Talk:Free and Candid Disquisitions

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 12:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the only proposal from the 1749 book Free and Candid Disquisitions which was implemented by the Church of England was a prayer "for the ceasing of the distemper" of cattle? Source: Cuming, G. J. (1969). A History of Anglican Liturgy (1st ed.). London: St. Martin's Press, Macmillan Publishers. p. 177.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Sleep (painting)

Created by Pbritti (talk). Self-nominated at 22:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Free and Candid Disquisitions; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• New, within time-frame, long enough, remarkably well-written, impeccably cited, and with a hook that is not just interesting but downright hilarious in a deadpan way. I would suggest using an image to make this the leading hook. Info is cited (AGF on the book source), QPQ done. No plagiarism detected. Dahn (talk) 10:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Free and Candid Disquisitions/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Fritzmann2002 (talk · contribs) 16:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Review by Fritzmann

Hello Pbritti, I'll take this review. Just read the DYK hook and got a chuckle out of that, so I am looking forward to reading the full article! If a bullet point requires response/action, it would be great if you could reply to each one directly and in-line; that just makes it easier to see what still needs to be done. Thanks!

• Link "Anglican" in the first sentence? Rephrased that sentence. ~ 18:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Is there a simpler way to say "abortive effort"?  Done ~ 18:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• I think the lead's structure is generally strong, but if anything it could stand to be longer. There are several phrases that are rather impermeable to a lay reading (ex. "advocacy of private revisions") that might benefit from a few more words of explanation or simplification, even if that lengthens the lead. Partially rewritten and expanded. ~ 18:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• "The 1689 Liturgy of Comprehension was rejected by Convocation by their disinterest in discussing it over the fate of the nonjurors." I may still be waking up, but I'm having trouble making heads or tails of this sentence. Who does "their" refer to, and who are the "nonjurors"?
• "As Dissenters' enjoyed..." I don't think this should be possessive  Done ~ 18:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• "who felt its concessions were too great and (could) be used to..."  Done ~ 21:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• "many of whom were contemporaries with him" perhaps "many of whom were his contemporaries"  Done ~ 03:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• "and anything not permitted by the Bible" Is this Jones' verbiage? Or are there other examples that he uses that are just summed up in this phrase? This is not Jones's exact verbiage, but an approximation of several different summations of his writing by a couple sources. ~ 03:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• "only explicit doctrinal change" I'm a little confused at this, from inexperience with the language. Were the other suggestions not doctrinal changes, or were they just not explicit? What makes something an explicit change (as opposed to an inferred one, I assume)? Further, did Jones give reasoning behind wanting to change or abolish infant baptism, and did he give suggestions for those alterations? The other changes were ritual/ceremonial in nature, rather than suggesting an alteration in doctrine. Infant baptism was/is was a controversial practice among Protestants, and Jones's opposition was a doctrinal statement in opposition to it (the sources acknowledge this). The other changes could be seem as implying doctrinal changes (such as developing a lower theology of the Eucharist and challenging the importance of the Lord's Prayer), but did not outright challenge the orthodoxy of the time. ~ 03:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Is there a reason why John White's refutation is not elaborated upon while that of John Boswell is? I'm assuming the latter was more impactful than the former but I would like to make sure White's criticism was not as influential and only draws mention in two sources: the 1860 Notes and Queries article and the ODNB article that cites Notes and Queries. The mention of White in ODNB was enough for me to deem it encyclopedically relevant enough to mention, but it doesn't really show up in the historiography. ~ 03:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• "This led some to believe that Blackburne had been the author" do we know who thought this? The sources I've used do not elaborate on any details regarding who thought this. Presumably, they are sourcing this claim to Blackburne's own writings on the subject, where he was intentionally vague. ~ 21:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• "had read it in manuscript and suggested no changes. After reading the manuscript, Blackburne lambasted Jones" This sounds to me like suggesting a change  Done ~ 03:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• "it (is) generally considered that Thomas Herring..."  Done ~ 18:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• The sentence beginning with "Herring, who had perhaps been motivated..." is quite unwieldy. Is there a way it could be split while maintaining the quote's place in it?  Done ~ 21:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• "However, Free and Candid Disquisitions's appeal for unofficial revisions succeeded" I don't see how this is related to the previous sentence; it may flow better if integrated into the subsequent paragraph, or if it is rephrased somewhat.  Done ~ 18:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• "Theophilus Lindsey, a son-in-law of (a?) Blackburne and Feathers Tavern petitioner"  Done ~ 18:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• The article seems broadly comprehensive, but there is one aspect I find missing. What is the modern consensus on the impact of this work? How has it been treated by history? The closest we get to current day views are mentions of 19th century works that include praise for or criticism of the work. A summary of more recent opinions on or analyses of Free and Candid Disquisitions would be welcome if enough material for that exists. See reply below ~ 19:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Overall, the prose is of high quality. A few sentences push towards being run-ons, but the writing is generally very clear. I greatly appreciate the use of notes; the lack of lengthy titles and explanations in the middle of the text makes it much easier to read. I don't think they are overdone in the slightest. I've gotten the comment about sentence length before. Working on improving that. ~ 21:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• A source check of references 7, 14, and 17 yields no clear issues. Throughout the article, it is made clear who is claiming what about whom, and I do not have any synthesis concerns. Assuming good faith on the print sources. Thanks! ~ 21:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• All of the images used are in the public domain, but the Isaac Watts image has a notice about a possible copyright claim from the National Portrait Gallery. I'm not familiar with the dispute nor am I a copyright expert, but I would like to ask if you believe the image to be necessary and improves the article. After a cursory reading of the dispute, I think that that would be sufficient to justify its inclusion. The NPG has had a long-running dispute with Wikipedia over use of its images. The images are legally public domain in the US and, frankly, I like sticking it to the NPG any time I can. ~ 21:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I've made some minor formatting and grammatical changes to the article, feel free to review them and revert any that you see fit. Thank you for an interesting church history article, I certainly learned quite a bit from reading it! Please drop me a ping once you've responded to everything or if you have any questions. Fritzmann (message me) 16:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Fritzmann2002: Thanks for taking up the review! I wanted to first off say that your initial comments seem very helpful and that I've begun working through them. I'm currently visiting family, but I'll be able to privately send copies of print sources from my personal library starting at around 0:00 UTC on Saturday. If you find that there is a citation you want verified and are willing to wait, just identify it and I'll gladly privately send you a copy of the page(s) that verify the article's content. Thank you again for taking up this review! ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Pbritti: thank you for offering to send print sources, but I don't think that is necessary. I didn't find any issues in those sources available online, so I have no reason to believe that there would be any glaring ones for those in print. Feel free to take your time on the review, I'm certainly not in any rush! Fritzmann (message me) 17:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Modern consensus: This is a difficult thing. I've found five academics in the last century that have treated Disquisitions in substantial depth, all in the context of liturgy. Peaston, Jasper, and Cumings were all roughly contemporaries but Peaston represents a more Dissenter-centric perspective than any of the historians I cite here. Peaston addressed Disquisitions in its objective historic context, then in its influence on successive Dissenter liturgies. However, Peaston does not offer a view beyond "it was ineffective". Both Jasper and Cumings lean into Peaston's research and–adding in additional related liturgical developments–draw a similar conclusion. Jasper, in particular, comes closest to saying something explicitly about the importance of Disquisitions, and I utilized his brief appraisal for the last two sentences of the article. Hatchett recognized the lingering impact of the text insofar as it influenced American Anglicans, while Hefling addresses Disquisitions to encapsulate the futility of revision efforts during the 18th century. I tried to address all these threads while remaining true to the source material and without adding my own commentary, but I can ask around and look under a few more rocks to see what I can find. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Fritzmann2002: Any remaining outstanding concerns? Feel welcome to get back to me today or tomorrow, as I'll have time to remediate. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Y all good from me! Promoting the GA now, congratulations! Fritzmann (message me) 00:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thinking about FAC

