Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:46, 4 May 2009

	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 Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
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 has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: Interfaith This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages'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.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Literature / Religion Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophical literature Philosophy of religion

Template:Maintained

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 Archive 2 - October 2007 - April 2009, discussion of Michael Moore material and tone section

Michael Moore

The reason I made the "less Moore" edit is because the removed material has nothing to do with Thomas Paine. Unless its relevance can be established, I'll remove it again. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The sources explain the relevance - Moore's politics and his style is similar to Paine's. See the sources. Awadewit (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Paine is relevant to Moore, not vice versa. If I'm interested in Paine (which I am), information about Moore does not enlighten me. The statement "Moore's politics and his style is similar to Paine's" is questionable, but insofar as it is true, that judgement doesn't belong here. I just had a look at Michael Moore and put "Paine" in the search box, and got no matches at all! SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

In the Michael Moore article all it says about his religious views is "Moore describes himself as a Catholic, but he openly disagrees with church teaching on subjects such as abortion and gay marriage." Paine abhors the catholics, never mentions abortion or gay marriage, but would be unlikely to have favoured either. None out of three. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

As you will note, the "Reception and legacy" section is about how Paine's book and his style influenced later authors, etc. This is one of those influences. Moore does not have to agree to everything Paine said to be influenced by him. The other people listed here also disagreed with Paine about some things - that does not mean they were not influenced by him. (And, by the way, why would Paine mention abortion or gay marriage? Those were not issues of his time.) Awadewit (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to make repeated references to Moore in Paine's article and none in the other direction. Paine is immeasurably more important than Moore. If people want to claim Moore as "the new Paine" then at least they should say so in the Moore article. Abortion and homosexuality both existed in Paine's day. If had wanted to defend either he would have done so. To say they were "not issues" is further to show how irrelevant Moore is to this article. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Problems with Moore's article need to be addressed here there and surely have no bearing on what should be in this article. To remove this material I think you'd have to show it was incorrect or not sourced properly or that it gives undue weight to Moore among Paine's other influences. The latter seems the only plausible course. If you can find a scholarly discussion of who Paine has influenced among modern cultural figures I think you have an argument going. Without that, the sources in the article seem adequate support for the short note that's there. Mike Christie (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It does give undue weight, and isn't sourced properly. One of the references calls Moore "the new Tom Paine". The other two just mention Tom Paine in the context of discussion of Moore's work, without any explicit identification. None of the sources mentions "The Age of Reason". Using the evidence of the sources

• There is just about adequate reason to mention the claim in the Michael Moore article, but it isn't there
• There is much less reason to include the claim in the Thomas Paine article, but it isn't there either, nor in any of the articles on Paine's other works
• There is absolutely no reason to mention the claim the "The Age of Reason" article, since that is Paine's book specifically about the Bible, and insofar as Moore might resemble Paine, it is not in their attitude to the Bible
• The two mentions of Moore are very obtrusively positioned, once in the lead, the other as the closing sentence of the whole article. The latter seems to imply that recognition of Moore as "the new Tom Paine" is a reasonable summary of Paine's life and work, an idea that is ridiculous at best.

SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) (I've corrected a typo in my post above.) I looked at the sources again and as far as I can tell it is this work that gave Paine the sort of notoriety that has led to Moore being compared to Paine, so the connection appears to be there. Awadewit, is that accurate? There is one thing that might be worth amending, though; the text currently says that Moore has been described as the new Paine; but the Cineaste source says that it is the left that make this comparison, and the other two sources are clearly leftwing. It might be worth making this clearer in the article. However, I can see that this could be considered redundant -- anyone described as "the new Tom Paine" is going to be a darling of only one political side. Mike Christie (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"as far as I can tell it is this work that gave Paine the sort of notoriety that has led to Moore being compared to Paine, so the connection appears to be there" - with contortions like that, you ought to be in a circus. I take it as an admission that you've run out of sensible arguments. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've added an explicit statement regarding "the left", as suggested by Mike. I have aslo reverted SamuelTheGhost's removal of sourced information. If you think this is poorly sourced (as you claimed in the edit summary), please explain. Awadewit (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I've already explained a good deal above, but let's consider. This is an article on "The Age of Reason". it is proposed to include material about Michael Moore.

