Talk:Edmund Burke/Archive 2

"Storming of Bastille"
The last paragraph currently reads: ''Burke died in Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire on 9 July 1797, five days before the anniversary of the storming of the Bastille and the official start of the Revolution he so long predicted and fought against. He was buried in Beaconsfield alongside his son and brother. His wife survived him by nearly fifteen years. The storming of the Bastille was 14 July 1789, so "five days ... fought against''" should be removed. Pat Muldowney (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC) Maybe they got the year of his death wrong? Noghiri (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Delicious Truth

 * "As a child he sometimes spent time away from the unhealthy air of Dublin with his mother's family baking and eating delicious pies in the Blackwater Valley."

Is it irrefutable fact that the pies were indeed delicious? Did his mother's family never bake a bad pie? We all bake bad pies.

--Tredicity (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

"Conservative"
If a mention is going to be made that Burke was not a conservative it would be right to include that the "conservative versus liberal" dichotomy did not happen until approximately thirty years after Burke's death. Therefore it is misleading to simply include he was not a conservative: he was not a liberal or a radical either.--Britannicus (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"Anglo" Irish?
The lad was of 100% Irish background. He later moved to the Kingdom of Great Britain, the Kingdom of England stopped existing before he was born so "Anglo" doesn't come into it. - True as Blue (talk) 08:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Burke often described himself as "an Englishman", something which he did not see as incompatible with his Irishness. To try and make his nationality exclusively "Irish" is anachronistic and false. "Anglo-Irish" refers to the descendants of English Protestants in Ireland who controlled Ireland politically and economically. Burke was descended from these. I think your edit was wrong.--Johnbull (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Burke came from a family with a Catholic background, both paternally and maternally. His father was a convert from Catholicism to Anglicanism and Burke's mother was simply an unconverted Irish Catholic. - True as Blue (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This same discussion is taking place at the article on CS Lewis, surely there must be some standard term for loyal subjects of the crown born in Ireland before Irish independence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Methusedalot (talk • contribs) 23:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The article Anglo-Irish explains what that phrase means, and how it applies to someone like Edmund Burke. Burke was even an MP for Bristol.  - Eb.hoop (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The term "Anglo-Irish" is NOT appropriate for Burke, and is highly misleading. When referring to people, "Anglo-Irish" has traditionally denoted people of English descent (the "Protestant Ascendancy") who were born in Ireland; the term is an equivalent to Scots-Irish. It is not, and was not, normally used to designate an Irishman who moves to England, just as Scots-Irish is not normally used to designate an Irishman who moves to Scotland. (The fact that Burke was an MP for Bristol has nothing to do with any of this.)

It is true that, by SOME definitions (not all!), Burke could be marginally considered Anglo-Irish because he and his father were officially members of the Church of Ireland. However, his family follows a standard pattern of the day in that all the women were Catholic and the men Anglican; these were really old Irish Catholic families who nominally conformed because it was illegal for Catholics to be educated, to be in professions, or to buy property. Burke's ancestry appears to have been 100% Irish, and he is known to be descended from old Irish gentry on his mother's side. He openly expressed contempt for the Protestant Ascendancy and would be horrified to be identified with them. The simple fact that Burke's religion makes it marginally acceptable to classify him as Anglo-Irish under some definitions doesn't make it appropriate to do so; by this logic, articles would be filled with misleading statements that were marginally justifiable. Burke scholars do not identify him as "Anglo-Irish," and there is just no reason to introduce this misleading label here, unless it can be sourced to a widely recognized Burke scholar. It makes much more sense to simply call him what he was: an Irish-born British statesman.

