Talk:United States Declaration of Independence/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Native Americans and the constitution

Should it not be mentioned the impact the declaration of Independance had on on the Native American population, or more importantly it's lack of consideration of the native American population

John Locke's Philosophy in the Declaration

Although this article mentions the belief John Locke influenced the Declaration, this idea is quickly refuted without being supported by textual evidence from 'Two Treatises of Government'. Locke's text read, as mentioned,with many similarities to the Declaration of Independence. His ideas widely influenced America's political platform through the ideas of inalienable rights- a Lockean belief- established in the Declaration, which later led American founders to limit the power of political rulers through separation of powers, a key idea in American constitutionalism. In order to enhance the reader's knowledge of possible Lockean influences within the Declaration, I would like to request the adding of the following information to page five: Locke’s ‘Two Treatises of Government’ explored the idea of inalienable rights, defining these rights as life, liberty, and property. Jefferson later adopted these as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The entire purpose of government, according to Locke was to protect these rights. Locke believed in the social value of the individual, a belief that led his sentiments away from divine rights and towards the importance of consent of the governed (Locke §124). Believing not in the placement of a monarch as the complete embodiment of a country (rather, he believed in the embodiment being in the sentiments of its people), Locke also believed in the importance of maintaining a secular government, to keep worship out of political practices. In order to deepen the equality between average citizen and political elite, executing Locke’s belief in inalienable rights, Americans founded a government upon constitutionalism- the creation of a government with laws to limit the power of politicians. The limit of politicians’ power removes the risk of government members having rights different than those of the average citizen- therefore, making men closer to equals. This importance is key in the Declaration of Independence- a section in which Locke's influence was clearly represented through Jefferson's pen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsut5241 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. This aside, nice write-up. Maybe you can become more involved in Wikipedia editing, it would be a benefit to the project and the areas of the encyclopedia you chose to edit in. One of us, one of us. Thanks. And on topic, George Mason influenced Jefferson greatly as well, and Locke may have influenced Mason. Randy Kryn 15:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. clpo13(talk) 23:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Spelling of "Brittish"

I had always heard that one of the times that the word "British" is used in the Declaration it is mis-spelled with two "T"s. However there is no reference to that in the article. Is this simply an urban myth? --Legis (talk - contribs) 22:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Low Countries

"The United States Declaration of Independence inspired many other similar documents in other countries in the 18th and 19th centuries, spreading to the Low Countries, and then to the Caribbean, Spanish America, the Balkans, West Africa, and Central Europe in the decades up to 1848"

The same article mentions that the "Low Countries" (Netherlands and Belgium) already had their own declaration in 1581 (Act of Abjuration)... So it rather spread from there to America then the other way around.

I suggest removing "to the Low Countries, and then" from the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.10.25 (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2016

What you have for the preamble is great, but what you might be missing is the part that is the preamble also and goes before it. It states: When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


Calholt3 (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: That text is already in the "introduction" section. RudolfRed (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Inconsequential Examples in Legacy Section

The Declaration of Independence features in such an immense variety of books, movies, video games, etc. that it is pointless to attempt a list. Therefore, I have hidden several ephemeral examples from this section, leaving those things that have greater significance (e.g., $2 bill, World Trade Center). Note that I have merely hidden items, not deleted them, in case someone can present a compelling reason to retain them.

Dilidor (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 17 October 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, concerns of primary topic (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

– This Declaration of Independence is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, many of the other declarations of independence are far less notable. Several declarations of independence weren't even called "Declaration of Independence", but the moniker was given to compare it to the US Declaration and as far as I know it was the first document to be called this. For example the Israeli Declaration of Independence is formally called "Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel". Another concern is that the current page Declaration of Independence is really just a WP:list and so it is misleading and mis-titled. Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:USEENGLISH it appears that the this one is the one most commonly called "Declaration of Independence". Prisencolin (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit, evidence of primary topic: It's been mentioned in previous RMs that this page has more page views by leaps and bounds. Also, looking up "Declaration of Indepence" on google's various search features yields pretty much only IS results. For some reason there has been quite a bit of news about Israel's independence recently, but the wikipedia page on that subject should re-titled Declaration of Statehood or something along those lines. The US Declaration set the precedent of having a a formal declaration of independence, note how there are only two instances of this occuring on the Declaration of Independence even though there have been countless instances of nations and states gaining self sovereignty before 1776.-02:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisencolin (talk • contribs)

