Wikipedia:Peer review/The Age of Reason/archive1

The Age of Reason

This article is about Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason, his text attacking religion. I would eventually like for it to reach FA, so please let me know what needs to be done to finish polishing it up. I am particularly interested in other editors' opinions regarding the inclusion of the "Creed" section and whether or not the prose falls into "essay style." Thanks. Awadewit | talk 10:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Markus Poessel

Turning the tables, here's the opinion of someone who's decidedly a non-expert on the subject:

• Lead - championing the cause of accessibility, I don't think you can assume that the typical reader has a clear idea of what a "deistic critique of Christianity and the Bible" entails. Some explanation would be good. Also, in the lead, you are saying more about the argument's originality than about the arguments themselves. I think that imbalance should be addresses - surely, given that the lead is meant to be a "mini article" in itself, some summary of what the arguments actually are is not amiss?

• Yes, I think you are right. The lead needs to be expanded to include this topic. I am not a very good lead writer, I'm afraid. I struggle for hours over them. Awadewit | talk 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've started working on this. I will come back to it every day for a while and revise a bit more. Awadewit | talk 14:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry for staying away for a few days. With the Introduction to general relativity FAC review over, things are a bit less crowded now (although I hope we will continue the step-by-step re-writing there). Anyway, back to business. I think the lead has greatly improved - deism is now explained a bit more, though not so thoroughly, I think, as to annoy the reader who has previous knowledge. The main area of impact is made clearer. Nice! --Markus Poessel 20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• I totally understand. I will keep watching Introduction to general relativity and adding my two cents, if you want. Awadewit | talk 13:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Please do add any two cents you can spare. I also hope I haven't scared off Willow. --Markus Poessel 19:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done *"In December of 1792 The Rights of Man" - comma after 1792?

• Optional, but I will add it if you feel that the clause needs to be set off. Awadewit | talk 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done *Wikilinks to French_language and English_language look a bit awkward to me. I've seen complaints at FAC reviews about such obvious links, so given that editors are encouraged to only link where the link is important, you might want to think this over. I've no idea whether there are specific conventions for this when talking about a book's different editions, though. Similarly with Britain and France.

• In my first FACs, I was criticized for not linking these topics (I think it's ridiculous), so I have just linked them ever since. I care more about fighting for "introductions" than against language links. :) I'll take them out and see what happens. Awadewit | talk 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done *"Carlile charged one shilling sixpence for the work and the first run of 1,000 copies sold out in one month" - comma after "work", as he didn't charge that price for the work plus something else?

• Agreed. It is two separate sentences joined by an "and". Awadewit | talk 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done*"Meanwhile, Paine, considered too moderate for this stage of the French revolution, was thrown into prison for ten months in France, narrowly avoiding the guillotine.[8] When James Monroe secured his release..." - did Paine narrowly avoid the guillotine only because of Monroe's intervention? Or did he avoid it because, say, the court passed a prison sentence instead? This could be made clearer.

• It was an accident - sheer luck. I'll explain in more detail. Awadewit | talk 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm glad I asked. Talk about a fascinating bit of trivia. --Markus Poessel 13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done *"He was convinced by Thomas Jefferson not to publish it in 1802 because the backlash would be too great—he had to wait until 1807.[5]" - he had to wait (i.e. we know that Jefferson gave him the OK at that date) or he chose/decided to wait (i.e. the decision was his own with no further intervention by Jefferson)?

• "Arguments" as a section title is a bit non-descript. Is there a more specific title? Also, the first paragraph seems to me to focus too narrowly on modern assessment of the arguments, less on the arguments themselves. I for one would prefer that you started with a sentence explaining the content of that section - "The arguments advanced by Paine for (what exactly?) fall into ... classes, namely...". In fact, the natural order for the subsections after that would appear to be to me that you should first state the arguments, then the "Intellectual debts". An, hey, even something as basic as describing the books several part only occurs in the context of those "Intellectual debts" - in an article about the book, shouldn't the book's structure be more than a side aspect in a section exploring the book's context?

