Talk:John Stuart Mill/Archive 2

Influences and Influenced
I have started a discussion regarding the Infobox Philosopher template page concerning the "influences" and "influenced" fields. I am in favor of doing away with them. Please join the discussion there. RJC Talk 14:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Famous Quotes
" I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." In a letter to the Conservative MP, Sir John Pakington (March, 1866) Lycurgus 11:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Read Mill's A System of Logic, in which he defends induction or generalization on the basis of particular personal experiences.Lestrade (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Mill as MP
The article currently states that Mill was an Independant MP, but I have read elsewhere that he was a member of the Liberal Party, and all online records I can find of the election list only Liberals and Conservatives being elected; no independants. Can anyone produce something that shows one way or the other? Enigma00 04:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Mill was elected for the Liberal Party in the district of Westminster. During his election campaign, he made speeches in Covent Garden and Trafalger Square. Don't know an exact footnote, but you can read 'The Cambridge Companion to Mill' (Cambridge 1998).--Daanschr 09:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's what I thought. The article still says he was an independant, however, so I'm going to change that.Enigma00 (talk) 07:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Classical liberalism
How can John Stuart Mill be a classical liberal if he espouses utilitarianism? Intangible 00:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

He was a classical liberal in the sense that he advocated for very strong restrictions on what the government could do against an individual, or force that individual to do. He justified this on utilitarian grounds on the assumption that a society or government that, in effect, left people to do what they wanted as long as it did not directly harm anyone else, would lead to the greatest good for the greatest number. C d h 18:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with this answer. Intangible raises a very good question. Many classical liberals believed there was a moral order, which keeps society together. Classical liberals are afraid that the government good break down this moral order. So, the utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill is a morality imposed on inviduals to respect eachothers liberty. John Stuart Mill was not against state intervention. Those who respect the liberty of others and who voluntarily help others out should be left alone by the state. But those who act selfish, or who don't respect the liberty of others are barbarians in the view of Mill and can be forced by the government to learn to respect others.
 * Another so-called classical liberal, Adam Smith, defended economic liberty, presuming that the moral order of society and politics would prevent that economic laws would harm society. Classical liberals after Smith were scepticle about evidentness of morality to control economic laws in order to prevent the moral order from breaking down.
 * Nowadays, classical liberals are misrepresented on purpose, in order to fit into a tight ideological framework. Something which will obviously fail eventually, just sit and watch.--Daanschr 10:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

John Stuart Mill was absolutely not a classical liberal but rather a socialliberal. He advocated an economic democracy, which is a form of market socialism, and he was a supporter of a progressive income tax. In the third translation of on Liberty to Dutch the translator states that he was not a classical liberal. In the book "Whom, what, where? Economics" by Mathew Forstator it becomes clear that Mill was NOT a classical liberal: "Later in life he felt more appealed to moderate forms of socialism", page 36. He advocated 'dynamic social economy' this is almost the opposite of Classical Liberalism.--Goti123
 * In the Dutch wikipedia he is alos referred to as a socialliberal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goti123 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

School/Tradition
I think liberalism should be added to the "school/tradition" section of Mill's sidebar. It seems pretty obvious, and I doubt anyone will disagree, so I'm going to go ahead and put it in. If, for some reason, someone does disagree, let me know here and we'll discuss it. Enigma00 22:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Epicurus How can Epicurus not be listed as a major influence? Epicurus clearly shaped several of Mill's opinions, like variation in types of pleasure, natural rights (life, happiness, etc.), and more. Furthermore, there is general agreement that Epicurus shaped Bentham, and John Locke...

It seems like a pretty clear error to me.

Joes8888 (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

WTF?
What on earth has happened to this article? I can't figure out what's gone wrong...Anyone? Enigma00 (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Danny lost for fixing the article. Enigma00 (talk) 05:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Environmentalism
I disagree with the section of the article that claims Mill was an environmentalist. The quotes used indicate mainly that he wishes the population and population densities to remain static, not out of care for the environment, but for his own personal comfort. I realize he did not want to the see the earth raped, but he meant that on a much larger scale. He hardly seems to care about the green nature of cities. Therefore, I propose that someone take some time to thoroughly demonstrate how the his quotes in the "Environmentalist" section actually prove the section header. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.47.137 (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The section I added does not claim that Mills was an 'environmentalist' - the term and many of the concepts simple didn't exist at the time. The exact phrase I used was:


 * Mill's work was influential in the development of Green Economics - in particular, Book IV, chapter VI of "Principles of Political Economy": "Of the Stationary State" [11].


