This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Archive of discussions for all discussions from September 2004 through May 2013. Note: discusssions may be refactored.
SO, what is this all about? So far it doesn't make on cents worth of cents! User:66.82.9.36 15:47, 20 September 2004
It would be nice if this article would go into more detail about the causes of the First Great Awakening. Does anyone know if John Edward's speeches were the actual cause of the First Great Awakening, or were they just markers for its beginning? User:65.11.67.201 19:28, 25 October 2004
1) The article seems to imply that the issue at stake in the FGA was heart-vs.-head. That's not really accurate. If you look at Edwards' writings (e.g., http://www.ccel.org/e/edwards/affections/religious_affections.html), the controversy surrounding the FGA had to do with outward expressions of religious belief: Are testimonies, ecstatic utterances, etc. a proof of genuine religion (New Lights) or a proof of *lack* of genuine religion (Old Lights)? This is important for accuracy reasons AND for NPOV reasons. Many want to argue that the FGA was a rebellion against rational thought ... but Edwards was nothing if not well-reasoned.
2) In a similar vein, the "Sinners in the Hands..." reference needs to be highly qualified. First, it was highly atypical of Edwards' sermons in its negative tone. Second, it came after the FGA was underway (1741). Thus, the connection with "reawakening the fear of God" in the article is misplaced -- Edwards was seeking to reawaken a love for Christ (which is the tenor of most of his sermons).
3) The article needs a timeline of events.
4) I've added a link to the Religious Affections article and to Whitfield's sermons.
-- jrcagle 17:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
What we mean to say is Puritans, right? 128.186.118.106 15:18, 18 October 2005
The Puritans and Pilgrims are two seperate groups. User:68.37.229.165 16:45, 28 October 2006
I've read that Jonathan Edwards had a high-pitched voice and read all his sermons from a candlelight in an extremely non-flamboyant manner. Whatever "power" there was i his sermons must not have been from his eloquence or rethoric. Whitefield on the other hand was a very powerful speaker, but many times he had to repeat himself in three directions just to be heard by the great crowds, to whom he preached outdoors. Comments?-- itpastorn 10:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Why is Rjensen deleting the Generations table? It is relevant to the generations of the U.S. and those born during that time period. If you cannot give me a better reason as to why it shouldn't be included then I believe it should be added. Piecraft 04:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it really is a sermon by Jonathan Edwards - could someone please check? Maybe it was meant to be "The City upon a Hill", but that is not his either, and from a different epoch altogether. Jasiok 12:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that was quick - a few minutes after this post someone has removed the false reference - that is really amazing! Jasiok 12:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
yeah I was wondering where I could go to find the sim/diff between the great awakening and the elightenment User:70.62.46.218 09:21, 18 September 2006
Hi, just a quick note to ask if anyone else has a problem with this specific article page, with regards to the fact that a number of linked works, using the double-square-bracket wiki linking seem to be lacking the space between the link work and the following word. Am I going insane? Is anyone else seeing that?
It seems to only apply to that specific page (well, the article's page, not this page), and it seems to consistant across browers and machines, for me. I can edit the page and "fix" it, but only by adding extraneous spaces in weird places, so I thought I'd mention it here first. Dragonbeast 20:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Could someone expand the part about the American Revolution? Surely, it's important. Plus, the blurb about the Revolution reads like a loose string as is. It needs to be fleshed out, or excised. Jack 04:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
This article imples that Edwards was somehow the magical creator of the Great Awakening. You need to realize that small revivals were a common occurance in 18th century New England - Edwards presided over his own, as did his father. The Great Awakening didn't pick up steam until Whitefield toured - it was THIS that made the GA important. It made revivalism intercolonial/international, and it wasn't until Whitefield toured that the cleavage between New Lights and Old Lights even appeared. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.180.242.96 ( talk) 04:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
Pilgrims and Puritans were both Calvinists and congregationalists. Their difference was how they viewed their place in religion - as separatists (former) or reformers (latter). User:128.180.242.96 00:31, 21 April 2007
I'm just a wandering lurker here, but there seems to be a POV issue in the article. It describes its subject in fairly glowing terms, most egregiously in sentences like "Participants became passionately and emotionally involved in their religion, rather than passively listening to intellectual discourse in a detached manner." Aside from the obvious value judgements here, it implies things about the religion of the era and of the nature of intellectual discourse that I somehow suspect are drawn from highly selective impressions. It seems to me that such sentences ought to be prefixed by "Supporters of the movement felt that...." followed by another sentence to the effect that "Critics, however, felt....." Etc and so forth. User:69.151.153.141 01:11, 31 May 2007
Certainly there needs to be a "Debate" section on this article, but I have radically altered the one that was there. First, the term "debate" suggests that there are at least two points of view, but the section before amendment flatly stated that the debate had been settled—that scholars no longer support the idea of a "Great Awakening." The substantiation for this? A footnote to Frank Lambert. With all due props to Dr. Lambert, he does not speak for all scholars. I have rewritten the section to reflect a more neutral point of view, I hope.
