Talk:Levellers

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)

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Levellers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080624075726/http://www.bartleby.com:80/65/le/Levelers.html to http://www.bartleby.com/65/le/Levelers.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.88.103 (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2016 (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.