 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 23, 2004, November 23, 2005, November 23, 2006, November 23, 2007, November 23, 2009, and November 23, 2023. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hi - I've uploaded the front page of my copy, but it's from 1933 - the original aman is bad would be better. There are plenty out there, but are any of the images free? - Gobeirne 07:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first edit, but please change "Milton had no intention of delivering his speech verbally" to "Milton had no intention of delivering his speech orally." The former sentence implies he would forgo the use of words (draw pictures?), but I think the intention is to say he would not speak the text of his speech. Recall: verbally→with words (via any media), orally→with speech. 131.252.222.195 15:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Tim[reply]
This section doesn't look like part of an encyclopedia. While the opinions in that section may be valid, do they abide by NPOV and all that? The known facts of the Areopagitica should be enough. How people do or do not intepret it or use it is a bit of a stretch. There is no question about "misusing" Milton. Maybe misintepret, but intepretation of any text is up to the reader, and not to be defined by an encyclopedia. Oderic (talk) 10:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Oderic here. This sentence: "However to use Milton in defense of our modern constitutions and their emphasis on the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press, is to misuse Milton entirely. Milton's concepts are ones which do not mirror those of the modern world" is way too strong and utterly unecessary, seems also like a POV statement (there are plenty of ways that Milton's argument, even being theological, is valid in today's world as we grapple with fundamentalist censorship that is newly on the rise all over the world; not to mention Milton's argument is applicable by *analogy* to secular problems of personal freedom vs state censorhip. It would be best, as Oderic says, to rephrase that section entirely and just leave the content stating what Milton's argument was, without these POV interpretations and issues. Hulahoo (talk) 07:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'd also notes that the claim that the conceptual basis of Aeropagitica mirrors 'the modern Christian world' lacks credibilty, not least in presenting a rather rose-tinted view of 'modern' Christianity as a homogenous entity with a consistent and uniform set of values. Conservapedia, anyone? Beyond that, its a contextually dubious statement. English Anglicans would not generally regard Milton as merely mirroring modern Christianity but rather as a highly influential figure in the development of Anglican thought, i.e. a part of an unbroken intellectual tradition stretching back to the Reformation and beyond, to Wycliffe and the Lollards. If anything, the 'context' of Aeropagitica is more than adequately dealt with in the main biographical entry for Milton, which references both it religious context and its relevance to the 1st Amendment, There seems to little value in labouring those points here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unity MoT (talk • contribs) 07:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
note: Did major revision. I don't see this as a controversy, as everyone here on the talk page is agreed, so I am going to edit the relevant section. I see little relevant information, so I will keep only the last paragraph. I'll also change the title to reflect the change. Its going to be significantly shorter, but won't have lost any actual, relevant information, and will hopefully have a higher signal to noise ratio. PLEASE EDIT afterwards though, I am by no means a good writer, but I'll try my best, as this is my first major revision on wikipedia. Nate 16:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.215.120.37 (talk)
Added Section to detail the history of Milton's argument in the United States Supreme Court. Could likely stand as its own section, but needs citations to foriegn law as well. Will try to gather and add soon. Once that data is compiled, will add and reformat into new section on Legal Impact of Areopagitica. -Spinozaium — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinozaium (talk • contribs) 01:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey dude, guys, anybody, let t'article with lot of "long s" (ſ) because i read t'Areopagitica's first edition: t'original title, t'front, have Areopagitica: A ſpeech of Mr. John Milton for the liberty of unlicenſed printing to the Parliament of England! A sample are t'quotes:
It'serious, very important t'people learn as t'text was written originally.
Sylverfalls (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Edward Arber edition 1903 is set with long "s"s and ligatures, which are rather difficult to read, initially. 10 UK pence, good buy. The reader of the audiobook 2 has a great voice.Vernon White . . . Talk 15:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The section about the meaning of the title of the pamphlet should also include reference to St Paul's Areopagitica sermon, in Acts 17: 18-34. See Stephen Burt, "To The Unknown God": St. Paul and Athens in Milton's 'Areopagitica'", Milton Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 1 (MARCH 1998), pp. 23-31.(accessed 23-11-2017 at https://www.jstor.org/stable/24464964?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents).
Penelope Coleman (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