Before editing, the section listed in opposition to Frank Lambert solely President George W. Bush—ostensibly a debate between rational scholars like Frank Lambert on one side and politicians or blinded religious zealots on the other. IMHO, the inclusion of President Bush introduces more heat than light into the discussion. I have removed that material.
I have tried to strengthen the footnotes in this section as well. revbart 14:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
In the last paragraph of the section on George Whitefield, there is the sentence
I am stupid because I only do Copy Paste
. After reading this article, I came across another article in which part of the text indeed reminded me a lot of the section in question, but unfortunately I haven't been able to find it again. Via text search, I found that the phrase
did not subscribe to Whitefield’s theology, but he admired Whitefield for exhorting people to worship God through good works
immediately after that comment really appears in the section "Virtue, religion, and personal beliefs" in the article on Benjamin Franklin.
80.145.13.109 ( talk) 17:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
There is no significant evidence (beyond a brief mention cited to Ahlstrom) presented here that this event took place in non-English-speaking countries. This means the asserted scope of the event (the Atlantic World) is incorrect unless evidence is presented that it also had effects in "Atlantic" places like (Catholic) Spain, France, Portugal, and (Protestant) the Netherlands. Ahlstrom seems to suggest other parts of Protestant Europe experienced some of this revival (giving it an "international" scope), but that is not necessarily "Atlantic", and it's not documented here. I've accordingly reduced the scope described to reflect this. Magic ♪piano 13:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I think it should be made clear in articles about the First and Second Great Awakenings that these are American terms for North American phenomena. I have never come across them in the writings of European historians dealing with Europe. No doubt American scholars can find parallels between what was happening on both sides of the Atlantic in terms of evangelical revivals, but there's a danger here of rewriting European history by using American terminology that had no currency in Europe until the advent of Wikipedia! I lack specialist knowledge but am inclined to agree with the judgement that the terms are "vague and exaggerated", certainly as far as Europe is concerned. Kim Traynor 11:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not qualified to comment on content, but the Whitefield text is awkward and needs revision: the fourth sentence is a better-written restatement of the first, and the use of "probably" in the first sentence is inauthoritative. Halfway through, the paragraph shifts to talk about Edwards instead of Whitefield. The paragraph could also use a reference to the assertions of Whitefield's centrality. 207.231.93.109 ( talk) 17:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Archive of discussions for all discussions from September 2004 through May 2013. Note: discusssions may be refactored.
SO, what is this all about? So far it doesn't make on cents worth of cents! User:66.82.9.36 15:47, 20 September 2004
It would be nice if this article would go into more detail about the causes of the First Great Awakening. Does anyone know if John Edward's speeches were the actual cause of the First Great Awakening, or were they just markers for its beginning? User:65.11.67.201 19:28, 25 October 2004
1) The article seems to imply that the issue at stake in the FGA was heart-vs.-head. That's not really accurate. If you look at Edwards' writings (e.g., http://www.ccel.org/e/edwards/affections/religious_affections.html), the controversy surrounding the FGA had to do with outward expressions of religious belief: Are testimonies, ecstatic utterances, etc. a proof of genuine religion (New Lights) or a proof of *lack* of genuine religion (Old Lights)? This is important for accuracy reasons AND for NPOV reasons. Many want to argue that the FGA was a rebellion against rational thought ... but Edwards was nothing if not well-reasoned.
2) In a similar vein, the "Sinners in the Hands..." reference needs to be highly qualified. First, it was highly atypical of Edwards' sermons in its negative tone. Second, it came after the FGA was underway (1741). Thus, the connection with "reawakening the fear of God" in the article is misplaced -- Edwards was seeking to reawaken a love for Christ (which is the tenor of most of his sermons).
3) The article needs a timeline of events.
4) I've added a link to the Religious Affections article and to Whitfield's sermons.
-- jrcagle 17:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
What we mean to say is Puritans, right? 128.186.118.106 15:18, 18 October 2005
The Puritans and Pilgrims are two seperate groups. User:68.37.229.165 16:45, 28 October 2006
I've read that Jonathan Edwards had a high-pitched voice and read all his sermons from a candlelight in an extremely non-flamboyant manner. Whatever "power" there was i his sermons must not have been from his eloquence or rethoric. Whitefield on the other hand was a very powerful speaker, but many times he had to repeat himself in three directions just to be heard by the great crowds, to whom he preached outdoors. Comments?-- itpastorn 10:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Why is Rjensen deleting the Generations table? It is relevant to the generations of the U.S. and those born during that time period. If you cannot give me a better reason as to why it shouldn't be included then I believe it should be added. Piecraft 04:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it really is a sermon by Jonathan Edwards - could someone please check? Maybe it was meant to be "The City upon a Hill", but that is not his either, and from a different epoch altogether. Jasiok 12:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that was quick - a few minutes after this post someone has removed the false reference - that is really amazing! Jasiok 12:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
yeah I was wondering where I could go to find the sim/diff between the great awakening and the elightenment User:70.62.46.218 09:21, 18 September 2006
Hi, just a quick note to ask if anyone else has a problem with this specific article page, with regards to the fact that a number of linked works, using the double-square-bracket wiki linking seem to be lacking the space between the link work and the following word. Am I going insane? Is anyone else seeing that?