• I've never liked the title "Arguments" either. I will try to refocus and reorganize the section a bit, make it more explanatory. Please keep in mind that I cannot just state the arguments, I have to rely on sources to do this for me. Any interpretation of the arguments is original research. This is part of what makes writing literature articles difficult. I cannot just write my idea of the overall structure and argument of the book, I have to find a description of it in a scholarly work somewhere. This is sometimes hard to do, as scholars shy away from the generalized statement. Awadewit | talk 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• I can see the problem. How about using something like the 1911 Britannica - does that give content summary? I.e. is there a source you might not want to use in a strictly academic article (in which summarizing content straight from a book would not be frowned upon), but which avoids this particular variety of the WP:Original Research problem? I think some solution should be found - otherwise, the article is decidedly lopsided. How about quoting from some introductory section of your master's thesis? :-) --Markus Poessel 13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I'm not being clear. It is not possible to summarize the AR in a NPOV fashion. I have read several different summaries, all with slightly different emphases (my own included). Have you ever had several different people explain the same movie to you and wondered if they were talking about the same movie? That's the idea here; no summary is "objective". I will work on this. The best way to tackle it is to find several summaries and see where they overlap. I have started with one (you can see my feeble first attempts). You can now see why multiple citations are desirable for claims in literature articles. Awadewit | talk 14:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hmmm. I am starting to feel that the article is repetitious. After the summary of Paine's arguments, it returns to "Reason" and "Religion and the state". Do you think that these sections should be integrated into the initial outline of the AR? Awadewit | talk 07:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• It might benefit from some streamlining. Having re-read the "Structure and major arguments" as a whole, a few things come to mind. Historical context has its own section, but Paine's intellectual debt and 18th century deism are sub-subsections of "Structure..." - would it make sense to put all the context together in some section? After all, previous deistic thought is part of the context. As for the "Creed": precisely because, as you say, it encapsulates the arguments to follow, should it perhaps stand at the beginning of the initial outline? Something like: Creed, then description of major themes, then certain major trends/groups of themes (corresponding to the other subsections of "Structure...") described in more depth? --Markus Poessel 20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• All in all, I think there is an imbalance regarding the arguments themselves and their context (how original, influenced by whom). To you, it might be clear what "standard deistic arguments" are, but to a reader less familiar with the subject, I think it would be good to give examples. All in all, it appears to me that you say rather a lot about the context of what's in the book, but rather little about what the books content actually is. I would suggest that there be a section "Structure and arguments" describing the book's content, starting with the creed (subsection, not a special section of its own) as something that sets the scene, giving a brief summary of what's in the books three parts, and only then moving on to the question of how original the arguments are.

• The importance of this book lies more with its context than with its content - that is the why the focus - but I see your point. Also, I personally cannot summarize the arguments of the book - that would be original research. If you read about the AR, you will discover that even scholars do not agree on the arguments, so a summary in the way you are suggesting is difficult. See my recent Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman for even more problems like this. Awadewit | talk 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Question: Where in this section do you lose the sense that I am describing "standard deistic arguments"? Where does the writing become unclear? Paine presents standard deistic arguments throughout The Age of Reason, demonstrating the problems of Biblical authority and the necessity of proving the existence of God through reason rather than revelation. He also echoes earlier deist writers in his emphasis on the cruel and oppressive history of Christianity and his allusions to Newtonian mechanics. Robert Herrick, who has written extensively on eighteenth-century deism, lists the British deists' shared set of assumptions and arguments: they reject "religious privilege" and "priestcraft" and demand "rational liberty;" they embrace reason and reject revelation, particularly miracles; and they look to "primitive religion" for inspiration.[13] One of the most distinctive features of deistic writing was its insistence that God was a first cause or prime mover rather than an deity who interfered in the lives of individuals.[14] This was my attempt at a summary of the "standard deistic arguments", but it has obviously failed. Awadewit | talk 00:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• It's just a matter of accessibility. You probably could cite 12 standard deistic arguments if woken from your sleep at 2 a.m., but the average WP reader might not recognize such arguments if they danced around his head shouting "No personal god! Church mythology not better than ancient mythology! Hearsay! Hearsay!". Take the statement that deists "reject 'religious privilege'". If you don't know what it means, it's a cipher. No special train compartments for priests? No tax-exempt status for churches? Personally, I assume that it means (having just re-read the first chapters of Paine) that revelation is not to be subjected to different standards of proof than other kinds of eye-witness testimony, and that, say, Christian mythology should not be afforded more leeway than Ancient Greek mythology. If that is indeed what it means, it would be helpful for accessibility to spell it out; if it means something different, it would be even more helpful. --Markus Poessel 13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have expanded this section significantly. It is still very rough, but please let me know if I am on the right track. Awadewit | talk 15:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think you're definitely on the right track, and the additional content is a great help. The only question (see previous point) is whether this description of the deistic background should go into a context section (together with the - rest of the - historical context). --Markus Poessel 20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done *"Following the lead of Henry Hayden Clark, one group of scholars has called Paine an "ideologue" or a "theorist" and discussed his work as a popularization of earlier deist and scientific works." - sounds a bit vague. How large were these groups? Was anyone else well-known involved? If you have them, it would be great if you could put a representative sample for both groups' publications in the reference instead of merely citing a secondary source.