• Has Michael Moore heard of Tom Paine? - no evidence given
• Does Michael Moore admire Tom Paine? - no evidence given
• Has Michael Moore read "The Age of Reason" - no evidence given
• Does Michael Moore agree with the sentiments in "The Age of Reason"? - clear presumption of no
• Is there any sourced reason to mention Michael Moore's name in an article about "The Age of Reason"? - absolutely not.

SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Please discuss the sources and the claims made in the article vis-a-vis the sources. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been doing that repeatedly. What I'm saying is that the alleged identity of Michael Moore as "the new Tom Paine" may be relevant to Michael Moore, but is irrelevant to Tom Paine, and in particular is irrelevant to this book. One source says "Since the American release of Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore has been hailed by the left as the new Tom Paine, denounced by his right wing opponents as the incarnation of Joseph Goebbels and Leni Riefenstahl, and compared by film critics to such disparate figures as Sergei Eisenstein and Kenneth Anger." Is this hailing or denunciation mentioned in any of the articles Tom Paine, Joseph Goebbels, Leni Riefenstahl, Sergei Eisenstein or Kenneth Anger? Absolutely none of them. Having it here is about as daft as introducing references to George Herbert Walker Bush into the article about George Herbert (who he's named after) would be. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Paine helped create a certain populist style with his works (of which The Age of Reason is one). It is that populist style that Moore has inherited. Note the beginning of the "Rhetoric and style" section: "The most distinctive feature of The Age of Reason, like all of Paine's works, is its linguistic style. Historian Eric Foner argues that Paine's works "forged a new political language" designed to bring politics to the people, using a "clear, simple and straightforward" style". See also part of the description of Paine's legacy from later in the article: "Paine's new rhetoric came to dominate popular nineteenth-century radical journalism, particularly that of freethinkers, Chartists and Owenites. Its legacy can be seen in Thomas Wooler's radical periodical The Black Dwarf, Richard Carlile's numerous newspapers and journals, the radical works of William Cobbett, Henry Hetherington's periodicals the Penny Papers and the Poor Man's Guardian, the works of the Chartist William Lovett, George Holyoake's newspapers and books on Owenism, and freethinker Charles Bradlaugh's New Reformer. A century after the publication of The Age of Reason, Paine's rhetoric was still being used: George Foote's "Bible Handbook (1888) . . . systematically manhandles chapters and verses to bring out 'Contradictions,' 'Absurdities,' 'Atrocities,' and 'Obscenities,' exactly in the manner of Paine's Age of Reason." The periodical The Freethinker (founded in 1881) argued, like Paine, that the "absurdities of faith" could be "slain with laughter". In Britain, it was this freethinking tradition that continued Paine's legacy." Awadewit (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd already read and noted what you'd written. (It would be nice if you'd show evidence of a return of the compliment.) Paine writes very plainly. Other authors have written in his style and/or echoed his sentiments making explicit acknowledgement of their debt to him. It is reasonable to mention them as such. Other authors write plainly who acknowledge no such debt. Paine didn't have a patent on plain speaking, so there is no cause to mention them. Hitchens, for example, is known as an explicit admirer of Paine, (even though their religious views are not identical), so to bring him in as such is fair. Having said all that, your paragraph above would be better placed in the Thomas Paine article, which it seems you have never touched. But when it comes to Moore, there is no evidence given that Moore has "inherited" that populist style. He has a populist style, and is "left wing". The issues are different these days, but there is no evidence given that he shares Paine's viewpoints on any particular issue (and good reason to suppose he would differ on many). There is no evidence given that he acknowledges Paine as an influence. There is no justification for pushing him twice into prominent positions in the article.

It's past midnight in my time-zone, so I'm going to bed. I'll look again tomorrow.SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, one could be conservative and still inherit Paine's style - the style and the politics don't have to go together. Even more significantly, one does not have to proclaim from the rooftops that one is imitating Paine (one does not even have to know it to follow in a 200-year-old tradition). I also hardly think that Moore has been "pushed into prominence" in this article. He is mentioned once in the lead (as part of the summary of the article per WP:LEAD) and given a single sentence at the end of the article (which, frankly, most people will never get to). Awadewit (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm not the first to think that the Moore references are obtrusive and objectionable. What about this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this? Don't you think you've dug in your heels a bit too deep on this one? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I tend not to be persuaded by the "many people think it, so it must be so" argument, as that is manifestly flawed logic. Awadewit (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

