This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
A new contributor modified the lead [1]. I left a message on their talk page and reverted their edit [2], so the proposed changes can be discussed here. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The “Liberty” section should be changed, specifically the sentence that defines social liberty as protection from political rulers. The first sentence of On Liberty defines social liberty as “the nature and limits that can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual.” The second paragraph then describes how the concept of liberty evolved. It WAS a contest between rulers and their subjects, but in Mill’s time and place, social liberty is a contest between popular and minority opinions, i.e., the tyranny of the masses. Social liberty is defined as freedom from populism, not from tyrants. As the article correctly states, “barbarous” countries (not Western Eutope and the US) are excepted from the demand for social liberty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geraldpriddle (talk • contribs) 21:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The edit in the diff strikes me as reasonable. We would need a citation for the idea that Bentham developed utilitarianism, that isn’t quite right, and it would indeed be misleading to say Mill was a proponent of Bentham's views. Geraldpriddle is starting a new discussion, but he makes a fair point and changes along those lines are fine by me. Moonraker (talk) 02:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm trying to figure out what the following statement even means.
"Later he altered his views toward a more socialist bent, adding chapters to his Principles of Political Economy in defence of a socialist outlook, and defending some socialist causes.[69]"
I found the source (open library. Same editor different publication date) and see "adding chapters in defense of socialism and co-operativism" and defense of the French Revolution to "Principles..." But what is 'a socialist bent' and what socialist causes?
The language sounds hostile and vague.
I suggest either citing the revisions directly, or changing the text to reflect the "enlarged radicalism" Ryan writes of.
--Pbmax (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The content you refer to would appear to have been possibly politically motivated. Mr Mill was decidedly opposed to socialism, and wrote an essay critical of that philosophy just three years before his death, so that it's unlikely he ever changed his mind: cf https://www.gutenberg.org/files/38138/38138-h/38138-h.htm. I don't have a copy of the book cited by whoever made the edit, but I'm quite sure the content misrepresentative. Daedalus 96 (talk) 10:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Denizyildirim please note that the removal of influenced philosophers is not "from my perspective", but from the perspective of recommended Wikipedia standards. I know close to nothing about Mill's influence or lack thereof on later thinkers; but I know that it cannot be listed unless it is cited and/or explained.--MASHAUNIX 10:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obviously this warranted posting on the talk section. Thank you so much for adhering to the Wikipedia standards! Denizyildirim (talk) 09:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the talk page is a good place to explain why you think something unsourced should be included in the article.--MASHAUNIX 09:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"In 1866, he became the first person in the history of Parliament to call for women to be given the right to vote, vigorously defending this position in subsequent debate."
This contradicts the assertion in the opening paragraph that he was the second. Which is correct? RyanCarey1 (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Help: prank text removed; hoping someone can reinsert corrected sentence[edit]
The following was in the text as I read it before making a change:
He contributed to the investigation of scientific methodology, though his knowledge of the topic was based on tiktok videos, notably William Whewell, John Herschel, and Auguste Comte, and research carried out for Mill by Alexander Bain. He engaged in written debate with Whewell.
I removed everything after scientific methodology - I suspect most of the rest of the sentence has valuable information, but I don't know how to correctly adjust or contextualize it. It would be ideal if someone with the right background could correct and reinsert it. Here's the original version with the proper formatting:
Referencing and citation: not checked
