Talk:Common Sense/Archive 1

Archive 1

If anyone has a more original or more reputable source than John Taylor Gatto, I'd welcome an edit. :) Gatto is unfortunately a bit of a conspiracy nut. Unfortunately I can't find where he got his statistics.

---

for some reason the wikisource link at the bottom of the page is pointing to an incorrect address. It's saying the link is http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Common_Sense_%28Book%29 when in reality it's actually posted as http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Common_Sense in wikisource AdamG 20:41 22 Sept 2005 igzat@earthlink.net

---

some one added a lot of garbage text (such as "yo momma" ) i think it should be changed back two steps.

This really needs more information on the repurcussions of Common Sense... --aciel 02:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Abuse

I think someone should seriously lock this page because there has been a lot of trash in it. Leave the talk page open for suggestions, though.

Can someone check this?

An anonymous user (IP 75.80.21.223) added to the list of arguments made in Common Sense, but it wasn't worded very well. I haven't actually read the book, though I have read about it. I commented what he added out, so someone can see where he was going. Mithras6 19:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Done.Wikidudeman 20:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Diagram

I have uploaded a diagram representing the constitution of the United States as proposed by Thomas Paine in Common Sense. I request comments here in the hope of improving it before it is included in the article.

Constitution of the United States as proposed by Thomas Paine in Common Sense

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mathieugp (talk • contribs) 03:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

You are right software friend HagermanBot, I forgot to sign! -- Mathieugp 04:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

religion and common sense

"Common Sense used many Biblical references to support its assertions, playing to the strong influence of religion in Colonial America."

i don't think this article makes it clear why a pamphlet, such as common sense, was written using biblical imagery, other than eluding to religious influence in the colonies. while religion in colonial america isn't the topic of this article, i think it would be helpful if it were linked to such an article.

in my imaginary 'religion and colonial america' article, or some mash up between that article and common sense, i think an explanation of how rare books were in colonial households, ubiquity of the bible, and free-form style churches of the time, made associations with bible stories an easy way to convey messages.

gba 20:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Number of copies sold

I removed Common Sense was tremendously popular. Thomas Paine's pamphlet sold as many as 600,000 copies to a population of 3,000,000 (one for every five people) which would be equivalent to 60,000,000 copies sold in present day America." It should be noted that it was also a hit overseas in Europe. Not EVERY ONE of the purpoted 600,000 copies was sold in America.Dafhgadsrhadjtb 23:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Two comments. What were the literacy rates in 1776. This makes a difference as to whether tremendously popular matters. Also, is there a source on not every one of the copies being sold in America?(Rustydangerfield (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

You make a very good point, Rusty..., about the literacy of the populace back then. It should be remembered that it was not only those who purchased the pamphlet, but also those who couldn't read and had the words of Common Sense read to them! It is impossible to measure the complete extent of the pamphlet's quantitative effect; however, its qualitative effect is easily measured by the very fact that the United States of America exists. Before this little pamphlet, almost everybody was "on the fence" about independence from tyranny. After reading (or hearing) the words of Thomas Paine in Common Sense, there were very few "fence sitters". Those few words led to the polarization of the colonial populace; you either sided with the Crown, or you sided with the American patriots.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  07:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

A sentence from the text that is not mentioned in this article

"There are thousands and ten of thousands, who would think it glorious to expel from the Continent, that barbarous and hellish power, which hath stirred up the Indians and the Negroes to destroy us; the cruelty hath a double guit, it is dealing brutally by us, and treacherously by them."

This argument is mentioned in the article, and it seems a very significant aspect of the text, though I am not entirely sure what it is referring to. I imagine there is a relation between this and the Proclamation 1763, but, aside from that, I don't know quite how to read it, though it comes off to me as pretty racist.

Could someone more knowledgable please help with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.251.228 (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Paine is referring to Dunmore's Proclamation, in which the governor of Virginia sought to enlist black slaves to put down the American Revolution, as well as the feared British plans to encourage American Indians to attack colonists on the frontier. Paine thought it was cruel of the British to stir up a race war. Later in 1776, this charge was repeated in the Declaration of Independence: "He has excited domestic insurrections [i.e. slave revolts] amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions." —Kevin Myers 03:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Quotation Drift

Why are the quotes written in American English?