It seems to only apply to that specific page (well, the article's page, not this page), and it seems to consistant across browers and machines, for me. I can edit the page and "fix" it, but only by adding extraneous spaces in weird places, so I thought I'd mention it here first. Dragonbeast 20:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Could someone expand the part about the American Revolution? Surely, it's important. Plus, the blurb about the Revolution reads like a loose string as is. It needs to be fleshed out, or excised. Jack 04:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
This article imples that Edwards was somehow the magical creator of the Great Awakening. You need to realize that small revivals were a common occurance in 18th century New England - Edwards presided over his own, as did his father. The Great Awakening didn't pick up steam until Whitefield toured - it was THIS that made the GA important. It made revivalism intercolonial/international, and it wasn't until Whitefield toured that the cleavage between New Lights and Old Lights even appeared. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.180.242.96 ( talk) 04:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
Pilgrims and Puritans were both Calvinists and congregationalists. Their difference was how they viewed their place in religion - as separatists (former) or reformers (latter). User:128.180.242.96 00:31, 21 April 2007
I'm just a wandering lurker here, but there seems to be a POV issue in the article. It describes its subject in fairly glowing terms, most egregiously in sentences like "Participants became passionately and emotionally involved in their religion, rather than passively listening to intellectual discourse in a detached manner." Aside from the obvious value judgements here, it implies things about the religion of the era and of the nature of intellectual discourse that I somehow suspect are drawn from highly selective impressions. It seems to me that such sentences ought to be prefixed by "Supporters of the movement felt that...." followed by another sentence to the effect that "Critics, however, felt....." Etc and so forth. User:69.151.153.141 01:11, 31 May 2007
Certainly there needs to be a "Debate" section on this article, but I have radically altered the one that was there. First, the term "debate" suggests that there are at least two points of view, but the section before amendment flatly stated that the debate had been settled—that scholars no longer support the idea of a "Great Awakening." The substantiation for this? A footnote to Frank Lambert. With all due props to Dr. Lambert, he does not speak for all scholars. I have rewritten the section to reflect a more neutral point of view, I hope.
Before editing, the section listed in opposition to Frank Lambert solely President George W. Bush—ostensibly a debate between rational scholars like Frank Lambert on one side and politicians or blinded religious zealots on the other. IMHO, the inclusion of President Bush introduces more heat than light into the discussion. I have removed that material.
I have tried to strengthen the footnotes in this section as well. revbart 14:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
In the last paragraph of the section on George Whitefield, there is the sentence
I am stupid because I only do Copy Paste
. After reading this article, I came across another article in which part of the text indeed reminded me a lot of the section in question, but unfortunately I haven't been able to find it again. Via text search, I found that the phrase
did not subscribe to Whitefield’s theology, but he admired Whitefield for exhorting people to worship God through good works
immediately after that comment really appears in the section "Virtue, religion, and personal beliefs" in the article on Benjamin Franklin.
80.145.13.109 ( talk) 17:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
There is no significant evidence (beyond a brief mention cited to Ahlstrom) presented here that this event took place in non-English-speaking countries. This means the asserted scope of the event (the Atlantic World) is incorrect unless evidence is presented that it also had effects in "Atlantic" places like (Catholic) Spain, France, Portugal, and (Protestant) the Netherlands. Ahlstrom seems to suggest other parts of Protestant Europe experienced some of this revival (giving it an "international" scope), but that is not necessarily "Atlantic", and it's not documented here. I've accordingly reduced the scope described to reflect this. Magic ♪piano 13:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I think it should be made clear in articles about the First and Second Great Awakenings that these are American terms for North American phenomena. I have never come across them in the writings of European historians dealing with Europe. No doubt American scholars can find parallels between what was happening on both sides of the Atlantic in terms of evangelical revivals, but there's a danger here of rewriting European history by using American terminology that had no currency in Europe until the advent of Wikipedia! I lack specialist knowledge but am inclined to agree with the judgement that the terms are "vague and exaggerated", certainly as far as Europe is concerned. Kim Traynor 11:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not qualified to comment on content, but the Whitefield text is awkward and needs revision: the fourth sentence is a better-written restatement of the first, and the use of "probably" in the first sentence is inauthoritative. Halfway through, the paragraph shifts to talk about Edwards instead of Whitefield. The paragraph could also use a reference to the assertions of Whitefield's centrality. 207.231.93.109 ( talk) 17:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |