Talk:The Age of Reason/Archive 3

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,[23][24] 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.[69] 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."[70] The periodical The Freethinker (founded in 1881) argued, like Paine, that the "absurdities of faith" could be "slain with laughter".[71] 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 "Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia article on Moore; b) might conceivably be justified for inclusion in the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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) [Note: I have only recently aquired this username, and my previous Talk posts on this topic are under the IP address 66.241.73.241 and possibly also 209.181.57.144. If I could consolidate these under the current username, I would.]

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 Wikipedia 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)

On the specific issue of "unbeliever", I would also find it to be slightly offensive; compare the word "infidel", which means the same thing, albeit in a much stronger way. I see Dawkins's own use of the term to be a kind of reappropriation. Lesgles (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Critique of this article

[I don't care about MM, seems a rather trivial topic] I haven't read "the Age of Reason" though I am very interested in Deism, how it might have been influenced by Islam via Spinoza among others. I would think this article should say, "Paine [or Age of Reason] rejects the divinity of Jesus," or "...rejects the Trinity." Shouldn't it say that? I know, the Deist label makes that point, but shouldn't this be better defined? Also, can we cite, or list many more of his arguments? This article has not raised my interest in this book, I think a closer precis of the material would help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottindallas (talk • contribs) 06:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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)

And all three of the sources above are fully acceptable. Many thanks to Pergamino for supplying them. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

RFC on Michael Moore sentence

Should the sentence on Michael Moore be included in the article? 19:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

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

• Keep: 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 Wikipedia; 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 is offensive to me. I will not be involved in your RFC further. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hence the long list of RS below. Awadewit (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• They show your determined POV. Please consult an equal number of sites that do not worship Moore so you will not give undue weight.—Mattisse (Talk) 22:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Three do not worship Moore - they are reviews. One is even scholarly (along with the original source I provided). There is no undue weight. I did find lots of Moore attack sites that compare Moore to Paine, but they were unreliable sources. Awadewit (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• I fully believe that you do not think they "worship" Moore, because "one is even scholarly"! Odd that everything that does not think as highly of Moore as you do is unreliable. Interesting that you feel an excerpt from an Amazon.com review is fine with you for an FA reference. We can use this new standard of yours for future referencing for FAC. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have never made my views of Moore known - no on here knows what they are. Furthermore, I provided that link to amazon.com as a courtesy to users who don't have a subscription to AudioFile. I won't be so generous in the future. Awadewit (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• I dunno, I think that when you wedged in Moore's photograph back in July 2007 (Paine, Jefferson...Moore!) it was more telling than you realize. The picture is gone, thank goodness, but the personal hobbyhorse remains, despite a nearly two-year consensus against it. Mandrakos (talk) 06:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Remove This strikes me as recentist and the work of lazy sub-editors grasping for comparisons where they may not be apt. There is very little of the reception of the book at the turn of the twenty-first century, and to include a statement about Michael Moore based on a handful of sources would be giving the comparison far more weight than it merits. We are not hungry for hits, and need not compromise the integrity of the article in pandering to the twitter generation. Skomorokh 20:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• What kind and how many sources would convince you? Awadewit (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Why are you so intent in convincing? Why associate a great man with a minor recent figure who is already "old hat", having lost much of what ever influence he had? Michael Moore is just one of a number of gadflies; if you have some evidence that he stands out among the many as the agreed upon legacy of Thomas Paine's role in American history, that would carry weight. Has he been on Time's list of 100 (that has been used in other articles to convince) or anything beyond some "Leftist" people's statements? Thomas Paine was not a "Leftist". —Mattisse (Talk) 00:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• That Paine was a leftist or not isn't relevant to this conversation. Neither is it discussing Moore as a one of a number of gadflies. What's pertinent is if there are sufficient sources that attest to the influence of Paine on Moore. That may be what Awadewit is asking. Pergamino (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Sourced influence of Paine on Moore is not by itself sufficient. We also have to decide whether mention of Moore (perhaps excluding many others who have been compared) is apt, and we have to decide whether that mention is appropriate in this article as opposed to an article about Paine himself. Mattisse, there is no need to be caustic; I appreciate that Awadewit has clarified (by my reading) that his motive is not Moore boosterism but rather a pedagogical device responding to a teaching challenge. But is Moore really the best contemporary example of the style of The Age of Reason or of the influence of Paine? Is it possible, as Skomorokh suggests, to try too hard to find a contemporary example? -Exucmember (talk) 07:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for that well thought out reply, Exucmember. I agree that "sourced influence of Paine on Moore is not by itself sufficient". We do not include every piece of available sourced information in an article. I think Moore is an excellent contemporary example precisely for the reasons User:Paine Ellsworth lays out below - his style has led him to be polarizing, just like Paine's style led him to be a polarizing figure. I was also happy that originally the article contained both Moore and Hitchens, since the bulk of the English Wikipedia's readers are American and British, and we had a contemporary example from both national traditions. However, if you would like to suggest another, better example, I would be glad to hear it. Awadewit (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Remove (Disclosure: I commented at the AN/I thread on Mattisse, in support of Mattisse.) I don't believe Moore fits in the article on this book. Moore identifies as a Catholic, albeit a free-thinking one. His preoccupations lie elsewhere. They are not in any way in the tradition of this book. It is quite different with Hitchens. Hitchens too is a vigorous critic of the Church and organised religion. He has made scathing comments about Mother Teresa and acted as a sort of advocatus diaboli in her beatification. He is a prominent critic of the religious establishment. Moore is not. Jayen466 15:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • This is not about Moore's religious views - this is about his style. See the proposed paragraph below. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
• Remove. How can someone's "unique" gift be "still alive"? "Some claim" is too tenuous - some people claim all kinds of strange things. And this article is about a book, not about the author. NBeale (talk) 06:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep with reservations While I suspect that their may be some non-encyclopedic motives at work in adding this. It is clear that in the post Post-Patriot act world of today, that Michael Moore has had some things to say that are representative of many Americans and therefore relevant in the context of "contemporary authors". Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The problem is that not a single source connects Moore directly to the topic of this article, The Age of Reason. If sources do not make this specific connection, I believe neither should we. Jayen466 23:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• Remove. If a much better sourced statement with less weasely wording, and less partisanship, were to be added, that would be one thing. I am speaking of something which states that the work's rhetoric is relevant to today's society, not how much it influenced any one particular person, and certainly without the weasel worded "some claim" or even "for example". Not Moore; because this is an article on TAoR, not Moore; the appropriate place to put Paine's or the book's influence on Moore is Moore's article; the sentence contains nothing whatsoever which illuminates our understanding of TAoR. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:38, 18 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)

• Agree with Mandrakos. Jayen466 15:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not previously involved, but concur with this statement. Hitchen's relationship to this book is a very different matter from Moore's. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:42, 18 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)

• Most editors recommend at least a link to the entire review, and not to an out-of-context Amazon.com review. This is not of FAC quality. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Mattisse, I linked to that as a courtesy. AudioFile reviews are only accessible using a subscription. If you like, I can remove this link. Note that this is not linked in the article, which I would, of course, not do. Please address the review and its contents. Awadewit (talk) 22:29, 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)

• Hilarious. And what makes the "common Joe" Michael Moore, other than a POV? Should you not consult opinions that do not place Moore thusly? —Mattisse (Talk) 22:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Well, the article claimed that the left called Moore "the new Tom Paine", so I'm not sure I see the problem. That political tie was already clarified. Awadewit (talk) 22:27, 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)

• I fail to see the relevance of this reference to the present day Moore in a POV of a current author. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Originally, the article said that the left hailed Moore, so this is an example of that. Awadewit (talk) 22:25, 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)

• Read below for a more clear headed evaluation of Moors own website links. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course, more sources for the proposition that some have called Moore the new Tom Paine are completely beside the point. Those who have asked for this deletion since 2007 have never doubted that "some" have called Moore the new Tom Paine. What "some" haven't said is that this quality shows the influence of the particular Paine work that is the only topic of this article, The Age of Reason. And Awadewit continues to ignore all the dozens of others who have been similarly compared to Paine. Are we supposed to multiply source them all and wedge them all irrelevantly into this article just to provide cover for Moore? Why? As a comment on Moore it has a place on the Moore page, yes, on the Paine page, maybe, but why on the article on The Age of Reason, which -- to dispose of another red herring -- is written in the style Paine developed much earlier for Common Sense. Yet we're not trying to wedge the Moore advertisement into the Common Sense article. "More sources" wouldn't affect the fatal irrelevancy at all. Mandrakos (talk) 06:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I did ask Exucmember above for another, better example, but I haven't received a reply yet - do you have a suggestion? I also continue to wonder why the argument that Paine's style, which is a part of all of his works, is not relevant to each of his works, and why Moore is being picked on in this debate - why is it only Moore you want removed? The logic of this argument does not hold. Awadewit (talk) 06:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Moore's own website

