Talk:Thomas Paine/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

what was your stlye for writing?

Your kung fu style very good. -Kevin Mitnick
He died in Greenwich Village, New York, at 59 Gross Street in New York, New York.

Does this line sound stupid to others? --Sam

Can you make your sources, author, and other information a little more clearer? Because if people need to list a source for information it makes it very, very hard.

yea i kno this is what im looking for...and its not to be found...nice job on that 1 guys

Thomas Paine became infatuated with the French Revolution. He believed it would be like the American Revolution. He even wrote a book, The Age of Reason, in defense of the French Revolution. When he saw that the French Revolution resulted in open hostility to Christianity, and the American Revolution resulted in being established in accordance with Christian Principles, Paine recanted his book:
"I would give worlds, if I had them, if The Age of Reason had never been published. O Lord, help! Stay with me! It is hell to be left alone."

His last words were: "I die in perfect composure and resignation to the will of my Creator, God." - Thomas Paine - Davjohn 02:47, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Some of that is true; much is not. Paine, of course, would roll over in his grave if heard you assert the American Revolution was based on Christian principles, but we'll leave that aside... It was Paine's Rights of Man that was written in defense of the early French Revolution; The Age of Reason was an attack on the ways in which religious traditions were used to buttress corrupt monarchical governments. As the French Revolution veered toward anarchy, he condemned its "avidity to punish" and its abuses of power. He was arrested on 28 December 1793 at the height of the terror and held in the Luxembourg Prision where he spent thirteen months until James Monroe was able to secure his release after the downfall of Robespierre. Paine's detractors have claimed that he recanted The Age of Reason on his deathbed, but it's a made-up story. The words "I have lived an honest and useful life to mankind; my time has been spent in doing good, and I die in perfect composure and resignation to the will of my creator God." are the last words of his last will and testament, not his actual last words. Robert Ingersoll, in 1877, gave this version of Paine's passing: "he died as he had lived. Some ministers were impolite enough to visit him against his will. Several of them he ordered from his room. A couple of Catholic priests, in all the meekness of hypocrisy, called that they might enjoy the agonies of a dying friend of man. Thomas Paine, rising in his bed, the few embers of expiring life blown into flame by the breath of indignation, had the goodness to curse them both. His physician, who seems to have been a meddling fool, just as the cold hand of death was touching the patriot's heart, whispered in the dull ear of the dying man: "Do you believe, or do you wish to believe, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?" And the reply was: "I have no wish to believe on that subject." These were the last remembered words of Thomas Paine." The pious lie that Paine recanted anything is first found ten years after his death, in a story perpetrated by a Quaker, Mary Roscoe, afterwards Mary Hinsdale, a servant of Mr. Willet Hicks, who lived near the house where Paine died. When questioned, she would not verify that the recantation had occurred. -- Binky 04:48, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Contents

Gouvernor Morris

I recall (but I have no source) that when Paine was in prison in France under sentence of death the U.S. government did little or nothing on his behalf, and that it was generally believed that George Washington was happy as not to be rid of a man he considered far too radical. Does anyone have sources for this? Or refutation of it? If it's true it certainly belongs in the article; even if false, I believe the story is widespread enough that a refutation of it might belong in the article. -- Jmabel 05:38, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

See note at bottom under #accuracy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmanderson (talk • contribs) 3 Sept 2005
The American ambassador, Gouverneur Morris, was distinctly tepid about getting Paine's release, but Morris's biographers discount Paine's accusation that he'd actually connived at Paine's imprisonment. --Linden Salter 20:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
See this link and search on "Washington" for the version from the collected edition of Paine's works. Failure to affirm Paine's citizenship vigorously would have been sufficient, in 1793, to have Paine imprisoned as an enemy alien; Morris does not need to have done anything much to have earned this description, merely failed to act.
The Federalists are generally getting fairly unscrupulous apologias for biographies these days; which one are you reading? Septentrionalis 21:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Misc note to dead link

Note to self: http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/roots_paines_radicalism.htm. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 14:12, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cut from article

I cut the following recent addition:

After his death in New York City on June 8, 1809 the newspapers read, 'He had lived long, did some good and much harm', which time judged to be an unworthy epitaph.