A quick cheap answer would be to say that it may be flawed logic, but it's also WP:Consensus. More seriously, in general I agree with you, but in this case it does counter your remark about "the end of the article (which, frankly, most people will never get to)". SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

But consensus is not about numbers. Note that the policy says "Misplaced Pages does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons." Awadewit (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think "consensus" is a perfectly fair way to describe a view that has been expressed by editor after editor since late 2007, although with little resulting improvement except the removal of Moore's portrait ( ! -- I wish I were kidding.) It is a shame that SamuelTheGhost has had to make these points all over again, only a few months after Mikabr and I expounded them at length; but evidently that ownership-threatening discussion has already been swept into the archives.

SamuelTheGhost's posts make a good recap, but let me resurrect two other points:

(1) As Mikabr and I pointed out, there is no reason to single out Moore as the "new Tom Paine." Many, many authors have been similarly compared to Paine, called new Tom Paines, held to embody the style or spirit of Paine, and so forth. The long list includes authors more prominent than Moore, like Mencken and Twain, as well as many just as current as Moore: Mike Malloy, Chris Weigant, Louis Lapham, Kevin Phillips, Ron Paul, Thom Hartmann, Scott Beale, Matt Drudge; any cursory Google search will turn up many more. It is simply a commonplace in journalism and criticism to compare any gadfly or disputant in American letters, Left or Right, to Tom Paine; Moore has no special claim to this title or legacy.

(2) The Age of Reason is not the only work of Paine's characterized by irreverence and the language of the common people. Among his major works, Common Sense is famous for this quality (see for instance History News Network and Britannica Online), and other works on religion, like The Origin of Freemasonry, could also be cited. To the extent that Moore (like so many others) can be linked with Paine's style, therefore, it is to that style in general, and not to The Age of Reason in particular.

Against the consensus that the two Moore mentions are gratuitous and intrusive, the only counter-arguments that have been made are a) that Moore's style derives particularly from The Age of Reason, and b.) that the mention is properly cited, from a peer-reviewed publication. Counterargument a. has already been disposed of as regarding style; and there is no other link, as Moore has not essayed the same subject as The Age of Reason, nor given any indication that he has ever been influenced by it or even read it.

As to counter-argument b., the citation lends no authority to the question under dispute, which is whether the Moore mention belongs here at all.

While the citation does establish that "some have called Moore 'the new Tom Paine,'" it does not speak to the question of whether Moore is uniquely or pre-eminently compared with Paine (and as I have noted above, there is ample evidence that he is not.) Nor does the citation speak to the question of whether Moore is compared with Tom Paine only on grounds deriving from The Age of Reason, rather than as a matter of general style.

Consequently, the citation a) might justifiably be included in the Misplaced Pages article on Moore; b) might conceivably be justified for inclusion in the Misplaced Pages article on Paine generally (though only in the context of a long list of writers so compared, Moore being neither the first, last, nor most prominent); but c) remains gratuitous, irrelevant, and obtrusive in a Misplaced Pages article specifically devoted to The Age of Reason.

SamuelTheGhost's edit should stand. In addition to excising an old blot from the page, as editors have requested again and again, it brings the Hitchens quote into position as a closing summation, for which it is highly suitable, a great improvement in itself.

(I have, however, tweaked the last sentence of the opening overview to eliminate the implication that Hitchens employs the same rhetorical style as Paine. Irreverent, yes; plainspoken, no.)

Mandrakos (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

1) Yes, and note that Twain has been added after a discussion on this talk page. We have to have a representation across time in this section. I find it interesting that the only person stirring controversy is the controversial Moore. Considering that the bit from Hitchens is from his edition of the Rights of Man, I'm not quite sure why we aren't having the same discussion about him (or about any of the other writers affected by Paine's style listed in the article). To me, this seems like a targeted attack against Moore.

2) The legacy of the The Age of Reason is its style and it is that style that has affected later writers to a large extent. We agree on that point. We cannot eliminate a discussion of this legacy simply because Paine's style exists in other books.

3) The sentence has been changed to indicate that the left is calling Moore the "new Tom Paine" and to indicate that this is not a universal opinion.

