Nepaheshgar (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
|||
Line 1,196: | Line 1,196: | ||
:You have copied and pasted material from this site [http://www.rozanehmagazine.com/Rozanehweb/DKFCyrusG.html]. It must be removed as a copyright violation. The site also quotes Axworthy selectively. Interestingly it omits the sentence I just quoted where he says the description of the CC as a charter of human rights is "an exaggeration and a misrepresentation". Very dubious. --[[User:Folantin|Folantin]] ([[User talk:Folantin|talk]]) 20:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC) |
:You have copied and pasted material from this site [http://www.rozanehmagazine.com/Rozanehweb/DKFCyrusG.html]. It must be removed as a copyright violation. The site also quotes Axworthy selectively. Interestingly it omits the sentence I just quoted where he says the description of the CC as a charter of human rights is "an exaggeration and a misrepresentation". Very dubious. --[[User:Folantin|Folantin]] ([[User talk:Folantin|talk]]) 20:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
::Nope some of the materials were sent to me..I did not copy it. They are quotations from various books and do not violate copy rights. If I have a text from that article (not the quote) then that can be copy right and if you find it, I'll remove it. But actual quotes have nothing to do with any particular article. I am not also talking about CC but CG himself. --[[User:Nepaheshgar|Nepaheshgar]] ([[User talk:Nepaheshgar|talk]]) 20:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC) |
::Nope some of the materials were sent to me..I did not copy it. They are quotations from various books and do not violate copy rights. If I have a text from that article (not the quote) then that can be copy right and if you find it, I'll remove it. But actual quotes have nothing to do with any particular article. I am not also talking about CC but CG himself. --[[User:Nepaheshgar|Nepaheshgar]] ([[User talk:Nepaheshgar|talk]]) 20:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::The material includes word-for-word copying of the site I've linked (which is not a reliable source in any case, given its distortion of what Axworthy actually wrote). You must remove this material. --[[User:Folantin|Folantin]] ([[User talk:Folantin|talk]]) 20:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:21, 17 October 2009
Human rights is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
Software: Computing Unassessed | |||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Libertarianism B‑class Top‑importance | ||||||||||
|
|
Confusion between human rights and humanitarian law
I am separating out the humanitarian law section (and some red cross) from the human rights law section. Human rights law and humanitarian law is not the same! Humanitarian law refers to rights/laws governing armed conflict. In everyday use people may regard humanitarian law as part of human rights law, but legally and technically they are not the same. Hence I am not deleting the good work done on listing the geneva conventions, but I am moving it to the humanitarian law article.--SasiSasi (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well done. I have been thinking about the next steps for improving the IHL piece and you have done this.Joel Mc (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
it was a bit bold... but so far nobody has complained. The humanitarian law article does look like a nice little article now, although it needs editing to join it up more. The non-regular/inter-state warfare section could use some ref. to the Rome Statute (International Criminal Court. And this human rights article could use a little section on crimes against humanity (similar to the humanitarian law section, cross ref to main article). --SasiSasi (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Human Rights Council
As you can see in this commentary by Yvonne Terlingen the Human Rights Council ranks alongside the Security Council, rather than being subordinate to it.
I also feel that the prose that was changed was better (was easier to read and better structured) than that which replaced it, but obviously that is subjective... Tkn20 (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Read Article 39 of the UN Charter. A commentator cannot amend the UN Charter, even if they really really want to. Raggz (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Right to water
I asked for a cite for this, then the author stated was "self-evident" instead of citing it. I don't think it is self-evident: The possibility of a right to water has long existed, but does not yet exist.
For just one example, the "right to water" is recognized under Roman Law, still used in many countries. Justinian's Code even distinguishes between aquae haustus, the right to draw water, Inst. II, 3, 2; Dig. VIII, 3, 1.1 and aquaeductus, the right to bring water, Inst. II, 3, pr.; Dig. VIII, 3, 1.pr. Since Water is actually necessary to life, this has long been recognised by many human laws. I doubt it is legal in any country to force someone to die by denying them water, and there is no legal world body with the authority to state that the right to water does not exist. Many would argue that they already have it through clauses in many Constitutions like the US 10th Amendment. If you meant to say the right to water is not yet spelled out by the UN body, please specify this. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I did indeed mean that there is not yet a universal legal right to water - I meant to give no subjective opinion on whether there is or isn't a conceptual right to water. This is what is evident from the references given. I will replace the sentence with something clearer. I was attempting to make it clear that there is controversy about whether water is a right, a commodity for sale, or both - and if that is even possible. Tkn20 (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
PS - I don't understand how the 10th Amendment to the bill of rights makes water a legal right? I thought it was an amendment limiting the power of the federal government goverment over the states? I may be wrong, I am no expert Tkn20 (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- It states that there are rights held by the people that are not spelled out and don't have to be by the Constitution, or anywhere else. Things normally taken for granted, like the right to move from one place to another, the right to do work, the right to be a member of an organization - are usually said to be covered for Americans by the 10th Amendment, even though many more recent Constitutions' Bills of Rights in other countries do spell these rights out. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- What? the Tenth Amendment reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That's why states have the power to regulate things such as alcohol sales and speed limits. You're reading way too much into the Tenth Amendment if you see a universal right to water in there. --69.142.108.40 (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Does the water mean clean water? How about the right to food, and not just any food but the right to food as demanded by respective religions? And how about the right to clean air? All of which are ingredients required for survival of living things. 86.157.233.184 (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Abortion in reproductive rights
Someone keeps removing references to abortion and medical coverage rights from sections of the artice, specifically the reproducutive rights article. I have reverted it twice because the parts being removed are well referenced and, I believe, belong in the article.Tkn20 (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK, would the anonymous editor who keeps deleting material from "Reproductive rights" either discuss the reasons for the deletions or stop engaging in what is beginning to look like vandalism? I'm going to revert the edit, per Tkn20. Phyesalis (talk) 03:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Henry Kissinger
"Meeting between General Augusto Pinochet and U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger (1974). Both were at risk of arrest for crimes against humanity under universal jurisdiction laws if they travelled internationally."
This is a clear OR issue. There is one citation by one commentator alleging war crimes in this article. Does Christopher Hitchens pose a risk to this Nobel Laureate[1], may he arrest Henry Hissinger? I intend to delete all references to Henry Kissinger because there is no demostrable relevance, and no reliable supporting sources for inclusion. Raggz (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Henry Kissinger is relevant because he advocates state sovereignty as more important than universal jurisdiction in all cases. The fact that he is himself in danger of being arrested under unveriversal jurisdiction laws is therefore also relevant. The picture adds little to the article, although I still think it is relevant, but I am happy for it to be removed. However, I contend that Kissinger is relevant to the universal jurisdiction part, and if you want other sources, there are many, including the wikipedia article on Henry Kissinger.Tkn20 (talk) 11:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- You know what he advocates better than I do. If he is at risk of arrest, just offer a reliable source. An editorial stating the reasons that OJ Simpson should be indicted is not a reference that establishes that he is at risk of indictment, but that there is speculation on this. Feel free to build a decent case against Kissinger. Just use recent citations, not only from 1999 or before. I don't care about him, but I do not believe that Christopher Hitchen may indict anyone anywhere. You don't really believe that Kissinger worries about Christopher Hitchens indictments, do you? Raggz (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Someone here is trashing the Nobel Laureate Henry Kissinger. The article isn't about Kissinger. The Reader may look him up if interested at Henry Kissinger. He is writing a scholarly article relevant to keeping the npov policy working. Trashing him HERE is a npov violation, go trash him all you want in Henry Kissinger. Raggz (talk) 09:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- There is an excellent rebuttal of all the arguments Kissinger makes in that article, unfortunately I have not got the citation to hand. Also, I believe there were US citizens attempting to charge him wit war crimes and perhaps also in Belgium. I will try and find my info on this. Also, the point isn't that Kissinger has something to worry about, but it follows the idea that if you try something novel often enough, it'll succeed at some point. So attempts by others to indict Kissinger may well influence his own policy :). Also, pre-1999 references should be fine if we are talking about academic resources and fixed news links. A lot of this blew up around 1998-2002. Sephui (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
ICC/ICJ
There are numerous factual errors about the ICC and ICJ that were corrected. Raggz (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have made some amendments to the ICC and ICJ entries, some of which include replacing information you deleted, but with some extra clarifications. If you still see factual errors, could you list them here, as I don't know what they are? Tkn20 (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Universal Jurisdiction
There are a number of original research claims and factually incorrect claims about univeral jurisdiction. For example: the ICC does not claim universal jurisdiction. The ICJ has no jurisdiction, ever, over individuals.
The creation of the ICC DID NOT reduce calls for more national universal jurisdiction laws.
"Commentators' positions in the argument for and against intervention and the use of force by states are influenced by whether they believe human rights are largely a legal or moral duty and whether they are of more cosmopolitan or nationalist persuasion." I have no idea what this piece of OR is about. Raggz (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with the majority of this and also have no idea what the statement above really means. I believe the ICC is intended to have universal jurisdiction, but will not have it until it is ratified by everyone. This is clearly not the case, so I have removed the statement, and the reduction in calls for universal jurisdiction laws.Tkn20 (talk) 11:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- There is a dream that the ICC will usher in The Golden Age of International Justice. (I like the dream, even though I douibt it). The ICC could have universal jurisdiction, but it then collides with the jurisdiction of the UN. The UN defines a war crime differently than does the ICC, and is moving farther away every year. We would need to give up the UN jurisdiction for the ICC to have it. The ICC presently does not advocate universal jurisdiction.
- The US has advocates of universal jurisdiction who advocate Pax Americana. When every nation has universal jurisdidiction, the US will as well. Will the ability to enforce universal jurisdiction be the same for the US and Chile, will a world of universal jurisdiction really be an improvement? One reason that I am skeptical of universal jurisdiction is that I believe that it will permit the powerful to legally subdue the weak. Raggz (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I propose deletion of universal jurisdiction because this is not about human rights at all, and only indirectly related to the enforcement of human rights. It is about the laws against piracy, mainly. It might someday be used to enforce human rights - and it may never be. Raggz (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
United Nations advisory standards
Not all of them are compliant with the United Nations advisory standards as set out in the 1993 Paris Principles, but the number and effect of these institutions is increasing.[2]
A reliable source is required to make the claim above. The UN Charter governs ALL of the "United Nations advisory standards", and the UN Security Council is the only authority that may be cited for this claim. If the text is reverted, and it states that some organization ALLEGES non-compliance, fine. Raggz (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
National Security
"Since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York, and due to the subsequent War on terror and concerns about national security and terrorism in countries around the world, a number of national laws and measures have come into force limiting some domestic human rights in the name of national security. They include, amongst others, the Patriot Act in the United States and detention-without-trial[111], limits on the right to protest[112] and other measures[113] in the United Kingdom. The United States has also used extraordinary rendition in order to allow suspects to be subjected to harsh interrogation that may constitute torture[114] in third party states and has employed detention without trial at its controversial facility at Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba, contrary to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[115]."
All of the original research above is being deleted as OR, if you want to revert it you will need a reliable source that authoratatively establishes that any of it is factual. You will find reliable sources that ALLEGE that it is factual, but you need an actual authoratative ruling on this to claim it as fact. None of these references establish that this was the case, they all ALLEGE this. Raggz (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I have replaced the section, as even if the part above is original research, that is no reason to delete the entire section. Secondly, the part above is not original research, although it may not have been worded correctly. I have replaced it and removed parts that imply any research or assumption.Tkn20 (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree. The section is entirely OR, and if a few bits might not be, the section needs the full reworking you likely will do anyway? Please strive for NPOV, include the citations that the Patriot Act etc enhanced Human Rights as well as the allegations of the opposition. Citations that allege, need be reported accurately, not as facts. Raggz (talk) 12:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
UN Security Council
"The human rights enshrined in the UDHR, the Geneva Conventions and the various enforced treaties of the United Nations are theoretically enforceable in law. In practice, many rights are are very difficult to legally enforce due to the absence of consensus on the application of certain rights, the lack of relevant national legislation or of bodies empowered to take legal action to enforce them.
- None of the above have reliable sources. Nothing is "theoretically" enforcable. The UNSC MAY enforce anything that is wants to. The problem (from your pov) is that it doesn't want to. You are presuming that human rights violations are ignored (and I agree), but how did you and I determine that there were violations? Neither of us may do this for WP?
- My Translation: You hold strong opinions about human rights and the failure of the UN and national authorities to enforce your opinions. We likely mostly agree on this. Our opinions, and those of commentators are merely opinions. The law is what the UNSC says that it is. Am I missing something here? Raggz (talk) 11:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York a number of national laws and measures have come into force limiting some domestic human rights in the name of national security. They include and detention-without-trial[111], limits on the right to protest[112] and other measures[113] in the United Kingdom. The United States has also been accused of using extraordinary rendition in order to allow suspects to be subjected to harsh interrogation that may constitute torture[114] in third party states and has employed detention without trial at its controversial facility at Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba. This has bene argued to be contrary to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[115].
All of the text deleted above was reverted without adding a reliable source for any of these claims. None of the citations establish that any human rights were denied, but all allege this. To establish a violation you at least need a charge, or ideally a verdict. If these are actual violations, why not bring it before the European Court of Human Rights? THAT would be a reliable source. All that is here are allegations.
There are many reliable sources for the counter-claim, that these measures enhanced human rights. Do we want a section on this? My thought is that long sections of debate do not belong in an encyclopedia. Raggz (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have hidden the section for the moment, as I think perhaps this article is not the place for this, but I do think it needs to mention current issues in human rights, of which this is a significant one. Some of the application of the UK laws have been found to be a breach of domestic human rights legislation, and a number of countries have brought in anti-terror legislation which limits some rights. This is probably better covered in the anti-terror legislation article though, so in general I agree with you. I might go away and think about it a bit... Tkn20 (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- We should cover significant human rights issues. The first question I always ask is: What specific human right is involved? When people speculate that a human right is being compromised, and others speculate otherwise, why would we include this debate? There are thousands of such debates, maybe millions. If the UN, the ICC, the European Court of Human Rights, or a national judiciary makes an actual determination that a human right is being compromised, THEN we have a reliable source that a human right is involved. Raggz (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Corporate Human Rights
"State and non-state actors Human rights have traditionally been considered the responsibility of the State, but they are increasingly also considered the responsibility of other organisations, such as companies, NGOs, political parties, informal groups, and of individuals - all known as non-State actors. Non-State actors can also commit human rights abuses, but are not subject to human rights law other than International Humanitarian Law, which applies to all.
Multi-national companies play an increasingly large role in the world, and are responsible for a large number of human rights abuses.[99] Although the legal and moral environment surrounding the actions of governments is reasonably well developed, that surrounding multi-national companies is both controversial and ill-defined. Multi-national companies' primary responsibility is to their shareholders, not to those affected by their actions. Such companies are often larger than the economies of the states in which they operate, and can wield significant economic and political power. No international treaties exist to specifically cover the behavior of companies with regard to human rights, and national legislation is very variable."
- All of the above is original research, but it is an important section, so I have not yet deleted it. The HRW citation does not really seem to support the claim, but that corporations do business with states that violate human rights AND have their own issues as well. Does anyone have time to salvage this important section? Raggz (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think "salvage" is a bit strong, but I will do a bit more work on it and knock it into shape. - Just as a reply to all your comments above, I have done a lot of work on this article, and there is quite a bit left to do, and your comments (and others) are welcome, so thankyou. I think (hope!) on the whole though, it is a lot better than it was a few weeks ago. Tkn20 (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
POV
The opening paragraph bluntly states that "the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law, and social, cultural and economic rights, such as the right to participate in culture, the right to work, and the right to education" are human rights. This strikes me as extremely POV. There are plenty of people who believe that several of those things (notably the right to work) are not human rights that everyone is entitled to. --Descendall (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Every claim that a human right was denied should clearly articulate what the human right denied actually is. This should cite a reliable source that supports the claim. If we follow this policy (and one other) we would then have an encyclopedia article that complies with NPOV. Raggz (talk) 07:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure I understand what you mean. My point was that the article just bluntly says that every human being has the right to be employed. That's editorializing. There are plently of people who don't believe in the concept of rights at all. There are way more who reject the idea that group rights and cultural rights exist. There are even more who believe in free-market capitalism and do not think that people have an innate right to employment. The opening article of this entry might as well just say "if you're a capitalist, you're violating human rights." It's an awfully bold assertation. --Descendall (talk) 08:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Your point is right, it does say that certain things are rights. This is easily changed, and I have made an attempt. I think you are misinterpreting a right to work though - it is most commonly framed more like that everyone has the right to not be prevented from working. However, that is not clear from this introduction, so it shouldn't be so categorical. I think changing it as I have done should do that?77.73.8.70 (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think it is better saying that some people consider those things to be rights. Just to be clear, it's not that I don't believe in rights; I actually work for a human rights organization. It's just jarring to have the wikipedia article assert what are and are not the rights that humans have. You wouldn't expect to go to the article on Utilitarianism and have it say something like "act utilitarianism is correct, and rule utilitarianism is wrong." Reasonable people disagree about these things. --Descendall (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I did the best that I could. It is still a little awkward. Feel free do do whatever you want with it. --Descendall (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I'm thinking we could establish certain rights and contextualize those rights which have been ratified as human rights by the UN/Security Council. Raggz' point about disputed rights is a good one. At some point, surely we can say that if various rights have been ratified by the UN, we can generally consider them to be "human rights" by consensus (not unanimous consent) of the international community. This contextualizes the position without making the unqualified statement that "X and Y are human rights". It becomes "X and Y have been established as human rights in the international human rights community/by the UN/proposed change here." Or something to that effect. Phyesalis (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
For example consider this quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:"When rights are embedded in international law we speak of them as human rights; but when they are enacted in national law we more frequently describe them as civil or constitutional rights. As this illustrates, it is possible for a right to exist within more than one normative system at the same time." Per a reliable reference work, those rights established in international law may be referred to as established "human rights". Thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- There is a need to use specific words for specific meanings within an encylopedia. Most of international law does not apply to any specific nation and some applies to none. Most applies only to treaties between two nations. All nations properly ignore most of international law, because most is without argument, innapplicable. Raggz (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- The UNSC interprets the UN Charter and thus all UN human rights and judicial decisions are subject to it. The international community met in 1948 and decided on the rules, and our article should adequately reflect what they actually are. Every member of the UN has waived sovereignty by treaty to join. The UN is the only judicial tribunal with the jurisdiction to act without the limitations that sovereignty imposes upon all other bodies. This is not a neglected detail, it is a missing critical fact, and ommission denies NPOV. Raggz (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. As to your previous post, maybe if you're talking about Private international law but Public international law is different. Particularly with regard to human rights. Since human rights legislation is predominantly in the sphere of public international law (as opposed to PIL), I'm thinking we can take it to be that aspect of int'l law being referred to in SEP. I'm not understanding your first statement. Since this is about the phrase/phenomenon and it is in an encyclopedia, why is there no need to try and achieve clarity - especially if there is a discussion about what, if anything, can be called a human right? Would you mind explaining that? Maybe I'm misunderstanding something. Thanks. Phyesalis (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- This article has some serious issues. Tkn20 has asked for a peer-review. I'm thinking we need a good history on the origins of the UN and it's role as a human rights body and the interplay of international law, human rights and the conflicts at national levels regarding treaties, conventions, and human rights abuses (where is any abuses content in the article?). Phyesalis (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about what you have asked. Human rights legislation has three "spheres". (My comments here are OR, but only for the purpose of a concise explanation.) (1) Global (UN Law) (2) Regional (EU and/or ICC Membership) and (3) National. Many nations only have 1&3. others 1,2,3. North Korea is nearly unique for only having 3 (not a UN member).