• I was trying to be broad early in the section and specific later. The "Intellectual debts" section lists some of these authors. You did not get this sense when reading it? I will have to be clearer about that. Awadewit | talk 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• It's not really an opening for that section - as far as I can see, full half of the statement (uniqueness/power of rhetoric) is mainly addressed in the later section "Style". From an opening like that, I would expect (hope for, more precisely) a concise summary of what is to follow, say, half a sentence for each sub-section. --Markus Poessel 13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• This sentence is gone now. It was supposed to set up the entire article, but I think that kind of writing just doesn't work at wikipedia. It is "essay style". Awadewit | talk 15:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done *"The broadest influences on The Age of Reason include the works of David Hume, Spinoza and Voltaire." - sounds just ever-so-slightly strange, but may be it's just me. "Among the works that have had the greatest influence on The Age of Reason are...".

• I have reworded this. It was not supposed to mean "the greatest influence". The greatest influences were the English deists, explained in the next paragraph ("it is to the English deists of the early eighteenth century that Paine owes the greatest intellectual debt"). It was really supposed to mean "broad", but as that word seems to be confusing, I have removed it. Awadewit | talk 00:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• "the greatest influence" was imprecision on my part then; I was on a much lower level - works can influence another work, have influence, exert influence; something "being" an influence on something else sounds more colloquial in my ears (which are, hence my reluctance to speak out more forcefully, not of those of a native speaker); something being included in influences on something else crosses the fuzzy red line. Anyway, I like the rewording. --Markus Poessel 13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done *"Paine repeatedly emphasizes the importance of relying on reason in The Age of Reason," since the whole section is about the book's content, do you need to repeat the title?

 Done *"In The Age of Reason Foner claims that Paine 'gave deism..." - surely what is meant is "In The Age of Reason, Foner claims, Paine 'gave deism..."?

 Done *Surely if "wit" gets a wiktionary link, so should "debauched"?

• It's linked? I didn't know that. I will remove the link. Awadewit | talk 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, this is not a wiktionary link, it is a link to the wit page. I am going to leave it, hoping that somebody, someday improves that page. Awadewit | talk 00:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• It's good to know we have a "wit" page, even if it's currently only at 50% of what it could be. Anyway, even Wiktionary would not have helped; as far as I can see, for them, "debauchery" is a German heavy metal band. --Markus Poessel 13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• In the "Style" section, the subsections are not optimally delineated. In the "irreverent" section, you are also talking about the "plainness" of Paine's language, while that would appear to belong to "Popularizing techniques" (which is where "concrete language", speaking to the people etc. is mentioned). May be the section now "Popularizing techniques" should come first, under the heading of "Speaking plainly" or something like that, and only then "Irreverent..."? Also, the memorable phrases that are currently in the introduction to "Style" might fit better into the part where ""pithy" lines that remained in his readers' memories" are mentioned.