If this cannot be resolved, I suggest we open an WP:Request for comment. I will gladly set it up. Awadewit (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do so. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Awadewit (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Awadewit, I appreciate the fact that you have not reverted SamuelTheGhost's edit, since you have not given good reasons for doing so:

1."I find it interesting that the only person stirring controversy is the controversial Moore. Considering that the bit from Hitchens is from his edition of the "Rights of Man," I'm not quite sure why we aren't having the same discussion about him (or about any of the other writers affected by Paine's style listed in the article). To me, this seems like a targeted attack against Moore." Please. Hitchens is also a highly controversial character, but I imagine the reason no one finds him irrelevant here is because he has avowedly been influenced by Paine and because he has published two books in the twenty-first century that repeatedly and approvingly quote The Age of Reason and that advance a similar criticism of received religion. And the final quote from Hitchens does not come from "his editon of the 'Rights of Man,'" it comes from a book called The Rights of Man: A Biography, which is two chapters on Paine's life, two on The Rights of Man, and one chapter on The Age of Reason, of which he says "A proper discussion of Rights of Man would be unfinished without some mention of The Age of Reason, which is in a sense its counterpart and completion." (pg. 123), and the quote's mention of "rights and reason" nails down this connection. There are of course no similar connections to Age in Moore's case. And that is the only reason the Moore advertisement is "targeted," and only in the context of this article. I have repeatedly said that the "new Tom Paine" mention would be appropriate in the article on Moore himself, and SamuelTheGhost has said similar.

2. "The legacy of the The Age of Reason is its style and it is that style that has affected later writers to a large extent. We agree on that point. We cannot eliminate a discussion of this legacy simply because Paine's style exists in other books." I can say nothing except re-read the discussion. We emphatically do not agree that the legacy of Age is its style. The legacy of Age is its ideas; its style, well established in other books before this one, is the legacy of Thomas Paine, properly discussed in the Legacy section of the article on Thomas Paine. Of course, if you had a quotation from Moore saying that his personal style was affected by his reading of The Age of Reason, that would make a relevant connection. But again, we have no particular reason to believe Moore has read this book, or any Paine.

3. "The sentence has been changed to indicate that the left is calling Moore the "new Tom Paine" and to indicate that this is not a universal opinion." Still ignoring the fact that dozens of authors have been similarly compared to Paine, with no reason to single Moore out, and with no relevancy to this particular article on The Age of Reason.

I welcome the Request For Comments, and thank you for setting it up. Mandrakos (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Dawkins

Afterthought: Pursuant to this discussion about relevant, irrelevant, and obtrusive name-mentions, why should Hitchens (however relevant) have two mentions and two (very similar) quotes? In the overview, I have replaced Hitchens (the twenty-first century example) with Richard Dawkins, and I have trimmed the weaker Hitchens quote from the conclusion. Mandrakos (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the Dawkins material again. This is original research - it is not sourced to a secondary source (as both the Hitchens and Moore material is) and it is couched in POV language ("unbeliever"). Please do not add it back unless you can source it to a secondary source. Awadewit (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not original research, it is correctly cited. I do not know what edition you are looking at. My paperback edition has the ISB-10 number I cited, 0-618-68000-4 (this time I am being very literal about the dashes), and on page 59 it reads:

"Personal qualities, whether pleasant or unpleasant, form no part of the deist god of Voltaire and Thomas Paine. Compared with the Old Testament's psychotic delinquent, the deist God of the eighteenth-century enlightenment is an altogether grander being: worthy of his cosmic creation, loftily unconcerned with human affairs, sublimely aloof from our private thoughts and hopes, caring nothing for our messy sins or mumbled contritions. The deist God is a physicist to end all physics, the alpha and omega of mathematicians, the apotheosis of designers; a hyper-engineer who set up the laws and constants of the universe, fine-tuned them with exquisite precision and foreknowledge, detonated what we would now call the hot big bang, retired and was never heard from again.

"In times of stronger faith, deists have been reviled as indistinguishable from atheists. Susan Jacoby, in Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism, lists a choice selection of the epithets hurled at poor Tom Paine: 'Judas, reptile, hog, mad dog, souse, louse, archbeast, brute, liar, and of course infidel.' Paine died abandoned (with the honourable exception of Jefferson) by political former friends embarrassed by his anti-Christian views. Nowadays, the ground has shifted so far that deists are more likely to be contrasted with atheists and lumped theists. They do, after all, believe in a supreme intelligence who created the universe."