 * The heading is 'Environmentalism' - and the contribution demonstrates the influence of his thinking in this field which deserves credit.


 * You say: "he quotes used indicate mainly that he wishes the population and population densities to remain static, not out of care for the environment, but for his own personal comfort."


 * The quotes given, state not only concern for his personal comfort, but greater concerns about the well being of mankind - the quote which starts as follows illustrates this well:


 * Nor is there much satisfaction in contemplating the world with nothing left to the spontaneous activity of nature....


 * You say:I realize he did not want to the see the earth raped, but he meant that on a much larger scale. 


 * I'm not sure what you mean here? What is 'larger scale' than the 'earth'(sic)? Environmetalists think at a global scale - and you are suggesting that Mills was doing the same thing. This rather re-inforces Mills as a 'proto-environmentlist' don't you think.


 * I think the quotes speak for themselves - the section I added consists largely of Mill's own words and are more than adequate to make the point. There is indeed a greater proportion of source material compared to interpretation of his 'economic philosophy' and justification that he was either a supporter of 'free markets' or 'socialism'.


 * Mills also applied his utilitarian and liberal philosophy to our treatment of the animal world:


 * http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol4no3_2005/gandhi_ahimsa.htm


 * "And, indeed, true to Windham's predictions, early animal welfare substantially increased the intrusion of the law into the lives of the poor in a bid to render them capable of self-regulative obedience. Notably, it is precisely in praise of this increased government interference that John Stuart Mill underwrites, in his 1848 Principles of Political Economy, the achievements of early animal welfare. In his words: The reasons for legal intervention in favour of children, apply no less strongly in the case of these unfortunate slaves and victims of the most brutal part of mankind, the lower animals. It is by the grossest misunderstanding of the principles of liberty, that the infliction of exemplary punishment on ruffianism practised towards these defenceless creatures has been treated as a meddling by government with things beyond its province; an interference with domestic life. The domestic life of domestic tyrants is one of the things which it is most imperative on the law to interfere with ...' (Mill, 1965, 958-959).


 * Mill, J. S. (1965), Principles of Political Economy with some of their Applications to Social Philosophy, ed. W. I. Ashley (Augustus M. Kelley: New York).


 * http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol4no3_2005/gandhi_ahimsa.htm


 * If anything the section should be expanded - and Mill given proper recognition for the far-reaching influence of his thinking.--Dean Morrison (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The section on environmentalism is extremely weak, and should be removed. The quotations provided do not show any extensive contribution to green economics. IF you wish to discuss Mill's greatest contribution to green economics, then it is the harm principle, not a few quotes from which you attempt to glean a thesis. However, this is a univeral principle and should be treated as such - not railroaded to a particular cause. Currently the article hilariously distorts the role of Mill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.218.237.211 (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've replaced the section on environmentalism deleted by 'anon'. If you wish to delete Mill's contribution to the field of steady state economics - please address Mill's own quotations on the subject in the talk pages first. Are you suggesting for example - that there are economists who should be afforded priority over Mill in these matters, or that 'steady state' economics bear no relation to 'green economics'? Simply removing the evidence for Mill's opinion in these areas serves only to diminish Mill's contribution to modern political thinking.Dean Morrison (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't delete the section - but will do now. Wikipedia is not the place to write essays addressing a particular thesis ie "The role of Mill in the development of green economics". Mill was influencial in the development of ECONOMICS - green economics is merely a subset of topics within ECONOMICS. His influence comes via his utilitarian principles, not through any major contribution to this area.


 * You cannot throw in a quote showing how Mill didn't want all land to be cultivated etc etc and conclude that he was pointing the way forward for green economics - he may merely be displaying romanticist tendencies.


 * As you have written in your essay "As such Mill can be seen to be an early advocate" - not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not the place for this - Mill may be influencial in this area but there are a thousand such areas we could describe by pulling together some quotes, or which use his principles. We should address the core of his contribution, essays elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.220.107 (talk) 09:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry but it as it's not possible to reliably distinguish between anonymous and unsigned comments - I assumed that you had removed it, whoever you are.