  • Oppose, the 'United States' descriptor differentiates this page from others like Irish Declaration of Independence, Declaration of Independence of the Mexican Empire, Declaration of Independence of Ukraine, and many others. In fact, the first line of the Declaration creates "The United States of America", so the present title is actually more than a descriptor and invokes the document's statement of intent. Randy Kryn 21:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    • This is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of Declaration of Independence, so this page doesn't need to be disambiguated because it is widely thought that "Declaration of Independence" without any qualifiers refers to the US one. In that case we shouldn't even have United States as United States, because "United States" could refer to United Mexican States or some other federal entity.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
      • The page Declaration of independence shows Wikipedia has 36 separate articles containing the name along with mentioning a country. So consistency should also be noted here. Randy Kryn 22:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC
      • (edit conflict) Prisencolin, you need to provide some proof that this is the Primary Topic, not just declare it. Who is it "widely thought" this by? - BilCat (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
        • I don't really want to pile on to a good faith RM, but check out the extent ofCategory:Declarations of independence. Seems pretty convincing for Wikipedia's direction on the term. Randy Kryn 22:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
          • It may be in good faith, but proposals have been made to move the article before, per the box near the top of this page. I highly suggest the nominator read those discussions carefully, as the box suggests, become it's evident from his arguments that he has not. - BilCat (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
            • There's only been one instance of a an RM relating to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (two were about WP:NATURAL, and to be honest the arguments being made on both sides weren't very convincing.--03:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I see nothing to show this is the primary topic. This is the English Wikipedia not the United States Wikipedia. The title accurately describes the article. I do not see any reason to move this. -- GB fan 22:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Being a US topic doesn't preclude it from being a primary topic on that basis alone, and that isn't the argument the nom is making. - BilCat (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
      • No kidding, there are many US articles that are primary topics. Where did I say that just because this was a US topic that it couldn't be the primary topic? I said I don't see anything that shows this is the primary topic and went on to make my own point about this not being the US Wikipedia. There are editors that do make the point that the US should be primary topics and was trying to preempt that line of reasoning. I was not responding to anything the nom said and don't understand why you would think I was responding to something they never said. -- GB fan 00:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
        • The way it was written made the two sentences appear connected, as there was nothing there to indicate they weren't connected. My apologies. - BilCat (talk) 03:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
          • @GB fan For the most part I agree with you, but it needs to be noted that the United States more or less originated the idea of having a formalized Declaration, particularily one drafted as a document. Among major countries, it seems as if the US is the only one where independence was explcitly and boldly declared. Brazil might have been in the same situation, but the its link on the Declarations list page doesn't direct to a any sort of American-style proclaimation.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I don't see how this proposed move would benefit the article about the United States' deceleration of independence from the British Empire. Many countries have had a document declaring their independence from another sovereignty. The nominator does not provide evidence on why the United States deceleration of independence is the primary topic of the term Declaration of Independence. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 00:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Procedural comment. This is a malformed request. Declaration of Independence is a redirect. We don't move redirects. If you wish to change the target of the redirect, take that to WP:Redirects for discussion. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Right, but be sure to make such corrections in two places. wbm1058 (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
@Wbm1058: As I recall, everything you may be referring to that I may have not done, your bot will now do automatically? Just wondering since I believe that the nominator means to propose the first page be moved to Declaration of Independence with a capital "I". (Am I missing something? If an WP:RFD needs to happen, it probably can after this discussion.) Steel1943 (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I made a mistake there. wbm1058 (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: @Prisencolin: If Declaration of independence is moved to a "list"-type title, it should probably be moved to List of declarations of independence instead to fix the capitalization of the title. Steel1943 (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sorry, this request just violates too many conventions. Don't confuse the Proper Name of a specific declaration with discussion of generic declarations. Of course this is PT in the United States, but Wikipedia has to take a world-wide view. Moving this to "list of..." is a WP:summary style violation as it assumes we have an article about the things we're listing that needs to have the list split out from the article because the main article has gotten too big to comfortably include the list. That's not the case here. wbm1058 (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm open to the possibility of moving Declaration of independence → Declarations of independence, plural. I know we generally prefer titles in the singular form, but that would help minimize confusion about whether the topic was general declarations, throughout history and around the world, or one specific capital D Declaration. Since we wouldn't put a {{lowercase title}} on this. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • And American Declaration of Independence would be a bit more succinct and probably more WP:common name too. wbm1058 (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
    Yup: Google Ngram says "American" is much more common than "United States". wbm1058 (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
    "United States" is used in the first line of the declaration, so could be seen as a part of the title. The Declaration did not create 'America' but it did create and name the "'United' States of America " as it declared the nation's independence. Randy Kryn 17:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comments - Technically, Declaration of Independence and Declaration of independence can be separate articles, per WP:DIFFCAPS. A example is Red meat and Red Meat. - BilCat (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is far from the primary topic and the current title reflects the language of the primary text. Dimadick (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2016

The last sentence of the "Publication and Reaction" section reads "All Northern states abolished slavery by 1804." This seems likely to lead to incorrect conclusions by the casual reader.

