Talk:Levellers/Archive 1

Archive 1

The Levellers misleading

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 integrated your first paragraph into the body of the text and have restated the older first paragraph. This fits in with the news Wikipedia:Manual of Style: For event articles, it may be a good idea to understand News Style as a convention for organising materials in a straightforward way; basically, from top to bottom in order of relevance. Your facts are interesting and relevant, but if all the rest of the article was removed the original first paragraph explains who the Levellers were more succinctly. Comparisons with the "True Levellers" are better off placed later in the text.PBS 07:53, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

1647: Putney Debates

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)

News style

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)

Requested move

• The Levellers to Levellers -- in line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Avoid the definite article -- PBS 14:43, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Add just * Support or * Oppose under the proposal followed by your "~~~~"

• Support Not seeing any evidence for the "running text cap" test. Alai 02:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Trilobite (Talk) 10:22, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:03, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---Add any discussion on the proposed move below this line ---

Please read the Talk:Diggers (Levellers) page because it has become fused to the same issue. I have outlined my answer on that page, however if this page is to be renamed it should be Levellers (so-called) and the other page renamed as Diggers (True Levellers). Please read Talk:Diggers (Levellers) for details. Thank you. MPLX/MH 03:29, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use common names of persons and things

Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.

Rationale and specifics: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)

--PBS 10:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is a "have you stopped beating your wife?" question. It cannot be answered properly. I made a comment and the comment was answered by a quotation which did not address the comment at all. What is being proposed is fine - no problem - providing that a further qualifying tag is attached to it in order to disambiguate the topic and to avoid confusion. Over on the Digger Talk page the person proposing this is already moving text around so fast that replies are being disconnected. Please address the issues being raised. There are many articles on Wikipedia with names that are further qualified and placed in brackets. John Lilburne has been named by some sloppy writers as the "leader of the Levellers" when he called this group Levellers so-called. Detractors muddled up the Levellers (so-called) with the Diggers who called themselves the True Levellers which is a name that actually explains what the "Diggers" were trying to do and it was not what Lilburne and his immediate supporters were trying to do. The term "levelling" was also used in common with "levelling mens' estates" - redistribution of real property. That was the Christian communism advocated by Winstanley and opposed by Lilburne. Lilburne was the champion of free born rights - rights that everyone is born with by virtue of being born. Real property (soil/land) is not part of a human being. Lilburne links to Jefferson and the US Bill of Rights and Winstanley links to Karl Marx (and yes, I do have highly qualified, reputable and internationally published sources to back that up!) It would appear that my comments here are only answered by obfuscation. MPLX/MH 17:22, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the reference to 'have you stopped beating your wife?' (which question are you likening to it?), but surely there can't be an article called 'Levellers (so-called)'; it sounds... well, silly. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:42, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was not aware that we were trying to undertake an Orwellian task like Winston of reaching back into history and changing the existing record. I can think of many silly names of many silly things but the fact that the silly names exist is no reason to go back and change them to something else. Lilburne, who has been called by some sloppy writers the "leader of the Levellers" called himself an Agitator and he referred to these comments by others as Levellers, so-called. My reference to the rhetorical question was in answer to the vote yes or no request at the top of this section. I cannot answer that request as it is worded because I do not agree with the question. If there was a multiple choice based upon fact, that would be better. As it is it is impossible for me to answer without a qualification and the question does not allow for qualifications. MPLX/MH 17:54, 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)

No, that is not what I mean at all. The question asks for a yes or a no and provides for comments. I cannot answer yes or no and I have provided a comment. My answer is not as you have stated but Levellers (so-called). As for titles requiring further explanation on Wikipedia - I can find a bucket load of them. For example, there is Johnny Duncan and there is Johnny Duncan (country music artist). Just two examples. MPLX/MH 19:16, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually you can. Simply place a line below the last Support or Oppose and above the comments line which says:

• Alternative proposal rename page to Levellers (so-called) ~~~~

See Talk:November 17 (resistance movement) for an example. PBS 01:26, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The example of Johnny Duncan (country music artist) (pity that it lacks the hyphen that it really needs, by the way) isn't analogous; the '(country music artist)' isn't a comment on his name, nor meant to be part of his name; it's a qualifier for disambiguation purposes. The '(so called)' looks like a comment — with a touch of snideness about it. Your claim about whether or not Lilburne preferred to be called 'Leveller' can be debated and put (or not put) in the article. Frankly, PBS's evidence seems pretty persuasive to me, but in a way that's not the point; Levellers (so called) just shouldn't be the title of a Wikipedia article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:31, 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)

Avoided the block compression problem and done the move. violet/riga (t) 20:10, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This and that

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

The article does not say that it was. It says is with the loss of army support they were no longer a major force. That is not to say that the "Good Old Cause" was dead.

