Talk:Charles Bradlaugh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

A documentary I'm watching on the BBC claims that Bradlaugh finally got to take up his seat in parliment because a sympathetic Speaker of the House let him affirm before any of the other members - thus there were no MPs sworn in who would have the authority to challenge his affirmation. I thought it was an interesting bit of legal trickery, anybody know if it is true? --Bob the Pirate 19:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I think I was watching the same documentary... It also said that Bradlaugh was imprisoned in a special cell for unruly members of parliament in the clock tower of the House of Commons. This does seem more likely than imprisonment in the Tower of London. Sergeirichard 22:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I can't believe I never noticed the mistaken Tower of London line in the article before. It was indeed the clock tower - I've changed the article accordingly. Bradlaugh certainly finally got to take his seat thanks to the action of a new speaker. Don't think I've heard of this specific manoeuvre before, but it seems plausible. --Dannyno 13:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've just been reading the report of the proceedings in the Times of Jan 14 1886. There is no indication there that legal trickery was involved, or that Bradlaugh was allowed to affirm before anyone else (affirmation wasn't available, of course, in any event). The Speaker merely observes that the resolutions of the previous parliament are void, and that he has no power to prevent anyone from taking the oath if they present themselves to do so, but that they do so subject to "whatever risks may attach to him in a court of law." So the BBC are probably wrong. --Dannyno 15:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pity, it was a nice idea. Bob the Pirate 16:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


It may be worth investigating if the BBC's researchers have been influenced by the reporting of the event in the Northampton Mercury. In my opinion, both the pro and anti-Bradlaugh Northampton press had a tendancy to sensationalise anything and everything to do with Bradlaugh, for better or for worse. If any wiki has access to the newspaper microfiche's (as held in Northampton Central Library) it would definately be worth further investigation. McGonicle 18:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe. But maybe they just made what is a not uncommon mistake. The article doesn't need to do anything other than give the correct information, it doesn't need to discuss the mistakes (unless it's a really significant mistake about Bradlaugh's life, which this isn't). --Dannyno 11:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

oaths act[edit]

The parliamentary section has been amended and a bit now reads:

"Two years later, in 1888, he secured passage of a new Oaths Act, which enshrined into law the right of affirmation for members of both Houses, as well as for witnesses in civil and criminal trials."

I'm almost entirely certain that this is misleading, but I've not changed it because I want to check. There was in fact an earlier act (1869?) allowing atheists to give evidence in court, and it was to that Bradlaugh appealed when first asking to be allowed to affirm (the request denied, of course). His 1888 act may have consolidated all the legislation but it didn't originate the right to affirmation in court, just for parliament. --Dannyno 10:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've established that the Evidence Amendment Acts of 1869 and 1870 in fact gave atheists the right to affirm in court (but not in Scotland, and there were other imperfections). I shall change the text of the article to try and make this clear. --Dannyno 11:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have done original research on Bradlaugh, can I add to this page?[edit]

I have read the details on submitting articles in the Wikipedia guides. It appears that there is some grey areas around original material being published in the Wikipedia. I spent a year studying Bradlaugh, including researching his original written material for my dissertation. As it was an academic work, which is held in the archives of University College Northampton, would it be outside the Wikipeida ethic for me to publish some of the theories from my own academic research?