"...the newspapers..." is not exactly a citation. Either this is a quotation from some particular paper or it is useless. The resto of this is just POV. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:57, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

"At Paine's death most U.S. newspapers reprinted the obituary notice from the New York Citizen, which read in part: “He had lived long, did some good and much harm.” —Encyclopaedia Britannica, Philip S. Foner. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Great, that would be worth adding. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:28, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

I am going to change "east Brooklyn" to "Eastern England" as that is where Thetford is. I don't know how that crept in.

  • Thomas Paine is also the name of a play by Nazi dramatist Hanns Johst. = I removed this line from "External links". What does it mean? I followed the link to the writer and a link there brought me back here! I learned nothing about what this man wrote about Paine, who published it or when, or even whether it was good, bad or indifferent. Until someone comes up with something more this is just an insult to the article about Paine and it should remain here. MPLX/MH 02:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another cut: 'According to Perkins & Perkins, on their book "The American Tradition in Literature" Shorter Edition in One Volume, tenth edition, Thomas Paine is considered to be a "Great Commoner of Mankind".' Why is this relevant? Neither a notably important work (it's an anthology, right?) nor a particlularly deep comment. Doesn't seem to me to add anything much to the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:18, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

William Cobbett

This was written to my talk page. Since I'm not the main author of this article—nothing like it— I thought it would be more useful to put the note here:

Hi Jmabel - I am new to this but I just read the newly published book "The life and adventures of William Cobbett". It gives a lot of background on Thomas Paine which you might like to use, especially his dissappointment about being left to rot in a french jail with no help from the USA. As you know it was Cobbett who felt the need to give Paine a more fitting resting place. User:Prluckett 18 July 2005

Material deleted with inadequate explanation

An anon deleted these paragraphs, with the edit comment "spurious content, NPOV"

Paine was a deist and a fervent critic of organized religion, which led to his being socially ostracized for much of his life. He published an early anti-slavery tract and was co-editor of the Pennsylvania Magazine. A republican, Paine became an articulate spokesman for the American independence movement.
Paine is said to have been tarred and feathered in New Jersey, but no proof exists of this. His unorthodox and unpopular opinions led to the circulation – first by the British (during the time of the American Revolution) and later by his political opponents on both sides of the Atlantic; of scurrilous tales about Paine.

These aren't my paragraphs and I can't speak to the accuracy of everything in them.

But there's nothing "spurious" or non-neutral about the statements that he was "a deist and a fervent critic of organized religion." I've replaced them with direct quotations from Age of Reason which allow him to make that point in his own words.

I rather suspect the "early anti-slavery tract" and "co-editor of the Pennsylvania Magazine" are factual too, but don't personally have citations at hand to back these up and reinsert them. I hope someone else will look into this. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Here's your anti-slavery tract [1]. Here's 2 cites for Pennsylvania magazine: [2], [3]. Any reason not to restore? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:25, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • By all means, restore. Thanks. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The title is simply "Age of Reason"

The title of Paine's book on religion is simply Age of Reason. It is not The Age of Reason. One can refer to it "the Age of Reason," just as St. Augustine wrote a book called Confessions which is often referred to as "the Confessions." The Age of Reason ought to be moved to Age of Reason but I'm not sure how to handle the problem of Age of Reason already being a dab page. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, maybe I shouldn't be so dogmatic. The page images an 1889 edition at

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/library/ageofreason.htm

certainly show it as The Age of Reason.

The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica seems to be calling it "Age of Reason" although the title is prefixed a couple of times by a LOWER-case article, "the Age of Reason." Random Web references seem to show a mix. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

No, it isn't... I was wrong.

In response to a query on this, a reference librarian at UW-Madison writes:

"According to the title page of the 1794 edition, it's The Age of Reason (you can look at this by searching MadCat for "age of reason"--I looked at an electronic facsimile." Dpbsmith (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Is this text with the repeated wording really correct?