- Europeans have a distinct regional outlook that the entire world is 1,2,3, because the EU is this way. Americans see 1&3 as normal. Europeans have given up on national sovereignty and are often unaware that it persists and dominates international human rights law, except by an action of the UNSC. This has lead to unproductive communication failure, because what is actual international human rights law is misunderstood.
- International human rights progress would be significantly enhanced if those who favor a post-sovereign world were to realize that legally, this has yet to occur. Presently they believe that nations that insist upon national sovereignty are human rights offenders for this reason alone. Our article claims this. Raggz (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge Human rights education discussion
The discussion on merging Human rights education into this article is at Talk:Human rights education —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkn20 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Merger proposal
I think we should merge Human rights treaty bodies into this article as it just repeats the Human rights#Human rights treaties section Tkn20 (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
"Agreed. Raggz (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment/proposal - First, this article is 111 kb long before adding this material. It is an intro article to a vast subject, so length itself isn't so much an issue. I suggest that we take out all the early human rights info and create a History of human rights sub-article. Leave everything from early modern era in the article and copy it over at the spin-out. This would get the relevant info up to the top of the body of the article and create room for other sections, like ones that specifically enumerate and discuss the proposed/contested human rights. As for the merger, I think we should leave the list and get the info into the article in prose form. Thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- I like your creative spirit. I propose that we give you carte blanche to follow your creative idea, and then we tear into whatever we don't like. It is not possible for any committee to create anything worthwhile, individuals create. Committees are for reviewing creations. I say follow WP policy on this, Phyesalis, be bold. 5P
- "Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles. Although it should be aimed for, perfection is not required. Do not worry about messing up. All prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content." Raggz (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- The article now gives the false impression that there was no early history of human rights before the English Magna Carta. If you won't mention that there was such a thing, won't you at least link the new article ? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Good point, I am planning on going back and summarizing the removed material, I'm just doing it in stages. There is a link under the second section. I was trying to figure out where to place the Magna Carta info within the existing sections, but I think maybe at the end of the summary of the old info (and then move the link up). Thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Security Council
The article states that the Security Council is the final authority for the interpretation of the UN Charter. Having made mistakes in this already, I clearly don't fully understand the workings of the Security Council. I have read article 39 of the charter, and it doesn't to me say that the security council is the final authority of interpreting the charter - is there a clearer citation that explains this? I can't find anything.Tkn20 (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well put. All organs of the UN report to the Security Council. This is well enough known (as a source of frustration for many, including the deleted citation) that it may not often be stated. In regard to human rights and the UN, they are what the Security Council says that they are (or more commonly doesn't say).
- There are the Regional bodies and the ICC, these apply only to their members. The ICJ only applies with consent. ONLY the UNSC may impose upon sovereignty, the members have consented to this by treaty.
- From International Court of Justice. "The Court's workload is characterised by a wide range of judicial activity. Its main functions are to settle legal disputes submitted to it by member states and to give advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it by duly authorized international organs, agencies and the UN General Assembly. The ICJ has dealt with relatively few cases in its history, but there has clearly been an increased willingness to use the Court since the 1980s, especially among developing countries. The United States withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986, and so accepts the court's jurisdiction only on a case-to-case basis. Chapter XIV of the United Nations Charter authorizes the UN Security Council to enforce World Court rulings, but this is subject to the veto of the Permanent Five. Presently there are twelve cases on the World Court's docket."
- Chapter V of the United Nations Charter: Article 24 gives the Security Council "primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security" and requires the UNSC to act in accordance with the UN's purposes and principles. Article 25 requires members to "accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council," a mandate that does not apply with respect to the decisions of any other UN body, with the exception of the World Court's decisions once a country has accepted its jurisdiction. Raggz (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- There is more editing work to be done here. Would you like to to try this? I believe that there is consensus for revising the text to enhance accuracy. We might need more tweaking, but would you like to do this? Raggz (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I can have a go - it feels like we need a short section on the Security Council, in addition to some clarification about inter-agency relationships in other sections, explaining that:
- It can refer cases to the ICC
- It can take action to enforce rulings from the ICJ even if a country has not accepted its jurisdiction.
- It is the only body which, through its mandate to protect peace and security, can impose on nations sovereinty.
- Are these right? Is is the case (and this is for my understanding, not necessarily for inclusion) that there is a gap in the enforcement of human rights law because hypothetically the security council could not enforce a human right if that was likely to reduce peace and security? It sounds like a potential conflict of interest to me... Tkn20 (talk) 10:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly correct. The list is far more extensive. The UNSC interprets the UN Charter (Art. 39) and can in practice require any nation to do almost anything, and may order any sanction. This is an awesome level of power, and the five vetoes are necessary to limit the exercise of these powers to situations with true international consensus. I suggest dealing with what sovereignty means and why it is important.
- Are these right? Is is the case (and this is for my understanding, not necessarily for inclusion) that there is a gap in the enforcement of human rights law because hypothetically the security council could not enforce a human right if that was likely to reduce peace and security? It sounds like a potential conflict of interest to me... Tkn20 (talk) 10:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- The UN was designed for sovereign nations to cooperate.
- There is a competing modern view that we are entering a post-sovereignty era, and this is largely a European view due to European politics.
- There is no "gap" in UNSC authority, nor for UNSC jurisdiction, there is an intended requirement for international political consensus. The UNSC is not a democratic institution. It is an international political institution designed to make political decisions. The greatest weakness of the UNSC is the same as its greatest strength, without consensus it is impotent.
- Tyranny is the name for any government that lacks the consent of the governed, and because the UNSC is not a democratic institution it could easily implement tyranny. The inheirant need for consensus (vetoes) is all that stands between it and tyranny.
- The designers intended that it be difficult for the UNSC to enforce human rights, or anything else. The UNSC is designed so that international action to enforce human rights should be difficult, but not imposssible, as it was before the UN. If the UNSC governed with the consent of the governed, and if it was a democratic institution, it would not have been designed to require such a high degree of consensus. Raggz (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Defamation of religions
FROM Human Rights Council: "The Council has sparked concern from free speech and human rights groups over a proposed resolution, introduced by Pakistan, that would prevent "defamation of religions."[3] Human Rights Watch noted that passing a resolution concerned with religion, rather than individual freedoms, could result in a mandate to stifle freedom of expression and thought in countries around the world. Freedom House said that the resolution went against what the Human Rights Council should stand for, protecting human rights and freedom of speech, calling it “a perversion of the language and institutions hitherto used to protect human rights”. The resolution itself at first calls for freedom of religion, but then goes on to say that people must speak “with responsibility”, and freedoms of speech may be limited in areas regarding “public health and morals” or “respect for religions and beliefs”.[3] Of the Council's members from the Organization of the Islamic Conference, 16 of 17 voted for the resolution, along with China, Russia, and South Africa. The 14 members that voted against included all of the European Union, Japan, Ukraine and South Korea. Nine developing countries abstained from the vote."[3]
The world's newest human right to emerge is described above. It is interesting because it comes from outside of the West, a global view of human rights rather than a Western view. The UN has passed it, so by international law all UN members now need conform to this? How do we handle this? I will be editing in a section after everyone weighs in. Raggz (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The UN Security Council & human rights
Human rights violations occur when any state or non-state actor breaches any of the UDHR treaty or other international human rights or humanitarian law as determined by the UN Security Council or by a regional or national judiciary."
Someone modified the above (in italics), Why? The claim was that an actual violation of a UN human right may be documented without action by the UNSC. May we have an example? Otherwise I will revert. It is important to document exactly how human rights violations are determined. Allegations of course, do not require proof, but violations do require a reliable source that a violation actually occured. Raggz (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
my contribution to the peer review request...
In the last section, references are made to Article 39, which deals with peace and security. These are relevant to humanitarian law, not human rights law. They are still distinct topics, and we should not go so far as to conflate the two when there is still considerable academic debate on whether convergence of the two laws is a good thing or not.
As far as I understand, the ICJ has very rarely pronounced on human rights - I believe one case is Las Palmas and the other is one that it was either based on or came after it. I think that may be something to include.
Also missing in this largely legal treatment of the subject is an aside to reservation of HR treaties and general comment no 24 by the HR Committee.
Philosophical justifications for HR... surely more must exist? Or perhaps a fleshing out of what is already there would aid. It appears disjointed to me, despite my familiarity with the names of the writers.
Also, what about all the other UN agencies that 'aid' - ILO and WHO have been important in providing forums for debate and advancement, as well as assistance to nations which aids in realizing some of the progressive ESC rights.
For the universal jurisdiction bit: again this is mostly relevant to humanitarian law (intervention in an on-going conflict) or as stted there already, the holding to account of those who commit crimes against humanity etc. A discussion of how litigation in Spain aided Argentine courts in removing a 20-year blockade on the prosecution of those they deemed responsible for the atrocities. Can't remember the cases, but am sure it could be found online somewhere.
Who came up with the 'full belly thesis' btw? Hadn't heard of it before.
By the by, HR has been moving fast lately and I haven't kept up with it; it also isn't my subject of expertise, so feel free to challenge me on some parts. :) Sephui (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent points, I hope you help edit here. Article 39 is here because there needed to be some reliable source why the Human Rights Council cannot legislate HRs or send cases to the ICC. Raggz (talk) 09:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, across the board. Thank you. We had more info on the cultural/religious history of Human rights, but are in a bit of a transitional period, having moved much of it to History of human rights. Perhaps we could move the "concepts" section further up in the body and expand more of the philosophical aspects? Or maybe we should think about reintroducing some of the material from HoHR? Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phyesalis (talk • contribs) 20:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sephui seems to have a creative editing impulse and I suggest that we should encourage this impulse. Unless someone objects, I suggest that we have consensus for Sephui to do some revising and editing to improve the article.
Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles. Although it should be aimed for, perfection is not required. Do not worry about messing up. All prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content. Remember — whatever you write here will be preserved for posterity. 5p Raggz (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
CRITICISM
There are many reasons i am completely against the entire Human Rights Act, can we put that on the article, i'm sure lots of others agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.147.180 (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Needing Sources/References
I would be willing to create the following human rights articles: Human rights in Canada, Human Rights in Chile, Human rights in Italy, Human rights in Poland, and Human rights in South Africa. However, I need sources/references. If somebody could list some references or sources for me to use for the articles, I would gladly create the articles. Thanks! --Grrrlriot (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Merging
As I have said on the Human rights law talk page, the reason I'm suggesting a merge is that about a year ago when I was writing the law page, I looked at what should be put as the best page to put down for the law in this field: I noticed this Human rights page was far more developed than the Human rights law page, and so I made this the dominant link. Looking at it again, I see that nothing has developed on the HR law page. Thinking on it a bit, it makes sense. When you have a right, that's only anything meaningful when it's in law, so anything that would be on a Human rights law page, would necessarily have to be treated in a thorough and detailed way in any page on a Human rights page (and vice versa). It'd just be duplication. Given there is not much difference anyway between "law" and "rights" (some languages are accustomed to use the terms interchangeably, e.g. French and German) I think the HR law page should simply redirect to what is an excellent treatment and summary here. All in favour? Wikidea 23:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
p.s. I would note though, there is lots to do here as well, like proper referencing. But I think the structure is superb and those who have done the work (Tkn20 and Andy Marchbanks most recently) deserve full credit! Why not go for GA or FA status? Wikidea 23:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. I added the Human rights law content as a "Background" section under "International human rights law." Feel free to move this around, though. Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if it should remain like this or if more changes are needed. I just discovered there is a separate article International human rights law. I made Human rights law redirect to it. In human rights we essentially have a full-fledged article on International human rights law, so this needs to be resolved with the actual article International human rights law.
- Maybe the content on International human rights law from the human rights article should be put into the International human rights law article, and the current content of International human rights law could be used in a summary within the human rights article. Let me know what you think. Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I oppose the merge: I just cleaned up the international human rights law article, summary stile for instruments, and needs more info on customary law, jurisdiction etc. I think the international humanitarian law and international human rights law article are important ref. article (if worked on), and I think it is useful to have the international human rights law article separate from the human rights article. For a start the UDHR and regional instruments do not from international human rights law (treaty law), and there are many aspects of human rights which are not law. Apart from that it also makes practical sense, as the human rights article is already very long. --SasiSasi (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
UDI
Currently the article says:
- leading to the adoption of the United States Declaration of Independence ... established certain rights.
How can this be true? If it was then the war of independence would not have been necessary. It was the United States constitution that established certain rights within the United States not the unilateral declaration of independence which only declared them to be so. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
POV
There are a lot of phrases in this entire article that are completely out of line with WP:NPOV. I have no time to fix them now, but until fixed, the tag should remain. — BQZip01 — talk 07:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Which phrases? It's a long article, please be specific. Thanks! Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- I would start in the legal section. Associating the War on Terrorism with the "legal issues" section is troublesome and places undue anti-American weight on such issues. There are many phrases contained in that section alone which violate WP:NPOV and WP:V. Once those are changed, such issues can be addressed in above sections. — BQZip01 — talk 20:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose having that in the "see also" portion was undue weight. I moved the example into the section instead, and expanded on it. Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- What else? Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there anything else? If not, we should remove the tag. I'm sure in such a long article there are some things which aren't as objective and neutral as they could be, but on the whole the article is very neutral and almost all statements are well referenced. Tkn20 (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Seeing no further issues, I have removed the tag. Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Relationship between human rights and human security
Human rights and human security are two concepts that are closely related - with the human security school of thought owing much to human rights but the two now being somewhat related. The two concepts can also be easily confused. For these reasons, I feel it is worthwhile to have a section in this article that describes the relationship between the two and also points out their similarities and differences. Timschocker (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Would this be more appropriately placed in the Philosophies section? It would seem so to me as its dealing with a theoretical perspective.--Woland (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Human vs Civil rights
The intro currently states:
- "Examples of rights and freedoms which are often thought of as human rights include civil and political rights".
Surely, by definition, "human rights" are rights that apply to all humans everywhere, by virtue of being human. Whereas civil and political rights are rights that a state has granted to its citizen. Of course, there is a lot of overlap: something can be a human right and a civil right (if a state recognizes and protects a human right), a human right but not a civil right (if a state ignores or infringes it), or a civil right but not a human right (any right that a state grants its citizens that is not a universal human right). To claim, as the intro does, that civil rights are human rights is (IMO) to mix up two related but separate concepts. 212.159.79.130 (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Prisoners of war in Islam
I just removed this "see also" from the Geneva Conventions section, because it makes no mention of the Geneva Conventions. If someone thinks this topic should be included, please describe it in the text. Thanks! Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The second paragraph doesn't seem right with me.
Proponents of cultural relativism suggest that human rights are not all universal, and indeed conflict with some cultures and threaten their survival.
I really think that a statement like this needs to be sourced. Aside from this I don't actually think its true, at least in the anthropological/sociological use of the term. At the very least it needs to be verifiable.--Woland (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The spelling of "who's" should be changed to whose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phlyfisher (talk • contribs) 21:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Existence of intrinsic human rights
There is no mention in the entire article of philosophical debate on whether or not human rights exist at all, or are merely constructs by today's global society. This is very distinct from debates on their natures which all take the premise that human rights exist.
- Hey, please sign your posts. I think actually that the beginning of the Philosophies section deals with this. It may not state it explicitly but it is in there. As of now the article is really long so I don't think that a new section would be appropriate on this. Peace-out. --Woland (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
International human rights law
The section Human rights#International human rights law was more developed than the article International human rights law, so I recently added the content from this page into International human rights law. Would anyone object if I then shorten the section in this article to a few paragraphs? (To avoid repetition, shorten a long article, etc.) Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think it would be better to merge the articles. An article on human rights which does not have serious coverage of law is not complete. Human rights are largely a legal thing. Tkn20 (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- By a merge, do you mean making International human rights law redirect to Human rights#International human rights law? That would seem to contradict Wikipedia:Summary style. In any case, all of the content is now in International human rights law. Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This article is biased in favor of human rights
It has no criticism section and it makes no mention of Jeremy Bentham or David Hume, both of them very notable philosophers who criticize the notion of human rights. Can we get something like Inalienable_rights#Criticism here?--Goon Noot (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I would imagine that relatively few people have criticised the concept of human rights, but if you know something about these criticisms, why don't -you- make the section? It could be of interest, if properly sourced. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Criticism sections are generally frowned upon. I think it could be a good idea though to intersperse sourced criticisms in relevant areas of the article, so long as it is not original research.--Woland (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neither Bentham nor Hume were against human rights - they didn't acknowledge natural rights. The article perhaps doesn't make the difference clear enough, so maybe it's worth including some further explanation of this, and of Bentham and Hume's views, in the part on natural rights.Tkn20 (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Human rights law merger proposal
Human rights (whether you believe in natural rights or not) is in practice a legal concept. As such, it seems to me that International human rights law should be merged into this page. Everything covered on that page is duplicated on this one, and it would be inappropriate to remove any of the material on this page as it would leave an incomplete image of human rights. Do people agree?Tkn20 (talk) 09:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I would prefer that we use Wikipedia:Summary style and shorten the section in this article to only maybe a paragraph on each document. After all, this article is quite long. Also, be aware that there is a small bit of unique content in the International human rights law article. Michael 207.69.137.29 (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Michael. To add to that there is a also a distinction between what we call "human rights" and codified law dealing those rights, to some notable viewpoints anyway. The tag should be removed if there are no other dissenting views.--Woland (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
section NPOV
The section on reproductive rights describes a distinct point of view in language that assumes that it is true. It is without doubt that when the term “reproductive rights” is used, abortion is included; however, whether human rights includes abortion (or reproductive rights at all) is hotly debated.[1] Even the those who advocate the position that reproductive rights are legally binding[2] acknowledge that the mention of these rights in international treaties is implicit, not explicit; those documents that explicitly mention them do not have the status of treaties. There is at least one internationally-recognized human rights treaty that not only does not mention abortion by name, but implicitly rejects it.[3]
Please remember that WP:V and WP:NPOV are two different policies[4]; that the pro-reproductive-rights point of view is well-sourced does not prove that it is correct. In summary, the article should not directly state that reproductive rights are “a subset of human rights” but should mention the fact that this is controversial, at least among the general public, and should also include a neutral description of the contrary point of view.
footnotes
1 See, e.g., Erica Bélanger. "WHRnet Perspective". . . . abortion has long been a controversial issue in international discourse . . .
2 Cf. "WHRnet Issue – Sexual and Reproductive Rights". Although these rights are not specified as such in any of international legal instruments of human rights, they are implicit in all of them and are defined in a range of non-treaty human rights declarations and action platforms.
3 See article 4 of the "American Convention on Human Rights". Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
4 Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View (“it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it.”)