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)

Do you have a source to confirm this? The word does not appear on the online version listed in the refences in the Putney Debates [1]. The source listed in the External links suggests that "it was probably Cromwell in the Putney Debates of 1647, at least that is what Lilburne later reported." PBS 23:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation

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)

No because this page was moved from "The Levellers" and a score of page links still point to that page which are intended to be this page. So changing the link would break the links on a score of pages for no great gain. If another page links to this article by mistake there is a disambiguation line at the top of the page. So by changing it you would only save one mouse click for any new page which is linked to "The Levellers" by mistake. --PBS 22:42, 29 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)

Article says there are four Leveller leaders, but there are only three listed

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)

Manifesto

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)

Origin of the Name open citation

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.´´

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. 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.

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

A couple of comments on your edits. The alteration of "although it was undoubtedly in existence as a nickname before this date (Gardiner, Great Civil War, iii. 380)." to "Gardiner thought, probably erroneously, that it was in existence as a nickname before this date (Gardiner, Great Civil War, iii. 380)." causes a problem because althought it may well be right it is your point of view and it needs a verifiable reliable source as a citation to back it up as a footnote in the artcle. The requested citation for "called 'His Majesties Most Gracious Declaration', sold around 15 November 1647" that you removed was not for the information in the tract, but that it was the first appearance in a book and that the date was around mid November 1647. The date of publication may well be in the book, but that it was the first needs a reliable source to state that it was. --PBS 23:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Thank you both for your replies and explanation, I agree that the printed version would be a better reference than a manuscript. Webhat (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

An accessible overview

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)

Intro

I tried to copy-edit the intro to make more sense, but the page was reverted as "vandalism".

1. The Levelers was a movement, not just the members of the movement
2. The members did not come to prominence, the movement did
3. The values of the movement are much more important than the fact that there was no political party. Therefore, the first sentence should include the values.

I suggest the following introduction:

The Levellers were a political movement in mid-17th-century England that emphasised popular sovereignty, an extended franchise, equality before the law, and religious toleration, all of which were expressed in the Agreement of the People. They were not a political party in the modern sense of the word, and did not all conform to any specific manifesto. They were also pioneers in the use of petitions and pamphleteering to political ends.

Leveller views and support were found in the populace of the City of London and in some regiments in the New Model Army. The Levellers came to prominence at the end of the First English Civil War and were most influential before the start of the Second Civil War. After Pride's Purge and the execution of Charles I, power lay in the hands of the Grandees in the Army, (and to a lesser extent with the Rump Parliament). The Levellers, along with all other opposition groups, were marginalized by those in power and their influence waned. By 1650, they were no longer a serious threat to the established order.

Plaque commemorating three Levellers shot by Oliver Cromwell in Burford.

-Pgan002 (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The Death Eaters

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) 

The Death of Lockyer

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)

Levellers, Common Property and Mutual Agreement

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)

Proposed merge with The Moderate

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)

• I agree, there is no purpose in having a separate article (which for now is a mostly empty stub). Make it a section that is linked to by "The_Moderate".--SpaceSailor (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Good idea. – S. Rich (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose when linking to that stub one does not expect to see an article about the movement. This is because it is usually linked to a part of a reference to an original article in the newspaper. There is plenty of information to be had on English Civil War newspapers and it will eventually grow into a full article. -- PBS (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Essentially, the stub would redirect to a section in the main article, which preserves the option to revert to a separate article in the future. So we're not removing information per se. jxm (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done

Confusion in section "Timeline"

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)

Levellers Today?

Is it worth mentioning Leveller echoes in popular movements today ?

• Land and Freedom
• Occupy Wall Street
• Acampada Sol - website down already! May 15 movement
• Mouvement des Indignés
• 15M London
• Peoples Assemblies - (homepage hacked ATM)
• Cardiff Revolution
• Anonymous

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)

None of those movements echo the ideas of, or have anything to do with the Levellers - so please leave them out of this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.225.195 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 21 December 2011‎

Agreed please read WP:OR -- PBS (talk) 05:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Why not make a short paragraph or sentence on "Leveller day"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.84.182.85 (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

References