• I agree that "the subsections are not optimally delineated". The problem is that all of the arguments regarding Paine's style overlap so much. I will think about this some more. Awadewit | talk 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have started reorganizing this section now. It has improved, I think, but now I need to fix all of the paragraphs to make them flow again. (I don't want to put the "memorable phrases" in the section on pithiness because I don't think they are pithy, necessarily, and they don't all come from the AR.) Awadewit | talk 15:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Can a section title "Paine's vulgar style" ever be NPOV? I do see where it comes from, but it does sound, well, non-encyclopedic - in everyday usage, it's predominantly pejorative, not descriptive, I'd have thought. In particular since later paragraphs make clear that "vulgar" is not an umbrella term for all that is to follow (an explicit contrast is made between "vulgar" and "irreverent"). "Populist style" - is that the common denominator? As for the section itself, at the moment, "Popularizing techniques" still overlaps with the previous subsections more than seems good. May be it should come first, with "Plain speaking" next (as a consequence of Paine's aiming for popularity), the irreverence and the religious things later. --Markus Poessel 20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, during the eighteenth century vulgar meant "low". Paine was attacked for his "low" language but he himself also celebrated his "vulgarity". I know that populist is more common, but I thought it would be nice for readers to learn some eighteenth-century usage. This adjective was very important in the response to Paine and to Paine's conception of himself. If I explain this term better and right at the start of the section, do you think it would be acceptable? (Slight pet peeve: Literary articles are expected to use "everyday" language, but science articles are not. There are some ideas that are best expressed using the language of literary theory or archaic language, I think.) Awadewit | talk 14:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I'm not surprised at this explanation. Still, it will give many readers a "wait a minute..." moment, even if you explain it right away. As a deliberate trick, it's probably more suited for an essay than for an encyclopedia. Also, as I said - the section title should encompass all that follows. That religious, sermon-y writing was part of Paine's style probably does not fall under any definition of vulgar, whatever century is chosen. As for science articles, I think the predominant problem here is the confusion between the archaic and the everyday sense of the word. Mention the Riemann tensor, and very few people will misunderstand (as opposed to not understand at all - so yes, outside an "unavoidably technical" section, it should be explained). --Markus Poessel 19:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• was "in general, hostilely received" - that's a mouthful (still trying to untie my tongue from saying it out loud). "was widely received in a hostile manner" or something similar?

• That's too wordy, in my opinion. I don't really see the problem. Can you explain a little more clearly why you got hung up here? Awadewit | talk 00:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Just applying the simplest test for how well a text flows: reading it out loud. Try saying "in general, hostilely received" out loud several times. It's a minor point - still, you are aiming for "brilliant prose", and, as far as I can see, generally succeeding. If you can avoid that word ("The reception was universally hostile?", or "decidedly hostile"?), fine, if not, don't worry about it. --Markus Poessel 13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• The Age of Reason provoked a hostile reaction from most readers and critics, although the level of that hostility varied by locality. - new version Awadewit | talk 15:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Fine, sorry to be so picky. --Markus Poessel 20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Totally fine - as if I'm not picky! Awadewit | talk 14:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• OK, sorry for apologizing for being picky. (Just kidding.) --Markus Poessel 19:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done*"dominate popular nineteenth-century journalism, influencing Thomas Wooler, Richard Carlile, Henry Hetherington, William Lovett, George Holyoake, and Charles Bradlaugh." - on first reading this, I thought that all the names must be those of journalists. Of course they aren't, so I think it might be helpful to add qualifiers to the names - "noted activist X", just something so it becomes more of a list of names (none of which I had heard of previously) but gives some idea of why those names are there. If this makes the list too long, I don't think it would hurt to elaborate, adding one or two additional sentences.

• Actually, they are all journalists (my source even says so!). I have added a slight description of each one and tried to make the statement more exact. Awadewit | talk 01:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• I just had a look at the first one (more precisely, his wikipedia page), and it didn't sound as if the one word summary of that man's life should properly be "journalist". Anyway, I find the new version to be much more informative. Although I would appreciate a wikilink for "Chartist", which I've never consciously heard before. --Markus Poessel 13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• You relied on wikipedia? That is very dangerous when it comes to the eighteenth century. I have seen many pages that are not just stubby but also just plain wrong. Almost every time I click on a new eighteenth-century page, I am appalled or disappointed. See Rights of Man, for example. That is a major text from the period and the page is in shambles. Literary critics and historians haven't quite taken to wikipedia like scientists have, I'm afraid. Awadewit | talk 15:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• I might have relied upon it too firmly in this case. "Of course they aren't..." was written with a certainty that was inappropriate. I should have used Wikipedia the way I commonly do, namely as a starting point - which, in effect, it has been, now that you have made the statement more exact. --Markus Poessel 20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• "The Age of Reason initially caused a deistic "revival,"" - what did that entail? People founding deist churches? Writing deist dramas and novels? I'd appreciate some more information here on what this revival entailed; otherwise it's hard to form an idea about its importance.

