Talk:Rotten and pocket boroughs

message: Do you think the article needs the (probably correct) detail of the official country names when 'Great Britain and Ireland' would do? Pt1234 22:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yikes, that monstrosity of an opening sentence brought me here to the chat page as well. I've machetted it back down to something more reasonable underestandable.Dxco 18:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The revision is much better.  --Daniel C. Boyer 17:19, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: I don't know how that happened or how to fix it. Any suggestions? FearÉIREANN 03:48, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  fixed now, don't know who by. Martin 17:41, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hi Oliver, Rotten Borough is treated as a proper noun and fully capitalised because it refers to a specific term, not a generic concept. It is the same as President of the United States, a specific term with a narrow, specific meaning and definition, hence the capitalisation. lol FearÉIREANN 03:18, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, James. A proper noun is a term which refers to a specific individual rather than one which can refer to any of a set of individuals (a common noun). Since there have been lots of "rotten boroughs", the term is most definitely a common noun, not a proper one. Furthermore, the term can be found in the New Oxford Dictionary of English, and that publication does not capitalise it. The Encyclopædia Britannica (15th edition) has separate articles on "rotten borough" and "pocket borough" (so perhaps they are different after all...) and doesn't capitalise either term. The complete scripts of Blackadder also mentions rotten boroughs (see Blackadder the Third: the episode entitled "Dish and Dishonesty"), and that publication doesn't capitalise the term, either. :) And so on and so forth. So any objections to my moving it back...? And please, do not move pages by copying and pasting the text. Use the "Move this page" feature. I'm sure you must be used to the procedure by now. Copying and pasting the text chops up the edit history, which isn't very nice. -- Oliver P. 04:12, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: I'm pleased to hear that you're on my side, Lir. ;) -- Oliver P. 04:16, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: I cited three references for my usage. I'm sure I could drag out some more if I could be bothered. Can you provide any references for your usage, James? Or shall we just have a page-moving war? ;) -- Oliver P. 04:53, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: The two talk pages occurred when the page was cut and paste moved to the Capitalised Version. I have fixed this. Don't thank me all at once. Martin 17:06, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: It's not a technical capitalized version, Lir. It's a Technical Capitalised Version. ;) -- Oliver P. 04:53, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  from Oliver's talk 

message: The USA constitution required a 10-year census to be the basis of election districts. I would guess that avoiding rotten boroughs was the reason this was put it there, right? Maybe a section of this is justified
71.212.4.53 (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, but what about a district which has a dramatic population drop between censuses?  # of congresspersons will be grandfathered in until the next one comes around.  isn't the district thereby "rotten" in the interim?  66.30.47.138 (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  US census  

message: I had come to the talk page with the intention of bringing up the same analogy, imperfect though it may be. Does it make sense to mention the connection in the article.
Yes, Tim, the "gerrymandering" related-article link does obliquely refer to this.
KingAlanI (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO a far better analogy for consideration by US readers is the representation in the Confederate Congress of areas of seceded States conquered by Union forces early in the American Civil War.  The incumbents for such districts continued in office in the face of the impossibility both of organising elections consulting, or levying taxes on, their constituents.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.120.110.74 (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Senate followup 

message: Here we have a classic case where punctuation shifts the meaning. What we have currently is: "MPs who were generally in favour of the boroughs claimed that they should be kept, as Britain had undergone periods of prosperity under the system." The meaning as it stands is that "Those MPs who were in favour of the boroughs thought they should be kept" (a tautological statement), with the clause after the comma serving as explanation. We need to fix the punctuation but we can do it in one of two ways. 
If there were only some MPs who were in favour then we need to remove the comma, making the whole part of the sentence after 'claimed' into the explanation. In this case it would be better to rewrite for clarity. If however the majority of MPs were in favour then we need to add a comma after 'MPs'. Does anyone know which is the case? 199.71.183.2 (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Punctuation

message: The current text refers to these boroughs as corrupt. While this may be
technically true, it is also misleading, because (at least) the modern
connotations are in the direction of bribery and nepotism. (True, they can be
abused by corrupt politicians; however, corruption is not an inherent and
unavoidable consequence.)
I suggest a corresponding clean-up.
88.77.178.181 (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corruption 

message: The sentence "Many such rotten boroughs were controlled by peers who gave the seats to their sons"... is repeated verbatim in the lead and the History section, though expanded on in the History section. Though I understand the purpose of the lead is to summarise, it seems to me this sentence is such a verbatim repeat (enough to catch my eye as such) that probably it should be shortened in the lead. However, I don't feel WP:BOLD enough to do it myself. (If there's no comment, I probably will, since a BRD is more likely than simply putting this here.) Si Trew (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeat in lead and History section 

message: The most blatant case of a "Rotten Borough" was actually under water and had no inhabitants. I think it should be included.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.141.78 (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Underwater 

message: It's a vivid phrase, but I think it's unencyclopedic - and its humorously allusive nature is likely to confuse some readers who don't know UK or French history.
Could someone replace this phrase? I don't know enough about what Pitt did to be able to represent it accurately.
Regards to all
Notreallydavid (talk) 10:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  'the legislative reign of terror of William Pitt ' 

message: The Poldark novels by Winston Graham make extensive references to the rotten boroughs of Cornwall and Wiltshire. William Pitt the Younger enters into the story. George Warleggan purchases the double borough of St Michael. Ross Poldark is elected MP for a borough with less than 20 voters. 70.27.171.166 (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Usage: Fiction