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 |
The original redirect to "The Levellers" was misleading since John Lilburne referred to his followers as "Agitators". It was his detractors who called them "Levellers". This prompted Lilburne to call his followers "Levellers so-called" (a new link now redirected to this article page.) It was Gerrard Winstanley who wrapped himself in that term by calling his followers the " True Levellers", and who were called by their detractors " The Diggers". They have also been referred to as " Christian Communists" because they cited the Book of Acts as their authority where its speaks of having all things in common. There is also a link between Winstanley's ideas and some of the people on board the Mayflower and the Mayflower Compact which they entered into upon arriving in North America.
There was a major difference between Lilburne and Winstanley.
John Lilburne advocated a level playingfield in human rights which he called freeborn rights, or equal rights that human beings are born with. In the 20th Century US Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black was closely identified with the teachings and legacy of John Lilburne and as a result Hugo Black managed to sway both Justice William O. Douglas and Supreme Court Cheif Justice Earl Warren to his viewpoint in Miranda versus Arizona: " Miranda warning" which is based upon the teachings of John Lilburne.
Gerrard Winstanley advocated a levelling of property rights and he was accused and the New York Levellers of the 17th Century were also accused of "levelling men's estates".
There was a New York manifestation of the "Levellers" in the 18th Century and the name "Levellers" and "Diggers" has also been used in the 20th Century to apply to movements and a musical group. These entities all seem to have confused the ideas of Gerrard Winstanley with those of Gerrard Winstanley. MPLX/MH 16:36, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've just been copy-editing this (making the English & style consistent, clearing typos, etc.), but I can't really make sense of this paragraph:
The [[Putney Debates]]<sup>[[#References|1]]</sup>, at the [[St Mary's Church, Putney]], in the county of [[Surrey]], started on [[October 28]] [[1647]] and lasted into [[November]], took place between other factions of the [[New Model Army]] and the Levellers, whose supporters were elected from each regiment of the army to participate. The discussions centred around the [[Agreement of the People]]<sup>[[#References|2]]</sup>, a written constitutional proposal drafted by civilian Levellers and endorsed by Army supporters and the preposals put forward by [[Henry Ireton]], (son-in-law of Oliver Cromwell) [[The Heads of the Proposals]]<sup> [[#References|3]]</sup> putting forward a constitutional manifesto which included the preservation of property rights and maintaining the privileges of the gentry.
Can anyone help to punctuate it so that it makes sense? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've changed the partagraph, as I wrote most it in the first place, I know what it was trying to say. ;-( Is that clearer now?
I've removed the subsections on the time line as it implied that all the things that happend after the kings execution were part of the kings exection. I don't think that the time line needs subsections to aid clarity. PBS 12:15, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have altered the introduction to fit in with the News style. I have removed 2 of the 3 references to the Diggers, as they were not one of the main factions in the drama. Roughly there were 3 English factions. The old Royalist establishment of the King, the Grandees and the Levellers. At half time the Grandees were winning, the Royalists came back in the second half to force a draw, but the levellers won in the penalty shoot-out. The Diggers were no more than a very noisy small faction in the crowd. That the Diggers were in the crowd should be mentioned, because some people confuse them with the Levellers, but they need not be given prominence in the introduction. PBS 12:15, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
---Add any discussion on the proposed move below this line ---
Please see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use common names of persons and things
-- PBS 10:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
But the 'so-called' wasn't part of the name, it was a comment on the name. Article titles shouldn't include comments. The articles on Whig and Tory don't include in their titles that the names were originally applied to those parties by their critics; that's something that can be explained in the article itself. Your comment about the question doesn't really make sense; your answer to the question is straightforward: you don't think that the article should be renamed to Levellers — you think that it should be renamed to Levellers (so-called. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 18:08, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually you can. Simply place a line below the last Support or Oppose and above the comments line which says:
See Talk:November 17 (resistance movement) for an example. PBS 01:26, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The move cannot happen at the moment because of block-compression at Levellers. This will be listed at the holding pen at WP:RM until the move can be done. violet/riga (t) 19:52, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