Suggest it read something like: "By 1804, all Northern states passed legislation that led to the gradual abolition of slavery in the North." and a link be provided to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Abolition_in_the_North

NotSuess (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: I would look for consensus on this change. I don't think that the current wording would lead to incorrect conclusions. -- Dane2007 talk 04:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

edit in the chart section

In the indictment section, one of the sentences is: For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States There is a comma that should be after the word Trial. Could someone add that in?

--Dabauss514 (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

oll.libertyfund.org

libertyfund and econlib.org are no more biased than NYT. The difference is that libertyfund and econlib.org declare their libertarian bias, whereas the NYT does not declare their biases. Removing a link to the full text of a historical document is an obvious regression from a reader's point of view. If certain editors are adding too many links to these sites (econlib and libertyfund) after being warned not to do so, ban these editors. Removing links to the full text of historical documents is certainly not benefiting readers. Jrheller1 (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Liberty Fund is a libertarian fundamentalist think-tank, NYT is a newspaper. Material sourced from NYT is presented as being sourced from a newspaper, but the Liberty Fund source was being presented as an academically authoritative source, which it is not. In addition, both have been extensively spammed by a paid editing ring. The result is that this virtually unknown group have more than 20 times the number of links on Wikipedia as, to pick an example at random, the Adam Smith Institute, which (unlike Liberty Fund) is routinely quoted in the press. There are more links to the websites of Liberty Fund than to the Ludwig von Mises Institute, which is equally partisan but recognised for specialist expertise in respect of the Austrian School. So: it's a refspamming case. Guy (Help!) 18:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree that maybe there were too many references to the econlib.org "concise encyclopedia of economics" but that is no reason to remove links to the full text of classical economics documents found at econlib.org or oll.libertyfund.org. I replaced a link to the full text of a book by Jevon at Evolution of microeconomics with a link to the text of the book at archive.org, but the econlib.org copy was better (because it was divided into hypertext linked chapters and sections). Jrheller1 (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
There are three main problems here. The first is that this kind of site will only host the articles and books they like. So the reader will get a free access copy of libertarian books, but nothing for left-leaning books (FUTON bias). Second, they may editorialise. Several of their online copies of books include side by side commentary. That is clearly bad. Third, even if the text is untouched, it's wrapped around with polemic. You wouldn't link to the text of Roe v Wade on the site of Planned Parenthood, still less that of NRLC. We should not give the impression of endorsing an agenda-driven site as a neutral source of information. Are these books not available at Gutenberg? Or Wikisource? They are mostly PD now, no? Guy (Help!) 19:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing objectionable about Liberty Fund's transcription of Hutchinson strictures or Jevon's book. These are both high quality, very easy to use transcriptions. There is no political commentary mixed in; it is nothing but the original document. If some communist organization has good quality transcriptions of certain historical communist documents, there would be nothing wrong with linking to them. In fact, a communist organization might be the best source for good quality transcriptions of historical communist documents. Probably nobody else would have as much motivation as they do to create good quality transcriptions of these historical documents. Jrheller1 (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing objectionable about Liberty Fund's transcription of Hutchinson strictures... Nothing, other than being unnecessary (especially in an article not specifically about them), being from a suspect source, and being part of reference link-spamming. Other than those, not a thing. --Calton | Talk 11:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Section on Turnbull's painting

Turnbull's painting is mentioned in a sentence, and again under twentieth century. I think, because of its importance and influence, that it deserves its own subsection. I propose adding the following:

John Trumbull's Declaration of Independence (1817-1826)

Main article: Declaration of Independence (Trumbull)

A key step marking the evolution of the Declaration in the nation's conciousness is the now well-known painting Declaration of Independence by Connecticut political painter John Trumbull. It was commissioned by the United States Congress in 1817. 12-by-18-foot (3.7 by 5.5 m) in size, it has hung in the United States Capitol Rotunda since 1826. It has been often reproduced, and is the visual image most associated by Americans with the Declaration.

