Talk:Society of the Friends of the People

message: Shouldn't this page be called "Society of the Friends of the People"? My sources use that name (see, for example, the "Introduction" to Barrell and Mee's Trials for Treason and Sedition, 1792-1794. 8 vols. London: Pickering and Chatto, 2006-7). Awadewit | talk 12:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Britannicus (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Page name

message: Near the beginning of the article, the claim is made that "The Society in England was aristocratic and exclusive", without identifying a source for that statement.  The article later expresses why the Society might be described as having been "exclusive", but what would be the argument in favor of characterizing it as "aristocratic"?  Did it consist primarily of people with titles of nobility, and if so, is a source for that point available to be cited?  I am certain that it did not consist entirely of such people, and I would find it surprising if the Society consisted primarily of them (though I could very well change my mind if a credible source for the latter were offered).
Also, while much of the language currently in the subsection "William Pitt's Reign of Terror" is not viewpoint neutral (and it makes no difference that I more or less agree with the viewpoint that the language favors), I am reluctant to change the title of the subsection itself without knowing whether the use of the term "Reign of Terror" simply reflects the views of the person who wrote that part of this article or whether the use of that term is well established somewhere (among historians, for example) as a name for the measures taken in Great Britain during that time period to suppress radical or reform-oriented activity.  The advice of more experienced editors may be helpful, here, but I suspect that it would be consistent with Wikipedia rules and guidelines to use such a term (probably in quotes) if it is so frequently and widely used that it would nearly qualify as a proper name for that "reign of terror".  I would also appreciate the input of anyone who knows more than I do about whether it actually is used in that way.
Duodecimus (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced statements (that are also arguably either doubtful or biased)

message: If we have any editors around here who would be able to express (using proper terminology, which is why I may wait for a short time before attempting it myself) the nature of the distribution of constituencies throughout Great Britain as of the 1790s, I urge them to add a brief explanation of that to the article.  Parts of the article which attempt to express what the Society actually sought to do are pretty vague in relation to the goal of distributing representation more evenly and equally throughout the land, but I am finding it difficult to improve upon those parts without somehow expressing what the status quo was at the time.  I have a basic understanding of how that system differed from what a lot of readers would probably assume, but I do not know the details or the terminology needed in order to express it properly.  An editor who already knows more than I do about this would presumably be able to collect the sources and write the needed explanation better, more easily, and in less time than I could, so I will leave this request here for a little while before I proceed to write it myself.
Duodecimus (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Distribution of Parliamentary constituencies in Great Britain as of the 1790s

message: The way the article presently reads, it gives the impression that Parliament did something outside the scope of its powers when it extended the potential length of a Parliament from three to seven years.  Was that the view of the Society (or other reformers of the 1790s), and if so, is a source for that available?  My understanding was that Parliament simply enacted a law extending that term to seven years and that that law either amended or superseded the existing law (which had been enacted a few decades earlier) that provided for triennial elections.  I knew that there were people who strongly advocated a return to triennial elections (which would be accomplished by passing yet another law) on policy grounds, in order to more effectively hold members of the House of Commons accountable, but if the Society or other reformers disputed the power of Parliament to change that term from three to seven years, it may be worth stating in the article -- with a source.  Otherwise, the wording ought to be changed to avoid suggesting that it was some kind of usurpation when Parliament changed (by law) the term from a maximum of three to a maximum of seven years.
Duodecimus (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Triennial Bill

message: I wonder if it would be worth spinning the section on organisation in Scotland into a separate article. It is flagged up in quite a lot of major histories of Scotland and was notable for its two first two general conventions as well as the third which was a National (or British) convention. As noted in the lead the Scottish membership was quite different in some respects from its counterpart south of the border. Dunarc (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scottish group - separate article?