Talk:Grievances of the United States Declaration of Independence

Appeal

The AfD for this article showed concern that this article is sourced from a narrow range of historians and contained their particular views and observations. However, this is certainly a notable topic in U.S. history and the only article in WP that lists the 27 Grievances of the Declaration. Would make a fine GA article (as per the United States Declaration of Independence article) for the current editors (for the work they have started) and others with experience and interest in this area. Britishfinance (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The template in the article states that its neutrality has been challenged and is disputed on the talk page—but I see neither challenge nor dispute. —Dilidor (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Looking into the history it seems to have been added by Power~enwiki (talk · contribs) - Power, any comments? I do agree that the tone of a 21st-century encyclopedia article and Lossing's tones are not the same. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't recall why I felt the neutrality was an issue; the article style and tone are very clearly not that of Wikipedia. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

It's certainly not remotely neutral, and the entirety of the text reproduces verbatim sections of Benson J. Lossing's "Pictorial History of the United States" (which explains the absurd tone of for instance Grievance 20..."willing slaves", "sister colonies rejoiced in freedom"? Definitely strongly non-neutral viewpoint.)Pseudonymous Cognomen (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

POV/Neutrality

"Parliament voted ten thousand men for the American service, for it saw the wave of rebellion rising high under the gale of indignation which unrighteous acts had spread over the land"

That seems a bit poetic, oldfashioned and *very* POV. Mathijsvs (talk) 12:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Grievance 26

The article currently states 'This act was condemned on the floor of Parliament as unworthy of a Christian people, and "a refinement of cruelty unknown among savage nations."'. This is a NPOV statment. It is the duty of the loyal opposition in Parliament to oppose bad Bills, and statements like this are to be expected. However this is one statement by one MP, it does not reflect the opinion of the majority as the Bill passed both Houses and became an Act. If Wikipedia is to reflect the will of the Parliament then publish the numbers who voted for and against the Act, not the opinion of just one oposition MP. If the numbers are not known then simply remove the sentence as it presents a minority POV.

Also:

1. The grievance is itself biased because it presents the American POV. This is of course acceptable in the context of the article, but it can be pointed out that in the view of the British government the colonies were in a state of insurrectionand as such the impressed men were fighting for their country against rebels not "bear[ing] Arms against their Country".
2. As a precident: impressment of erstwile enemy soldiers (not officers) during the English Civil War had been common place. For example, after the battle of Worcester (1651) English Cavalier/Royalist soldiers were impressed into the Roundhead/Parliamentry New Model Army and sent to fight in Ireland. While Scottish Royalists were sold as indentured labours to work in the American colonies.(Worcester: Last Battle of the English Civil War § "The Faithfull City") So the British Government had precidents for their Act.

-- PBS (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Copyright issue

I have noticed that some of the text of this article has been copied from the commonly-cited Benson John Lossing work, so I have listed it as a potential copyright violation just to be safe. See here for copyright problem entry. Jacquesparker0 (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)