69.140.152.55 (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
proposed edit
As a first step towards fixing the problem that I see with the article's POV, I propose to move the "reproductive rights" section into the "currently debated rights" section. Then, I think that all that would remain to be done would be some tweaking of the wording. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree it should be moved out of the human rights theory section (no other distinct rights are in there, so this shouldn't be either). The difficulty is that some parts of reproductive rights are legally binding, and some aren't (for example, genital mutilation is outlawed by international law, abortion is legally allowed by many national laws). I would move it to the currently debated rights section, but it should be made clear which are legally a right (and what law makes it so), and which are just "debated".Tkn20 (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Paragraph for Deletion
"Many groups and movements have managed to achieve profound social changes over the course of the 20th century in the name of human rights. In Western Europe and North America, labour unions brought about laws granting workers the right to strike, establishing minimum work conditions and forbidding or regulating child labour. The women's rights movement succeeded in gaining for many women the right to vote. National liberation movements in many countries succeeded in driving out colonial powers. One of the most influential was Mahatma Gandhi's movement to free his native India from British rule. Movements by long-oppressed racial and religious minorities succeeded in many parts of the world, among them the civil rights movement, and more recent diverse identity politics movements, on behalf of women and minorities in the United States."
I am not aware that voting, prohibition of child labor, or identity politics sufficently fall under the label human rights, unless your a marxist. Voting is a political right and denying it to women is not a violation of human rights although it could be argued its a violation of civil rights as citizens of a nation, child labor is a practice that can but does not always violate human rights (remember when child labor existed in modern countries we had zero workplace safety regulations, and female labor was also considered exploitive) and as for identity politics this is not human rights, it promarily fascism. I disagree that anything in this covers human rights, its inclusion confuses the matter and role's a bunch of differant issues into one.
All humans have the right not to be tortured, but not all humans are entitled to vote, thats the right of humans that belong to a country or organization. 216.255.11.165 (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Article 21.3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) gives the right to universal suffrage (ie the right to vote). Article 23.4 gives the right to join a trade union. Both of these are therefore human rights enshrined in international law. The UDHR enshrines political, civil and social rights as human rights, and this definition is accepted by the United Nations and all its member states. Article 32 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states:
1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child's education, or to be harmful to the child's health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development.
2. States Parties shall take legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to ensure the implementation of the present article. To this end, and having regard to the relevant provisions of other international instruments, States Parties shall in particular: (a) Provide for a minimum age or minimum ages for admission to employment;
(b) Provide for appropriate regulation of the hours and conditions of employment;
(c) Provide for appropriate penalties or other sanctions to ensure the effective enforcement of the present article.
So in all countries except the US and Somalia, which have not ratified the convention, it is indeed a human right for children not work where such work would interfere with their education. In the US there are several other laws which make child labour illegal, so I would argue it is also a right there, if not necessarily a "human right".
Identity politics is relevant exactly because these rights are universal - they apply to all, and not only to those in power or those in the majority. I think you should learn more about the meaning of human rights, and of the term Marxist for that matter (I think a good many non-Marxists would strongly disagree with you), before making sweeping statements like those above.Tkn20 (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The Declaration of Human Rights is NOT international law. It is a declaration of the principles and beliefs held by the U.N. but does not constitute law, just as the U.S. Declaration of Independence does not constitute law.
Universal suffrage can not be a human right, as suffrage (or voting) is a civil right, to vote you have to be a citizen of a political entity. A non-citizen of a nation is not allowed to vote in that nations ellections despite being a human. That is practiced by every nation on earth. Furthermore not all citizens are permitted to vote in their nations ellections.
Prohibition of Child labor, is not the same as the right not to be forced to work when it would interfere with education. I never mentioned anything about trade unions so I don't know why you bring that up. The U.S. is not a signature to the convention on the rights of the child.
Identity politics are the exact opposite of human rights because they are universal, that means in theory it is immoral from a human rights basis to vote for a candidate because you identify with them on account of race, religion. In case you forgot Adolph Hitler, Mao Zedong, and Vladimir Lennin all supported identity politics, supporting the Aryan Race, or the Working Classes, on this basis alone.
Perhaps you should do yourself a favor and actually go back to school. 216.255.11.165 (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Your points being what they are, when some people speak of human rights they are not speaking of rights given to them by codified law. They are speaking of innate rights, many do include such things as the right to vote. This is what some people and organizations think and believe, even if you personally disagree with it. We want verifiability not truth remember and as such talk pages are not for this type of argument.--Woland (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- To clarify - the UDHR is part of customary international law. It is also enshrined in law by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). I should perhaps have stated this explicity above to explain my statements about law. I mentioned trade unions because they are mentioned in the paragraph you quote. I argued that identity politics is relevant to human rights because human rights are universal, not because identity politics are necessarily right. As with all politics, some identity politics is good, some is bad - and nobody agrees about which is which. As stated above, that is not what this article is about. I apologise if I offended anyone, I got a bit carried away with my objections to what was written - I hope it's not taken personally. Tkn20 (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
No offense taken.
However as Woland brought up verifiability not truth I would point out that none of this paragraph is sourced to provide such an arguement, and that when most of these issues were taking place, Womens Suffrage, Child Labor, ect . . . human rights covenants did not exist, nor did the U.N.
My primary problem is that this paragraph as included sounds like it is an editor's POV that these issues are human rights issues, yet it provides no sources, statements, ect . . . to back up what it says from mainstream sources. In other words it sounds like its someones opinion to include these topics under the human rights label, rather than it being clear. Any one of these topics could be disputed, as I have, that they are legitimate human rights.
On the other hand this section makes no mention of non-disputed human rights progress such as establishment of rule of law,the right not to be arbitraily imprisioned, the abolition of torture and human trafficking, ect . . . 216.255.11.165 (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- As it has come up a number of times, there are a number of NPOV issues with this article, including this specific section. I agree that these things definitely need to be sourced. There does seem to be a huge disparity of dissenting views as well. Personally, I'm not aware of reliable sources that argue against any of the specific human rights or even more generally; I would think that they do exist though and should be included (preferably not in a criticism section, they're just ghastly). I suppose though that the first step would be to try and source the statements already extant in the article and go from there. If a statement can't be sourced then of course they should be deleted. These kinds of articles are always a bit of a sticky wicket. --Woland (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it just be better to replace it with a paragrapgh documenting the progress of human rights abuses, paticularly ones that are not contraversial, especially in regard to the items I mentioned, such as human trafficking, torture, arbitrary imprisionment, rule of law, as there has been a great deal of progress in all of these areas. 216.255.11.165 (talk) 03:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
TOTALLY DISPUTED - Why Wikipedia has the "reputation" it does
So, the "Powers that be" at Wikipedia who pull out ALL THE STOPS to get what they want, locking pages, etc. consider THIS to be "cool" and acceptable:
- Current gay rights issues, such as same-sex marriage, gay adoption rights, and discrimination is considered by some[who?] to be a violation of human rights. Current campaigns, such as the human rights campaign, specifically focuses on the rights of the LGBT community.[4]
- With Several Added References. The WHO question has been answered.
- Current gay rights issues, such as same-sex marriage, gay adoption rights, and protection from discrimination are considered by some[5][6][7][8][9] to be human rights. Current campaigns, such as the Human Rights Campaign, specifically focus on the rights of the LGBT community.[10]
But not this:
- Current family rights issues, such as right to marry, right to decide on the number of children, right to educate children in agreement with parents' religious and social views, right to exist, to lawful independence, to privacy, to integrity and to stability, right to an income sufficient to feed the spouse and children, to live together, to a housing appropriate for the family size etc. is a subject of concern of the Catholics [11]
- WHY Not Approach it this way?
- Current gay rights issues, such as same-sex marriage, gay adoption rights, and protection from discrimination are considered to be human rights by some[12][13][14][15][16], while rejected by others[17]. Current campaigns, such as the Human Rights Campaign, specifically focus on the rights of the LGBT community.[18]
This is exactly, in a nutshell, why "Wikipedia" deserves the reputation it has. This dispute is not going to end before it is pasted ALL OVER THE WEB, and A LOT MORE PEOPLE HAVE COMMENTED ON IT, I promise you! Wikipedia admins uncompromising nature and rigid authoritarianism IS GOING TO BE EXPOSED THIS TIME!!! 70.105.19.50 (talk) 11:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Reverting back and forth is a drain on our resources. A more useful approach is to follow bold, revert, discuss cycle, through calm, dispassionate arguments. El_C 11:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- You have essentially misused your authority to enshrine your own fringe concept of what "human rights" are, this is serious business, and this is tantamount to A DECLARATION OF WAR on your part; so if it "drains your resources", I'm not shedding any tears! Prepare for much, much, much more, until this is resolved in a satisfactory compromise that is not totally one-sided! 70.105.19.50 (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- All of the issues in your paragraph are either 1) not generally considered issues or 2) already covered in other parts of the article. The short paragraph on gay rights is the only information on that particular issue. If you had read the article you would see that religion has already been covered. We don't need to have a section about each religion and what specific concerns they have, if we did we would be writing a book, not an article. --Woland (talk) 12:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- As a practicing Roman Catholic myself, I agree with Woland37 above. The concerns of Catholics as expressed above are neither particularly unique to Catholics, as several other groups hold the same opinion. While there is a valid question whether a group of that size, roughly 1/6 the world population, is separately notable enough for content relating to its official statements to be presented, there is more than enough room in other articles for such material to be included. I do however think that an article on Human rights and the Roman Catholic Church would be a good idea, given the number of comments the body has made over time regarding the subject. John Carter (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- All of the issues in your paragraph are either 1) not generally considered issues or 2) already covered in other parts of the article. The short paragraph on gay rights is the only information on that particular issue. If you had read the article you would see that religion has already been covered. We don't need to have a section about each religion and what specific concerns they have, if we did we would be writing a book, not an article. --Woland (talk) 12:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- You have essentially misused your authority to enshrine your own fringe concept of what "human rights" are, this is serious business, and this is tantamount to A DECLARATION OF WAR on your part; so if it "drains your resources", I'm not shedding any tears! Prepare for much, much, much more, until this is resolved in a satisfactory compromise that is not totally one-sided! 70.105.19.50 (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
European Court of Human Rights
This statement in the article is incorrect:
- the European Union has established the European Court of Human Rights which enforces European human rights law on a regional basis.
The European Union's courts (namely the European Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance) are in fact almost purely dedicated to regulation of trade under the various treaties and instruments that form EU law.
The European Court of Human Rights, on the other hand, is actually established as a body of the Council of Europe, a European body slightly older than the EU and with a broader membership (although a requirement of EU membership is to be a member of the Council). The bodies are independent of one another. The statement that the European Court of Human Rights is responsible for enforcing (or at least interpreting) human rights law (among Council members) is correct. It is the ultimate court of appeal in human rights cases, which must first be held in the local jurisdiction before progressing to the Court, which sits in Strasbourg. --82.18.14.143 (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Is this better? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. That looks okay to me. --82.18.14.143 (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Semi-Protection & Copyediting
While searching for articles in need of copyediting, I came across this article. Clean-up is obviously needed, but on the other hand this article clearly needs its semi-protected status. This is a high-importance article that sadly seems to be a target for vandalism. I am not familiar with the protocol in this situation. I say we remove this article's semi-protected status for at least a little while so we can do some clean-up. Agree/Disagree? 3Juno3 (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Why does the semi-protection have to be removed for the article to be copy-edited... by the way, the anti-copyright article is being GA reviewed and needs copyediting, if anybody is interested.--SasiSasi (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
semi-protection has been set on this article since June, this means new and unregistered user are blocked from editing this article, but established users (more than 50 edits?) are not. However indefinite protection is discouraged and it should be removed from this article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Burma
In the violations section Burma is shown as "Myanmar (Burma)", which is contrary to consensus on the article of the contrary. I suggest a change to simply "Burma"
I'd have edited it, but it is protected. RedBird486 (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Grammar
Shouldn't this edit be reverted?
"Established" rights or no?
Regarding this recent edit, I'd like to propose that in order to avoid the awkwardness of language in the newer version, but to reflect the concern behind this edit, that we use the phrase "established certain legal rights". That phrase is unambiguously true regardless of the intention behind the establishment of those rights (whether they were meant to codify pre-existing natural rights in law, or just to establish new rights in law only), and directs the discussion about legal rights vs natural rights to the appropriate articles without cluttering up this page. I'm going to make this edit now, but if it is controversial, here is my justification. -Pfhorrest (talk) 07:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- I understand your rationale for this, in terms of simplifying language, and the need for clarity; the wording I used in my edit was awkward. But I would counterargue that the U.S. Declaration of Independence didn't establish legal recognition of human/natural rights; it was only the declaration of legal separation of the U.S. states from the British Empire (unlike the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, which did codify rights). The Declaration of Independence used the rhetoric of human/natural rights to make the case for the separation of the colonies; to Jefferson, and to many of the Continental Congress, the rights Jefferson talked about were already immanent (self-evident) in humanity, nature, and law.
- -Katana0182 (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- That is a good point, and I actually paused to wonder about that when making my edit - "wait, the Declaration of Independence doesn't establish any laws at all, it just declares independence; why is this being spoken of in the same sentence as the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen?". I think perhaps if we change the DOI ref to the US Bill of Rights, it would all make more sense. -Pfhorrest (talk) 01:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Human Rights and Rights simpliciter
A while ago I posted to the talk page of WikiProject Human rights regarding combining the efforts of said project and some of my recent efforts on various theoretical articles about Rights simpliciter. It has received no response so far, so I figure this talk page is at least slightly more active, perhaps I should direct some of you over there. Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Human_rights#Scope_of_this_project.2C_and_organization with any ideas you may have on the matter. Thanks. -Pfhorrest (talk) 08:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Locke/Rousseau/Hobbes
Hobbes preceded Locke, who preceded Rousseau, so to argue that Rousseau's arguments influenced Locke is patently false. Would someone correct this, please? Locke died before Rousseau was born--he was a 17th century philosopher, and Rousseau was an 18th century philosopher. I can't believe no one else has fixed this.-J Jarvis
Still, no one has fixed this. It is a major mistake to say that Rousseau influenced Locke. -J Jarvis, 7 Nov 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.128.224 (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Criticism...much needed!
There is no space for criticism of human rights...and boy, does human rights need criticism. Purely, from my own left-wing informed opinion
Human rights - as somebody said: 'its avoiding the problem.' It's the white-gloss paint on the outside of the shit-house. It is Machevellian system to distract people away from the systematic violence within the system of liberal democracy, which everyday we are denied real equality. It is measure of control, rather than liberation; who wrote it? The rich and the powerful! Because as everyone should know liberty does not come from a few scraps of paper, it comes the ability to meet someone as a equal, through power (this includes violence) and wealth. i.e. All the humans rights in the world mean absolutely nothing if you are poor or weak. You cannot feed your family on human rights, neither can you house yourself, or get employment. It purely guarantees the right for one person to exploit people through pretending to ignore and shield all the hidden exploitation that happens in capitalist democracy.
It seems to me that this article has been written by typical sunny-day middle-class liberal who continues to speak of legal equality, whilst ignoring the fundamental inequality within a liberal democracy...I know this will have some of you coughing up your muesli...it actually the daily grind of being poor and being faced with unimaginable wealth and power that is the real problem of liberal democracies, and from all other exploitation and inequality comes from...I can tell you from the bottom of the social ladder, human rights mean [explitive deleted]...we could possibly see human rights as the mask that hides capitalism's grotesque face...
I do see some benefits of human rights if they are properly balanced with a degree socio-economic equality...but they worse than nothing in the unequal situation much of the liberal democracies find themselves in the early 21st century...
This is without getting on particular culture or bullshit-religious criticism of human rights... --Madkafir (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Criticism sections are discouraged, better to work different views with WP:RS into the text. See also WP:etiquette Zodon (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- in any case, you would need references and sources if you wanted to add any of the above to the article... your critique is not unique, there are more scholarly contributors who have argued along these lines (see also the "Asian value" debate around human rights). I think it would be helpful to have an additional article (someone has suggested an article called "religion and human rights" at some point). There is much to be said about the developing country and development economics perspective on human rights as well... maybe "human rights and development".--SasiSasi (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Edits contrasting reproductive and fetal rights
The topic of abortion deserves detailed treatment in the reproductive rights section, and a statement that deals with the contrast between abortion rights (a subset of reproductive rights) and fetal rights is warranted. These two concepts are currently battling each other at the UN, which has yet to recognize either. The fetal rights section is undeveloped and needs further treatment. I gave these issues certain treatment, but am being reverted by a POV editor who is asserting a certain editorial control in an unreasonable way. He has had an opportunity to address these issues on the talk page and has yet failed to do so.
One of the sections in question: "Because reproductive rights typically carry strong support for induced abortion," reproductive rights as promoted is an extremely controversial concept. In 2008, the Center for Reproductive Rights, along with ten other organizations, started lobbying the United Nations to include reproductive rights within its "peer review" of nations.[19] Because the group promotes free and unencumbered access to abortion services, it is being challenged by a coalition of pro-life groups, who promote the opposing concept of fetal rights (below) as a human right.[20]"-Zahd (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree. Spotfixer (talk) 05:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Not good enough. Give some actual rationale for reverting my changes and I will find some honest compromise with your views. So far, the only thing I can tell about what you think is that you have a POV, and are acting out based on that POV. -Zahd (talk) 05:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Spotfixer claimed on my talk: "Zahd is a repeat offender when it comes to pushing his POV on topics relating to human sexuality". The topic is human rights, not sexuality. More to the point, the issue at hand is abortion; I don't know what your concept of "human sexuality" is, but abortion isn't actually a sexy topic, if you understand what it really is. -Zahd (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Not good enough. Give some actual rationale for reverting my changes and I will find some honest compromise with your views. So far, the only thing I can tell about what you think is that you have a POV, and are acting out based on that POV. -Zahd (talk) 05:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
If you want to hold both ends of this conversation, you're welcome to do so, but I think you'll find that it will fail to be persuasive. Your user page bears the following testimony:
- "I am a human being who has recently devoted himself in discipleship to the Father of creation, and to a deeper understanding of and faith in his love and purpose for all people who abide in Him and his law of love."