If they are your own original theories, then yes, I think that's outside our remit. But if you can use your expertise to improve what's there, that's good. I think. --Dannyno 12:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
However, if you can support your research with published refs (preferably peer reviewed) or if your work is published and therefor a reference, It seems you should be able to write on it. If the material is controversial then extra caution is advised and solid peer reviewed refs are needed. Yeah, this is a touchy area, so tread lightly :-) Vsmith 12:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The crux of my study on Bradlaugh focused on what I proposed was a tendancy to tailor his ideologies to his audience, i.e. When he was on the election trail in an almost endemically alcholic Northampton, his devout advocation of the Temperance movement found little voice in his political persona. I will have to dig about and see if anybody ever quoted me, (otherwise known as nicking my ideas). To my knowledge, the last major study on Bradlaugh conducted before my small work, was a thesis written in 1983. Bradlaugh was such a prominent political character in the 19th Century, and yet, outside of those who have seen the statue in Northampton, he is virtually unknown. It seems odd that the fellow that had a major role in divorcing the Church from the fundementals of Parlimentary procedure would recieve such little attention. It would be a pity if I could not contribute anything, as it highlights a bit of a restriction in the basic premise of Wikipedia. There must be plenty of academics and ex-academics such as I who have a lot to contribute on such topics that would otherwise not have an opportunity to contribute to an easily referenced body of work. McGonicle 13:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If he didn't tailor his message to his audience, he'd be about the only political figure who didn't! Mind you, there was an interface between temperance and secularism (and between the infidel radical tradition and turkish baths, it seems), and it would be interesting to hear how that played among the wider audience. I wonder if there is scope for a section on 'academic' research about Bradlaugh ("Bradlaugh in Historical Research", kind of thing?) Could just be something like: according to Smith (1983), Bradlaugh always stood on a temperance platform, but Jones (1997) disagrees, arguing that Bradlaugh often downplayed temperance. That kind of thing might work. But they'd have to be able to be sourced from published work, not theses or other original research. --Dannyno 14:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to sourcing from published works rather than these or other original research: That is a shame as Bradlaugh really is under represented in published works. Apart from the Hypatia Bradlaugh-Bonner volume of 1906, there are really only two or maybe three other published works that give Bradlaugh any attention. There has been little published academic debate either. Journal articles covering aspects of Bradlaugh's life amount to almost nothing. It would, I assume, also exclude the superb thesis by Fergus D’Arcy – “Charles Bradlaugh And The World of Popular Radicalism”, (University of Hull, Ph. D. thesis, 1978), which although may not have been formally published, a copy does exist in the Bradlaugh collection in Northampton library. This appears to be a fairly obscure item. When I referenced it in my dissertation there were veiled allegations that I had fabricated its existance in order to give me more license to do as a I pleased without regard for historiography. But it is there, it exists, and it is definately an essential piece of reading for those studying Bradlaugh. McGonicle 17:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's an encyclopedia. Bear that in mind, and the reason for keeping unpublished theories out ought to be obvious. You're right that it's a shame so little has been published. I've got Bradlaugh-Bonner's tribute, Arnstein, the Centenary Volume, Robertson's biography, Tribe's biography, Mackay's rare-ish libellous biography, Manvell's "The Trial of Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh", and some more recent books on republicanism which have some useful detail on that aspect of Bradlaugh. And that's more or less everything - certainly the major stuff. But secularism generally has been ignored in general history, only people like David Berman, David Nash and the great Edward Royle have kept the flame alive. By the way, Index to Theses dates D'Arcy's Ph.D to 1979, but in Hull University's catalogue it's 1978. Maybe that's the source of confusion? He did publish this: "Charles Bradlaugh and the English Republican Movement 1868-78", Historical Journal XXV, 1982.