I cite Dawkins as referencing Paine's ideas (not as quoting Paine directly) and that is just what the cited passage does, explaining Paine's deism and placing it on both an older and a contemporary scale between belief and unbelief. You have the same passage in your copy, however paginated, and can have readily found it in the index before accusing people of Original Research. Anyone else reading this can easily check me online. Go to http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618680004 ; click "Look Inside;" under "book sections" click "copyright" and confirm that we are talking about the same ISB numbered edition (come to think of it, the ISB is also in the URL); now in the "Search Inside This Book" box, enter Paine -- and you will find the passage I have quoted on the page I have cited, 59.

On the reference, you are mistaken. On the allegedly NPOV language, you are over the top.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, defines "unbeliever" thusly: "One who lacks belief or faith, especially in a particular religion; a nonbeliever," and the Collins Essential English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, thusly: "a person who does not believe in a religion." Neither primary definition flags this as an invidious or loaded term. The entire burden of Dawkins's book is that he is an unbeliever, as the title makes evident, and he himself uses the term in a value-neutral way on, e.g., page 128. Of course, "unbeliever" is an invidious term to many believers, but so is "atheist" and any other such term. If you prefer "atheist" or some other term that you consider less NPOV, I have not the slightest objection to your making that change; but please do not revert this edit again on false grounds. Mandrakos (talk) 02:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually own both the paperback edition (0-618-91824-8) and the hardcover edition (0-618-68000-4) of the book. I have listed their ISBNs. (Perhaps you are unaware that amazon is not very careful about its ISBNs. They are actually not a reliable source for ISBNs.) Awadewit (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering Dawkins has helped to launch the Out campaign to specifically encourage people who are atheists to speak up and identify as such, we should do him the credit of calling him an atheist. Awadewit (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Now for the most important issue. The reason that this is OR is because you are citing Dawkins himself to demonstrate that Dawkins is important in the history of Paine's legacy. You have no secondary sources that demonstrate that. If you read the secondary sources provided in the article, you will see that is the point of them - they position thinkers and writers within the legacy of Paine. (This article does not cite Jefferson, Ingersoll, Conway, and Twain themselves - it cites scholars and critics who have explained how and why Paine influenced these people.) You are playing the role of the critic in this case - that is the very definition of OR. I am therefore reverting your edit again - on the very real grounds of OR. You cannot go out and find every reference to Paine in every book and add it to this article. You must find what scholars and critics have said is important - you must use secondary sources. Awadewit (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This is just sad. Anyone reading this can immediately check you online and see the falseness of the argument. "The reason that this is OR is because you are citing Dawkins himself to demonstrate that Dawkins is important in the history of Paine's legacy." Anyone can look up the revision and see that the actual sentence was "However, Paine's ideas inspired and guided many British freethinkers of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and continue to be referenced by contemporary unbelievers like Richard Dawkins." It is only in your mind that this article is about identifying people who are important in the "history of Paine's legacy." It is an article about The Age of Reason, its history and its influence. I said the book's ideas are still referenced by unbelievers (freethinkers, atheists) today and the citation to justify that literally shows such a writer referencing those ideas. (For the purpose of showing that Dawkins references Paine's ideas in his own work on unbelief, such a Paine-referencing page in such a Dawkins book is actually a primary source. Primary sources can be used as long as they are not interpreted. Note that I am not interpreting the source in any way, merely reporting factually that there is a reference to Paine's ideas on the page.) In other words, the citation directly and explicitly supports the position of the sentence exactly as recommended under Verifiable Sources in the Misplaced Pages guideline on OR.

And of course anyone reading this can look up the facsimile (not just some Amazon description)of ISB 0618680004 via "Look Inside" on http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618680004, and see that the copyright page and page 59 are exactly as I describe -- identical with those of the paperback I hold in my hand. And in any event, the reader knows that you evidently do see the same passage.

Similarly, anyone who has read this far can also look up the dictionary entries I cited, which are also online, and know that "unbeliever" is just another flatly descriptive term for atheist (one who does not believe), not an NPOV insult version; one can search the facsimile and see Dawkins using it the same way. The reader knows that yes, it's invidious to many believers, but so is "atheist" or any other term descriptive of a non-believer. And finally, the reader can see that I am perfectly happy to let the edit go through with "atheist" instead, that I am not the reason why the edit isn't going through.

