Talk:Diggers/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Is this deliberately lower-case? Tuf-Kat

diggers

watching a docu on shakespere a group of diggers was briefly mentioned. i beleive c 1620. any idea abbout these predecesors?

Page move?

It seems to me that this page should be moved to Diggers. There's already a Digger (disambiguation) to deal with other senses of the term, and (Levellers) seems like an odd qualifier, anyway. Diggers (17th century would be more standard. In any event, I can't move it to Diggers without the assistance of an admin. - Nat Krause 18:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The correct name for this group is the "True Levellers". That is the name that Gerard Winstanley gave them. Their detractors called them the "Diggers" following their move to dig up part of the common lands. So the name should be "True Levellers (Diggers)".

Freeborn John Lilburne was a individualist. He did not call himself a Leveller, it was his detractors who called him and his associates by that name. Lilburne called himself an Agitator who agitated for freeborn rights which are more than mere human rights - they are rights that everyone is born with equally. Unfortunately Lilburne has been branded a Leveller because he wanted to level the playfield for everyone.

So if you want to correct this mess it should be by linking Gerard Winstanley to the "True Levellers (Diggers)" and John Lilburne to "Levellers so-called" (which is how Lilburne responded to this tag line. MPLX/MH 19:02, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

By the way, the Hippies of San Francisco found a history book about Gerard Winstanley (NOT Lilburne) and copied the "True Levellers" by calling themselves "Diggers" in their "free speech", "free food", "free radio", etc. campaigns of the 1960s. Even Lennon and McCartney are alleged to have briefly picked up on this same theme which they reimported back from California and which became involved with some of the hippie concepts surrounding the Apple enterprise. Abbie Hoffman took the same idea back to New York and tried to create something similar there. All of it was communistic (all things in common) and Winstanley based his own Christian communism on the Book of Acts. In the 18th Century there was a movement in New York that all got branded as Levellers for much of the same reasons involving land and property rights. Lilburne was not involved with these ideas but the concept of equal laws and there is a big difference but unfortunately some people tend to dump all ideas into the same hopper and tar everyone with the same brush. MPLX/MH 19:11, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I agree that, in theory, the name of the Diggers should be the True Levellers and the name of the Levellers should be the Agitators. However, in writing Wikipedia, we have a responsible to follow current usage unless there is some kind of ambiguity. I think the title of the Diggers and article can stand to be just Diggers. - Nat Krause 00:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So just because others have it wrong Wikipedia should follow step? The fact is that if you do your homework you will find the documented proof for what I have stated. But going along with the "everyone knows" business means that Wikipedia is just going to be one more uniformed and misleading source on this subject. Totally useless as a reference work for anyone attempting serious research. At least make an attempt to document this subject. MPLX/MH 00:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree with your analysis. What we're discussing is not a factual claim, so it's not wrong or right. Or rather, the factual claim is that this group is generally called "the Diggers" and that they preferred to call themselves "True Levellers". Do you dispute that? Given that they are generally called Diggers, it is Wikipedia's job to report that fact rather than try to change it. - Nat Krause 03:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So according to that reasoning its bring back the "n" word for bigots and the "cops" word for an article about policemen and women and an article on "chicks" which is really about women and so on and so forth. I don't know what books you have read about this subject but I have studied quite a few since this happens to be a period of history that is of great interest to me. It is Wikipedia's job to report the facts rather than change them and what seems to be going on here is an attempt to change the facts while denying that the facts are being changed! Hello Mr. Blair! (Eric, that is.) MPLX/MH 04:48, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Nat that we should stick with the standard term used by most people, which is Diggers. You will find entries on Cop, Chick and Nigger here, but that doesn't make Wikipedia bigoted or sloppy. Shermozle 12:58, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

