Talk:United States Declaration of Independence/Archive 1

message: There should be a section on what happened to the delegates after they signed it. There were many disasters and could be detailed here--http://www.barefootsworld.net/doi1776.html 
Weren't some of them executed afterward? 
Found this on the web:
"Five signers were captured by the British as traitors and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons in the Revolutionary War, another had two sons captured. Nine of the fifty-six fought and died from wounds or the hardships of the Revolutionary War. "
Who were they?   Anyboby know? -- Jason Palpatine 02:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Plenty of info about that here on Snopes, if anyone's still interested. Sum0 22:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Shouldn't there be a separate page, Text_of_the_United_states_declaration..., with the full text included?  It seems like there should, then we can just link that article from the main article, and get rid of the text of the preamble that is there now.--csloat 09:38, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Early comments

message: Does the Declaration currently reside in a glass box filled with argon or helium to ensure preservation? I've found refrences to both.--Deglr6328 06:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ar or He 

message: Perhaps a new section on the philosophical origins of the declaration of independance would more aptly categorize the content under focus, and would be appropriate in nature? Kevin Baastalk 22:49, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
:I'll go along with that idea. New section or new article related to this as the main one? MPLX/MH 23:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: a new section more apt?

message: A section concerning the preamble might be worthwhile. Many of the words and phrases within it set both the context and legal legitimacy underwhich the rebellion against the crown was to take place. For instance, the first few words "when in the course of human events" is not an insignficant, attention getting opening - it was put there purposely to frame the colonial rebellion in terms of it being a matter between the colonists and the British Government on matters of policy, not matters of  religion or any sort of divine right of the King to maintain the colonists as his subjects unwillingly. In short, a section that breaks down some of those phrases in the preamble and says in a sentence or two why they are important. Anyone willing to do it? StrifeZ 15:00, 5 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: When in the course of human events

message: I am a great fan of Thomas Paine; he is an immensely important figure who has been extremely under appreciated, at least since his writing of The Age of Reason which argued boldly against many of the presumptions and traditions that many people have held sacred, but 
this passage added by MPLX, seems to stray into very unsubstantiated POV territory.  What record and where?... this all smacks of flights of wild conjecture, and a rather flakey conspiracy theory, that some people might like to believe, rather than an assessment based solidly upon historic documentation. This was added with the comment "I will gladly document more of all of this but it seems to be getting rather long for this particular article." The same editor who added this had at least one page that he created deleted as "bizarre", and this is what these statements seem to me. I know of no credible material supporting these allegations against Thomas Jefferson, and thus am removing them, until such a time as such credible documentation can be provided. ~ Achilles † 10:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  conjectures about Thomas Paine 

message: I was the one who added a couple of links to the English translation of The mystery of the Declaration of Independence which shows a copy of the declaration in the Ukraine Central State Archive of Foreign History. You say its an April Fool's joke.
How so, apart from the April 1, 2005 date?
--El Caudillo 14:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The date, the fact that this web site seems to be the only source for this information, and the fact that this "copy" of the Declaration on the website is clearly a photoshopped version of the actual copy (compare the two, they are identical, except for the addition of the mysterious extra letter in America).  It's clearly a hoax.--JW1805 18:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what we were talking about above.  It's a hoax (specifically, an April Fool's Day joke).  Don't believe everything you see on the Internet.  --JW1805 00:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

text: It's just calligraphy, no big deal.  --JW1805 01:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: April Fool

message: I don't know as much about Paine, so it's not my area to dispute.
I know much about Jefferson, and know he owned slaves, and know that, ironically in relation to that, the draft submitted to congress, which he had in any case accepted, included much about slavery that was thereafter excised by congress.
As regards Jefferson and inalienable/unalienable, both etymologically and philosophically:
*etymologically, he was an entomoligists who wrote important works about, among other things, the importance of -n?/s?-, in the history of the english tongue.  Having an interest in entymology, it's concievable that he'd use the more etymologically correct spelling, "inalienable".
*philosphically, he was very secular - one of his passions was secular government and education - he created one of the first secular universities, from brick to curriculum to book to proffesor.
literature-wise, he's accredited with writting the declaration of independance, and many of his writtings are publicly available and anyone can judge for themselves his skills - as far as the records go, he was choosen as a drafter of the constitution in respect of his skills.
As regards Adams, from what i've read in a biography of him, he was quite anti-slavery, and his wife even more so, he said something in a correspondance to her to the effect that - 'i agree with you, but the contemporary political climate is not conducive to aggresive action.'
Also, he was quite religious, as was his wife, and abnormally obstinate about many of his views, and would likely push "unalienable" rather forcefully.
As regards Paine, I know little, but the concepts he espoused are rather sophisticated and empirical in philosophy (though his prose is often long-winded by today's standards at least), which leads me to judge him as secular. Kevin Baastalk 21:56, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
:Having spent many years studying Lilburne, Paine, Locke, Jefferson, Adams and others; buying books and building libraries and personally visiting most of the historical locations referenced, I also know a few things about the subject in question. However, as editors we are basically on the same side (so to speak) and unlikely to clash over substance. I will do my best to document everything that I add. MPLX/MH 22:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a clarification would be in order about the slave trade issue.  As far as "inalienable/unalienable", the original author of that seemed to be presenting some sort of original research in an attempt to prove that there was some fundamental philosophical difference between the two words (when really it was just a spelling/grammer edit).  It also contained at least one incorrect statement (in fact, the Pennsylvania constitution does use "inalienable" .  Also, we probably need to check to make sure it really was John Adams who made the edit, if that can't be verified, that statement should be removed as well.   --JW1805 20:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Round 1