It is verifiable online, in short, that there is no genuine problem with the content or POV of the edit. The problem has to do with ownership of the page, the same problem so richly evident in the Moore matter under RFC. It is so sad because Awadewit has otherwise done such fine work on the page.

I'm walking away from this in the hopes that further discussion by other editors may lead to an unclenching of ownership. I see nothing else to do. Mandrakos (talk) 03:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Critique of this article

The specific problem of Michael Moore, discussed at (perhaps excessive) length above, is symptomatic of a wider issue. There is great erudition and much good in the article. The faults I see are:

• The Age of Reason is a critique of the Bible, with criticism of the churches only in passing. The article makes it sound as if the attack is focussed on the churches. This is a very significant difference, since the whole basis of protestantism was a bible-based critique of the church. The book therefore angered protestants at least as much as it angered high churchmen.
• The Age of Reason criticises the credibility of the Bible, but perhaps its (im)morality even more so. Paine writes

  Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half of the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalise mankind; and, for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that it is cruel. (my edition page 13)

  . The article falls well short of revealing that attitude. That quote should go in. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits of your point, I'd suggest you provide sources that support it -- regardless of whether you're right we would need reliable secondary sources to change the article, so perhaps we could start there. Mike Christie (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

With great respect, I'd like to know your comments on the merits of my point before I decide how sympathetically to treat your suggestions as to what to do next. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that we see sources because my opinion isn't relevant; if you can find reliable secondary sources that support what you say, then we would have to consider adding that material regardless of whether I think it's appropriate. I appreciate your interest in debating the point of view, but I'd rather limit my time to debating what can specifically be added, and if we don't have a supporting source then any discussion would be moot. Mike Christie (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This article follows WP:NPOV and WP:V. What is discussed in reliable, scholarly sources is not always what we wish would be discussed (there are a great many things I wish I could put in this article that I cannot). This article reflects the scholarship published on The Age of Reason (a body of work which I surveyed as I was writing my MA Thesis on The Age of Reason). Awadewit (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that the WP:NPOV is imperfect. I'd be interested to know what are the "great many things I wish I could put in this article that I cannot" - nothing would stop you revealing them on this talk page. But in general, surely some degree of independent thought must be permitted both in wikipedia? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Original research isn't permitted; are you suggesting something that is not original research? If you are, I'm afraid I don't follow you. Mike Christie (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No of course I'm not suggesting WP:OR. I was asking Awadewit a specific question about what she had written above, which only she can answer. I'd still like to know. In my last sentence I was referring to the fact that writing an article isn't just zombie-like reproduction of everything that's in the sources. It is necessary to think about the material critically, in order to select from it and organize it, as you well know. I've made plain what I want included. I'm quite sure that suitable sources can be found to back it up. Your choice is whether to assist or obstruct that process. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to add my wish list for this article. There is no point in listing all of the original research that I wish could be added to this article but can't because Misplaced Pages rightly prohibits original research. You can be assured that this article was very carefully constructed from the sources. If you want to add more to it, please do the same. Research it and come back to us with some secondary sources that support the inclusion of what you want to add. Awadewit (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that quote Paine's "voluptuous debaucheries":

• Carl Sagan: http://books.google.com/books?id=q_Fp3tjPnkwC&pg=PA259
• Philip Barlow: http://books.google.com/books?id=eu2fh6znE3cC&pg=PA4
• David L. Macdonald: http://books.google.com/books?id=TebCqToar2gC

Pergamino (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I wouldn't add anything based on this list of books, as these books are not Paine scholarship. This article has been carefully constructed from the best sources available on Paine. (Please see the list of sources used in the article - almost all of them were written by Paine scholars.) Awadewit (talk) 04:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• I see. Does this mean that journalistic, or other type of sources that are not scholars are not to be used? If that is the case, why did you just support an article to be featured when the sources used there are not the necessarily the "best sources"? Pergamino (talk) 05:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Please do not bring FAC disputes to irrelevant talk pages. If you want to ask me questions about FACs I've commented on, please do so at that FAC or at my talk page. Awadewit (talk) 05:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This is quite funny, when you consider that the Moore refs are not remotely "Paine scholarship". But seriously, WP:RS is our only authority as to the acceptability of sources. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

RFC on Michael Moore sentence

Template:RFCreli

This featured article contained the sentence "Paine's unique rhetorical flair is also still alive in American culture; it is embodied, some claim, for example, in the persona and the films of Michael Moore, who the left has called "the new Tom Paine"." with the following sources:

• Porton, Richard. "Weapon of mass instruction Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11." Cineaste (22 September 2004). Retrieved on 20 July 2007; see, for example, Davy, Michael.Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. Socialist Worker. 10 July 2004. Retrieved 18 September 2007; "Michael Moore's Patriotism". Capital Times. 16 October 2004. Retrieved 18 September 2007.