For those who feel compelled to use the "Anglo-Irish" label: Please find a biography of Burke by a major Burke scholar who uses this term, and cite it. The BBC is not an authority on Burke! (In fact, the BBC page that was cited for "Anglo-Irish" starts off with another glaring error, stating that Burke is "known for his strong support of the American Revolution." Any Burke scholar will tell you that Burke was of mixed mind on it; he sympathized with the Americans but was by no means a "strong supporter of the Revolution." This is clearly not a reputable source.) Reader335 (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with the above. The term "anglo-irish" can be used for many families in Ireland at the time, but the family of Burke (and similarly of Bourke, de Burgo, de Burca) does not at all fit with the proper definition of the term. In the words of Christopher Hitchens, in his review of Reflections on the Revolution in France, "Edmund Burke was neither an Englishman nor a Tory. He was an Irishman, probably a Catholic Irishman at that (even if perhaps a secret sympathizer), and for the greater part of his life he upheld the more liberal principles of the Whig faction." And finally, in the most extensive introduction to date of "Reflections on the Revolution in France", Jonathan Clark writes "Edmund Burke was an Irishman, born in Dublin but in an age before 'Celtic nationalism' had been constructed to make Irishness and Englishness incompatible: he was therefore free also to describe himself, without misrepresentation, as 'an Englishman' to denote his membership of the wider polity. He never attempted to disguise his Irishness (as some ambitious Scots in eighteenth-century England tried to anglicise their accents), did what he could in the Commons to promote the interests of his native country and was bitterly opposed to the Penal Laws against Irish Catholics." The terminology needs to be amended. Micielo (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Theme bug
I am using the 'modern' theme,but when I go to the main content page, it reverts to the default theme and shows that I logged out. When I go to the main Talk page, I show all systems normal. Noghiri (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And what does your comment have to do with improving this article? Help desk is probably the best place to ask this. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Politically correct
It was a relief to see Britannicus's correction of 122.106.150.124's original research. There is no way that we could allow the Latin word "niger" to be translated as "dark." It is absolutely necessary that it be translated as "evil," as  Britannicus insists.Lestrade (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
 * I admit my Latin is unsatisfactory, but if users were allowed to include their own translations contrary to those in the source, there would be no end of disputes.--Britannicus (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In Our Time
Rich Farmbrough, 03:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

List of Works???
Burke was a prolific writer. Why is there no list of his works? Someone interested might want to refer to the complete works of Burke at Project Gutenberg as a resource in crafting such a section.

http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/b#a842

Carl Wivagg (talk) 01:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Edmund Burke considered himself to be an Englishman, not Irish
It's impossible to understand his ideas without this being established. He wrote from the perspective of being an Englishman and his own intepretation of what that meant. PyrrhusEP (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * J.C.D. Clark's "Reflections on the Revolution in France. A Critical Edition" is one of three primary sources used to construct this article. He deals with Burke's background. Please see the citation (No. 2). Micielo (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

When was 'A Philosophical Enquiry...' actually written?
The article states that he wrote it before he was 19, but going by the stated dates of his birth and the book's publication, he would have been 28 when it was published. So, either he wrote it 9 years before publication or the figure is incorrect. Either way, it could use some clarification; perhaps with a more recent citation. wvoelcker (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Page 47 of Prior's Life says: "Toward the decline of his life, he was solicited by several intimate friends...to revise and enlarge this treatise by the addition of such facts and observations as thirty years must have supplied...His reply usually was, that he was no longer fit to pursue speculative matters of that sort...To Dr. Laurence he said, he was never more fit for abstract speculations than when at college and immediately afterwards&mdash;that he had about that time speculated long and deeply&mdash;and in proof of the fact said, he had begun his Essay on the Sublime and Beautiful before he was nineteen years old, and had kept it by him for seven years before it was published."--Britannicus (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Does citation support all assertions?
[Never mind. My mistake. Have a nice day! :)]

Phantom in ca (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Subject of property
The article states, without citation, that Burke was first to put property at the base of social development and that this was radical. However, political philosophers such as John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau had done the exact same thing years before. Just something to consider for revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.100.114 (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Timeline
I like that this article contains a time line. But I think its usefulness could be increased if it had more aspects, perhaps in tabular form. A potential example (not searching for hits, but this is an example of one I developed on Samuel Johnson: http://samueljohnson.com/timeline.html ) I love Burke but don't know enough about the biographical details to develop something analogous for Burke. And I think a time line for Burke could also be improved by adding a column of historical context at the same time (if that wouldn't violate Wikipedia standards). Just a thought. Frank Lynch (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

