Talk:Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen/Archive 1

Archive 1

Better than the U.S. Declaration?

Whoever put this in claims that unlike the U.S. Declaration, the French declaration says that these are universals for all men.

Uh...

"All Men are Created Equal?"

Quit with the anti-U.S. shit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.95.139.232 (talk • contribs) 26 Aug 2005.

I don't know who put in "Declaration of Independence": the contrast should presumably be to the U.S. Bill of Rights. The U.S. Declaration of Independence is a rather universalist document, but has no force in law.

The statement most closely resemble those in the Declaration of Independence, _not_ those in the Bill of rights, even while the rights enumerated in the two documents are similar. A survey of the congressional record during reconstruction (after the Civil War) demonstrates that The Declaration of Independence had substantially more force in politics then, and was cited as, and considered to be, politically binding if not legally so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.47.135.207 (talk • contribs) 20 Jan 2006.

In any event, I don't see anything in the article saying that this makes the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen "better". One could argue that it makes it far worse: that universalism led directly to the French Revolutionary Wars. Talk about going abroad in search of monsters to destroy…

Also, the article is hardly "anti-American": it specifically acknoledges the possible influence of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Declaration of Rights, and Lafayette's connections to the U.S. presumably go without saying. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:45, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you may remember that the French Revolutionary Wars were largely the result of foreign pressure to reinstate the king as an absolute ruler (see Brunswick Manifesto for instance). David.Monniaux 13:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

David, as I'm sure you know, these are all complicated questions (and I'm slightly playing devil's advocate here: if it comes down to it, the more universal, originally French notion of rights has more appeal for me, but there is certainly a case on the other side.) I agree that the French Revolutionary Wars were by no means a unilateral attempt to export the revolution, but to take it back a step before the Brunswick declaration, there is some reason to think that the powers of Central Europe felt threatened not only by the French Revolution itself but by these claims to universality. The Brunswick Manifesto claimed the intent of acting on behalf of Louis XVI, but Louis was almost certainly less than thrilled at the prospect of an invasion by Austria, among others. He sided, at least for a time, with the Girondist "war party", though quite possibly out of hope of his own country's army's defeat. This article is probably not the right place to go into all of that, though.

On another note, claims to universality may have had something to do with the French revolutionary tendency toward centralism and uniformity of administration, again not an unalloyed good.

In any case, without getting into whether the French or American choice was better, I think it is accurate to say that they were different. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen falls into a tradition of claims of universal rights based in natural law and a conception of a Republic of Virtue; the U.S. Bill of Rights falls into an Anglo-American tradition, somewhat more legalistic, with its vision of a Republic tempered by the pessimism of Hobbes, et. al. Certainly, Burke has stated the case as to why the latter might be preferable, and making this distinction should not be seen as invidious toward the American side. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:56, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Sieyes?

A recent edit claimed that Emmanuel J. Sieyes rather than the Marquis de Lafayette wrote the Declaration. I'm pretty confident that this was simply wrong, and have restored the attribution to Lafayette. I don't have an absolutely authoritative search, but a quick web search turned up dozens, probably hundreds, of sites attributing it to Lafayette and none to the Abbè Sieyes. It's going to take one heck of a citation to convince me otherwise. Sieyes, in fact, was responsible for the constitution that established the Consulate, the first Republican constitution to exclude the Declaration. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:55, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

It is not clear who is the "writer" of the Déclaration. It is rather a collective work. The text has been formally purposed to the assembly by Lafayette, but saying he has written the draft is far from the truth. Jean Joseph Mounier (Serment du jeu de Paume) is often quoted as the one who write/inspire the preambule.Vleclercq 14:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Individualistic

"However, it should be noted that the inspiration for the Declaration is widely individualistic. Consequently, neither freedom of assembly, liberty of association nor right to strike were consecrated in the text. However these principles acquired a constitutionnal value thanks to the provisions of the Constitution of the French Fourth Republic."

