Talk:United States Declaration of Independence/Archive 2

message: Revolutions seek to replace current governments or to seek independence from colonial rule, while secession movements seek to separate from current governments in which the party seeking separation already has a voice. The Colonies had no voice, hence the reason it is a revolution. --Kev62nesl 05:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a Secession Document Because 

message: There should be a section on the history of the actual physical document (the signed version), the efforts at conservation, etc.  --JW1805 17:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical document 

message: I have reverted the addition of template  by Piotrus.  After visiting the external links I feel that adequate references are provided for this article.  It is my opinion that a burden need be placed on those flagging articles as , especially mature articles such as this.  Specifically, they should be required to list the specific facts asserted by the article for which they feel there are not adequate references.  Otherwise it is too easy to flag articles (which, by the way, would easily comprise the vast majority of all Wikipedia articles), and put the entire burden of proof on others.  So in other words, providing a link to Wikipedia:Cite sources is hardly justification, in and of itself, as to why the article was flagged.  If the submitter took to time to look closely at the article, and examine the Wikipedia articles it links to, as well as the external references, then they could take the minor additional effort to list the areas in which it was lacking.  However, considering Piotrus flagged this article at most one minute after flagging Polish notation, they obviously only spent one minute looking at this article, which leads me to believe they did not actually examine the external references.  --Dan East 04:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Update - after discussing the issue with Piotrus the reason he flagged the article is clear.  While references were provided, they were not appropriately labeled as such - the article had no References section.  The problem should now be remedied; I created a references section and moved the appropriate external links into it.  --Dan East 20:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: ===Royal assent===
Question about this sentence: "Many historians maintain that some of the grievances are ... complete falsehoods (such as that King George had "refuted his Assent to Laws" and was "refusing his Assent to Laws," when in fact no British monarch has refused royal assent to a law since Queen Anne in 1708)."  For purposes of the colonies, I assume that it would have been the Royal Governors who would have been the ones to refuse assent.  Obviously, all the colonies weren't sending laws back to England for signing (or were they?).  So, the question is, did any of the governors really refuse assent to any laws?  Also, "refusing assent" could be referring to a governor dissolving a legislature that was about to pass laws he didn't like (which did, in fact, happen).  --JW1805 (Talk) 22:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Once again, JW1805, as a constitutional Sovereign King George III was powerless to stop any of that, so "indicting" him personally as a tyrant for doing so is something that many historians maintain was more false propaganda in the "indictment" section of the Declaration.  The important statement here is not that it is an absolute truth, or something that "JW1805 says," but rather the statement is something that many historians maintain.  Again, see Professor Hibbert's 1996 biography (with cites) of George III.  As such, this should rightly be included. 65.28.2.172 04:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *Once again, JW1805, need I state that the inclusion was not that you or I think that the charges in question were "unfair," but that many historians do indeed maintain that they were propaganda, falsehoods, or what have you.  That many historians so maintain is an accurate, factual statement, and should well be included.  Given the facts that (1) the declaration's charges were intended to portray the King himself as a tyrant, and not merely His Majesty's Government, and many colonists viewed it as stating such, and (2) given the constitutional structure of the Westminster system - even in the 18th century - King George was powerless to prevent his Government from exercising such vetoes, that the historians who maintain as such believe what they do is a perfectly valid, rational belief.  Pursuant to Wikipedia's neutrality principles, I strongly suggest that both the veto falsehood section and the slave trade section ought rightly to be included.  Again, though, if you so heartily refuse to do so, it appears that (much like the King) I am powerless to prevent you from excluding them. 65.28.2.172 01:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why single out just these two grievances?  By your logic, every one of them is false.  Are we to put, "Many historians maintain that King George III didn't personally dissolve the colonial legislatures, so this change is false propaganda".  That just doesn't make sense. --JW1805 (Talk) 05:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *No, JW1805, if you read what I had included, it was an example of the alleged falsehoods in the indictment, and I included that one particularly because it had an additional interesting fact linked elsewhere in Wikipedia that pertained to the particular falsehood.  Again, it's not my logic per se, but rather something that "many historians maintain," as I had written.  As such, they should properly be included.  It seems to me, however, that you aren't following the neutrality principles of Wikipedia, and even though it is commonly-held assertion by historians, the statement about falsehoods offends your personal beliefs, so you're refusing to include it.  That just doesn't seem right.  I suggest, again, that you allow in the information in question.  65.28.2.172 07:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: As you, JW1805, a moderator, are unwilling to include a legitimate historical perspective held by numerous academics simply because you happen to disagree with that perspective, or personally think it to be wrong (yet an equally valid historical perspective held by numerous academics), I strongly dispute the neutrality of this article.  A Wikipedia article about the American Declaration of Independence is not merely a forum for what JW1805 and historians sharing his perspective believe - its articles are to remain unbiased and neutral. 65.28.2.172 03:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just an editor.  Wikipedia works by trying to achieve consensus.  I have already put in the statement "The grievances are directed personally at the King (as in "He has refused his Assent to Laws..."), although many of them refer to actions taken by the British Parliament or the Royal Governors" which is true, and should address the issues you seem to be concerned about.  The sentence about some grivences being exaggerated  was already included.  So I don't quite know what you have a problem with.  Including long sections about King George III and his personal opinions doesn't seem to be relevant to this article.  --JW1805 (Talk) 04:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *Under the "indictment" section of the article, the current paragraph only adresses the issue of "exaggerated propaganda" in the Declaration, whereas the sentence that I added there (and you removed) concerned blatant "falsehoods."  Under the section of the article concerning changes between the draft and final copies, you removed my inclusion asserting that many historians maintain that to charge the King with promoting the slave trade would have been another example of a "falsehood" in the indictment section.  Both of these statements are perfectly valid points of view about a very important part of the Declaration.  They rightly deserve to be included, and are highly relevant to the subject matter.  I have re-included both passages. 65.28.2.172 07:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not "blatant falshoods".  What is your source for that assertion? ("many historians" is not good enough).  The problem here is that you read "the King" as George III as an individual person who has opinions, whereas "the King" in the Declaration of Independence refers to the monarch of the Kingdom of Great Britain, and all the ministers and officers who act in his name.  Read this way, the "he has refused assent" is 100% true, and "he has allowed the slave trade" is 100% true.  To take into account your views, I inserted the sentence clarifing this, which should settle the matter. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It should be noted, however, that many historians maintain that charging King George, himself, with promoting the slave trade would have also been another falsehood in the declaration's indictment section (see indictment, above). In actuality, the King himself was vehemently opposed to slavery and the slave trade, and he actively voiced support for its abolition throughout his 60-year reign (see George III by Christopher Hibbert).
Because I think it is basically irrelevant.  It doesn't matter what King George's personal opinions were, the fact is the slave trade was legal.  The indictment is directed to the King as the monarch of Great Britain, not as an individual person.  --JW1805 (Talk) 01:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *Also, the section about the slave trade wasn't included in the final version anyway.  --JW1805 (Talk) 01:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *The statement was not what YOU think, JW1805, the statement was of what "many historians maintain."  See Professor Christopher Hibbert's very informative 1996 biography entitled "George III."  To call King George a "tyrant" for personally upholding the slave trade would be erroneous, as he was very much against slavery and the slave trade and desired its abolition.  As a constitutional monarch, he was, however, personally incapable of abolishing the slave trade.  As such, this was yet another piece of false propaganda against the King, much like the "royal assent" section of the Declaration.  This is something that many historians maintain, in the course of discussing the "indictment" of His Majesty as political propaganda.  As such, the section ought rightly to be returned.  Of course, if you so heartily refuse to do so, then much like King George I am powerless to make you do so.  65.28.2.172 04:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I concur with JW1805.  --Dan East 05:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: King George