• Again, this is supposed to be an introductory sentence (a "topic sentence", if you will), that the later paragraphs go on to elaborate. Sentences such as "Elihu Palmer, "a blind renegade minister" and Paine's most loyal follower in America, promoted deism throughout the country. Palmer published what became "the bible of American deism," The Principles of Nature,[77] established deistic societies from Maine to Georgia, built Temples of Reason throughout the nation, and founded two deistic newspapers for which Paine eventually wrote seventeen essays" are supposed to elaborate on the revival. When you finished reading, did you feel that you had not learned about the "revival" at all? Hmm. I will try to make the connection between the "introduction" and the details more explicit. Awadewit | talk 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I guess what threw me was the very specific Roosevelt quote at the end of the second introductory sentence. If that were put into the proper section of subsequent text, and if, perhaps, the beginning of the next paragraph could feature a reprise of "initial" ("At the books initial publication..."), all ambiguities would, for me at least, be resolved. Again, I'm not claiming this is anything major. --Markus Poessel 13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• See if the rewording is better. Awadewit | talk 16:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• I still think a "topic sentence" should not be so concrete as to include a direct quote. As a topic sentence, it should (in my view) start the way it does, "In the United States, The Age of Reason initially caused a deistic "revival," but was then viciously attacked and soon forgotten." and then describe that among those who still knew about it, it was reviled (the "soon forgotten" doesn't square with the fact that Roosevelt evidently still knew about it, in the present version), and half a sentence about the modern reception history that is now part of this section. Then you would have summarized all that is to come, and could come back to the 18th century. The Roosevelt quote could come later in the text. --Markus Poessel 20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Roosevelt didn't necessarily read the book - what prevailed was Paine's negative reputation. I will try to make this clearer. Awadewit | talk 14:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Again, I think the main point is to move Roosevelt out of the topic sentence, although making the background of that quotation clearer is certainly commendable. --Markus Poessel 19:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done*Since Benjamin Waterhouse is currently a red link, a parenthetical clause stating who he was would be appreciated.

• "In October of 1805 John Adams wrote to his friend Benjamin Waterhouse, an American physician and scientist, in disgust:" - again just a matter of taste, I suppose - the dangling "in disgust", especially now that it is separated from its rightful owner by the parenthetical description you so kindly inserted, looks a bit lost. There must be a more elegant way of putting this. May be the "in disgust" can simply be left out. I would expect that most readers will, upon reading the quotation, realize without prompting that Adams wasn't exactly enthusiastic. --Markus Poessel 13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• The ending is a bit abrupt. What does it mean that his ideas took hold? Are they now widely accepted (surely not)? Is the book regarded a classic, required reading in philosophy courses?

• See the talk page. I used to have a little conclusion, but it is gone now. What is the pressing need for an explanation of the book in today's context? I get this a lot in articles I write. I believe that I have talked about the AR's significant rhetorical and intellectual heritages. At least, I have followed the scholarship. Awadewit | talk 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• I wouldn't have said "pressing need". The reception history evidently continues; why should a description of the book's intellectual history have an arbitrary cut-off? I understand your sentiment, or at least I suppose I do; I'm not demanding that, in desperate search of something that no-one else has written about before, someone take on the task of writing an article about "Paine and the Internet" or "What Paine can teach us about islamic fundamentalism" (come to think of it, the latter might be interesting, though). I was merely referring to the fact that you can still find the book in bookshops today; since this is in contrast with other works that influence us only via their intellectual descendants, I thought it a notable fact. --Markus Poessel 13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• I still haven't come up with anything to add at the end, but I am thinking. Intellectual history tends to stop when a work's direct influence (hard enough to trace) is no longer apparent. You might be able to draw a line from Paine to Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and so forth, but I haven't seen any such references and proving any such lineage is very difficult - near impossible. They would be cool to include. (I think there is a line from Paine's Common Sense to Michael Moore and from Puritan children's literature to the Left Behind series for kids, but such lines, spanning centuries, are hard for scholars to trace because they are usually trained in only one period, not two or three.) Awadewit | talk 16:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• See what you think of the references to Moore and Hitchens that I found. They could be worded better, but I want to know if this is what you are looking for before I bother. :) Awadewit | talk 18:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• I had no idea about Moore and Hitchens, but yes, if they can reasonably be viewed as influenced by Paine, then they should be included. What I meant was a bit more modest, but if Paine's influence is alive in that particular way, all the better. --Markus Poessel 20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think the article should contain at least some information on more modern editions. Is the Citadel Press even still in print? I bought the Dover edition not too long ago (edited by Moncure Daniel Conway, Dover: Mineola, New York; 2004, ISBN 0-486-43393-5, an unabridged republication of the Putnam & Sons version 1896). Even better would, of course, be more information on the editing history in general. If there is information on how many copies were printed, that would certainly give important information about the book's varying popularity.