The following arguments for removing this sentence have been made:

• "there is no reason to single out Moore as the "new Tom Paine" (many other modern writers and critics have also been called "the new Tom Paine") - "Moore has no special claim to this title or legacy"
• There is no evidence that Moore has ever read or been influenced by The Age of Reason, nor has he addressed the book's ideas in his own work.
• "The Age of Reason is not the only work of Paine's characterized by irreverence and the language of the common people;" that is Paine's general style; therefore, a discussion of whether Moore exhibits Paine's style might be relevant in an article on Moore, or even Paine, but not to an article on this particular book.

The following arguments for including this sentence have been made:

• Moore is part of Paine's legacy, as explained by the "Reception and legacy" section and the reliable sources provided
• Paine's style was his most important influence, as demonstrated by the reliable sources quoted throughout the "Reception and legacy" section, therefore explaining Paine's stylistic influence is not out of place in this article
• It appears that this is a targeted attack against Moore, a controversial figure, since the same arguments could be used against other authors listed in the "Reception and legacy" section, but the users involved in this dispute are not advocating removing those people from the article.

Previously uninvolved editors

• Comment: If Christopher Hitchens is included as a contemporary author, I see no reason why not to include Moore as well. Pergamino (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• RFC Comment: I don't see those sources as establishing a particularly wide or deep consensus among 'the left' (which is somewhat nebulous in the US) that Moore is the new Thomas Paine. I would say that the claim that Paine influenced Moore doesn't appear to be particularly significant to either party- if you never read a bio of Moore that didn't call him 'the new Paine' or an article on Thomas Paine that didn't list Moore as an heir, that would be one thing, but that doesn't seem to be the case. --Clay Collier (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• So, you're saying more sources would convince you? Awadewit (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete all reference to Moore in an article about a single book by Paine, per argument above that this connection might be relevant in an article on Moore, or possibly even on Paine, but not here. (I would argue against a mention in an article on Paine, but the point is that it's even less relevant in an article about Paine's book The Age of Reason). Agree with characterization above that in this article "Moore mentions are gratuitous and intrusive". (Unlike a typical commenter on WP RfCs, I actually read the whole discussion on this topic.) I find the assertion that deletion of irrelevant and out-of-place material "is a targeted attack against Moore" to be among the more ludicrous assertions I've run across on Misplaced Pages; the reverse appears to be the case, that the desire for Moore boosterism is so strong among some that it is coloring their judgment about what is appropriate and beneficial for this article, which is about a book. I agree with Mandrakos' arguments below for why a mention of Hitchens would be much far more relevant than a mention of Moore. -Exucmember (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how a single sentence can be gratuitous. One of the best ways to explain Paine's "in your face" style to people who don't understand 18th-century politics is to show them its inheritors. Moore is a well-known modern example (as demonstrated by the sources I have provided). I think you will find it hard to prove that I am trying to promote Moore - the material on Moore was added to this article at the suggestion of another editor and I write primarily about eighteenth-century literature. My interest is in making sure readers understand Paine, his book, and its legacy. Including the material about Moore puts the book and its style in a context that readers, particular US readers, can relate to. Awadewit (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• @Mandrakos: If we are to include what seems to be self-serving comments by Hitchens, I see no reason why not report what seems to be self-serving comments about Moore by the leftist press. Pergamino (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • This seems to be a classic WP:OSE argument. It's effectively saying "it's bad, so let's make it worse". If you want Hitchens out too, say so. It wouldn't distress me. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree with SamuelTheGhost - this is not a reason to include the material. Awadewit (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with the above comments by Exucmember as well as the arguments put forth in the RFC as reasons not to include references to Moore. To include Moore, there would have to be evidence that he is more substantially connected with this book and Paine than any of the hundreds of other figures who have been so compared. There would also need to be some examples of specific connections, e.g. Moore used the same literary strategy or some such evidence. Further, there is no evidence presented that Moore was aware of Paine as a role model or as a figure whose methods he was adopting. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• See below for more sources that specifically connect Paine's rhetorical style to Moore and Moore's praise of Paine. (By the way, it is not necessary for Moore to be aware of Paine to use his style, even though he is. Paine's style could have been passed down to him through others, such as Ingersoll and Twain.) Awadewit (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• If you are in favor of the inclusion and are working to achieve that outcome, then I will not bother to continue commenting in the RFC. I see the outcome is not a question of opinion. I am sorry. I registered my opinion that mentioning Moore in an article about Paine's The Age of Reason is totally inappropriate without knowing this. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• I am following the sources, which connect the two people's styles. I have also made an argument above, in response to Exucmember, for why it is helpful to have this one-sentence comparison. It helps readers who are unfamiliar with 18th-century politics understand the impact of Paine's works. So, I think there is ample reason to include the sentence. Whether or not you think mentioning the two helps readers understand Paine is, of course, a matter of opinion. Having taught The Age of Reason to undergraduates, I can tell you that understanding it is extremely difficult. Anything we can do to help readers, we should do. Awadewit (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Having taught The Age of Reason to undergraduates, I can tell you that understanding it is extremely difficult. Anything we can do to help readers, we should do." Well, I bow down to your superior expertise, credentials, and general "I know" position. Don't bother to ask for the opinions of others if you already know and have decided your view is the important one and should prevail. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Experience is not totally irrelevant. (And please note that I provided an argument, too, which you did not respond to.) Awadewit (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Please read WP:OR, WP:RS etc. about the relevance of a Wikipedian's personal experience to the WP:V of an article. This avenue of attack offensive to me. I will not be involved in your RFC further. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Previously involved editors