at lilburne's trial in 1653 he did use Leveller language to provoke a reaction from the crowds outside the Old Bailey, stopping him from being executed. i dont think that the Levellers were completely dead in 1649
I believe that the first time the name Leveller was used, was by Ireton at the Putney debates. 131.111.8.98 18:09, 14 May 2005 (UCT)
Should "The Levellers" be pointed to the disambiguation page instead, seeing as the band "The Levellers" are likely to be referred to as such, while the political party might be "Levellers"?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.138.70.47 ( talk • contribs) 19:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
OK I've moved all the links, and set the redirect of The Levellers to the disambiguation page. -- PBS 23:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
This is a quote from the article, "...four of the 'Leveller' leaders- Thomas Prince, William Walwyn and John Lilburne signed a manifesto which called themselves Levellers." There are only three names listed, not four. So, either a name was left out or there were only three leaders who called themselves Levellers in the manifesto. -- Kjkolb 10:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I have added the missing Leveller - Richard Overton and cleaned up the section on the name Leveller with some more facts. 86.112.250.111 09:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It says in sentence two that the levellers had no central manifesto. What? How about the Agreement of the People? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sashafklein ( talk • contribs) 07:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
In the section Levellers#Origin_of_name there is the following text:
´´It first appeared in print in a book written by Charles I called 'His Majesties Most Gracious Declaration', first sold around 15 November 1647. citation needed´´
I wasn't able to find a citation, but I did find that on the 11th of November 1647 the Levellers are mentioned in a letter from the King Charles R to the Speaker of the House of Lords. [1] It was mentioned, as part of the letter, in the House of Lords on the 12th.
´´The name Leveller first appears in a letter of 1 November 1647, although it was undoubtedly in existence as a nickname before this date (Gardiner, Great Civil War, iii. 380).´´
As it is mentioned in the House of Lords - only 11 days later - without raising questions as to what Levellers might be. (AFAICS) I'm quite sure the name Leveller was certainly know before the 1st of November.
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
and |year=
/ |date=
mismatch (
help)
Webhat 00:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The 1 November 1647 date is correct. This was the first written use of the term 'Leveller'. Gardiner is wrong that the term had common usage before Putney: Generations of professional historians have not been able to find an earlier use of the term. Furthermore, according to the 1659 pamphlet 'The Leveller', a tract normally attributed to John Wildman (British Library Thomason Collection reference E968(3)), the term was coined by Cromwell and Ireton as a smear at Putney for the civilians and soldiers who proposed the first Agreement of the People (see The Leveller (London 1659, p.15)).
As to the letter in the Lord's Journal not raising questions as to what Levellers may be: the purpose of the Journal is to record correspondence and votes and not debate. The Journal simply would not record this. In fact the term was at first used to refer not to Lilburne and his cronies, but the Agitators of the Five Regiments. It was not applied definitively to Lilburne until February 1648 (by William Prynne in The Levellers Levelled). For the citation and the most up to date and sensitive analysis of the use of the term Leveller see Blair Worden, 'The Levellers in History and Memory c.1660-1960' in Michael Mendle, The Putney Debates of 1647 (Cambridge 2001) pp.280-282. This is the most up to date historical analysis of the use of term Leveller in politics. 'His Majesties Most Gracious Declaration' is a printing of the same letter read out in the Lords Journal, and thus is the first printed source to use the term (as the Lord's Journal is a manuscript).
I would add do works like 'His Majesties Most Gracious Declaration' not need a citation? It is a printed book available in a number of libraries around the world (and online through subscription only academic search engines like EEBO) - I asked this question a while back on another issue and the answer was: it has to be available to be verified, but not necessarily available to everyone. Elliot Vernon
Thank you very much for your reply. I have amended things to show that the source for this is the Worden article. I have also tidied up the other issues Elliot Vernon
Why do people on Wikipedia insist on relying on out of date 19th century sources: its like citing Greek medical manuals to explain the circulation of the blood - I know people don't read history books if they can avoid it but the insertion of the obsolete references in a perfectly accurate and cited piece is wrong and superfluous. Nedham's (Not Needham) The Case of the Commonwealth came out in 1650, so it is 3 years after the first use of the term. The Worden chapter explains that perfectly and was already referenced - if you are going to use the OED - look at the date it is citing and see if it is accurate! I have removed the OED reference as it is just plain wrong and is thus superfluous.