--Dannyno 11:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, McGonicle, is this yours? http://members.lycos.co.uk/wheelerrob/Robert%20Wheeler%20-%20Bradlaugh1.doc. I had a look at that a while ago, not quite clear enough on the affirmation issue it seemed to me, but I guess that isn't the focus. --Dannyno 12:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've been unmasked! Yes that was my dissertation piece. Not one of my greatest moments. I can not bear to read the thing now. I describe some of the problems I had in my long moaning preface. I put it on the net to see if I would get enough positive feedback to warrant salvaging the rest of the material I had and do a proper book on the suject. I recall writing a much more detailed piece on the affirmation, but unfortunately I had to strictly tailor the essay to the narrow subject of the title and fit within the word limit. I think that 1982 article by D'Arcy was the one I mentioned as 1983, my error. Of course, I had forgotten Arnstein's book, which was published in 1991. I will try to contact D'Arcy to establish the date of his thesis, if it is worth doing.
I revisited the idea of a more detailed work on Bradlaugh recently. I would quite like to get a programme made and broadcast on TV. I could quite easily produce a 3 programme 45 minute show. However, the channel I have been talking to recently did not quite understand the concept and wanted reassurances that we would contact all parties mentioned in order to give them a chance to give their right to reply. I do not think Bradlaugh would have approved of the methods I would have to employ to attempt that. McGonicle
Further to this, I was reading JM Robertson's History of Freethought in the Nineteenth Century, and he observes that Bradlaugh did not discuss religion in Northampton... I'll dig out the proper reference if you like. --Dannyno 10:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fairly staggered if that were true, and from memory I am fairly sure that Bradluaghs various tours took him through Northampton. I am sure he debated religion in Northampton. And from memory I think he confronted criticism from religious bodies in the local press. Northampton was not a particularly religious town, one contemporary made comments to the effect that "the church was the pub and the bar, their alter". I might have the correct quote in my dissertation, or that might have been one of the many edits to fit the pathetic word limit. I found to my horror just the other day that Northampton had been given full University status. That is a complete travesty for an academic institution that could not even cope with putting chairs in their lecture rooms. I think my time in university coincided with the absolute nadir of academica. I found people whose lectures consisted of watching episodes of Star Trek getting firsts, while my history degree focused more on irrelevent PC topics, such as the struggle of black lesbians in middle America. Its exactly that sort of rubbish that leads to key figures such as Bradlaugh being completely neglected in history. I suspect part of the reason is that the rather narrow political concepts held by the public now would find it hard to cope with a person of Bradlaugh, probably eager to label him a Marxist.
I pretty much despaired looking around every lecture, surrounded by yogurt knitters, eagerly discussing the impact of the pill on the liberlisation of women.
Lecturer: "What do you think Yogurt Knitter number 1?".
Yogurt knitter No. 1: "oh yes, it freed them, but also it oppressed them, and that was men's fault. And men gave them all these STD's as well".
Lecturer (now coated in yogurt): "What do you think Robert?"