• Question: Pergamino writes: If Christopher Hitchens is included as a contemporary author, I see no reason why not to include Moore as well.

Why is that? Hitchens is not included simply because he is a contemporary author, but because he is self-avowedly influenced by Paine, and has repeatedly quoted and made approving references to The Age of Reason in at least three of his recent books, one of which is cited. This makes him relevant to the subject of this article, The Age of Reason, and the subject of that paragraph, why The Age of Reason is still read. Why is a critic's opinion about Michael Moore's general style relevant to The Age of Reason? What directly connects Moore to The Age of Reason? Mandrakos (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

More sources

Editors above and have requested more and better detailed sources. I will start listing them here (this is what I found I 20 minutes - let me know if I should continue searching):

• AudioFile book review of Dude, Where's My Country? - "We need a prosaic Thomas Paine in this age of government run amok, and the controversial Moore does an admirable job." Awadewit (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Mary Stuckey's book review of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11: How One Film Divided a Nation. By Robert Brent Toplin in The Journal of American History (93.4) - Toplin connects Moore's polemical style to Paine's Awadewit (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Denis Hamil in The Daily News compares Paine to Moore. He says Common Sense is like Fahrenheit 9/11 and "Sometimes we need to use smart, funny Joe to make some common sense out of what is happening in this country." Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  Just a slight correction, since it's in quotes and ought to be exact, in case it gets used: "Sometimes we need a smart, funny, common Joe to make some common sense out of what's happening in his country." Mike Christie (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks - I automatically elongated the contraction! How funny. Awadewit (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• In Mark Andersen's book All the Power, he places Michael Moore in the tradition of Paine, writing "Our contemporary left would do well to reclaim such stubborn determination. It lives on in figures like filmmaker Michael Moore...." Awadewit (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Moore's own website contains this little celebratory note explaining who Paine is: "TomPaine.com is a public interest journal inspired by the great patriot Thomas Paine, author of Common Sense and The Rights of Man. Paine was a man of humble origins and modest education, but he became a writer of extraordinary skill and passion. He used his talent to advance the cause of liberty and democracy against distant and unaccountable rulers." Awadewit (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It is quite enough imo. Pergamino (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class Religion articles
• Unknown-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• FA-Class Book articles
• WikiProject Books articles
• FA-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• FA-Class philosophical literature articles
• Mid-importance philosophical literature articles
• Philosophical literature task force articles
• FA-Class philosophy of religion articles
• Mid-importance philosophy of religion articles
• Philosophy of religion task force articles