I think this makes your motives quite plain. Spotfixer (talk) 05:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- So I'm a person who happens to know there is a God. Am I somehow barred from editing in NPOV terms an article that relates to issues that interest me? Certainly your motives are as plain as day, and I know this even though you have not yet stated anything on your user page. -Zahd (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- You're a person who "knows" many things that just aren't so, and you're editing this encyclopedia to reflect your biases. Unfortunately for you, there is a firm policy requiring neutrality, so people keep reverting your changes. People will keep doing this until you stop being so biased. Spotfixer (talk) 06:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Do you want to discuss the existence of God? It seems that you might benefit from understanding the opposing view a little more. You do realize that you are acting out a bias, and your accusations of my lacking neutrality don't carry water. Thusfar, most people who have reverted me have been acting out of a bias, and have been pretty plain in expressing that, just as you have been. Should I give up and say "you people aren't reasonable enough to discuss this with?"-Zahd (talk) 06:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- You seem to be under the mistaken impression that this is some sort of debate forum or your personal bully pulpit. I have no interest in hearing you try and fail to prove the existence of God, much less justify your medieval code of ethics. Instead, I suggest you learn more about this project so that you can effectively contribute to it, if only by learning to limit yourself to the subjects that you can be objective about. Have you tried BtVS? Spotfixer (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I see, you dont believe in God, but you like vampire stories. I can see now that I'm dealing with a younger being, and that you've got no concept yet of the value of faith in the divine, and how much more real that is than vampires, space invaders, and goblins. Certainly the religious point of view can at times be "medieval", but we are past that aren't we? I'm not being barbarous to you am I? As for objectivity, I have it in abundance. That you don't see it means you're not entirely as bright as you could be. -Zahd (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- The point you're missing here is that it doesn't matter what we believe, only what we can support with reliable sources. So long as you continue to miss this point, you will have your changes undone. Spotfixer (talk) 06:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- There is no issue of required sources. I can supply them, and have done so, albeit not for every line. I can do that, and then I imagine you would be satisfied. -Zahd (talk) 06:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, you are the source of these ideas, and while you may consider yourself reliable and neutral, you are simply mistaken. When you act on that mistake, we will correct you. Spotfixer (talk) 06:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- There is no issue of required sources. I can supply them, and have done so, albeit not for every line. I can do that, and then I imagine you would be satisfied. -Zahd (talk) 06:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- The point you're missing here is that it doesn't matter what we believe, only what we can support with reliable sources. So long as you continue to miss this point, you will have your changes undone. Spotfixer (talk) 06:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I see, you dont believe in God, but you like vampire stories. I can see now that I'm dealing with a younger being, and that you've got no concept yet of the value of faith in the divine, and how much more real that is than vampires, space invaders, and goblins. Certainly the religious point of view can at times be "medieval", but we are past that aren't we? I'm not being barbarous to you am I? As for objectivity, I have it in abundance. That you don't see it means you're not entirely as bright as you could be. -Zahd (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- You seem to be under the mistaken impression that this is some sort of debate forum or your personal bully pulpit. I have no interest in hearing you try and fail to prove the existence of God, much less justify your medieval code of ethics. Instead, I suggest you learn more about this project so that you can effectively contribute to it, if only by learning to limit yourself to the subjects that you can be objective about. Have you tried BtVS? Spotfixer (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Do you want to discuss the existence of God? It seems that you might benefit from understanding the opposing view a little more. You do realize that you are acting out a bias, and your accusations of my lacking neutrality don't carry water. Thusfar, most people who have reverted me have been acting out of a bias, and have been pretty plain in expressing that, just as you have been. Should I give up and say "you people aren't reasonable enough to discuss this with?"-Zahd (talk) 06:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- You're a person who "knows" many things that just aren't so, and you're editing this encyclopedia to reflect your biases. Unfortunately for you, there is a firm policy requiring neutrality, so people keep reverting your changes. People will keep doing this until you stop being so biased. Spotfixer (talk) 06:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- If I may make an observation as a neutral third party here:
- Spotfixer, though I suspect I have much more in common with your opinions than with Zahd's, as far as issues of religiosity and its relation to bias, we irreligious people must be careful not to be bigots ourselves. My point being, you're attacking the messenger, not the message, and that's not conductive to making any progress here. Please point out what of Zahd's statements you find to be unreliably sourced and NPOV, and then we can all discuss the merits of those criticisms, rather than just saying "you're religious and so everything you say is biased".
- Also please note that as you are the one reverting Zahd's edits without prior explanation, you will fall afoul of 3RR before he does: he made a good faith edit, and then you reverted it without discussing it here on the talk page, thus beginning this edit war. Either way, both sides of an edit war can be held responsible for it, no matter who started it.
- Footnote: per Wikipedia:Edit_war#Alternatives, Believing that an adversary is "wrong", "POV pushing" or "uncooperative" never excuses edit warring. (Emphasis mine). --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments on proposed edit
The proposed addition under reproductive rights is biased and dubious in the statement that "reproductive rights typically carry strong support for induced abortion." As far as I am aware most people do not support abortion. They may support its availability as a last resort, but that is not the same thing as propounding it. (As then president Clinton put it, "Abortion should be safe, legal and rare.") The remainder of the sentence "... as promoted" is unclear.
It is unclear how significant the rest of the proposed addition to reproductive rights is. It appears to be more of a news item/recentism. This article is about human rights in general, and is already larger than would be ideal. Coverage of individual topics here has to be kept focused and short. The potential conflict between abortion rights and fetal rights is already mentioned in the section on fetal rights. More detailed coverage of individual cases seems more appropriate in more specialized articles.
It is also problematic in that it overemphasizes contradiction between reproductive rights and fetal rights. Most of reproductive rights has nothing to do with fetal rights; the trade-off between rights of the mother and unborn child is only a small and relatively rare part of reproductive rights. People often focus on a controversy or one small aspect of something and think that characterizes the whole. This is frequently exploited by advocates in an area, trying to make it seem that the part they support or object to is all there is to something. (e.g. a few years ago if you mentioned the internet, pornography was the first thing people associated with it). We should keep the coverage clear and neutral. Reproductive rights are not just abortion (not even primarily abortion).
As far as the fetal rights section, I would disagree that it is undeveloped or needs further treatment. Again the coverage here is a summary, it should cover the main points as briefly as possible, without going into detail.
The first paragraph of your proposed changes (not listed above, but based on your recent edits) seems to use a lot more words to say the same thing as what the first 3 sentences of the current section says.
Again the suggested edit tends to confuse reproductive rights with abortion rights.
Removing implantation and adding ensoulment doesn't seem to clarify much. The claimed time of this appears to vary all the way from fertilization to quickening and probably beyond. At least we can get a fair idea of when implantation happens. Ensoulment is also less general (only applies to select religions/philosophies). The edit might also tend to misrepresent ensoulment as being only associated with pro-life/earlier times of ensoulment.
The rest of the proposed changes to the wording of the end of the paragraph make it less neutral ("void," "claimed right," "destroy," etc.) As with so many cases of conflicting rights, it is a trade-off, not an all or nothing.
So the existing wording is better than the proposed changes in that it is shorter, it covers the main points of the material, it is clearer, and it uses less polarizing language.
If anything I think the item on fetal rights might be improved by including the possibility that rights are not an all or nothing kind of thing. The presentation currently is too cut and dried - "rights start applying at time x," (the only question being when time x is), which ignores the gradual development view. Many human traits and abilities are not developed instantaneously (speech, bipedal stance, empathy, responsibility, ...). Maybe rights are similar - another example of how people have problems with "becomings." Many want something to be a or b (a particle or a wave), not some combination. Zodon (talk) 10:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Response to above
- Zodon wrote: "The proposed addition under reproductive rights is biased and dubious in the statement that "reproductive rights typically carry strong support for induced abortion." As far as I am aware most people do not support abortion. They may support its availability as a last resort, but that is not the same thing as propounding it.
- Its disingenuous to suggest that the two are different, unrelated, or aren't inextricable. Even if people say they don't support abortion, in supporting reproductive rights, they would in fact be doing that. Don't pretend to confuse support for the right and support for the act: they are, in the end, inextricable aren't they? Reproductive rights is a managed concept, meaning that there are organizations who not only propose and promote it, but they actually have the privilege of defining it for everybody. The concept of reproductive rights is vague on its surface (it contains a selection of several 'sub-rights'), and therefore it requires definition, which certain groups and coalitions of these groups do. The term in fact has little meaning outside of the definitions as proposed by proponents. They more often than not (and that may be understating it) demand that "safe abortion" be counted as woman's right, and as a reproductive right. Therefore it is valid to state that there is a connection, and that the promotion of reproductive rights almost always (unless they drop abortion from their definition) carries with it the promotion of "safe abortion." Its not just valid to state this, its in fact required that we state this.
- "It is unclear how significant the rest of the proposed addition to reproductive rights is. It appears to be more of a news item/recentism." The idea that something is less encyclopedic because it happens to be recent or current news is a strange one. In fact "recentism" appears to be a neologism you just coined. I'm not certain there is a policy here which says 'wikipedia articles should not contain up to date information that relates to the subject.' In fact I'm quite certain there is no such policy. I'm certain you are wrong in saying that a short description of the UN's dealings with both reproductive and fetal rights is not relevant. It most certainly is.
- "It is also problematic in that it overemphasizes contradiction between reproductive rights and fetal rights." The two concepts, as most often stated, are directly opposed. If the fetus has human rights, the mother (for lack of a better term) does not have a "reproductive right" to destroy the fetus, because it is protected. Likewise, if a mother (FLOABT) has the right to destroy a fetus, the fetus cannot have a right to life because that would contradict. This is so plain and simple, I find it to be extremely disingenuous that you would claim that these are not contradictory.
- "Most of reproductive rights has nothing to do with fetal rights; the trade-off between rights of the mother and unborn child is only a small and relatively rare part of reproductive rights." This is ridiculous. The "rare" "trade-off" of fetal rights in favor of mother's rights means the fetus' death! In certain cases; about 850K a year in the U.S. alone. Most "reproductive rights" deal with other matters, true. (I think those other rights are marvelous. Access to birth control, no forced sterilizations, etc. are excellent ideas). But the part that is relevant to the legal status of the fetus is serious, in that it not only claims such life is not as valid, but says that a process that destroys such life is a "right" for the individual woman. The individual fetus disagrees, or so I'm told.
- "As far as the fetal rights section, I would disagree that it is undeveloped or needs further treatment." I can agree to this, provided the fetal rights section gets a rewrite. For one, it begins with a statement about its (claimed) inherent controversy. The writers of the reproductive rights section go out of their way to avoid stating that those claimed rights are even the least bit controversial; they don't even mention any controversy, and barely mention abortion. So, in addition to finding your point of view to be disingenuous and ridiculous, I also have to call it hypocritical. -Zahd (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Zodon wrote "Removing implantation and adding ensoulment doesn't seem to clarify much. The claimed time of this appears to vary all the way from fertilization to quickening and probably beyond." At the core of the human being concept, as far as the pro-life view is concerned, is the soul, not the biology of the being. There are problems with both side's claimed definitions. For example we can point out that most fertilized eggs appear to be destroyed naturally. This makes the life at conception concept an arbitrary one, and one unrelated to the concept of the soul. On the other hand, the idea that ensoulment (and therefore humanity) cannot happen until certain arbitrary biological things happen (birth, movement, pain, etc.) is likewise arbitrary and even a bit ludicrous. Both sides have attempted to make a designation; even Augustine proclaimed the silly notion that males and females were ensouled at different gestational ages. Of course all of this belongs at the abortion article, but it nevertheless rests on the concept of ensoulment, not on the arbitrary claims on both sides that try to pinpoint a date of such ensoulment. -Zahd (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Of course its not. We aren't getting into the detail of the abortion debate here. We simply have to reference the abortion debate as the main sticking point in two (count them) distinct concepts of human rights, which in turn makes them almost diametrically opposed. (Unless RR drops abortion from its list of claimed rights, which its unlikely to do.) -Zahd (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- maybe I am not very patient, but nothing of what you wrote above can make it in the article, because it is not referenced. Wikipedia articles or their talk pages are not the place for original research or philosophical debates, there are other more appropriate forums for this. I am all for a well referenced short section on how fetal rights relate to human rights.--SasiSasi (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- It was not my intention to debate any of these topics themselves, just to point out some of the areas that could be improved about the proposed edit.
- I said that the significance of the item was unclear/not established, not that it was not significant (i.e. it would be improved by providing information/sources establishing its significance). See also Wikipedia:Recentism.
- My paragraph about "... contradiction between reproductive rights and fetal rights" might be more clearly stated thusly: Since most of the rights claimed as reproductive rights tend to prevent abortion (right to contraception, sex education, reproductive healthcare, etc.), or have little to do with fetal rights (e.g., MGM), it seems clearer to use a more specific term to contrast with fetal rights, e.g., abortion rights.
Fetal rights cleanup
The section cites absolutely no sources. There is no point in arguing about the wording, if there are no sources. The section should not be like this in this article in any case. Its one of the few sections that has no references and drags down the overall quality of the article. Without sources this is purely a dispute between what various editors think fetal rights are. Which it should not be. The section should be based on reliable sources. Not editor opinion. Unless sources are added I think the section should be removed. Its pretty lazy editing to write a section without referencing any sources. Also, I agree with Zodon that this should not be about abortion. There is an abortion article! We need to find reliable sources that discuss the relationship between fetal and human rights, otherwise there is no need for this section.—SasiSasi (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- SasiSasi wrote: "Also, I agree with Zodon that this should not be about abortion. There is an abortion article!" Surely the claimed concept of fetal rights requires treatment, not to mention detail about its relation to other claimed human rights. I don't see how anyone could disagree with this. As far as needing some sources, I agree. The talk page should be fine as a scratchpad. -Zahd (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Making link to working space for RR and FR sections. Join in to make changes: Human rights/Fetal, reproductive sections -Zahd (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- That link is now at Talk:Human rights/temp. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- In the moment the fetal right section is purely about pro-choice and pro-live arguments, it does not make the link between fetal rights and human rights. The section should make the link, otherwise it has no place in this article, because this article is about human rights. Sometimes I get the impression you two are more interested in leaving massive messages on talk pages than contributing to articles.
- and again, we need sources, otherwise this section should be removed. --SasiSasi (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- The draft section should not be an article Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed_uses, it should be in talk: (or user:) namespace. Therefor moved it to talk:Human rights/temp. The discussion page content moved to below. Zodon (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Discussion of Human rights/temp - Fetal, reproductive sections
Comment
This is an interesting article. I suggest the quote at the beginning be moved more into the body of the article. I also wanted to point out, as I did in an edit summary, that parts of the article seem to be more essay and argument oriented than encyclopedic. But I see work is being done on the article and sourcse are being added so I withold final judgement. It's an interesting topic, so give me a heads up when it's finished so I can have a look. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- If you want to give Zahd more rope to hang himself, I certainly won't interfere. I'm leaving your rollback in place and giving him a chance to make this neutral and cited. However, unless he succeeds, I'm not letting him insert any of this text in the main article. And, in my estimation, he is not likely to succeed. Spotfixer (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- I will remove the fetal rights section, as it is it does not link to human rights and has no sources... once Zahd has established a referenced section that is relevant to this particular article it can be added again, but the way the section is in the moment it cants stay.--SasiSasi (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- That was a little fast. Fetal rights are clearly a contentious issue in terms of Human Rights with varying levels of recognition by states and international bodies. Just check out article 4 of The OAS's Inter-American Commission on Human Rights - Schrandit (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Future generations
I find it unclear what the point of the section on future generations is. It is under currently debated rights, but doesn't seem to state what debate is involved. The content seems to fall within the realm of environmental rights (section preceding). Is it supposed to be a subsection of that? (The lead from the environmental rights section would provide it with some context, which it currently lacks - setting it as trade-off of the rights of now vs. rights of then.) Zodon (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Why dont you inform yourself by reading the declaration instead of assuming that the environment section provides a lead. I have added some more info on what issues are covered in the declaration. I have to see if I find a secondary source summarising the state of the current debate.--SasiSasi (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think it not unreasonable to expect this article to stand on its own (i.e. the article should provide enough information that one isn't required to read the declaration in order to understand what is said here.) I would expect that enough of it was reproduced here for me to understand what is said here.
- Reading it I might not conclude the same thing about what is debated as others do. (To whit my guess at what the debate might be about, which appears to not be what you had in mind.)
- I did not assume that it was a subsection of the environment section, merely observed that that appeared to be one possibility - either that the heading was inadvertently put at the wrong level, or as one way of providing the missing information for the section. Zodon (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- I was commenting on you implementing changes to the article without reading the related content, purely based on your assumptions.--SasiSasi (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Where in the fetal rights subsection (which is the one I moved), or in its references, does it indicate that it relates to resource scarcity? Water rights definitely are (per background sections), so are environmental rights. The future generations section talks about resource scarcity issues - like war, existence of human environment, existence of humankind. But I left future generations in the middle so it could be grouped in either direction.
- If the future generations item doesn't relate to resource scarcity, then that reinforces my observation that the item should make it clear what the controversy/controversies are. Zodon (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Discussion of Sources in Intro?
I was wondering if we could get some discussion here of the sources that were just added by a new account to the intro, to support some kind of assertions about human rights not being a "scientifically proven theory". (of course it's not science but philosophy; once again we seem to be seeing so-called "science" intrude itself onto all arenas of thought.) Can we find out what these sources are saying and look at it? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think this edit includes the sources in question.
- (I don't think the edit makes it clear how this relates to the various views expressed in the article. If it is introducing a new view, that should first be done in the body of the article, with possible summary in the lead. My main reason for responding was to include a link to the dif/references in question so this discussion would be clearer in the archive. If I got the wrong dif, please correct.) Zodon (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- The current wording is extremely bias, because it makes out that humans rights, what Til Eulenspiegel rightly calls a philosophy, is instead "fact", "proven", "cast in stone" as a proven scientific theory would be. There is no scientific evidence to suggest that there are basic rights to which all humans are entitled to and clearly not every philosophy/theory agrees with this theory.
- Human rights is a subjective theory competing amongst other theories, not a matter of fact. It should be pesented correctly with NPOV wording. For example in the real world; Robert Mugabe would seem to disgree that all humans are born with rights and freedoms which they are entitled to. As would Iran with its execution of homosexuals. Just because human rights is attractive to some, does not mean it is a scientific fact. Wikipedia cannot take "sides", just become some editors find one theory more attractive - this would breach balance/NPOV. The references which I inserted into the article, verify that human rights is deemed a theory by scholars, rather than some sort of mystical power.
- Also with the term "examples of rights and freedoms which have come to be commonly thought", this is weasel wording. Commonly thought by who? This presents a bias assertion of western liberal democracies post 1945. Not an eternal human truth or cross-cultural, cross-political, cross-philosophical matter of fact that every human agrees on. On my hand there are four fingers and a thumb; this is a factual non-subjective statement that nobody on earth can deny. "Human rights refers to the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled" is not, it is an assertion, an opinion, a political stance. Make it clear. - William Bawl (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Spotfixer, "fringe" is the entire history of human kind prior to 1946? This would seem to be grave ignorance on your part. "Fringe" are the cultures, philosophies, religions, political ideologies which do not happen share the same values as the ones currently used by western liberal democracies? While the philosophy of human rights recently has prevelence, it is by no means a fixed or eternal "magical power", which is guarenteed to last for ever, across the entire human race and shouldn't be presented that way in the intro. Every other political concept outside of western liberal democracies in the 20th century has contradicted this theory. Even as we speak, western liberal democracies are fighting for their "human right" centric philosophy, against ones that contradict it; baath party philosophy & also militant jihad. - William Bawl (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding, William. I agree that this is a philosophical concept, and would also say, what little there is that "scientific facts" might be able to inform us regarding human rights, would fall under "sociology". I'd also add that you are correct in that it is not a "constant" that has been recognised throughout all eras of history and in all countries, but rather one that has more or less been a developing concept. That's true of most philosophy and should be obvious - so I'm not sure we need to spell it out in the lead. My edit tried to highlight its developing nature, by changing the phrasing to say it has "come to be" thought of, instead of "is" thought of ... and the article gives details on the history of how the concepts were developed. "Commonly" also seems justified to me, since the basic concept of "human rights" has for some time enjoyed something like a consensus among the United Nations signatories, including even the two countries you just named. There is of course no end to lots of different povs about how much various countries pay "lip service" to human rights, and how much they really do protect them. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- While I don't really see a POV problem with the lede as it is (it states a definition of what "human rights" means; it doesn't assert that there are such things or what they are), perhaps it would be good to add a short sentence after the quote in the lede, mentioning that there is debate both over what the correct set of human rights is (e.g. classical liberals / libertarians contest many of the purported social, economic and cultural rights), and in some cases over whether there really is a universal set of human rights at all (e.g. the "Asian values" debate and other relativism). Perhaps include an anchor link to the criticism section further down the page. Full disclosure: I am a universalist, so I'm happy for my sake with the lede as it is, but I try hard to acknowledge those I disagree with here on Wikipedia. --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- The proposed edit (diff above) made the lead more wordy, less clear and more POV. Human rights are not an assertion that there are a universal set of basic rights (as stated by the edit). That would be something like an assertion of a universalist view of human rights. Somebody who believes that the set of such rights is empty can still talk about the set.
