Talk:Diggers/Archive 1

message: Now back to the Subject at the top of this section.
MPLX/MH I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this from :
:And I desire, if any be willing to communicate of their substance unto our worke, that they would make a Collection among themselves, and send the money to Cobham to the Diggers owne hands, by some trusty friend of your owne, and so neither you nor we shall be cheated.
:Gerrard Winstanley and others in a "Letter Taken at Wellingborough" -1650 
Does this not show that by 1650 that Winstanley was using the term "Diggers" to describe the groups digging the common? If so it is not just a label used by the detractors of the movement but also by the most influential member of the Digger community while the Digger communes were still in existence? If he thought it derogatory why does he use it instead of the term "True Levellers" in this letter? I put it to you that by the time this letter was written in 1650, that the term "Digger" was used by both detractor and supporters of the Diggers. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:13, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am having some difficulty editing on Wikipedia at the moment due to server problems, so I may take a break and wait until the current situation improves. However, in the meantime to specifically answer your question: Yes, it certainly would appear to be the case. This is similar to any person or group given a nickname that is adopted by others. However, in all such cases it is still necessary for the person or group to identify themselves by their legal or proper name in order to restore meaning to their actual identity. An example of this would be the "Mormons" - who are of course not Mormons at all but the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints". The name "Mormon" is derived from that of an alleged angel who is alleged to have delivered an alleged message to the founder of the church. So are the current members now angels or are they saints? The sort of question same is also true of the "Diggers". This is a name that came from observation that the True Levellers engaged in digging up the common lands. So were these people diggers by physical activity or "Diggers" by belief? They were diggers by physical activity and true levellers (Christian communists) by belief. MPLX/MH 18:51, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Letter Taken at Wellingborough

message: Philip, I noted that you have been reclassifying the Levellers and Diggers articles, so can I prevail upon you to further classify - Diggers (True Levellers) - since this will then be a correct definition? Lilburne was an Agitator and shunned the term Leveller. His enemies smeared him with that term and so he referred to his own followers as "Levellers so-called". There is a big difference here. Lilburne's genealogy and his ideology went forward into the Jefferson line and ended up in the US Bill of Rights. This is well documented and I am in the process of recording that documentation for Wikipedia. Lilburne stood for individualism and for individual freeborn rights (he was called "Freeborn John".) On the other hand, Winstanley reached into the Book of Acts for Christian communism - hence levellers=communism. The Digger aspect only got tagged on to one faction of Winstanley's True Levellers (the term he used), when a band plonked themselves on public land, claimed it for their own (as a group) and began to dig it up to plant crops, hence the tag of "Diggers" by their enemies. But Winstanley's people were first of all True Levellers by both philosophy and religion and then secondarily, a faction of them became branded as "Diggers" by enemies - because not all of Winstanley's people were digging up the land. However, with all that said and done, a compromise could be reached by amending to the suggested title above: Diggers (True Levellers). Thank you. MPLX/MH 17:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Diggers (True Levellers)

message: This article is directly related to the article about the Levellers and both the Diggers and Levellers articles have disambiguation pages related to them. The opening line of this article describes the Diggers as the True Levellers, which was their historical name and definition that can be verified by many reputable sources. However, the original article was misnamed in that it described the Diggers as the Levellers, which immediately created confusion with the other article about the Levellers while being not only an incorrect name but a name immediately contradicted by the first line of the article. The move was accomplished using the Wikipedia "move" option which automatically created redirects and moved this Talk page as well. MPLX/MH 01:21, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reason for move

message: *Talk:Diggers (True Levellers) -- Diggers (True Levellers) → Diggers. The redirect from Diggers currently directs to Diggers (True Levellers)). There is already a Diggers (disambiguation) page mentioned at the top of the Diggers (True Levellers) page for other meanings --Philip Baird Shearer 15:03, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: add: * Support or * Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and a signature:"~~~~"
* Oppose: There are too many other meanings of the term and only history buffs would consider this the primary term. In Australia and NZ, [Digger (soldier)] and probably globally would think in terms of the excavation vehicle.  I think it should go to [Digger (disambiguation)].  Shermozle 18:58, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
* Oppose: I am in agreement with Shermozle besides which the very first line of the article defines them as being True Levellers. MPLX/MH 21:24, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: For some strange reason this entire period of English history has been muddied (clouded) up so that the real parties have become obfuscated. This group was known by themselves as the True Levellers and others called them "Diggers" because of their actions. The Levellers (so-called) were never the Levellers in fact according to Parliamentary papers of the time which I will soon be making available. John Lilburne and the Army faction were referred to as Agitators in Parliamentary papers and Lilburne called himself by this name. Others smeared them with the name "Leveller" in an attempt to tar everyone with the same brush - hence Winstanley called his people the "True Levellers" to set them apart from the Agitators. While the Winstanley followers sought a form of Christian communism that applied to real property (land), that is not what Lilburne's followers wanted. They were after more than human rights granted by government - they wanted freeborn rights - rights that you are born with - hence his name "Freeborn John". There is a direct link between Lilburne and Jefferson and between Lilburne's ideas and the US Bill of Rights and even modern US law based upon US Supreme Court Opinions (all well documented and I am documenting them for Wikipedia.) No one would remotely suggest that the US heritage is founded upon communism although Christian communist ideas were tried out from the time of the Mayflower Compact onwards. We need to enlighten and educate with Wikipedia, not obfuscate for partisan political reasons. MPLX/MH 21:24, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I rarely hear the term Digger (soldier) used in the singular in the Australia/NZ context.  You're more likely to here "the diggers" than "he was a digger". The simplest solution really is just to go to the disambiguation page. Shermozle 11:11, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Currently if you use:
* diggers -- diggers -- you will end up at the soldier page. So using the standard Wikipedia way of linking "the diggers" takes the reader to the soldier page. As does diggers  -- s -- you will also end up at the soldier page. This is in line with the Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Prefer singular nouns. You will only end up at the "Diggers" page if you enter 
* Diggers -- Diggers or  Diggers -- 
So the argument about singualr or plural does not realy exist. As both of them can co-exist, and with a first line which inlcudes a link to the Diggers (disambiguation) page this stops any confusion. Philip Baird Shearer 17:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I cannot fathom why you want to obliterate their real name of the True Levellers. They were called "Diggers" because some of their membership (by no means all of them), started to dig up public lands. But their beliefs were as true levellers. It would be like renaming all Republicans "Dittoheads" just because Rush captured a large segment (but by no means all of the Republicans.) To then associate all Republicans as being yes men/women (ie: ditto), would be insulting to say the least, let alone totally misleading and totally untrue. Leave the title alone and lets get on with its content. MPLX/MH 18:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue of the singular/plural arises because some people entering "Digger" into the search box will be looking for Digger (computer game) or for Excavator.  In addition, some who encounter a reference to "the Diggers" and want to understand it might enter "Digger", given that many of our articles are at the singular; therefore, some people entering "Digger" will be looking for the English group or for the San Franciscans.  That's why I think "Digger" should take the reader, whether directly or by a redirect, to the disambiguation page. JamesMLane 21:49, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections from me - sounded like a good suggestion. It has been so redirected. MPLX/MH 23:08, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Just go ahead and move it because it make perfect sense and we are all spending far too much time discussing stuff here instead of writing good articles. Since Digger is available and it is shorter than the Digger (disambiguation), which is presently only a redirect, just switch them around and be done with it. MPLX/MH 23:28, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: What became of them after 1650? The article seems to end there, w no resolution. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 09:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the diggers?