India and the impeachment of Warren Hastings
I tried to improve the grammar, clarity, and coherence of this section, only to discover late in the game that there is a separate Wikipedia article that specifically and exclusively addresses the topic! Of course, it's nobody's fault but mine that I wasn't cognizant of the second article sooner, since it is quite properly noted at the beginning of this section. I stumbled across this article while researching something only remotely related, and I need to acknowledge up front that I am in no way an expert on Burke or the impeachment of Governor-General Hastings. Therefore, this section would undoubtedly benefit from another more knowledgeable editor's (or editors') expertise. I attempted to prune the article of unsubstantiated assertions and statements that contradict the Impeachment of Warren Hastings article, since the later is more comprehensive, seems more accurate (more references; nice, logical flow; and tighter congruence with what little I know about this period of English history. -  Mark D Worthen PsyD  14:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox philosopher
Note to editors: please do not delete the Infobox philosopher template or add unsupported infobox parameters. The parameters of Infobox philosopher are vital to the purposes of WikiProject Philosophy. If you want to add an Infobox officeholder, please do it as is done in the article about Joseph Stiglitz were both an Infobox economist and an Infobox officeholder are featured. Thanks. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Was Burke a Free Mason?
The article suggests it kind of underhandedly (“Rockingham also introduced Burke as a Freemason.[31][32]”) but never deals with the issue head on. I found some references to Burke’s masonry on some pro-masons websites, but needless to say they are not without a conflict of interest. It seems surprising to me that during all my reading about Burke nobody else mentioned it. Is it because most conservatives are Catholics and they don't want to admit it or what?

Ceplm (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Burke was one of Samuel Johnson's pall bearers
I think it's worth mentioning, but where to put it? Frank Lynch (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Unbalanced article - no reference to Locke or Hobbes
That Locke and Hobbes influences on Burke are not discussed shows an imbalance in this article. Paul Beardsell (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

"False quotes"
I just removed this from the False Quotes section:
 * The source of this idea is Plato who wrote "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."

Yes that's right - a quote attributed to Plato on a travel website has been used as a reputable source on wikipedia, in a section warning of disreputable quote sources no less. Well, I guess it's not the first time. I'm just visiting this page, but since this was the only link I clicked on, I wouldn't mind betting there are other similarly astounding links on it. 110.20.168.169 (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Adding above to keep citation with relavant comment thread. --Xover (talk) 08:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The "absurdity" of "atheistic rationalism"?
Under the heading "Early writing", the last sentence of the first paragraph states "Burke imitated Bolingbroke's style and ideas in a reductio ad absurdum of his arguments for atheistic rationalism, demonstrating their absurdity." This needs clarification for as it currently reads, it suggests that the "arguments for atheistic rationalism" are "absurd" -- a claim that seems to me impossible to support. Bricology (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that that is an unfortunate bit of prose. I've altered it to make clear 1) that it is Burke and not Wikipedia that considers Henry St John's arguments to be absurd, and 2) that this was Burkes aim and not necessarily what he actually achieved. It now reads: Burke imitated Bolingbroke's style and ideas in a reductio ad absurdum of his arguments for atheistic rationalism, in order to demonstrate their absurdity.. --Xover (talk) 08:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Edmund Burke was NOT Anglo-Irish
The entry starts by declaring that Burke was "Anglo-Irish." He was not. (Four citations are provided for this claim, but none of them support it!)

Burke did not identify as Anglo-Irish, and, while some ambiguity exists regarding his father's origins, contemporary scholarship, overwhelmingly, does not identify him as Anglo-Irish. (There is nothing to cite because, as a general rule, such a claim is not even considered.)

It may be that the writer does not understand what the term "Anglo-Irish" means, when applied to a person. It refers to (typically Protestant) descendants of English settlers in Ireland, just as "Scots-Irish" refers to descendants of Scottish settlers in Ireland. (For reference, there is in fact a Wikipedia entry on "Anglo-Irish" that explains the meaning of the term.) It most definitely does not refer to an Irishman who moves to England, like Burke.

108.5.56.224 (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Should this page be protected?
I'm relatively new to editing Wikipedia, so sorry if this isn't the place for this. Would it be possible to limit editing on this page in an effort to stop the constant edit warring? The reason I say this is that many blatantly POV-pushing editors have been repeatedly edit warring to claim that Burke was British or Anglo-Irish, despite both of these clearly being proven inaccurate many times both in the edit history and on the talk page. ComradeKublai (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the number of disruptions is very low and specific to a couple time periods. The editing history doesn't show enough disruption to warrant protection. Additionally there's no vandalism or true disruptive editing going on, just a content dispute which is not a reason to protect. Canterbury Tail talk 14:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Anti-semitism
I imagine this has been addressed in past comments, but I'm surprised there's no mention of Burke's numerous aspersions against "Old Jewry" [ed: that refers to a London inn, not to Jewish people] - catalogued here by Losurdo, from top of p.274 onward. Shtove (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)