I only looked at the first two sentences of the lead. Per MOS:LEADSENTENCE this does not "tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English". Virtually by definition this article fails this bar as it needs a footnote to explain a term. And I suspect that many readers will still be little the wiser, as who understands "affording latitude"? I know it's linked, but MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." At a guess there is more similar in the rest of the article. In haste, but I hope it helps. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Do you mind if I lift this comment and include it on the peer review? I think your comment is likely to be relevant to any reviewer. Thanks for your insight! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

No, of course not. It's Wikipedia, so you don't need to ask, but it is pleasant that you did. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

"comprehending Dissenters"

It's not great for comprehension by the average reader (who is on a mobile device!) when you need a footnote in the lead to explain a word that is used in a way different from its plain meaning. I would rephrase. (t · c) buidhe 16:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Buidhe: I've tried resolving that issue with this edit. Because the majority of sources that address this subject don't even bother to define this technical term but use it as the near exclusive term to described the process–and because it shows up in the title of the Liturgy of Comprehension–I think it's necessary to use it in the article. I agree that it needs to be sufficiently defined for readers across any device. I elected to retain the note as a means of permitting anyone interested in understanding the subject further to see a more comprehensive definition (at least until I can put out an article on the subject of comprehension itself). Please let me know if that's enough of a fix or if you have other suggestions! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

"The text comprises 13 sections, including an extended introduction, a postscript, and the appendix."

Perhaps it ought to be clarified that the introduction, postscript, and appendix are not part of the 13 sections. E.g., "The text comprises 13 sections, an extended introduction, a postscript, and an appendix". Apologies if this is already clear or if I am confused. XabqEfdg (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Hatchett 1982 confirms the section count is 13, inclusive of the intro, postscript, and appendix. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Hm. On page 29, Hatchett writes "the major portion of the work is devoted to 'Queries'", then lists ten 10 sections; but this does not seem to be an exhaustive list. If the 13 sections included the introduction, it would conflict with Nuttall 1973, page 43, "A lengthy Introduction precedes the body of the work, which consists of thirteen sections." In the version of the text available on archive.org here, 13 sections are listed along with an introduction, postscript, and appendix on pages xxv–xxvii. XabqEfdg (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@XabqEfdg: Huh, that is interesting. Do you mind if I get back to you, as I'm rather incredibly busy today? You can implement a hotfix that seems right to you in the meantime. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Not at all. I have inserted the text from my comment at 00:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC). XabqEfdg (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Stashing a source

Noticed this 1966 essay was published online shortly after the article ran at TFA. It offers a brief elaboration on Herring's attitudes towards Free and Candid Disquisitions. I'll likely throw something from it in, but that’s TBD as I wrap up the busiest month of my life. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)