Talk:Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms

copyright/plagiarism

article exhibits extensive violations in that it was a verbatim copy of Documents of American Democracy: A Collection of Essential Works By Roger L. Kemp [1]. I restored the oldest version prior to this.Ebanony (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Reverted. You've got it backwards. The Kemp book is a reprint of the Wikipedia article; it even says so. When investigating potential copyright violations, keep in mind that there are now numerous books that reprint Wikipedia content. —Kevin Myers 14:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I read that in the book. Now I don't like the old version anymore than you do, and didn't want to put it up, but knowing who came up with the material is not the easiest with that one. What a joke; we add content for free, and they profit from it by selling books. Ebanony (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1540/article_detail.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Condemnation of Slavery Allegations

The very first sentence of the declaration includes a condemnation of slavery.

The last sentence of the "Content" section should be considered for removal due to poor source information. The source is not available and the sentence that was provided in the first place does not give a direct source for the actual sentence of the actual document. It is my assertion that the actual document would be the most important source, regardless of any consideration. However, in my opinion, no one should delete the sentence until there is a chance for discussion. The fine person who took the time to include the sentence should have a fair chance to defend the inclusion of that sentence. A sentence, it should be added, for accuracy, that seems like an "odd man out" or a "sore thumb" pardon the expressions. However, no one should jump to any conclusions until we hear from every side. With that, I would like to open this up to comment. Where does the consensus fall? Should the sentence, which is quoted as "The very first sentence of the declaration includes a condemnation of slavery" be marked for deletion? SeedEWound (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I am about to go through with the edit, which I have left here for 11 days to be discussed. The sentence will be removed because the source is incomplete. SeedEWound (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

SeedEWound, simply because no one replied doesn't mean there is a consensus. A consensus is necessary before major changes. JavaHurricane 05:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I also believe that sentence is poor quality. The source is by someone, Jaffa, who is an academic political philosopher who has written well-known books. This particular reference seems like a polemic about Obama and Jeremiah Wright, and not really scholarship of any sort, and least of all about whether slavery was mentioned in the 1775 Declaration. The opening sentence of the 1775 Declaration is broad, so it could be interpreted to be about slavery, but it would seem more about monarchism and colonial rule. I've added material about explicit mentions of slavery that appeared in an early draft of the 1775 Declaration by Jefferson, but was removed in the final version. Jefferson also discussed its removal in his autobiography. --Ashawley (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the source is not scholarship at best and misinformation at worst. Somerset v Stewart in 1772-1774 was considered an existential threat to the colonies, and there is ample proof that forces in the colonies were spurred on to revolution over the notion that the slave state (the basis of the culture) would be marginalized or dismantled. I have the information and sources, but when I attempt to make an edit, multiple uninvolved editors have complained and misunderstood what I tried to do, apparently. That is what I must assume because they must be acting in good faith, just not seeing key details. Some have threatened to remove my account over this, calling me a vandal.SeedEWound (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)