message: Question about this sentence: "Many historians maintain that some of the grievances are ... complete falsehoods (such as that King George had "refuted his Assent to Laws" and was "refusing his Assent to Laws," when in fact no British monarch has refused royal assent to a law since Queen Anne in 1708)."  For purposes of the colonies, I assume that it would have been the Royal Governors who would have been the ones to refuse assent.  Obviously, all the colonies weren't sending laws back to England for signing (or were they?).  So, the question is, did any of the governors really refuse assent to any laws?  Also, "refusing assent" could be referring to a governor dissolving a legislature that was about to pass laws he didn't like (which did, in fact, happen).  --JW1805 (Talk) 22:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Once again, JW1805, as a constitutional Sovereign King George III was powerless to stop any of that, so "indicting" him personally as a tyrant for doing so is something that many historians maintain was more false propaganda in the "indictment" section of the Declaration.  The important statement here is not that it is an absolute truth, or something that "JW1805 says," but rather the statement is something that many historians maintain.  Again, see Professor Hibbert's 1996 biography (with cites) of George III.  As such, this should rightly be included. 65.28.2.172 04:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *Once again, JW1805, need I state that the inclusion was not that you or I think that the charges in question were "unfair," but that many historians do indeed maintain that they were propaganda, falsehoods, or what have you.  That many historians so maintain is an accurate, factual statement, and should well be included.  Given the facts that (1) the declaration's charges were intended to portray the King himself as a tyrant, and not merely His Majesty's Government, and many colonists viewed it as stating such, and (2) given the constitutional structure of the Westminster system - even in the 18th century - King George was powerless to prevent his Government from exercising such vetoes, that the historians who maintain as such believe what they do is a perfectly valid, rational belief.  Pursuant to Wikipedia's neutrality principles, I strongly suggest that both the veto falsehood section and the slave trade section ought rightly to be included.  Again, though, if you so heartily refuse to do so, it appears that (much like the King) I am powerless to prevent you from excluding them. 65.28.2.172 01:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why single out just these two grievances?  By your logic, every one of them is false.  Are we to put, "Many historians maintain that King George III didn't personally dissolve the colonial legislatures, so this change is false propaganda".  That just doesn't make sense. --JW1805 (Talk) 05:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *No, JW1805, if you read what I had included, it was an example of the alleged falsehoods in the indictment, and I included that one particularly because it had an additional interesting fact linked elsewhere in Wikipedia that pertained to the particular falsehood.  Again, it's not my logic per se, but rather something that "many historians maintain," as I had written.  As such, they should properly be included.  It seems to me, however, that you aren't following the neutrality principles of Wikipedia, and even though it is commonly-held assertion by historians, the statement about falsehoods offends your personal beliefs, so you're refusing to include it.  That just doesn't seem right.  I suggest, again, that you allow in the information in question.  65.28.2.172 07:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: As you, JW1805, a moderator, are unwilling to include a legitimate historical perspective held by numerous academics simply because you happen to disagree with that perspective, or personally think it to be wrong (yet an equally valid historical perspective held by numerous academics), I strongly dispute the neutrality of this article.  A Wikipedia article about the American Declaration of Independence is not merely a forum for what JW1805 and historians sharing his perspective believe - its articles are to remain unbiased and neutral. 65.28.2.172 03:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just an editor.  Wikipedia works by trying to achieve consensus.  I have already put in the statement "The grievances are directed personally at the King (as in "He has refused his Assent to Laws..."), although many of them refer to actions taken by the British Parliament or the Royal Governors" which is true, and should address the issues you seem to be concerned about.  The sentence about some grivences being exaggerated  was already included.  So I don't quite know what you have a problem with.  Including long sections about King George III and his personal opinions doesn't seem to be relevant to this article.  --JW1805 (Talk) 04:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *Under the "indictment" section of the article, the current paragraph only adresses the issue of "exaggerated propaganda" in the Declaration, whereas the sentence that I added there (and you removed) concerned blatant "falsehoods."  Under the section of the article concerning changes between the draft and final copies, you removed my inclusion asserting that many historians maintain that to charge the King with promoting the slave trade would have been another example of a "falsehood" in the indictment section.  Both of these statements are perfectly valid points of view about a very important part of the Declaration.  They rightly deserve to be included, and are highly relevant to the subject matter.  I have re-included both passages. 65.28.2.172 07:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not "blatant falshoods".  What is your source for that assertion? ("many historians" is not good enough).  The problem here is that you read "the King" as George III as an individual person who has opinions, whereas "the King" in the Declaration of Independence refers to the monarch of the Kingdom of Great Britain, and all the ministers and officers who act in his name.  Read this way, the "he has refused assent" is 100% true, and "he has allowed the slave trade" is 100% true.  To take into account your views, I inserted the sentence clarifing this, which should settle the matter. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Royal assent