The article contains the following text which I have copied here and added parenthetical marks designating (First instance) and (Duplicate) that looks to me to be a pasting error. Can someone with a source for the quote correct it or mark it as sic or some such?

He described himself as a "Deist" and commented:

How different is [Christianity] to the pure and simple profession of Deism! The true (First instance begins)Deist has but one Deity, and his religion consists in contemplating the power, wisdom, and benignity of the Deity in his works, and in endeavoring to imitate him in everything moral, scientifical, and mechanical.(First instance ends) (Duplicate begins)Deist has but one Deity, and his religion consists in contemplating the power, wisdom, and benignity of the Deity in his works, and in endeavoring to imitate him in everything moral, scientifical, and mechanical.(Duplicate ends)


And, never mind, I found a source at:

http://www.thomaspaine.org/Archives/AOR1.html
CHAPTER XIII
Paragraph 8

so I am removing the obviously duplicated text.

Liberalism

Links to liberalism in this article were recently replaced by links to classical liberalism. I think this is wrong, and am reverting. While there is a certain period -- basicially the mid-to-late 19th century -- where it is important to distinguish classical liberals from those who went with John Stuart Mill along the path to modern liberalism / new liberalism, Paine is far before that time. The only justification for calling someone in that period a classical liberal would be if, like Adam Smith their main focus was laissez faire economics (and even Smith, if you read, was not nearly as narrowly focused that way as someone like Hayek was years later). Paine was by no means primarily economic in focus: he was far more focused on social matters and even (anti-)theological ones than economics. All liberals -- be they German economic free-marketers or American near-social-democrats -- today see Paine as an intellectual ancestor. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:24, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy

In the article Paine is portrayed as though he and Washington were buddies. He referred to Washington as a traitor to his country who would have sold out had Benedict Arnold not beaten him to it. Essentially he commited political suicide but there is no mention of this. freestylefrappe 18:13, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

This page copies (I believe correctly) the prefaces to Foner's collected edition of Paine's works. Search on "Washington" for the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmanderson (talk • contribs) 4 Sept 2005
Good find! It seems to me that this certainly belongs in the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:08, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Good find..but not sure if we should incorporate all of it on to this page. I think a general overview here with links to other pages on the letters would make sense. Any thoughts? freestylefrappe 21:10, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Oh by all means, summarize down to the narrative; the Letter to Washington itself may not be online, and in any case evidences only Paine's view, formed in prison at 3000 miles from Philadelphia. Septentrionalis 21:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

There is a {{dubious}} tag on Paine's influence on radicalism. I don't see it explained here; and I agree with the text. Unless I'm missing something, I move to strike the tag. Septentrionalis 21:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Concur. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:37, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Freestylefrappe sent me a note, claiming that it refers to the Washington matter in the preceeding sentence, and the (valid) complaint at the head of this section is the talk page notice. I have added a few sentences on Paine v. Morris and Washington, and hope Frappe will be bold enough to add more if he wants it. Septentrionalis 21:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Style Wars

Some misguided editors have begun a style war on this page over Anglo-American usage. This is contrary to express policy, and has been justified on nationalist grounds.

My philosophy on this, as on other sterile edit wars (with which all of us are all too familiar) is that they should go away and leave this article alone. In this case, this happens to mean the English usage defence, which I do not myself favor (note spelling). But I think it more important that this class of incivility be squashed immediately, than that my own choice of usage prevail. Septentrionalis 17:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

This is an article about one of the founding fathers of the United States and it has long been in American English. Per the guideline on national varieties of English, it should stay that way. I don't see any point to the "straw poll" below. I'm sure this can be worked out through a little discussion and by following the existing relevant guidelines. Jonathunder 18:20, 2005 September 7 (UTC)
What Americanisms do you see in the present text? I see no defense in the claim that Paine (of all men) is peculiarly American - and it is my duty, as an American citizen and a Wikipedian, to oppose American nationalism at least as strongly as other varieties. Septentrionalis 18:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
It isn't nationalism; please assume good faith. In other articles I have argued against changing to AE. Here I argue against changing from it. The subject of the article emigrated to the United States and is identified with the it. I looked at the history of the article and it seems that from the first appearance of where there might be differences in style, this article followed AE conventions. The dates were written in typical AE style in the earliest non-stub versions of the article, for example. Jonathunder 18:40, 2005 September 7 (UTC)