You should have checked your sources first! Cop is a redirect to Police; Chick is a disambiguation; Nigger is a disambiguation with a note that its application to human beings IS a bigoted term! So using your own example you have proved my point! The fact is that to use the term Digger is confuse and not to inform and adding confusion is the opposite of what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. Obviously you did not check out your examples before citing them! MPLX/MH 16:04, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you've proven. Cop is a redirect to police, because the latter is also a common term used for peace officers; chick is a disambiguation because it has several meanings; nigger is a disambiguation for the same reason, although I'm not sure that's the best arrangement, and it notes that it is a bigoted term because it is. However, none of these terms enjoy the same level of widespread use that "the Diggers" does. You talk about adding to confusion, but it seems clear to me that that is exactly what we will do if we refuse to call the Diggers the Diggers and the Levellers the Levellers, the terms with which they are almost always referred. - Nat Krause 17:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What I proved was that the answers that I was given are wrong. There is no article about "Cops" - only an article about "Police". The same is true for "Chicks", etc. Now what these references have in common is a direction to a correct article. You will find that anyone who has written anything in depth about the Levellers and the Diggers has had to start disambiguating immediately. This is especially true with regards to John Lilburne who has been linked to all kinds of communistic movements (not Marxist) that are really attributable to Winstanley who gladly took on the Leveller name and said that he represented the True Levellers. Those who have wanted to confuse have always smeared Lilburne with the Leveller name. But Lilburne is linked by ideology to the same ideas found in the US Bill of Rights, he is not linked to communism, Christian or otherwise. If you want to use the name Diggers then use it as a redirect to True Levellers ("The Diggers") and then explain why they were the True Levellers and why they were also called "The Diggers". MPLX/MH 18:59, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Today I moved the article from The Diggers (Levellers) to Diggers (Levellers) in line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Avoid the definite article.

It should definatly not be moved to True Levellers (there is redirect from that name already) because of Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use common names of persons and things.

There is the question of should we move it to Diggers from its current name. But as the Diggers (disambiguation) indicates there is a second valid name Digger (soldier) which has just as valid claim as Diggers (Levellers) to the main slot . More so for anyone who is from Australian or New Zealand, because of the ANZAC connection.

MPLX/MH wrote on my home page:

Philip, I noted that you have been reclassifying the Levellers and Diggers articles, so can I prevail upon you to further classify - Diggers (True Levellers) - since this will then be a correct definition? [A repeat of the arguments on this page]. However, with all that said and done, a compromise could be reached by amending to the suggested title above: Diggers (True Levellers). Thank you. MPLX/MH 17:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have no strong feeling over the name, but if you pushed me this would be my prefered ordering: Diggers, Diggers (Levellers), Diggers (True Levellers). What do others think? --Philip Baird Shearer 00:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Philip, this confirms the problem that I have with this entire subject matter because over a period of time (pre-Wikipedia and since) confusion has blurred the entire scene from the 1640s through to the end of the 1650s. Here is the problem. The Levellers have become associated with John Lilburne who claimed that he was not a Leveller, but merely a Leveller so-called. Lilburne was an Agitator for individualism, or freeborn rights (rights that every human being is born with, not human rights bestowed by some governmental power.) At the end of his life Lilburne died a lonely man who was mocked by the Establishment. Lilburne was forgotten in England but not in America where US Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black became an advocate for Lilburne and incorporated Lilburne into Supreme Court Opinions from 1949 through 1968 where his work became the foundation of the Miranda Opinion (the 5th Amendment is also based upon Lilburne.) Thomas Jefferson was related to Lilburne and his sister married Charles Lilburne Lewis and named her son Lilburne Lewis. His brother named his son Lilburne Jefferson. (I am in the process of writing the complete legal and genealogy history of all this in articles for Wikipedia.) Lilburne died as a Quaker of the most individulistic type.

Now Winstanley embraced the Leveller name and called his group the True Levellers after the communism found in the Book of Acts. His detractors named his followers Diggers and eventually the term stuck.

The problem with allowing confusion to continue is that it does nothing to educate and instead it allows mythology to flourish. That is why if you name the article Diggers (True Levellers} and rename the other article as Levellers (so-called) it will help to straighten out this mess. (There were other key players such as the Fifth Monarchy Men, but their claim was to the Book of Daniel and the world kingdoms of mankind and their name does not create confusion with the facts.) MPLX/MH 03:25, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A Declaration by the Diggers of Wellingborough - 1650

It would seem that by 1650 at least some of the Diggers used the term to describe themselves: [A Declaration by the Diggers of Wellingborough - 1650].

MPLX/MH I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this and these from [1]:

And because there were some treacherous persons drew up a note and subscribed our names to it, and by that moved some friends to give mony to this work of ours, when as we know of no such note, nor subscribed our hands to any, nor ever received any money from such Collection.