message: I'm removing the paragraph by :
:It should be noted, however, that many historians maintain that charging King George, himself, with promoting the slave trade would have also been another falsehood in the declaration's indictment section (see indictment, above). In actuality, the King himself was vehemently opposed to slavery and the slave trade, and he actively voiced support for its abolition throughout his 60-year reign (see George III by Christopher Hibbert).
Because I think it is basically irrelevant.  It doesn't matter what King George's personal opinions were, the fact is the slave trade was legal.  The indictment is directed to the King as the monarch of Great Britain, not as an individual person.  --JW1805 (Talk) 01:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Also, the section about the slave trade wasn't included in the final version anyway.  --JW1805 (Talk) 01:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *The statement was not what YOU think, JW1805, the statement was of what "many historians maintain."  See Professor Christopher Hibbert's very informative 1996 biography entitled "George III."  To call King George a "tyrant" for personally upholding the slave trade would be erroneous, as he was very much against slavery and the slave trade and desired its abolition.  As a constitutional monarch, he was, however, personally incapable of abolishing the slave trade.  As such, this was yet another piece of false propaganda against the King, much like the "royal assent" section of the Declaration.  This is something that many historians maintain, in the course of discussing the "indictment" of His Majesty as political propaganda.  As such, the section ought rightly to be returned.  Of course, if you so heartily refuse to do so, then much like King George I am powerless to make you do so.  65.28.2.172 04:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I concur with JW1805.  --Dan East 05:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  King George and the slave trade 

