Talk:Identity of Junius

Tom Paine

The article misses one of the most likely candidates - Tom Paine. PhilLiberty 06:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have evidence towards that? Simply because Paine was not an advocate of the British monarchy cannot point towards him being a candidate, otherwise you might as well include all 'Whigs' - in the loosest term possible - and supporters of 1789 and later Napoleon as potential writers. Paine wasn't the only one to advocate American Independence; albeit a prominent one.

The article in general is written very poorly in terms of viewpoint, a more neutral approach would help (for example, the bit about Franklin becoming a "rabid American rebel" is just ridiculous). It's a wikipedia article, not a rant against C18th figures. Crimson Blacknight (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

{{Original research}}

I have removed the long-standing OR template. While not everything is yet referenced, the page seems to me not to contain much "original research" and speculation any more. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Useful source

"A New Document on the Identity of Junius". The Journal of Modern History. 4 (1). March 1932. Rich Farmbrough, 16:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC).

No one has mentioned the very significant discussion of Junius in "The Vision of Judgement", perhaps because of the laughing character of that poem. Nonetheless, it is a nearly-contemporary discussion by a competent and engaged reader, and worth considering as evidence. Byron had a fine ear for voice and style and his observations have weight; not, of course, that Junius was 'really, truly, nobody at all'.Cyranorox (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Italics and quotes

The use of italics for actual quotes here is confusing as they blend into the italicised source names. Could we use "apostrophes" for quotes? Reference MOS:QUOTEMARKS. I'm happy to do this but would like a second opinion. Moondyne (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin

I am not clear what any of the following text currently in the Benjamin Franklin section of the article has to do with the possibility of Franklin being Junius or anything else related to this article. "Franklin had previously obtained a governorship for his son. Unfortunately for the Franklin family, this proved to become a family feud because his son remained loyal to the Crown while Franklin fought against his own son. Franklin and son never communicated with each other again. His son is connected to the famous Franklin Expedition in the Arctic, where the ship became locked in the ice and everyone died as the result of hypothermia, starvation and lead poisoning from the canned food that the expedition had brought along. Canning at that time was in its early stages of technology."

Should it be removed? Dunarc (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I arrive at this page to raise concerns about the material under "Other candidates" and I find someone beat me to it just a few hours ago. All the material on Benjamin Franklin is suspect: the sentences you quote are indeed irrelevant, and also factually incorrect, since William Franklin (d. 1813) had nothing to do with Franklin's lost expedition of 1845. But the previous references to Franklin being "laughed out of Parliament" and "turned into a renegade" is also irrelevant, since it's a clear reference to the Hutchinson Letters Affair, which didn't start till summer 1773. During the period of the Junius letters, Franklin was a proud and loyal British subject, intent on reconciling the British government and the American colonies peacefully, and held in very high regard by the British leadership and by Parliament.

After Franklin is listed John Miller, publisher of the letters in the London Evening Post. The material on him tells a tale of him emigrating to South Carolina with John C. Calhoun and family around the time Calhoun was ambassador to Belgium. There are a few problems with this: while Miller did indeed emigrate to South Carolina (around the end of the Revolutionary War), he was never "one of the most respected members of London's upper class society", Belgium didn't exist until 1830, and John C. Calhoun was never ambassador (minister) to there. His son-in-law Thomas Clemson was, but he wasn't appointed till 1844, some time after John Miller's death in 1807.

I see that all this questionable material was added in a single anonymous edit in August. On balance I do think it was added in good faith, even if it's wrong. I really think it should go. That'll leave a good, albeit unsourced case for including Miller (that he was the publisher of the letters) and the sentence "Franklin was in London at the time that these papers were being published" for Franklin. It's true that Franklin lived in London at the time, but that's obviously not sufficient reason to include him here. I'd be surprised if Franklin hasn't been accused of being Junius by someone at some point, but we need a substantive accusation and a cite for it if it's going to remain here.

So, TL;DR. I'm going to remove the extraneous material added in August, since that seems an uncontroversial and necessary first step. Then I recommend someone find a citation for Miller, and that Franklin either gets a fleshed-out accusation with a citation or gets deleted from the list. Binabik80 (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Woodfall?

The name Woodfall appears several times in the text as if we should know who he is, but there is no elucidation. It then appears twice in a footnote, referring to two separate people. If one of these Woodfalls was indeed "convicted and sentenced" in connection to the Junius letters, surely he deserves a bit more attention in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.63.230 (talk) 10:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)