Talk:Rights of Englishmen/Archive 1

Archive 1

This article either needs some serious sources

or it should be deleted.

There's really nothing substantive here at all.

- Ledenierhomme (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a legitimate subject

A poor article, perhaps, but a legitimate subject. It does not deserve to be removed, but only improved. There are a number of articles that link to it. Of interest, re: context, may be http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Rights-of-Englishmen/William-Young/e/9780548580684 Shoreranger (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you've found a book with that phrase in the title. Well done. Unfortunately, that is not a reputable source. Who is William Young? Maybe there could be an article about the phrase "rights of Englishman", and what it has been used to refer to. But this, as it stands, is not such an article. This purports to be a genuine concept in political science. - Ledenierhomme (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

http://www.upress.virginia.edu/books/shain.HTM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources

Try a Google search for "political science", "rights of englishmen" and see what you come up with.

Shoreranger (talk) 04:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"Who is William Young?: "At Tobjgo, in the West Indies, Sir Williain Young, bart. formerly M. P. for St., Mawc's. Cornwall, and agent for the island of Dominica. He uas the son of Sir W. Young, Lieutenant-governor of Dominica, and was born in 1742. In 1806 he was appointed Governor of Tobago. Sir William Young was a man of considerable talent and knowledge, and was well known in the first literary and political circles. In Parliament ho generally supported the Whig Interest ; although his principles may be belter known to our readers by in* forming them that he voted for the Union with Ireland, against the abolition of the Slave Trade, and supported Mr. Wbitbread in the affair of Lord MulviUe. Sir William Young has appeared as an au'Uor in the following publications: 1. " Tue Spirit of Athens," Svo. 1777. 2. " The History of Athens," 4to. 1783. 3. » A Pamphlet on the Amendment of the Poor Laws," 8vo. 1788. 4. "The Rights of Englishmen." 5. " Letter to Mr. Piit, on the Poor, and Workhouses." 6. " Speech on the Slave Trade," Svo. 1791. 7. "Life of Dr. Brouk Taylor (Sir William Young'a grandfather}," prefixed to his " Conteui' platio Pbilosophica," 8vo. 1793, punted only for his private friend*. 8. " The West India Common Place. Book." [1] Shoreranger (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Every teenager in the United States has heard of this phrase since they attended middle school. There are thousands of good sources online; see, e.g., 125,000 Ghits here or 88,000 Ghits here, or over 4,000 hits at Google books, or 1,600 hits on Google scholar. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm merely demanding a higher standard. I don't know what "going to Middle School in the United STates" has to do with anything. I believe they teach creationism in some Middle Schools in the US, and racism in some schools in the Arabian peninsula. Google hits? That's how Wikipedia establishes notability? The phrase "Eat shit motherfucker" also comes up with 174,000 results. Until you can find a reputable source establishing the viability of this concept as an important one in political science, then it either deserves to be substantially reduced in scope, or deleted entirely. As it stands now, it's approximately equivalent to an article entitled "The Fighting Irish" that would attempt to describe the inherent martial supremacy of Irish culture. It's silly. And forget Middle School, I have a postgraduate degree in History from one of the world's most prestigious universities. I know rubbish pop history when I see it. - Ledenierhomme (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Your 'demands' are irrelevant. Wikipedia is run on consensus, and the consensus on sources was linked to in my previous comment. The Wikipedia community does not have to conform to anything you might desire. Shoreranger (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting use of the term "irrelevant". You post is the very explication of it. I am demanding this article achieve appropriate standards. What have you contributed to this discussion or this article? How about trying to contribute to the article to make it acceptable, instead of attacking me personally for whatever reason? Ledenierhomme (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I see that you seem to deem the Wikipedia standard of consensus as irrelevant, and appear to be only interested in the content of the article meeting your personal standard. I have made no attack on you personally, only responded to your discussion posts - I don't know you *personally". And, what makes you think I haven't contributed to this article, now or in the past? You claim to be interested in the facts, but here is an example of making claims that you cannot back up. If the article gets improved by the added attention, great, but it would be better if this acrimony could be avoided, please. Shoreranger (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Bearian you contributions are most welcome, and the article is now on its way to becoming acceptable. But please be sure to (1) include citations for contentious statements; and (2) Remember that schoolbooks, works from the 19th century and such, are not necessarily authoritative sources. In history and political science, what is mainstream, fringe, and popular discourse is highly contextual - i.e., just because you might of been taught something in Middle School, doesn't make it a reliable opinion. Thanks. - Ledenierhomme (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If it's in Google, it's sourceable. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"If it's in Google, it's sourceable"??? Oh my god! You're an admin??? This ain't a courtroom Jack! Please see Wiki policy on reliable sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources - Ledenierhomme (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Bearian I believe the quotation you've inserted is waaaaaay too long and raises the issue of undue weight. But overall the way you're going about augmenting this article is problematic. We need context, provided by authoritative sources. What it looks like to me so far is you're simply listing every court case in the United States you can find where the phrase has been employed. I mean, 1873? Come on. Talking about the Magna Carta is one thing (and it is an important one), but this isn't the appropriate place to insert a bunch of case law. And in your lengthy citations you seem to be dangerously close to conflating the Revolutionary demands for "rights" and rights of Englishman specifically. Basically, it's all quite a bit messy now. But I appreciate the effort, and hope that the article becomes respectable and not, as I say, representative of a "school-book version" of history (or political science for that matter). - Ledenierhomme (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with the above comment that this article should be deleted as being of pure historic interest. The article seems to stem from 18th century US political pamphlets along the lines that the colonists were Englishmen and as such enjoyed certain rights, such as no taxation without representation. As such, they cease to be relevant post-1776. Most are not recognised in English case-law, and the two that are recognised (torture and discussion) stem from the Bill of Rights 1689. Lamberhurst (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The article now is a right mess. Bearian has attempted to qualify the article by inserting some "case law" (The Slaughter-House Cases) whose relevance is awfully questionable. Unfortunately the way Wikipedia is geared to work, quantity (and popularity) usually outweighs quality.... see the size of the article on Paris Hilton - larger than the article on the nation of Portugal! I've been trying for ages to make this article suitable, but apparently since some people were "taught this in Middle School" in the US, it has to stay as is..... - Ledenierhomme (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The section on the Slaughterhouse cases is not only ridiculously long, but there's no indication that it was a significant historical event, or even a significant legal precedent. I'm going to chop it down. - Ledenierhomme (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Before I invite you both into the judge's chambers for a further round of trout slapping, please take a look at the links below that were kindly sent in by an anonymous user in an attempt to resolve the dispute. I haven't checked them out myself, but I will be keeping a watch on this article ofr a while.

