657:. My main issue is the use of the term ‘grievances’ when the DoI itself calls them ‘abuses’, ‘injuries’ and ‘usurpations’. The grievances are literally the whole point of the DoI as is clear from its first sentence. They are absolutely notable. The statement that the sources for this aren’t about the DoI itself misses the point. Each grievance refers to something the king did or did not do, which cannot be understood from the text of the DoI itself. The meaning of each grievance is clear and well understood by historians and the sources for this article simply show what they said. My second issue is that the article relies too heavily on a single source; there are certainly other sources and the article can be improved.
927:
fundamental issues with this article around sourcing – E.g. the specific text of each of these
Grievances should be sourced so that any high-school kid using this article can easily confirm that they have the right text of the Grievance. I also think that the "Summary" section after each Grievance is problematic as it is not really a summary of the Grievance, but "observations" around or tangential to the Grievance (with resulting POV issues), from a narrow group of sources (some which are very very old). Only that I think it is crazy that there is not a WP article with a list of the 27 Grievances, I would still be proposing
973:, a very good page which covers one of the most important topics in world history - the specific yet diverse reasons why a group of dedicated people decided to separate from its governing entity and, by doing so, within less than two-hundred years their descendants went from horseback to the Moon. The creating editor has added new sources, and has promised to keep working on it along with any other knowledgeable editors who find the page important enough to work on. This one should be kept, made even better, and continue to cover an important and truly historical topic.
775:. This should make it all qualify as "reliable". But the real issue to be addressed is that the sources are not specifically about the Declaration. That hardly seems reason enough to delete a page that clearly is needed. Perhaps you, myself, and several of the others who have expressed great interest in this can re-write some things, and grab different cites in others to resolve any issues. Is that a fair way forward?
428:) seems fine but is only cited in one place, and 7 and 8 are both primary sources. The vast majority of the article is cited to source 2, which is just a general history. It's pretty clear to me that this is an essay, probably for school, whose author was given the task of identifying events in American history that might have prompted these listed grievances - but that's not the same as a Knowledge article. –
952:. The topic of the grievances is not the subject of material debate. Their meaning is not often set out in full (hence the value of this article to the modern reader). If anything it is their long-settled nature that explains the relative lack of discussion in contemporary scholarship. The contention about them is pretty much confined to this discussion.
1014:
576:
Not fundamentally original research. The incidents leading particular grievances to be listed, like the motivations for the specific amendments in the Bill of Rights, is standard stuff. Any decent high-school course on
American history or government would address at least some of these. Concerns with
696:
Yes and that is exactly what the main source for this article (Lossing) provides. He goes through the grievances one by one, and explains what they mean, with exzmples. So if you want to argue that
Lossing isn’t a reliable source that’s one thing, but you can’t read Lossing and then say this article
800:
doesn't just mean that we can't do our own interviews and unearth archival documents ourselves - it's a broad policy that prevents us from drawing conclusions that our sources do not draw, even if the sources themselves are reliable. Can you show that
Lossing, or another historian, notes the events
829:
However, see my edits to grievances 6 and 9 for examples. Those citations are more common. One historian will be exploring a particular grievance more fully at one time and not exploring the other 26. But just because few have sought to write about them all together in one spot, isn't it a good
926:
Changing my view here. Didn't realise that there is no article in WP that lists the 27 grievances from the U.S. DOI – that in itself should be an article in WP (and could be a prime candidate for bringing up to FA status). On that basis, this article/topic should stay. However, there are still
890:
Uncritical interpretative history. All of the matters here have been dealt with by a great nuymbers of historian and have bee interpreted in various ways. The "explanations" here are a unjustifiable OR simplification, using cherry picked unrepresentative references, based almost entirely upon the
381:
Just taking the first source, how is it not about the declaration or its grievances? The whole book is about the declaration and from page 48 onwards it lists grievances. It calls them "abuses" rather than "grievances", but this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so the exact word used doesn't
482:
the citation was replaced after this exchange, so I can see now that it is in the document. Now, however, there's a different problem: almost the entire article seems to be copied word-for-word from this source. It's not a copyright concern, but it suggests that this belongs on
Wikisource, not
915:
A very narrow range of sources, that are not universally considered to be the most authoritative on the topic, and in a topic area that is still the subject of material debate (e.g. the content is not stable/universally agreed/uncontroversial). That is not encyclopedic.
416:(source 2), where I'm able to locate the right place in the document to support where it's cited, doesn't mention these things as connected to the Declaration as far as I can tell - I haven't checked all the citations to it but the first few came up a blank. Sources 3 (
264:
Subsequent edits to the article have revealed that the connection between the
Declaration and the events is sourced, but that almost the entire text of the article seems to be copied directly from that single source. I continue to recommend deletion on that basis.
214:
461:(source 2), where I'm able to locate the right place in the document to support where it's cited, doesn't mention these things as connected to the Declaration as far as I can tell.’ Yes it does. You must be looking in the wrong place. See pages 88-94.
629:
I can't find anything on the grievances at all, which concerns me greatly, since the source is used many times. I think the first may be true, but I don't see it here, and I am not sure about the second because of the sourcing - hence a lean delete.
931:. My hope is that by keeping this article, that it will be re-written, fully sourced, and any comments/summary around the Grievances taken from the best contemporary academic historians and limted to specific discussion of the individual Grievance.
140:
135:
144:
625:
I can't look at the sources, but there's two things here: 1) are the grievances themselves notable? Are they numbered like such by secondary reliable sources? 2) Are the summaries of the grievances notable? If this is the main source:
586:
671:"The statement that the sources for this aren’t about the DoI itself misses the point. Each grievance refers to something the king did or did not do, which cannot be understood from the text of the DoI itself." - That is why we need
127:
855:. Ultimately, it's possible that this might belong in the Declaration of Independence article if historians don't really discuss the grievances separately. (Or it might theoretically belong there but be spun out again as a
990:
The original objection was that this was OR. We've shown that not to be true. It was then objected that the article was over-reliant on a single source. That is also no longer true as more sources have been added, as
550:
ok I see. Well for me the topic is notable and the article is neither original research nor copyvio. It is based too closely on a single source, but to me those still seem reasons for improvement rather than deletion.
208:
131:
306:
718:
Where does
Lossing do this? Lossing may state that these events happened, but not that they are examples of the grievances in question. Can you give me a page number or something where he does this? –
615:
123:
75:
830:
alternative that for 27 grievances we can source 27 historians? I personally think that makes this article all the more important. I will continue to improve the article as I can. Thanks!
174:
826:
Hello. In most instances historians do not go through item by item of the
Declaration's grievances and explain them together. Other than Lossing, the only one I have found is this.
167:
229:
196:
1026:
1004:
982:
961:
940:
902:
872:
839:
814:
784:
745:
731:
706:
688:
666:
649:
560:
538:
513:
496:
470:
441:
391:
368:
339:
318:
298:
278:
69:
286:
771:
I was curious how you got to "original research" the first time it was nominated. Just thought I would mention, a large body of this work is from historian
190:
525:
it wouldn't be a copyvio because the book is old enough that it's public domain, but it also doesn't make for a great
Knowledge article, hence Wikisource. –
114:
99:
186:
859:
for size.) Your source at 9 looks high-quality, but 6 looks like a textbook, which we don't favor, although I appreciate your attempt to diversify. –
326:
I don't know whether this duplicates anything else in our coverage of the United States
Declaration of Independence, but, as I said when I contested
236:
598:
If the incidents leading to these grievances are standard stuff, then it shouldn't be sourced to sources that don't draw the connection.
202:
644:
868:
810:
727:
684:
611:
534:
492:
437:
364:
274:
259:
94:
87:
17:
851:
Okay, so, firstly, "historians don't talk about history this way BUT" is actually a really good sign that you're engaging in
412:
are poor sources or are not about the Declaration/don't explicitly connect these events to the Declaration. For instance,
835:
780:
330:
deletion, this is nothing like original research, with most of the content being sourced to reliable secondary sources.
62:
108:
104:
1043:
40:
936:
921:
846:
831:
791:
776:
636:
891:
views of a single historian. This is an example of hoe=w not to discuss history in a NPOV encyclopedia .
387:
335:
1039:
856:
582:
36:
52:. There is a strong consensus primary and secondary rationales for deletion were rebutted adequately.
1022:
978:
932:
917:
864:
806:
772:
723:
680:
607:
530:
488:
433:
360:
270:
255:
222:
995:
points out. There is also nothing contentious about the material or unreliable about the sources.
1010:
631:
314:
294:
1000:
957:
741:
702:
662:
577:
specific items should be addressed by ordinary editing before trying to nuke the entire page.