The painting is sometimes incorrectly described as the signing of the Declaration of Independence. In fact, the painting actually shows the five-man drafting committee presenting their draft of the Declaration to the Second Continental Congress, an event that took place on June 28, 1776, and not the signing of the document, which took place later.[John Hazelton, The Historical Value of Trumbull's - Declaration of Independence, The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography - Volume 31, (Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 1907), 38.]

The painting, the figures painted from life when possible, does not contain all the signers. Some had died and images could not be located. One figure had participated in the drafting but did not sign the final document; another refused to sign. In fact the membership of the Second Continental Congress changed as time passed, and the figures in the painting were never in the same room at the same time.

It is, however, an accurate depiction of the room in the building known today as Independence Hall, the centerpiece of the Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Trumbull visited the room, which was where the Second Continental Congress met, when researching for his painting. At the time it was the Pennsylvania State House.

deisenbe (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

This not having received any comment in five days, I'm going to go ahead and add it. deisenbe (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Song "Declaration" by The 5th Dimension

I added a reference to The 5th Dimension's now-forgotten setting to music of the opening portion of the Declaration, which was issued as a 45 and reached 64 on the Billboard Hot 100. I put it in on April 19 and by April 22 2017 it was gone because in that person's opinion, its importance was undocumented.

It is not in any collection of The 5th Dimension's songs, and not available through Spotify. There are two performances on YouTube, references below.

I want to put here my case for why it merits at least a sentence. The actual text I added (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Declaration_of_Independence&diff=776653486&oldid=776652132) was:

In 1970, at the height of the Vietnam War protests, The 5th Dimension set to music and recorded the opening of the Declaration (through "for their future Security").[1]][2] The name of the song is "Declaration."

The following are reasons why I think the song should be included:

  • It is the only known musical setting of any part of the Declaration.
  • It is a reply to the musical 1776, which premiered in 1969, the year before the song. And in which the Declaration is never sung. 1776 presented a sanitized, prettied-up version of early American history; for example, Jefferson said he had resolved to free his slaves, which he never did. Everyone agrees that the musical is not historically accurate, and it never claimed to be.
  • The 5th Dimension song, in vivid contrast, suggests that the Declaration is still relevant: that if the present government of the United States is destructive of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the people have the right, indeed the duty, to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government... in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. In the context of the year the song was recorded, the concept of revolt against the United States government was not ludicrous, though to my knowledge no such goal was, after the U.S. Civil War and before the sovereign citizens, ever expressed bluntly by anyone. (It would be treason, with which Jefferson Davis was charged.)

The country's mood in 1970, since many WP editors are too young to have lived it, or have not studied American history: The Vietnam War was a stupid, unjustified war. (See Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.) It cost the lives of 58,000 Americans and did not end sooner for American political, not military, reasons. (See Role of the United States in the Vietnam War, section Vietnamization, 1969-1975.) The country was in a rage that is parallel to some extent with the current situation re Trump. But the Vietnam protests were more focused -- there were not so many things to oppose -- and they helped bring down two presidents: Lyndon Johnson, who decided not to run for reelection in 1968 in part because he could not appear publicly anywhere without significant war protests, and Richard Nixon, the only president to resign. (Though they were not the direct cause of his impeachment and resignation, they had a great deal to do with it indirectly.)

Events: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy (1963). The Los Angeles riots (1965). Self-immolations as war protests in the United States (1965) and Vietnam (1967). The Tet offensive (January, 1968). The My Lai Massacre (March, 1968). The Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. (April 4, 1968). The Assassination of Robert Kennedy (June 5, 1968). The Battle of Khe Sahn, which we lost (July, 1968). The Chicago police riot at the 1968 Democratic National Convention (Aug. 28). The Woodstock concert, in which peace was a primary topic (1969). The Moratorium to End the War in Vietnam (1969). The peak arguably came in the Kent State Massacre of May 4, 1970, in which unarmed war protesters were killed by the Ohio National Guard. The Cambodian Incursion and the resulting National Student Strike (May, 1970), also a protest of the Kent State shootings. See Vietnam War protests.

In case any reader does not know: we lost the war. deisenbe (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Well written argument for inclusion, and as you mention, it may be the only musical presentation of the actual wording of the Declaration which seems to make it notable enough for inclusion here (with maybe a slight edit). Nice find and contribution. Randy Kryn 15:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Actually, BilCat did not (twice) revert your edit "because in that person's opinion, its importance was undocumented." He removed it because the references used were "YouTube videos featuring the song," and stated that the song "needs reliable sources that attest to the relevance of the song TO the declaration." He was accurately paraphrasing Wikipedia:Video links. That said, you've laid out an excellent case as to why the song is noteworthy and relevant to the article. I'd have no problem with adding a sentence to the article about the song, once you've found a reliable secondary source to back it up. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Those sources do not exist, or the possibility that they exist is so small that it's not worth my time, or anybody else's, to search for them. Given that, does anyone have any suggestion? deisenbe (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

First Paragraph Edit

In the first paragraph of the article, in the sentence, "The term 'Declaration of Independence' is not used in the document itself," the word term is incorrect. A better word here would be phrase or title.

