Talk:Human rights/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Claims and settlement handled by investigator persha Sampson in regards to Shane Yorke or Shane Browne.

I hired a private investigator to retrieve my documents from the state of Britain and she is withholding my belongings and I need help please. My name is Shane Olson Yorke previously known as Shane Olson Browne this woman robbed me and left me penniless. Yorke Browne shane (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Claims and settlement handled by investigator persha Sampson in regards to Shane Yorke or Shane Browne.

I hired a private investigator to retrieve my documents from the state of Britain and she is withholding my belongings and I need help please. My name is Shane Olson Yorke previously known as Shane Olson Browne this woman robbed me and left me penniless. Yorke Browne shane (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

adding discussion of the Haitian Revolution to the Human Rights entry

I was surprised to see that the Haitian Revolution is not mentioned in this article given its significance for the history of human rights. I would suggest adding a reference in the section on the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. It was the massive slave uprisings in French Saint-Domingue beginning in August 1791 that led to general emancipation in that colony in 1793 — which was then extended across the French empire in early 1794. In other words, the situation in Saint-Domingue pressured the realization and universalization of the principles of the Declaration of the Rights of Man. In addition, while France under Napoleon restored slavery to its colonies, the threat of this spurred revolutionaries in Saint-Domingue to overthrow French rule, and the newly-founded nation of Haiti permanently banned slavery — the first former colony in the Americas to do so.

Historian Laurent Dubois discusses this well: "...the slave plantation system in Saint-Domingue and elsewhere was one of the most successful mechanisms for the mass denial of human rights in the history of the modern world. Starting with the 1791 slave insurrection,it is therefore not surprising that those who set about courageously, brilliantly and systematically destroying this system crafted particularly powerful assertions of human rights. Haiti, not the US or France, was where the assertion of true universal values reached its defining climax during the Age of Revolution. Enslaved people who were considered chattel rather than human beings successfully insisted that they had the right to be free and, secondly, that they had the right to govern themselves according to a new set of principles. Their actions were a signal and a transformative moment in the political history of the world. The Haitian revolutionaries propelled the Enlightenment principles of universalism forward in unexpected ways by insisting on the self-evident – but then largely denied – principle that no one should be a slave." (https://aeon.co/essays/why-haiti-should-be-at-the-centre-of-the-age-of-revolution) Krmiami (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2019

130.193.242.77 (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done No request was made. aboideau^talk 15:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Edit

Hi

Is it possible to add additional information particularly updates on human rights violations?

Thank you

LOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2019

New reference: Author SeekAndRead and url: https://www.seekandread.com/human-rights-important/ Some81 (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: You haven't indicated what you want to reference. I also don't think that site meets wikipedia's reliability criteria. They say "The content on SeekAndRead is provided based on our research" but they do not explain their research or their qualifications. NiciVampireHeart 16:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2019

Please change "The African Union (AU) is a supranational union consisting of fifty-three African states."

to

"The African Union (AU) is a supranational union consisting of fifty-five African states."

The source is the AU website: https://au.int/en/member_states/countryprofiles2 David.springer (talk) 10:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Y Done. Mindmatrix 13:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Human rights for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Human rights is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Human rights until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

minor spelling error

in the ninth paragraph under 'universalism and relativism', which starts with the name 'Michael Ignatieff' - the word "who's" should be whose. The former is a contraction of 'who is' while the latter is the possessive.

• Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Request of Help

I was looking for some small help. I created an article Valentine's Day in Pakistan. While article subject orientation is related to Romance relationships and festival, but in some parts of the world it touches serious issues like violations of women's rights & Human rights At this stage looking for help in better chronological order within article, and continued copy edit help in times to come.

Thanks in advance.

Bookku (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Human rights are just for psychopaths

Human rights are just for psychopaths — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.44.230.1 (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Article adoption request

Hi,

Marvi Sirmed is a feminist & human rights activist from Pakistan. If more people do not come forward it won't be a supersize that article Marvi Sirmed likely to get credit of most hate attacked, defamed & vandalized Pakistani feminist article on English Wikipedia.

So making this article adoption request to rescue & protect the same.

Thanks & warm regards

Bookku (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Requesting wider attention

I felt article Islamic_literature is in bit of neglect so I added my note on talk page there, requesting to take note of Talk:Islamic_literature#Article_review. If possible requesting copy edit support. Suggestions for suitable reference sources at Talk:Islamic_literature is also welcome.

Posting message here too for neutrality sake

Thanks and greetings

Bookku (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

History section is missing tons of info

I was reading the Istislah page and clicked over to learn about the history of human rights and was immensely disappointed.

The simple claim “ancient peoples didnt know about rights” is a massive oversimplification, quickly disproven by the main page history of human rights.

The choice to begin entirely within European conceptions of human rights is, in my opinion, a large oversight, if not actively ignorant.

Of course, because of the existence of the History page, this section does not need a large amount of detail regarding these early innovations. But their complete omission is an unacceptable disregard for early human & non-european intellectual thought. Jdftba (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Human Rights article is too ambitious and covers too much, dilutes good points, biases towards bad points

Hi

I've noticed that the Human Rights page is far too ambitious in the way it attempts to cover every aspect of the topic. Because of this and the fact it's such a sensitive area, the page becomes too easily misrelied upon as a central reference. This leads to gross misunderstanding and misinterpretation away from factual and academic context.

I believe this page should be split into three different pages - not just different sections.

Page 1. A basic Human Rights page, addressing the cornerstones for the concept of Human Rights, and should be called just that: Cornerstones of Human Rights or Human Rights - Foundations. This page should cover the concept of a 'human right' from philosophy, religion, political ideologies, and legal angles. Not individual rights, but the juris and foundation precepts. This is a massive area of work that should be used to introduce readers to the overlaps and differences to what is seen as universal vs local, the school of thought that legitimizes human rights, and how the history or these disciplines impacts on what is a human right. There should also be a clear distinction that legal rights, equitable rights, moral rights, and human rights are all different but often confused. This page also needs to take a neutral global view, not a US-centric or Western-centric view. Otherwise it should be called US Human Rights, or Western Human Rights.

Page 2. A listing of agreed universal human rights, is a page to list human rights that are genuinely acknowledged and accepted under a global majority of cultures and countries. It's a dummies guide list of what is generally understood and accepted (without massive controversy) when using the term Human Rights. This is tricky in that many countries and cultures won't always agree, but this is part of the discussion under each listed Human Right. The purpose of the page isn't to add any controversial, nation specific, or developing / arising rights. It's to provide a guidance for the average lay person what are generally considered the basic Human Rights of the majority / consensus of cultures, countries, religions, etc. I know there is already a Universal Declaration for Human Rights page, but this is specifically for the UN instrument and focuses on this one source of agreed Human Rights - specifically on the UN agreement itself.

Page 3. A listing of all the idiosyncratic and controversial human rights that some countries are seeking or developing. Keeping these away from Pages 1 and 2 means that people do not assert these grey rights as definitively recognized human rights. This page can include all the debates for and against for each of these controversial rights, and comment on how the context of their proposal and support is driven by particular legal, religious, political and cultural norms and debates. This allows for debate and wiki member contributions to be quarantined from the established and accepted universal rights. Good examples of these are Euthanasia, Gun Rights, Pro life vs Pro Choice, etc. Many of these are driven more from idiosyncratic political and religious leanings rather than an over-arching universal view, and many of these are derivative of underlying concepts that might be Human Rights, but in stepping away into more specific applications become new assertions and are no longer implicitly Human Rights, and rely on moral, political, and legal debates.

As it currently stands, the Human Rights page covers all the above in a distracting and misleading way.

Thanks, and looking forward to the responses.

Agreed. Jdftba (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Regional Human rights

The idea of human rights is universal. The term "Regional human rights" is not valid. It should be: "Human rights in various regions" or at least "Regional human rights regimes." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daceloh (talk • contribs) 16:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Baltasar Garzon

please change ((Baltasar Garzon)) to ((Baltasar Garzón)) 2601:541:4580:8500:1F:6D75:A632:114F (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Volteer1 (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2021

Ball39 (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

nice article

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 11:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is in desperate need of a criticism section

Soapboxing by IP user 184.147.248.119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

