Talk:United States Declaration of Independence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article United States Declaration of Independence has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
  1. Jul 2005 – Nov 2005
  2. Nov 2005 – Nov 2006
  3. Mar 2007 – May 2008
  4. May 2008 – Dec 2008
  5. Feb 2009 – Dec 2010
  6. Jan 2011 –

Additional External Link[edit]

I would like to add an external link to the version of this declaration before it was edited, as originally written by Thomas Jefferson. An example of this can be found at — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 11:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence was not forgotten[edit]

I must challenge the assertion that the Declaration of independence was as quoted by Maier on page 162 ( American Scripture) cite in your article. Maier stated "seldom if ever, to judge from newspaper accounts and histories of the celebrations was the Declaration of independence ever read publicly in the late 1770s and 1780s." There is no evidence offered to support this and in fact the DOI was read on July 4th from 1776 onward and usually read also before sermons delivered in gathering places after 1776.

I would also point out that many newspapers were shut down by the British in the colonies during the war years war years of 1775-1783 and could not be reported. Oftentimes, the reports of sermons were sent to newspapers in many states to be included as a news event but nothing in the newspaper reporting standard of 18th century equal today's newspaper reporting practices.

No facts are offered to support such a sweeping judgment and really needs to be reviewed. Unfortunately, the belief that the DOI was forgotten has been included in other histories of the time and needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novanglus2015 (talkcontribs) 10:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

edit in the chart section[edit]

In the indictment section, one of the sentences is: For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States There is a comma that should be after the word Trial. Could someone add that in?

--Dabauss514 (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[edit]

libertyfund and are no more biased than NYT. The difference is that libertyfund and declare their libertarian bias, whereas the NYT does not declare their biases. Removing a link to the full text of a historical document is an obvious regression from a reader's point of view. If certain editors are adding too many links to these sites (econlib and libertyfund) after being warned not to do so, ban these editors. Removing links to the full text of historical documents is certainly not benefiting readers. Jrheller1 (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Liberty Fund is a libertarian fundamentalist think-tank, NYT is a newspaper. Material sourced from NYT is presented as being sourced from a newspaper, but the Liberty Fund source was being presented as an academically authoritative source, which it is not. In addition, both have been extensively spammed by a paid editing ring. The result is that this virtually unknown group have more than 20 times the number of links on Wikipedia as, to pick an example at random, the Adam Smith Institute, which (unlike Liberty Fund) is routinely quoted in the press. There are more links to the websites of Liberty Fund than to the Ludwig von Mises Institute, which is equally partisan but recognised for specialist expertise in respect of the Austrian School. So: it's a refspamming case. Guy (Help!) 18:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree that maybe there were too many references to the "concise encyclopedia of economics" but that is no reason to remove links to the full text of classical economics documents found at or I replaced a link to the full text of a book by Jevon at Evolution of microeconomics with a link to the text of the book at, but the copy was better (because it was divided into hypertext linked chapters and sections). Jrheller1 (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
There are three main problems here. The first is that this kind of site will only host the articles and books they like. So the reader will get a free access copy of libertarian books, but nothing for left-leaning books (FUTON bias). Second, they may editorialise. Several of their online copies of books include side by side commentary. That is clearly bad. Third, even if the text is untouched, it's wrapped around with polemic. You wouldn't link to the text of Roe v Wade on the site of Planned Parenthood, still less that of NRLC. We should not give the impression of endorsing an agenda-driven site as a neutral source of information. Are these books not available at Gutenberg? Or Wikisource? They are mostly PD now, no? Guy (Help!) 19:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing objectionable about Liberty Fund's transcription of Hutchinson strictures or Jevon's book. These are both high quality, very easy to use transcriptions. There is no political commentary mixed in; it is nothing but the original document. If some communist organization has good quality transcriptions of certain historical communist documents, there would be nothing wrong with linking to them. In fact, a communist organization might be the best source for good quality transcriptions of historical communist documents. Probably nobody else would have as much motivation as they do to create good quality transcriptions of these historical documents. Jrheller1 (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing objectionable about Liberty Fund's transcription of Hutchinson strictures... Nothing, other than being unnecessary (especially in an article not specifically about them), being from a suspect source, and being part of reference link-spamming. Other than those, not a thing. --Calton | Talk 11:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Section on Turnbull's painting[edit]

Turnbull's painting is mentioned in a sentence, and again under twentieth century. I think, because of its importance and influence, that it deserves its own subsection. I propose adding the following:

John Trumbull's Declaration of Independence (1817-1826)[edit]

A key step marking the evolution of the Declaration in the nation's conciousness is the now well-known painting Declaration of Independence by Connecticut political painter John Trumbull. It was commissioned by the United States Congress in 1817. 12-by-18-foot (3.7 by 5.5 m) in size, it has hung in the United States Capitol Rotunda since 1826. It has been often reproduced, and is the visual image most associated by Americans with the Declaration.

The painting is sometimes incorrectly described as the signing of the Declaration of Independence. In fact, the painting actually shows the five-man drafting committee presenting their draft of the Declaration to the Second Continental Congress, an event that took place on June 28, 1776, and not the signing of the document, which took place later.[1]

The painting, the figures painted from life when possible, does not contain all the signers. Some had died and images could not be located. One figure had participated in the drafting but did not sign the final document; another refused to sign. In fact the membership of the Second Continental Congress changed as time passed, and the figures in the painting were never in the same room at the same time.

It is, however, an accurate depiction of the room in the building known today as Independence Hall, the centerpiece of the Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Trumbull visited the room, which was where the Second Continental Congress met, when researching for his painting, which was where the Second Continental Congress met. At the time it was the Pennsylvania State House.

deisenbe (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ John Hazelton, The Historical Value of Trumbull's - Declaration of Independence, The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography - Volume 31, (Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 1907), 38.