Therefore to prevent such a Cheat, I have mentioned a word or two at the end of a printed book against that treachery, that neither we nor our Friends may be cheated: And I desire, if any be willing to communicate of their substance unto our worke, that they would make a Collection among themselves, and send the money to Cobham to the Diggers owne hands, by some trusty friend of your owne, and so neither you nor we shall be cheated.

Gerrard Winstanley and others in a "Letter Taken at Wellingborough" -1650

or "A Bill of Account of the most Remarkable Sufferings that the Diggers have met with from the great red Dragons power since April 1, 1649 / 1650?" Anon. -but almost certainly Gerrard Winstanley.

--Philip Baird Shearer 01:16, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have moved this section back to the bottom as it seemed to have got mixed up with the section "Page move?". MPLX please can you comment on the sources which show that Gerrard Winstanley and his supporters used the term "Diggers" to describe themselves as early as 1650, because it seems to undermine your argument that it was only used by their detractors. Philip Baird Shearer 10:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please stop moving all of the pages and the texts around like a moving target, I have already answered your request but now you have chopped up the article you claimed to have moved and moved only a part of it. It is annoying. I am willing to discuss matters but until some agreement is reached by everyone I wish you would desist from just making these major without concensus.

Philip, I had to modify my last comments because it is impossible to restore a true flow of thought without reverting and I am not a person who reverts pages except where there has been obvious vandalism by blanking or something similar. So I have given up. I will wait and see where all this is going. If you are interested in my response I will refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave a few paragraphs ago. MPLX/MH 17:38, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am confused. I did not move you text. I moved the the start of this section because you answer seemed to be too general for this section. Ok are you saying that the name of the pamphlet "A Declaration by the Diggers of Wellingborough - 1650" was added at a later date and that it is not the original name? Seems reasonable, but I don't know if it was or was not. Let's assume that it was for the moment. What about the wording in "Letter Taken at Wellingborough"? Because in that one it definatly uses the word Digger in the text ("Cobham to the Diggers owne hands")? --Philip Baird Shearer 00:17, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am totally at sea with this discussion. It began over a renaming and now it has shifted to something else. I don't know what on earth you are reading in to my comments. I just wish that you would stick with the original issue which is what I was discussing. MPLX/MH 06:27, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

The text between this page line and the next was moved from User talk:Philip Baird Shearer#Diggers

As MPLX/MH has decided to link the page move of Levellers and Diggers, please have a look at Talk:Diggers (Levellers)#A Declaration by the Diggers of Wellingborough - 1650 as I am trying to show him that The diggers used the term "Diggers" to describe themselves as early as 1650 which rather blows his argument out of the water. I have not put the argument very well because he does not seem to understand what I have written! Perhaps if someone else was to try he might understand. Philip Baird Shearer 10:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can try, but to be honest MPLX just seems to have a very noisy bee in his bonnet that prevents him hearing other views or arguments. Your points seemed to me to have been made pefectly clearly, and his only response was to bluster and claim not to understand. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:24, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you have a time it you might like to read Talk:John Lilburne. As you will see MPLX/MH an expert on the subject. He has even crossed swords with Roy Hattersley! However I do not think he knows that, far from being forgotten in England, the Levellers and Diggers a part of the school history A level curriculum on the English Civil War. I am surprised that given his broad depth he is not aware that Winstanley used the term "Diggers" to describe the communities who dug up three commons. Philip Baird Shearer 10:57, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please do not shift the discussion - especially since Philip redirected my comments back to the appropriate Talk page. Please do not discuss my views off site. Please do not turn this into a personal issue. I have commented on your inappropriate response before. Please stay within the bounds of courteous discussion as required by Wikipedia. Thank you. MPLX/MH 16:19, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My discussion with Philip Baird Shearer is well within the bounds of courtesy. Your demand not to talk about you 'off-site' is a peculiar one, and in so far as I understand it, not one that you have any right to make. Finally, I'm not making this a personal issue; so far as I can tell, one editor has a very strong view on this, and neither argument nor evidence is enough to shift it. That that editor is you is neither here nor there. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:26, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am collecting all related comments due to the double-standard being applied here. These comments exchanged off topic about MPLX are not healthy for a discussion and they are not healthy for Wikipedia. Additionally, I am not sure what is implied by "He has even crossed swords with Roy Hattersley!". Where did I state that I have "crossed swords with Roy Hattersley?" I will be copying all of this back to the Digger Talk page in context. My previous response to the person that you are discussing me with, has been to ignore that person rather than to allow his discussions to descend into personal attacks. That has always been my policy and it remains my policy. MPLX/MH 16:35, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

