Talk:Rights of Man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Books (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


It seems to me that this article, given its length and content, might best be merged into Thomas Paine. -- Viajero 16:22, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Not so sure. Certain parts, yes, particularly the portion where the prosecution is discussed. Sunspeck 06:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Same item, different titles?[edit]

Is this the same document as Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen? They seem very similar.—Rory 20:00, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

No, but there is a definite link: Thomas Paine's earlier work (e.g., Common Sense) -> Declaration of Independence -> Declaration of the Rights of Man -> Paine's Rights of Man. thejabberwock 23:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


I see this article was recently moved from Rights of Man to The Rights of Man. Although both appear on the Web, the former is correct. The Library of America edition of Paine's works, edited by Paine biographer Eric Foner, uses Rights of Man consistently, as does the biography Thomas Paine: Apostle of Freedom, by Jack Fruchtman. See also here for an early title page. Tim Smith 02:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I will check Foner's original edition. Septentrionalis 04:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Concedo. I did not see it on the web, but after checking Foner, Moncure Conway, and the collected edition of 1835, I wonder which reputable printed source I am thinking of. Septentrionalis 18:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


I made a first pass at an attempted clean up. It is still clunky, so I won't remove the tag, but it seems a bit more coherent to me. Others should review. Sunspeck 06:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I've done some cleaning, i've moved some stuff around to give it a better flow, but I think it could still use some work. I've done my best at spelling, but I do miss things, so that's likely to be prevailant. Tiny.ian 21:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I also added some stuff to See Also. They're not exactly what I want to see, but give the general idea in relation to the article. I'm kinda ill today so my thought processes keep disapearing.Tiny.ian 21:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the United States Declaration of Independence section. It was written 15 years prior and influenced Paine, not the other way around.Taishaku 23:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Does the mention of Thomas Spence in the last section need to be (1) removed from the Public Impact section as the section refers to the impact of Mr. Paine's work and not Mr. Spence's; or (2) expansion of the link between the two if there in fact is one in another section, such as precursors or influences? Also went ahead and included another reason Paine used in rebuttal to 1688, he clearly outlines two reasons in which he addresses the second one first; removed being found a traitor as it seemed misplaced in the Contents section and it is more concisely mentioned in the Public Impact. Would have posted in discussion with the substantive portion of the edits before making them but it seems that discussion is relatively latent here, feel free to edit my edits or revert, but will also be happy to discuss on my talk page.--Leo Fitzpatrick (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Paine was not tried for the first "Rights of Man", but actually the second, "Rights of Man, Part the Second", which was published a year after. That needs to be fixed... 22:08, 29, December 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


Can we use another word or phrase for this? Inchoate might be a good legal term, but the average reader is going to have to pull out a dictionary to know what it means. --Lendorien 18:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Lack or a response has inspired me to take care of it. --Lendorien 19:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The song of the same name[edit]

Was anyone else looking for the traditional song? I can play it, but I'm not sure that'll work here.


How is it 'controversial' that he considered the poor of a preindustral nation miserable? One might disagree with this evaluation, but it hardly constitutes a controversy. Anyone with an actual exposure to poverty would likely share the sentiment, and subsistence farming under an aristocracy, or working for hire on a day basis was definitely worse in such times. --CRATYLUS22

Inconsistent with article on "Reflections on the Revolution in France"[edit]

I am inexpert on both the Rights of Men and Reflections on the Revolution in France, however having read both articles I suspect, though I do not know, that Edmund Burke's position is being caricatured in this article. Could someone with a better understanding of both reconcile the two articles? Thanks. (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)GMM

I suspect you are right. Can someone improve the two articles along this line? DThomsen8 (talk) 12:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Dthomsen8


Such an important article needs sourcing. --Lendorien (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


I reordered it a bit take a look, I think its better now. Still needs clean up? Maddra (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

French ship Droits de l'Homme (1794)[edit]

French ship Droits de l'Homme (1794) (en:Rights of Man) should have a disambiguation here, for those who don't have a good grip on French, but are looking for the French vs. British sea battle and wreak of the 1st rate ship with extensive loss of life. DThomsen8 (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Dthomsen8

Having read the article more carefully, perhaps the line Not to be confused with men's rights. should also have a disambiguation. The way it is done now is awkward. DThomsen8 (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Dthomsen8

The 1789 declaration de droits d'homme would seem to be rather important disambiguation? For me the English Bill of Rights, which was approved in February, 1689, In North America the United States Declaration of Independence ratified on the 4th July 1776.then In France on the 4th March 1796 , and most recently on 10 December 1948 when the General Assembly of the United Nations are causally linked? Timpo (talk) 07:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Intro revision[edit]

The introduction needs to state what makes this book significant or what its impact was. That is, context. --Lendorien (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


Quite a bit of vandalism occurring on this page recently... Crosbie Fitch (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)