- The article is large enough that there could be more material in the lead (WP:LEAD). It should clearly relate to the contents of the article, for instance as Pfhorrest suggests. Zodon (talk) 09:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Magna carta
What similar documents restriction the power of kings and establishing rights are more notable in the English language Wikipedia? If don't think Magna Carta appropriate here, what image would suggest to replace it? Zodon (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- So you've admitted ignorance of other documents, yet your default position is to revert edits by a fellow Wikipedian? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith
- FYI, if we include the Anglo-Norman-French Magna Carta at the very top of an article on HUMAN RIGHTS, we may as well include the restriction on Irish kings to create new laws under the Brehon Laws, or the Joyous Entry of 1356 (Duchy of Brabant), the ancient Roman Fideicommissum, or the Concordat of Worms (1122), or mention the Polish parliaments dating from 1182, or documents from the Icelandic parliament, dating from 930? or why not mention the dikasteria of ancient Athens? And I'm sure you realize the Roman Republic had a Constitution, don't you?
- surely the irony of including of a photo of a document that makes crude remarks against Jews at the very top of an article on Human Rights isn't lost on you?
- The Magna Carta was a watershed moment for the development of English Constitutional Law, but it is hardly of any significance with relation to Human Rights. It's a document that restricts the rights of a position (King of England) who before and after the Charter was far more of a despot and abuser of "Human Rights" than countless other earlier and contemporary rulers and governments around the world. - Ledenierhomme (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- The question was which documents those objecting to the Magna Carta in this context felt were more notable. Which of the documents that you mention do you consider more notable/worth inclusion than the Magna Carta? (With source/reason, of course).
- If Magna Carta is irrelevant in this context, why did Eleanor Rosevelt liken the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to it? Zodon (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Your question is wide of the mark. The Magna Carta does not explicitly deal with human rights, so the inclusion of a photo of it at the very beginning of the article is ludicrous. Roosevelt was talking about the UN Declaration as analogous to the Carta as a potentially legally-binding document for authorities. There is no question of relevance there. I can't imagine why you are so determined to see a picture of the Magna Carta at the top of this article when you are typically busy editing on such closely related topics as Anal Cancer and Female Condoms - Ledenierhomme (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Since you've been citing wikipolicy, let me remind you of WP:CIVIL. You're coming awfully close to personal attacks here.
- Also, Zodon appears to be following WP:BRD properly here. You made a bold edit - which is good, within policy - he disagreed and reverted it, and now we're discussing it. This is the way things are supposed to go. He also seems to be open to alternative suggestions and not particularly stuck on the Magna Carta itself, just defending it's relevance. But I doubt anyone here would object to replacing the Magna Carta image with something more relevant; it's just deleting content without a better substitute that's contentious, as far as I can tell. So just pick a replacement image and lets go with that. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- If an image is appropriate it is the "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen" that already exists below, the Magna Carta is nowhere near relevant enough to be the no 1 image associated with Human Rights. - Ledenierhomme (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Statement Essential Human Rights
This section was added recently - it lacks source citations so not sure what to do with it. If sources can be provided and it is not undue weight, a briefer mention might be in order (put the main thing in the article on the American Law Institute?). (This article too long already.) Zodon (talk) 08:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
[Section moved to talk]
Statement of Essential Human Rights
In the midst of World War II, the American Law Institute convened a committee in 1941 to study the international community's position regarding human rights law. The committee's charge was to develop a Statement of Essential Human Rights, whose goal was "to define the indispensable human rights in terms that would be acceptable to men of good will in all nations." William Draper Lewis, then acting director of the American Law Institute, was chair of the committee and the project's most outspoken advocate, touring the world to deliver speeches on the importance of a code of basic human rights. International in scope and in participation, the committee included representatives from Britain, Canada, China, France, pre-Nazi Germany, Italy, India, Latin America, Poland, Soviet Russia, Spain, and Syria.
A version of the Statement of Essential Human Rights was finalized in 1945. However, the document was not formally adopted by the American Law Institute because of disputes over some of the language in the document, particularly regarding the economic rights of individuals. However, the document proved to be lasting influence on the human rights movement that followed, especially in the drafting of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, promulgated in 1948.
[End of section moved to talk]
- I'm the one who added this content. I agree that given the overall length and structure of the article, this information doesn't warrant its own section. However, I'm at a loss as to where else to put it. I think it deserves to be on this page, though, and not just ALI's page, because it is an important precursor to the UN's Human Rights Charter. I'd appreciate some advice.Bll arch (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Fundamental Right
Fundamental right redirects here. Fundamental right is not synonymous with human rights. For instance, The United States recognizes Free Speech as a fundamental right. The International Copyright Treaty, The Berne Convention, permits a copyright holder to "object to any distortion, mutilation, or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation," whereas in the United States, you can distort, smear, and parody as much as you want under the freedom of speech, a fundamental right. The right to smear Christian Bale's tirade is fundamental in this country, whereas it is not in others. It is not a human right to smear Christian Bale. I don't know who created the redirect, but the English speaking world is a little dumber because of it. This is why there is a barrier to practicing law in the United States called the bar exam. 76.99.55.47 (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Claims of LGBT human rights
I've modified the first paragraph to be accurate and NPOV. First, I made it clear that these are claims of human rights. Ultimately, from an international standpoint, only official state actions can declare human rights, either through treaty, custom, or prolific existence of general principles recognized by the various states. NGOs saying something is a human right, does not make it so. And the dispute in the UN referenced in the second paragraph makes it clear that there is not a customary recognition. Second, along these lines I also divided the first sentence so that it mentioned the position of religious groups, a nice generic term as a number of those sources seemed to have been from subsets of religions, and kept all but the last reference in that first sentence. I then made a second sentence referencing Canadian law using the last reference. I am relying, heavily, upon a brief read of the wiki article the link leads to and assuming it's correct. Anyone who knows otherwise, please edit as needed.
For now I left the Lawrence v Texas brief before the US Supreme Court in, but it should ultimately be removed as a primary, advocative source. However, it does appear to contain citations that might be worthwhile references themselves. Those who have time, please read through the link. The reference, however is particularly misleading as it leaves out the actual decision of the court, by majority, relied upon privacy rights, not equal protection. Only one concurring opinion, that was not needed for a majority supported an equal protection basis. So that reference should be removed within the month. Again, I'm basing this on a review of the wikiarticle on that case, though it was not so brief as the my review of the article on the Canadian law and is consistent with what experience I've had in those justices' opinions.
So things I see that need to be done at this time:
- Pull reliable sources from the Lawrence v. Texas appellate brief link and then remove the reference to the brief itself
- Add in more regarding actual state practice, ie., the actual decision in Lawrence v. Texas. IMHO (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- "only official state actions can declare human rights"? That's a strongly POV position. A lot of folks subscribe to a natural rights philosophy which takes the postion that rights exist not only without state action, but in the face of state action to the contrary; and that any refusal of such rights delegitimates the state doing so. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Orangemike. In many philosophies, any assertion of human rights is an assertion by somebody. (Whether it is a government, an NGO, or a person.)
- Obviously there are many people aside from religious organizations asserting that LGBT rights are human rights. If you think more general references are needed thats fine, but requesting additional references seems a more balanced approach than to imply that this is just a religious issue. Zodon (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Both Orangemike and Zodon. I believe you misunderstand my statement quoted by Orangemike, but at any rate you are incorrect that it is POV, or at least inappropriately so. That is the stance of international law. It is states that create international law, of which human rights are a part. While anyone can assert a philosophical position, that's not helpful. The article is dealing with human rights both as a legal basis and a philosophical basis, and most of the material is dedicated to the former. The disputed material follows legal discussion and goes into Canadian law and UN consideration. Just giving various organizations', currently sub-cultures within various religions it appears, and leaving them there as determinative of law is POV and outright deceptive. Only listing various religious groups, and really subsets of unclear size within such groups, in citations and not qualifying the statement is also deceptive.
- Now I agree that with the point that a right can exist without a particular state's action or even contrary to state practice, legally as well as philosophically. As I put it, the rule is in the breach. But law does look at practice amongst the general community of states. Ignoring that point is POV. And slipping in an appellate brief, the position of which regarding equal protection (from the USA standpoint) as a source, and then COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY ignoring the majority opinion of the tribunal who heard the arguments and ruled contrary to the arguments on the appellate brief is, again, POV and deceptive.
- I do appreciate that other than subsets of religious groups advocate the existence of rights premised upon, or without regard to, sexual orientation and transexual issues, and that being rights other than life, liberty, due process shared. I'm also aware that there are, from and NPOV, strong positions, and rule of law, indicating that what is argued for is actually privileges, not rights. Right now, the latter is not reflected at all, and the former is provided as a general opinion without qualification. Even with broadening the sources, the main push for the assertions in the article are special interest groups and that should be reflected anyway. Until broader sources are provided, the sentence should remain qualified. Even with broader sources, there should be clear, if not entirely distinct groups, that should be pointed out anyway. IMHO (talk) 07:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- PS to the above. I wish to be particular about any disputed human rights because of the fact that human rights are fundamental and that treating any claimed right on equal ground with established human rights has a tendency to weaken true human rights, particulary when people act presumptively. Joking about one's human right to beer on a Saturday night can be amusing. Actual diminishment of one's view of the right (of others) to be free from torture compared to beer on a Saturday night, is not. IMHO (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- The argument that states or international law creates human rights is circular. While international law may claim to regulate what is/is not human rights, it appears dubious that proponents of natural rights would accept that claim. (Whether it is the stance of international law that human rights are legal rights and not natural rights is also not clear.)
- Since the rights involved appear to be things that have been widely claimed as human rights (life, freedom from violence, right to family life, etc.), and just extending/reaffirming that applies to people regardless of sexual orientation, etc. - hard to see how this is claiming privileges rather than rights.
- While more references might be apropos, the opinion that human rights do/should not depend on gender or sexual preference is widely enough held that trying to enumerate/characterize all the supporting groups is probably not helpful. Characterizing the support as just religious is more misleading than leaving it general. Zodon (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- An example of LGBT right being explicitly recognised is the South African Bill of Rights. Human rights originate from egalitarianism and hence make the assumption that all humans are equal (not everybody agrees with that). Group rights have emerged based on the argument that some group specific rights are necessary for the realisation of equality. "...where the group is regarded as being in a situation such that it needs special protective rights if its members are to enjoy human rights on terms equal with the majority of the population." In legal terms only nation states can create human rights law, that’s why wikipedia has a human rights article, as well as an human rights law article (which needs work).--SasiSasi (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Source issues/removal
I'm looking at couple of sources right now, but figured a single section, with subsections identifying where the source is/was located would help. Resigned as forgot to log in IMHO (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Lead
The very first sentence had a footnote to a publishing company and year of publication. No source title or author. Such sources are meaningless and do not provide any support. Resigned as forgot to log in IMHO (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- And thank you to Zodon for pointing out the bibliography to my blind eyes. IMHO (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
History
- Firestone (1999) p. 118. I left that in for now, on the offchance that Firestone is an author's and it may be useful to find the actual source, but there is no Firestone in the bibliography, or anywhere else in the article (according to the find function of my broswer). IMHO (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
LGBT rights
Removed Conservative Rabbis Allow Ordained Gays, Same-Sex Unions article at [[1]] as source for arguments for LGBT rights as human rights. The article discussed a sect of Judaism permitting same sex marriage and the ordination of homosexual rabbis within the religion. There is no mention of human rights, and, as reported it is an individual rabbi's choice to allow the marriage (so not really a right). Not every allowance to an LGBT issue means it was recognized as a right, and this article is a far cry from it. That's leaving alone the OR interpretation needed to stretch that far anyway. Resigned as forgot to log in IMHO (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Abortion Rights v. Fetal Rights = A Human Rights Controversy
I'm curious where people are completing and then integrating: Talk:Human_rights/temp into the main article.
I feel sad and frustrated when it seems that we can't get two sides to be open to the legitimacy of each others perspectives.
In the last two paragraphs someone has added [citation needed] tags to almost every paragraph sentence. And there seems to be some debate over whether there is human rights tension between Reproductive Rights vs. Fetal Rights or Abortion Rights vs. Fetal Rights. I thought I could help out be collecting here citations that involve this issue (I've included some relevant quotes from the cited sources):
- World Briefing | Europe: Fetal Rights A National Issue
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/09/world/world-briefing-europe-fetal-rights-a-national-issue.html
"The European Court of Human Rights rejected an appeal to give full human rights to a fetus, saying legal rights of the unborn must be determined on the national level."
- Abortion on Demand
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,903771,00.html
"Though acknowledging that there are wide differences of opinion about the moment when human existence begins..."
"Some biologists believe that humanity begins at conception because the fertilized egg cell contains human DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). Manhattan Lawyer Cyril Means Jr., among others, finds this line of reasoning unconvincing: each sperm and egg also contain DNA, yet hardly anyone would argue, even metaphysically, that spermatozoa and ova possess the value of human beings."
- The War Over Fetal Rights By Debra Rosenberg, Newsweek
http://newsmine.org/content.php?ol=nature-health/society/war-over-fetal-rights.txt
"Along with forcing Americans into more-nuanced stances, the new science is also fanning longstanding, divisive political feuds--over the legality and morality of ending a pregnancy, about the rights of a woman versus the rights of an embryo or fetus, and, ultimately, over the meaning of human life."
- A Question of Fetal Rights, or Politics?
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/may/28/news/mn-3539?s=g&n=n&m=Broad&rd
'"We want to protect the fetus as a human being with certain rights and dignities, while still protecting the right of the mother to make decisions about her body," explained Blake Gunderson, a Fresno County prosecutor who recently won a double murder conviction against a woman who dismembered a pregnant mother.
Gunderson frames the issue this way: "Does a fetus deserve any less protection than a grown adult, just because it hasn't been born yet?"
Unborn victim laws deeply disturb many abortion rights activists because they enshrine into law the concept of fetus as person. Critics see that as a brash first step toward criminalizing abortion.
"The law cannot hold both that a pregnant woman is two persons and, at the same time, allow her to have an abortion," said Heather Boonstra, senior public policy associate at the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit corporation for reproductive research, policy analysis and public education.
The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act "is on a collision course with Roe vs. Wade," agreed Monica Hobbs, legislative counsel for the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy. "If it becomes law, we would have the debate about where life begins in federal courthouses all across the country."'
- When is an Abortion not an Abortion?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1170368,00.html
"The strategy was to chip away at Roe to try to shrink it, change its shape, and over time promote a "culture of life" that would view abortion less as a right than a tragedy, perhaps eventually a crime. That gradual approach requires a certain level of hypocrisy—or at least a willing suspension of moral belief—because if you truly equate abortion with murder, it's hard to settle for slowing it down rather than stopping it altogether, right away: the Purist approach."
- Fetal Rights: what happened to the woman?
http://www.brynmawr.edu/Alumnae/bulletin/nv06/FetalRights.shtml
- What's wrong with fetal rights?
http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/fetalrights/16530res19960731.html
'the ACLU opposes the creation of theories of "fetal rights."'
- The Issue of Fetal Rights in Canada
http://www.canadiancrc.com/Newspaper_Articles/Issue_Fetal_Rights_Canada_Wintermans_25NOV05.aspx
- Court Rejects use of European Human Rights Law to Establish Fetal Rights
- Does a Fetus Have Rights?
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/p/fetus_rights.htm
"The only treaty that specifically grants rights to fetuses is the American Convention on Human Rights of 1969, signed by 24 Latin American countries, which states that human beings have rights beginning at the moment of conception. The United States is not a signatory to this treaty. The treaty does not require that signatories ban abortion, according to the most recent binding interpretation."
"The conundrum posed by abortion rests in the tension between a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy and the potential rights of the potential human being."
"Most philosophies of natural rights would hold that fetuses have rights when they become sentient or self-aware, which presumes a neurophysiological definition of personhood. Self-awareness as we generally understand it would require substantial neocortical development, which seems to occur at or near week 23. In the premodern era, self-awareness was most often presumed to occur at quickening, which generally takes place around the 20th week of pregnancy."
- Roe, 35 years later
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/01/22/roe_v_wade_anniversary/
'Gloria Feldt: "It's time to establish reproductive rights in a human and civil rights framework"'
- Did you just call me a zygote?
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2008/09/16/egg_person/index.html
'But alas, it's true. Proposed Amendment 48 (PDF), which will indeed be on the ballot in November, is described as an amendment to change the definition of the term "person" to "include any human being from the moment of fertilization as 'person' is used in those provisions of the Colorado constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law."'
- Human Rights
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Human_rights
- UN's Resources and Links on Human Rights
http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/resources.asp
I hope these links and quotes will help in citing the draft article. Hoping To Help (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Morality and the Human Rights
I'm reverting this addition:
"Oddly, some people put constraints on the human rights of others. Many argue that bigots use religion, color, nationality, socio-economic status, education level, and other issues, to immorally limit the human rights of others. However, since some laws do not take morality or ethics into account, certain acts that are immoral and unethical from a human rights perspective, are allowable from a legal perspective."
I think it addresses some useful issues. But it's unsourced, non-neutral, contains weasel words, and it's language is highly un-encyclopedic. Hoping To Help (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Constitution of Medina as human right document
since when it was consider as human rights document? Oren.tal (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
wrong year for creation of human rights council
quote from http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/ (homepage of human rights council): "The Council was created by the UN General Assembly on 15 March 2006[...]"
in the article at wikipedia it says:" The United Nations Human Rights Council, created at the 2005 World Summit [...]"
or does the wikipedia author talks about some important steps in the creation of the council???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.0.72.9 (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Page targetted by banned user Karmaisking
Just a heads up. The active sockpuppet-using banned user Karmaisking has announced that this is one of the pages that he targets. Please keep an eye out for POV pushing by this user's sockpuppets. --LK (talk) 09:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
This topic is written more like a position paper than an encyclopedia article.
192.138.62.36 (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
When will Universal Solution will arise for .......
As a matter of human rights.
I am eagerly waiting for
1. Solution from international governments to stop all those, with tuff punishments for viewing roads, viewing public's residences, reading thoughts, and even for killing. This is very often in chennai.
2. You might ask how i know all these. I know these because i am a listening to many voices, without any mobile or telephone.
3. They call this in chennai as physic business.
4. International Governments should stop especially, TV operators.
5. All these are advantage for Mr.Karunanithi's family therefore he is distributing free Television sets to public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chennai venkata krishna (talk • contribs) 11:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- This is English, right? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Strange, this looks like English, but I can't understand any of it. Could this be in code? Rreagan007 (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Critique of "Critiques of Human Rights" section
The "Critiques of Human Rights" section states "Philosophers who have criticised the concept of human rights include ... Karl Marx..." While Marx criticized a particular, narrow application of the term "Human Rights" to only those that stressed the acquisition of personal property, he was an adamant proponent of freedom of speech and many other rights that are enumerated throughout this article. To say that he was against the "concept of human rights", per se, is misleading. Because Marx WAS involved in the discussion of what, specifically, constitute Human Rights, it would be better to elaborate on his views, or remove him from this list altogether. Any Marxists out there who care to elaborate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.156.8.56 (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
human rights about hamas.
I am palestinian,and i think your report about the war in Gaza is very correct.And I think hamas is agroup of criminals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.55.188 (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
HumanRightsdicks
What the hell does that mean? Should that be deleted? m w (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Phthinosuchusisanancestor
Cyrus Cylinder
It is surprising to see that the whole article makes no mention of Cyrus or his cylinder as one of the earliest known forms of human rights. Even UN and many scholars agree that Cyrus created the first charter of human rights, and yet there is not even a single word about it. I ask someone with more knowledge on this topic to add a sentence about this to the article as it is a vital part of the development of human rights (more so that Islam and India [?!?!?]). Thank you! --Arad (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- This has come up many times before. The bottom line is that historians - as opposed to politicians - reject the interpretation of the cylinder as a charter of human rights, and its inclusion here would constitute undue weight on a pseudohistorical theory. Please see Cyrus cylinder#As a charter of human rights for more details. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Just because some scholar disagrees, does that mean it's not the case and doesn't EVEN deserve a mention? As far as I know the declaration of Human Rights as we know it today was drafted at the United Nations. Don't take this personally, but do you, or the scholars, claim they know more about the Human Rights than UN who also agrees that Cyrus Cylinder can be considered as a form of Human Rights, and has a replica on display? Come on, be real, Islam and Akbar the Great of India deserve a mention (BTW, Islamic World and Koran openly allowed slavery) and Cyrus doesn't? --Arad (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- A video by Humanrights.com --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot8YGiRtB7U
- I am happy that someone is mentioning this. ChrisO is the one resposible of removal of mentions of Cyrus Cylinder in most wikipedia article. It is interesting that while he/she keeps talking about WP:UNDIE and WP:POV as the main reasons of his actions, but at the same time he is the one who has added the paragraph
- "Although other civilizations – notably those of India, China and the Islamic world – were at least equal to Europe at various stages in history, and in many respects in advance of it, they did not manage to propagate a universal ethics of rights. There were, nonetheless, notable examples of pre-Enlightenment non-European rulers enacting charters of tolerance. The "Great Moghul," Akbar the Great of India, granted religious minorities legal status in his realm and condemned traditional Indian practices such as the burning of widows (suttee) and slavery.[3] However, it is unclear how much such liberties can be described as "human rights" in the modern sense. Some historians argue that in non-Western cultures – and indeed in the West before the late Middle Ages – there was no concept of human rights, although important ethical concepts were nonetheless present. The concept of rights certainly existed in pre-modern cultures; ancient philosophers such as Aristotle wrote extensively on the rights (to dikaion in ancient Greek, roughly a "just claim") of citizens to property and participation in public affairs. However, neither the Greeks nor the Romans had any concept of universal human rights; slavery, for instance, was justified both in classical and medieval times as a natural condition.[4] Medieval charters of liberty such as the English Magna Carta were not charters of human rights, let alone general charters of rights. They instead constituted a form of limited political and legal agreement to address specific political circumstances, in the case of Magna Carta later being mythologised in the course of early modern debates about rights."
- Now here are mainstream sources on Cyrus Cylinder
- Cyrus cylinder is described as "introducing a new and humanitarian tone in a world" at a time of history that too often "ruled by the most implacable cruelty",(See: Kurht, Amélie (1983). "The Cyrus Cylinder..)
- The text of Cyrus cylinder itself! For example
The worship of Marduk, the king of the gods, he [Nabonidus] [chang]ed into abomination. Daily he used to do evil against his city [Babylon] ... He [Marduk] scanned and looked [through] all the countries, searching for a righteous ruler willing to lead [him] [in the annual procession]. [Then] he pronounced the name of Cyrus, king of Anshan, declared him to be[come] the ruler of all the world ... I am Cyrus, king of the world, great king, legitimate king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four rims [of the earth], son of Cambyses, great king, king of Anshan, grandson of Cyrus, great king, king of Anshan, descendant of Teispes, great king, king of Anshan, of a family [which] always [exercised] kingship; whose rule Bel [Marduk] and Nebo love, whom they want as king to please their hearts ... I did not allow anybody to terrorize [any place] of the [country of Sumer] and Akkad. I strove for peace in Babylon and in all his [other] sacred cities. As to the inhabitants of Babylon ... I abolished forced labour ... From Nineveh, Assur and Susa, Akkad, Eshnunna, Zamban, Me-Turnu and Der until the region of Gutium, I returned to these sacred cities on the other side of the Tigris, the sanctuaries of which have been ruins for a long time, the images which [used] to live therein and established for them permanent sanctuaries. I [also] gathered all their [former] inhabitants and returned [to them] their habitations.
- Now the question is NOT whether the whole Cyrus cylinder is about what had been done or not. The point is that "CYRUS CYLINDER IS AS A DOCUMENT WITH CERTAIN VALUES REGARDING HUMAN RIGHT". I urgue people to think about this, as the very fact that "universal charter of human right of United Nations" is ONLY a document and valuable as document and the people who wrote and signed it first are indeed the worst hunam right abusers. I repeat "CYRUS CYLINDER" as a document is worth mentioning in this article, no matter we believe Cyrus the Great was a king following that document or not, no matter we belive that the document is a correct report of history or not. Xashaiar (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I second that Xashaiar and thanks a lot! As you said the Cylinder is a document worth mentioning and no one claims it is an accurate record of what Cyrus did or didn't, it is simply an early form of a "human rights" document and for 550BC, it is rather revolutionary. If I recall correctly, many nations today do not respect the charter of UN, does that mean it is not a charter for human rights? It deserves a mention, and the fact that many scholars and UN credit it to be an early form of "human rights" document, gives it enough significance for a spot in an encyclopedia. --Arad (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- OK, let's take this from the top.
- The consensus of historians is that the Cyrus cylinder is a foundation deposit written in a fairly standard Babylonian style using themes that previous Babylonian rulers had employed to legitimise their rule.
- The viewpoint that the CC is a "human rights" text is one that was put forward by the late Shah of Iran as part of his efforts to associate his regime with Cyrus. It is an explicitly political viewpoint which has very little support among historians. Many have explicitly rejected the "human rights" interpretation as anachronistic and tendentious.
- When it comes to interpreting the context of archaeological artifacts such as the CC, we rely on the consensus view of historians, not politicians - just as we rely on scientists to interpret scientific evidence. We don't rely on the views of politicians or our own personal views (which is original research).
- I'm afraid the Kuhrt quote you've given is very misleading and out of context. Kuhrt is in fact one of the strongest advocates against the "human rights" interpretation. She explicitly argues in the 1983 piece you cite that Cyrus's policy was not a unique act of tolerance, nor was it a new federalist policy. She points out that the CC is specifically related to Babylon and the text is a typical example of the long-standing Babylonian genre of "building texts". She also notes that just like any other ancient Near Eastern empire, the Persians also destroyed temples and deported peoples. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- So what? I quoted Kuhrt just because you are quoting her everywhere. She just summarized what had been said by some scholars. Their names are mentioned by Kuhrt. Regarding the late Shah: again so what? Cyrus the Great did issue the document and it is "of no interest to us whether the document is Old Persian style or Babylonian style". Your point of view is exclusively about CYRUS THE GREAT and not CYRUS CYLINDER. As I said, we are not discussing the "behaviour of that man" we are discussing "a piece of texts" no matter it was correct reporting of history or not. Here is what Josef Wiesehofer said about the above quoted texts of Cyrus Cylinder:
Many scholars have read into these last sentences a confirmation of the Old Testament passages about the steps taken by Cyrus towards the erection of the Jerusalem temple and the repatriation of the Judaeans, some even going so far as to believe that the instructions to this effect were actually provided in these very formulations of the Cyrus Cylinder. In any event, the clemency Herodotus ascribed to Cyrus, the aptitudes Xenophon saw in him, his mission according to the Old Testament and his piety as described in the Babylon inscription – all combine in the eyes of many observers to form a harmonious character study of the first Persian king.
— Ancient Persia 1997 - Do you get the point about this document? The document is important and not its accuracy as a historical recording. Xashaiar (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- She is quoting two people, the 1950s Israeli leader David Ben Gurion and 1960s historian Maurice Leroy, specifically to refute their views. They do not represent the consensus of modern scholarly opinion. We can't present outdated scholarship (and non-scholarship in Ben Gurion's case) as representative of modern scholarly consensus. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Josef is not SHE. "1960s historian Maurice Leroy" so what? Please take this WP:POV pushing somewhere else. According to wikipedia policy: "SIGNIFICANT view point and its inclusion is necessary to balance out the article. EVEN if it's a minor one". If your norm of scholars is A. Kuhrt, then you see she "does see significance of Maurice Leroy view" and mention them. Here we should mention these as well. Even A. Kuhrt makes it clear that, regarding the view on Cyrus Cylinder and Cyrus "..they do also reflect a general say and widely held view of Achaemenid imperialism which compares it favourably with that of the earlier Assyrians" (Kuhrt's "the Cyrus cylinder.." page 83)So even your A. Kuhrt does say that the mainstream view on Cyrus the Great is what you disagree with. Xashaiar (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- She is quoting two people, the 1950s Israeli leader David Ben Gurion and 1960s historian Maurice Leroy, specifically to refute their views. They do not represent the consensus of modern scholarly opinion. We can't present outdated scholarship (and non-scholarship in Ben Gurion's case) as representative of modern scholarly consensus. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- OK, let's take this from the top.
Hi all, a neutral observer here (never heard of this Cyrus Cylinder until this argument), here to give a third party opinion. I think Xashaiar has a point about representing significant minority opinions, however presuming ChrisO is correct about it being an opinion of ill repute amongst modern historians, then that fact should be noted to avoid giving undue weight. And the discussion of this should not take up very much room in this article. Might I suggest a short sentence such as "Some sources cite the Cyrus Cylinder as one of the earliest human rights documents[1], though a majority of modern historians disagree with these claims[2]." (Where [1] and [2] are the relevant citations for these claims, which you all seem to have at the ready already). --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's undue weight, to be honest. It is a viewpoint primarily being promoted by Iranian nationalists and supporters of the late Shah, who came up with the idea of the CC being a "human rights document" for domestic political reasons in the 1960s. As far as historiography goes it's a fringe viewpoint - there have been a number of discussions about it on Wikipedia's WP:FTN#fringe theories noticeboard. (See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Cyrus cylinder and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 13#Cyrus cylinder as a charter of human rights.) It's relevant in the context of the Cyrus cylinder article, where it is discussed at some length (probably too much, actually), but it's not relevant in an article that's supposed to be an overview of the entire field of human rights. The subject's scope is big enough as it is without dragging in obscure Middle Eastern political controversies. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- 0. The question is "not" about the accuracy of Cyrus cylinder as a record of history, but the document itself regardless of being 100% or 0% historically accurate. 1. ChrisO you should read WP:OR. What you have added on Akbar the Great and Islam is original research and unacceptable. But I have not deleted your OR. 2. You should read WP:PA because you should stop ad hominem|. "do not accuse iranian scholars of being iranian nationalist". 3. Josef wiehoffer is mainstream scholar and NON-IRANIAN and a. kuhrt is not in that level. Hence you can not play the game of WP:POV. 4. According to wp:undue there should not be "any" mention of a. kuhr because thats only her opinion and worth/worthless as such. 5. the authority on human right is the human right organization itself. See what Arad told you and linked. 6. Curus cylinder is appropriate because its text. See above quoted text. I know you have access to wrong and false translation of the Cylinder but Josef wiesehofer and the cambridge ancient history have the correct translation. See above. 7. Wikipedia is supposed to be non eurocentric. I have no interest in responding in civil manner to comments like your designation "obscure Middle Eastern political controversies". 8. READ AD HOMINEM. Xashaiar (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- I myself can't see it deserving the first paragraph of history, as is the case. However, I could see it being mentioned as an example of the declarations of that type from that part of he world and integrated into the text of what is currently the second paragraph, giving the topic of rights in old Iran/Babylonia no more space than any of the others. The repeated inclusion of such information in statements from most of the monarchs could be seen as being indicative that the monarchs and people at least theoretically gave the principles some regard, even if only in principle or at the beginning of their terms. John Carter (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting suggestion. The text of the Cyrus cylinder actually isn't particularly unique - Babylonian and Assyrian rulers made similar declarations, which Cyrus essentially copied. The rulers of Mesopotamia basically used such documents as a way of saying "the gods chose me, I am a merciful ruler, I look after the welfare of my people." The problem is that I don't think you can relate it to "human rights" as a concept. The modern historical consensus explicitly rejects that interpretation - it's been called anachronistic and tendentious. The cylinder says nothing whatsoever about rights; it speaks only of the king taking action to benefit his people. You can read the British Museum's translation here. The cylinder has been interpreted for over 100 years as a statement of royal propaganda. The "human rights" viewpoint is merely something that the late Shah cooked up in the late 1960s as a way of legitimising his own (very repressive) regime. It has never had much credibility among historians. Josef Wiesehofer discusses the origins of the "human rights" myth in "Kyros, der Schah und 2500 Jahre Menschenrechte. Historische Mythenbildung zur Zeit der Pahlavi-Dynastie", in Conermann, Stephan (ed.), Mythen, Geschichte(n), Identitäten. Der Kampf um die Vergangenheit. (EB-Verlag, Schenefeld/Hamburg 1999). Clearly, if the cylinder is not related to "human rights" as a concept, it doesn't belong in an article about human rights. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wrong. There is no single document that is particularly interesting from before Cyrus the Great that ever ever been called "of human right values" as much as Cyrus Cylinder has been. The very fact that "there are many who do consider Cyrus Cylinder of certain humanitarian/human right related values" is itself the best proof of its deserving of mention. Now as for being the first to be mentioned, well history section follows date. The older the sooner mention. Also why YOURSELF relate akbar the great to human right? First look what you have added, then criticize Arad (and many others in history page). Xashaiar (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- I can offer one solution: We quote directly the Cylinder itself and remove every editor point of view, but in this case your Original research on Akbar the Great and Islam should be put under delete key. Xashaiar (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't work that way, as I've already explained. And please try not to be so aggressive towards other contributors. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Why? Seems J. Wiesehofer has followed that. As long as a secondary source (like J. Wiesehofer, M. Leney, etc) can accompany that, it is fine. Xashaiar (talk) 01:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Why do you think Wiesehofer follows it? In the German article I just cited, he explicitly rejects it: "Cyrus can be viewed as a human rights pioneer just as little as the Shah can be viewed as an enlightened and philantropic ruler." In the source you've cited in Cyrus the Great, you're misrepresenting Wiesehofer: he reports how earlier historians have viewed Cyrus but, like Kuhrt, who you also misrepresented, he cites this view in order to reject it. The traditional view of Cyrus, based on ancient Greek sources, was a generally benevolent one. In the book you cite, he goes on to call the CC "a piece of propaganda at Cyrus's service" and describe it as "an Achaemenid propaganda document intended to legitimize and glorify Cyrus's rule in Babylonia.". Note the lack of any mention of human rights. As with Kuhrt, you appear to be cherry-picking out-of-context quotes to portray historians as saying something that is precisely the opposite of what they are actually saying. Please take more care with sources. Quote mining is not a reputable method of research. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think you have to be more creful about sources. 1. On Kuhrt, I did not say what she says (you seem to confuse the author of citation with "some scholars" in the sentence): I did say what some have said and chose the wording of Kuhrt. That's fine, because we have the quote from one who disagrees with it. 2. About wiesehofer, you are again wrong: his mention of "charter of human right" is fine with me and I did not challenge that, but I did quote him (please see the reference to his his book I cited in this very talk page) where he says: Cyrus cylinder text is "from the view points of many schoars" in 100% agreement with the image of Cyrus in other places: Herodetus, Old testament, etc. What is wrong with using wiesehofer wording? Did I wrote "wiesehofer is one of those"? No I did not. I chose his wording and "as a summary" and I do not think your link to Quote mining is appropriate here (I only used their summaries of certain point of view they happen to criticise, and there is no wikipedia policy that tells me that I can not use an article as a source for a statement that appears in the article explicitly). The traditional view is more than interesting for inclusion (modern scholars may think differently, but I do not see why we should ignore mentioning of traditional view). Cyrus cylinder is, for me, not a propaganda: the reason "there is no base for such behaviour from Achaemenian kings elsewhere" and it is only eurocenterism that advocate otherwise. Even so, we are not talking about Cyrus the Great work in Babylon but we are talking about a document that does have interesting points in it that no other ancient document has. There are enough sources that see Cyrus cylinder very appropriate and significant in this subject whence its mention in this article. 3. Please do not question all ancient sources because you dislike their treatment of a good Achaemenian empire. It is very ironic that "all that are bad about ancient Iran and come from ancient sources are regarded as truth and the main sources of tv programs, scholarly works, .. but anything good from the same sources about the same history are considered wrong, propaganda, ...". This eurocentrism is a strange phenomena. Moreover you still need to answer to original question of the original editor above: A. Why you did include about Akbar the Great and ancient Indian, Islamic, ancient Chinese in the history section while removing Cyrus the Great? Isn't it POV pushing? B. Isnt your addition of the paragraph I quoted above pure OR? C. The incusion of Cyrus cylinder in this article is not the same as claiming it to be first charter of human right. Therefore your sources on "cyrus cylinder is not a human right charter" is irrelevant. Xashaiar (talk) 02:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- The CC has always been seen as a work of propaganda, ever since it was discovered in the 1880s. The issue that has been in dispute between historians is what it tells us about Cyrus himself, not whether it is some kind of "human rights charter" - a claim that nobody made before the Shah. As for why I included Akbar etc, it is because the work I cited on the history of human rights (Ishay, Micheline (2008). The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalization Era. University of California Press.) cites those as examples of early grants of rights. The book does not even mention Cyrus. It's hardly OR if it reflects what the source says. It's also flatly wrong (and, frankly, OR on your part) to claim that the CC is unique. It's not. It's a perfectly standard foundation deposit with standard themes that were used by Babylonian and Assyrian rulers before Cyrus. This is discussed in some detail in Amélie Kuhrt's works. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think you have to be more creful about sources. 1. On Kuhrt, I did not say what she says (you seem to confuse the author of citation with "some scholars" in the sentence): I did say what some have said and chose the wording of Kuhrt. That's fine, because we have the quote from one who disagrees with it. 2. About wiesehofer, you are again wrong: his mention of "charter of human right" is fine with me and I did not challenge that, but I did quote him (please see the reference to his his book I cited in this very talk page) where he says: Cyrus cylinder text is "from the view points of many schoars" in 100% agreement with the image of Cyrus in other places: Herodetus, Old testament, etc. What is wrong with using wiesehofer wording? Did I wrote "wiesehofer is one of those"? No I did not. I chose his wording and "as a summary" and I do not think your link to Quote mining is appropriate here (I only used their summaries of certain point of view they happen to criticise, and there is no wikipedia policy that tells me that I can not use an article as a source for a statement that appears in the article explicitly). The traditional view is more than interesting for inclusion (modern scholars may think differently, but I do not see why we should ignore mentioning of traditional view). Cyrus cylinder is, for me, not a propaganda: the reason "there is no base for such behaviour from Achaemenian kings elsewhere" and it is only eurocenterism that advocate otherwise. Even so, we are not talking about Cyrus the Great work in Babylon but we are talking about a document that does have interesting points in it that no other ancient document has. There are enough sources that see Cyrus cylinder very appropriate and significant in this subject whence its mention in this article. 3. Please do not question all ancient sources because you dislike their treatment of a good Achaemenian empire. It is very ironic that "all that are bad about ancient Iran and come from ancient sources are regarded as truth and the main sources of tv programs, scholarly works, .. but anything good from the same sources about the same history are considered wrong, propaganda, ...". This eurocentrism is a strange phenomena. Moreover you still need to answer to original question of the original editor above: A. Why you did include about Akbar the Great and ancient Indian, Islamic, ancient Chinese in the history section while removing Cyrus the Great? Isn't it POV pushing? B. Isnt your addition of the paragraph I quoted above pure OR? C. The incusion of Cyrus cylinder in this article is not the same as claiming it to be first charter of human right. Therefore your sources on "cyrus cylinder is not a human right charter" is irrelevant. Xashaiar (talk) 02:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Why do you think Wiesehofer follows it? In the German article I just cited, he explicitly rejects it: "Cyrus can be viewed as a human rights pioneer just as little as the Shah can be viewed as an enlightened and philantropic ruler." In the source you've cited in Cyrus the Great, you're misrepresenting Wiesehofer: he reports how earlier historians have viewed Cyrus but, like Kuhrt, who you also misrepresented, he cites this view in order to reject it. The traditional view of Cyrus, based on ancient Greek sources, was a generally benevolent one. In the book you cite, he goes on to call the CC "a piece of propaganda at Cyrus's service" and describe it as "an Achaemenid propaganda document intended to legitimize and glorify Cyrus's rule in Babylonia.". Note the lack of any mention of human rights. As with Kuhrt, you appear to be cherry-picking out-of-context quotes to portray historians as saying something that is precisely the opposite of what they are actually saying. Please take more care with sources. Quote mining is not a reputable method of research. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Why? Seems J. Wiesehofer has followed that. As long as a secondary source (like J. Wiesehofer, M. Leney, etc) can accompany that, it is fine. Xashaiar (talk) 01:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't work that way, as I've already explained. And please try not to be so aggressive towards other contributors. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- I can offer one solution: We quote directly the Cylinder itself and remove every editor point of view, but in this case your Original research on Akbar the Great and Islam should be put under delete key. Xashaiar (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wrong. There is no single document that is particularly interesting from before Cyrus the Great that ever ever been called "of human right values" as much as Cyrus Cylinder has been. The very fact that "there are many who do consider Cyrus Cylinder of certain humanitarian/human right related values" is itself the best proof of its deserving of mention. Now as for being the first to be mentioned, well history section follows date. The older the sooner mention. Also why YOURSELF relate akbar the great to human right? First look what you have added, then criticize Arad (and many others in history page). Xashaiar (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Fully agree with ChrisO. Completely WP:UNDUE. Pease stop being ridiculous over this. It was a 1970s propaganda stunt of the Shah's. This has been discussed enough, and then some. Do get over it. --dab (𒁳) 06:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
It does not appear to be in dispute that mainstream contemporary historians are of the consensus that the Cyrus cylinder is not a human rights charter. Until someone convincingly argues otherwise, I think mentioning the cylinder in this article would be a violation of WP:MNA, WP:GEVAL and WP:UNDUE, among others. Gabbe (talk) 07:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. Agree with Chris and others. I'm not seeing the Cyrus Cylinder described as a "charter of human rights" in The Cambridge History of Iran or Encyclopaedia Iranica. It's a work of propaganda (Cambridge History Vol. 2 p.410 describes the Cylinder and a verse record as "masterpieces of political propaganda" and "skilled instruments of tendentious history"). --Folantin (talk) 08:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with ChrisO, dab, and Gabbe for the reasons already given. The CC may be deserving of a short mention like the one suggested by Pfhorrest, but the current one has serious WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL problems, as well as making a number of unsupported statements. Ergative rlt (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've removed it. It was completely unsourced, blatant OR and POV, as well as being simply false. Arad appears to be drawing on a fake translation of the CC circulated by Iranian nationalists that speaks of slavery being abolished. In reality, the CC says nothing about slavery. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
There is no WP:CONS. Most people here agree that there must be a mention of Cyrus cylinder. Xashaiar (talk) I see there is actually WP:CONS. Most people agree that there must be a mention of Cyrus Cylinder, but two people Chriso and Dab do disagree. Dab has been invited by ChrisO to this page and as usual the person who accompany him. Xashaiar (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC) nIf you remove things, all the material on ancient history must be removed. Xashaiar (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Don't ignore what I've just written above. It cites no sources, so it fails verifiability. It makes claims that are blatantly false - the CC says nothing about slavery. It therefore fails original research. It's undue weight on a fringe theory, so it fails neutral point of view. This material does not belong in Wikipedia, let alone in this article. If you're not willing to follow Wikipedia's basic content policies, you should not be editing articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- I want to explain to you the obvious;
- Do not do admin shopping as you did above. Do not ask people who are no involved to come and vote in your favour.
