are made with reference to the whole book; but it does not mean he believes that only gentlemen would benefit from the methods described; some are particularly suited to gentlemen (or their betters), but the fundamental elements of moral training have wider application. . . . All of these things should be taught [to] those who will be gentlemen; but the chief object education, the creation of a virtuous character, which must include moral self-reliance, is not reserved for gentlemen, noblemen, or princes. This is an object that should guide the education of anyone, high or low, male or female. . . . Women deserve no less. He writes that 'the principal aim of his . . . Discourse is, how a young Gentleman should be brought up from his Infancy, which, in all things will not so perfectly suit the Education of Daughters; though where the Difference of Sex requires different Treatment 'twill be no hard Matter to distinguish' (Thoughts, §6). It does not affect Locke's methods of moral education." (69-70) Leites goes on to quote Locke's letter to Mrs. Clarke as well. Would your prefer that since there is so little written on Locke's views on female education, that I just paste in Locke's entire letter to Mrs. Clarke and leave it at that? Awadewit 17:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I added Emile and The Whole Duty of Woman as a comparison to give some context to the gender section. Since both texts suggest radically different curricula for women meant to isolate them to the domestic sphere, the statement is indisputable. Awadewit 02:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I came into this discussion prepared to support pending resolution of a few items, but after resolving the trivial matters, we seem to be stalled on the more important ones. Yes, the word "claim" is only a guideline, but it's one I take seriously. Claim introduces POV; do you consider the statements "open to question" or do reliable sources? Unless a reliable source does, or we have good reason to question the statements, Wiki reports what the author says or states, not what he "claims".
Here are the sentences. And, by the way, it is Locke who considered the statements "open to question," as I demonstrated with the quotation from the Essay. Also, "claim" does not mean just one thing; it does not have just one connotation.
  • "Of Locke’s major claims in the Essay Concerning Human Understanding and Some Thoughts Concerning Education, two played a defining role in eighteenth-century educational theory." - These are claims for Locke in that they are open to question for Locke.
  • "The first is that education makes the man; as Locke writes at the opening of his treatise, "I think I may say that of all the men we meet with, nine parts of ten are what they are, good or evil, useful or not, by their education."[8] In making this claim, Locke" - This is a claim for Locke, not a mere statement.
  • "Most of Locke's recommendations are based on a similar principle of utility.[26] So, for example, he claims that children should be taught to draw because it would be useful to them on their foreign travels (for recording the sites they visit), but poetry and music, he says, are a waste of time." - This is a claim for Locke as well.
  • "Even Rousseau, while disputing Locke's central claim that parents should treat their children as rational beings, acknowledged his debt to Locke." - Locke did not make a "central statement".
  • Here are some of the sentences from the Stanford Enyclopedia on Locke. These are written by a scholar and then peer-reviewed by a scholar. "Claim" is used in exactly the same way as I use it. It is not confusing and it is not POV. This is how academics (like myself) write about texts and ideas, particularly large philosophical claims. It is not right for wikipedia to rest its authority on the research of scholars but then to reject their language; it is, in fact, in the end, impossible.
  • "In Book II Locke claims that ideas are the materials of knowledge and all ideas come from experience."
  • "In pursuing this enquiry, Locke rejects the claim that there are speculative innate principles (I. Chapter 2), practical innate moral principles (I. Chapter 3) or that we have innate ideas of God, identity or impossibility (I. Chapter 4). "
  • "For example Locke considers the claim that innate propositions are discovered and assented to when people "come to the use of Reason. (I. 2. 6., p. 51)"
  • "And while Locke claims our ideas of primary qualities resemble the primary qualities in objects, while the ideas of secondary qualities do not resemble their causes in the object, what does ‘resemble’ mean in this context?"
  • "Locke claims that the real essences of material things are quite unknown to us."
  • There is a clear connection between Book II and III in that Locke claims that words stand for ideas." Awadewit 03:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding sourcing on some statements in the last two sections: I have the same concerns mentioned by several other reviewers (above). I'm having a hard time sorting out what is your writing from Locke's and other sources. For example, to whom can we attribute, "This passage suggests that, for Locke, education was fundamentally the same for men and women—there were only small, obvious differences for women." The quote you cite in the next sentence doesn't fully back that so, without a citation, it looks like original research or synthesis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is the Locke quotation: This education “will not so perfectly suit the education of daughters; though where the difference of sex requires different treatment, it will be no hard matter to distinguish" (Locke's emphasis)". There is no need to cite that sentence since it is basically a restatement of the passage in modern English. Awadewit 03:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
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.