Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unalienable rights
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Redirect to Inalienable rights Carbonite | Talk 15:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
PoV fork of Inalienable rights; will be a permanent magnet for biased original research, such as the present text. Has been made into redirect, but things like this keep happening. Septentrionalis 21:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I will join the consensus: Redirect, but I expect it will have to be protected. Septentrionalis 02:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Inalienable rights. Then protect page if necessary. "Unalienable" and "inalienable" are synonyms. No justification for having two different articles. Deletion wouldn't prevent re-creation, so what's the point of deleting it? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for merge/redirect, and protect redirect if necessary. Gazpacho 23:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Inalienable rights, per Dpbsmith. -GregAsche (talk) 23:36, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
- POV fork. Redirect to Inalienable rights and protect. --Calton | Talk 02:01, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Inalienable rights, and protect redirect. This is a PoV fork created by someone who lost the argument concerning the naming of the article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't appreciate your implied accusations. Many people worked on this article. --Go Cowboys 16:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have adapted article to consensus; there's no reason a deprecated text should be mirrored. Article text as proposed for deletion Septentrionalis 20:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Are you seriously trying to vote a change to the United States Declaration of Independence? "Inalienable" was a word commonly in use at the time of the Declaration. Even though it was considered, and was even in one of the draft proposals, "Inalienable" was not chosen for inclusion in the Declaration. If the signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence had wanted to use "inalienable," they would have used "inalienable." It is not our place to change history. The following two points are historical facts:
- 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.
The motives involved are pretty obvious: the signers of the United States Declaration of Independence did not want to include property rights in their declaration. They specifically rejected that word from an earlier draft. Are we now to rewrite history and link the Declaration to property rights by saying that the signers really meant Locke's "inalienable"? --Go Cowboys 16:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we are attempting to preserve its meaning from the innovations of an eccentric and his original research. 20:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect. -Sean Curtin 19:39, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Inalienable rights and protect. According to the OED, the two words are synonyms.--JW1805 21:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Inalienable rights. It's perfectly clear from the sources given, and from any research _at all_ on the subject, that this is just a variant spelling. --Shannonr 00:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. We don't make fork articles just because of spelling variations, unless the variation is hugely significant. – Smyth\talk 17:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Septentrionalis did not call for a vote. The user made a statement, labeled it a consensus, and asked for support. Is there any way we can give our unbiased opinions now with out making User:Septentrionalis angry? In a real consensus, "those who wish to take up some action want to hear those who oppose it, because they count on the fact that the ensuing debate will improve the consensus" ~Wikipedia. I, for one, would like to see a separate definition for how Unalienable is defined in the Declaration of Independence. It certainly has nothing to do with the "theological principles," "non sequitur," or "naturalistic fallacy" of the Inalienable rights article. The Declaration of Independence quite specifically says that Unalienable rights are self-evident. (And no, "self-evident" of the D.O.I. does not mean "because we said so.") --Zephram Stark 21:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]
- This is a misrepresentation. The sequence of timestamps will show that I joined a consensus to redirect, making it 5 voices to one (it is now twelve to two, counting Go Cowboys and Zephraim Stark as distinct). Septentrionalis 04:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Septentrionalis did not call for a vote. The user made a statement, labeled it a consensus, and asked for support. Is there any way we can give our unbiased opinions now with out making User:Septentrionalis angry? In a real consensus, "those who wish to take up some action want to hear those who oppose it, because they count on the fact that the ensuing debate will improve the consensus" ~Wikipedia. I, for one, would like to see a separate definition for how Unalienable is defined in the Declaration of Independence. It certainly has nothing to do with the "theological principles," "non sequitur," or "naturalistic fallacy" of the Inalienable rights article. The Declaration of Independence quite specifically says that Unalienable rights are self-evident. (And no, "self-evident" of the D.O.I. does not mean "because we said so.") --Zephram Stark 21:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]
- Redirect and protect. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect and protect, at least from Zephram Stark. This is more original research from a user who should have been banned a while ago. "Go Cowboys" is a known sockpuppet of Zephram Stark, so his votes should not be counted twice here. And after his openly racist comments about myself and several other editors who challenged his original research on another page (where he called us all "fucking Jews"), I would have thought people would have stopped paying attention to him and his sockpuppets. He has certainly shown himself unfit to participate in editing discussions on Wikipedia. I do not know what happened to the RfC on him, but I do think it's clear that he has nothing valuable to contribute here.--csloat 20:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If I can provide incontrovertible proof that you lied three times in the above statement, will you change your vote? --Zephram Stark 21:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Proof should not be claimed, but presented. Hic Rhodus, hic salta. Septentrionalis 04:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If I can provide incontrovertible proof that you lied three times in the above statement, will you change your vote? --Zephram Stark 21:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.