- If you remove ancient history, fine. But you are pushing for you POV: either you remove the entire section on ancinet history or you keep the good edit by Arad
- Follow WP:CONS mthat is please count the number of people in favour of the edit by Arad and those against.
- Do not do PA as you did above earlier (that is please do not "ad hominem").
- Your addition of Islam and akbar the great is OR and if you are concerned about OR then first remove them. Xashaiar (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- I want to explain to you the obvious;
Chris, you still fail to say 1) How did you consider Islam to be related to Human Rights and included it in the article? 2) What other documents do you refer to when you say Assyrian kings before Cyrus made same claims as he did? 3) Is United Nations an Iranian Nationalist organisation, a supporter of Shah or that their view on the history of human trights is "insignificant" and undue weight? And please stop calling on your puppets to come and inject your opinion into this forum. Maybe the edit I made is too much, but a mention of Cyrus Cylinder has to be made. --Arad (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- 1) Read the cited work (Ishay, Micheline (2008). The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalization Era. University of California Press.) It's an academic work published by a major academic press. If you don't like what it says, too bad, but it's not remotely original research. 2) Read Cyrus cylinder. It's all described in there - I'm not going to repeat it here. 3) The United Nations is not an authority on the historical meaning of archaeological artifacts. That's the job of historians, not diplomats and politicians. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Friends Xashiyar and Arad and other reads,
The claim that Cyrus Cylinder was called a "human rights" charter by the Shah is false but unfortunately it was censored it out by ChrisO. The claim is in the talk page of Cyrus Cylinder.
There is enough sources in relation to Cyrus the Great and Human rights [2].
Long before the Shah, an author has has explained: (here we have a source from almost 100 years ago. "Upon the cylinder record of the time of Cyrus the following significant inscription has been found: "All of their people I gather and restore their dwelling places". This statement would seem to indicate a fixed national policy, and strenghten the impression that Cyrus believed in the sacred rights of individual freedom' and has a keen sense of human justice based upon the demands of principle". )
Here are some for example: B) Religious toleration was a remarkable feature of Persian rule and there is no question that Cyrus himself was a liberal-minded promoter of this humane and intelligent policy” -- Max Mallowan. 'Cyrus the Great'. In Cambridge History of Iran (Volume 2: The Median and Achaemenean Periods), Cambridge , Cambridge University Press, pp.392-419. Max Mallowan B)
C)
Some classical sources:
“ | Under Cyrus the Persians liberated themselves and became master of others, but allowed some freedom to subjects, even allowed them to be equals; so soldiers were loyal and wise counselors could be found and there was a spirit of freedom, friendship and community. | ” |
Diodorus Siculus, Greek historian of 1st century B.C.[22]:
“ | Cyrus, the son of Cambyses and Mandane, the daughter of Astyages who was king of the Medes, was pre-eminent among the men of his time in bravery and sagacity and the other virtues; for his father had reared him after the manner of kings and had made him zealous to emulate the highest achievements. And it was clear that he would take hold of great affairs, since he revealed an excellence beyond his years.
When Astyages, the king of the Medes, had been defeated and was in disgraceful flight, he vented his wrath upon his soldiers; and he displaced all who had been assigned positions of command, appointing others in their stead, and he picked out all who were responsible for the flight and put them to the sword, thinking that by punishing them in that way he could force the rest to show themselves brave fighters in times of danger, since he was a cruel man and, by nature, hard. Nevertheless, the people were not dismayed at the harsh treatment he meted out; on the contrary, every man, hating his violent and lawless manner, yearned for a change of affairs. Consequently there were gatherings of small groups and seditious conversations, the larger number exhorting one another to take vengeance on him. Cyrus, we are told, was not only a courageous man in war, but he was also considerate and humane in his treatment of his subjects. And it was for this reason that the Persians called him Father. |
” |
Aeschylus in his poem Persae(the Persians) pays tribute to Cyrus[23]:
“ | Her brave hosts
A Mede first led. The virtue of his son Fixed firm the empire, for his temperate soul Breathed Prudence. Cyrus next, by fortune graced, Adorned the throne, and blessed his graceful friends With peace: he to his mighty monarchy Joined Lydia, and the Phyrgians; to his power Ionia bent reluctant; but gods with victory his gentle virtues crowned |
” |
“ | Thus, as we meditated on this analogy, we were inclined to conclude that for man, as he is constituted, it is easier to rule over any and all other creatures than to rule over men. But when we reflected that, who reduced to obedience a vast number of men and cities and nations, we were then compelled to change our opinion and decide that to rule men might be a task neither impossible nor even difficult, if one should only go about it in an intelligent manner. At all events, we know that people obeyed Cyrus willingly, although some of them were distant from him a journey of many days, and others of many months; others, although they had never seen him, and still others who knew well that they never should see him. Nevertheless they were all willing to be his subjects.
... But all this is not so surprising after all, so very different was he from all other kings, both those who have inherited their thrones from their fathers and those who have gained their crowns by their own efforts; the Scythian king, for instance, would never be able to extend his rule over any other nation besides his own, although the Scythians are very numerous, but he would be well content if he could maintain himself in power over his own people; so the Thracian king with his Thracians, the Illyrian with his Illyrians, and so also all other nations, we are told. Those in Europe, at any rate, are said to be free and independent of one another even to this day. But Cyrus, finding the nations in Asia also independent in exactly the same way, started out with a little band of Persians and became the leader of the Medes by their full consent and of the Hyrcanians by theirs; he then conquered Syria, Assyria, Arabia, Cappadocia, both Phrygias, Lydia, Caria, Phoenicia, and Babylonia; he ruled also over Bactria, India, and Cilicia; and he was likewise king of the Sacians, Paphlagonians, Magadidae, and very many other nations, of which one could not even tell the names; he brought under his sway the Asiatic Greeks also; and, descending to the sea, he added both Cyprus and Egypt to his empire. ... he was able to awaken in all so lively a desire to please him, that they always wished to be guided by his will. ... Believing this man to be deserving of all admiration, we have therefore investigated who he was in his origin, what natural endowments he possessed, and what sort of education he had enjoyed, that he so greatly excelled in governing men. Accordingly, what we have found out or think we know concerning him we shall now endeavour to present. ... The father of Cyrus is said to have been Cambyses, king of the Persians: this Cambyses belonged to the stock of the Persidae, and the Persidae derive their name from Perseus. His mother, it is generally agreed, was Mandane; and this Mandane was the daughter of Astyages, sometime king of the Medes. And even to this day the barbarians tell in story and in song that Cyrus was most handsome in person, most generous of heart, most devoted to learning, and most ambitious, so that he endured all sorts of labour and faced all sorts of danger for the sake of praise. .. Such then were the natural endowments, physical and spiritual, that he is reputed to have had; but he was educated in conformity with the laws of the Persians; and these laws appear in their care for the common weal not to start from the same point as they do in most states. For most states permit every one to train his own children just as he will, and the older people themselves to live as they please; and then they command them not to steal and not to rob, not to break into anybody's house, not to strike a person whom they have no right to strike, not to commit adultery, not to disobey an officer, and so forth; and if a man transgress anyone one of these laws, they punish him. ... The Persian laws, however, begin at the beginning and take care that from the first their citizens shall not be of such a character as ever to desire anything improper or immoral; and the measures they take are as follows.They have their so-called "Free Square," where the royal palace and other government buildings are located. The hucksters with their wares, their cries, and their vulgarities are excluded from this and relegated to another part of the city, in order that their tumult may not intrude upon the orderly life of the cultured. |
” |
Herodotus 3:89:
“ | The Persians have a saying that Cyrus was a father because, in kindness of his heart, he always occupied with plans for their well being | ” |
Among the classical Jewish sources, besides the old testament, Joseph Flavius mentions the (1st century A.D.) mentions that Cyrus freed the Jews from captivity and helped rebuild the temple. He also wrote to the rulers and governors that they shold contribute to the rebuilding of the temple and assisted them in rebuilding the temple. A letter from Cyrus to the Jews is described by Joseph Flavius[24]:
“ | I have given leave to as many of the Jews that dwell in my country as please to return to their own country, and to rebuild their city, and to build the temple of God at Jerusalem on the same place where it was before. I have also sent my treasurer Mithridates, and Zorobabel, the governor of the Jews, that they may lay the foundations of the temple, and may build it sixty cubits high, and of the same latitude, making three edifices of polished stones, and one of the wood of the country, and the same order extends to the altar whereon they offer sacrifices to God. I require also that the expenses for these things may be given out of my revenues. Moreover, I have also sent the vessels which king Nebuchadnezzar pillaged out of the temple, and have given them to Mithridates the treasurer, and to Zorobabel the governor of the Jews, that they may have them carried to Jerusalem, and may restore them to the temple of God. Now their number is as follows: Fifty chargers of gold, and five hundred of silver; forty Thericlean cups of gold, and five hundred of silver; fifty basons of gold, and five hundred of silver; thirty vessels for pouring [the drink-offerings], and three hundred of silver; thirty vials of gold, and two thousand four hundred of silver; with a thousand other large vessels. (3) I permit them to have the same honor which they were used to have from their forefathers, as also for their small cattle, and for wine and oil, two hundred and five thousand and five hundred drachme; and for wheat flour, twenty thousand and five hundred artabae; and I give order that these expenses shall be given them out of the tributes due from Samaria. The priests shall also offer these sacrifices according to the laws of Moses in Jerusalem; and when they offer them, they shall pray to God for the preservation of the king and of his family, that the kingdom of Persia may continue. But my will is, that those who disobey these injunctions, and make them void, shall be hung upon a cross, and their substance brought into the king's treasury.". | ” |
D) Some new sources:
Dandamayev mentions: "According to the Cyrus cylinder, he permitted foreigners who had been forcibly settled in Babylonia to return to their own lands, including the Jews of the Babylonian captivity, who were also permitted to rebuild their temple in Jerusalem. Two versions of his edict on the latter point have been preserved in the Book of Ezra, one in Hebrew, the other in Aramaic." [25].
Fried, reflecting on the Cyrus cylinder and the priets of Marduk believes that the Duetero-Isaiah: delivered up to the Persian conquerer the entire theology that had defined the local king. Like his counterparts in Egypt and Babylon, Deutero-Isaiah was convinced that Cyrus was in actuality the genuine Judean king, i.e., YHWH's anointed, his Messiah, because he brought back the status quo ante. He rebuilt the temple, ordered the temple vessels replaced in it, and permitted the Jews to return to worship their God in Zion restored[26].
Pierre Briant also comments that[27]:
“ | The terms used by Isiah are reminiscent of certain passages in the Cyrus Cylinder | ” |
E)
According to Professor Richard Frye[28]:
“ | It is a testimony to the capability of the founder of the Achaemenian empire that it continued to expand after his death and lasted for more than two centuries. But Cyrus was not only a great conqueror and administrator; he held a place in the minds of the Persian people similar to that of Romulus and Remus in Rome or Moses for the Israelites. His saga follows in many details the stories of hero and conquerors from elsewhere in the ancient world. The manner in which the baby Cyrus was given to a shepherd to raise is reminiscent of Moses in the bulrushes in Egypt, and the overthrow of his tyrannical grandfather has echoes in other myths and legends. There is no doubt that the Cyrus saga arose early among the Persians and was known to the Greeks. The sentiments of esteem or even awe in which Persians held him were transmitted to the Greeks, and it was no accident that Xenophon chose Cyrus to be the model of a ruler for the lessons he wished to impart to his fellow Greeks.
In short, the figure of Cyrus has survived throughout history as more than a great man who founded an empire. He became the epitome of the great qualities expected of a ruler in antiquity, and he assumed heroic features as a conqueror who was tolerant and magnanimous as well as brave and daring. His personality as seen by the Greeks influenced them and Alexander the Great, and, as the tradition was transmitted by the Romans, may be considered to influence our thinking even now. In the year 1971, Iran celebrated the 2,500th anniversary of the founding of the monarchy by Cyrus. |
” |
Dandamayev mentions[29]. :
“ | Chapters 40-55 of the Book of Isaiah were probably written by a witness to the fall of Babylon, and some extended passages are similar in both spirit and context to contemporary Babylonian texts praising Cyrus and condemning Nabonidus. Cyrus is mentioned twice by name and designated as the anointed one (messiah) of Yahweh: “Thus says the Lord to Kōreš his anointed, Kōreš whom he has taken by his right hand to subdue nations before him . . . . I will go before you” (Isaiah 45:1-2). Yahweh also says to Cyrus: “You shall be My shepherd to carry out all My purpose” (Isaiah 44:28). In the Hebrew tradition embodied in 2 Chronicles 36:23 and Ezra 1:1-2 Cyrus is regarded with favor, and he has figured prominently in Jewish thought through the ages (Netzer, p. 35; cf. Jenni, pp. 242-43, 255-56; see bible i, ii).
Cyrus thus seems generally to have respected the customs and religions of conquered lands. The Persians themselves called him their father (Herodotus, 3.89). The priests of Babylon recognized him as the appointed of Marduk and the Jews as a messiah sent by Yahweh. Even the Greeks considered him a great conqueror and a wise statesman (e.g., Plato, Laws 3.694A-D); Xenophon, in his Cyropaedia, portrayed him as an ideal ruler (Avery, pp. 529-31; Hirsch, pp. 84-86). |
” |
Professor Max Mallowan stated that[30]
“ | Religious toleration was a remarkable feature of Persian rule and there is no question that Cyrus himself was a liberal-minded promoter of this humane and intelligent policy.
