Talk:Unalienable rights

Why is this article being reverted to nothing?
This article needs to be better Wikified, but adequate examples are given of "inalienable" being used in a context different than the stated meaning of "unalienable." Additionally, very little of this information is given in the "inalienable" article. Articles should never be combined unless their information is combined. Please obey the rules of conduct and dispute resolution. List the reasons why you would like to combine these articles and how you propose combining them before doing so. --206.176.221.196 16:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Requests for Comment
I will be logging a Request for Comment if this article is erased again before the dispute is resolved. The article lists multiple verifiable examples of how this word is used differently than the word being combined with this one. A response that addresses this discrepency is required before merging can be considered. --206.176.221.196 16:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Jefferson preferred Locke's Inalienable Rights

 * John Locke added the concept of man as a maker of things and natural owner of property. Locke referred to "life, liberty, and property" as inalienable rights.
 * The United States Declaration of Independence did not recognize Locke's need for property as being a natural right. It referred to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" as unalienable rights.

Thomas Jefferson originally drafted the colonies' Declaration using the word "inalienable" in reference to the way Locke spelled the term. Many members of the colonial congress did not like Locke's concept of property being a natural right, so the word was changed to read "unalienable." Because Thomas Jefferson was so opposed to this change, he often quoted the declaration incorrectly, using the word "inalienable." I believe it is spelled that way on his shrine too. The point is, as per the minutes of the colonial congress, as far as they were concerned, the two words were not interchangeable. --Go Cowboys 21:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This falsehood is sufficient reason to remove this article and all that resemble it from anything that claims to be a verifiable encyclpedia. The two words are first attested as members of the same dictionary entry. They have been synonyms ever since. The two words differ only in that one uses a Germanic and the other a Latinate negative prefix to the English form of the Latin compound alienabilis.  Unalienable is  thus a hybrid, or in the language of prescriptive grammarians, a bastard formation; and, as such, would be deprecated in the eighteenth century.  Jefferson used it, probably inadvertently, in the  Declaration of Independence; when he discusses Congress's alteration to his draft, in some detail, in his Autobiography, he quotes both Congress and himself as using inalienable.

Both synonyms assert, of a right, that the possessor's right to something cannot be taken, or given, away, whether the thing itself has been or not. Septentrionalis 22:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * That is your opinion. It was not the opinion of the Colonial Congress.  "Inalienable" was a word already in wide use when the declaration was penned.  The Colonial Congress chose a different word because they specifically did not want "unalienable" to include property rights.  Now, you are trying to attach property rights to the meaning of the Declaration of Independence by saying that "unalienable" means the same thing as "inalienable".  Your efforts will fail because people can read the exact words of the Declaration of Independence and see that no property rights are included or implied. --Go Cowboys 15:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Is this original reasearch, or do you have a source? Septentrionalis 16:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you being argumentative? Of course I have a source for the exact text of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and for the writings of John Locke.  Are you contending that Locke's writings did not precede the U.S. Declaration of Independence?  Are you contending that Locke's "inalienable" did not include property rights?  Are you claiming that the declaration's "unalienable" includes property rights?  What do you question?  I am not drawing any conclusions in the article.  I am merely stating the facts.  They speak for themselves:


 * John Locke defined inalienable rights specifically as "life, liberty, and property".
 * The United States Declaration of Independence did not recognize Locke's need for property as being a natural right. It referred to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" as unalienable rights.


 * Are you questioning whether the above statements are true? Do I need to photocopy the Declaration and Locke's writings to prove it to you?  --Go Cowboys 16:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * A source for this sentence would be nice:
 * The Colonial Congress chose a different word because they specifically did not want "unalienable" to include property rights Septentrionalis 16:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * That is my conclusion. I think it's pretty obvious, but I have never included that in an article because it is a secondary source.  Stating logical conclusions based on factual data is certainly allowed by Wikipedia when used in discussion about an article.  I think you already knew that.  --Go Cowboys 16:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Then it is original research, since it is not a consensus, or a trivial leap of logic; I believe, in fact, there is scholarly consensus against it. A group which held this view might well have been notable enough to mention somewhere. Septentrionalis 16:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

AfD Result
Carbonite | Talk 15:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)