Talk:Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen

Unbalanced article?

This article is Great! This article is very poor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Germinal12 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

This shouldn't be an article about Thomas Jefferson

Much of the article gives the impression that Thomas Jefferson was the fountainhead of the document, citing English-language historians. Certainly he was an influence but one among many, as he appears in the more balanced French article. The German, Portuguese, Italian, and Spanish articles don't even mention him by name, so the difference between the French and English articles can hardly be put down to French national pride. This reads rather like it was written by people who can only see the world from an Anglophone perspective . 105.227.132.177 (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Its mildly funny, because stereo-typically both French and American share that kind of self-importance. =) I agree with you, though. Know Einstein (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Typo?

I am fairly certain that "severly" in Article 9 is a typo, but, as I don't speak French, I'm not 100% sure what it should be. (severely, severally (??)).

Anybody?

Article 9 Every man is supposed innocent until having been declared guilty; {but,} if it be considered essential to arrest, any action, which is not necessary to secure the person, must be severly repressed at law.

Randy Kramer

Clearly, "Severely" -- Jmabel 21:07, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Articles not original text

I am wondering why the Articles were modified from the original text?

Articles not original text

I agree with Jmabel, there is no source for the translation, this is the only place I have seen it, and I have only found one other translation

Aug 26 or Aug 27?

Some sources state Aug 26 while others go with Aug 27. Which is it?

Here is a university source (among countless others) that cites Aug 27: http://history.binghamton.edu/hist130/docs/dormc.htm

But at the same time, there are just as many sources that cite Aug 26. I know this isn't a big deal, but... you know...

EDIT: I took the liberty of adding in the the (some sourcefs say August 27) for the time being.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.161.238.131 (talk • contribs) 20 June 2006.

Women's rights

Actually in french the word for "man" is the same word for "human". But the translation in english do not take this in charge... That's why there is a capital letter at the begining of the world for "man" in french, the capital letter is here to tell us "we talk about the human in general, includes the women" that's why actually it's the "Declaration of the Rights of Human and of the Citizen" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shensko (talk • contribs) 22:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC) ~

Okay, Then what was all the fuss about making a female version about? "Baiser la différence!" The analysis of the ladies version seemed oddly harsh. Like, *SHOULDN'T* it be a basic copy of the men's version? Why so snarky then? Know Einstein (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually "Man" in the English translation does mean "human being". You may find "man" used to refer to "mankind" in many older texts in English. When the declaration was written in 1789, English-speakers chose to translate it as "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen". Ideportal (talk)

I removed an editorializing paragraph

Hello fellow Wikipedians!

I removed a paragraph from the section "Philosophical and theoretical context" which contained little to no encyclopedic information, but was rather a metaphysical discussion of whether or not there is such a thing as "secular natural law". Though that is certainly an interesting topic, and though I actually agree with the annonymous editor who wrote the paragraph, an article on Wikipedia is certainly not the place to carry out such a discussion, so I went ahead and deleted the paragraph altogether. It read as follows:

According to a legal textbook published in 2007, the declaration is in the spirit of "secular natural law", which does not base itself on religious doctrine or authority, in contrast with traditional natural law theory, which does. But, this claim is an ex-post justification and a metaphysical doctrine. There can't be "true" secular natural law because, if it is, it means there exists a moral transcendental being in terms of human desire and humane imperativeness of the French Revolution that transcend nature's law such as natural selection or the law of survival of the fittest. That is, "secular natural law" is based on "social contract" which is a product of thought experiment, a fictional base. Thus, it is not "natural" but "artificial" and subject to change at any time according to a collective belief of a society. Then, it loses it universality and generality which "law" has to have. The concept of general will which is in the declaration suffers the similar issue. After all, whether it is "natural law" or "general will", it needs something transcendental that is in contrast with "secular".

Kind regards, Nikolaj1905 (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Impact or Legacy section is missing

This article has a major gap, in that it lacks an "#Impact" or "#Legacy" section. Monarchs all over Europe trembled over this, fearing revolution could approach their shores. Some of this is covered in Influence of the French Revolution. As an example: one impact covered neither here nor there is the influence on Thomas Paine, who penned his essay Rights of Man in London in 1791, framed as a response to Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France It was a monumental attack on monarchy and attempted to stir working class readers to embrace radical Republicanism. It was a blockbuster in England, selling 50,000 copies in England alone in the first three months. Prime Minister Pitt said, "Paine is quite right, but what am I to do? As things are, if I were to encourage Tom Paine's opinions, I should have a bloody revolution." This was before the guillotining of the French monarchs, and when news of that and Robespierre's excesses arrived in England, repressive laws against free speech and political dissent were instituted directly as a result, and people were imprisoned for speaking out. The government went on a character assassination campaign against Paine, including claims of zoophilia. Crowds amassed, stirred up by thugs paid to incite the crowd and burn effigies of Paine in public squares, finally driving Paine out of the country, trying Paine in absentia and convicting him. Mathglot (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

If you have sources for these things, I would encourage you to go ahead and write the missing section. Nikolaj1905 (talk) 07:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Women's rights 2

The French Revolution did not lead to a recognition of women's rights

I still can't wrap my mind around this failure. What was the primary cause? The influence of religion? Traditional social roles of masculinity? How do you go about calling for a revolution in every sphere of life and leave out half of the people involved? It does not, and never has made sense. Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Haitian Republic

The second republic in the world?! What?! That's wgat is describes the Haitian Republic to have been. Even if one excludes the numerous republics created in the Middle Ages, surely whoever wrote that absured statement couldn't count to 3: 1)USA, 2) FRANCE, only then 3) Haiti. So how is it supposed to be second on the list?! -SC BENHAM historian author 213.119.204.50 (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The text in the article states "...the second republic of the New World...", so I assume the intended meaning was "in the Americas". Mindmatrix 14:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

External Comic

I noticed there's an external link in the Substance#Active and Passive Citizenship section to an old political cartoon. Is there a reason it isn't embedded directly in the article? Surely it's public domain by now, though I'm not certain how France's IP laws might be relevant here. Xx-bean-xX (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)