Elliot Vernon —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.152.253.36 (
talk) 17:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to all who've worked on this document. I don't have a lot of background in this topic, and I found that the lead section was great at telling me what the Levellers were not, and when they were important--but perhaps not as good as it could be in telling me why I should care about them. I tried to remedy that, but I realize I'm no expert in the topic. So please fix any mistakes I made, but try to make sure the overview still makes sense to plebes like me. vasi ( talk) 18:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I tried to copy-edit the intro to make more sense, but the page was reverted as "vandalism".
I suggest the following introduction:
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help)CS1 maint: date format (
link)
- Pgan002 ( talk) 01:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
It is a group consisting of Leaders Leo Max
second Oscar
Grunt CJ — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
217.43.55.101 (
talk) 20:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Please bear with me as this is my first interaction with Wikipedia. I notice that in the Timeline section of the article it is stated that Robert Lockyer was hanged on April 27, 1649. Yet following the link to the Robert Lockyer article indicates that he was executed by firing squad. UncaDud ( talk) 05:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Note [1]
"It is a widespread myth that the Levellers promoted common ownership, or were even "socialists". See, for example, Fenner Brockway Britain's First Socialists, London, Quartet, 1980. But their opposition to common ownership is made clear in the final, May 1649, version of the Leveller "Agreement of the People" and in other Leveler writings."
Levellers indeed opposed common ownership:
"That no Representative may ... level men's estates, destroy property, or make all things common" (January 1649 Agreement, Eighly, 6.)
"we agree and declare, that the power of Representatives shall extend without the consent or concurrence of any other person or persons, ... To the preservation of those safe guards, and securities of our lives, limbes, liberties, properties, and estates, contained in the Petition of Right, made and enacted in the third year of the late King." (May 1649 Agreement, IX, 2.)
&
"We therefore agree and declare, That it shall not be in the power of any Representative, in any wise, to render up, or give, or take away any part of this Agreement, nor level mens Estates, destroy Propriety, or make all things Common" (May 1649 Agreemtn, XXX)
Yet I've read all three Agreement throughout and I cannot find any evidence to support this statement: "the Levellers opposed common ownership, except in cases of mutual agreement of the property owners."
Because I had not read all the Levellers' writings. I would say, we need more sources to back up that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.88.103 ( talk) 17:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Tiny stub about a newspaper that presumably supported the aims and views of the Levellers. Unless there is distinct, encyclopedic content that can be added to this stub that shouldn't be in Levellers, they should be merged. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 09:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Done
The section "Timeline" is confusing. First, it is too long and unstructured -- it should be broken into sub-sections. Second, there is a confusing reference "see above" when talking about the imprisonment of Leveler leaders in 1649. This suggests that the sentence is referring to the first mention of the Tower, but that was about Lilburne's imprisonment in 1646. Also, what's the relation between the manifestos "An arrow", "Agreement of the People" and "Agreement of the Free People"? - Pgan002 ( talk) 04:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I concur, perhaps there is a way to divide it so as to make it clearer and also more detailed. A sub-section could be on the levellers within the army and their specific demands, how their evolved and how it ended for them; another section could be on the "city" levellers, their influence, relation with power and demands. I would make a distinction between groups of levellers to emphasise that the Leveller movement was not an homogeneous one even if they had a common core demands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.84.182.85 ( talk) 16:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning Leveller echoes in popular movements today ?
All seem to have started very recently - may not yet be notable in themselves, but in an historical context, maybe ?
-- 195.137.93.171 ( talk) 03:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Why not make a short paragraph or sentence on "Leveller day"? [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.84.182.85 ( talk) 16:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)