The content of Moore's own website is very revealing. It contains nine different headings, one of which is "Links". Here you are invited to "Check out these links..." with nine different headings, one of which is "Alternative Media". This has a list of over 100 media sources, one of which is "TomPaine.com". Here we find a reference ot Tom Paine himself, in explanation of the name of the journal. This is only mention of Paine on Moore's website. If we are looking for evidence of Paine's influence on Moore, this isn't it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

But this is a clear celebration of Paine. You do, of course, realize that authors don't go around listing every one who influenced them and how they did so. Do you seriously think we are going to find a statement from MM saying "I was influenced by Thomas Paine"? It is rarely that simple. Awadewit (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if you were not so patronizing in your responses to others, Awadewit. I realize you believe you WP:OWN the article. What is so clear to you, may not be so clear to others. You do realize that others may see things differently, do you not, and that your view may not always be be "right" one. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

And if there were a statement from Moore about being influenced by Paine, it still wouldn't speak to the point: Why mention a general Paine influence in this article, when there articles on Moore and Paine? If Moore has written that his style owes something to the influence of The Age of Reason, that's the only citation you need. But the disputed sentence and its citations establish no connection with this article at all. Mandrakos (talk) 06:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This argument assumes that Paine's style can somehow exist without his works - it cannot. According to your argument, no article on a work by Paine would explain how the style influenced writers (as it has for 200 years), which means that readers who do not read Thomas Paine will never learn this. Such articles would not actually be reflecting what is said about Paine's works in scholarship - that their most lasting influence was their style. Awadewit (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

But no one has asked that no mention be made of Paine's style influencing other writers (though obviously, it would be more appropriate to show that in terms of the style of The Age of Reason.) The problem with the Moore blurb is that it doesn't show him to have been influenced by Paine's style at all. Saying that Moore's style is comparable to or reminiscent of Paine's is not an assertion that Moore has read Paine or been influenced by him. None of your sources claim that Moore has read or been influenced by Paine.

Mandrakos (talk) 07:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Previously unimpressed editors

That's me, but I can say that I'm unimpressed no longer. This discussion, and its topic, are very impressive to me. But first a rhetorical question. I cannot help but wonder why this discussion would be subsectioned into PIEs and PUEs. Does someone who's been previously involved carry more weight? Never mind, since the main idea here seems to be whether or not the inclusion of a couple of little blurbs about a greatly disliked/liked controversial personality ought to be included in this article. It seems that Moore is very much like Thomas Paine and so enjoys a similar mix of love/hate from fans/antifans. What this seems to boil down to is a "final act" of removing Moore completely from a page on which he, at some point in the past, was overzealously represented perhaps to the point of bias. However, since Moore is obviously a contemporary part of the legacy that was also embraced by Paine, and since Moore is deeply involved in similar pursuits as Paine, it seems a sort of "reverse bias" to exclude him altogether. Moore probably deserves to maintain at least honorable mention – or dishonorable mention, as the case may be – in this article.

I've read all the arguments up to this point, so there's no need for anyone to feel the need to repeat themselves here. I consider myself a serious editor of Wikipedia, albeit not always well-constrained and sometimes quite ignorant. Yet in this case where a Featured Article is involved I would have to say that my above comments must hinge upon the usage of sources that are FA calibre. Anything less is unacceptable. If the sources are of FA calibre, then this is the issue upon which the decision must lie. No opinions are needed. The sources are either sufficient or they're not. The sources cited above appear to be more than suitable; therefore, the blurbs about Moore ought to be restored.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  23:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• PS. Those who dislike Moore so much that they cannot see the harmless effects of restoring these two blurbs, perhaps in different areas of the article, probably should wonder how they would feel if Michael Moore's name were instead "Thomas Paine". If you had lived back in the 18th, would you have loved Tom Paine? or would you have hated him?
  • • What are, in your opinion, "sources of FA calibre"? (I am serious about this question; look forward to your response) Pergamino (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is of minuscule import, Pergamino. There are poor sources, there are better sources (along an unbroken spectrum) and there are sources that meet Wikipedia standards. Featured articles are, well, some of the best articles in this encyclopedia. All i'm saying is that FA sources should meet or exceed Wikipedia standards of excellence.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  03:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• I could agree with that, if I could find a definition for "Wikipedia standards of excellence" as it relates to sources. Can you help? Pergamino (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  I think most of what you are looking for is in WP:RS. Some quotes:

  • "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available".
  • "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process".
  • "As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication".
  • "while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources".
  • "How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation".

  WP:RS has plenty more to say on the topic, but those are some of the key points that I use to determine the quality of the source. I don't think it's possible to determine the quality of a source without some element of judgement, and in many cases a knowledge of the field is important too -- without that one can be unaware, for example, that one is looking at outdated scholarship. Mike Christie (talk) 03:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Mike! I hope this answered Pergamino's question to satisfaction. I would only add that when the quality of a source of a claim is nebulous, this is where talk pages and civil debate are indispensable to the process of article improvement.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  15:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• (The opinions of previously uninvolved editors, like yourself, are give more weight.) Awadewit (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a few remarks in response to the above:

• Two contrasting possible statements: "If something is to go in, it must be well-sourced": true. "If something is well-sourced, it must go in": not true at all. We have all sorts of well-sourced information on Paine and this book. We decide which bits to include on the basis of whether they help to create an informative, interesting, well-balanced article. The argument is that Moore does not add value in that respect.
• "Those who dislike Moore" ... I have never stated or wished to imply that I dislike Moore. Both Paine and Moore are controversial characters, with some points of similarity but also strong points of contrast, the latter probably including their attitude to the subject matter of The Age of Reason. My objection to the inclusion of Moore, and the way that it was done, is that it seemed to make our view of Paine in some way dependent on our view of Moore, which hinders us from taking a clear view of Paine and this book. I might accept PE's suggestion of inclusion "perhaps in different areas of the article" if it met this objection.
• Would Awadewit please substantiate the statement "The opinions of previously uninvolved editors ... are give more weight."

SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• That is the very purpose of an RfC. We, the involved editors, couldn't come to an agreement, so we asked for outside input. This is how RfC works - the views of more objective editors not involved in the dispute are given more weight. Awadewit (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I've just carefully re-read WP:RFC and it doesn't actually say that. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• The entire point of RfC is to get outside views - you even solicited them yourself. There is no point to soliciting these views if you are not going to listen to their advice. Awadewit (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Did I imply that the process was commutative? I certainly didn't mean to. My perspective on this is that this is not about something "going in", but something being "yanked out". The blurbs about Moore are well-sourced and ought to be "restored". The argument is ^{whether or not} Moore adds value. I'm sorry, but an objective view must take in the fact that extracting the two blurbs about Moore decreases the value.
• From my perspective, two little blurbs about Moore will not make anybody feel that their view about Thomas Paine will be in any way dependent upon their view of Moore. I don't follow you at all on that one, STG, not at all. If you feel your view of Paine and his astounding work is hindered by a couple of little sentences about a modern radical, then please be assured that my view is not. And I have thought about the positioning again. My suggestion would be to put the blurbs back where they were, except that instead of closing with Moore, put him ahead of Hitchens and close with the Hitchens blurb. The rest of the article should not be touched; it's pretty immaculate the way it is.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  03:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I'm quite puzzled by your attitude. You've done quite a lot of editing to the Thomas Paine article. Moore is not mentioned there. If you think he's so valuable, why haven't you put him in? There's a better case for that than for including him in the article about a book with which he has no connection whatever. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's stay focused on this article. Thomas Paine is its own article - discussions about its content should take place at Talk:Thomas Paine. Awadewit (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I found it to be a stronger argument that Paine is not mentioned in the Moore article. But as Awadewit points out above, we are talking about this article. Moore was in this article. Moore's been in this article quite awhile. Was Moore a part of this article when it attained FA? Two little blurbs about Moore are harmless. The fact that they were removed that led to all this fuss says to me that maybe, just maybe, thou "doth protest too much".  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  14:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• PS. The "thou" above is not just meant for you, STG, but for all involved. The Moore blurbs should not have been removed. They should have been hit with a {{Fact}} template and better cited, which they can be now. And as I said, the second blurb should have been moved to before the Hitchens blurb, but not completely removed.

