Talk:All men are created equal

Animal Farm

I think that Orwell's reference to this should be included in the references section.

Dred Scott

I think it would be helpful to mention the Dred Scott case's interpretation of "all men are created equal" and the subsequent emancipation proclamation and constitutional amendments concerning equality. --The Four Deuces (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"all men"

This phrase bears some analysis. First, "all men". The "Founding Fathers" were "all men" and when they used that phrase they intended to exlude all women, all slaves, all Catholics, all Jews, all Native Americans and probably all other men, women and children who were not members of the landed gentry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gambino23 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The word "created"

I think that the use of the word "created" is notable, particularly when set against the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article I: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." While clearly based on the US's Declaration of Independence, the UDHR was specifically formulated to leave out the concept of creation. The end result is two very different ideas of equality, one based on equal worth and value to God (endowed by their Creator) and the other based on a "spirit of brotherhood". This will lead to several differences about the definition of person-hood and so forth. The philosophical differences between the DofI and the UDHR are significant to politics, ethics and philosophy and are therefore worth covering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.173.126.126 (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Are there any RS that discuss this? -- Brangifer (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

All men created equal as part of the sentence.

The quotation "All men are created equal..." is arguably the best-known phrase in any of America's political documents, as the idea it expresses is generally considered the foundation of American government (however it is only part of the entire senetence relating to equality).

The opening of the Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776, states 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. "

It appears the comma suggests equality, endowed by 'their creator' specifically, "life, liberty and the purusit of happiness."

To remove this reference to the specific equality references plays 'the magician' sawing a truth in half.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 09:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Quotes and sources

I would note that very close to the only sourced material in this article is the quotes. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am working through the article, sourcing where there are tags but the article's content seems quite accurate. Please see WP:TAGBOMB. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You are:

1. removing templates before correcting the issues that they notify; and
2. inserting claims that go well beyond what the cited sources state.

Please see WP:V which, unlike WP:TAGBOMB, is in fact policy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• There are numerous templates being cleaned up here. Subject to ordinary error, my work is intended to be accurate and good faith. If you dispute particular points, please detail them as generalities are not helpful. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• The problem underlying the {{quotefarm}} -- i.e. the excessive preponderance of quotations of WP:PRIMARY sources has not been "cleaned up here". Also, Founding the Republic does not state that the "wording was used … in the cases of Brom and Bett v. John Ashley" or that these cases led to "the abolition of slavery in Massachusetts". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The pages of the reference cited in footnote 9 (dealing with the Massachusetts cases) appear to support the the first assertion made in the text. (In both cases the parties relied on the provision in the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights which says that "all men are born free and equal", a formulation explicitly quoted by the blockquote immediately above the text accompanying footnote 9, and that is the wording to which the qualifier "This wording" refers.) As to your second point, the source does not explictly state that these cases led to the abolition of slavery on pages 74–75 (but see p. 87), so I have amended the text accordingly. The tags therefore have been removed. Kablammo. (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Quotations essay (to which the "Quotefarm" template links) has less application here, in an article which is, after all, a short history of the use of the phrase and idea. That is not to say that more context could or should not be added. Kablammo (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The See also links should probably be incorporated into the article or trimmed. Kablammo (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hobbesian Inclusion

Thomas Hobbes' inclusion at the bottom of the article is irksome, not only because it is poorly placed, but because he was hardly the only person of his time to believe that all men are equal, which is essentially what the section on it tries to point out.

This not being an overly novel idea at all, especially because, well, people have thought or written with that belief in mind for a long time before Hobbes, I think it's a bit arbitrary to include him. However, didn't want to get rid of it without saying so, because someone obviously put time into placing it there.

Brianpetersn (talk) 06:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)