Since this is an English-usage issue, so I did not make the change and won't unless/until a consensus is reached, but term is a "...limitation, restriction, or regulation..." (according to http://wikidiff.com/phrase/term) whereas phrase is a "...word or group of words that functions as a single unit in the syntax of a sentence..." and title is more descriptive than either. 2607:FCC8:AB03:7600:A0E0:C8FA:D0C1:EDDB (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

You are correct, and I have modified the opening paragraph, removing the sentence you questioned (by-the-way, I agree with your above observation) and putting the final title printed at the top of the engrossed declaration at the top of the article. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 01:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
The most recent edit, adding The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America as an alternate title does not follow the manual of style. The capitalization used does not match the given reliable source, nor is that as such a common name. I suggest amending the text (or providing better reliable sources for the alternate title. TEDickey (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I see that another editor has removed the added text, which is fine with me. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
best not to use Wiki such as http://wikidiff.com/phrase/term as a reliable source. 1) Oxford dictionaries website is clear enough: term = "A word or phrase used to describe a thing or to express a concept." https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/term 2) Merriam Webster = " a word or expression that has a precise meaning in some uses" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/term 3) Cambridge advanced dictionary = "a word or expression used in relation to a particular subject, often to describe something official or technical

'Without let or hindrance' is a legal term which means 'freely'." the Declaration is a legal document Rjensen (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement of abolition of slavery in the North

The last sentence under the heading "Publication and reaction" states: "All Northern states abolished slavery by 1804."

This not only implies that the United States was divided by North and South less than 20 years after its Constitution was ratified, but it is erroneous and in direct contradiction to the Wikipedia article on Slavery, which states (under "Slavery#Abolitionism") that: "After January 1, 1808, the importation of slaves into the United States was prohibited,[257] but not the internal slave trade, nor involvement in the international slave trade externally."

In fact, the date of 1804 is not even referenced in the Slavery article in regards to the United States. Furthermore, there is no reference cited for the 1804 event.

I think that, considering the current climate in America, this needs to be corrected as soon as possible, since most younger Americans use Wikipedia as their main source of reference when discussing relevant issues like slavery.

StarOfBabylon1122 (talk) 04:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)StarOfBabylon1122StarOfBabylon1122 (talk) 04:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC) July 3, 2017

I added the details to the other articles. "Abolition. of. Slavery. (1804). With passage of the law excerpted here, New Jersey became the last state in the North to abolish slavery. " Howard L Green Words that Make New Jersey History: A Primary Source Reader (1995) p 84. Rjensen (talk) 06:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
The statement is accurate, though it has a big "but" attached, as emancipation was gradual - see "The Slave Experience: Freedom & Emancipation", PBS. Also, saying "north of the Mason-Dixon Line" rather than "Northern states" might make the sentence more accurate. Drdpw (talk) 07:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
the choice was between gradual emancipation and continued slavery. The antislavery forces went for gradual emancipation so they could get legislation passed. Rjensen (talk) 07:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The relevant article is Slave states and free states, which gives a brief timeline.

The situation in 1804, with the abolition of slavery in New Jersey:

  • Slave States: Delaware, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. A total of 8 states.
  • Free states: Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. A total of 9 states. Dimadick (talk) 07:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

So maybe this sentence should read: “All Northern states abolished slavery by 1804 (though some with gradual emancipation through 1865), and the importation of slaves into the United States was prohibited in 1808.” — Andy Anderson 18:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

: The states formed the new nation not the congress.?? not so

Congress declared independence July 2 and the state governments were told about it afterwards. They all accepted the decision of the Congress. And it was Congress that previously told the 13 they were no longer colonies and were now states and needed to write new constitutions. Rjensen (talk) 04:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what your point or contention is, but many of the colonies had already written their own constitutions prior to the First Continental Congress, notably Rhode Island. The Continental Congress was following the lead of the respective colonies, not vice versa. —Dilidor (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
1776: The Congress told all the colonies to revise their status. it was acting as a national government and its decisions were NOT subject to being overruled by state legislatures. It was Congress that wrote the Declaration, not any state. Rjensen (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Declaration of Independence. 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.

