Talk:John Locke

Locke and homosexuality
In the text there is mention of Locke as a bachelor. Perhaps this can be developed. Locke's biographer, Roger Woolhouse suggests that Locke's relationship with Toinard was suggestive of homosexuality. These elements have been picked up by Brian Smith in "Assessing ‘unnatural lusts’: John Locke on the permissibility of male-male intimacy" History of European Ideas (2022); see also Roger Woolhouse, Locke: A Biography (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 149. Bs.smth78 (talk) 06:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't know about this, but maybe there is more to it than just coincidence or political affiliation that Locke returned to Britain as an advisor to Dutch prince William III of Orange, the future British King consort, who was known in those days to be a homosexual. Hansung02 (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2023
John Locke's portrait by Godfrey Kneller, National Portrait Gallery, London is not by Godfrey Kneller but by Michael Dahl, and is 1693, not 1697: https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw03965/John-Locke Paris Cité (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2023 (2)
Portrait said to be by Godefrey Kneller of 1697, National Portrait Gallery, is a cropped detail of a portrait by Michael Dahl of 1693 (https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw03965/John-Locke) Paris Cité (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please, specify specific edits that need to be made. Ruslik_ Zero 20:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2023
On the last line of "Slavery and child labour", change instil to instill. Vorsal (talk) 08:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: 'Instil' is correct in British English, which the article uses throughout. Tollens (talk) 09:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement concerning monarchy and Adam
"Locke compared the English monarchy's rule over the British people to Adam's rule over Eve in Genesis, which was appointed by God." This sentence, with a citation to Two Treatises on Government, states the opposite of what Locke was arguing in that book. He is refuting an author who believed in absolute monarchy based on the idea that fatherhood was the basis of absolute rule and that Adam was the first father and thus the first monarch. Locke masterfully refutes this logic page after page in the book cited leading him to oppose even the idea that Adam was monarch over Eve, which is the opposite of what is stated in this article. I suggest this sentence be removed. 2601:249:447F:1960:4C7E:C02C:C6F2:C21A (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Your point seems perfectly reasonable. You can do the edit yourself, providing the above argumentation for other editors. Hansung02 (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)