 * You clearly don't understand Mill's contribution to both economics and what can be termed green economics. His major treatise addresses the ultimate result of economic growth in a finite world - and advocates 'steady state' economics over a century before the subject was again addressed by economists in works such as Limits to Growth. As for "not wanting to cultivate all land" - you speculate that this may be derived from "romanticist tendencies", you seem to disregard his explanation that there are other measures of value than financial ones. You seem to consider that the extent of Mill's "core contribution" can be decided by yourself, and should reflect what you perceive as orthodoxy. Since my "essay" is largely composed of Mill's own words - perhaps you'd like to address Mill himself - and explain why he doesn't deserve credit for his remarkable perception and foresight?Dean Morrison (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that this section is very weak. Dean, regardless of whether your analysis is correct, if you want to argue that "Mill can be seen to be an early advocate of evidence based policy, and an inspiration for green economics and green politics", you'll have to cite a reliable, published source that explicitly says so.  If you're correct, you should have no problem doing so.  See No original research.  Polemarchus (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair point Polemarchus - but could I point out that Mills is already cited in Wikipedia, with references to reliable published sources, as being an original thinker in the realm of Ecological Economics:


 * "The antecedents can be traced back to the Romantics of the 1800s as well as some Enlightenment political economists of that era. Concerns over population were expressed by Thomas Malthus, while John Stuart Mill hypothesized that the "stationary state" of an economy might be something that could be considered desirable, anticipating later insights of modern ecological economists, without having had their experience of the social and ecological costs of the dramatic post-World War II industrial expansion."


 * This is cross-referenced in the section I added - I would have thought that more references to original material would only lead to further criticisms of "essay writing". In any case Mill's words speak for themselves - and I would have thought that Mill's own work constituted an original published source...


 * If you think the section would be strengthened by reference to "Ecological Economics" by Juan Martinez-Alier (Blackwell, Oxford, 1987) I'm happy to do so... Dean Morrison (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Dean, please stop edit-warring. There seems to be a consensus for removing this section: four different editors have deleted it (five now, including me) and no-one has agreed with anything you've said here.  The section is badly written, it's original research, and its length is completely out of all proportion to Mill's other contributions.


 * If you want to include something about green economics in this article, it's up to you to convince the rest of us of its worth. I would suggest that the best way to do this is by finding a reliable source that says "Mill was influential in the development of environmental economics" or whatever, and including just a single sentence to that effect in the article.  Readers who want to know more can go to Ecological Economics or read your source.  If you continue to insist on an "Environmentalism" section that's longer than the sections on secularism and women's rights, I think you'll find you're fighting a losing battle.


 * In any case, please don't persist in reverting against the consensus: you're just wasting your own time and everyone else's. Regards, Polemarchus (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not impressed by an anonymous "consensus" Polemarchus - and as the anti-environmentalist organisation 'Spiked' like to claim Mills as an influence - then I'm unsurprised that others have simply removed the section without the courtesy of a comment.
 * However I will take your constructive criticism on board, and will undertake to improve the section this weekend. In the meantime I'm going to revert to enable constructive criticism by others.. Incidentally - quoting Mills own work in an article about him hardly constitutes 'original research', it is simple reference to primary material, as requested in the "no original research" guidance - and I note that you do not require evidence that Mill was 'influential' in the other spheres you mention. Perhaps if I retitled the section "Mills views on Environmentalism" along the lines of the section "Mill's view on social liberty and tyranny of majority (from On Liberty)" - and cite his own work, as that section does - then your objections would be satisfied? Dean Morrison (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've updated the section now - making it a sub-section of economic philosophy. I've included instances of Mills being recognised as an early environmental thinker - including this one form the "Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy" ed. Thomas Mautner ISBN 0-14-051250-0

To the public at large, Mill was better known as the author of Principles of Political Economy 1848, a work that tried to show that economics was not the "dismal science" that its radical and literary critics had supposed. Its philosophical interest lay in Mill's reflections on the difference between what economics measured and what human beings really valued: leading Mill to argue that we should sacrifice economic growth for the sake of the environment, and should limit population as much to give ourselves breathing space as in order to fend off the risk of starvation for the overburdened poor.