While the concept of a universal right is logical the problem is humans sometimes disagree on what those universal rights should be. For instance, one reason we have democratic elections and courts is to try to resolve what should and shouldn't be a right thus rights can change with time within even a given jurisdiction. It's also important to note just because someone puts the words "human rights" in their sentences does not make them magically immune from bigotry and poor moral judgement. Unfortunately today sundry so-called "human rights" activists are usually treated as an unaccountable priest class on all issues related to rights.. rights we can't even agree on... which is absurd. The fallout of this unaccountability is if you subsequently accuse sundry self-proclaimed "human rights defenders" of bias they will manipulatively claim you oppose "human rights" rather than their personal views. We can question the views of people on left, right, and center but not question those that frame their politics as "human rights"? In short, there needs a criticism section that mentions the philosophical concept of framing and how the term "human rights" is often abused to push everything from leftwing politics, to extreme nationalism, bigotry to specific groups, and even for-profit scams. Examples of bias in "human rights". - leftists manipulatively framing their views as "human rights".. an anti-human rights definition. Like democracy human rights must be politically neutral. It can't unilaterally take a political side or no longer represents the views of the humans that it's supposed to represent. - governments and extreme nationalists that sometimes fund organizations that proport to support "Human rights" as a form of soft power and diplomatic capital. You can spot these by their unprincipled focus on perceived enemies and glossing over what they see as their own nationalist or ethnic causes. (e.g. a-la-carte support for mass migration into other countries.. but not what they see as their own homelands) - "human rights" NGOs that encourage mass violation of borders by claiming illegal economic migrants are not illegal. Or that twist the spirit of international asylum agreements by not showing moderation with migration and framing what amounts to demographic warfare against entire nations as "human rights" - alleged "journalists' that uncritically parrot NGOs as if NGOs are omniscient on all moral issues. For instance, there is a reasonable argument to be made that any media that parrot "human rights" NGOs that support mass migration are effectively encouraging human trafficking, deaths, and global political instability through their virtually non-existent immigration policies - NGOs that give special treatment and even special words for prejudice to some identifiable groups and not others.. an anti-human rights definition. - Unprincipled application of human rights. For instance, if you look at the sitting UN "Human rights" Council, not a single country on it follows the rules it preaches preaches to others. A perfect example of this is migration issue, where virtually every country in the world discourages mass migration, legal or illegal, but then flip-flops on the issue if those migrants end up in other states. All the members of the UN "Human rights" council violate their own alleged migration rules. This is not to say human rights shouldn't exist but this article would far better serve that cause by being more coherent as to what actually is a human right (versus ones that aren't actually followed) as well as critical of all those that have co-opted the term "human rights" as a synonym for their politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.248.119 (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC) I'd like to add someone just tried to delete this section pointing out this article has no criticism section of alleged "human rights", despite that I offered obvious examples of ways human rights language is being manipulated. This further illustrates the need to discuss this sort of sundry framing of narrowly focused politics as "human rights' and their widespread unprincipled application and contradicting definitions around the globe today. Members of UN "Human rights" council.. violating human rights. To bring substance to the claim that "human rights" lingo is being widely abused... and that this Wikipedia article makes no mention to captain obvious... here is the example of the current members of the UN "human rights" council. I challenge anyone who claims my criticism is insincere to find me a nation on this list that isn't violating "human rights" in some fashion according to the UN "Human rights" council's own alleged definition of "human rights". https://www.un.org/en/ga/75/meetings/elections/hrc.shtml Angola (2020) Afghanistan(2020) Bulgaria (2021) Argentina (2021) Australia (2020) Burkina Faso (2021) Bahrain (2021) Czech Republic (2021) Bahamas (2021) Austria (2021) Cameroon (2021) Bangladesh (2021) Slovakia (2020) Chile (2020) Denmark (2021) Democratic Republic of the Congo (2020) Fiji (2021) Ukraine (2020) Mexico (2020) Italy (2021) Eritrea (2021) India (2021) Peru (2020) Spain (2020) Nigeria (2020) Nepal (2020) Uruguay (2021) Senegal (2020) Pakistan (2020) Somalia (2021) Philippines (2021) Togo (2021) Qatar (2020) Helesinki Federation for "human rights"... a scam A prominent example of scammers that siphoning money using "human rights" a smokescreen. More evidence of just how desperately this article needs a section criticizing abuse of the terms "human rights". https://www.rferl.org/a/1079257.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.248.119 (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC) HRW bizarrely implying there is no such thing as illegal migrant Here is an example of leftist biased HRW abusing "human rights" to frame their leftist definition of "human rights' as synonymous with international rule of law. "Terms such as “illegal immigrants,” Illegal aliens,” “illegal migrants” and “illegals” are problematic for several reasons: "Such terms are dehumanizing and degrading, implying at worst that the people concerned are in some way inherently criminal or illegitimate" https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/06/24/human-rights-watch-guidelines-describing-migrants Contrary to Orwellian framing by some those that claim to support "human rights" at last check under international law ALL countries in the world have right to defend their borders against someone defined as an illegal migrant (typically economy migrants). Even Wikipedia article uses the nomenclature ILLEGAL migrant. https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Illegal_immigration — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.248.119 (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'm collapsing your comments because you don't suggest any concrete changes (except adding a "criticism" section, but 1) that would likely be inappropriate per WP:CSECTION 2) you do not mention any criticisms of human rights per se, only certain (perceived) interpretations of human rights). (t · c) buidhe 06:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary I have provided plenty of examples, sources, and have been very specific on types of abuses of human rights lingo. Despite your insinuation there shouldn't be a criticism section I would point out there are plenty of Wikipedia articles with criticism sections. Please don't stalk me on other Wikipedia articles because I criticized your own selective definition and use of "human rights" on the "pushback' article you created. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.248.119 (talk) 07:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Soapboxing by IP user 184.147.248.119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Examples of nations practicing support for "human rights"... a-la-carte. More evidence for any doubters that "human rights" lingo is being rampantly abused -- thus the issue should be addressed in the Wikipedia article that claims to speak of "human rights". This list below is by no means complete. I would argue every country in the world should be on this list as an example of preaching on thing then doing another locally. I've only selected a cross section of first world nations that typically are responsible for funding alleged 'human rights' NGOs to demonstrate even first world countries aren't following locally what they claim should be "human rights" in other nations. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-seeks-ease-rules-poland-baltics-migration-standoff-with-belarus-2021-12-01/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/11/17/even-sweden-doesnt-want-migrants-anymore-syria-iraq-belarus/ https://www.euronews.com/2021/09/04/austria-and-serbia-vow-to-stop-afghan-refugees-entering-europe https://ecre.org/detention-insecurity-rights-deprivation-the-legal-crackdown-on-asylum-seekers-in-germany/ https://ecre.org/spain-and-algeria-agree-on-joint-migration-crackdown-while-at-algerias-southern-border-deported-migrants-perish-in-the-desert/ https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/irelands-strange-cruel-system-for-asylum-seekers https://apnews.com/article/immigration-business-middle-east-africa-israel-ca3cf337baf24da725daabcf9e4332cc https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/channel-push-backs-law-asylum-france-b1967191.html https://www.npr.org/2021/12/02/1060896872/u-s-will-resume-remain-in-mexico-policy-for-asylum-seekers etc. etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.248.119 (talk) 07:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC) This article projects a false image of "human rights" having a universal definition Pulled straight from the article... "Some human rights are said to be "inalienable rights". The term inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refers to "a set of human rights that are fundamental, are not awarded by human power, and cannot be surrendered. The adherence to the principle of indivisibility by the international community was reaffirmed in 1995. All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and related. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis. Vienna Declaration and Program of Action, World Conference on Human Rights, 1995 This statement was again endorsed at the 2005 World Summit in New York" ...except the alleged "human rights" in question in real world practice aren't treated in universal fashion. That would include all the members that signed sundry alleged "human rights" agreements above quote mentions. It's very easily observable what is framed as "Human rights" in real world practice is not only being defined in different ways but often in unprincipled ways. All one needs to is look at how virtually every nation in the world is currently handling migrant issues. When it comes to migrants, nearly every member state of the UN is currently violating the UN's own alleged definition of "human rights". And the above contradiction is just one type of abuse of alleged "human rights" lingo. All I'm requesting is a section in the article pointing out more clearly the there is competition for ownership of the terms "human rights" as well as widespread unprincipled use of the very definitions that nations around the globe agreed to follow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.248.119 (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2022

"change Ancient peoples did not have the same modern-day conception of universal human rights". Because Islam has given the universal human rights to humans ,1400 yers ago. How can you ignore it. 118.107.131.136 (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Content in Wikipedia depends on reliable sources. Can you provide one for that claim. Note that holy books don't count. HiLo48 (talk) 05:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Rephrasing article

I don't know how precisely one would go about this, but the article should be rephrased to make it clearer that human rights are a concept, not an inherent part of the world. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 07:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Rene Cassin

please change ((Rene Cassin)) to ((René Cassin)) 2601:541:4580:8500:8C64:3F96:34DE:16FD (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Human Rights used as a weapon in the current Russian-Ukraine war?

National Security Adviser to Jimmy Carter, US President (1977-1981), Brzezinski stated that human rights could be used to put the Soviet Union ideologically on the defensive:

I felt strongly that in the U.S.-Soviet competition the appeal of America as a free society could become an important asset, and I saw in human rights an opportunity to put the Soviet Union ideologically on the defensive....by actively pursuing this' commitment we could mobilize far greater global support and focus global attention on the glaring internal weaknesses of the Soviet system.

Tulsipres (talk) 05:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Missing Citation

Citation 2 is here: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/rights-human/ Monarrezpuckett (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)