MPLX/MH I asked Mel Etitis to have a look what I have written because as "I have not put the argument very well because he does not seem to understand what I have written! Perhaps if someone else was to try he might understand." This is not an unreasonable request to put to someone who also has an interest in the subject and has already criticised me for not writing clearly. (see Talk:The Levellers "but I can't really make sense of this paragraph:"). I am sure that in his response on this page [(my personal talk page)] that no offence to anyone was intended. I certainly did not read it that way. As to the comment on Roy Hattersley perhaps you have forgotten what you wrote on Talk:John Lilburne at 17:18, on 20 Oct 2004 (UTC):

I once asked Deputy Leader of the Labour Party Roy Hattersley on TV why the Labour Party did not adopt the work of John Lilburne and push for a written constitution and he flat out told me and the world that a written constitution was a bad idea because it protected individual rights and not socialism which made it difficult to raise taxes. That is what he said. I know that Michael Foote and Tony Benn have also written about Lilburne and confused the issues even more by mixing Levellers with True Levellers.

-- Philip Baird Shearer 17:46, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As you will recall I came to your own Talk page to discuss an issue and not a person. I was both civil and polite. Unfortunately the other person engaged in this immediate dialog is a person that I had previously decided not to engage in discussion because his comments are mixed with his observations about people. I confess that I did get sucked back into a further discussion with this person and now I regret doing so. The Internet has a strange way of creating uncivil behaviour. In order to keep the peace I try to leave before the dialog becomes a more serious problem. As to the "crossed swords" comment, obviously those are not my exact words. They are an interpretation of something posted on another page which really requires further explanation, but which I am not inclined to do so at the present time because they are not a part of the present topic under discussion. Finally, not only is this discussion taking place here (as well as your own Talk page and the Talk page of the other editor in question), but it is also taking place on the Leveller Talk page. The entire subject has been turned into a complicated editing mess quite unnecessarily. MPLX/MH 18:34, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Letter Taken at Wellingborough

Now back to the Subject at the top of this section. MPLX/MH I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this from [2]:

And I desire, if any be willing to communicate of their substance unto our worke, that they would make a Collection among themselves, and send the money to Cobham to the Diggers owne hands, by some trusty friend of your owne, and so neither you nor we shall be cheated.

Gerrard Winstanley and others in a "Letter Taken at Wellingborough" -1650

Does this not show that by 1650 that Winstanley was using the term "Diggers" to describe the groups digging the common? If so it is not just a label used by the detractors of the movement but also by the most influential member of the Digger community while the Digger communes were still in existence? If he thought it derogatory why does he use it instead of the term "True Levellers" in this letter? I put it to you that by the time this letter was written in 1650, that the term "Digger" was used by both detractor and supporters of the Diggers. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:13, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am having some difficulty editing on Wikipedia at the moment due to server problems, so I may take a break and wait until the current situation improves. However, in the meantime to specifically answer your question: Yes, it certainly would appear to be the case. This is similar to any person or group given a nickname that is adopted by others. However, in all such cases it is still necessary for the person or group to identify themselves by their legal or proper name in order to restore meaning to their actual identity. An example of this would be the "Mormons" - who are of course not Mormons at all but the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints". The name "Mormon" is derived from that of an alleged angel who is alleged to have delivered an alleged message to the founder of the church. So are the current members now angels or are they saints? The sort of question same is also true of the "Diggers". This is a name that came from observation that the True Levellers engaged in digging up the common lands. So were these people diggers by physical activity or "Diggers" by belief? They were diggers by physical activity and true levellers (Christian communists) by belief. MPLX/MH 18:51, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Diggers (True Levellers)