• The Moore material was in the article when it passed FA - see this diff. Awadewit (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

As for "maybe, just maybe, thou 'doth protest too much'", this is, strictly speaking, utterly meaningless, but if one forces it to have some meaning it must become a breach of WP:AGF. You're entitled to your opinions, but I'd be grateful if you could avoid silly (and pretentious) personal remarks. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly sorry you took it this way Sam! I was pretty specific that the remark applied to all involved and was in no way meant to be an individual personal remark about anyone. The fact remains that it does not appear that Wikipedia policy of first applying the {{Fact}} template and giving someone time to find citations was followed in this case. I'm relatively new here, but I have learned that much. One doesn't just yank a harmless claim from an article without first calling for citations, for better references. You didn't address that, so can I assume that I am correct about this?  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  23:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

To defend Samuel here, there were already citations, so adding a "fact tag" wouldn't have been appropriate. He talked about removing the material on the talk page, which was entirely appropriate. Awadewit (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, forgive me then for my ignorance on this. And I've looked all over, but there doesn't seem to be a specific template for existing sources that an editor feels are not strong enough. Would this be an editing "gray area" on Wikipedia? Seems to me that the removal of a poor source and the application of the Fact template would be called for as a first step, then removal of the claim if no new and better reference is furnished. But I could be wrong.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  15:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There isn't one that I know of. If a source fails to meet RS, one can remove it and the information it is supporting. Or, one can remove the source and add a "fact" tag to the information in the article. Or, one can discuss the issue on the talk page. If the article is developed and/or active, one should probably discuss the issue on the talk page. If the article is undeveloped and/or not active, one should be more aggressive about removing information and sources - perhaps even try to find a better source! :) That's what I do, anyway. Awadewit (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That does make sense. From what I've read, if a claim in an article is harmful, then it should be removed. If the claim is harmless, then a Fact template (in this case along with the removal of a weak reference) should be employed. Then even the harmless claim can be removed if a stronger source is not found and cited. The problem here seems to be in the very subjective open doors in the policy – "harmful" and "harmless". And that's where talk pages and civil arguments become instrumental in article improvement. Wikipedia cannot and never will get rid of all the "gray areas"; however, articles may still be sharpened and honed well when editors work together to this end. Thank you for your support of my ideas, Awadewit!  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  20:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for sticking with this RfC! Awadewit (talk) 06:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

New version of last paragraph

Paine Ellsworth has suggested that the Moore material come first in the last paragraph. Here is a possible revision:

Paine's text is still published today, one of the few eighteenth-century religious texts to be widely available,[96] and his style has continued to influence writers and critics. For example, the American filmmaker and writer Michael Moore's polemical style has been compared to Paine's and he has been called "the new Tom Paine" by the left.[Porton, Stuckey, Andersen] The book's message still resonates as well, evidenced by British atheist and author of God is Not Great Christopher Hitchens's statement that "if the rights of man are to be upheld in a dark time, we shall require an age of reason". His 2006 book on the Rights of Man ends with the claim that "in a time . . . when both rights and reason are under several kinds of open and covert attack, the life and writing of Thomas Paine will always be part of the arsenal on which we shall need to depend."[97]

Could this be a compromise? Awadewit (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see this as a definite step in the right direction. Even if you insert the name "Moore", which seems to have been omitted altogether. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

How hysterical. Inserted. Awadewit (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, do you think we should describe Hitchens as an atheist and the author of God is Not Great in addition to what we have? Awadewit (talk)

Yes. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Added. The whole thing is a bit awkward now, but copyediting is small potatoes. Awadewit (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I like this version, which makes a clearer distinction between the stylistic influence on Moore and the philosophical influence on Dawkins, and which resolves, in my opinion, the problem of the Moore sources' not mentioning religion or The Age of Reason. Lesgles (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The above does not seem motivated by any tendency of RS to connect this book which this article is about with Michael Moore, but by Wikipedians' determination to get a mention of Michael Moore into this article by hook or crook. None of the sources proposed to justify the inclusion of Moore's name establishes a direct connection between "The Age of Reason", or the book's literary style, and Michael Moore. The sources brought to the table may justify the inclusion of a reference to Moore in the article on Thomas Paine, but I don't see how they justify inclusion here. This article was held to the hightest sourcing standards when it was promoted to FA, and we should adhere to them now. Jayen466 08:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm confused by your last statement - the statements about Moore and the original sources backing them up were in the article when it passed FA, so presumably they met those high standards. Awadewit (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
    • It is a text-book case of WP:SYN. If they did not pick it up in FAC -- I take your word for it -- it is still a text-book case of WP:SYN. I'll start a thread at WP:ORN. Jayen466 19:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• In favor. It is my understanding that the two harmless little blurbs about Moore were a part of this article when it attained FA. How do you explain this, Jayen? The sources listed above are better than the original references, and yet the article reached FA with both the blurbs and the original references, right? It almost seems to me that it is you who are determined to get rid of Moore "by hook or crook". Nobody is trying to "get a mention of Michael Moore into this article". The mention was already there, and it was there when the article attained FA status. From an objective viewpoint, there appears to be no substantial justification for the permanent removal of these two blurbs.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  14:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support I think that this version is better than the original sentence - it is more specific and the organization of the paragraph is better. Also, we have even more RS sources than we had at the outset of this discussion, so the statement is more than adequately sourced. Awadewit (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• WP:ORN thread posted. [1] Jayen466 20:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Sitting on the Fence for the time being, because on the one hand I think Jayen is right, but on the other I consider the compromise that has been offered to be a good deal less bad than what was there before 25 April, and we can't go on battling for ever. I'd like to see what the other interested editors have to say. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Opposed, because the compromise wording is a non sequitur that makes the irrelevance of the Moore reference more obvious and intrusive than ever. There is no logical connection between these two sentences: "Paine's text is still published today, one of the few eighteenth-century religious texts to be widely available,[96] and his style has continued to influence writers and critics. For example, the American filmmaker and writer Michael Moore's polemical style has been compared to Paine's and he has been called "the new Tom Paine" by the left.[Porton, Stuckey, Andersen] Comparing X's style to Y's is not an assertion that X has read Y and been influenced by him, it only expresses the opinion that the styles are similar. A boxer can be "the new Joe Louis" (an unstoppable heavyweight) without having ever studied Joe Louis in the ring, a serial murderer can be "the new Jeffrey Dahmer" without having ever heard of Jeffrey Dahmer, much less his M.O., Henry Miller can be called "the Catullus of the 20th century" whether he ever read or was influenced in any way by Catullus. Porton, Stuckey, Andersen's comparisons do not in fact say that Moore's style was influenced by Paine (much less this particular work by Paine). The first sentence of the compromise promises us a writer or critic who has been influenced by Paine's style; the second sentence does not produce one iota of evidence that Moore has read Paine and been so influenced, not one source that makes the claim, only a logically distinct claim that Moore's style or persona reminds some people of Paine. If an example of a writer or critic actually influenced by Paine is needed, why not supply one, as in the earlier version's segue into Hitchens? Moore remains jarringly irrelevant. I would not go so far as Jayen in calling it OR -- the sources support the sentence they're in; but the sentence they're in does not support the topic sentence and indeed, still has no relevance to The Age of Reason at all. Mandrakos (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Original Research?

Note: Jayen has started this thread: Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard#Featured Article The Age of Reason. Awadewit (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

From the WP:OR lede:

Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

Emphases in the original. The topic of this article is The Age of Reason. The proposed sources do not present the Paine/Moore comparison in direct relation to The Age of Reason and do not directly support the presentation of this material as part of this specific book's legacy. The statements in these sources are only directly related to Thomas Paine and Michael Moore and are thus only eligible for inclusion in these articles. WP:OR is policy and absolutely clear on this point. Jayen466 01:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Jayen, this is not OR. The statements in the sources are accurately reflected in the article. The article says that Moore's style had been influenced by Paine's style. The article claims no more. You have made it clear why you feel that the information should not be in the article - your arguments are clear. There is no need to present arguments that make no sense. Your initial argument was solid; to me, it was unpersuasive, but it was coherent and well-thought out. Now, however, you are making illogical arguments that aren't helping your case - in fact, they are hurting it. Awadewit (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This says to me that the the Moore blurbs are crystal-clearly not WP:OR and specifically NOT WP:SYN. I question deeply Jayen's motives. The argument is so flawed that it has been kicked back to this discussion page, and Jayen has been accused of forumshopping and forumhopping. Jayen might see my words as a personal attack, however I greatly emphasize that they are not so. However an attack on Jayen's argument is like Sitting Bull attacking Custer. And it seems to be all because of a lack of objectivity, at least on this particular issue. I sincerely hope that Jayen will step back and attempt to see all this objectively and more clearly.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  06:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> I am sorry, none of the sources you wish to cite relates the information that "Moore is the new Paine" to this specific book. They do not even mention it. Yet the placement of your information in the Legacy section clearly suggests to the reader that Michael Moore is somehow in the tradition of this book. Because no source makes that claim, this fails both OR and NPOV, and fails to represent significant views in proportion to their published prominence in the most reliable sources. The only text implying that the spirit of The Age of Reason lives on in Moore would be Wikipedia.

