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 |
or it should be deleted.
There's really nothing substantive here at all.
- Ledenierhomme ( talk) 11:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
-- Kudpung ( talk) 01:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
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?
This historical narrative has no sources. ICA1916 ( talk) 09:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
why can't you edit this article?
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.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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 |
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 |
or it should be deleted.
There's really nothing substantive here at all.
- Ledenierhomme ( talk) 11:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
-- Kudpung ( talk) 01:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
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?
This historical narrative has no sources. ICA1916 ( talk) 09:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
why can't you edit this article?
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.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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 |