One remarkable characteristic which many historians have attributed to Cyrus is his clemency to fallen rulers, in true fashion of medieval chivarly. |
” |
The late Professor Will Durant noted that[31]:
“ | The first principle of his [Cyrus the Great] policy was that the various peoples of his empires would be left free in their religious worship and beliefs, for he fully understood the first principle of statesmanship - that religion is stronger than the state. Instead of sacking cities and wrecking temples he showed a courteous respect for the deities of the conquered, and contributed to maintain their shrines, even the Babylonians who had resisted him so long, warmed towards him when they found him preserving their sanctuaries and honoring their pantheon. Wherever he went in his unprecedented career he offered pious sacrifice to the local divinities. Like Napoleon he accepted indifferently all religions, and-with much better grace-honored all the gods. | ” |
Professors David E. Graf, Steven W. Hirsch, Kathryn Gleason, and Friedrich Klefter have noted that[32]:
“ | Cyrus administered his expanded realm with the same tact and generosity that distinguished his moments of victory. Wherever possible he kept local governments in place, demanding only a pledge of fealty and tribute. Even as king of Babylonia he rested his hand lightly on the instruments of power. In the Greek cities of Ionia, he supported local rulers who were compliant with his imperial designs. In most cases he displayed a remarkable tolerance for local customs and institutions | ” |
Professor T. Cuyler Young Jr. has noted that[33]:
“ | Because of the religious, ethnic and social tolerance with which the Achaemenids chose to rule, one cannot speak of an imperial social structure. Earlier attempts at empire in ancient West Asia had been anything but tolerant. Why therefore were the Achaemenids so different? The answer to the question is two-fold: on the one hand, tolerance was a realistic policy. Given the size and diversity of their empire, probably no other approach would have worked. On the other hand, such a policy probably fitted their own idealized traditions of social structure… | ” |
Professor Arthur Cotterell has noted that[34]:
“ | …the Persian respect for the religious sensibilities of a subject people [the Jews] shown in the edict [Cyrus’ proclamation on behalf of the Jews in the book of Ezra] contrasts sharply with the Hellenizing policies of the later Seleucid Dynasty (312-64 BC) which gave rise to the Maccabean revolt. | ” |
The late Joseph Arthur Comte de Gobineau[35]:
“ | He [Cyrus the Great] can be said without fear of contradiction to rank amongst the five of six greatest leaders of humanity [p.31] …Although Babylon had been taken it was not looted or burnt. Cyrus did not destroy the walls or remove the gates [p.43]… Under his [Cyrus the Great] regime, which did not differentiate between classes or religions, the Jews were treated in exactly the same way as anyone else [p.47]… | ” |
The late Professor G. Buchanan Gray[36]:
“ | Making all allowance for the natural bias in Cyrus’ own inscriptions, and for the Nabonidus-Cyrus Chronicle written and completed after his success was achieved and he had become king of Babylon, it is clear that Cyrus obtained the throne and empire of Babylon with the acquiescence, not to say on the invitation, of a large part of the population. He cam to free them from a ruler who had forfeited their adhesion: he accepted the throne as the gift of their own god Marduk [p.12] …He was the founder of a new dynasty over a willing people, not a foreign conqueror indifferent to them and their interests [p.12-13]…Cyrus immediately reversed the religious policy of Nabonidus, which had provoked great resentment, and in other respects in his attitude to the Babylonian gods he put himself right with the people. Whereas Nabonidus…had gathered into the capital the images of the gods of from various outlying temples…Cyrus sent back the gods and human beings, also who had been exiled, to their cities and re-established them there. Among the districts to which he sent back the gods were Western Elam…[p.13] | ” |
.
As noted by Professor Michael Axworthy[37]:
“ | …without romanticizing Cyrus unduly, it seems he has aspired to rule an empire different from others that had preceded it in the region. Portentous inscriptions recording the military glory of kings and the supposed favour of their terrible war-gods were commonplace in the Middle east in the centuries preceding Cyrus’ ascension [p.12]… the message of the Cylinder [Cyrus Cylinder] particularly when combined with what is known of Cyrus’ religious policy from the books of Ezra and Isaiah, is nonetheless remarkable [p.13]... Cyrus chose to present himself showing respect to the Babylonian deity, Marduk…we know that he [Cyrus the Great] permitted freedom of worship to the Jews [p.14]…Cyrus and his successors permitted them [the Jews] to return home from exile and to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. For these acts they [Achaemenid rulers] were accorded in the Jewish scriptures a unique status among gentile monarchs [p.15]…the logic of statecraft alone might have suggested that it would be more sustainable in the long run to let subjects conduct their own affairs and worship as they pleased. But that policy had to be acceptable to the Iranian elite, including the priests – the Magi…it is reasonable to see in the policy some of the spirit of moral earnestness and justice that pervaded the religion of Zoroaster. The presence of those values in the background helps to explain why the Cyrus Cylinder is couched in such different terms from the militaristic thunder and arrogance of Sennacherib. The old answer was terror and a big stick, but the Persian Empire would be run in a more devolved, permissive spirit. Once again, an encounter with complexity, acceptance of the complexity, and a response. This was something new. [p.15] | ” |
.
Woods comments on the Cyrus Cylinder[38]
“ | Some modern scholars have called these words the world's first declaration of human rights. | ” |
Laursen comments[39]: {{Obviously the friendship of the Greek temples could not be obtained if Cyrus was not benevolent towards the Greek priests and their religion. As we shall see shortly, there is further evidence that indeed these temples were granted special privilege by at least some of the Achaemenid Kings.}}
Curtis, Tallis and Salvini comment[40]:
“ | Because of the reference to just and peaceful rule, and to the restoration of deported peoples and their gods the cylinder has in recent years been referred to in some quarters as a kind of 'Charter of Human Rights'. Such a concept would have been quite alien to Cyrus's contemporaries, and indeed the cylinder says nothing of human rights; but return of the Jews and of other deported peoples were a significant reversal of the policies of ealier Assyrian and Babylonian Kings | ” |
Talbott opines on the issue of Human Rights and Cyrus and believes the concept of human rights is a 20th century concept. Nevertheless he states[41]:
“ | Perhaps the earliest known advocate of religious tolerance was Cyrus the Great, king of Persia in the sixth century B.C.E. Cyrus also opposed slavery and freed thousands of slaves. These facts do not make Cyrus or Ashoka an advocate of human rights. They do show that ideas that led to the development of human rights are not limited to one cultural tradition. | ” |
I am not going to get involved more than this due to lack of time, but ChrisO was a user who lost his adminship and has generalized users based on their background and nationality several times. There is enough sources on Human rights and Cyrus the Great.. (not the Cylinder but the persoanlity of Cyrus the Great himself). I would gather all these into some 30-50 sources and include it. To connect it to the Cylinder and its "propaganda" by ChrisO would be synthesis.: [3].
I am not going get involved more, but I hope Xashiyar or Arad can first list some of the 30-50 sources [4] (not about the Cylinder necessarily but Cyrus himself) (also use other search words instead of "human rights") and then call for a general Rfc or mediation.
Thanks --Nepaheshgar (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is that user is only against Cyrus otherwise I have given the summary of Wiesehofer of the view on Cyrus the great. If we consider the numder of sources who DO give credit to Cyrus Cylinder and Cyrus the Great "directly" related to modern concept of human rights, then I do not see why it can not be mentioned. I give you one example: 1. Ann Elizabeth Mayer writes about cyrus cylinder: "..although it does not use the language of human rights, the ancient cylinder comprises ideas that are related to modern concepts of rights" (page 8". This is from "legal expert point of view". Xashaiar (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Or alternatively we can just block editors who insist on repeatedly violating basic content policies. Remember Ariobarza (talk · contribs)? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what Nepaheshgar's long string of quotations is trying to prove (the Classical excerpts are particularly irrelevant). The "human rights" issue is about a lot more than whether Cyrus was generally a nice guy. Axworthy certainly doesn't agree with the idea that the CC is a human rights charter. He specifically describes this view as "an exaggeration and a misrepresentation" (Iran: Empire of the Mind p.13). --Folantin (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
To ChrisO , please do not threaten users as this can be reported. I am not here to waste my time and neither I am scared of any threat. Note I am not making any threats, but threatening to ban users is not really the way to approach a complex issue.
As per what Folantin commented, I am not talking about the Cylinder. I am talking about Cyrus the Great:
Curtis, Tallis and Salvini:“ Because of the reference to just and peaceful rule, and to the restoration of deported peoples and their gods the cylinder has in recent years been referred to in some quarters as a kind of 'Charter of Human Rights'. Such a concept would have been quite alien to Cyrus's contemporaries, and indeed the cylinder says nothing of human rights; but return of the Jews and of other deported peoples were a significant reversal of the policies of ealier Assyrian and Babylonian Kings ”
Talbott opines on the issue of Human Rights and Cyrus and believes the concept of human rights is a 20th century concept. Nevertheless he states:“ Perhaps the earliest known advocate of religious tolerance was Cyrus the Great, king of Persia in the sixth century B.C.E. Cyrus also opposed slavery and freed thousands of slaves. These facts do not make Cyrus or Ashoka an advocate of human rights. They do show that ideas that led to the development of human rights are not limited to one cultural tradition. "
Axworthy states:"it is reasonable to see in the policy some of the spirit of moral earnestness and justice that pervaded the religion of Zoroaster. The presence of those values in the background helps to explain why the Cyrus Cylinder is couched in such different terms from the militaristic thunder and arrogance of Sennacherib. The old answer was terror and a big stick, but the Persian Empire would be run in a more devolved, permissive spirit. Once again, an encounter with complexity, acceptance of the complexity, and a response. This was something new. "
Thus two/three things: 1) religious freedom 2) Freedom of captives (Jews and Non-Jews) are related as the author says "ideas that led to the development of human rights"
As per Arad, Xashiyar..please do not mention the Cylinder. Concentrate on the above two: Thus two things: 1) religious freedom 2) Freedom of captives (Jews and Non-Jews) are related as the author says "ideas that led to the development of human rights". And also Akbar the Great was also religiously tolerant. As per Islam, giving women at that time inheritence and stopping the burying of girls and etc. are important. Don't concentrate on these or the cylinder. There are lots of sources that mention Cyrus with regards to religious freedom and freedom of captives and have the word "human rights" or "development of human rights". I just mentioned two of these sources (Curtis and Talbott). These surely can be included. Please do a more thorough search in google books and you find dozens or so of such sources probably. Just don't add anything cylinder related. But concentrate on 1) religious freedom 2) release of captives and Jews. 3) allowing the Jews religious freedom to rebuilt their temple after being deprieved from it by babylonians. And sources that do not have anything to with the cylinder itself are many [5] [6]... none of these books mention the cylinder (there are more) and to connect them with the cylinder is a violation of WP:synthesis. Thanks--Nepaheshgar (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- You have copied and pasted material from this site [7]. It must be removed as a copyright violation. The site also quotes Axworthy selectively. Interestingly it omits the sentence I just quoted where he says the description of the CC as a charter of human rights is "an exaggeration and a misrepresentation". Very dubious. --Folantin (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Nope some of the materials were sent to me..I did not copy it. They are quotations from various books and do not violate copy rights. If I have a text from that article (not the quote) then that can be copy right and if you find it, I'll remove it. But actual quotes have nothing to do with any particular article. I am not also talking about CC but CG himself. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- ^ http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1973/
- ^ HURIDOCS has developed extensive methodologies for monitoring and documenting human rights violations, and more resources can be found at Human Rights Tools
- ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference
economistcouncil
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "Human Rights Campaign". Retrieved 2007-12-31.
- ^ "2000 CCAR Resolution". Retrieved 2008-10-12.
- ^ "2003 URJ Resolution". Retrieved 2008-10-12.
- ^ "JOHN GEDDES LAWRENCE AND TYRON GARNER V. STATE OF TEXAS" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-10-12.
- ^ "Conservative Rabbis Allow Ordained Gays, Same-Sex Unions". Retrieved 2008-10-12.
- ^ Section Fifteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
- ^ "Human Rights Campaign". Retrieved 2007-12-31.
- ^ http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20001115_family-human-rights_en.html PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE FAMILY The Family and Human Rights
- ^ "2000 CCAR Resolution". Retrieved 2008-10-12.
- ^ "2003 URJ Resolution". Retrieved 2008-10-12.
- ^ "JOHN GEDDES LAWRENCE AND TYRON GARNER V. STATE OF TEXAS" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-10-12.
- ^ "Conservative Rabbis Allow Ordained Gays, Same-Sex Unions". Retrieved 2008-10-12.
- ^ Section Fifteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
- ^ http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20001115_family-human-rights_en.html PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE FAMILY The Family and Human Rights
- ^ "Human Rights Campaign". Retrieved 2007-12-31.
- ^ [8]
- ^ [9]
- ^ Christopher Tuplin. "Achaemenid Studies", Published by Franz Steiner Verlag, 1996. pg 162.
- ^ Diodorus Siculus. Diodorus of Sicily in Twelve Volumes with an English Translation by C. H. Oldfather. Vol. 4-8. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann, Ltd. 1989. Book 9, 22-24
- ^ Notes and extracts in illustration of A slight sketch of universal history. Richard Simpson Published by Oxford University, 1875.[10]
- ^ The Works of Flavius Josephus ,Translated by William Whiston [11] HOW CYRUS, KING OF THE PERSIANS, DELIVERED THE JEWS OUT OF BABYLON AND SUFFERED THEM TO RETURN TO THEIR OWN COUNTRY AND TO BUILD THEIR TEMPLE, FOR WHICH WORK HE GAVE THEM MONEY. 1. IN the first year of the reign of Cyrus (1) which was the seventieth from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon, God commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they had served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that servitude seventy years, he would restore them again to the land of their fathers, and they should build their temple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity. And these things God did afford them; for he stirred up the mind of Cyrus, and made him write this throughout all Asia: "Thus saith Cyrus the king: Since God Almighty hath appointed me to be king of the habitable earth, I believe that he is that God which the nation of the Israelites worship; for indeed he foretold my name by the prophets, and that I should build him a house at Jerusalem, in the country of Judea." 2. This was known to Cyrus by his reading the book which Isaiah left behind him of his prophecies; for this prophet said that God had spoken thus to him in a secret vision: "My will is, that Cyrus, whom I have appointed to be king over many and great nations, send back my people to their own land, and build my temple." This was foretold by Isaiah one hundred and forty years before the temple was demolished. Accordingly, when Cyrus read this, and admired the Divine power, an earnest desire and ambition seized upon him to fulfill what was so written; so he called for the most eminent Jews that were in Babylon, and said to them, that he gave them leave to go back to their own country, and to rebuild their city Jerusalem, (2) and the temple of God, for that he would be their assistant, and that he would write to the rulers and governors that were in the neighborhood of their country of Judea, that they should contribute to them gold and silver for the building of the temple, and besides that, beasts for their sacrifices. 3. When Cyrus had said this to the Israelites, the rulers of the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin, with the Levites and priests, went in haste to Jerusalem; yet did many of them stay at Babylon, as not willing to leave their possessions; and when they were come thither, all the king's friends assisted them, and brought in, for the building of the temple, some gold, and some silver, and some a great many cattle and horses. So they performed their vows to God, and offered the sacrifices that had been accustomed of old time; I mean this upon the rebuilding of their city, and the revival of the ancient practices relating to their worship. Cyrus also sent back to them the vessels of God which king Nebuchadnezzar had pillaged out of the temple, and had carried to Babylon. So he committed these things to Mithridates, the treasurer, to be sent away, with an order to give them to Sanabassar, that he might keep them till the temple was built; and when it was finished, he might deliver them to the priests and rulers of the multitude, in order to their being restored to the temple. Cyrus also sent an epistle to the governors that were in Syria, the contents whereof here follow: “KING CYRUS TO SISINNES AND SATHRABUZANES SENDETH GREETING. "I have given leave to as many of the Jews that dwell in my country as please to return to their own country, and to rebuild their city, and to build the temple of God at Jerusalem on the same place where it was before. I have also sent my treasurer Mithridates, and Zorobabel, the governor of the Jews, that they may lay the foundations of the temple, and may build it sixty cubits high, and of the same latitude, making three edifices of polished stones, and one of the wood of the country, and the same order extends to the altar whereon they offer sacrifices to God. I require also that the expenses for these things may be given out of my revenues. Moreover, I have also sent the vessels which king Nebuchadnezzar pillaged out of the temple, and have given them to Mithridates the treasurer, and to Zorobabel the governor of the Jews, that they may have them carried to Jerusalem, and may restore them to the temple of God. Now their number is as follows: Fifty chargers of gold, and five hundred of silver; forty Thericlean cups of gold, and five hundred of silver; fifty basons of gold, and five hundred of silver; thirty vessels for pouring [the drink-offerings], and three hundred of silver; thirty vials of gold, and two thousand four hundred of silver; with a thousand other large vessels. (3) I permit them to have the same honor which they were used to have from their forefathers, as also for their small cattle, and for wine and oil, two hundred and five thousand and five hundred drachme; and for wheat flour, twenty thousand and five hundred artabae; and I give order that these expenses shall be given them out of the tributes due from Samaria. The priests shall also offer these sacrifices according to the laws of Moses in Jerusalem; and when they offer them, they shall pray to God for the preservation of the king and of his family, that the kingdom of Persia may continue. But my will is, that those who disobey these injunctions, and make them void, shall be hung upon a cross, and their substance brought into the king's treasury." And such was the import of this epistle. Now the number of those that came out of captivity to Jerusalem, were forty-two thousand four hundred and sixty-two.".
- ^ Cyrus II The Great, in Encyclopedia Iranica by Muhammad A. Dandamayev. [12]
- ^ Cyrus the Messiah? The Historical Background to Isaiah 45:1 Author(s): Lisbeth S. Fried. Source: The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 95, No. 4 (Oct., 2002), pp. 373-393
- ^ Pierre Briant, "From Cyrus to Alexander", Published by EISENBRAUNS, 2002. pg 47.
- ^ "Cyrus II." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 28 July 2008 <http://original.britannica.com/eb/article-1685>.
- ^ Cyrus II The Great, in Encyclopedia Iranica by Muhammad A. Dandamayev. [13]
- ^ Max Mallowan, 'Cyrus the Great' in: Ilya Gershevitch (ed.): The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. II: The Median and Achaemenian Periods, 1985 Cambridge, pages 392-419.
- ^ [Durant, Will (1942) The Story of Civilization:(Part One): Our Oriental Heritage. New York: Simon & Shuster..pp.353].
- ^ [Phillips, Ellen (Editor) (1988). A Soaring Spirit: 600-400 BC. Amsterdam, Holland: Time-Life Books. In Graf, Hirsch, Gleason, & Klefter, Chapter One: Persia at the Crest, pp.17, 20]
- ^ [Cotterell, A. (Editor) (1993). Classical Civilizations. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books. In Young, The Achaemenids (559-330 BC), pp.160]
- ^ [Cotterell, A. (1998). The Pimilco Dictionary of Classical Civilizations: Greece, Rome, Persia, India and China. London, England: Pimilco. In pp.120-121]
- ^ [De Gobineau, J.A. (1971). The World of the Persians. Geneva, Switzerland: Editions Minerva, pp. 31, 43, 47].
- ^ [Buchanan, G, (1964). The Cambridge Ancient History: IV. The Persian Empire and the West (Edited by Bury, J.B., Cook, S.A., & Adcock, F.E.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. In Gray, Chapter One: The Foundation and Extension of the Persian Empire, pp. 12-13].
- ^ Axworthy, M. (2008). A History of Iran: Empire of the Mind. New York: Perseus Book Group, pp. 12-15.
- ^ Michael Woods, Mary B. Woods,"Seven Wonders of the Ancient Middle East", Published by Twenty-First Century Books, 2008. pg 28 comments on the Cyrus Cylinder
- ^ John Christian Laursen. Religious Toleration: "the Variety of Rites" from Cyrus to Defoe. John Christian Laursen Published by Macmillan, 1999. pg 18
- ^ John Curtis, Nigel Tallis, Beatrice Andre-Salvini, "Forgotten Empire ", Published by University of California Press, 2005. excerpt: Because of the reference to just and peaceful rule, and to the restoration of deported peoples and their gods the cylinder has in recent years been referred to in some quarters as a kind of 'Charter of Human Rights'. Such a concept would have been quite alien to Cyrus's contemporaries, and indeed the cylinder says nothing of human rights; but return of the Jews and of other deported peoples were a significant reversal of the policies of ealier Assyrian and Babylonian Kings(page 59).
- ^ W. J. Talbott, "Which Rights Should be Universal?", Oxford University Press US, 2005. excerpt from pg 40): Perhaps the earliest known advocate of religious tolerance was Cyrus the Great, king of Persia in the sixth century B.C.E. Cyrus also opposed slavery and freed thousands of slaves. These facts do not make Cyrus or Ashoka an advocate of human rights. They do show that ideas that led to the development of human rights are not limited to one cultural tradition.