You started an RfC on this. Above I think we now have 6 uninvolved editors who have voiced their opinion that including 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"

is inappropriate. Yet here you are, drafting essentially the same thing:

and his style has continued to influence writers and critics. For example, the American filmmaker and writer Michael Moore's polemical style has been compared to Paine's and he has been called "the new Tom Paine" by the left.[Porton, Stuckey, Andersen]

You are still making the same OR argument about The Age of Reason having influenced Moore. Please go to Thomas Paine and see if editors there are willing to include the claim that Michael Moore is the new Thomas Paine. It is really putting the cart before the horse to wish to include this claim here, when Moore's opinion on religion are not even anywhere near the same as Paine's.

Your defence is that you are not explicitly saing that The Age of Reason influenced Moore. But you are making an implied case for that by the juxtaposition of the sentences. To give you another example, if I say,

"Robert Brown is a U.S. reporter who reported on the conflict in Gaza.(source A) American reporters have generally been criticised for their biased reporting of the Gaza conflict.(source B)"

then this is OR if source B does not present this information in direct relation to Brown. It is no good saying that "source B is directly related to Brown, because Brown is an American." Yet this is exactly the defence you are proffering here. You are saying that the assertion that Moore is the new Paine is "directly related" to The Age of Reason because Paine wrote it. Well, it isn't, because the source does not make that connection. It is a logical step that you have supplied. As Samuel showed above, a passage like the one proposed here has been deleted and reinserted something like a dozen times over at least 18 months. Rather than arguing the same case time and time again, please try to find a source that relates Michael Moore to The Age of Reason, and if there isn't one, accept that the existing literature does not make such a connection, and abandon the attempt to make novel claims here in Wikipedia. For reference, here is the only book in google books that mentions Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason and Michael Moore: It is a no-name publisher of out-of-copyright books who quotes this Wikipedia article.

Please take it to the Thomas Paine talk page instead. Jayen466 09:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Though I certainly wouldn't follow this dispute to the Tom Paine page (life is too short), I don't really believe the Moore assertion belongs there either, except perhaps as part of a list of the many many other contemporary authors who have been called new Tom Paines, Tom Paines for our time, etc. Where the Moore assertion could be posted, without any need for defense, would be the Michael Moore page, where its relevance would be clear. This is not about personalities, but about relevance. Mandrakos (talk) 05:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that this discussion has been heated; I was upset over what happened to Mattisse. But please, rather than going on in the same manner, let's take a breather, and please think about what I and many other editors on this page have said for a day or two. Jayen466 09:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Final analysis

First, let me say that I am honored to have been invited here as a PUE and join in this impressive discussion. I have voiced my views always with a focus upon what is right, not on who is right. We have here a situation in which two harmless blurbs have been removed from an FA. These blurbs were a part of this article when it achieved FA. So an objective observer must challenge the removal of these blurbs by unveiling the fact that their removal may damage the article and make it less than it was when it achieved FA. We are here to improve articles, not to damage them. The blurbs should stay in the article.

It is of great import to me that those who think the blurbs should be removed understand that there was never any intent on my part to launch or maintain any kind of personal attack against them. I realize that sometimes our arguments can become like our "babies", and an attack against our argument can be perceived as personal. This is where objectivity must win the day. If we always concentrate on what is right rather than on who is right, then we can be assured of improving Wikipedia rather than of damaging it.

Since my views in this Rfc are known, there is no reason for me to remain in the conversation. So I shall return to my previous pursuits. Thank you again for having me!  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  15:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

To me, FA is not an absolute judgment that an article is perfect and must never be changed, but rather a relative judgment about an article being in the upper quality range for now, in a continually improving encyclopedia. It is very telling that even in defending them, Paine Ellsworth calls the Moore bits "blurbs" (i.e., advertisements) and finds them no better than "harmless." Meanwhile, the consensus of editors, over a long period of time, has always been that the Moore blurbs are strikingly intrusive in their irrelevance to the article topic. Removing them is a small but palpable improvement, with zero loss to content or quality.

Mandrakos (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that FA is not necessarily the final word that an article is perfect and must never be changed. This was not what I was implying by my final statement. The implication here is simply that the removal of "any" part of an FA ought to be scrutinized very thoroughly, with a fine-tooth comb, meticulously, so as not to decrease the article's value for readers.

It is Michael Moore's style, as compared with Thomas Paine's style, that the short claims make. The style comparison is represented well in the new sources found by Awadewit. And nowhere is Paine's style better represented than in The Age of Reason (with the possible exception of Common Sense). Michael Moore improves this article as long as he does not overpower it as he did in the past. Speaking objectively, to remove Moore entirely takes away from the article, because Moore is a living example of the style legacy that Paine also embraced.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  02:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• PS. For my usage of "blurb", please see Blurb#Today – "On the Internet a blurb is used to give a brief description or promotion of an article or other larger work." Please note the "or".

• Again, a comparison of style is not an assertion of actual influence or "legacy." The always unanswered question: since dozens and dozens of contemporary writers have also been the subject of the same style comparison, is omitting all those irrelevant comparisons detracting from the article as much as omitting the irrelevant Moore comparison? P.S. While your intention is noted, the aptness of "advertisement" remains; a long string of editors has seen the blurbs just that way. Mandrakos (talk) 04:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Not challenging the aptness of "advertisement", fellow editor, but the aptness of your "telling" comment. Unfortunately, it is misleading, which is why I pointed out the other possible meaning for "blurb".
2. In an article on, say, "Airplanes" it would be the height of teejus to list all the airplanes ever made. So the writer of the Airplane article might list a few examples of airplanes. Moore ought to remain as an example in today's world of the style found in The Age of Reason.
3. The style "legacy" in question is actually one that's embraced by both Paine and Moore. It did not begin with Paine, nor will it end with Moore. It is a long legacy that probably began back when people first started to communicate.
4. Interesting that you find the Paine/Moore style comparison to be irrelevant. May I ask, why is this so?

 ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  06:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Because this is not an article on a general style of discourse dating back to Aristophanes, or however far back your Original Research leads you to believe, but an article on The Age of Reason, its text, authorship, history, and influence; and because we have no cited evidence that Moore has ever read this book, much less been influenced by it, by which it follows that Moore is simply not an example of such influence. Interesting that you evidently have never read the many other expressions of this irrelevance throughout this talk page and the archives.

Mandrakos (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes this is precisely correct. This is not an article on general style, but an article on Paine's extraordinary work, The Age of Reason. Such an article would be incomplete without some treatment of the style embraced by Tom Paine in this book, wouldn't it? And for younger people today who may perhaps know little of Paine, and more about the contemporary Michael Moore, then Moore's style would help serve as a focusing example of The Age of Reason's style to a young reader, wouldn't it?

Yes, I had read these claims of irrelevance before, and I had read their refutations. Thank you for repeating the claim, and for listening to this refutation.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  16:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a quite extensive discussion of Paine's style, with direct examples from his own writing -- certainly more explanatory and precise, even to a young person, than a vague comparison offered by critics a young person does not know (and whose taste that young person cannot judge). I can't say that I thank you for making me repeat stuff you say you'd already read -- a waste of my time and yours. As for a refutation of the logical disconnect between actual influence and fancied similarity -- of course, none has ever been offered. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Mandrakos (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and with a sincere request for forgiveness.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  16:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Another way forward

The argument keeps getting made that there are "dozens" of other people we could use in this article instead of Moore. Well, let's explore some of those options. Let's see what the evidence looks like for those people. Would the editors who are making that claim, who say that the Moore example is not unique and not strong, please put forth the evidence for these other people? Perhaps we will find a better example to use. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think what is needed is third-party reliable sources that connect Michael Moore with The Age of Reason. In other words, something besides the speculations of Wikipedian editors so that we are true to the core policies of WP:V and WP:OR. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