556:
509:
466:
383:
346:
331:
83:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1038:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
827:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
928:
593:
578:
58:
1018:
992:
974:
860:
821:
802:
766:
719:
676:
603:
545:
526:
484:
429:
356:
327:
266:
251:
1015:
a Google search shows pages of pertinent sourced material, commentary, and discussions
627:
898:
797:
672:
599:
310:
290:
247:
1013:
and others who question the topic's notability and have original research concerns,
996:
953:
852:
737:
713:
698:
658:
552:
520:
505:
477:
462:
161:
53:
893:
600:
Fixing the page would take more work than nuking it and starting over
1034:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
307:
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions
124:
Grievances of the United States Declaration of Independence
76:
Grievances of the United States Declaration of Independence
801:
you've identified as typifying Jefferson's grievances? –
157:
153:
149:
221:
673:
reliable secondary sources that make the connection
353:
that aren't about the Declaration or its grievances
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1046:). No further edits should be made to this page.
305:Note: This discussion has been included in the
285:Note: This discussion has been included in the
504:well if it’s a copyvio then we can’t keep it.
287:list of Politics-related deletion discussions
235:
8:
798:Knowledge's policy against original research
115:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
351:It's sourced to reliable secondary sources
304:
284:
355:. That's why it's original research! –
7:
24:
697:is original research. It isn’t.
100:Introduction to deletion process
924:) 21:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
262:) 17:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
1:
1027:12:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
1005:09:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
983:03:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
962:04:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
941:14:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
70:18:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
903:10:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
873:02:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
840:02:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
815:02:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
785:23:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
746:04:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
732:04:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
707:04:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
689:23:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
667:21:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
650:20:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
616:19:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
587:18:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
561:05:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
539:05:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
514:05:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
497:04:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
471:04:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
442:19:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
392:19:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
369:19:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
340:18:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
319:17:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
299:17:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
279:05:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
90:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1063:
1036:Please do not modify it.
418:Liberty, Equality, Power
32:Please do not modify it.
424:) certainly do not. 6 (
88:Articles for deletion
426:Lives of the Signers
404:sources rather than
773:Benson John Lossing
847:Progressingamerica
832:Progressingamerica
792:Progressingamerica
777:Progressingamerica
736:Yes, pages 88-94.
853:original research
457:- ‘For instance,
321:
301:
248:original research
105:Guide to deletion
95:How to contribute
67:
65:So let it be done
60:
1054:
850:
825:
795:
770:
717:
647:
639:
597:
549:
524:
481:
350:
240:
239:
225:
177:
165:
147:
85:
63:
59:
34:
1062:
1061:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1044:deletion review
844:
819:
789:
764:
711:
643:
635:
591:
543:
518:
475:
344:
182:
173:
138:
122:
119:
82:
79:
66:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1060:
1058:
1049:
1048:
1030:
1029:
1007:
988:Note to closer
985:
967:
966:
965:
964:
944:
943:
933:Britishfinance
918:Britishfinance
905:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
857:WP:CONTENTFORK
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
652:
620:
619:
618:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
395:
394:
374:
373:
372:
371:
323:
322:
302:
246:Fundamentally
243:
242:
179:
118:
117:
112:
102:
97:
80:
78:
73:
64:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1059:
1047:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1032:
1031:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1011:SportingFlyer
1008:
1006:
1002:
998:
994:
989:
986:
984:
980:
976:
972:
969:
968:
963:
959:
955:
951:
948:
947:
946:
945:
942:
938:
934:
930:
925:
923:
919:
914:
909:
906:
904:
900:
896:
895:
889:
886:
874:
870:
866:
862:
858:
854:
848:
843:
842:
841:
837:
833:
828:
823:
818:
817:
816:
812:
808:
804:
799:
793:
788:
787:
786:
782:
778:
774:
768:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
747:
743:
739:
735:
734:
733:
729:
725:
721:
715:
710:
709:
708:
704:
700:
695:
692:
691:
690:
686:
682:
678:
674:
670:
669:
668:
664:
660:
656:
653:
651:
648:
646:
640:
638:
633:
632:SportingFlyer
628:
624:
621:
617:
613:
609:
605:
601:
595:
590:
589:
588:
584:
580:
575:
572:
562:
558:
554:
547:
542:
541:
540:
536:
532:
528:
522:
517:
516:
515:
511:
507:
503:
500:
499:
498:
494:
490:
486:
479:
474:
473:
472:
468:
464:
460:
456:
453:
452:
443:
439:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
398:
397:
396:
393:
389:
385:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
370:
366:
362:
358:
354:
348:
343:
342:
341:
337:
333:
329:
325:
324:
320:
316:
312:
308:
303:
300:
296:
292:
288:
283:
282:
281:
280:
276:
272:
268:
263:
261:
257:
253:
249:
238:
234:
231:
228:
224:
220:
216:
213:
210:
207:
204:
201:
198:
195:
192:
188:
185:
184:Find sources:
180:
176:
172:
169:
163:
159:
155:
151:
146:
142:
137:
133:
129:
125:
121:
120:
116:
113:
110:
106:
103:
101:
98:
96:
93:
92:
91:
89:
84:
77:
74:
72:
71:
68:
61:
57:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1035:
1033:
987:
970:
949:
912:
911:
907:
892:
887:
693:
654:
642:
634:
622:
573:
501:
483:Knowledge. –
458:
454:
425:
421:
417:
413:
409:
406:every single
405:
401:
384:Phil Bridger
352:
347:Phil Bridger
332:Phil Bridger
245:
244:
232:
226:
218:
211:
205:
199:
193:
183:
170:
81:
54:
49:
47:
31:
28:
971:Strong Keep
623:Weak delete
459:Our Country
414:Our Country
209:free images
1019:Randy Kryn
993:Randy Kryn
975:Randy Kryn
594:XOR'easter
579:XOR'easter
1040:talk page
929:WP:NUKEIT
861:Roscelese
822:Roscelese
803:Roscelese
767:Roscelese
720:Roscelese
677:Roscelese
604:Roscelese
546:Roscelese
527:Roscelese
485:Roscelese
430:Roscelese
422:Lexington
420:) and 4 (
400:...okay,
357:Roscelese
267:Roscelese
252:Roscelese
37:talk page
1042:or in a
869:contribs
811:contribs
728:contribs
685:contribs
612:contribs
535:contribs
493:contribs
438:contribs
408:source.
382:matter.
365:contribs
311:KCVelaga
291:KCVelaga
275:contribs
260:contribs
168:View log
109:glossary
39:or in a
997:Mccapra
954:Mccapra
950:Comment
888:Delete.
738:Mccapra
714:Mccapra
699:Mccapra
694:Comment
659:Mccapra
553:Mccapra
521:Mccapra
506:Mccapra
502:Comment
478:Mccapra
463:Mccapra
455:Comment
328:WP:PROD
215:WP refs
203:scholar
141:protect
136:history
86:New to
913:Delete
187:Google
145:delete
55:Xymmax
899:talk
230:JSTOR
191:books
175:Stats
162:views
154:watch
150:links
16:<
1023:talk
1001:talk
979:talk
958:talk
937:talk
922:talk
908:Keep
865:talk
836:talk
807:talk
796:Hi!
781:talk
742:talk
724:talk
703:talk
681:talk
663:talk
655:Keep
608:talk
583:talk
574:Keep
557:talk
531:talk
510:talk
489:talk
467:talk
434:talk
410:Most
402:most
388:talk
361:talk
336:talk
315:talk
295:talk
271:talk
256:talk
223:FENS
197:news
158:logs
132:talk
128:edit
50:keep
1009:To
894:DGG
675:. –
602:. –
250:. –
237:TWL
166:– (
1025:)
1017:.
1003:)
981:)
960:)
939:)
910:.
901:)
871:)
867:⋅
838:)
813:)
809:⋅
783:)
744:)
730:)
726:⋅
705:)
687:)
683:⋅
665:)
614:)
610:⋅
585:)
559:)
537:)
533:⋅
512:)
495:)
491:⋅
469:)
440:)
436:⋅
390:)
367:)
363:⋅
338:)
317:)
309:.
297:)
289:.
277:)
273:⋅
258:⋅
217:)
160:|
156:|
152:|
148:|
143:|
139:|
134:|
130:|
1021:(
999:(
977:(
956:(
935:(
920:(
897:(
863:(
849::
845:@
834:(
824::
820:@
805:(
794::
790:@
779:(
769::
765:@
740:(
722:(
716::
712:@
701:(
679:(
661:(
645:C
641:·
637:T
606:(
596::
592:@
581:(
555:(
548::
544:@
529:(
523::
519:@
508:(
487:(
480::
476:@
465:(
432:(
386:(
359:(
349::
345:@
334:(
313:(
293:(
269:(
265:–
254:(
241:)
233:·
227:·
219:·
212:·
206:·
200:·
194:·
189:(
181:(
178:)
171:·
164:)
126:(
111:)
107:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.