I don't think Jonathunder is arguing in bad faith; I think he's using an invalid argument. I see no reason why George Washington has to be written in the American language; and Paine is much more English than Washington. (I had not considered dates as marking dialect; there are several examples of American dates in Anglicized text in WP. The British norm may be shifting.) Septentrionalis 19:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Straw poll

Go away

  • And the sooner the better. Septentrionalis 17:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Jmabel | Talk 04:50, September 8, 2005 (UTC). Paine is probably more American than British, but so what? Warring over this on topics that aren't clearly American or clearly not is just an invitation to an endless edit war that does nothing to improve the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:50, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know which way the article is currently written. It doesn't matter. Whichever way it is now, it should stay that way. This is just contention for the sake of contention. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It wasn't an edit war, certainly not an endless one, and I don't believe there was contention for the sake of contention on the part of anyone. Three editors made one change each, and then we had a discussion. If you want to see an edit war, by the way, see the history and talk page of Aluminium. Incidently, I argued there against changing things to an American spelling. I agree here, too, that the article should continue at the style it has always had, which happens to be AE. I'll drop my note here, as an endorsement of the wish that any bad feeling would go away (I certainly hold none), but I don't wish for any editors to go away. I've had this article on my watchlist since contributing to it a long time ago, and I welcome more eyes. Kind regards. Jonathunder 20:45, 2005 September 8 (UTC)
    • The argument should go away; not the editors. Septentrionalis 19:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
      • In case nobody has noticed, I reworded a couple of sentences to avoid use of a word which has different British and American spellings. I am avoiding scrutinizing this article for any other transatlantic style issues and I hope others will do likewise. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

English usage

American usage

Odd removal

Removed anonymously and without comment: "His sister Elizabeth died in infancy." No specific citation, so I hesitate to restore it, but it's been there for a long time, unchallenged, and I strongly suspect it is true. If someone else can restore, with citation, that would be great. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:44, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

One anon vandalized, the next took out the vandalism without reverting. I don't think this actually constitutes a challenge to the maltreated statement, so thissource should do it (search on Elizabeth). Unless somebody wants me to, I'm not going to bother to find the book cited. Septentrionalis 17:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Why does this article have such persistent vandalism? What is it about this article? - Tεxτurε 21:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I've wondered that too. Some history articles that you wouldn't think would be vandal magnets just seem to be. It's the main reason I've always kept this one on my watchlist. Jonathunder 22:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Articles related to the French Revolution all seem to be vandal magnets. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I feel like I should vandalize it myself or I'm missing out on something! ("If all your friends jumped off a cliff would you do it too?" "But, Mommmmm!") - Tεxτurε 21:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Freemason: does it matter?

I notice that (like Lafayette and some others) Paine has recently been added to Category:Freemasons. I question the usefulness of this. Are we going to add as categories all organizations of which people were members? I have to wonder if this is coming from the same person who, a month or so ago, added somewhat conspiratorial comments about Freemasons in this era, then, when challenged, removed his own comments from the talk pages. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Several of George III's sons were Grand Masters. If we included them in the cat, maybe it would stop being fun. Is this the same user who speculated on Freemasonry in Inalienable rights? Septentrionalis 20:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Not openly so, but I have to suspect that it is. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

How many copies

"As many as half a million copies" was recently changed to "About 120,000 copies". I suspect sources disagree, and multiple estimates, with citation, would be in order. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I've heard 200,000 from the Norton Anthology. -- Chris is me 15:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
If you have edition and page number, the Norton Anthology would certainly be citable on this. - Jmabel | Talk 01:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The Mark Steel Lecture: Thomas Paine

The Mark Steel Lecture: Thomas Paine: Politically passionate Mark Steel takes a look at the eighteenth century idealist Thomas Paine.


I don't know how long the link will last but you might find this interesting - Steel is a comedian but his 'lectures' are usually pretty factually accurate. The Listen again link should be OK for a few days anyway.