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) 14:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Punctuation

Discussion is at Talk:First Continental Congress#Punctuation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Dilidor (talk · contribs) apparently has no understanding of basic punctuation. He first reverted my edit that (among other things) added a handful of missing commas per WP:Copyedit#Punctuation. I then notified him on his talkpage of the above guideline.

I now find that he, instead of replying, has reverted me again(!), with the ridiculous comment "do not begin a revert war; take it to talk". Ok, I'm doing that now, although I was close to taking it to WP:ANI.

Let's see what happens. The WP:ANI avenue remains open.

HandsomeFella (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion is at Talk:First Continental Congress#Punctuation. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

With the Declaration, these states formed a new nation – the United States of America.

This is not true. The Declaration of Independence in no way formed a new nation. Each state was declaring itself to be a free and sovereign state (nation) just like the state(nation) of Great Britain or France or Spain. Please read the last paragraph of the Declaration to see that the other nations were referred to as states.

The Articles of Confederation formed an association of the new nations. This document had Problems with fairness for several of the nations. The Constitution addresses these issues and established the new association of nations. The "united" states (nations) were still separate sovereign nations, but now had the benefit of being able to deal with other nations as a collections of nations and not individually.

To say that the United States is a nation is equivalent to saying that the European Union is a nation. I realize that you may not agree with me and cite SCOTUS opinions and a century of history to say that I am incorrect. The Constitution is the only legal document in America that is not viewed as a contract. It is a legal contract, a compact between the 50 nations. Just ask any Native American tribe if they are a sovereign nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.39.125.72 (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree, last sentence in the opening paragraph is inaccurate, and I will refine/remove it. Now, regarding the balance of your post, this is not the correct forum for that debate. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2018

Under popular culture, I'd like you to mention the 2004 film "National Treasure" starring Nicholas Cage because of it's success and it's connotations with the Declaration of Independence. I believe this film is an integral pillar to the Declaration in popular culture. Robertelegrum (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done • Thanks for the suggestion; I have added it to the article. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2018

I think Timothy Matlack should be listed as simply the engrosser of the Declaration of Independence. The National Archives of the United States recognizes that Matlack was the engrosser without any doubt (see here). Additionally, instead of being mentioned after Thomas Jefferson in the box in the upper right-hand corner, he should either be removed from the box entirely or given his own role as "Engrosser". The format just seems inconsistent there. --Timothy Matlack (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Removed him from infobox altogether, as "author" refers to the person who wrote the content, not to the person who physically hand-wrote the document. —Dilidor (talk) 10:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
the engrossed copy was just for show. The legal document was the one prepared by the regular clerk in his usual handwriting. "author" never is used for the person who sets type or copies a document word for word. Rjensen (talk) 10:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Copy found in thrift shop

I haven't researched this but on last night's To Tell the Truth it appeared someone had found an official copy, bought it for a few dollars, had it authenticated, and sold it for thousands.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Copy error

The section:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Is incorrect. there was a copy error in the first publication of the declaration where a period replaces a comma, and that changes the core of the preamble. It should read as one large sentence as follows:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

69.68.232.134 (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC) Jamey

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2019

Add signing date as August 2nd, 1776 2605:E000:1418:1218:B5DE:A02E:5553:6DB6 (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done – no rationale (or sources) given for change. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2019

edit the Final steps into caps Memes11112 (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done — The request is unintelligible. — Smuckola(talk) 00:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Additional External Link

I would like to add an external link to the version of this declaration before it was edited, as originally written by Thomas Jefferson. An example of this can be found at http://www.history.org/almanack/resources/jeffersondeclaration.cfm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.205.81 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence was not forgotten

I must challenge the assertion that the Declaration of independence was as quoted by Maier on page 162 ( American Scripture) cite in your article. Maier stated "seldom if ever, to judge from newspaper accounts and histories of the celebrations was the Declaration of independence ever read publicly in the late 1770s and 1780s." There is no evidence offered to support this and in fact the DOI was read on July 4th from 1776 onward and usually read also before sermons delivered in gathering places after 1776.

I would also point out that many newspapers were shut down by the British in the colonies during the war years war years of 1775-1783 and could not be reported. Oftentimes, the reports of sermons were sent to newspapers in many states to be included as a news event but nothing in the newspaper reporting standard of 18th century equal today's newspaper reporting practices.

No facts are offered to support such a sweeping judgment and really needs to be reviewed. Unfortunately, the belief that the DOI was forgotten has been included in other histories of the time and needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novanglus2015 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe should address the research showing that there's a meaningful punctuation difference in question?