message: I believe that the article, as it stood at at the time its neutrality was disputed, already conformed to a NPOV.  I feel that it was flagged by the anonymous editor 65.28.2.172 because his agenda - to portrait the Declaration as a personal attack against the King, as well as make speculative comments about draft versions of the Declaration - was being denied by multiple Wikipedians (myself included).  --Dan East 13:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I have removed the following nicely written addition to the article (See here), because it is entirely unsupported by modern historical research.  Even it's proponents call it merely "plausible".  It's just not encyclopedic. --Mwanner | Talk 22:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputes about Authorship

message: Is there a treasure map on the back of the Declaration of Independence?
Yeah but someone already found it. Roydosan 09:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treasure 

message: I couldn't find on the page where the Declaration of Independence was signed. If it's already there could someone make it a little more noticable for I presume it would be information of some nessecarity. In an encyclopedia "World Book" it says something about being assmebled at the State House in Philadelphia to take up a matter of vital importance.
--Diablo735 08:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where was the Declaration of Independence signed?

message: Were any of them really freemasons? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.224.112 (talk • contribs) 00:40, March 1, 2006.
:It has been confirmed that at least 9 of the 56 men who signed the Declaration were Freemasons, although some less credible evidence and claims do indicate that there may have been an additional 10-13 signer's who were Masons. Avador 00:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Myth?

message: What the hell else could it be?  Does the choice of words make some of you feel uncomfortable?  That's too bad then. 69.118.97.26 03:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The act of secession is typically characterized as treason by those that a person or people are freeing themselves from. - MSTCrow 22:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secession document? 

message: The section entitled Full text of the Declaration states that "The original spelling and capitalization has been retained."  However, the text produced in that section does NOT have the same capitalization.  It may seem a minor point, but maintaining such accuracy can reveal subtle nuances in the original document. 
In the opening paragraphs you show only "God" and "Creator" as capitalized.  Clearly "Laws of Nature" and "Nature's God" and "unalienable Rights" and "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" all are incorrectly reproduced.
Equally disturbing is the section entitled Annotated test is not complete, and other issues.  In that section, the author has gone TOO far, inserting capitalization where none exists.  Examples include:  
" 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. "
This is not an exhaustive list; such errors are scattered throughout both versions of the test.
--70.162.189.41 16:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Document Text is NOT Faithful 

message: 1) Alliance is linked to the disambiguation page.  I think in this context that makes sense.  Otherwise, it should link to the Wiktionary entry. Anjin 20:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Miscellaneous Edits

message: Cut from Myths:
*An unfounded legend states that John Hancock signed his name so large that King George III would be able to read it without his spectacles. In point of fact, other examples of his signature indicate that he typically signed his name in this way . It might also be because since he was the first to sign it, he had all the room he wanted to sign.
*Much like the previous, another myth states that John Hancock had bad eyesight himself and was therefore forced to sign his name large. This is, of course, not verified. 
The first one seems partly mistaken. Hancock was under a death sentence for treason at the time, as it was well known to the British crown that he was a leader (if not the leader) of the "underground". His prominent signature - at the top and center of all the signers - would be seen as defiance of King. 
The second one hardly needs mention. Who's ever heard of someone with poor eyesight that couldn't write small? (You don't need to see well, to do write.) --Uncle Ed 13:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[John Hancock]]

message: Would semiprotecting this article be the way to deal with the temporary popularity of this among IPs due to The Onion mention? We have enough admins looking at this page to deal quickly with vandalism, but I wonder if a quick and temporary semiprotect would do the job better. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting idea, but I think there's enough eyes on it and the vandalism was really only the first day. Perhaps some of these people will realize that editing is fun and easy and will get involved more seriously? -- cmh 18:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True enough. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotect temporarily? 

message: The Onion: Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence. :) /skagedal... 21:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Onion 

message: On these edits that I reverted:
*" ... with formal recognition given at the Treaty of Paris (1783) " is unnecessary and confusing.  Recognition by whom?  France certainly recognized independence before this (and also Spain, I believe).  Anyway, it has nothing to do with this article.
*The stuff on Christian philosophy needs to be sourced.  I don't think doctrine of the Incarnation really much influenced the Preamble.
*"Many of the Founding Fathers were Freemasons; their meetings were usually where they concocted ideas behind the Declaration..." is poorly written, and unsourced.  Jefferson wrote the Declaration, he wasn't meeting with Freemasons to "concoct" it....   --JW1805 (Talk) 16:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: This wasn't the United States declaring Independence from Great Britain, as the US didn't even exist by name and theory until 1789 when the USA replaced the Confederacy, which had existed under the Articles of Confederation.  These were sovereign States with no particular system of unity, who had been colonies, declaring independence from Great Britain en mass.  The title should be something along the lines of "British-American Colonies Declaration of Independence," or "Declaration of Independence of the British-American Colonies from Great Britain." - MSTCrow 22:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As of July 4 1776 there were no more colonies--they were states amd they formed a country that called itself "The United States of America." Independence meant they were no longer colonies of Britain. and a new country had to have a name. Rjensen 01:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not US