Philip, I noted that you have been reclassifying the Levellers and Diggers articles, so can I prevail upon you to further classify - Diggers (True Levellers) - since this will then be a correct definition? Lilburne was an Agitator and shunned the term Leveller. His enemies smeared him with that term and so he referred to his own followers as "Levellers so-called". There is a big difference here. Lilburne's genealogy and his ideology went forward into the Jefferson line and ended up in the US Bill of Rights. This is well documented and I am in the process of recording that documentation for Wikipedia. Lilburne stood for individualism and for individual freeborn rights (he was called "Freeborn John".) On the other hand, Winstanley reached into the Book of Acts for Christian communism - hence levellers=communism. The Digger aspect only got tagged on to one faction of Winstanley's True Levellers (the term he used), when a band plonked themselves on public land, claimed it for their own (as a group) and began to dig it up to plant crops, hence the tag of "Diggers" by their enemies. But Winstanley's people were first of all True Levellers by both philosophy and religion and then secondarily, a faction of them became branded as "Diggers" by enemies - because not all of Winstanley's people were digging up the land. However, with all that said and done, a compromise could be reached by amending to the suggested title above: Diggers (True Levellers). Thank you. MPLX/MH 17:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reason for move

This article is directly related to the article about the Levellers and both the Diggers and Levellers articles have disambiguation pages related to them. The opening line of this article describes the Diggers as the True Levellers, which was their historical name and definition that can be verified by many reputable sources. However, the original article was misnamed in that it described the Diggers as the Levellers, which immediately created confusion with the other article about the Levellers while being not only an incorrect name but a name immediately contradicted by the first line of the article. The move was accomplished using the Wikipedia "move" option which automatically created redirects and moved this Talk page as well. MPLX/MH 01:21, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

• Talk:Diggers (True Levellers) -- Diggers (True Levellers) → Diggers. The redirect from Diggers currently directs to Diggers (True Levellers)). There is already a Diggers (disambiguation) page mentioned at the top of the Diggers (True Levellers) page for other meanings --Philip Baird Shearer 15:03, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

add: * Support or * Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and a signature:"~~~~"

• Oppose: There are too many other meanings of the term and only history buffs would consider this the primary term. In Australia and NZ, [Digger (soldier)] and probably globally would think in terms of the excavation vehicle. I think it should go to [Digger (disambiguation)]. Shermozle 18:58, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose: I am in agreement with Shermozle besides which the very first line of the article defines them as being True Levellers. MPLX/MH 21:24, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The disambiguation page should be moved from Diggers (disambiguation) to either Digger or Diggers, with the other of those redirecting to the dab page. JamesMLane 14:50, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with this one. violet/riga (t) 23:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---Add any additional comments on the "Requested move" below this line ---

Digger is a redirect to Digger (soldier). This is about Diggers plural. Diggers as excavation vehicles are shown under Digger (disambiguation) as Excavator. There are around a score of pages linked to "Diggers" meaning the 17th century movement and almost the same again to The Diggers. None of them are from pages where the meaning would be meaning Excavator Philip Baird Shearer 19:46, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For some strange reason this entire period of English history has been muddied (clouded) up so that the real parties have become obfuscated. This group was known by themselves as the True Levellers and others called them "Diggers" because of their actions. The Levellers (so-called) were never the Levellers in fact according to Parliamentary papers of the time which I will soon be making available. John Lilburne and the Army faction were referred to as Agitators in Parliamentary papers and Lilburne called himself by this name. Others smeared them with the name "Leveller" in an attempt to tar everyone with the same brush - hence Winstanley called his people the "True Levellers" to set them apart from the Agitators. While the Winstanley followers sought a form of Christian communism that applied to real property (land), that is not what Lilburne's followers wanted. They were after more than human rights granted by government - they wanted freeborn rights - rights that you are born with - hence his name "Freeborn John". There is a direct link between Lilburne and Jefferson and between Lilburne's ideas and the US Bill of Rights and even modern US law based upon US Supreme Court Opinions (all well documented and I am documenting them for Wikipedia.) No one would remotely suggest that the US heritage is founded upon communism although Christian communist ideas were tried out from the time of the Mayflower Compact onwards. We need to enlighten and educate with Wikipedia, not obfuscate for partisan political reasons. MPLX/MH 21:24, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

