Talk:An Agreement of the People

"Male property owners"
I removed 'male property owners' and replaced it with the quotation of that portion of the Agreement referred to, because 'male property owners' is not descriptively accurate of that provision. A servant could own land; a person without land could be neither a servant or a recipient of alms, or could have refrained from serving the Crown in arms during the war. It would be paradoxical to think servant here referred to free men. In practice this would have specified a lot of, but not exclusively, landed men, but it would be an instance of the Historian's fallacy to assume they meant the same sort of thing. Property is not mentioned in that provision, and where the Levellers use the word property they mean it in the sense of a God-given characteristic under natural law, of which estates in land are a subset. GrotiusCokeVitoria (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Author
A search for Lilburne in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography says he had a hand in writing the agreement but he was imprisoned from 1646-1648 and so was not as involved as he would have liked. This article says he wrote it --- this needs to be cited or adjusted so that it is in agreement with the authoritative source. It would be better to just write that the levellers submitted it to parliament. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.68.32.242 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 30 October 2006   (UTC)

Re: The third agreement is actually written 'from our causeless captivity in the Tower of London' with his signature among others. GrotiusCokeVitoria (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Versions
There is an additional problem there were a number of different documents which are referred to as "Agreement of the People" for example: --Philip Baird Shearer 14:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The Agreement of the People as presented to the Council of the Army October 1647. An Agreement of the People for a firm and present peace upon grounds of common right.
 * Agreement of the People, as presented to Parliament in January 1649. An Agreement of the People of England, and the places therewith incorporated, for a secure and present peace, upon grounds of common right, freedom and safety.
 * Agreement of the Free People, extended version from the imprisonment of the Leveller leaders, May 1649. AN AGREEMENT OF THE Free People of England. Tendered as a Peace-Offering to this distressed Nation. 

The version mentioned in the first paragraph is "The Agreement of the People (1648)" is that New Style or old Style year? The text which is incorportated into this document (and should be moved into wikisource) is the May 1649 version. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Case of the army
The last paragraph explains the Officers (which should be General Council of the Army) decided to use the Heads of Proposal as a basis for settlement, where in fact the Putney debates were dominated by tensions between the 'Agreement' and the 'Case of the army truly stated' (found in DM Wolfe 'Leveller Manifestos' (see chapter 6, 'The Putney Debates' by Mendle (ed.) Quee1797 (talk) 11:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you have misread that chapter. In any event the article is (as usual) entirely wrong. The Officers did not use the Heads of Proposals as the basis for settlement. A modified Agreement of the People was sketched out as a compromise agreement by the officers and agitators at the end of the Putney Debates around 13 November 1647 and in 1648 the Council of Officers presented a version of the Agreement of the People to Parliament for consideration. It was then forgotten but sections made its way into the Cromwellian Instrument of Government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.9.195 (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

An Agreement of the People for a firme
I am going to revert this edit by Straw Cat because the inline citation does not support the change in spelling. Yes I know that one can see the image, but to use that without a secondary source to support it is placing a users interpretation of a primary sources in contradiction of the secondary source and hence a breach of WP:PSTS. The point being that if the secondary sources user modern spelling for the title so should Wikipedia. If you can come up with reliable secondary sources that do not alter the spelling, then it can be reconsidered. -- PBS (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am reverting your edit. Sorry, but WP:MOSQUOTE is the principle here: "Quotations must be verifiably attributed, and the wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced." Also you have overlooked the fact that primary sources are not completely banned under the original research rule. WP:PRIMARY notes that "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." This is the case here: there is, obviously, no interpretation involved. Straw Cat (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Then cite a secondary source that has published the wording you wish to use. -- PBS (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Agreement of the People. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120604062123/http://members.mobar.org:80/civics/Prelude%20to%20Liberty.htm to http://members.mobar.org/civics/Prelude%20to%20Liberty.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)