Listen again: Monday - The Mark Steel Lecture: Thomas Paine (scroll down to near the bottom of the page)

It's a streaming audio file (actually a half-hour BBC radio programme) and you'll need RealPlayer to listen to it. There's a couple of minutes of the previous programme and some trailers at the beginning of the file so just use fast-forward.


Ian Dunster 14:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Statue of gold

This edit reverses the sense of a sentence, so that it is Paine saying in 1800 that there should be a statue in gold of Napoleon in every city of the world, rather than vice versa. Since either is imaginable, and there is no citation, I don't have any idea which is correct. Does someone have a citation? (In this case, a web citation really won't do, it is too likely to be taken from us.) If not, perhaps we should remove the statement until it is verified. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Since other experienced contributors have been reversing this, and only anonymous IPs keep re-adding it, I will assume that the old version, Napoleon saying there should be a statue of Paine, is the correct one. A citation would still be nice. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I can't say as I really have a source for this statement, however I have added this page to my watchlist and hence I have taken it upon myself to revert what I have deemed to be vandalism. Perhaps I have reverted too much information or I have gotten the truth backwards somehow. However recently there has been some vandalism to the page from anonymous IPs and in general I don't trust them. So honestly I don't know. Sorry if I'm not that much help, but I'm really more of a vandal fighter. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 06:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the claim entirely until someone can provide a source. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
hi - i really think i might be worth mentioning the thomas paine bust at leicester secular hall but i'm unsure of where and how. any takers? [4]Jammus 23:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
If this is important enough to belong in the article, it would belong inthe Legacy section. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Monuments?

The "legacy" section states that "There is a museum in New Rochelle, New York, in his honour and a statue of him stands in King Street in Thetford, Norfolk, his place of birth. The statue holds a quill and his book, The Rights Of Man. The book is upside down." But what about any other monuments or statues or anything. Any in DC? It seems he gets a lot less recognition than most of the other "founding fathers." Generic69 01:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • IMHO he remains a dangerous revolutionary in the eyes of the establishment, best kept out of sight. Jefferson was bad enough, but Tom Paine... my goodness, what do you think would happen to any high school teacher who asked his pupils to read Age of Reason? But he needs no monuments, the United States itself is monument enough. Just my $0.02... Dpbsmith (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Second image is NOT Thomas Paine

Instead, it is General William Moultrie, as shown here: Winsor Hill Site. My aunt was doing photo research for a book about Mr. Paine when she discovered this mistake. I am in the process of removing the picture from this article.

Yikes... this picture has been on here since 2004.

Here is my aunt's research on the topic:

This is NOT Thomas Paine.
I really thought it didn't look like him and since there was no source for the image I went to the man at the Thomas Paine Cottage. What a great history expert!
His comments: Paine served only a few months in the PA. militia. Artwork is of a man in general's garb and also dressed in boots. Thomas Paine was not an officer nor was he a gentleman so the boots would be unlikely. After much conversation he mentioned General Moultrie from the Revolutionary War.
Sure enough--I found the image of General Moultrie at Mary Evans Picture Library. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcr13 (talk • contribs) 20 January 2006

Lewes Inconsistencies

I was brought to this article (Thomas Paine) via the article on Lewes, England, which I've noticed contains - in its History section - some (less-than-flattering) details on Paine that are curiously absent from the Paine article itself (especially noticeable considering that more than half of the paragraph on Paine is not about his time in Lewes...). Because I cannot speak for the accuracy of those comments, I've opted not to make any amendments on the Paine article. Somebody who does know about this, though, should look into it. Nitjan 06:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Change Comments

I change line 70 from

"There is no confirmed story about what happened to them after that, although down the years various people have claimed to own Paine's skull, or his right hand."

to

"There is no confirmed story about what happened to them after that, although down the years various people have claimed to own parts of Paine's remains such as his skull and right hand."

A comma should not be used with the coordinating conjuction "or" in this circumstance because it is not introducing an independant clause. Furthermore, I much prefer the sound of Paine's remains to the former wording. I hope that my editing will be accepted. On second thought, after reading the discussion over Paine, I make it clear that I intend no maliciousness with my change.

