Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grievances of the United States Declaration of Independence


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There is a strong consensus primary and secondary rationales for deletion were rebutted adequately. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  18:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Grievances of the United States Declaration of Independence

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fundamentally original research. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC) 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. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * 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 WP:PROD deletion, this is nothing like original research, with most of the content being sourced to reliable secondary sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's sourced to reliable secondary sources that aren't about the Declaration or its grievances. That's why it's original research! –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 matter. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ...okay, most sources rather than every single source. Most are poor sources or are not about the Declaration/don't explicitly connect these events to the Declaration. For instance, Our Country (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 (Liberty, Equality, Power) and 4 (Lexington) certainly do not. 6 (Lives of the Signers) 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 Wikipedia article. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - ‘For instance, Our Country (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. Mccapra (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 Wikipedia. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment well if it’s a copyvio then we can’t keep it. Mccapra (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 Wikipedia article, hence Wikisource. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 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. Mccapra (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep 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 specific items should be addressed by ordinary editing before trying to nuke the entire page. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If the incidents leading to these grievances are standard stuff, then it shouldn't be sourced to sources that don't draw the connection. Fixing the page would take more work than nuking it and starting over. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak delete 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: 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. SportingFlyer  T · C  20:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. 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. Mccapra (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "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 reliable secondary sources that make the connection. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment 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 is original research. It isn’t. Mccapra (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 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? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, pages 88-94. Mccapra (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * 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 Benson John Lossing.  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? Progressingamerica (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi! Wikipedia's policy against original research 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 you've identified as typifying Jefferson's grievances? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.  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 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! Progressingamerica (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, so, firstly, "historians don't talk about history this way BUT" is actually a really good sign that you're engaging in original research. 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 WP:CONTENTFORK 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. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. 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 views of a single historian. This is an example of hoe=w not to discuss history in a NPOV encyclopedia   . DGG ( talk ) 10:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Delete 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. Britishfinance (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC) 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 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 WP:NUKEIT. 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. Britishfinance (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. 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. Mccapra (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, 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. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note to closer 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 Randy Kryn points out. There is also nothing contentious about the material or unreliable about the sources. Mccapra (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * To and others who question the topic's notability and have original research concerns, a Google search shows pages of pertinent sourced material, commentary, and discussions. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.