Talk:Virtual representation

Neutrality of article is disputed?

In countries with democracies we would think of "virtual representation" as a charade and an excuse to give no representation; but this is a good start for an article. I suppose that this is not NPOV because it uses phrases like "the theory went" and "of course" which are weasel words. Oh, and if anyone wants to add material, cite references, or edit the point of view, this is always welcome. Midtempo-abg 15:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it all was b.s. but have it their way The NPOV was originally added in response to the following:

The problem with this thesis is that there was no proper representation of the American Colonies by their British Leaders. As the Sons of Liberty said, they had taxation, but no representation. British leaders thousands of miles away knew very little of the wants and desires of the American colonists.

Since this is no longer in the current revision of the page, I think it is safe to remove the NPOV. 208.59.132.248 (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of Article (2013)

The article leans heavily towards the perspective of the American colonists rather than presenting virtual representation as an idea to be considered one way or the other. The article uses potentially combative words and phrases such as "phony excuse" which are inappropriate in an objective article and should be changed or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.66.80 (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Suffolk Resolves Inaccuracy

The claim in the article that the Suffolk Resolves requested representation in parliament at first glance seemed doubtful. Upon further examination of subject, primarily reading the full text of the Suffolk Resolves, I can safely state that the Resolve did not request representation. The article should be edited for accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.36.183 (talk) 08:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Virtual representation. 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/20130515204305/http://mcgeefragments.net/OLD/rhetorical_process_england.htm to http://mcgeefragments.net/OLD/rhetorical_process_england.htm

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

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 13:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Off subject

Very little in the article is about the theory of virtual representation, almost everything is refuting it in the specific case of the American colonies – which would perhaps be better included in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxation_without_representation article? Spieling (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)