Just curious...

I don't know if this is the right place to ask this, but I'll try anyway.

I'm writing an article on Thomas Paine and I'm not sure what to include in it, and a lot of the material I find online is not accurate. Most encyclopedia articles too are inaccurate or very tentative in what they say so that they don't show a certain point of view. I am trying to write an article that's very supportive of Paine's views, political, religious and others, and, again, am unsure of what material to use. I was wondering if anyone here would be interested in helping me with this by either posting here or contacting me from my site. I'm the senior editor, if you visit the site and don't figure that out.

Thanks a lot, and I hope someone responds to this!

You should probably start with what he himself wrote, which is here; for political views, the Rights of Man; for religious views: the Age of Reason.Septentrionalis 05:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Ireland

This article's very US-centric. What about the effect his work had on other revolutionaries such as Wolfe Tone? Njál 03:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If you've got something citable to add, please do. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Paine's Tarnished Legacy

In the Legacy section there should be a reference to Paine's somewhat tarnished public image. I don't mean just while he was living and in his obituary, etc., but for example, Teddy Roosevelt once referred to him as a "filthy, little atheist." And his religious views often cause him to be unappreciated as a founding father. And while there is a reference to his influence on Lincoln and Edison, how about the thing about _Citizen Tom Paine_. —This unsigned comment was added by 69.125.5.83 (talk • contribs) 25 March 2006.

The TR quote should be in, if it's citable. What do you mean by "the thing about _Citizen Tom Paine_"? That is the name of a play and novel by Howard Fast; is that what you are alluding to? - Jmabel | Talk 08:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and the controversy that ensued after the author, Fast, was blacklisted during the witch hunting era.
Off-topic here, I think, but Fast should be in the Further Reading and linked to there; Paine was not the primary cause of the blacklist. Septentrionalis 21:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Quote Attribution

Thomas Paine is widely quoted as having said, "Lead, follow, or get out of the way".

Did he actually say it?

For the life of me I can't find it. It seems to be attributed to him but no one bothers to cite which of his writings it came from. --Spark17 21:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Agrarian Justice, date published.

In the article, under the section of his Biography, part French Revolution, it is stated, "Paine published his last great pamphlet, Agrarian Justice, in the winter of 1795-1796." According to my copy of Paine's collected writings, as published by the Library of America, sixth printing, the pamphlet, Agrarian Justice, was written in the winter of 1795-1796, however, not being published until Spring of 1797. Can anyone confirm the current Wiki on Paine as being correct in regards to this manner? Not One Of Us 02:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It says it was published in Jan-Feb 1796 here and here (says winter of 1795-1796). However, Wikisource says 1797. --Sparkhurst 01:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here is what I gather. Paine wrote Agrarian Justice in 1795 and originally published it in 1796 (Jan/Feb). However, he was in France up until 1802, so the assumption here is it was first published in French. It wasn't published in English until 1797, apparently.
"1795 Thomas Paine wrote his pamphlet, "Agrarian Justice," (published in English in 1797) in which he proposed a social insurance program for the nations of Europe and potentially for the young American Republic." [5]
I will restore the section to what it was originally. I don't really think it is necessary to note it wasn't published in English until 1797, though Wikisource might be a good place to note this. --Sparkhurst 02:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Further reading removed

Do we really want to remove all of this? There were links to entire book-length biographies online; information on major (paper) biographies of Paine; Edison's essay on Paine. Given that this article almost completely lacks explicit references, some of these were presumably the implicit references, and others were the works one should use to reference it decently. - Jmabel | Talk 05:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Your question is entirely fair. The citing sources style guide appears to suggest sections in the following order: article text, references, further reading, see also, external links. I have added a reference section, the unreferenced template tag, and reinstated the further reading section. JonathanFreed 06:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Arguably, the large number of items in Further Reading encourages others to add more, as was done today by Markwilensky. Though I reinstated the further reading section that I previously removed, I'm not sure that its restoration was the best way to handle this article's lack of references. Thoughts? Unless the further reading is by Paine himself or by a scholar who is widely recognized for his writing on Paine, I don't think it should be in the further reading section. JonathanFreed 22:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Paine's letter to Washington