E.g.: "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom."

The original document uses the spelling "defence". Tom Paine did not speak or write what is commonly regarded as American-English.

This is not simple pedantry; the point is credibility - if an American contributor is happy to alter Tom Paine's spelling to American-English to suit their own prejudices; then what else of the content are they happy to alter?!

A quote is a quote isn't it? You present what someone wrote exactly as they wrote it? Not as you would like them to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When_quoting_someone Nor is it any good saying you're quoting a book about the article topic: the article is about the topic; not the book you got your info from.

[User:MacDaddy]87.112.227.37 (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree - but googling, I see both spellings. One would be the "original" version according to where it was printed, but either way, you need a reliable source. My issue with most of the quotations is that (a) they're cut/pasted from some unspecified source, (b) provide (usually) no reference to the original document in which they were found, and (c) can usually be deleted without affecting the discussion in the topic Tedickey (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Plain Truth

Isn't "Plain Truth" actually a response to "Common Sense" rather than an alternative title for Paine's pamphlet. It was written by Thomas Chalmers. It counters the arguments made by Thomas Paine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.156.139.205 (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is both. "Plain Truth" was Paine's original working title for the pamphlet and "Common Sense" was later suggested by Benjamin Rush. Chalmers later responded with a pamphlet named "Plain Truth." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adiloren (talk • contribs) 09:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Mixed state

Topic asserts that

Paine also attacks what he calls the "mixed state

. However, the text of Common Sense does not include the term. Perhaps editor meant to paraphrase. A reliable source is needed. Tedickey (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Dodgy quote

I have repaired the text at the second bullet under section Quotations to the text as reproduced at the article's second external link, diff here. --CliffC (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

provide link to free Common Sense audio narration?

I'd like to suggest a link to the audio narration of Common Sense at Americana Phonic. I did the narration, and suggest it not as an act of self-promotion, but rather as an important resource for those interested in the pamphlet. All of the audio at Americana Phonic is free. AmericanaPhonic (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

3/5

There is a 3/5 near the end of the article that doesn't look very good. I don't know how to fix it, but someone probably does! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.249.52 (talk) 04:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Kotniski (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Common Sense (pamphlet) → Common Sense — Redirect/article flip-flop; bestselling pamphlet should have a shorter name Purplebackpack89 20:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose This has been stable for 5 years at its current location. The redirect should target Common sense (disambiguation) or Common sense. 65.94.46.54 (talk) 05:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• To many people, Common Sense day-to-day first means commonsense, and not the pamphlet. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose and retarget Common Sense to common sense. Powers ^T 15:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

So what you are saying is? I heartily disagree. Common Sense is one of the most widely read and influential publications in the History of the United States (I believe it was the most read non-religious work in the history of the world at one point), not an abstract concept that is widely open to interpretation Purplebackpack89 21:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

So? What we're saying is that "Common Sense" is not different enough from "Common sense", lexically, to serve as adequate disambiguation. That is, that most people looking for "Common Sense" are looking for common sense, not this article. Powers ^T 22:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with the opinions already stated, that Common Sense ought to redirect to Common sense. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRECISION. Common Sense is not the same as common sense. Many article titles on WP differ only by capitalization. Each topic can be at its respective 'best' title without conflict between the two. Anyone taking the trouble to type "Common Sense" with a capital "S" in the search box, or linking to it, is most likely expecting an article about the famous essay, and for those few who are not, a hatnote points them to the correct article. Even if there were a conflict, "common sense" is not the primary topic. In case this page is not moved, I oppose changing the redirect, which has numerous incoming links intending the pamphlet. Station1 (talk) 08:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think that most people are going to be looking for the pamphlet when they go looking for common sense. Common sense tells me they will more likely be looking for something else (bad joke I know I couldn't resist) and I don't think we should be ambiguous about this by a minor capitalization change to support the meaning of 2 completely different things. --Kumioko (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Most circulated"

Who can verify that fact in the introduction? It isn't cited... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zfrenchee (talk • contribs) 20:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

google finds lots of not-very-good sources. The introduction to the Kramnick book linked at the bottom gives some contemporary qualitative comments, but for a quantitative statement we'd need a genuine historian TEDickey (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