Robert: "I think you all a bunch of vacuous f****** a***holes. I couldn't give a ***t what any of you people say. You are ready to hop on any right on bandwagon and make up a load of gibberish and then try and weave some nonsensical psuedo-historical. And if you try to challange it, you then get written off as as a X-ist or a Y-ist, where X or Y is whatever bandwagon the yogurt knitters have just jumped upon."
And where did all those people head too? You've guessed it, local government. Alas History, I think your time has gone.
Thats my out of place rant for today, mainly motivated by my continuing disgust with the Austrian descision to imprision a historian for taking part in an academic debate. Thank you Austria for denying the right of a man to say things that can be heard and challenged and debated. Thats for trying to make an academic look stupid, when only a cursory glance at the historiography shows he has been at the centre of debate for over forty years. No matter how unpalletable his works may have been, they have been challenged, and in parts discredit, and in part there validity has been given weight. But whatever the dogooders think, the debate (which incidently can be particularly good if there are people taking part who have contrary arguments has forms the basis of a thorough and firm hsitorical testement which should be refered to for years to come. Yes its emotive, on every side, and yes there were inaccuracies, on every side, but it was history. Hey, but maybe it will help us remember what happened if we lock up every guy who has a viewpoint the PC guys feel is threatening. Actually, maybe we should lock up every person that has these nasty, dirty point of view, no matter how muych research they've done. Actually, why not get rid of that research? Hey, why don't we all go down Austria way and have a good old book burning? McGonicle 19:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um. I don't know where to look after that embarrassing outburst. --Dannyno 11:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was the reference I mentioned: "The great majority of his constituents at Northampton were either churchgoers or non-active unbelievers. There, after becoming a candidate, he never spoke on religious matters." p.298, note 1: History of Freethought in the Nineteenth Century, Vol 1. London: Watts and Co, 1929. JM Robertson, the author, worked closely with Bradlaugh and stood for Northampton himself in 1895. I thought it backed up McGonicle's point about Bradlaugh tailoring his message --Dannyno 10:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about this on Northampton: "Discussion at Northampton. Tuesday Evening. Subject -- 'Atheism, Deism, Infidelity and secularism do not provide for the wants, but foster the vices of the human race.' The affirmative was taken by Mr. Bowes, the negative by Iconoclast." From the June 1, 1859 issue ot _The Investigator_, edited by Iconoclast (aka Charles Bradlaugh). Bradlaugh had been speaking and debating in Northampton since the mid-1850s, on a variety of topics including religion and Parliamentary Reform. He was well known to the Northampton branches of the Secular Society and the Reform League well before he ran for their Parliamentary seat. The press (both the _Northampton Mercury_ as well as the London Press and many papers throughout England) were vicious in their attacks on his "infidelity." However, just as he had avoided inserting his religious opinions into his Reform League activities, he tried to keep them out of the forefront of the campaign. I think he truly believed that his platform (which included items like compulsory free education, changes in the Land Laws, and Life -- rather than hereditary -- Peerages) contained ideas that would be more important to the working people of Northampton than his atheism. Cheers! Dan Allosso 02:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way: you certainly are allowed to cite and use your dissertation: 1) WP:SELFCITE "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive." 2) wp:COI "subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance on financial conflict of interest, while making sure that their external roles and relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia." 3) WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources." Rjensen (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pub[edit]