I have a couple thoughts to contribute. It says in the article, "Paine thought that George Washington had abandoned him, and was to quarrel with him for the rest of his life." That is what Paine thought and he wrote Washington a letter, which I added to the article. However, did he really quarrel with him for the rest of his life? Also, the article says, "Derided by the public and abandoned by his friends on account of his religious views," though I'm sure his letter to Washington played a good part in his being derided by the public too. --Sparkhurst 06:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The intended sense is, of course, the rest of Washington's life; i.e. until 1799. I don't see how to clarify without being clumsy. As for the other, it is likely to be Federalist historiography. Septentrionalis 20:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
"…the rest of Washington's life"? "…the rest of the latter's life"? - Jmabel | Talk 20:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Trivia - "Adams and Liberty"

Thomas Paine, a radical pamphleteer, is the writer of Boston patriotic song, "Adams and Liberty" (1798), in support of John Adams

I have reason to doubt this. Paine was in France at the time and was critical of the Federalist Party to which Adams belonged. Also, Adams had some disparaging things to say about Paine at the time, such as, "I am willing you should call this the Age of Frivolity as you do, and would not object if you had named it the Age of Folly, Vice, Frenzy, Brutality, Daemons, Buonaparte, Tom Paine, or the Age of the Burning Brand from the Bottomless Pit, or anything but the Age of Reason. I know not whether any man in the world has had more influence on its inhabitants or affairs for the last thirty years than Tom Paine. There can be no severer satyr on the age. For such a mongrel between pig and puppy, begotten by a wild boar on a bitch wolf, never before in any age of the world was suffered by the poltroonery of mankind, to run through such a career of mischief. Call it then the Age of Paine."

If a source refuting my suspicion presents itself, feel free to re-add it. --24.152.194.96 02:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This site says Robert Treat Paine, who is far more likely. Septentrionalis 20:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Minarchists

I notice that Paine was recently added to Category:Minarchists. I'm not necessarily saying that is wrong, but there is nothing in the article that really bears it out. - Jmabel | Talk 02:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Then it's wrong. The reason an article is in a given category should be obvious to readers of the article. If it's not obvious to a major editor, it needs more jusitification in the text (which would involve citing actual sources). Septentrionalis 22:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

chess legend

i play chess, and i read a "legend" in a book called 2010: chess oddities that thomas paine was sentenced to guillotine during the french revolution. his wife went to a cafe frequented by the commissioner himself and beat him in a game of chess. she asked for stakes - paine's life - if she won again. she proceeded to defeat robespierre a second time and paine was spared.

any truth to this statement or is it only a legend? Andrewb1 16:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say extremely unlikely. As in "it is extremely unlikely that the moon is made of green cheese", not merely as in "it is extremely unlikely that Elvis Presley is alive and well." - Jmabel | Talk 07:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Paine wasn't married at the time. His first wife died in 1760 and he and his second wife were legally separated prior to his move to America in 1774. Paine avoiding the guillotine is attributed to the quick-thinking of his cellmates. --207.69.138.134 08:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Liberal POV

Its had to believe someone read anything Paine wrote could claim he supported Liberalism. All Liberal agendas are 180 degs from Common sence.LOL.

Liberals are bitter Enemies of the Rights of man. Liberals do not think people even have the right to educate thier own childern . Liberals think they have more rights to the minds of childern then their actual do parents. Paine would be rolling over in his grave to be included with a group that thinks they have the right to totaly control the thinking of a population. This artical needs to reflect this.

I think it depends upon how you define the word Liberal.
But it's hard to have a meaningful discussion about this point if you insist upon remaining anonymous. – Agendum 07:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

(To the author of the anonymous remark:) I usually avoid ad hominem responses, but here I am left only with a choice among presuming ignorance, dishonesty, or madness. I'll give you the relative credit of assuming you to be ignorant, which is no shame in and of itself, but is when combined with arrogance.