I rarely hear the term Digger (soldier) used in the singular in the Australia/NZ context. You're more likely to here "the diggers" than "he was a digger". The simplest solution really is just to go to the disambiguation page. Shermozle 11:11, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Currently if you use:

• diggers -- [[digger]]s -- you will end up at the soldier page. So using the standard Wikipedia way of linking "the diggers" takes the reader to the soldier page. As does diggers -- [[digger (soldier)|]]s -- you will also end up at the soldier page. This is in line with the Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Prefer singular nouns. You will only end up at the "Diggers" page if you enter
• Diggers -- [[Diggers]] or Diggers -- [[Diggers (True Levellers)|]]

So the argument about singualr or plural does not realy exist. As both of them can co-exist, and with a first line which inlcudes a link to the Diggers (disambiguation) page this stops any confusion. Philip Baird Shearer 17:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I cannot fathom why you want to obliterate their real name of the True Levellers. They were called "Diggers" because some of their membership (by no means all of them), started to dig up public lands. But their beliefs were as true levellers. It would be like renaming all Republicans "Dittoheads" just because Rush captured a large segment (but by no means all of the Republicans.) To then associate all Republicans as being yes men/women (ie: ditto), would be insulting to say the least, let alone totally misleading and totally untrue. Leave the title alone and lets get on with its content. MPLX/MH 18:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The issue of the singular/plural arises because some people entering "Digger" into the search box will be looking for Digger (computer game) or for Excavator. In addition, some who encounter a reference to "the Diggers" and want to understand it might enter "Digger", given that many of our articles are at the singular; therefore, some people entering "Digger" will be looking for the English group or for the San Franciscans. That's why I think "Digger" should take the reader, whether directly or by a redirect, to the disambiguation page. JamesMLane 21:49, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No objections from me - sounded like a good suggestion. It has been so redirected. MPLX/MH 23:08, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. Digger (disambiguation) may be moved to Digger but as that would be a different vote I'll leave it for now. violet/riga (t) 20:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just go ahead and move it because it make perfect sense and we are all spending far too much time discussing stuff here instead of writing good articles. Since Digger is available and it is shorter than the Digger (disambiguation), which is presently only a redirect, just switch them around and be done with it. MPLX/MH 23:28, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I object to the move. Philip Baird Shearer 00:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What happened to the diggers?

What became of them after 1650? The article seems to end there, w no resolution. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 09:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

True Levellers

Apart from the title of the pamphlet The True Levellers Standard A D V A N C E D Where else does Winstanley use the term "True Levellers"? He does not use the phrase anywhere else in the article. Another way or reading this is that the title (which is re-inforced by the fonts used in the printing) says "The true standard advanced by the Levellers" in which case he was not calling the Diggers "True Levellers" but is advancing ideas in this pamphlet which (all) Levellers could use to obtain their on objectives of a more egalitarian society. Philip Baird Shearer 18:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Philip, you are missing the point completely. Major authors on this subject (Christopher Hill, etc.), have pointed out the meaning of the word "leveller". It had absolutely nothing in common with the aims of John Lilburne and those who followed his personal and very individualistic series of fights with the legal system. It had to do with the ideology found in the Book of Acts as interpreted by the Christian communists. While half of the people on the Mayflower (1620) lacked ideology, the other lot shared much in common with Winstanley's people. The Mayflower Compact is in many ways a Digger Compact. It advocates Christian communism and that is what the people who rallied around Winstanley and stayed behind also advocated. The very meaning of the word "level", or "levelling" or "leveller" relates to the lyrics of the Billy Bragg song "The World Turned Upside Down" (of 1649). (It's a great song, well sung and the lyrics are very easy to understand.) It is all about Christian communism - no man having the right to own the land for private gain. The anti-fence movement. In many ways it also relates to core beliefs held by many of the North American Indian tribes because they held similar ideas. While Lilburne shunned the word "Leveller", Winstanley embraced it - he called his people the "True Levellers". He was happy to be known as a Leveller. The only thing that Winstanley and Lilburne had in common was that they both finally drifted into the quiet inner religion of the Quakers and resigned themselves to the fact that their outword fights were getting nowhere. Then they died. However, Winstanley's ideas were not unknown to Karl Marx and Winstanley's ideas (translated and published) found a new foothold in communist Russia while Lilburne was not only related to Jefferson, but Paine (also from a Quaker stock), also embraced similar views to Lilburne and today, via Hugo Black, many of Lilburne's ideas form the backbone of the U.S. Bill of Rights. I will add more of all of this with the necessary references, to the appropriate articles as I get time to do so. MPLX/MH 20:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhapse I did not phrase my question clearly enough. Can you name another pamphlet, or any other source anywhere else, where Winstanley used the phrase "True Levellers" apart from in the title of the pamphlet "The True Levellers Standard A D V A N C E D"? In that pamphlet the phrase only appears in the title, so were else did Winstanley use the phrase? We have agreed that he used the term "Diggers" and I would like you to source Wistanley's use of the term "True Levellers" if we are going to use in in a the Wikipedia article. Philip Baird Shearer 21:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I sense that we are dancing around. I will address your immediate question in my next response, but what is being missed is that the "Leveller" name was a name hurled by the Establishment at everyone who wanted to bring down the Establishment: they did not care who believed what. There was a class system (did I say was ...?) and those on top wanted to stay there. Lilburne carried on a personal legal fight and added his name to the move for a written constitution. On the other hand, Winstanley's crowd came at matters from a totally different direction based upon Christian communism. As far as the Establishment were concerned they were all as bad as each other because their enemy was the Establishment. Now in dealing with these groups outside of that historical struggle we need to ask who were they individually? Well that requires separating them out into different factions based upon entirely different beliefs. Lilburne was never a Leveller. Lilburne was a individualist who believed in both individual rights and private property. Winstanley was by religion and by deed a leveller who believed in a "common treasury for all". MPLX/MH 21:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Er, Philip, this is your own reference