The statement that the document is individualistic seems wrong. The document is MORE individualistic than the previous political structure, but less individualistic than contemporary liberal societies. The sense of the French political system can be found in the description "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" (consider in opposition to "Life, Liberty, Property"). The political basis of fraternity is opposed to individualism, and has recently been the cause of decisions such as those restricting the use of religious garments in public schools (see the caveat after the freedom of religion statement, that it may not interfere with community). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.47.135.207 (talk • contribs) 20 Jan 2006.

I completley agree. the document is not individualisitc, far from it. Let s see the second sentence :"Les distinctions sociales ne peuvent être fondées que sur l’utilité commune" -> "Social separations/distinctions can only be based on common utility". This "common" word is very important. It put the stress on the fact that there is a "community", with superior interest (the nation, somehow). That is I think the first time(in this article) I've heard of the "individualisitc" behavior of this text. On an historical point of view, Jean Baptiste Mounier asked for a declaration of Human Rights (the minimum rights of each human) in addition to the first french constitution (the constitution itself is taking care of the non-individaulaistic part). so the 2 texts were complementary.

Hope it make sense.Vleclercq 15:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Liberty of association ???

The idea of liberty of association is nowhere to be found in the Declaration itself. It was created by The Conseil Constitutionnel in 1971, which claimed a constitutionnal tradition dating back to 1905. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrbluesky (talk • contribs) 4 Nov 2005.

Does someone have a citation for this so we can get it in the article? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather erase the allusion entirely. It is clear that no refernce to association appears in the text (see wikisource link). What we could say, actually, is that the Declaration per se was conceived with an individualistic point of view. Consequently, there is no reference to right to strike, liberty of association, etc...-- Mrbluesky | Talk 00:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds right to me. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

1905? Don't you mean 1901? The most famous date when refering to freedom of association in France is 1901, with this law. Aridd 22:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Either way, I still think the allusion is unneeded, and the discussion should be about the individualistic focus of the Declaration. - Jmabel | Talk 03:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

writer of the declaration

I am not sure at all that Lafayette is the drafter of the declaration . Is is known that Lafayette has formally purposed it to the assembly. It does not imply at all that he is the writer.I think he was a very strong sponsor, but the declaration is a collective act, inspired by multiple sources.Jean Baptiste Mounier is often quoted as the writer of the preambule. Furthermore, he is the one who asked for it in addition top the first constitution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vleclercq (talk • contribs) 15:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Based on what we think or we "aren't sure" of, all mention of attribution has been deleted, along with whimsical wholesale deletions that rendered the remaining text inconsequential. Perhaps a statement attributing the text to its usually-credited authors can be made, --one supported by a reputable published source, to be sure. This article is simply not as good as its subject demands.--Wetman (talk) 07:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"Rights of Man" vs. "Human Rights"

Droits de l'homme = Human Rights!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.109.239.159 (talk • contribs) 7 September 2006.

"Droits Humaines" exists in French. And there is the contrast, from the same period, of Olympe de Gouges' "Déclaration des droits de la Femme et de la Citoyenne". Not to mention that this has been the conventional translation of the name of this document for over two centuries. I'm inclined to leave it as it is. - Jmabel | Talk 18:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a citation of a scholarly work translating it differently? - Jmabel | Talk 18:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I can understand the the historic translation is : "Rights of Man". but is should be considered as Human Rights. "Droits de l'homme" in french is used as the exact synonym of Human Rights. So if one should translate the title now, he would use Human Rigths without a single doubt. I think that the english translation is really an "historical " thing . In the "Right Of Man" term, there is an individualistic part that is not in "Human Rights". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vleclercq (talk • contribs) 15:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm afraid there is no such idiom as "Droits Humaines" in French. Firstly because "droits" is masculine. Secondly because "droits humains" would mean "humane rights". Thirdly because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is called "La déclaration universelle des droits de l'homme" We may choose to leave the most used translation "Rights of Man", but we should maybe add an explanation. Ideportal (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

"Male"