• Not the Dover! Dovers are generally terrible editions. They reprint old, out of copyright editions - they have no modern editors carefully scrutinizing the text, providing notes or writing introductions. The problems with Dover texts are notorious. I am very much against listing all of the editions of the book, unless I can find a scholar who has already done the research. This is a field of study called "bibliographical research". For me to randomly assemble a list would be a travesty. I agree that the editing history would be interesting, but I haven't seen much scholarship published on that (it is surprising how little is published on the AR). What I can tell you is that all of the "introductory" works on Paine do not mention such topics. Editing history tends to be a rather arcane topic. I didn't pursue such things in my research for this article because I thought the "average curious woman" :) wouldn't want all of that detail. I will look around some more and see what I can find, though, since you think readers might want to know that. Awadewit | talk 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• There's another difference between science and the humanities, then. With Dover editions of classic textbooks about physics and mathematics, their editorial policy doesn't matter so much. Incidentally, with Dover editions of works like Paine's, I would think that making the book accessible to a wider audience at an affordable price *should* count for something, even if I can see you wouldn't want to be caught reading it by your thesis advisor. I do agree that bibliographical research is a serious subject (my father-in-law's research is dedicated to bibliographical research covering a small section of French 17th century literature), and if there isn't anything published about it, you certainly shouldn't just "wing it". --Markus Poessel 13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have heard that about physics and math Dovers. Some of the music scores are good, too (you just have to know which ones). Well, the problem of Dover editions, although they are cheap, is that they are often not the author's "original text". One classic example is Beatrix Potter's The Tale of Peter Rabbit. The words are the same, but not the illustrations; since Potter's books are just as much about the illustrations as the words, such an edition is worthless if you want to examine Potter as an author. Paine's works are available in many other editions that I don't feel are that expensive, such as Penguin Classics. Besides, you can get a used copy of the Foner edition for $3 or read the Conway online for free. :) I am still looking for a bibliographic essay or some such source for this. Awadewit | talk 16:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• I completely forgot about the music scores. On occasion, I used to play from them during orchestra rehearsals, and it was always fun to have an overview of what everyone else was doing (although it involved an impractical level of page-turning activity). Anyway, precisely because most readers (such as I) will not know about a good edition to start from, it might be good to mention the Penguin edition, for instance. Actually, I think it's an important part of the reception history: Up to the present day, Paine's work is available in that popular edition. That's not something you can say about every 18th century work that has its own Wikipedia entry (or so I suppose). --Markus Poessel 20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Both the Foner and the Penguin are listed. Awadewit | talk 14:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• I found it interesting that (at least from the 1794 edition on) the work is dedicated "To My Fellow Citizens of the United States of America", followed by the sentence "I put the following work under your protection." [...] You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every man to his opinon, however different that opinion might be to mine" - an interesting insight into what Paine thought of the reception he was getting. May be that could be mentioned in passing (unless it's in there and I overlooked it.)

• Yes, it is interesting. I can do one of two things: 1) Quote that without any explanation (making sure I steer clear of original research) or 2) Quote it with a scholarly interpretation. I don't remember seeing much on that statement, but I can look again. Awadewit | talk 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• I found one tiny thing on this. I will keep looking. Awadewit | talk 18:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

All in all, an interesting read. I'll certainly take this as a sign that I should re-read the book itself, so further comments might be forthcoming. --Markus Poessel 20:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The book is a lot of fun. Paine "rewrites" the Adam and Eve story in a hilarious fashion. I wanted to quote it here, but that section is much too long. If you are interested in Paine and these kinds of topics, you might be interested in another article that I've just started on the 1794 Treason Trials. I'm looking for a co-editor (I have already assembled a basic bibliography). :)

I will start working on these things today, but it will take me a while to fully address them all. Thank you for your thoughtful review. I was beginning to think no one was going to review the article! Awadewit | talk 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)