 * - although I'm happy to accept constructive criticism - from now on I'm going to consider wholesale deletion to simple vandalism Dean Morrison (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Dean, although it is clear for all to see how important Mill's alleged 'green side' is to you, I see your very last lines as a step in the direction of a wholesale edit-war. Don't do that, please. In my humble opinion your contribution is indeed disproportionate (in size) and the claims in it appear quite exaggerated (and by the way, I did my bit of reading of JSM too). We may all sometimes be tempted to enlist the dead and famous in support of our own views, but I would strongly suggest that you resist the temptation, perhaps giving this suggestion not more than a short paragraph - and try to formulate it far more cautiously than you did so far. But most importantly, call of the war. It is a waste of time and energy (and John Stuart Mill deserves better) Robertsch55 (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've tried to slim the section down - since it only ever gets reinstated. It's not very good though. A zero growth position is not of relevance within economics (which is what Mills is yearning for). Once again if you wished to argue properly about Mill's influence in the area of green economics it is due to the HARM principle and from there move towards the recognition of externalities within economic activity and before you know it we have green economics. But once again Mill's insight transcends any particular topic - no need for a section. The article should merely mention that the application of his principles within economics supports measures such as Pigouvian taxation or regulatory governmental intervention. No need for a section on Mill's role within the development of taxation on tobacco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.255.1.38 (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd agree that my original contribution may have seemed disproportionate in length to the other sections - although the contribution did consist largely of quotations from Mill himself as a primary source. However I think the current revision has gone too far in that it has completely stripped out Mill's founding contribution to Ecological Economics. Although conventional economists may not be aware of this contribution - it is evident in Mill's own work - which speaks for itself. Mill is cited in the major textbooks of Ecological Economics as a founding father - such as "An Introduction to Ecological Economics" by Richard Costanza: page 32 "John Mills and the Steady State" ISBN 1884015727 The anonymous re-write based on the contention that "A zero growth position is not of relevance within economics.. " completely misses the fact that this is precisely what Mill is discussing in 'Of a Stationary State'. Unfortunately the slimmed down version retains the less relevant observations. Therefore I intend to revert to a slimmed down version which retains the key economic insights of Mill. As for an edit-war - I've been asking for people to contribute constructive criticism - to be met with wholesale deletions, often anonymously. The fact that Mill is an icon of capitalism to some may mean that his far-reaching and prescient insights into the Limits to Growth are unpalatable to some. In other cases people may simply be unfamiliar with the extent and importance of Mill's contribution in this area. It takes rather less time and energy to simply delete a section than it does to write one - and to diminish Mill's contribution in the process. Indeed John Stuart Mill does deserve better. Dean Morrison (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dean Morrison (talk • contribs) 16:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

A bit of OR remains in this section
In the following text: "'He concluded that a stationary state, rather than economic growth[original research?], was ideal (then quoting Mill)...I sincerely hope, for the sake of posterity, that they will be content to be stationary'" Note that Mill's quote doesn't say that the ECONOMY is what needs to be "stationary" in order to preserve the environment -- and indeed, more _efficient_ usage of enviro resources is an example of how econ growth can occur simultaneous with less enviro damage (thus, the assertion that they are necessarily opposite is a violation of logic called a false dichotomy, because it omits consideration of other possibilities such _efficiency_ allowing a simultaneous econ growth with the same [or even less] enviro damage); so it seems that a Wikipedian (not Mill himself) is making a fallacy of false dichotomy then attributing it to Mill. (The quote of Mill himself doesn't say economic growth need be the opposite of environmental preservation.)

So, please either prove that Mill himself (verifiably and precisely) said that the stagnation (i.e. "stationary" state) which he seeks is _economic_ stagnation, or else rephrase it.

Strange that I noticed it & marked it as "OR" before I even saw Polemarchus & others saying on this Talk page that Dean is engaging in instances of OR (to advance a POV, no less). 24.155.49.116 (talk) 03:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Quoting from the authors own work hardly constitutes original research. My original contribution included a direct quote from Mill on economy and the stationary state, which supported the statement given.
 * I feel that there are individuals who have a political axe to grind for whom Mill's clearly stated views on economic growth and the environment are inconvenient, and who are expressing their own POV by editing out Mill's own words. The passage above from an anonymous contributer is a fine example.Dean Morrison (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Mill, not Mills please
As people here seem to know so well what John Stuart Mill's views were (I must admit I personally do not always find him all that easy to figure out), we might at least try to respect the proper spelling of his last name.... Robertsch55 (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

John Stuart Mill vs. John Mills
Apparently there existed a John Mills at the same time. I have removed the following block from the 'Economic philosophy' section:

Panics and Capital

Mill once made a statement on panics and capital, saying "Panics do not destroy capital; they merely reveal the extent to which it has been destroyed by its betrayal into hopelessly unproductive works."

- John Mills, Article read before the Manchester Statistical Society, December 11, 1867, on Credit Cycles and the Origin of Commercial Panics

...everything seems to hint that the quote belongs to this John Mills guy. Can't find it in the collected works of J.S.Mill, nor in other places. The quoted book (see online version) mentions both names independently as well.

