Talk:Great Awakening

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2018 and 18 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jsemblante.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hegelian cycles?

Not everyone sees these Great Awakenings as Hagelian cycles of thesis and antithesis -- we need to make this clear, and cite our sources better. So, cleanup until this is done. --Zantastik 08:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

And the "Fourth" Awakening mentioned is no given, either. Looks like a book plug to me.

I agree, Zantastik. This reads like a freshman paper in a history of philosophy course: and Hegel would have blushed to see his dialectical method used in such a ham-handed way, not to mention the idea that American history is locked into "cycles" endlessly repeating themselves. Moreover, the description of what actually happened during our Great Awakenings is simplistic, to say the least. Sure, "new sects" arose, but historic churches were also transformed, and the so-called "contradiction" between revivalist and fundamentalist "sects" (as the writer puts it) was often played out within existing faith traditions. This happened over and over again in the 19th century. And what's a "sect?" The First Great Awakening was inspired by Jonathan Edwards, possibly the greatest theologian America ever produced, and had a profound impact on the long-established Congregational and Presbyterian churches in the Northeast.

America remains "largely Protestant?" How "large" is "large?" The percentage of Americans who identify themselves as Protestant is constantly shrinking, now down to 52 percent (2001 ARIS study). Nearly 25 percent are Roman Catholic, the rest followers of other religions or none.

"Some scholars" means one scholar, Robert William Fogal, who's a brilliant economist and won the Nobel Prize for economics (with Douglass C. North) in 1993 for developing "cliometrics," the application of statistical analysis to the study of economic history. But his book on the "Fourth Awakening" centers on the "democratization of self-realization" and describes a general cultural trend of which neo-pentecostal and charismatic religion is only one part: so is New Age religion, therapy, self-help movements, the individualization of spirituality, etc. The book is interesting but the use of the term in this article is reductionistic.

The Great Awakenings are extremely important for American political, social and religious history, and deserve a replacement article. --langohio 22:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I too am having heartburn regarding the Hegelian mumbo-jumbo and the wide-eyed assertion that Great Awakenings represent some sort of religious Kondratiev wave. I've edited out a good portion of the silliness, but that leaves the article short. I'm hoping a serious student of the religious history of America comes along and puts things in order (and maybe even cites his sources, that would be nice). --technopilgrim 21:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Would not the increasing religiosity of the early '00s in America in terms of prevalence and influence be the 4th Great Awakening, not some hippie or new age spiritual movement? In the broader frame of history, religion entered politics when the previously non-political fundamentalists started backing candidates around 1980, and in addition with megachurches and fundamentalist religion trying to go mainstream, it would seem more fitting of a "Great Awakening". Though how much is true (media cites 25% of the US holds fundamentalist beliefs) and how much is hype (exposed when mainstream America disagreed strongly with how the Terri Schiavo event was handled, thinking Congress interfered in a personal matter when the fundamentalists were urging congress to intervene) is a worthwhile debate though. --Thirdmoon 03:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"Great Meowser!!!"

Someone is pranking this entry. WTF is a "Great Meowser", (2d paragraph, 1st line) it has nothing to do with the Great Awakening and should be deleted LAWinans (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Third Great Awakening and the New Deal???

If the third great awakening is dated to the 1880-90s, it could relate to Progressivism and the Wm. Jennings Bryan movement, and perhaps to the birth of American fundamentalism at Princeton and Prohibition; but it cannot be carried through the Great War and Roaring Twenties and Crash of '29 into the New Deal. --jb 23:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The dates here don't agree for 3rd. This article has 1880-1910 while the main article we link to has 1850s to the 1900s. CD-Host (talk) 04:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Grammatical Errors

I caught a few and fixed them so that they were correct. Daramane (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Bible Belt (?)

I'm confused why this page has a link to the Bible Belt.

Being that: 1) the First Great Awakening was likely more important in New England than the South 2) the article doesn't even mention Southern developments (though yes, it should) 3) I don't think most scholars would point to the South as being especially religious in the First Great Awakening, but that the South's loss during the Civil War helped spur on a "back to basics" Christianity that was Pentacostalism.

So, it doesn't make sense why "Bible Belt" should be linked to this page, unless we're arguing that colonial New England in the 1st Awakening somehow laid the groundwork for the Southern Bible Belt in the 20th-21st century. Jim37hike (talk) 04:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Should this be in the footnote?

