Talk:Long Parliament

message: This article is a very sketchy account of one of the most important assemblies in English-and British- history.  Has the middle section been spirited away?  How could anybody possibly write an account of the Long Parliament that includes no mention of the trial of Charles I and the creation of the Commonwealth???
Rcpaterson 07:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the Beef? 

message: This article is like many on all things English, it simply assumes that one is familiar with why this is important in the first place.  It completely ignores the "what the heck is this?" part of an article.  So it's a parliament.  So what?  That doesn't really tell me much about what made it special.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.182.224.251 (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing 

message: I have revised this article based on the published works of Jared Sparks and Charles Whentworth Upham published in the 1840s through Harvard at a New York publisher.  The previous article appeared to me to be very unbalanced, sketchy and needed to be revised.  I also agreed with the two comments above and have sought to rectify.  I admit that my sources are limited to these two American authors who have a very "republican" perspective and are neither supporters of the commonwealth under Cromwell or the restoration of Charles II.  As such, it may be unbalanced but is as good as I know how to make it. I am working to obtain additional sources on this topic.
I also would challenge ref. #3 and will remove it in a year if no response is made.  It is dated 1659, yet the link cites Mr. Pyrm who died in 1643.  This is not possible as the date of Mr. Pyrm's death is well known.  I do not have an original copy of this document and believe the reference is important and so have not removed it as of yet.  Please assist if you have better access to the original.  I suspect that Monck forcibly disbanded the Rump Parliament, but my references are not clear on these mechanics nor in the royalist theory.  It is equally clear that at least several Parliament members were imprisoned about this time, but I have little knowledge on the details.  At the least, I do not believe the Long Parliament ever disbanded itself on its own accord.  Certainly Vane, Ludlow, and others were not a party to this action. 
Robert D. Miles 01:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised Article 

message: Vandalism fixed, but it appears that the original link is no longer available.  I have replaced with a reference from my primary source.  Additional link to bill from U.K. would be beneficial.  rdm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bridgexplorer (talk • contribs) 01:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised Article 

message: The article is indeed very badly unbalanced, based as it is almost entirely on a single highly opinionated source over 100 years old. I will try to work out how to balance it with other sources over the coming days.
In the meantime however I am removing the credibility warning on source no.2 (www.british-history.ac.uk -- formerly source no.3). The reason given for this warning is that the source contains a reference to "Mr Pyrm" dated 1659 but "Mr Pyrm" supposedly died in 1643. I do not know who Mr Pyrm is, and the source contains no reference to him. It does briefly reference a Mr Pryn, most likely William Prynne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Prynne), who was elected to the Long Parliament in a bye-election ('recruiter election') in 1648, excluded by Pride's Purge a few days later, and re-admitted along with the other exluded members in 1660. It seems to be clear that the person who issued this challenge confused Pryn/Prynne with John Pym (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pym), one of the main leaders of the Long Parliament in its early stages, who did indeed die in 1643, but was a completely different person.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GarethAd (talk • contribs) 20:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised article - work still needed 

message: There is a comprehensive, accurate and neutral summary of the various stages of the Long Parliament in the article on Parliaments of England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Parliaments_of_England), which would serve as a good structural outline for a revised version of this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GarethAd (talk • contribs) 22:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary available 

message: Others are welcome to contribute.   
The correction on Prynne vs Pym above, is noted and accepted. Thank you.  I learned this earlier this year, but forgot to remove the challenge.  Still working to restructure to the timeline as noted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Parliaments_of_England).  I hope this article is somewhat better balanced than it was a few days ago.  The period from 1642 to 1648 needs improvement, and others should contribute.  You may also think it is less so.  
Michel Foucault said, "all historians are traders."  We each have our filters and may not be aware of them. Old references on this subject may be better than new ones as they are closer to the time. There is here at my disposal a good collection of books which have been assembled over a 15 year period.  Jared Sparks, Upham, Ludlow, Milton, Guizot, William Penn and others historians are worth representing and defending as references, even if they do not present the prevailing or accepted views of this time period.  They certainly represent a valid point of view and are factual, but there are probably many others.  Edmond Ludlow had a few inaccuracies in his dates, I believe and I may have perpetuated them, but his narrative is on target to the actual events for instance.  Jared Sparks was George Washington's autobiographer and collected original references on English history for many years.  Charles Wentworth Upham was similarly excellent and is a worthy reference.  John Milton's historical writings are also important to this time frame, and I will be adding them in eventually.  William Penn (Royal Navy officer) references have also yet to be added.   
This period of history is incredibly important and has deep and direct links to the American Revolutionary period.  Writers of subsequent eras were not kind to the 'old republican' cause as many of these very brave men died for what they believed or transported themselves to America.  Their treatment in subsequent trials and the denial of their British rights is a matter of record.  British History in the next and subsequent periods could not reasonably be expected to tell their story.  So, to tell their story in any degree, is to me, Sir, an honor which I will defend.  It may be up to you to write the other side.
I am sure there are faults in what I have written.  So others should certainly contribute or correct.  
I would like to see this article at the same level of quality as the Henry Vane the Younger article presently is.
Robert D. Miles 04:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding former two posts 

message: I am no historian myself, but I was interested to note that an unregistered user recently added the following comment to this article:[*]
Most of what follows has been copied, with many typographical errors, from 19th-century histories whose conclusions most modern historians would dispute.
It seems that this old chestnut is still going around. Would anyone agree with the contributor's implication that the article needs to include more modern interpretations?
Polly Tunnel (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern historians 

message: Yes, I agree that the article needs more modern, or simply more neutral/balanced interpretations. As it stands, it is a prime example of what can go wrong with Wikipedia. But the subject is huge, re-balancing would require a substantial re-write, and I think it is beyond someone who is not a professional or near-professional historian. And doing so would probably require a fight, since to Americans of a certain political tendency this is apparently a subject of ideological importance.
GarethAd (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-balancing 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Long Parliament. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720235215/http://www.molyneuxs.com/8201/122750.html to http://www.molyneuxs.com/8201/122750.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the section on the execution of Strafford, there is a line saying "Laud was impeached in December 1640" but there has been no prior reference to Laud so we don't know who he was or why he was impeached. Raphaeldunvant (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2021‎
:I wondered the same thing. In general this is a very strange and unsatisfactory article, especially given its historical importance. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laud 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The opening statement of the article states,
|The Long Parliament was an English Parliament which lasted from 1640 until 1660."
Further down the article explains,
"The parliament sat from 1640 until 1648, when it was purged by the New Model Army."
So as the Long Parliament was purged in 1648 by Colonel Thomas Pride and thus went on to become the "Rump Parliament", why does it say that the parliament lasted until 1660 and not 1648?
23:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of the Long Parliament -- until 1660 or 1648? 

message: As noted previously over the years, this article makes claims which modern historians would dispute, even on the basic facts. For example the section on the execution of Strafford states "While Charles hesitated, Pym struck first; on 11 November Strafford was impeached, arrested, and sent to the Tower." The source is Harris. But as John Adamson writes in Noble Revolt (pg 105) Strafford was not sent to the Tower until 24th November (although he was impeached and placed under the charge of Black Rod on the 11th). Adamson also argues against the characterisation of Pym being the central figure but that is more contentious. 01243billyc (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-balancing again