• http://books.google.com/books?id=7MEPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1
  
• http://books.google.com/books?id=yxCSAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA168
  
• http://books.google.com/books?id=sC8IAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA4
  
• http://books.google.com/books?id=Y5YDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA421 (this one looks very good, quotes the magna carta and directly backs claims made in the article, and the Supreme Court of the United States is a reliable source!)

--Kudpung (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I presume I am one of the "both" you refer to since I received a message to check the EAR, so would you mind enlightening me to just what I have posted here that deserves a "trout slap", please? The links appear like great sources, at first glance, btw. Shoreranger (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Read both for all or any who are/were involved. I don't think I mentioned any names. The standard EAR message was put on the talk pages of every editor.--Kudpung (talk) 02:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Already cited?

The following rights: The right to trial by jury of peers, Security in one's home from unlawful entry, and No taxation without representation are shown in: Walling, Donovan (2008). We the People: the Citizen and the Constitution. Calabasas: Center for Civic Education. ISBN 9780898182323., which is already listed in the "sources" section. Can the "citation needed" marks be removed?

Yes, I fix those cites later. Bearian (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

article/concept is fantasy, no sources

This historical narrative has no sources. ICA1916 (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

article blocked?

why can't you edit this article?

Because of excessive edit-warring and persistrent vandalism by single-purpose accounts and sockuppets of banned users. Bearian (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

whole article is nothing but popular myth

There is no such thing as "the rights of Englishmen". Even if there were, this article doesn't even define what they supposedly are. Vague rubbish.

Edit request from 124.19.60.22, 17 July 2011

whole article is nothing but popular myth. There is no such thing as "the rights of Englishmen". Even if there were, this article doesn't even define what they supposedly are. Vague rubbish.

124.19.60.22 (talk) 06:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Not an edit request. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Clarity needed.

The title "Rights of an Englishman" and then talks about American. I think clarity is needed and more about the actual rights of an Englishman.

This page could be improved by merging it with "Human Rights" and a section of the various individual and national rights of a person of any country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.130.59 (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1