Talk:The Age of Reason

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	The Age of Reason is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 16, 2007 Good article nominee Listed July 14, 2007 Peer review Reviewed October 14, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Religion (Rated FA-Class)   Religion Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. FA This article has been rated as FA on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page WikiProject Books      (Rated FA-Class) Books Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) WikiProject Philosophy      (Rated FA-Class) Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. Additional information: Related task forces (major fields): Philosophy of religion Philosophical literature

The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: Awadewit (talk • contribs • email) This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Archives

Archive 1 - August 2005 - September 2007, including GA review, addendums to peer review, discussion of Michael Moore material, and an altercation over POV/NPOV of the article

[edit] Michael Moore

The material on Michael Moore is cited to reliable sources (per WP:V and WP:RS). Please do not remove it without first discussing your reasons for doing so here. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 10:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irreverent tone?

I decided to completely rewrite my comment as theese two sections of the article continue to confuse my train of thought.

"Paine's style is not only “vulgar”, it is also irreverent. For example, Paine describes Solomon as a rake, who “was witty, ostentatious, dissolute and at last melancholy"; he “lived fast, and died, tired of the world, at the age of fifty-eight years".[48]"

Offensive is one of the defenitions of vulgar. (merriam webster dict.)

• That is its modern definition, yes. The article tries to avoid this problem by explaining: "The most distinctive element of Paine's style in The Age of Reason is its “vulgarity". In the eighteenth century "vulgarity" was associated with the middling and lower classes and not with obscenity, thus, when Paine celebrates his "vulgar" style and his critics attack it, the dispute is over class accessibility, not profanity." Awadewit | talk 16:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Reading the second paragraph leaves me with the idea that it was a specific group of people who were offended. "It was Paine's "ridiculing" tone that most angered Churchmen" Clearly the churchmen were angry about being ridiculed. That suggest to me that it wasn't that it was written for the common man that offended them, it was his ridiculing tone and offensive, irreverent even, wording that angered them.

• That sentence is pretty clear, in my opinion. Of all of the things in Paine's book, it was his "ridiculing" tone that upset the clergy the most.
• I'm not sure why this would lead the reader to the conclusion that the book wasn't written for the common man. Paine's "vulgarity" or his "lowness" of language is part of what upset the clergy so much. The accessibility of Paine's arguments, through their clarity and what the clergy saw as lower-class humor and appeal, is what disturbed them. Awadewit | talk 16:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This is perhaps not contradicted by the first section regarding this, but it certainly points in another direction.

"In the eighteenth century "vulgarity" was associated with the middling and lower classes and not with obscenity, thus, when Paine celebrates his "vulgar" style and his critics attack it, the dispute is over class accessibility, not profanity."

The editor says the issue wasn't over ridicule, profanity, offensive language. It was over that the lower classes actually read it? Or something to that effect.

However, going back to the fact that this is NOT written for 18th century people, but 21st century people, perhaps it could be made more clear. ALL of it.

• I'm sorry, I don't follow you. What could be made clearer? Awadewit | talk 16:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

My last and most clear gripe is with the use of the word "IS" instead of "WAS". Using IS implicates that it still is whatever it was then, I'm still not sure exactly what that is however. As I mentioned, I dont feel the article makes that clear. If you are saying language as a whole, acceptance and understanding, has stayed static during theese last couple of hundred years, I am simply baffled. If you are using the word vulgar to mean something like offensive, then how is it still vulgar? If you are using the word vulgar to mean something like written for the common man, then how is it still vulgar? If it indeed was vulgar, then it WAS vulgar.

• The use of the present tense in this article is called the "literary present". It is standard practice for writing about texts both in academia and on wikipedia.

I repeat again, for emphasis.

"It was Paine's "ridiculing" tone that most angered Churchmen" How does this compute with the 'classical' usage of the word vulgar?

Annoying username 13:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Annoying username on all counts. I believe that Awdewit calling the book, "vulgar", in present tense and using terms like "cheapness" (as opposed to affordability?!) represent the lack of neutrality of this article. I have never heard or seen anyone use the word "cheapness". I've heard people use affordability many times. These are only two minor examples of the biased language, objective associations, and slanted writing style that are all overwhelmingly prevalent throughout this entire article. Unfortunately Awadewit monitors and guards this article unremittingly. Anyone who wishes to correct and amend this article must be prepared to monitor it 7 days a week and engage in "edit wars" with Awadewit. It is my opinion, based solely on the content of the article that it is the primary intention of the author of this article to discredit and refute Paine and The Age Of Reason. Why someone would want to discredit a book that discredits the bible is up for discussion.Pitythafoo —Preceding comment was added at 22:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Pitythefoo, I really am sorry that we got off on the wrong foot last time and I wish you would accept my apology.

It would help not only me, but other editors working on this page if you would provide a detailed list of the problems you see in the article. It would also help your case if you did not impugn the motivations of other editors - you have no evidence to back up your claims and at wikipedia we try and assume good faith whenever possible. Let us see if we can work together to address the problems you see in the article. Awadewit | talk 23:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)