I suggest that you read either our article Liberalism or almost any other work on the history of liberalism. The very concept of "rights of man" arose hand-in-hand with liberalism. Claiming that liberals have no interest in the rights of man is like claiming that conservatives have no regard for the opinions of the past or that socialists care only about preserving the wealth of a small elite. - Jmabel | Talk 05:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

(To Agendum:) No, it really doesn't matter how you define the word Liberal, assuming you use a definition that has any connection to some normal meaning of the word. In fact, the third sentence won't even parse unless you substitut different words for at least some of the ones written. - Jmabel | Talk 05:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I see how someone might sense a socialist bent to this article. --Sparkhurst 23:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

controversy

Well, he never self-identified as American! --Cromwells Legacy 17:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Paine wasn't an American --- he was never granted US citizenship --- indeed, he wasn't allowed to vote in USA for this very reason. - JA

So why does the article say "Paine protested that he was a citizen of America…"? Is that inaccurate? Was he lying? - Jmabel | Talk 05:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems he was allowed to vote.
He petitioned Congress on the matter; after much prodding by Washington, that body granted him $3,000, and the state of Pennsylvania gave him an additional £500, but the biggest gift of all came from the New York Senate: a 300-acre farm in New Rochelle abandoned by its Tory owner. Paine, no farmer in talent or inclination, wanted to immediately sell this property, but couldn’t without looking churlish. Instead, he rented it out to a tenant, used the proceeds to pay off his debts, and built a stable for his good horse, Button. Since this gift meant he now owned more than £50 of property, Thomas Paine, for the first time in his life, was allowed to vote. [6]
--Sparkhurst 23:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't blind revert!

Don't blind revert, such edit as this one isn't helpful at all :) . --Cromwells Legacy 18:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


Paine the Civil Engineer?

I recall from a class in the history of technology decades ago that one of our texts held that Paine claimed the invention of the cast iron voussoir (an element of an arch bridge), a notable if minor steppingstone in the history of Civil Engineeering and materials science. Any truth to that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Junckerg (talk • contribs) 25 October 2006.

Recent edits

I notice several recent edits that simply remove information. Several of them I will simply fix, but one appears to be a substantive disagreement, so I'd like to discuss it rather than unilaterally revert.

"An advocate of liberalism" was recently changed to "An advocate of republicanism" (and several similar changes were made elsewhere in the article). While he was certainly a republican, he is probably more notable as a liberal: his liberal views encompassed his republicanism. I don't necessarily mind the addition, but the deletion should be restored. Paines views on religion were part and parcel of Enlightenment thinking; his views on natural justice place him firmly in a liberal tradition that arguably began with the School of Salamanca; his views on taxation are encompassed by liberalism, but not by republicanism; his abolitionism represented a deeply liberal position, rejected by most American republicans of the time.

Actually, gradual emancipation was widely regarded as at least inevitable (and probably desirable) in 1776; Washington, Patrick Henry, and Henry Laurens can be quoted in that sense, and all the northern states enacted it by 1804, most of them earlier. The Constitution, and the cotton gin, produced a retraction, but Paine was in France by then. Septentrionalis 17:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the argument for removing the words "liberal" and "liberalism" from the article? - Jmabel | Talk 18:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe it can be found in this misspelt comment; I do not think it more than partisan spleen. Septentrionalis 17:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
In short, it is from someone who does not even know the meaning of the term as it applies to Paine's era. Clearly this should be reversed. - Jmabel | Talk 02:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Parents' surname

We seem to keep going back and forth on his parents' surnames. I seem to remember from school decades ago that they used "Pain", not "Paine"; does someone have something citable one way or the other? - Jmabel | Talk 02:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't think it matters that much. There was no such thing as standardisation of spelling of family names until later in the nineteenth century, with the advent of printed directories, etc. Unless you want to go with common usage, in which case the DNB has 'Joseph Paine', whereas the new Oxford DNB (2004-06) has 'Pain'. I think the latter is likely to be the common spelling in less well-educated Norfolk in the early 1700s. But you choose.... – Agendum 11:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)