Don't have time to look at the history right now, but this seems odd: "As Benjamin Tython said, "I really need a cigarette" " in a footnote? Pammalamma (talk) 05:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

EXTREMELY biased edits

I certainly was not expecting to see the below content when I came to this article. The first paragraph read as follows...

"The term Great Awakeningrefers to the period when people felt guilty for their need of salvation from Christ. religious revival in American religious history. People died for their country (it was their awakening). Historians and theologians identify three or four waves of increased religious enthusiasm occurring between the early 18th century and the late 19th century."

It appears that the edits were both made without impartiality in mind, nor general readability. My personal opinion is that the individual (whom I'm sure means well but doesn't appreciate how inappropriate their actions are) simply inserted the first sentence after the first four words up to the first full stop. However, they neglected to delete the remains of the original sentence; hence the orphaned "religious revival in American religious history." following the new sentence. "People felt guilty" is not only vague, overly general and unsourced but also doesn't make sense- why would they feel guilty for needing salvation? If they have no faith they aren't going to a religious revival. If they have faith already they would not see the need for salvation. The sentence had been reverted back to what it was before.

The pro-Christianity vibe becomes more powerful in the next sentence and little meaning can be gained from it- "People died for their country (it was their awakening)". What is this supposed to mean? People raising from the dead? Is the author changing the meaning of Great Awakening to mean the country awakened during the Revolutionary War? Even if the concept was made clearer it is overly general, unsourced and doesn't reflect what the rest of the article says about the various reasons proposed for these events. This has been removed.

The rest of the article refers to the Fourth Awakening as taking place in the 1960's at the earliest, though whether it can be considered an awakening is disputed. I believe that the editor made a mistake in thinking the 1900's is the 19th century. It may also be left over from before the supposed Fourth Awakening was added. Either way it dies not reflect the current articles content and has been updated.

The second paragraph started with "The Awakenings all resulted from powerful preaching that gave listeners a sense of personal guilt and of their need of salvation by Christ. Pulling away from ritual and c...". Once again a single cause is being proclaimed for the individual decisions of potentially millions of people over more than 200 years, without a single source beyond - once again, the following is only my opinion - the writers own convictions. This sentence has also been removed.

This is all very disappointing. I have my personal beliefs about religion but I don't feel the need to shoehorn them into articles about history; few of us do. What I find beyond disappointment is the arrogance that this person has displayed, Wikipedia is a collaboration between all of us, not another opportunity for overly zealous Christians to try to save souls. Next time, if you truly believe an article is completely wrong, please start a Talk page, discuss it with your fellow editors and collaborate rather than compete.

I am hoping that the person that made these updates is watching the page, sees they are gone and they visit this talk page. I'm trying to be respectful as possible towards a fellow human, I don't doubt your sincerity BUT making edits like that the disrespectful to this site, to the editors of it and to the concept of historical study.

The last thing Wikipedia needs is more people making changes based on ideology and personal opinion. I know that both "sides" have done it in the past but using the reason "other people do it to!" is nothing more than childish justification of behaviour that is known by the instigator to be wrong.

Will you try take an eye in revenge or will you choose to turn the other cheek? I would suggest applying selfless wisdom and not imitate people who use freedom of speech as a sword instead of a shield.

But that's just me. Stefanzi (talk) 13:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Next time you can just revert nonsense like this w/o printing it here. Wikipedia gets alot of this... Ckruschke (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke

Added: Qanon reference

I added a reference to the use of the term by Qanon followers, since that is one of the prime results of Search in unfiltered search engines such as DuckDuckGo.

I note that my addition has been removed within 24 hours. This is censorship. Wikipedia shows itself again to be a controlled outlet and not an objective reporter on the reference and public meaning of terms. Disgraceful.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.198.100 (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Canada and Britain?

Did any or all of the Great Awakenings spill over into Canada? If so, how? Acwilson9 (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The First Great Awakening article details that the first awakening occured simultaneously in Britain and America. However, this is not, but should be, mentioned in the present Great Awakening article. Acwilson9 (talk) 01:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistent use of "awakening" and "awakenings"

The second paragraph brings by following the lead of the first and discusses multiple great awakenings, but after a couple of sentences appears to switch to only discuss one awakening, and it isn't clear which one. It would be helpful if someone could clarify this section. ReedJMerrill (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)