Talk:All men are created equal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Animal Farm[edit]

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

Dred Scott[edit]

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"[edit]

One of the signer of the Declaration of Independence was Catholic Charles Carroll of Carrollton. There was also Jews supported the war effort financially, as well as fought in its ranks. John Adams, Ben Franklin, Tom Paine, John Jay and lesser lights were against slavery.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing. If you can find a neutral, verifiable source that analyzes the phrase in that manner, feel free to add it. Any analysis that is uncited is original research. --Scochran4 (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

only in America! funny how most people from less civilised societies or younger 1st world countries look at a line like that and get the meaning that all men means what is says that all members of the earthly race were created equal with no man, woman or child of any race or belief being superior to another. yet int he country that is meant to have supported it and where it holds most true they argue! (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Note the paragraph starting with: "The same concept appears in the Oregon Constitution of 1780, which was written mostly by Fredrick Douglass.[8]" Huh? The Oregon Constitution was not written in 1780, and not written by Frederick Douglass. The Massachusetts Contitution was written in 1779 (per Wikipedia), and again, not be Douglass, who was not yet born. Perhaps it should read instead "The same concept appears in the constitution of Massachusetts, written in 1779." -- (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The word "created"[edit]

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 (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.[edit]

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[edit]

I would note that very close to the only sourced material in this article is the quotes. HrafnTalkStalk(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. HrafnTalkStalk(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". HrafnTalkStalk(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[edit]

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)

As there is no reliable source linking Hobbes to Jefferson's inclusion of "all men created equal" in the Declaration of Independence, I'm going to delete the irksome Hobbes section.--Other Choices (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

divine right of kings[edit]

how about a source for the idea that the phrase AMACE is a counterblast to divine right? Mang (talk) 04:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It would be in line with Thomas Paine's Common Sense, the second part of which ("Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession") is devoted to arguing against the divine right of kings and the concept of "monarchy" in general. "Created equal" is a slap in the face to these notions, which were the generally accepted wisdom at the time. (BTW, there is a link to this article in the Divine right of kings article, and Paine's book is mentioned in the "references" section of this article.) — Loadmaster (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

All people are born cossacks[edit]

This idea of people rights came to us from steppes of ancient Scythia. In middle ages in the form "all people are born cossacks" it had great impact on the creation and development of famous multinational Great Horde (later known as Mongol Empire of czar Gengis). The idea of cossacks - "free men by the will of God", had great impact on development of modern societies of Russia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, and in some form - on the idea of Soviet Union. Serge-kazak (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

What is women's opinion of men being equal?[edit]

What is women's opinion of men being equal? That is the opinion that matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Please consult a dictionary before posting such nonsense. Men clearly retains its classical meaning of humanity here. (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

All Men Are Created Equal[edit]

Footnote 14, David Amitage book quote. What evidence did the author have that Thomas Jefferson whipped his slaves? Larry R. Holmgren (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Colonial British subjects meaning[edit]

Doesn’t it refer to the Thirteen United States and it’s British Subjects seen as being created equal to the British citizens in Kingdom of Great Britain as they separated. Seems to not be mentioned anywhere. Hence it being in the Declaration of Independence and 1790 citizenship act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Assertion in Wikipedia's voice[edit]

In the Slavery and the phrase section, it is asserted that slave ownership by drafters of the American Declaration of Independence was "clearly factored into their decision to delete the controversial 'anti-slavery' passage." I don't dispute the assertion, and a supporting source is cited. However, I read this as an assertion being made in WP's voice, not as WP reporting this assertion being made in the cited supporting source. I am unable to check this in the cited source, and am mentioning it here for consideration by regular editors of this article. Please see the "Avoid stating opinions as facts" bullet point in WP:NPOV#Explanation of the neutral point of view. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Would a better wording work, such as "Slave ownership was undoubtedly a factor in their decision...", or perhaps "It is generally surmised that slave ownership was a factor in their decision..."? — Loadmaster (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)