If somebody finds, that this is wrong, please correct here and in Malinvestment. Pestergaines (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Socialist policies?
The quote from the autobiography doesn't say that he favours socialist policies. What it does say is that he, like socialists want to have a society free of classes. "While we repudiated with the greatest energy that tyranny of society over the individual which most Socialistic systems are supposed to involve, we yet looked forward to a time when society will no longer be divided into the idle and the industrious". There is nothing in it about socialist policies. That liberals, at least from Mill and forwards, have wanted a classless society is not exactly news. ;) --OpenFuture (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A classless society, especially at the time when Mill was in parliment, was synonymous with socialism. Socialism is supposed to be a means to a classless end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.24.53 (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mill's writing upon "socialism" is in the Principles of Political Economy. His actual subject is the national workshops of the Second French Republic of 1848, which he regarded as a hopeful experiment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Liberty
"“The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns him, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”[6]"

Guys... Mill himself admits in THE SAME BOOK that this is an insufficient principle. Shouldn't we include his refined axiom; that only those actions which violate a distinct and assignable duty should be eligible for state prohibition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.119.123 (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"Socialism" edits
Stevesawalker (I assume you're also the IP actively working on the article), I have again reverted those edits, for a number of reasons. First of all, they need grammatical work (they're full of fragments). Second, they contain references not done in the proper format (you simply stick in a link to a PDF). Third, and most importantly, the references do not say what you claim they say: a.the PDF, for starters, does not say that Mill continued to support flat or proportionate taxation; if it does (and I look through the entire thing, for both terms), you should give an inline citation with page number. b. you misread the Stanford entry, which says, "In his economic theory Mill no doubt appears to the modern socialist to be a follower of Ricardo and the classical liberal economists, but to the latter, and no doubt to himself, he was clearly a socialist." You claim that this means "he undoubtedly saw himself as a socialist despite whatever ways he is now read," and it doesn't--you draw a conclusion about "how he is now read" and it's not that simple. I'm not saying you cannot draw a certain conclusion from that quote, but it needs some fine-tuning. I suggest you carefully hone your contribution first, and stay closer to the source, and that you prove that this difficult point is made by a reliable source by giving complete and correctly formatted in-line citations--start by making a citation template for these sources. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Drmies. The reason I included the pdf is actually because it was a previously cited source, see the ref above on taxation. Maybe that should go too then? Have a look through on the SEP article it actually says the same thing. There's also the quote from the book that supports the conclusion about him. But maybe you could give me a hand fixing those citation matters rather than just reverting it. The reason I think its important is that he did actually begin to shift his views, something that I and other readers of this encyclopedia might be interested to know.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevesawalker (talk • contribs) 23:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That shift may be there, but the way it was phrased was not borne out by the sources. BTW, I'm not suggestion you put in that PDF, and it does have some helpful information, but there is some problems here also. First of all, it is not an article on Mill, and it would be wise to find one that is. Second, the publication information--I can't find it, and without that it cannot count as a reliable source. Do some digging and see where it's from, and chances are it can stay, but that needs to be established. Take care, Drmies (talk) 04:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Misc
This sentence at the start: "He was an exponent of utilitarianism" What is an "exponent"? There's no WP article I can find that answers the question. Proponent or opponent maybe? 193.63.128.50 (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Lump
Did he have a cyst on his forehead?Lestrade (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

White devil?
I confess to not knowing who or what the "white devil" is (Biography section). Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In the "Biography" section, the following words were in the article: "Mill refused to study at the University of Oxford or the University of Cambridge, because he refused to take Anglican orders from the 'white devil.'" A reference was then made to "Capaldi, Nicholas. John Stuart Mill: A Biography. p.33, Cambridge, 2004, ISBN 0-521-62024-4." On looking at this page in Capaldi's book, I did not find the words "white devil." Capaldi was discussing "what would have been the fate of this precocious young man if he had not had the guidance of James Mill and had gone to the university." The author contended that "he couldn't have gone to the university and become a scholar at Oxford or Cambridge University, since he would not have taken Anglican orders." Also, it is stated on page 33 that "He could not have pursued a life of public service, for again he would have had to take the religious oath," As a result of my inability to find the words "white devil" on page 33 of Capaldi's book, I have deleted the words "from the "white devil" from the article under the assumption that they are an example of vandalism.Lestrade (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

A picture of John and Harriet?
We currently have a picture of John and his daughter-in-law Helen, which is fine. Can we also get a picture of John and his wife Harriet? And if it's available, I think it would be interesting to also include a picture of John as a younger man. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Error in Notes
There is an error with note #13. It references that the quote is from "The Contest in America" when the quote it is linked to is actually from "On Liberty" chapter 1, paragraph 10. I would have edited it myself but I'm not sure how to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frostbitcanadian (talk • contribs) 20:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)