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/03/us/politics/a-period-is-questioned-in-the-declaration-of-independence.html Other sources can be found via google. But might be worth at least a footnote to the textual section.

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2019

Insert reference to controversy over the material of the parchment. https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/declaration-independence-paper Hider760 (talk) 02:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make; please make a precise request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Reorganizing sections

As of now, the entire article is under a single level 2 section ("Background"). I think this is a mistake; level 3 sections should be made into level 2. --Adlacque (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed It was caused by a previous editor's typo. —Dilidor (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

First Newspaper Publication Unclear

Hi,

Essentially I think there may be an error but am unsure.

According to United States Declaration of Independence page, the document was first published in the press by an English language Pennsylvania Evening Post on July 6, with a German translation published in a German paper on July 9.

However according to the Wikipedia page on the German-language in the US: 

"It was a German-language paper, Der Pennsylvanische Staatsbote that on July 5, 1776, was the first paper to report the American Declaration of Independence, and it did so in German translation. English readers would have to wait a day later to read the English text in the Pennsylvania Evening Post."

Although there is no reference or citation provided.

And the Wikipedia page for the Pennsylvania Evening Post actually claims that they published before Der Pennsylvanische Staatsbote in one paragraph and that they published after Der Pennsylvanische Staatsbote in the same article.

The German page for Der Pennsylvanische Staatsbote gives all the dates as being one day earlier than the other articles.

Essentially the whole thing is confusing and the four articles contradict each other. The only thing that they all agree on is that the German translation was published in Der Pennsylvanische Staatsbote, even the articles which say they published it first. This seems to imply that the German paper was the first paper but originally published it in English 3-4 days before the German translation and 1 day before the Pennsylvania Evening Post. Maybe . . .

But none of these have solid references that I would say overruled/outweighed the others. I would appreciate a clarification and bringing the 4 pages in line with each other.

2001:7D0:830D:9780:B97D:2B:6BB6:E0BB (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2020

Reference #90 in the United States of America Declaration of Independence has a link that is no longer active. I think this link would work https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/18.html 2601:281:C602:4DC0:A4C2:8F23:17BD:2942 (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Why no apostrophe after "States" ?

Is there any reason this article is not titled "United States' Declaration of Independence", following the same possessive form as Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence? --LukeSurl t c 15:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

misleading comment about Caslon

As written, the reader is given to understand that William Caslon designed this font specially for that purpose (which doesn't appear to be plausible). The comment might be improved by revising it to omit that implication, and moving the resulting text in the section about publication TEDickey (talk) 23:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Slaveholders and Confederates repudiating the Declaration

In the section "Lincoln and the Declaration", Lincoln's debates with Douglas are highlighted. But Douglas was not the only person in that era who had harsh words for the Declaration and the Founders. John Pettit, John C. Calhoun, George Fitzhugh, Alexander H. Stephens, and many others were not interested because of ideals such as being born equal and free. It ought to be included that this attack on the Founders was a chorus(or perhaps a cacophony) rather than one single man. Many of these people were important figures in the era, and Pettit in particular is mentioned in some Lincoln biographies as having an important impact on Lincoln.[3][4] Conversely as an additional consideration, abolitionists such as Thomas Morris and Benjamin Wade were on the same side as Lincoln and they were arguing that it was Thomas Jefferson who taught them the virtues of being abolitionist. So they were also a chorus, on the other side. Progressingamerica (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Map

British North America in 1775; the 13 colonies are shown in red.

This page was missing a map which showed the extent of the 13 states. The one I've put on the page shows the extent of territory up to the Mississipi which was technically "Indian territory" since the withdrawal of the French in 1763. But it does show more clearly the territory that the 13 states were to occupy. An alternative is shown here from the History of the United States (1776-1789). Which is preferable? Chris55 (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

link to text of document missing

There is no link to the document that I can find. There is a mobile version but it is not searchable. Very frustrating and hard to believe. 68.134.72.214 (talk) 10:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2021 (2)

Please change the following from the block quote: 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,[8] that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The declaration was made to create equal rights for every person and if it was intended for only a certain section of people, they would have left it as "rights of Englishmen".[9]

To:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal[8], that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.[9]

The part “the declaration was made....” to “‘the rights of Englishmen’” is analysis and not really relevant to this part of the article (especially within the block quote), and should removed entirely or perhaps moved somewhere under the “Annotated text of the engrossed declaration.” 38.124.153.221 (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The quote is an analysis. Please establish a consensus to remove this first. BilCat (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2021

Please remove the non-original text from the block quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that 'the rights of Englishmen', but later changed to all men are created equal,[8] that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The declaration was made to create equal rights for every person and if it was intended for only a certain section of people, they would have left it as "rights of Englishmen".