We are trying to find a compromise. Please help with that. If you don't have any alternatives to offer, there is no need to rehash the same arguments. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that core policies can be compromised by "alternatives". Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Well, if compromising core policies is the issue (I don't think it is, but I could be wrong), then I submit that we have here an article that won FA status while at the same exact time it was allegedly not meeting core-policy standards. I am hard-pressed to understand how that could have happened. To receive the quality rating of Featured Article, an article is supposed to be crystal clear and squeegie clean. It is set upon by excellent and experienced editors to ensure it deserves this status.
• However, assuming that it did happen, it is incumbent upon me to point out that nothing is etched in stone. Even the founders whom I've read about seem to feel that Wikipedia policies are guidelines to improvement of Wikipedia, and even the founders leave it open to the consensus of serious editors to decide what improves, and what damages, any given article. I feel that removing the Moore blurbs damages the article, because by their removal, a "shining" (or severely tarnished, as the case may be) example of the style found in The Age of Reason, that style embraced by both Thomas Paine and by Michael Moore, a style that's exemplified by Moore, is lost forever to future readers who may have found value in its inclusion.
• But I agree with Awadewit here. It doesn't really matter if it's Michael Moore or whomever. Moore is simply a known example who was in the article when it attained FA, and Moore's the one who's been under scrutiny here. But if other editors can come up with better examples than Moore, then I would have to agree... nobody's really "married" to Michael Moore. But before he's permanently deleted from the article, another example or two ought to be suggested by those who say there are so many other examples, and then FA-caliber sources attached to support them. Otherwise, Moore's blurbs should be replaced and remain in the article so it won't decrease in FA quality.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  05:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I also would like to see ideas for others who could be cited instead of Moore as inheritors of Paine's style. I feel there are enough citations to support what is there now, but it's quite possible that there are other controversialists who could be named instead. Mike Christie (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This is putting the cart before the horse. There is no need to mention contemporary figures. If sources discussing The Age of Reason mention certain modern authors in connection with the book, then that is fine, and we should, or may, mention these authors too. If sources discussing The Age of Reason don't mention modern authors, then neither should we. As for Hitchens, there is an Oxford University Press reference here that could be cited in addition to the ref we have got. Jayen466 10:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If we know of a contemporary controversialist who says his or her style was influenced by reading Paine (or, better, The Age of Reason), that might be an addition to the legacy conclusion to the page. But there is no point whatever to adding any of the dozens of "new Tom Paines" who are just as irrelevant as Moore is to this article. We have a current version that reads just fine and that is in line with a consensus of editors. Why compromise with irrelevancy? We have stepped forward with the deletion. We don't need another way backward. Mandrakos (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a consensus has not yet been reached. As a PUE, what I see is that you have a majority, and this does not necessarily mean that you have reached consensus. A true consensus means to me that the majority is responsible for bringing the minority into "general agreement" with the editorial action.

What I also see as an outsider is that part of a Featured Article has been removed before reaching consensus, so it makes it look as though the argument is over whether or not the blurbs ought to be "put back in", when in reality the argument is whether or not the blurbs ought to be "removed" from a Featured Article. Ideally, the two Moore blurbs ought not to be removed until consensus is reached. Since this ideal has been breached, then the second-best action is to return the blurbs to the article until consensus is reached. The editor who removed the blurbs may be the best candidate to effect this action.; however, I shall be glad to do so if asked by any previously involved editor.

The best way then to reach consensus is for the majority and the minority to reach agreeable compromise as per the policy on consensus linked to above. If you find it impossible to reach consensus, then formal dispute resolution is available. In any case, the blurbs ought to be returned to the Featured Article until either a consensus is reached or the dispute is settled.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  04:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

In fact, we have a situation in which editor after editor has tried to remove an irrelevant passage since 2007, and a single editor has repeatedly reverted such attempts. This single editor, to her credit, has now let the deletion stand pending the outcome of an RFC, which so far, has trended toward deletion. To reinsert the passage now, on the flimsy grounds that this blemish was already present when an FA was awarded for the real virtues elsewhere on the page, would be correctly seen as an arbitrary dismissal of the RFC on the part of a minority that feels it knows better and owns the page. But I am confident that no one here is so rash and contemptuous of the Wikipedia way as to do such a thing. Mandrakos (talk) 05:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I know how to say this without sounding condescending, however yours is an excellent response. And I shall bow out at this point. Wikipedia's Age of Reason article is in good hands.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  07:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Mandrakos, you made the argument above: "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." - However, you have provided no evidence to back this up yet. I am offering you the option to show us that it is indeed the case that there is no reason to single out Moore. Right now, this is only an assertion. Awadewit (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually, if you go back to Archive 2, mikabr and I said exactly what Google searches we used. I tried "modern-day Tom Paine" (including quotes) and got some of those names, several of them twice, in the first 20 of 404 (!) hits, while mikabr tried "the new Thomas Paine" and produced the rest of the names, and of course many more can be similarly mined from the rest of the pages pulled up (and alternate queries); enough to make it clear that this comparison is made all the time and pretty lightly. But I have never said we should be using these names in the Age of Reason article. At first glance, they are as ineligible as the Moore blurb: just comparisons, no assertions of influence. 209.181.57.144 (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The Age of Reality

• I am wondering... is it possible that one reason some of my fellow editors work so hard to erase Moore's contribution to The Age of Reason has to do with some sort of detraction to the great revolutionary war hero Thomas Paine by inclusion of such a controversial, perhaps indigestible person such as Michael Moore? Please take this as a rhetorical question. No response is actually solicited, because truthfully, any response might have the unwanted and deleterious effect as to greatly weaken the previous argument of the responder.
• The reason I ask is because in these days I tend to be more conservative. So reading or listening to Michael Moore is rather indigestible to me. However, as much as I love and esteem the works of Thomas Paine and his amazing contribution to American liberty, I have also often thought about how I might have felt about him had I lived in his era. And as I live and breathe, no matter which "side" I might have been on, if I had lived contemporary with Paine, and had not been an understanding and indulgent friend like, say, Thomas Jefferson, I am fairly certain that I would have found Paine to be about as undigestible to me as Moore is today.
• I'm not sure of the wisdom of this, my personal disclosure, however I am offering it up as food for thought.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  16:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The Age of Reality, Part 2

• Along the lines of Paine's comment above, our job is to build an encyclopedia. There are people who admire Michel Moore and accept his point of view and there are people who find him "rather indigestible". Depending on the viewpoint of various readers of this article (and perhaps their age or cohort), they will have differing reactions to the comparison of Thomas Paine to Michael Moore. In fact, the comparison to Michael Moore may radically affect their understanding of Thomas Paine. Paine, above, concludes that he might have found Thomas Paine equally "indigestible". Other readers might conclude that they would worship Thomas Paine. Since this comparison introduces an uncontrollable factor in to the article, it seems to me that it is not an ideal comparison to accomplish the goal of encyclopedia building. Better to find some reliable sources who can verify that this is an appropriate and widely accepted comparison. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Yes, I agree that our job is to build an encyclopedia. And in accord with WP:AGF I conclude that you don't mean that this includes the necessity for "controlling" the minds of future readers. You appear to be, and rightly so, concerned with readers too easily drawing the wrong conclusions from the comparison. So it seems to me that extreme care can be taken to emphasize, so there would be no question in a reader's mind, that the comparison is merely one of style and nothing else. That's all it is, really... just a comparison of styles. The content of The Age of Reason pretty much alienated Paine from all but his closest friends. But those intellectuals who found the book's content indigestible did so not only due to its content, but also due to its ability to reach the minds and understanding of the less intellectual people because of its style. If Moore's style is truly a contemporary example of the style found in The Age of Reason, then the blurbs, or at least one of them, belong in the article with, as I said, careful, subtle emphasis that it is a comparison of style only. Thank you very much for your additional comment, Mattisse!  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  18:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding my remarks. I am speaking about "controlling content" as an editor who, with other editors, seeks to control the content and impact of an article to assure the content is NPOV. What I am referring to as undesirable is content that is not controlled, that is, it may or may not be NPOV, depending on the reader. We need reliable sources to help us out here. I don't think "subtle emphasis" is what is called for here, but direct sourcing. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I do get that. Sources are important, vital to an encyclopedia to achieve and maintain integrity. Is there a problem with the new sources Awadewit produced? They seem to me to adequately support the style comparison.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  01:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Paine, but remember, the article is not about Paine's style or public persona. It's our job to stick to the topic. Jayen466 01:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on all that, Jayen. The article is about a phenomenal book with a phenomenal style of getting the message across to, not just intellectuals, but to anybody who can read. In fact back then, many people couldn't read and could still understand Paine's words when read to them. Part of the book's phenomenon is its style, because it is just Paine's style of writing that accomplishes its widespread application. So while the article itself is not specifically about style, one can hardly mention the book and its impact without at least mentioning its style, explaining its style, and supplying readers with examples of its style. Such things are an integral part of the article; they cannot and should not be omitted.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  14:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

In his seminal book The Making of the English Working Class, E. P. Thompson highlights the importance of Paine's style: Paine "ridiculed the authority of the Bible with arguments which the collier or country girl could understand". As this article explains, Paine's arguments were not new, his presentation was. The style is what makes this book important. Exploring the legacy of that style is therefore crucial. Awadewit (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

But of course, the current Moore-less version already mentions Paine's style, explains his style, and gives examples of that style from Paine's own work. Meanwhile, Michael Moore has never mentioned Paine's style, explained it, or given an example of it; we have no citation showing that he has even read Paine. Mandrakos (talk) 06:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

An author doesn't have to say he is influenced by another author to be influenced by that author. Moreover, that is not how literary critics demonstrate influence. Literary critics and others analyze the two styles and draw connections from that. Biographical evidence is a bonus, but not a necessity. Authors rarely list all of their influences - they may not even know them. We have sources that connect the two together. That is not enough for you, however. You are asking for evidence that not even scholars deem necessary - you are inventing impossible standards. Awadewit (talk) 06:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. This whole debate would fold up and blow away if anyone could cite Moore discussing the influence that The Age of Reason has had on his style. If he's ever said anything like it to anyone, that would obviously be a valid source. Where's the impossibility? But meanwhile, for a critic to say that X's style is similar to Y's is not even an insinuation of influence, much less a demonstration. If a critic says, "Tom Paine was the 18th Century Michael Moore," could you cite that as proof that Paine is an example of Moore's influence? Obviously not. To jump from a Moore-is-like-Paine comparison to the assertion that Moore is an example of Paine's influence, with no citation showing such influence, is Original Research. Notice, however, that this is only true within the false Age of Reason context; broken from that context, as on the Michael Moore page, it is simply a fact that Moore has been called "the new Tom Paine" by some, and your sources are more than adequate. Please see my proposed new compromise below. Mandrakos (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Surely references to Moore being influenced by Paine's writing belong in Thomas Paine, unless sources can be supplied linking Moore to The Age of Reason specifically? Or am I missing something? --hippo43 (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

(out) Well, hippo43, this has been a long, drawn-out discussion. So, many things may easily be missed. One thing that seems to be missed is that those of us who want Moore to stay in the article are not stating that Moore was influenced by Paine. As several other editors have rightly pointed out, there is no reliable verification for this claim. What we are asserting is that Moore's style is much like Paine's style. And as a present-day example of Paine's style found in this particular work, The Age of Reason, one or two small mentions of Moore are not inappropriate. I personally feel that leaving the Moore blurbs out reduces the quality of this Featured Article. One too many edits like this might get it removed from FA status!  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  02:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

So what do the sources say? 'Moore's style resembles Paine's writing'? In which case, put the reference to Moore in the Thomas Paine article. Or 'Moore's style resembles Paine's writing in "The Age of Reason"'? In which case, put it in this article. If the sources on Moore's writing don't mention The Age of Reason specifically, it doesn't seem appropriate to include it here. I don't see how the quality of this article would be maintained by including material that doesn't directly relate to its subject. --hippo43 (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Cquotes and Monroe (no, not Marilyn)

Well apparently someone doesn't see the snazziness of Cquotes like I do. I can't really say anything because they're only supposed to have limited usage. Oh well, some people like to stick to the letter of the law, which is okay until they blanketly undo ALL my edits just to get rid of one questionable edit. I added the little bit of extra info on James Monroe and the citation back in. It's a good article improvement and comes from one I made on the Thomas Paine page awhile back. Before those edits are undone again, please let me know why. I was invited to come to this article and to help improve it. But if all my work's in vain, then the article's ALL yours. P.S. I've transformed a S---load of blockquotes into cquotes, and this is the first time it's been undone. Nobody else seems to care but you, Awadewit. C'mon - doncha think they look spiffy?  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  05:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

"I was invited to come to this article and to help improve it." Yes, that was me. The reason I did it is that this article has a bit of a problem with a WP:OWNER, as you've now discovered. There's also an RfC in progress, which you might care to join. But please stay with us, as I'm sure you can help. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

SamuelTheGhost, are you canvassing people to come to this article and its RFC? Awadewit (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I sent four WP:Canvassing#Friendly notices, suggesting involvement, before the RFC was proposed. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for inviting me, SamuelTheGhost! I think I spent a little time on this article back when I added improvements to the Thomas Paine article. And I'm always glad to help. I'll check in on the RFC when I get a chance.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  15:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Commenting here just to respond to Paine's comment that nobody cares but Awadewit: the manual of style says that cquotes should be restricted to pull quotes. Awadewit's edit summary cited the MoS. I think it was reasonable to remove the cquotes. Mike Christie (talk) 10:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, your edits were not universally undone. I'm sorry that your Monroe edit was accidentally undone at the same time as I reverted the call out quotes - I think that it is a good addition. I was specifically trying to undo the cquotes (someone was systematically adding them, as you can see in the history), which violates the MOS. As a featured article, this article is expected to conform to the MOS. Awadewit (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That's okay, Mike and Awadewit, the Cquotes aren't a big deal. And thank you for the Monroe comment! I shall keep the determination you have to keep this a featured article very close to heart as I continue seeking ways to improve the article.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  15:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to be certain that all minds are set at ease about my love for cquotes, I have begun to remove those that I have altered from other types of quotes in the past. While I still feel that their limited application (to pull quotes) is... unsatisfying, the fact remains that this is Wikipedia policy, and I will abide by it in the future.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  15:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The most obvious compromise, a possible dispute-killer

Let me spell out in detail a proposal that has been made by several editors over the years, but never fully engaged by either side in the Moore debate. It has virtues that should appease (and appeal to) both sides, with few or no real debits. The proposal is this: that the Moore blurb be added, not to the Age of Reason article, but to the Michael Moore article. For the purposes of this discussion, let us use the Paine Ellsworth’s latest version of the blurb: “[T]he American filmmaker and writer Michael Moore's polemical style has been compared to Paine's and he has been called "the new Tom Paine" by the left.[Porton, Stuckey, Andersen]”.

A thought experiment. Now let’s imagine that the blurb has been added to an appropriate place in the Moore article, and ask the following questions.

• Will it be rejected by editors on the grounds that it actually belongs in the Age of Reason article? Very clearly not. Neither the blurb nor its citations refer to The Age of Reason.
• Will it be rejected by editors on the grounds that it is, in context, Original Research? It can’t be. Whereas on the Age of Reason page, the blurb has been placed in a context implying that Moore has been influenced by Paine, which its citations cannot justify, rendering it OR, there is no such false context on the Moore page. The blurb would stand on its own as a true assertion about Moore, correctly cited.
• Will it be rejected as irrelevant to the subject of the page, Michael Moore? Obviously, it cannot be.

Now let’s look at the consequences to the Age of Reason article if the blurb remains absent.

• Will new readers (not previously involved in this controversy) look at the page on Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason and say, “Where is Michael Moore?” “Where are photographs, blurbs, or cited movie reviews about Michael Moore?” “Where are P.J. O’Rourke, Matt Drudge, Louis Lapham, Joe the Plumber and everyone else who has ever been compared with Tom Paine?” Surely this is very unlikely. It is not a natural expectation to see such things in an article on a single Tom Paine work.
• Will new readers be cheated of a comprehensive treatment of Thomas Paine’s style in The Age of Reason? Not at all, it’s still there, with examples from the work.
• Will new readers be denied knowledge of the continuing influence of The Age of Reason. Not all, the point is made, and eloquently.

Overall, then, the Michael Moore article would be improved at no cost to The Age of Reason article. The former would appear to be the blurb's natural home. And there are additional advantages to this compromise:

• The Moore blurb – and the effort that has gone into researching, writing, and refining it – will not be wasted. The information it contains will be available to Wikipedia’s readers, and indeed, probably more of them. (Just a guess, but celebrity being what it is, does anyone really doubt that the Michael Moore article generally gets more readers than an article on only one of Tom Paine’s works?)
• If anyone really was “targeting” the Moore blurb just to reduce Moore’s presence in Wikipedia for unworthy political reasons, that editor will be foiled. Moore’s own article will be augmented and the blurb itself (most likely) seen by more readers than ever.
• The argument ends. Those who have objected to the Moore blurb on the Age of Reason page cannot carry their arguments against it (irrelevancy, undue emphasis, original research) to the Michael Moore page, where they simply do not apply. Nor has any editor expressed an intention to pursue the argument there, while several have expressed the opinion that the blurb belongs there.
• We go forward. Neither side has any reason to rehash their old arguments. The blurb gets placed where it belongs, no one even tries to stop it, we all go on to improve various pages in new ways.

No compromise is so good that everyone will love it without reservation. But this gives something to both sides and leaves them nothing to fight about. I would like to hear the opinions of as many editors as possible. Would this work for you? Mandrakos (talk) 07:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
• We cannot decide what goes into the Moore article. That has to be decided at Talk:Michael Moore. If you would like to add this material to the Moore article, then you should propose it at that talk page and discuss it with the editors of that article. This RfC is supposed to be about The Age of Reason. Awadewit (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
• Opposed. You are to be commended for your effort Mandrakos. It seems to me that a compromise ought to involve this article and this article only. A true compromise, for example, might be for us all to accept the removal of the Moore blurb from the lead, and to accept Awadewit's new well-sourced paragraph in the closing. Copying the Moore blurbs to the Moore article is a good idea, and yet to neglect to restore some mention of Moore to this article can be seen as "majority rules" while failing to gain general agreement, i.e., consensus.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  17:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Very eloquently put. [2]. Jayen466 20:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I was a previously uninvolved editor, having had this page on my watchlist for years for reasons I no longer remember (but unrelated to Michael Moore I'm quite certain). The RfC attracted my attention, so I commented above, having read everything before and now almost everything since. I was one of many who found the mention of Michael Moore jarring and out-of-place. It just didn't seem to have a legitimate connection to this article. It looked, in fact, like such an extreme stretch that I wondered whether Michael Moore supporters had somehow managed to get in a mention where it didn't belong, and I'm quite sure that many neutral readers would see it that way too. Later I read Awadewit's explanation that she struggled to find a way to present Paine in a way that would make sense to her undergraduates, and hit on the Moore comparison. I commend her for the pedagogical device (I've used similar ones), and I wouldn't be at all put off by the comparison were I to hear it in her class. But this is an encyclopedia, and in particular an article about the book The Age of Reason. I could even support a list of people whose styles have been compared to that of Paine that includes Moore and others, if well-sourced. But I would only support inclusion of that list in the Thomas Paine article, not here. -Exucmember (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Back to the beginning?

We are still left with the problem of what to do with The Age of Reason. The question was always whether or not to include to the Moore material in this article. I found more sources and suggested a more detailed version of the paragraph - that failed to achieve consensus. I asked for evidence that there are tons of other examples to use besides Moore, as that was one of the arguments used against the inclusion of Moore. I thought we might find another person we could use instead - a compromise. No examples have been forthcoming, however. Are we, therefore, back to square one? Awadewit (talk) 02:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully, some progress has been made. My understanding is that Michael Moore used to fairly dominate the article. Earlier compromises reduced the claims to two blurbs, one in the lead and one at the closing. As an outsider it's obvious to me that the majority wants Michael Moore completely OUT of the article. That seems okay with everyone as long as a suitable substitute can be found. The problems I see here are that whoever is found and chosen, they will likely be far-left liberals who are just as unpalatable as Moore to someone, and there will always be those who think that any contemporary notable, who has a similar flair of style to Paine's in The Age of Reason, should be removed from this great man's book's page. The other problem is – why go to all the trouble when here we have a suitable contemporary example of Paine's style in his book, an example who is already well-sourced, who was in the article when it achieved FA quality? Awadewit, if you're satisfied by the compromise of accepting the removal of the Moore blurb from the lead and keeping the one in the closing using your suggested paragraph, then this seems to be the way to the future. Those editors who are in the majority on this issue might want to give more thought to my suggestion. Hopefully, they will see it as an acceptable compromise.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  15:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Compromise and consensus are reached by going forward, not by declaring that we are back at square one when we don't get our way. Going forward also requires thinking outside the box, in this case a conceptual box that is easily dispensed with. Again and again, Awadewit, you write as if we Age of Reason editors can only work on this page, while the Michael Moore page has its own dedicated editors who must be approached on bended knee with any proposed addition there. These notions have no basis in Wikipedia theory, practice, or guidelines. We are not the owners of this page, there are no owners of the Michael Moore page, we are all potentially editors of any page, and page ownership is forbidden by Wikipedia guidelines. Deciding whether given information belongs in one article or another is not banned -- it is an essential part of editorship. In this case, this leaves you free to take a blurb that would be O.R. on this page and post it on a prominent and popular page where it is clearly relevant and appropriate. The door is wide open. If you choose not to walk through it and turn your back, one imagines that this attitude toward compromise will be noted if we have to proceed to arbitration.

Paine Ellsworth, progress has been made since Archive 2. The majority's position no longer rests on concepts like jarring irrelevancy or intrusiveness, but on the blurb's status (in the preferred context of its adherents) as Original Research, with which no compromise is permitted. You, and sometimes Awadewit, continue to write as though the blurb establishes Moore as an example of a contemporary writer influenced by Paine's style. The majority recognizes that this is not so, that the current citations only establish that a style comparison has been made, they do not establish that Moore has ever read or been influenced by Paine. (Whereas on the Moore page, presented only on its face value as a comparison made about Moore, the Original Research charge could not and would not be made.) So there is no going back. I might add that there isn't much spirit of compromise in grossly insulting the majority. Your conspiracy theory about Moore being targeted for his politics first appeared as an airy hypothesis under the heading The Age of Reality -- just a rhetorical question, oh, no need to reply or discuss, just food for thought, really. Now it has apparently hardened in your mind to a known fact that the bigoted majority will bar all contemporary "far-left liberals" who might be shown to be influenced by Paine. The charge is not only contemptible, but laughable, since Hitchens, for instance, is also a far-left liberal, indeed an old New Leftist (though slightly apostate on some aspects of Iraq, I believe) who has written a whole book attacking Mother Theresa (!) as a lapdog to right-wing dictators and crooked billionaires. And let me reiterate, give us a citation that shows Moore acknowledging Paine's stylistic influence, whether by way of primary or secondary source -- and the blurb is in. That's not even a compromise, since I have never opposed Moore qua Moore. But I will compromise by adding that while, in the past, I have always thought it preferable that such an exemplar be influenced specifically by The Age of Reason, our article topic, I am willing to drop that requirement. After all, we're talking about an example that would be used in a summary paragraph, at a higher level of abstraction than the body of the text -- a place where the boundaries between the article on this book and the article on this book's author might be thought of as thin and permeable. Provide a real example of a contemporary controversialist whose style can be verified as influenced by Paine (Paine in general), and it would be an addition to the article, just as the Hitchens blurb provides the example of a contemporary controversialist whose ideas and arguments have been influenced by Paine (and in his case The Age of Reason specifically, which is better yet.)

But for crying out loud, step back and get some perspective. Such a contemporary style example will be a nice addition if a properly-sourced example can be found. But its absence is not a gaping hole in the current article through which deadly waters are pouring through, a hole that must be plugged with Original Research if nothing else can be found. We have an excellent and comprehensive section on the style of The Age of Reason. If a contemporary as prominent as Moore, or even a little less prominent, can be shown to be directly influenced by that style, it would be nice to mention it; if no such example can be found, we won't, and that is simply not life-or-death, success-or-failure for the article. It's just the verification requirement in action. In any case, Moore's name is detachable from that style example, and the idea that we have to go back to square one and be at daggers drawn over whether that particular name appears in this particular article just doesn't stand up. The blurb is O.R. in the context proposed, but the way is clear for placing it in a different context. No one can force you to accept the compromise, but it's there, just the same. Perhaps it will look good to an arbitrator, perhaps that's where we're going. But one way or another, we must hope to go forward, not back to square one. Mandrakos (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"Perspective"? To what (or whom's) perspective would you have me "step back", Mandrakos? Here's my perspective. Awadewit's "square one" would seem to be the one you described previously: That of her reverting edits in what you seemed to describe as an edit war since 2007. Hers was only a question, though, was it not? She merely questioned if we were back to square one. From my "perspective" this is a valid question, for it seems that even after ceasing the reverts, even after showing a determined willingness to discuss the issue, and even after showing a willingness to agree to certain compromises, Awadewit still seems to see a brick wall of majority that fails to see, or even consider, her valid points. I shall assume good faith here, for if I were not to do so, I would conclude that the majority has made up its mind and there is no viable compromise to be struck. (As good as I am with a daggar, btw, I never even dream of bringing one to Wikipedia.) So assuming that you and the other editors who have been beset upon by Awadewit's reverts truly do want to go forward, assuming that you truly are willing to compromise, and assuming that you agree that this is all about whether the Moore blurbs should be removed from the article, and not whether they should be restored, then are you willing to consider my suggestion for the compromise of keeping the first Moore blurb out of the lead and not permanently removing the second Moore blurb from the closing? (Please keep in mind that I am not certain as to where Awadewit stands on this particular compromise.)  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  06:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to remove the Moore mention from the lead and retain them in the body only. Awadewit (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If I read the status quo policy correctly, the majority has not "made its case". You sacrificed and compromised when you did not edit the FA material back in before calling the Rfc. If you prefer to make this further compromise to appease the majority, then I shall support you. Hopefully, the majority will hereafter respect and maintain the status quo until consensus is reached and the dispute is settled.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  05:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