I was impressed and interested that a pub I'm soon going to visit in Northampton is named after this prominent local atheist (Google Maps link). I added to the article that there's a pub named after him, because it's almost as much of a tribute as the statue that's already (rather clumsily) mentioned. And pub names (at least the more unusual/unique ones) can be an important indicator of local history. My edit got quickly reverted. I'd like this fact back in the article but what do people think? Cheers. Georgethe23rd (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not notable. The pub could easily go out of business or change its name next week. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If pub names aren't notable, why is there a thoroughly good Pub names article? All the pubs mentioned in that article could theoretically go out of business or change their names anytime, as could any pub, company or other organisation! I'm not that bothered about re-including it in the article, but what do other people think? Georgethe23rd (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pub names are notable, but the names of pubs may not be notable. You've just misunderstood what the Pub names article is actually doing: those names are not of particular pubs, but common or significant names requiring explanation. Having said that, while I agree a particular pub is not notable, the fact that places in Northampton are named after Bradlaugh may well be notable. You could say: "Various landmarks are named after Bradlaugh, including a pub, Bradlaugh fields (?), etc etc" --Dannyno (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Danny, I've had a go. Georgethe23rd (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current sentence is much better. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Religion = None" vs. "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in infoboxes.[edit]

Per WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT, This comment concerns this edit and this revert.
(Please note that nobody has a problem with the use of "Atheist" in the article text. This only concerns infoxoxes.)
"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." --Penn Jillette
"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." --Bill Maher
There are many reasons for not saying "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes. They include:
It implies something that is not true
Saying "Religion = Atheist" in Wikipedia infoboxes implies that atheism is a religion. It is like saying "Hair color = Bald", "TV Channel = Off" or "Type of shoe = Barefoot". "Religion = None (atheist)" is better -- it can be read two different ways, only one of which implies that atheism is a religion -- but "Religion = None" is unambiguous.
It is highly objectionable to many atheists.
Many atheists strongly object to calling atheism a religion,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] and arguments such as "atheism is just another religion: it takes faith to not believe in God" are a standard argument used by religious apologists.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]
It goes against consensus
This was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" or removing the Religion entry entirely.
More recently, it was discussed at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?, and again the consensus was for "Religion = None".
On article talk pages and counting the multiple "thank you" notifications I have recieved, there are roughly ten editors favoring "Religion = None" for every editor who opposes it. Of course anyone is free to post an WP:RFC on the subject (I suggest posting it at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion) to get an official count.
It is unsourced
If anyone insists on keeping "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (Atheist)" in any Wikipedia infobox, they must first provide a citation to a reliable source that established that the individual is [A] An atheist, and [B] considers atheism to be a religion. There is at least one page that does have such a source: Ian McKellen. Because we have a reliable source that establishes that Ian McKellen considers atheism to be a religion, his infobox correctly says "Religion: Atheist". In all other cases, the assertion that atheism is a religion is an unsourced claim.
It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry
In the article, there is room for nuance and explanation, but in the infobox, we are limited to concise summaries of non-disputed material. Terms such as "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist", "areligious", and "anti-religion" mean different things to different people, but "Religion = None" is perfectly clear to all readers, and they can and should go to the article text to find out which of the subtly different variations of not belonging to a religion applies.
It violates the principle of least astonishment.
Consider what would happen if Lady Gaga decided to list "Banana" as her birth date. We would document that fact in the main article with a citation to a reliable source (along with other sources that disagree and say she was born on March 28, 1986). We would not put "Birth date = Banana" in the infobox, because that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Banana is not a birth date...". Likewise we should not put anything in an infobox that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Atheism is not a religion..."
In many cases, it technically correct, but incomplete to the point of being misleading.
When this came up on Teller (magician), who strongly self-identifies as an atheist, nobody had the slightest problem with saying that Teller is an atheist. It was the claim that atheism is a religion that multiple editors objected to. Penn Jillette wrote "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby", so we know that Penn objects to having atheism identified as a religion.
In the case of Penn, Teller and many others, they are atheists who reject all theistic religions, but they also reject all non-theistic religions, and a large number of non-religious beliefs. See List of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episodes for an incomplete list. Atheism just skims the surface of Penn & Teller's unbelief.
In my opinion, "Religion = None" is the best choice for represents the data accurately and without bias. I also have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, you're wrong - and also becoming extremely irritating by cut and pasting the same messages everywhere. I agree with 95% of what you say, but not with your opinion that "Religion: None (atheist)" is either wrong or unencyclopedic. It does not purport to claim that atheism is a religion - which it clearly isn't - but it does provide the reader with the additional information that the subject identifies as an atheist. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A centralised discussion on this point is taking place at Template talk:Infobox person. Further discussion should take place there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While having the editors of this page join the centralized discussion is desirable, I am not comfortable with asking them to not discuss the issue here. The consensus in every centralized discussion so far has favored my position, and I don't want to be seen as forcing my opinion on the folks who have been editing and improving this page. I think this should be a decision made by those who have built this page up, not by an outsider like myself or Ghmyrtle who has never shown any previous interest in this page. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that I have shown no previous interest in this page is refuted by this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Charles Bradlaugh. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Charles Bradlaugh. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Born in Hoxton[edit]

On a point of information regarding "Born in Hoxton (an area in the East End of London)" - Hoxton isn't in the East End of London, never was, never will be. I have no idea who thought it was. Hoxton is further west than the Tower of London. Perhaps someone would like to remedy the wording. JohnHarris (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Bradlaugh. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Bradlaugh. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reference given for the[edit]

"Hughes debate" -- which hardly seems to belong in the Introduction of this article, even if it were verified -- is not a legitimate reference, but an undocumented anecdote made by an unnamed third party in a conversation with the religious leader who wrote the guest newspaper OPINION column this dubious incident is being "referenced" with. It is, quite literally, anonymous hearsay, from a hundred years later. 2604:CA00:1F8:BCC:0:0:26F:7DE1 (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_Bradlaugh&oldid=1210115510"