A recent edit changed "It sets forth fundamental rights not only of French citizens…" to "It sets forth fundamental rights not only of French male citizens…" (emphasis mine). The point is, on one level, well taken, but I am not sure this is the best way to make it. It might be better to discuss (rather than just mention in the see-also section) Olympe de Gouges and her Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. The thing is, without rewording, the Declaration, still part of French law, is interpreted by French courts today as including women. Also, unless I am very mistaken, there is nowhere in the Declaration that it enumerates that these rights are specific to males, it was simply the understanding of the dominant, male supremacist culture of the time. In linguistic terms, as far as I know, in French, any group that includes both sexes, or any hypothetical individual of unknown gender, would be referred to with male nouns and adjectives. This use of language was not deliberately exclusionary on the part of the author of the Declaration. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Since no one has responded, I will rewrite accordingly. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Being french, I strongly confirm that the man term word in the déclaration is not at all referring to "male", but to mankind. Female are not at all explicitely excluded from this declaration.Vleclercq 14:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Vleclercq : the word 'man' ("homme") included and includes both gender. However, the word "citizen" at that time was only applying to male adults. So the sentence The Declaration, as originally understood, recognized most rights as only belonging to males should be changed as The Declaration, as originally understood, recognized citizen rights as only belonging to males --Geo115fr (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of the rights also apply to women (for example nr. 7, 8 and 9) and some are formulated with the term "the society". Only the rights of the citizens do not apply to women, as well as to any non-citizen men. We should not change to "recognized citizen rights as only belonging to males, as poor males, for example, could not vote in 1791. Ideportal (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Suppressed text

This diff shows good former text that has been suppressed. An interested editor may want to open the diff in another window and reinstate good lost material.--Wetman (talk) 08:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have taken out unreferenced stuff. As per wikipedia policy there should be no original research. The article needs further expanding with sources.--SasiSasi (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

god, Himself, forbid that this text, of which wikipedia itself is a result, be in wikipedia itself. oh, btw, great english speakers, many others languages are not so shy. see german version, eg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.64.98 (talk) 13:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

all men without exception

The text: "all men without exception" that is italicized -- where is that a quote from?

ZzzBrett (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Influences

I believe that a new section is in store for this article. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen has influenced a lot of political documents, and also was influenced by a lot of documents. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen was influenced by John Locke's "Two Treatises of Government", Montesquieu, Rousseau, and other political philosophers. It was also influenced by American documents, such as the Declaration of Independance, the U.S. Constitution, and English documents such as the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, and other documents and court decisions. I believe that with the proper research, this section could be expanded to be very useful for potential readers.-Hairchrm 00:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about influence, but the United States House of Representatives passed what would become the Bill of Rights a few days before this Declaration, around 21 August. The House was not the de jure legislative power, but then again neither was the Constituent Assembly, which acted more like the US Convention of 1787 in a sua sponte fashion. Int21h (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Compare to other bills of rights

Absolute rubbish, The French Revolution ideals come from Enlightenment, which draws on centuries of European struggles against monarchic and religious terror, and centuries of uprisings and revolutions long before there was such a thing as american replacement of a hereditary king with an elected one.

There was no mention of a "creator" or any such ignoble nonsense. There was no mention of "natural rights" whatever that means. The French Revolution is a product of millennia of human striving for freedom (not "liberties" whatever that means).

Whatever the appallingly base english "philosophers" came up with in their reactionary musings - was never widely known beyond the anglo-world, was never seen as worth knowing by those who had the misfortune to have read it, and is STILL unknown/considered worthless in Europe.

There are NO examples of similarity between The French Revolution and it's attainments which brought light to this World and a miserable military engagement in some backwater colony based on religious fanaticism and greed of slave-owning gentry. 68.33.29.158 (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Allan 1/10/2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.29.158 (talk)

Active vs Passive Citizenship

I would like to propose adding information under the "Omissions" on the distinction created by the Declaration between active citizens and passive citizens. This would give a better perspective on the political equality of the time. Augustus26 (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights

I suggest that the article should mention that the French Declaration had a major influence, along with several other Declarations, on the drafting of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, set forth in 1948. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Declaration_of_Universal_Human_Rights Tony (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The article also speculates that US movements were not related to French ones based completely on the dates they were passed. This doesn't appear to have documented support and it is just as reasonable that correspondence could have influence before the dates each were passed phil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.201.170.186 (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Anglo-American influences

From the article: "As can be seen in the texts, the French declaration is a copy of the declaration of Human Rights contained in the U.S. Declaration of Independence (4 July 1776) and the Virginia Declaration of Rights developed by George Mason in June 1776, which was itself based on the English 1689 Bill of Rights." I (strongly) agree that it was influenced by these prior documents, but "copy" seems to me to be much too strong. - Jmabel | Talk 07:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right. Anybody is against changing this ? JeDi | JeDi

The Virginia Declaration of Rights is known as being an influence (striong is maybe not the right term) . But the biggest influence is the Age of Enlightments, and especially Montesqiueu (L'esprit des Lois). Talking about a copy is clearly wrong. And to close the circle, I think that the American text is itself inspired by the age of enlightements (Am I wrong ?)Vleclercq 15:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Editing out numerous US-centric parts of this article. The Declaration was not written mainly by La Fayette, and certainly not by Ben Franklin (!). Its main inspiration was the political philosophy of the Enlightment, not the US Bill of Rights (itself a product of Enlightment ideas). Mrglass123 (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Mrglass123

Continuing with this, I think the connection to the US DoI is not as strong as the article suggests (see the French Wikipedia article, for example). The reference to Jefferson seems out of place, and the references cited do not support the text as written. These are parallel developments, more than linear ones. Jefferson was in discussion about these matters with Lafayette, which hardly establishes that the delegates were "well aware" of the DoI. John. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.173.98 (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The american declarations were just ancient traditions that had existed in English society going back through the centuries. for example: the petition of right, bill of rights 1689, is proof of this. these documents themselves weren't even anything new, they just reaffirmed the english traditions. even the american delaration uses the words " We hold these truths to be self-evident" which could back to the tradition that englishmen's rights were self evident. so you could say that England inspired it all Ben200 (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The article now says "James Madison's proposal for a U.S. Bill of Rights was adopted by the U.S. House of Representatives on 21 August 1789., that is 5 days before the French declaration. Considering the speed at which information crossed the Atlantic Ocean in the 18th century, it is clear that the French declaration was not inspired by its US counterpart." This sort of statement seems pretty silly, as if it's part of a POV agenda rather than an attempt to convey useful information. The idea that any one American document was the exact counterpart of the French document seems problematic, and the text also now ignores the earlier Virginia Declaration of Rights, which of course was an influence on the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. More problematic seems to be the idea that we can firmly establish how much, in relative terms, these various documents/philosophies influenced later documents/philosophies, or worse, that we can definitely say that something didn't influence something that came later. None of this was occurring in a vacuum. There seems to be too much of a "we did it first!" mentality, ignoring the free flow of ideas and the collaborative efforts behind these landmark documents. Mdyank77 (talk) 06:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Occult "info"

The persistent attempts to insert this "information" has become disruptive. I suggest that any editor who feels that it has even a shred of validity should create a new section in the body per WP:LEAD and back it up with reliable sources. Let's note right now, however, that the "Eye of Providence" (such as it is) in the photo is not a good peg upon which to hang this entire argument. If a fringe theory must be given space here – and I don't believe it should – it needs to be presented with some substantive content. SteveStrummer (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

>>100% agree, the eye of providence argument is out of place and completely not in step with the historical development of the revolution. Vive la Liberté! Death to tyrants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.127.75 (talk) 07:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

FR as bourgeois revolution and Declaration as bourgeois class rights

There's a large body of literature, of the Marxist type, that argues the FR and the Declaration were the result of the struggle between the (triumphant) bourgeoisie and (defeated) feudal classes. The Declaration was a document, according to this body of literature, produced by and for the small minority property owning classes (e.g., Article 2 of Declaration announced property was a 'natural' and 'inalienable' right, disregarding the enormous mass of the population that possessed nothing according to Albert Soboul). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 00:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Compare to other bills of rights

"First, I believe that this section should be renamed to just "Other Declarations of Human Rights" or "Other Bills of Rights".

Secondly, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen also is heavily influenced by the American Declaration of Independance, and can be compared to this document as well. A great example of the similarities is Article II of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen that states that: "The goal of any political association is the conservation of the natural and imprescriptible [i.e., inviolable] rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, safety and resistance against oppression." This is very similar to the assertion in the Declaration of Independance that each man is: "Endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This comes from John Locke's "Two Treatises of Government" There are numerous other examples that show that the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen is compareable to the U.S. Declaration of Independance, and I believe that the Declaration of Independance should be listed in this section.-Hairchrm 00:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)"

   Absolute rubbish, The French Revolution ideals come from Enlightenment, which draws on centuries of European struggles against monarchic and religious terror, and centuries of uprisings and revolutions long before there was such a thing as american replacement of a hereditary king with an elected one.
   There was no mention of a "creator" or any such ignoble nonsense. There was no mention of "natural rights" whatever that means. The French Revolution is a product of millennia of human striving for freedom (not "liberties" whatever that means). 
   Whatever the appallingly base english "philosophers" came up with in their reactionary musings - was never widely known beyond the anglo-world, was never seen as worth knowing by those who had the misfortune to have read it, and is STILL unknown/considered worthless in Europe.
   There are NO examples of similarity between The French Revolution and it's attainments which brought light to this World and a miserable military engagement in some backwater colony based on religious fanaticism and greed of slave-owning gentry. 68.33.29.158 (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Allan 1/10/2011

Locke argued in his Two Treatises of Government that political society existed for the sake of protecting 'PROPERTY' which he defined as a person's "life, liberty, and estate" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 04:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Citation for C.L.R. James under Slavery section

From the article: "Despite the lack of explicit mention of slavery in the Declaration, slave uprisings in Saint-Domingue in the Haitian Revolution took inspiration from its words, as discussed in C. L. R. James' history of the Haitian Revolution, The Black Jacobins.[citation needed]"

I don't know how citations work and don't really have time to figure it out, but a good source from The Black Jacobins reads: "The French soldiers [...] had given the fraternal embrace to all Mulattoes and all Negroes, telling them that the Assembly in France had declared all men free and equal. At many places near Port-au-Prince the Negroes were seizing arms and rebelling." That's page 83 of the 1963 Random House edition of the text. So, if someone who knows how this website works wants to put that information in there, feel free. Cheers.

fgfiwwwhwo3yggyhghghh3g3g8r9r9e9reg \

fgwegw8wewgww8w eecgcwcwwowewwody8w sudhww0w ddjdwio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:579:B804:8:60B4:CB4B:2108:D42D (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Italic title incorrect?

The Declaration isn't a book, yet has a book template which incorrectly italicizes the title and the infobox title. Can someone more knowledgeable than myself about infoboxes fix this to unitalicize the two? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I just removed the book infobox which was added in January. This fixes the visible title's italics. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 13 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved as uncontroversial. Original move was undiscussed. No opposition. WP:SNOW, etc. Srnec (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

---

Declaration of the Rights of the Man and of the Citizen of 1789 → Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen – This page was unilaterally moved to "Declaration of the Rights of the Man and of the Citizen of 1789" but this doesn't match the most common English renderings. This verbose translation of the French is used by a mere 140 titles in Google Books, and it unnecessarily appends the date when there is no problem with ambiguity: This article is the clear primary topic. "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen" was the title in use up to April of this year, and it is proposed that it be restored. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support per nom, and common and most familiar name in English. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support The change was improperly done in any case. Correct procedure is to call for discussion and consensus before such changes are made. Mediatech492 (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support Should have been discussed before being moved. Regardless, the sans-1789 version is more common in English texts. Ergo Sum 00:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support. But what should we do, then, with the other declarations that use exactly the same title? See here, here, and here. Den... (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reorganizing Substance vs. Legacy

I think the discussion of the slave revolt in Saint-Domingue does not belong under the Substance-> slavery heading. Perhaps there should be a new section for Contemporary Debates (either on its own or as a subsection of Impacts alongside Legacy) that could discuss Olympe de Gouges, Haiti, and Saint-Domingue. --Naomissweeting (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Active/passive citizens cartoon

I think there's something wrong with the explanation of the cartoon. The article goes: "In the cartoon, a passive citizen is holding a spade"... If you look at the cartoon, the person on the far left is indicated "No. 1", and in the caption it reads: "No. 1. Citoyen Actif".

The full text reads: "No. 1 Citoyen actif. Ta noblesse est donc dans ton habit. No. 2 citoyen passif. Prenez garde que ma patience ne m'échappe. No. 3 Vois tu que je suis noble No. 4 Je suis sous le rideau et je reponds de tout." My French is terrible so I have to rely on Google Translate: "No. 1 Active Citizen. Your nobility is in your habit. No. 2 passive citizen. Take care that my patience does not escape me. No. 3 Do you see that I am noble No. 4 I am under the curtain and I answer everything." --Peulle (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

American Revolutionary War influence on the French Revolution

A dispute resolution is about to begin at the Dispute resolution noticeboard, at section, French Revolution discussion, over whether there should be a statement in the lede about an American Revolutionary War influence leading up to the French Revolution. Outside opinions are needed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: reference to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights be removed from the lede

To me, this sort of "tag" on the end of the lede seems out of place. What's worse, is the relatively arbitrary (perhaps Anglocentric?) selections of the Magna Carta (1215) and the English Bill of Rights (1689) in particular as influences on the UN UDoHR. John Peters Humphrey, the principal author of the first draft of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, aimed for comprehensiveness, and looked for inspiration from ancient history and recent non-European history. He "instructed his staff at the UN to study all the world’s existing constitutions and rights instruments, as well as the suggestions that had poured in to the Secretariat from members of the Commission, outside organizations, and even from various interested individuals." (Glendon, M.A. (2001). A World Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Random House.)

Humphrey was especially one contemporary declarations: the 1944 draft from the largely Latin American deliberated Statement of Essential Human Rights (1944) (produced by the "Pan American Union”, precursor to the present-day Organization of American States). "The Latin American draft, prepared for the predecessor of the Organization of American States, was an interesting document in several respects: it represented a harvest of the main elements of the continental European, as well as Anglo-American, rights traditions; it accompanied its list of rights with a list of duties; it was supranational; and it proclaimed that “the essential rights of man are not derived from the fact that he is a national of a certain state, but are based upon attributes of his human personality.” One of its framers, Felix Nieto del Rio of Chile, served briefly on the first UN Human Rights Commission before being replaced by Hernán Santa Cruz. Humphrey, referring to a 1945 revision later tabled in by Richardo J. Alfaro for the perusal of the American Law Institute the statement was “the best of the texts on which I worked” and that he “borrowed freely from it.” (Humphrey: A Great Adventure, pp. 31 f. See UN document E/CN.4/AC.1/3/June 4, 1947, ‘Draft Outline of International Bill of Rights.’)

In short, Humphrey and his top aide, Émile Giraud, came up with a list of "forty-eight items" that represented, in their view, "the common core" of the intellectual history of human rights they had collected, to be presented to the drafting committee, containing British, French, American, Swedish, Norwegian, Soviet, Chilean, Panamanian and Mexican documents and proposals - all with 400 pages commentary. (Ibid.)

In other words, too reductive and distracting I would say. I've noticed that the Wiki article on the English 1689 Bill of Rights has a similarly annoying unsourced tag at the end of its lede, even referring to the famously ephemeral "uncodified British constitution". I'm guessing a lot of these articles are going to need attention from some experts/specialists. I have some, and I'll do what I can if I can find the time! EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Whereas the idea of rights has a long lineage, the content of the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights have next to nothing outstanding with the Déclaration or the UDHR. But the content of the Déclaration did serve as one of the main inspirations of the UDHR. Kjalving (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Lede Change

As the source indicates, main individual inputs of the Déclaration were Lafayette's and Sieyès'. Jefferson, like many others, was consulted, but his input is nowhere equal to Sieyès'. 217.167.255.177 (talk) 10:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)