message: Although I don't like to do this, I am submitting a Request for Comment.  The blatant attempts to link the Declaration of Independence to other rights is not the function or purpose of this article.  If you are joining us from the Request for Comment, thank you for coming.  Please look over the edit history and help us avoid an edit war.  --Zephram Stark 17:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone help me out here?  I'm trying to reason with three people who have obvious outside agendas besides describing the term.  I've requested comment.  Aren't there any Americans left who care that the foundation of their country is being used as a platform to promote Iranian nuclear fuel cycles and other agendas that have nothing to do with the clear meaning of the text?  --Zephram Stark 16:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, no one is trying to use the Declaration of Independence to "promote Iranian nuclear fuel cycles".  Where on earth did that come from?  You seem to be making claims about what others are trying to do that don't really correspond with reality.  For example, your claim that the Inalienable rights article is all about "moral pleas".  --JW1805 18:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I documented my claims fully with links.  Criticism of the Declaration is based on first establishing that the Declaration is not a declaration at all, but "a claim about ethics by appealing to a definition of the term 'good'."  This travesty is accomplished by changing one of the words and then linking "unalienable" to the modern usage of "inalienable," including moralistic pleas for nuclear fuel cycles and beachfront Mediterranean property.  If you don't see it, you don't want to see it.  --Zephram Stark 02:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment

message: Obviously we're getting nowhere on this issue by ourselves.  I'll ask others to help us reach a conclusion.  --Zephram Stark 22:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see what misleading conclusion the five words are leading towards. Now that I look at again, however, I intend to insert a word, making it which quotes both as using "inalienable". I also give fair warning that I will next be modifying the RfC to the exact present text, if it is not.Septentrionalis 23:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked for comments from people who weren't already involved in the dispute so I could get an unbiased opinion, but I guess that isn't going to stop you from trying to bias it anyway, is it?  --Zephram Stark 00:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it will not stop me from making sure that what I wrote is quoted exactly when questioned. Why should it? Septentrionalis 02:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I just want to let people know that Pmanderson is involved with the dispute, so they can discount that user's opinions 100% in forming their own if they want.  I would like an unbiased observer to read the information in the link and see if Pmanderson's conclusion about what is in the link is misleading in regard to the actual information that is there.  --Zephram Stark 13:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Both the "draft" and the "final version", which had various differences.  --JW1805 18:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He's probably confused because he thinks there's going to be two versions in the link.  Welcome to the world of misinterpretation, D'Arby, where "both" refers to only one combined version, "some of the" refers to the whole thing, and "unalienable" refers to rights based on morals.  --Zephram Stark 22:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment

message: http://www.vistawide.com/german/why_german2.htm says "the very first printing of the Declaration of Independence was in German, not in English". Is that right?
*Probably not. The Dunlap broadside (English language) were printed on July 4.   This site says there was a German printing on July 6-8. --JW1805 16:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: DOI in German?

message: >He excited ... the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare,
>is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
Did the USA ever get to officially denounce this sentence from the Declaration? I can't see how this is different from Hitler declaring that jews poison wells.
:We can't really change the Declaration of Independence now, but we have stopped referencing the Grievances section.  The specific grievances against King George aren't applicable today and most people aren't even aware of that particular exaggeration.  We give reverence once a year to the Principles of the Declaration of Independence which founded our country, made it great, and don't include any slams of the British or the Indians.  The important thing is that we keep striving to make a more perfect union, rather than finding reasons to tear each other down.   --Zephram Stark 14:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are the savage indians still there? 