More detail

This page really needs more detail about what Common Sense says and what it brought about. IE: Its purpose, its main points, the public reaction, opinions of the public and other intellectual figures, and the general reprecussions. I'm doing an essay on it at the moment, so I don't have the time. But when I'm done I try and add a bit more detail, if I'm feeling competent enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.69.239 (talk) 09:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. My first impression when I read this article was that there was no section devoted to the pamphlet's impact. 71.250.49.208 (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Scott from New Jersey, 1/9/2011

 Done – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  21:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

On: "Common Sense was signed "Written by an Englishman", and it became an immediate success"

Paine's first editor Robert Bell added “written by an Englishman” to the second edition, without the consent of Paine. The first edition was not signed with "written by an Englishman". (cf.Aldridge, Alfred O. Thomas Paine's American Ideology. Newark, Del.: U of Delaware P, 1984.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.93.93.228 (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Checked, confirmed and  included in the first section. Thank you! – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX! 12:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Impact

Where does this come from: "The impact of Paine's thin little pamphlet upon ... the other Founding Fathers and their construction of the Declaration of Independence ... was quickly spread and deeply felt"? This is not cited and no arguments are put forward in favour of this interpretation. Beyond that the sentence reads more like a personal essay than an encylcopedic entry. 82.148.70.130 (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input! I placed that summary comment in the section, and I think there are plenty of arguments put forward in favor of this interpretation. It (apparently unsuccessfully) tries to effectively summarize the tremendous impact of Paine's pamphlet. Maybe you had to be there? I'll give it more thought and attempt to improve it, or of course you might also do the same. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 14:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Use of "elites" in historical context

The sentence "European and colonial elites agreed that common people had no place in government or political debates" contains a modern, potentially biased use of the term elites that project current political ideas onto a historical period. At a minimum the use of the term should be corrected: "The elite of Europe and the Colonies agreed that..." However this remains a sweeping statement with problematic neutrality. Would aristocracy, nobility or establishment not be preferable?

Sean.Harris (talk) 11:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

"elite" works well; it's use in this sense is 200 years old says OED. There was no aristocracy or nobility in the American colonies. "elite" has the advantage it includes the landed gentry & other leaders like ministers. "establishment" is a term from the 1950s in britain. It's a common usage: eg: "During the ten years that followed [1765], the American colonial elites resisted these and other impositions by London. " from Elite Foundations of Liberal Democracy (2006) Page 111; and "The Whig position, on the other hand, was represented by the American colonial elites, who, seeking to preserve and ... position with arguments about the need for a government balanced with monarchic, aristocratic, and democratic elements, ...." from Out of Many: A History of the American People (1999) - Page 183. Rjensen (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2016

Ekadera (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Please refer to House Resolution 331 in 1988. Go to www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/hconres331.pdf. It gives the Iroquois Confederacy recognition for the contribution it made to both our Constitution and to our structure of government. You can also reference the National Museum of the American Indian at the Smithsonian, www.nmai.si.edu, for further information. You can reference Fordham University for The Constitution of the Five Nations and a brief discussion of its impact on our Constitution and our Bill of Rights: www.legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/iroquois.asp. There also is Forgotten Founders: How the American Indian Helped Shape Democracy, a book by Bruce Johnsen (Harvard Common Press 1982) There is Indian Givers: How the Indians of the Americas Transformed the World by Jack Weatherford (Fawcett 1988). Weatherford has a nice bibliography for chapters 7 and 8, which deal largely with the Iroquois Confederacy's contributions. A passage on page 125, from Indian Givers, on Thomas Paine is interesting: "The greatest political radical to follow the example of the Indians was probably Thomas Paine (1737-1809), the English Quaker and former craftsman who arrived in Philadelphia to visit Benjamin Franklin just in time for Christmas in 1774...Arriving in America he developed a sharp interest in the Indians, who seemed to be living in the natural state so alien to the urban and supposedly civilized life he encountered around himself. When the American Revolution started, Paine served as secretary to the commissioners sent to negotiate with the Iroquois at the town of Easton near Philadelphia on the Delaware River in January 1977 [Johansen, p.116]. Through this and subsequent encounters with the Indians, Paine sought to learn their language, and throughout the remainder of his political and writing career he used Indians as models of how society might be organized."

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)