The information about the “rights of Englishmen” is interesting, but this is not the proper place to discuss it in the article. It makes the quote itself difficult to read, as there are no clear indicators separating commentary from the original source text. 38.124.153.221 (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done, good find, thanks. The "block quote" is supposed to be a direct quote. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
If this was like the quote below, it's a block quote from the cited source. There really needs to be a discussion on whether or not these are appropriate first. BilCat (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2021

Add a link to from the text "United States Declaration of Independence" directly to a full text of the Declaration of Independence (for example: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript) for quick access to the full text. Daytongenetics (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: It is already linked in the external links. We don't put external links in prose. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracy

Concerning the Link to John Trumbull's "Declaration of Independence", it is not true that the picture depicts the Signing of the declaration. It depicts the "Group of five" presenting their draft to John Hancock. Please edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrRespectfulP (talk • contribs) 09:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done on the American Revolution side template. A good suggestion, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2022

In the section "John_Brown's_Declaration_of_Liberty," the word "punctuation" is misspelled. 2600:1008:B00F:E482:FDD0:2396:6277:3DC2 (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2022

-Removed spaces at the end of the sentence

Change "encourage equal treatment of all persons regardless of race. " to "encourage equal treatment of all persons regardless of race." Change "apply to all persons and cannot be hindered because of one’s sexual orientation. " to "apply to all persons and cannot be hindered because of one’s sexual orientation." Rowboat10 (talk) 04:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2022

The second paragraph states "ratified" but it was in fact "approved". Refer to https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/blog/on-this-day-the-declaration-of-independence-is-officially-signed. The Constitution was ratified but the Declaration of Independence was approved. JR hewitt (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The infobox parameter titles cannot be changed from here. Please make a request at Template talk:Infobox document. All we can do here is to leave it blank, and you'll need to get a consensus here first. BilCat (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2022

Grammar mistake in the section Background>Congress Convenes:

Many colonists believed that Parliament no longer had sovereignty over them, but [they were still loyalty to King George], thinking he would intercede on their behalf.

This should be changed, to fix the grammar. It should be changed to either:

Many colonists believed that Parliament no longer had sovereignty over them, but [they were still loyal to King George], thinking he would intercede on their behalf.

Or:

Many colonists believed that Parliament no longer had sovereignty over them, [but there was still loyalty to King George, with many thinking] he would intercede on their behalf. INSANITYISAVIRTUE (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Typo

It should say near the beginning, the founding fathers who *were*... the were is missing. 2600:1003:B864:4154:DD7F:9DF8:C25B:1B93 (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

"LGBTQ+ rights" vs "gay rights"

@LegalSmeagolian You reverted my edit that changed "LGBTQ+ rights movement" back to "Gay rights movement". Why? The section in question regards strictly gay rights and nothing more. Oktayey (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2023

Change the destination of the linked text "King George" under the "May 15 preamble" from George II to George III, who is the monarch in question. Jmmiller05 (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: Per MOS:LINKONCE, a link should appear only once in an article, so I have unlinked the article. 2NumForIce (speak|edits) 05:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence Article Error

The Declaration of Independence was written by George Mason from VA. As its resources derived from writings in British law/books and carefully selected to meet their current declaration for freedom and independence for all, which was common in the colonies at that time in history. This document was delivered to Thomas Jefferson for the signing and this was where Thomas Jefferson revised it. He removed the paragraph that would have freed the slaves. When all the signers arrived in Philadelphia to sign it’s final draft, Mason and his supporters/signers saw that this very important paragraph had been removed from his original draft. If you look carefully at the signatures at its bottom of the Declaration of Independence you will see many empty spots. Reason: Mason and his supporters walked out and would not sign it, because this very important element was eliminated changing its meaning for everyone. The author was not Jefferson alone. Mason played a huge role in finding Independence and Freedom for everyone by providing its first draft including what would have saved turmoil and war for the next 100 years. 24.229.203.23 (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2023

In the Conclusion section of "Annotated text of the engrossed declaration", the word "united" should be capitalized (e.g. "We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America"). MockingApe (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. Although we'd write it with a capital U nowadays, it was written with a lower case "u" in the original. Station1 (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_Declaration_of_Independence/Archive_8&oldid=1214513595"