1 The term ‘Levellers’ was used earlier than this. Its first political use was in 1607 to name a group in Northamptonshire who protested the enclosure of commons by filling in the ditches and levelling the fences that marked the new boundaries. Although there is some dispute about who first called the political group led by Overton, Walwyn and Lilburne ‘Levellers,’ it was probably Cromwell in the Putney Debates of 1647 – at least that is what Lilburne later reported. See Blair Worden, ‘Appendix – ‘The Levellers’: the emergence of the term,’ in Michael Mendle, ed., The Putney Debates of 1647: The Army, the Levellers and the English State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 280–82, Pauline Gregg, Free-Born John: The Biography of John Lilburne (London: Phoenix, 2000), 221, and Joseph Frank, The Levellers (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1955), 291–92.

... Philip, you just linked this to the "Leveller" page and it clearly explains that Leveller means "Digger"! This has absolutely nothing at all to do with the ideas of Lilburne. I can think of many smear names for various groups and individuals that unfairly brand them as something that they are not and here is a classic example. Now be a kind sir and stick this where it belongs ... on THIS article. Thank you (on behalf of Freeborn John). MPLX/MH 22:46, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No it does not belong on this page, It belongs on the page where I put it because it states that the term may have first been used by Cromwell to describe the people who opposed him at the Putney Debates in 1647. The people who argued against Henry Ireton and Oliver Cromwell at the Putney Debates were civilians and agitators, (like Thomas Rainsborough), elected from New Model Army regiments, using a document called Agreement of the People.... They were not Diggers. Philip Baird Shearer 00:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone is sweating. Your own reference quoted above states: "Its first political use was in 1607 to name a group in Northamptonshire who protested the enclosure of commons by filling in the ditches and levelling the fences that marked the new boundaries." I am well aware of the Agreement, that was the first of three editions, the latter being cited by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black (1968) as the foundation of the U.S. Bill of Rights. Lilburne and company never were into protesting enclosures - that was the Digger enterprise. Cromwell was smearing Lilburne and company (like Sen. Joe McCarthy calling everyone a "communist" in the 1950s.) Cromwell hated Lilburne and it got to the point where Cromwell stated that it was either him or me - knowing that Lilburne's quest for individual liberty would kill Cromwell's thirst for a religious-military dictatorship. Lilburne wanted a free republic. Had Lilburne succeeded the Revolutionary War of 1776 might never have happened. But the term "Leveller" meant "communist" and good old Winstanley was more than happy to be called a Leveller. MPLX/MH 00:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I included the source with the external link because it may be of interest to some people. As it was to you! I have no reason not to include such information and I am surprised that you should think that: I would not wish to share such things with others, and that it was on the wrong page. I have no agenda to put forward on this issue other than Wikipedia reflects as closely a possible the widely accepted historical accounts of the Levellers and the Diggers. If external references like that one helps to explain the movements then of course I will link them in. I think that if Cromwell coined the term that is a relevant snippet to include in an external link. If I had access to the sources quoted to check them, then if it proved true, I would move the snippet from the external links into the main article.