While you don’t have to agree that the blurbs are Original Research, it doesn’t seem too much to ask you to understand that if so, two blurbs or one blurb are equally OR -- and that is the case, pace Paine Ellsworth, whether we think of ourselves as deleting the OR blurbs or not restoring them. (If the blurbs both read “Keanu Reeves has an interesting mole on his shoulder,” would removing one of them make the remaining one appropriate?) I have outlined a genuine compromise open to you, another page where the blurb would not be OR, and have knocked down the false arguments why we can only address the blurb in terms of this article. You both continue to avert your eyes from this genuine compromise. So be it, future readers will note the fact. But meanwhile, starting an edit war to reset the status quo ante RFC, if that is indeed what Paine Ellsworth wants Awadewit to do (hard to tell), seems pointless -- given a clear majority who can revert, one by one, without even having to repeat themselves -- and it’s hard to see how it could pass for the truer spirit of compromise, either. Mandrakos (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing OR about them - the statements in the article accurately represent the article. Please stop these spurious accusations. Awadewit (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"the statements in the article accurately represent the article." I have no idea what that means. In any event, the citations on the blurb do not back up the idea that Moore was influenced by Paine, so contending that he was so influenced is still O.R. Mandrakos (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The statements that we have been discussing putting in the article accurately reflect the sources. See this source, for example: 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 - I'm not going to list all of the sources again (see above). Awadewit (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Nor will I repeat my arguments that a style comparison is no proof of influence. They can be found elsewhere on this talk page, and obviously, I still stand behind them. Mandrakos (talk) 07:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be indeed a very serious prediction you make, Mandrakos. I have never, and never will, advocate any kind of edit war. If Awadewit decides to reinclude one or both Michael Moore blurbs back into The Age of Reason, it is only the Wikipedia:Defend_the_status_quo that will be invoked. Future readers will note that this is a good edit for a Featured Article. Any serious editing of a Featured Article should always be closely scrutinized. The Moore blurbs should never have been removed before a consensus was achieved or the dispute was settled. The last time I looked, a consensus had not been achieved, nor has the dispute been settled. It's really as simple as that, Mandrakos.

So now some serious questions must be asked and considered: If the majority were to launch a One-by-One reverting action as you describe, WHO would really be responsible for this edit battle? (I do not call it an "edit war" because it is evident that this would be a battle within the war that began in 2007.)

• Would it be the editor who adhered to Wikipedia policy and tried to keep the Featured Article intact? OR...
• Would it be the editors who delete the blurbs without having first reached consensus or dispute settlement?

I'm sure you and the entire majority of editors must see this as a separate issue. Awadewit is merely defending the Featured Article from being changed. Rather than to begin another edit battle, maybe you and all involved editors would be wise to consider the established Wikipedia procedure for dispute settlement? You shouldn't be overly concerned about this, because Awadewit and other editors who think the blurbs should remain in the article might win the settlement, however they might lose as well. The great part is that whichever side of the dispute prevails, the Featured Article almost always wins!  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  21:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's just common sense that if we go back to where we were at the top of the current talk page, SamuelTheGhost being the latest in a long line of editors who have deleted or advocated deleting the blurb, and if Awadewit took your advice and reinstated it on any grounds, it would get deleted again by one of the majority for the excellent reasons given on this page. It's odd. You seem to understand that the whole history of this article can be seen as an edit war going back to the first introduction of this blurb in 2007. (And that's true -- the one running theme of the archives is that new editors keep running into that blurb, being appalled by it, and trying to remove it. A dispute that began before FA status, by the way, never resolved.) Yet you don't see that urging Awadewit into another iteration would just continue that edit war. Oh well, Awadewit appears to be too sensible to take that advice anyway. Mandrakos (talk) 07:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• • PS. It appears that editor Mattisse (Talk) has recent arbitration experience. It may pay to seek her counsel. It is my sincere hope that Matisse continues with us, for I seriously doubt that a better Wikipedia editor can be found among us.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  22:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

( ** (ec) My remarks here were considered WP:WIKIHOUNDING of User:Awadewit in the Arbitration which is ongoing at this time, although I did not know the article belonged to her at the time of my comments. As a consequentce, I feel unable to express my opinion now. Otherwise, I continue to be interested in the concerns raised. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've always favored the "forgive and forget" diddy found in Wikipedia:Etiquette. When all is said and done, we all want the same thing: A better encyclopedia!  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  23:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how that applies to my situation before Arbitration. Is that the Arbitration Committee's view? I am in fear that it is not. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Request that the RfC be closed

I request that this RfC be closed. We are not coming to any agreement, unfortunately, and I the intensity of the debate seems to be rising, rather than decreasing. The article currently does not mention Michael Moore, so the "opposing side" should have no problem with leaving the article as it is. Awadewit (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Support, so long as Moore blurb stays out. Since the RfC has been trending toward keeping the Moore blurb out anyway, if Awadewit as chief proponent for the other side is willing to let it stay out, I personally would have no objection to closing the RfC. That looks like the best solution for the page and the community, and Awadewit is to be commended for making it. Mandrakos (talk) 07:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You see, this is the issue everybody seems to be avoiding/ignoring. An editor adds/removes material to/from a Featured Article. Another editor reverts. At this very point a discussion ought to ensue. Status quo should be maintained and the second editor's revert should not be reversed until consensus is reached or the dispute is formally settled. This is how to keep a Featured Article a Featured Article. Isn't it?

From the interesting way in which you have all explained the situation to me, WP:Defend the status quo was not followed from the beginning. The blurbs ought to go back into the article in order to comply with Wikipedia policy. This is a separate issue, above and beyond Moore's being appropriate. This is policy. This is a policy that applies to all Wikipedia articles, and especially to Featured Articles. To continue to allow this policy to be violated seriously weakens the argument to keep the blurbs in. Yes, the majority won't have a problem with it, of course. But is this the way one should treat a Featured Article?  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  15:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• PS. Let me be clear about this: The only things that matter are (1) whether policy is being followed, and (2) whether or not a consensus has been reached or a formal dispute has been settled. Policy is not being followed, and I am unclear at this point as to Awadewit's meaning in her statement above. It is pretty clear that Awadewit feels that agreement has not been reached; however, it is not clear as to future intent. If a consensus has been reached, if Awadewit has decided to reservedly agree that the blurbs will stay out of the article, then you have a consensus. This, of course, would be a good lesson to us all, because it means that the main issue, that of Moore's blurbs being appropriate could have been settled two years ago if policy had been followed. If, on the other hand, Awadewit intends to pursue other avenues, then it is vital to the process that policy be followed and the blurbs be reinstalled until those avenues are completed!

The essay to which PE refers is actually called Wikipedia:Defending article quality. He repeatedly refers to it as "policy", which it isn't. It clearly identifies itself with "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors." Nevertheless it is an reasonable essay. It recommends "further editing should be subjected to greater scrutiny" - which it certainly has been in this case. Similarly it suggests "examining new edits with a critical eye", and we most assuredly have. It makes clear, however, that "no one is advocating that edits to featured articles be reverted, or that featured articles be protected", so it would be a source of relief if PE could stop doing just that. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Not being an expert in semantics, I don't feel qualified to express my view regarding your statement that WP:Daq isn't "policy". The fact remains that it has not been being followed. The "greater scrutiny" may not yet be completed. The "examining new edits with a critical eye" has certainly been accomplished over and over again by Awadewit. In any case I shall happily be silent from this moment on unless asked a question, or unless the process of resolution is not yet completely over. I shall take a "We shall see" stance.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  16:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict with StG and Paine E) Featured articles are not sacred; they are usually of very high quality, but just because something was in the featured version is not a reason for it to stay in. I think it is fair to say that if you know some information was in the featured version then you should assume there was some discussion and that there were good reasons to add it to the article; this doesn't prevent further improvements to the article, however, which may include deleting material. Consensus can change. I am not certain the article is better off without the comments about Moore, but am not familiar enough with either Paine or the sources to express an opinion in the RfC. I think it is appropriate to have something in this article about the influence the work has had, and that there's no reason not to mention current inheritors of Paine's position, if that can be well-sourced. I don't think it does any harm to leave the article as it stands now, and if further editors should join the conversation or more sources come to light, then the article can be modified again. (Post edit conflict) I agree with Samuel; the cited essay is not policy. Paine, there is a difference on Wikipedia between policy and guidelines; guidelines have less force. Mike Christie (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

My inexperience shows brightly then. Thank you for this clarification, Mike, and I "check" to the higher bidders (more seasoned editors).  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  02:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Support, with Michael Moore material left out. I also commend Awadewit on proposing closure of this RfC. I was a previously uninvolved editor before this RfC started, and I have read the entire discussion since it began. The more I hear, the more convinced I become that this article is not the appropriate place for mentioning Michael Moore, especially given the lack of any source with which to make a compelling case for an assertion (or implied assertion) that The Age of Reason was a significant influence on him. There are of course other ways to try to keep Moore in the article, but none of them seem like they are backed by convincing reasons to have Moore in this article as opposed to some other, more appropriate article. -Exucmember (talk) 08:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)