message: This site at the National archives says: "The text of the Declaration can be divided into five sections--the introduction, the preamble, the indictment of George III, the denunciation of the British people, and the conclusion".  So, I'm reverting the edit that says 4 sections.  --JW1805 02:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Sections 

message: Based on the frequent reverting, and user:JW1805's threats on my talk page to continue to do so, I have protected this page. Requests for unprotection should be made to WP:RFPP, not to my talk page. Thryduulf 11:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: Can we get some comments from other users about the changes that Zephram Stark keeps reverting, and has resulted in this page being protected?
*I think this quote is appropriate: "According to Jefferson, the purpose of the Preamble was "not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of . . . but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take."
*I think this sentence is an established fact that should be included: "Jefferson is also thought to have drawn on the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which had been adopted in July 1776."
*I think we should use the division into sections that is given at the National Archives site.
*The Background and History should go before the annotated text
*The Annotated text should be in paragraph form, rather than the old line-by-line version, which broke up the text, and contained borderline POV statements (or at least, not quite accurate statements).
*Inalienable rights should be linked.
*There's no reason not to have a picture of King George. He is the subject of most of the document.
I don't see the problem with any of the edits.  There is no reason why these would be controversial to editors practicing good faith.  --JW1805 17:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from other editors

message: ===Consensus Proposal===
Due to the fact that there are wide interpretations of what the Declaration of Independence means (even though by reading it you wouldn't get the idea that there could be), I propose that we only add the interpretations that everyone can agree upon.  I think we can agree upon:
*The text the document
*Relevant quotes by signers
*Most of the history of the document (although the placement of the history section should be subject to its relative importance in relationship to other parts of the article.  i.e., is the text of the document more important or the names of the signers?)
*Most of the Analysis
*That the grievances can be summarized in this article
Things we will have to reach consensus on before adding:
*Philosophical ramifications
*The naming of sections of the Declaration
*The order of sections of the Article (i.e., does the text come first or the historical interpretations?)
*The main purpose or the purposes of the Declaration (i.e., Is the document a foundation for a nation or propaganda for a war?)
*Interpretations of the Declaration
*Links to another interpretive article when its relevance to the Declaration is controversial (especially when the linked article contains original research and only shows one of many interpretations)
*Interpretive summaries of the Declaration, or parts thereof
*Interpretive summaries of quotes by signers
*Relevance of the full-text Wikisource link to the other sections (i.e. Should the Wikisource link be on the top or bottom?)
*Interpretive summaries of the differences between drafts
The bottom line is that your rewrite, JW, is purely from a Hamiltonian point of view — it treats the Declaration as thought it were merely propaganda for a war.  This in direct contradiction to how the signers viewed the document and how most Americans today view the Declaration that started our country.  For us, the principles of the Declaration of Independence are the foundation for a more perfect union.  Your rewrite has striped any mention of the Declaration's fundamental purpose or ramifications from the article, leaving only a Hamiltonian POV.  Starting with the text of the Declaration, I propose that we only add those things to the article that are written from a neutral point of view, or that show both sides.  --Zephram Stark 15:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposals

message: Due to the fact that there are wide interpretations of what the Declaration of Independence means (even though by reading it you wouldn't get the idea that there could be), I propose that we only add the interpretations that everyone can agree upon.  I think we can agree upon:
*The text the document
*Relevant quotes by signers
*Most of the history of the document (although the placement of the history section should be subject to its relative importance in relationship to other parts of the article.  i.e., is the text of the document more important or the names of the signers?)
*Most of the Analysis
*That the grievances can be summarized in this article
Things we will have to reach consensus on before adding:
*Philosophical ramifications
*The naming of sections of the Declaration
*The order of sections of the Article (i.e., does the text come first or the historical interpretations?)
*The main purpose or the purposes of the Declaration (i.e., Is the document a foundation for a nation or propaganda for a war?)
*Interpretations of the Declaration
*Links to another interpretive article when its relevance to the Declaration is controversial (especially when the linked article contains original research and only shows one of many interpretations)
*Interpretive summaries of the Declaration, or parts thereof
*Interpretive summaries of quotes by signers
*Relevance of the full-text Wikisource link to the other sections (i.e. Should the Wikisource link be on the top or bottom?)
*Interpretive summaries of the differences between drafts
The bottom line is that your rewrite, JW, is purely from a Hamiltonian point of view — it treats the Declaration as thought it were merely propaganda for a war.  This in direct contradiction to how the signers viewed the document and how most Americans today view the Declaration that started our country.  For us, the principles of the Declaration of Independence are the foundation for a more perfect union.  Your rewrite has striped any mention of the Declaration's fundamental purpose or ramifications from the article, leaving only a Hamiltonian POV.  Starting with the text of the Declaration, I propose that we only add those things to the article that are written from a neutral point of view, or that show both sides.  --Zephram Stark 15:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus Proposal

message: I've unprotected this because Zephram Stark has been banned for six months. Happy editing! SlimVirgin (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected