This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 11:01, 7 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 4 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "FA" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 4 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WPReligion}}, {{WikiProject Books}}, {{WikiProject Philosophy}}, {{WikiProject Atheism}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 11:01, 7 February 2024 by Cewbot (talk | contribs) (Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 4 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "FA" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 4 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WPReligion}}, {{WikiProject Books}}, {{WikiProject Philosophy}}, {{WikiProject Atheism}}.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Age of Reason article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 |
 | 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. | |||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 18, 2009, and on March 23, 2018. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status: Featured article | ||||||||||||||||
| This article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
|
 |
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
|
Natural law
This ties in with problems in the articles Natural Law and Physical law. To an educated individual of the late 18th Century, especially one versed in the ideas of the Enlightenment, the term Natural Law would refer to what we call today the Laws of Physics, rather than referring to modes of human behavior as rooted in the natural world. Meanings of phrases and words shift over time, and that needs to be made clear when discussing the viewpoints of deists and what they speak of when they use the term "natural law." PJtP (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
This isn't a book?
The Rights of Man is found at book stores with 256 pages. Common Sense can be found with 56 pages. I don't know exactly where the division between "book" and "pamphlet" lies, but The Age of Reason is found with 220 pages, so it's either a book or a very thick pamphlet. I think this should be altered and called a "book", don't you? – Paine Ellsworth 00:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- It was published in three parts and referred to as a pamphlet at the time. Hence, "pamphlet". Wadewitz (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Were all three parts together called a pamphlet? or were each of the parts individually called a pamphlet, so that when all three are combined they are large enough to be called a book? (The irony of all this for me is that my library has a small, thin, hardcover "book" on the shelf titled Common Sense by Thomas Paine. It was a pamphlet back in the 18th century, and now it's a book – a very thin, hardcover book.) – Paine Ellsworth 01:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- All three parts separately were called a pamphlet and the larger work together was also called a pamphlet. Pamphlets in the 18th century were much longer - often in the hundreds of pages. Wadewitz (talk) 06:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- So it remains that this work has only 36 fewer pages than The Rights of Man, which is called a book; shall we continue to refer to The Age of Reason as a pamphlet? Does that not misguide readers and make them think that this work is so much smaller and shorter than it really is?
- World Union of Deists calls it a book,
- At ManyBooks, the Genre field calls it a "banned book",
- Project Gutenberg refers to it as an "ebook" rather than an "epamphlet".
- Do you know of any sources that refer to this work in its entirety as a pamphlet? – Paine Ellsworth 19:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Those are not 18th-century sources, nor are those scholarly sources. If you look at the sources used in this article, they are peer-reviewed scholarly sources. Most follow the 18th-century convention of referring to it as a pamphlet. (And it is obviously not an "ebook" since it could not have been published in an electronic format first.) Wadewitz (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- So it remains that this work has only 36 fewer pages than The Rights of Man, which is called a book; shall we continue to refer to The Age of Reason as a pamphlet? Does that not misguide readers and make them think that this work is so much smaller and shorter than it really is?
- All three parts separately were called a pamphlet and the larger work together was also called a pamphlet. Pamphlets in the 18th century were much longer - often in the hundreds of pages. Wadewitz (talk) 06:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Were all three parts together called a pamphlet? or were each of the parts individually called a pamphlet, so that when all three are combined they are large enough to be called a book? (The irony of all this for me is that my library has a small, thin, hardcover "book" on the shelf titled Common Sense by Thomas Paine. It was a pamphlet back in the 18th century, and now it's a book – a very thin, hardcover book.) – Paine Ellsworth 01:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- In the language of the time it may have been described as a pamphlet, but at more than 100 pages long, today people would call it a book, and we write in the language of today. Should we hold a RfC, asking something like: "Should we describe this work as a pamphlet, or a book published in three parts?" Darx9url (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think "we write in the language of today" is the point. In modern English it's a book. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- In the language of the time it may have been described as a pamphlet, but at more than 100 pages long, today people would call it a book, and we write in the language of today. Should we hold a RfC, asking something like: "Should we describe this work as a pamphlet, or a book published in three parts?" Darx9url (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- "today" or yesterday, one should lookup the definition of "pamphlet" before making pronouncements. The point is that the material wasn't bound and printed as a book. The content is irrelevant to the definition, and calling it a book misrepresents the way it was printed and distributed. TEDickey (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- It might be a little more complicated since, as I wrote above, even Common Sense can now be found in libraries as a hardbound "book", a very small, hardbound book. And yet we still call it a "pamphlet" for purposes of its article, nor would, I think, anybody actually challenge that. So it seems that size does count.
– Paine Ellsworth 08:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- It might be a little more complicated since, as I wrote above, even Common Sense can now be found in libraries as a hardbound "book", a very small, hardbound book. And yet we still call it a "pamphlet" for purposes of its article, nor would, I think, anybody actually challenge that. So it seems that size does count.
- From our article on pamphlet: "A pamphlet is an unbound booklet (that is, without a hard cover or binding). It may consist of a single sheet of paper that is printed on both sides and folded in half, in thirds, or in fourths (called a leaflet), or it may consist of a few pages that are folded in half and saddle stapled at the crease to make a simple book.In order to count as a pamphlet, UNESCO requires a publication (other than a periodical) to have "at least 5 but not more than 48 pages exclusive of the cover pages"; a longer item is a book." Suggest changing the lead to read: "... an influential work written by ..." And, "Originally distributed as unbound phamplets, it was published in three parts in ..." Darx9url (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that's a good suggestion. – Paine Ellsworth 09:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Let me go ahead and change it, and see if anyone objects. Darx9url (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- I hope others are okay with it, because I think it is now much better! – Paine 18:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Let me go ahead and change it, and see if anyone objects. Darx9url (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that's a good suggestion. – Paine Ellsworth 09:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on The Age of Reason. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050309074554/http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/ to http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051124213844/http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/p/paine/thomas/p147a/ to http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/p/paine/thomas/p147a/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060903005321/http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/ to http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
TFA note
Just a note that I got on a TFA talk page ... this article starts off "English and American political activist Thomas Paine", but the Thomas Payne article starts off "English-born American political activist" (and philosopher and other things). It would be helpful if the two articles were in sync. This article will hit the Main Page for a second time on the 23rd of this month; I'll check later to see if there have been changes to the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 00:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- FYI Paine never became a US citizen. Being born after the 1707 Act of Union he was a British subject, remaining-so for the rest of his life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.173 (talk) 09:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page twice
- Old requests for peer review
- FA-Class Religion articles
- High-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
- FA-Class Modern philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Modern philosophy articles
- Modern philosophy task force articles
- FA-Class Atheism articles
- High-importance Atheism articles