MPLX I understand you position, but I think that your personal crusade is misguided. The People who argued at the Putney Debates are commonly known as "Levellers", what ever the origins of the word and who ever first used the label. The people who dug up commons are commonly known as "Diggers". Trying to argue that the Levellers were not Levellers because allegedly some/most of them did not like the label is just wrong, it is the common historical name by which they are known. Just as Diggers is the common historical name by which the people who dug up common land around Cobham and Wellingborough are known. You might like to rant against the victors writing history, but Wikipedia is not the place to do this as it is confusing for people who do not have a detailed knowledge of the movements.

What you have not yet done is to "address your immediate question in my next response" which was: Can you name another pamphlet, or any other source anywhere else, where Winstanley used the phrase "True Levellers"? The reason for asking this is that you are making a statement that they called themselves "True Levellers" so we should source that in the article as they are commonly known as Diggers. As I said above the pamphlet name "The True Levellers Standard A D V A N C E D:" is not sufficient because the adjective "True" is used in an ambiguous way. If "True Levellers" was a common label used by the Diggers then there should be other places where it was used. Philip Baird Shearer 12:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Philip, I sense that this is getting heated and that is not what I want at all, because then it becomes a clash of personalities instead of a consideration of ideas (which is what I do want.) With that written, please do not use words like: "You might like to rant ..." because that is obviously not helpful to a calm consideration of ideas. I am not ranting but I am laughing at the fact that it is your own reference that proves my point - but I am not laughing at you - I do not wish to turn this into a personal issue.

Now, as to the suggestion that I do not like your reference repeatedly cited, that is the opposite of the truth! I love your reference because I believe that it proves my point precisely!

As for the part about Cromwell at Putney, well I like that as well because that also proves what I have been writing is true. I am not only well aware of the historical aspects of the Putney Debates, but I am also aware of what current day Putney had to say about them in its exhibit. (Done that, been there.) The name "leveller" was very explicit - it was to "level mens' estates" - which is what the Digger movement was trying to do, but it was not what the Army agitators were trying to do. I cite John Rushworth's writings which report the use of the word "agitator" to describe the pre-New Model Army complaints. By the time of the New Model Army, John Lilburne who had risen to the rank of Lt. Colonel (he was a war hero - there is a lot of proof of that), but Lilburne refused to fight on in the New Model Army and this formed his break with Cromwell.

Cromwell hated Lilburne - now there was the "rant" - because Cromwell smeared Lilburne's ideas as "levelling". Later, Cromwell imprisoned Lilburne for life without trial or charges but upon his personal political fear only. Lilburne was a political agitator - not a Christian communist - not a Digger who want to "level mens' estates"!

Your reference is PERFECT because it ties all of this together. Cromwell went out of his way to obfuscate the cause of Lilburne, just as the restored monarchists went out of their way to smear Cromwell's memory in later years. I am trying to disambiguate this mess and make this period of history understandable and show who stood for what and why. Playing around with political tags for political purposes does the exact opposite.

Winstanley was not a "Digger" but he was a would be "Leveller" which is why he adoped the name of "True Leveller" to show that it was his works that stood for Christian communism in land reform, not Lilburne. There are many historic and well documented histories of both camps which I have access to, but I have not had the time to rummage. I do have access to a large private library but unfortunately it has been in the process of moving which makes finding things somewhat difficult at the moment. That is why I want you to focus on the reference that you have now posted, because far from not liking it, I love it. I just want it to be attached to other articles and while I realize that I have just as much right as you to "mercilessly edit" (as Wikipedia says), I try to do my best to get along with other editors and therefore I would like you to attach your reference with notes, to the Leveller article.

I still intend to answer your other question, by the way. MPLX/MH 13:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE. PLEASE DO NOT POST HERE. GO TO Talk:Diggers INSTEAD.