![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The article misses one of the most likely candidates - Tom Paine. PhilLiberty 06:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you have evidence towards that? Simply because Paine was not an advocate of the British monarchy cannot point towards him being a candidate, otherwise you might as well include all 'Whigs' - in the loosest term possible - and supporters of 1789 and later Napoleon as potential writers. Paine wasn't the only one to advocate American Independence; albeit a prominent one.
The article in general is written very poorly in terms of viewpoint, a more neutral approach would help (for example, the bit about Franklin becoming a "rabid American rebel" is just ridiculous). It's a wikipedia article, not a rant against C18th figures. Crimson Blacknight ( talk) 16:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the long-standing OR template. While not everything is yet referenced, the page seems to me not to contain much "original research" and speculation any more. Charles Matthews ( talk) 12:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
"A New Document on the Identity of Junius". The Journal of Modern History. 4 (1). March 1932.
Rich
Farmbrough,
16:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC).
No one has mentioned the very significant discussion of Junius in "The Vision of Judgement", perhaps because of the laughing character of that poem. Nonetheless, it is a nearly-contemporary discussion by a competent and engaged reader, and worth considering as evidence. Byron had a fine ear for voice and style and his observations have weight; not, of course, that Junius was 'really, truly, nobody at all'. Cyranorox ( talk) 18:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The use of italics for actual quotes here is confusing as they blend into the italicised source names. Could we use "apostrophes" for quotes? Reference MOS:QUOTEMARKS. I'm happy to do this but would like a second opinion. Moondyne ( talk) 00:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I am not clear what any of the following text currently in the Benjamin Franklin section of the article has to do with the possibility of Franklin being Junius or anything else related to this article. "Franklin had previously obtained a governorship for his son. Unfortunately for the Franklin family, this proved to become a family feud because his son remained loyal to the Crown while Franklin fought against his own son. Franklin and son never communicated with each other again. His son is connected to the famous Franklin Expedition in the Arctic, where the ship became locked in the ice and everyone died as the result of hypothermia, starvation and lead poisoning from the canned food that the expedition had brought along. Canning at that time was in its early stages of technology."
Should it be removed? Dunarc ( talk) 20:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
The name Woodfall appears several times in the text as if we should know who he is, but there is no elucidation. It then appears twice in a footnote, referring to two separate people. If one of these Woodfalls was indeed "convicted and sentenced" in connection to the Junius letters, surely he deserves a bit more attention in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.63.230 ( talk) 10:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The article misses one of the most likely candidates - Tom Paine. PhilLiberty 06:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you have evidence towards that? Simply because Paine was not an advocate of the British monarchy cannot point towards him being a candidate, otherwise you might as well include all 'Whigs' - in the loosest term possible - and supporters of 1789 and later Napoleon as potential writers. Paine wasn't the only one to advocate American Independence; albeit a prominent one.
The article in general is written very poorly in terms of viewpoint, a more neutral approach would help (for example, the bit about Franklin becoming a "rabid American rebel" is just ridiculous). It's a wikipedia article, not a rant against C18th figures. Crimson Blacknight ( talk) 16:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the long-standing OR template. While not everything is yet referenced, the page seems to me not to contain much "original research" and speculation any more. Charles Matthews ( talk) 12:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
"A New Document on the Identity of Junius". The Journal of Modern History. 4 (1). March 1932.
Rich
Farmbrough,
16:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC).
No one has mentioned the very significant discussion of Junius in "The Vision of Judgement", perhaps because of the laughing character of that poem. Nonetheless, it is a nearly-contemporary discussion by a competent and engaged reader, and worth considering as evidence. Byron had a fine ear for voice and style and his observations have weight; not, of course, that Junius was 'really, truly, nobody at all'. Cyranorox ( talk) 18:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The use of italics for actual quotes here is confusing as they blend into the italicised source names. Could we use "apostrophes" for quotes? Reference MOS:QUOTEMARKS. I'm happy to do this but would like a second opinion. Moondyne ( talk) 00:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I am not clear what any of the following text currently in the Benjamin Franklin section of the article has to do with the possibility of Franklin being Junius or anything else related to this article. "Franklin had previously obtained a governorship for his son. Unfortunately for the Franklin family, this proved to become a family feud because his son remained loyal to the Crown while Franklin fought against his own son. Franklin and son never communicated with each other again. His son is connected to the famous Franklin Expedition in the Arctic, where the ship became locked in the ice and everyone died as the result of hypothermia, starvation and lead poisoning from the canned food that the expedition had brought along. Canning at that time was in its early stages of technology."
Should it be removed? Dunarc ( talk) 20:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
The name Woodfall appears several times in the text as if we should know who he is, but there is no elucidation. It then appears twice in a footnote, referring to two separate people. If one of these Woodfalls was indeed "convicted and sentenced" in connection to the Junius letters, surely he deserves a bit more attention in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.63.230 ( talk) 10:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)