Talk:Civil rights

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of May 23, 2005.
Globe icon
 The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.
48px} This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Project page, where you can join the Project and contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Headline text

Someone edit this and give me a civilrights INCIDENT! I gotta project ta do!

-- characteristic of Locke's thinking, much of the West, is also POV, and very foreign to many cultures. I think this article needs a much broader viewpoint which acknowledges that different societies define civil and human rights differently at different times, and includes the "civil rights" of some eastern and indigenous cultures also. Taking language from and referencing the page on human rights would help. NealMcB 20:44, 2004 Mar 23 (UTC)

To say that civil rights are "granted to citizens by the government" isn't exactly true. There are many schools of thought which say civil rights are inate in man and cannot be taken away by a government (or are granted by God). Maybe someone who's interested in legal philosophy could expand page to be a little broader. --Jonathan.King 15:40, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Government has no rights to grant -- they belong to the people who grant certain powers to the government with the intent that those powers are used to secure the natural rights of the people. A clear reference is the preamble to the U. S. Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
Although this might seem a minor and rather quaint issue, there is huge power in this philosophy. If the state is the source of all rights, it is a simple matter for the state to revoke the rights it has apparently bestowed upon the people and govern tryannically. If the people themselves are the source of the rights, they have the right and legal power to remove the government at their pleasure if it fails to secure the rights as it has been charged. It's the foundation of constitutional law in the United States, and the sole reason that government's interests may not always prevail in the Supreme Court of the United States. If government "owns" the rights, what's to stop it from revoking a right after the State loses a case in the Supreme Court?
  • In political theory, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties are two very different, and often times conflicting, issues. Civil Liberties are freedoms shared by all citizens that are protected from the government through a contitutional arrangement. For example, "Congress shall pass no law that...", the American Bill of Rights prevents the Congress from passing laws that hinder free speech, association, etc. Civil Rights, on the other hand, are in fact granted to citizens by the government. For example, Civil Rights laws were written to ensure African Americans could not be discriminated against. In this case, the government barred private companies from treating people differently based on race. Civil Rights and Civil Liberties can sometimes conflict with one another. For example, a popular Civil Rights issue in the US is Hate Crime legislation, which includes provisions for banning Hate Speech. This is an example of when someone's "right" not to hear something offensive is in direct conflict with someone's "liberty" to speak freely.

[edit] Philosophy/conceptual approach

I have put down my marker, for what it's worth, by introducing Hohfeld. I could go on to look at the others but, before I commit to the work, I need some assurance that the team wants an entirely neutral, non-geographical consideration of civil rights, the concept.Without this assurance, I suggest you revert and continue with a random list of civil rights politics in different countries. -David91 19:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that as is it is anything more than tangential, and more relevant to the concept of a right itself as opposed to, more specifically, civil rights. Others may disagree. --TJive 23:01, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

The problem may be stated simply: what are the "rights" in civil rights? Unless you define your terms, your use of those terms will be problematic. As it currently exists, the opening paragraph makes interesting reading. It asserts that civil rights are enforced by governments. This implies that the rights are therefore somehow created by governments and foisted on to the people. This cannot be right (usage intended to make the point). In philosophical terms, the rights already exist independently of the legal system and, when their existence becomes controversial, some of them are formalised into laws (frequently being distorted in a partisan process). Hence, I think the entire page should be rewritten from scratch to remove unjustified assumptions and assertions, and to establish a conceptual framework within which specific examples can be considered. For example, would a use of power to remove or restrict an adult's right to freely associate with another be an infringement of that person's civil rights? Would discriminatory treatment on the ground of nationality, political views. race, religion, gender, disability, etc, all properly be considered within the framework? If so, what is the common denominator as between, say, preventing a transgender person from going through a marriage ceremony and preventing a Christian from interfering in the teaching of science? Without a conceptual framework, the inclusion of any issue you might select will be arbitrary and potentially offend sensibilities because you have not established a neutral POV. -David91 06:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

It's true that there is a lack of a framework but this aspect should be more implicit and kept to the article pertaining specifically to rights itself. That is all I am saying. --TJive 07:22, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

OK, the question to ask the world to vote on is: should a conceptual framework be central and explicit, or should it be implicit? Your votes matter! -David91 07:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the latter, though the body of the article could use a lot of work in even this. I don't necessarily think your contribution is not valuable, just aimed at the wrong aspect. Go ahead and hammer out something. --TJive 08:54, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

OK TJive, I've hammered out something. I'll now sit back and let the world judge whether it hits the mark or not. -David91 20:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I find it interesting reading, but I'm not sure how relevant Nozick and Rawls' contributions are for the topic at hand: Civil rights. Nozick negates the usefulness of the concept altogether. Such an opinion could be relevant if it were factual criticism. Which means, if it provided rational arguments and examples for failure of the concept. Instead - at least as depicted here - it seems to be based on ideology and belief ("no state is ever justified in offering ...", "He denied the possibility", "... believed that there are no civil rights"). Rawls' principles are already discussed in other articles and seem to be rather a general "concept of right" which fits better in a general article about Right or Justice. Common Man 10:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Nozick powerfully supports all civil rights that are consistent with autonomy (and equally vehemently denies all those that interfere with autonomy). The Nozick POV resonates powerfully in capitalist countries where employers bitterly resent being told by government how they should recruit their employees. Their ability to lobby legislatures is not to be denied in the process of determining whether relevant civil rights are to be given effective support. I included the three philospohers because, if I was going to analyse a sample civil right, I needed to be able to offer reasons for giving the selected right legal enforcement or denying it. The question I pose to all those who comment here is a simple one. Is a page like this going to be little more than a list of civil rights somewhat arbitrarily selected from different legal systems (leaving it to the reader to infer principles at work) or is Wikipedia about giving a positive explanation of how the arguments are made without any reference to a particular legal system? It is self-evident that I believe a list of country-specific examples with no analysis of context and of the policies and forces at work within each state, to be a waste of time. As a policy, I think we should be aiming at clear conceptual explanations because they have the greatest applicability across national boundaries and cultural expectations. But then this is a consensus-driven activity so it's up to all of you to actually contribute to make the final version of the page the best compromise that we can make. I have abstained from reallocating the US and Irish material to separate pages where I think they belong, clearly labelled as being state-specific examples. If you all want to reduce my contribution and expand the examples, let's get to it. But, with respect to the examples, can we explain why some rights have been adopted by states and others have not. That will give the naif reader a chance of grasping the principles at work in each state. -David91 20:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the contributions are valuable, but a tiny bit rough around the edges. I'd comb them over if I wasn't alternately busy and lazy at the moment. I also find Common Man's complaint about the negation of one's ideology to be not merely scary but symptomatic of many intrinsic biases here. Having a particular view of what civil rights may be, and how they are qualified in the view (especially if it is as fleshed out as these men) is inherently to have an ideology; yet it seems that for many a view is to be taken as fact and we erase the existence of possibility of alternatives. In that sense I am fully on David's side. --TJive 02:22, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

I attempted some clean up, but one major problem exists which I wish you to comment on, having contributed the body as it stands.

Put simply, it seems to me that the concept of what a civil right may be, as opposed to merely a right is not explicitly stated here in connection with the bulk of the material. Moreover, it seems that to the extent that civil rights are addressed, it is with the implicit assumption that they invoke positive liberty--what you say Hohfeld claims entails a duty of person B. This does not allow to the minimalist conception of civil rights as claims against the actions of the state--i.e. that the state may not discriminate in its employment or voting standards, that it must allow citizen participation (i.e. voting) in some form, etc. Though Nozick's view is not made explicit on the matter, it is not at all inconsistent with minarchist principles and yet the reader is given the impression that there is no fundamental distinction between, say, forbidding an action by government as opposed to outlawing, coercively eliminating, a thought, belief, speech, or practice by the free citizenry--restricting their liberty. You seem to have a tight grasp on the concept of what claims to rights entail, yet do not notice this glaring hole. Thoughts? --TJive 15:38, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Since it seems to be the will of the majority to retain the two sections on rights in the US and Northern ireland, I have somewhat recast the section on NI in what may prove to be a vain attempt to give one thousand years of history a more factual context. And by way of reply to TJive: this is a building blocks approach. What we may characterise as civil rights, first emerge through interpersonal relationships. As more people form into larger communities, they compare notes and, over time, normative rights emerge depending on the current conceptions of fairness and justice. If everyone could just get on with each other, there would never be a need for states to get involved, but people are selfish and "push the envelope to their own advantage". So if powerful groups are disputing how an important normative right should work, how should a state decide which side to favour? That why these theories have emerged. They try to give states some degree of rationality and consistency in their decision making. As a result, the Nozick approach has tended to be preferred in the U.S. whereas a Rawlsian style prevails in Europe.

Hence, with respect, you are not asking the right questions. There is no such thing as "civil rights as claims against the actions of the state". States are sovereign and not accountable to anyone. But people in positions of authority make contracts and commit torts. If there are problems in the degree to which different types of contract should or should not be enforceable, or the extent to which a state should or should not accept vicarious liability for the actions of its employees, this is not a matter of civil rights, it is a question of constitutional sovereignty. Then you ask whether there is a "fundamental distinction between, say, forbidding an action by government as opposed to outlawing, coercively eliminating, a thought, belief, speech, or practice by the free citizenry--restricting their liberty"? This is confused. Because a government is sovereign it can do what it likes and then do the opposite. That is its right. If legislative power is used for the oppression of a minority, that is not ipso facto an abuse of civil rights. For an extreme example, the minority may be a terrorist organisation with a political agenda (e.g. ETA or the IRA as opposed to Sinn Féin — sorry to be controversial). Hence, in order to determine whether the use of the law for this purpose is or is not legitimate, you need to apply the theories. Utilitarianism legitimises any outcome that maximises the benefit of the majority, etc. etc. If minorities are excluded from voting, the state must take a view on, for example, whether criminals or those with a mental disability should have the same rights as other adult citizens. Hence, Hohfeldian analysis on disability, etc. If the liberties of the citizen are being encroached upon in some way, whether by the actions of people in positions of power or the practices of a significant number of individuals, the theories apply to determine whether and how the state should legislate. In all the theories, everything flows from the proposition that civil rights have their existence independently of the law or the state. The state only gets involved to the extent that it is necessary to force one group of citizens to change their behaviour when they are unwilling to make the change out of the goodness of their hearts. I may not have explained it very well, but there is no glaring hole as you have sought to identify it. -David91 18:34, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes there is, and I am not seeing that it has been so much directly addressed, whereas it is more than an implicit assumption of the article so far--though other users are already attempting to change the article into a laundry list of social demands under the same umbrella. The conception of civil rights in the US, as you say what "normative rights emerge depending on the current conceptions of fairness and justice", began largely as a reaction to the dictates of the state, which forbade the same political participation to females and blacks as to male whites, which enforced racial segregation in private businesses, ran certain services on its own (such as schools) where this same segregation was enforced, etc. You seem to have instead turned the matter into two distinctly different things (though also common to the conception of civil rights, whether one believes them to be correct or not):
  • Contractual/labor disputes by government employment where there is a vague question of whether discrimination has played a hand in accepting a perhaps lesser qualified employee
  • Similar private feuds which the neutral divinity of the state reluctantly must guide by its hand
Whereas everyone knows the state had not been a mute observer of quaint notions of injustice but had actually been constructing these standards over decades' time. And the bit about terrorist groups, etc. as minorities is asinine considering the conception of protected minorities has been enshrined in law for decades (race, sex, which I had thought it was clear that I was addressing, but perhaps not, and although admittedly it is being destroyed in the service of privileges for gay unions (and arguably has been already in the service of those with disability)).
Finally, some of the trappings of your argument are absurd on their face when taken literally. Government may not "do what it likes" to any extent that people are willing to challenge laws which injure them and that are clearly against or beyond the limits on their power as enshrined in the constitution--this, after all, was both the method in which the concepts of civil rights in the US were enshrined and necessarily interpreted (by various amendments and subsequent court rulings regarding them), not simply that it was one government's whim.
I will put the problem to a question more succinctly in attempt to have a forthright response before I do anything whatever to the article. Say that a government has decreed that all businesses (as it has previously defined) must segregate their services on the basis of race. What are you saying Nozick's approach to this would necessarily be, as opposed to the mere existence of segregation at the initiation of the businesses themselves (which it seems he would merely leave to the autonomy of individuals with liberty)?--TJive 08:31, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

I am not interested in a shooting match with you or anyone else in Wikiland. I am long retired and too old to care whether anyone listens to what I say. Before walking away from this topic and letting you all do what you want, I will say only one thing which, no doubt, everyone will consider insufferable arrogance. Every word I have written is technically correct from a philosophical POV which may be outside the common experience and what appears to be commonly accepted wisdom. For example, the concept of sovereignty allows states to do what they want. That states may choose not to has nothing to do with the concept but is related to politics. If you wish to assume greater knowledge than I and write stuff that philosophers might consider laughable, go ahead. But in the process, remember that this is supposed to be a neutral forum providing a service to naive users who want only information. So I advise that, in everything that you write on this topic, you make it clear when you are talking about the concepts and when you are talking about politics.

As to an answer to your question on Nozick, let us get specific. Some of the key features of the apartheid system in South Africa included a tiered labour market with black workers being limited to the worst-paying, most menial and dangerous jobs while being excluded from trade union membership and basic employment protection rights. Go into rural India today and you will find that millions of Dalits are not allowed to draw water from common wells and hand pumps, separate utensils are used to serve them at tea and food stalls, they are not allowed entry to the temples and Dalit children are made to sit at the back of the classroom. Governments do what they like for as long as they like. South Africa decided that it was expedient to enter into a process of transformation (which we all hope will ultimately benefit the majority). The Indian Government abolished untouchability in 1950 under Article 16 of the Constitution, but there has never been any effective enforcement so the legislative act did not undo 1,500 years of caste oppression. Nozick would say that such laws are not legitimate because the Jeffersonian right to the pursuit of happiness is not equally available to all. Rawls would say such laws are unjust, etc. But these are only philosophical answers and nothing is going to improve the practical lot of those living in states where their civil rights are abused unless those in power agree to it — and that is politics and has nothing to do with the theory of law. Ask Aung San Suu Kyi your question and you will get a very different answer from the one you might get from Ronald Dworkin.

Oh, yes, and I absolutely agree that all these bolt-on additions should go into separate pages. -David91 11:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you so intellectually insecure that you must immediately resort to self-aggrandizement in response to the slightest reproach regarding what you have laid out here? I have said numerous times that I believe your contribution has been positive and would not have addressed you in the first place if I did not believe you had something worthwhile to say on the subject, and in return you have given me your condescension and half-answers.
I have never conversed with or read any student or teacher of philosophy who ridicules the possibility of the existence of a concept that states do not have absolute sovereignty to decide the fates of peoples irrespective of the consent of the populace and the populace's relation to the formation or simple perceived legitimacy of the state. The concept of a right does not necessarily imply a mere contractual demand between citizens through the agent of government but something which is inalienable and that at best a government may secure (by acting to punish those individuals and entities who violate those rights). You mention Jefferson but gloss over the significance of this very Jeffersonian premise (though it is not merely his). It does not interest me the particular views of either the people or governments of South Africa or India in the strictest sense that if something is a right then it is so irrespective of what a given majority believes (and notice the fluctuation in the belief and circumstances, particularly in South Africa, anyhow)--this does not at all strike me as incompatible with either the views of Nozick or Rawls.
Now, let's make this less abstract and say that the business to which I referred was in fact in the US--which is to say we are presuming that there exists a governmental system with enumerated, limited powers and sovereignty, and that citizens have the ability to petition for redress of grievances--which in this case is that of segregation (and its ostensible unconstitutionality). Philosophically (i.e. apart from this constitutional document), what would Nozick have to say about a law which violates the autonomy of individuals in the very explicit and clear sense that it forces them to segregate blacks and whites? How is this dissimilar to a law which violates the liberty of an employer to hire who he wishes under whatever circumstance he determines--i.e. a less qualified white man than a black man or no black men whatever? You have not made this distinction clear but it is completely necessary in order to approach the question of the legitimacy of civil rights concepts in the first place. --TJive 13:08, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

--> TJive, please read No personal attacks, it's an important official policy. --Fenice 13:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hilarious considering it is you for which it has been necessary to direct towards the policy. --TJive 13:25, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Why? I am refering to "intellectually insecure". --Fenice 13:26, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please, I am not insulting him, I am rebuking his temperament towards my remarks, which is substantively inappropriate (as he could envision himself). I am sure he can handle the inquiry. --TJive 13:32, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
I am quite sure your intention is good. --Fenice 13:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, concerning your conflict: TJive have you considered proposing a section on Natural law. It might fill some of what you call a "glaring hole".--Fenice 13:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is possible though I was hoping for a consideration of the sort with respect to what he has contributed; instead I have received a slightly childish rebuke. --TJive 13:32, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] pov,etc.

I would also note that it seems in the very conceptual standards you laid out that there is a separate problem which I identified previously, namely that others are using this article to promote their view of politics and erase all other perspectives, even the mild caveat which I inserted. Instead, it is merely a factual assertion that "feminism", "worker's rights", and so forth are a rational extension of any conception of rights and civil rights. This, too, is something which deserves redress. --TJive 08:37, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Be specific - which caveat was erased that you wanted to keep?
  • promote their view of politics: the article is also on politics. It must be acceptable that major views on civil rights are portrayed, when they are attributed to the source.
  • which deserves redress:

what do you suggest as a solution?--Fenice 10:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You deleted: Often these same issues are instead referred to as matters of civil liberty, though both characterizations are disputed as being applicable on this grounds (or at least the validity of the right or liberty is questioned), particularly in the case of such a matter as abortion, where there are conflicting claims over what party is being protected. It is grammatically sloppy but consequential. As for a solution, I would suggest refraining from making lists to Santa Claus without the possibility of difference of perspective.user: TJive
  1. It is unclear what 'both' refers to.
  2. It is unclear what 'these grounds' refers to.

Then fix the grammar (which does not offend me in the slightest) rather than deleting the substance of the paragraph.

  • It is not supposed to offend you. (...?)--Fenice 13:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  1. The concrete example about abortion is such an extreme pov that it's hard to believe that the writer seriously intends what he is saying.--Fenice 11:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I fully intend what I am saying--the question of abortion in regard to a view of civil rights boils down to whether a fetus has rights (and hence the right to live) or whether the mother has the right to abort the fetus. That is a rather elementary concept that your pejoratives will not do away with. --TJive 13:18, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
That's ok, and so I understood the sentence correctly in the first place, I am afraid. What you are expressing is a very rare minority view and therefore needs to be excluded from the text. The majority view even of extremist pro-lifers or catholics is that the right of the mother to personal freedom is always there. You can of course contend anything, but that is not mainstream idea.--Fenice 13:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In other words I am completely correct and you feel it your duty to exclude views by labeling them as "extremist". Sorry, doesn't work that way, at least with any person who is intellectually honest.
But here, I'll patronize you by providing the same weight you have: the "right to personal freedom" of the mother to abort is precisely what is contested by the majority of "extremist pro-lifers and catholics", instead favoring the view that the fetus has the right to live. --TJive 13:46, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
If you can provide a source that explicitely says that, let's look at it. Women have a right to personal freedom, in this case f. i. the right to self determination is relevant. It is just there. Abortion laws limit that right. Wether and when the fetus is a person that has a right to life is subject to debate. That women have a right to self determination is never on debate. The debate is as to whether it can be limited or not.--Fenice 13:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Again, you are utilizing your own ideological disposition to trump a vast number of others. I wasn't even implying a disregard for "self determination" but that in the abortion debate it is disputed which claim to protection is valid. However even in deference to the position that there is no such right it is not your position to disregard this alternative view.
"Women have a right to personal freedom" is itself POV and inappropriate to invest in an article at your discretion. --TJive 14:57, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Well, just in case you are wondering: no we cannot include a sentence that says women are excluded from the right to personal freedom. But: as always, if you can quote sources for this, we can at least have a look. Trolling will eventually get you blocked. --Fenice 16:35, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is English your native tongue, honestly? No offense. You seem to be arguing against a construct of your own mind rather than the words I have typed out. I did not say that we should "include a sentence that says women are excluded from the right to personal freedom", nor did I assert this as true, nor did I even argue it as a necessary contention of POV. I merely stated that it is not proper to invest the sentiment I actually quoted as the basis of an article (or subset thereof). That is precisely POV. Your trolling comments are asinine and do not concern me in the slightest. --TJive 04:22, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
I also did not fail to notice even within your compulsive, rapid fire edits the personal insult regarding stupidity, the usage and applicability of which serve a further sense of irony, but I do not even need to guess that all of this is lost. --TJive 04:33, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
"Women have a right to personal freedom" is itself POV
says it all--Fenice 04:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it says I do not wish for my views or yours to guide an ideological substance for an article. Apparently this is a difficult concept for you. --TJive 12:43, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
What you probably may have meant to say:
These issues are often called civil liberties instead of civil rights even though some dispute that either concept is applicable.
(and leave out the pov example) If you agree to this sentence I don't mind reinserting this now, but I'd prefer to have a source for that, at some time, even if it is not provided right away.--Fenice 12:08, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the need for an external source. If you visit the other pages on this site which deal with concepts such as liberty, civil liberty, right, the concepts and examples overlap. --TJive 13:18, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

As for a solution, I would suggest refraining from making lists to Santa Claus without the possibility of difference of perspective.user: TJive

  • huh...? That's completely incomprehensible.--Fenice 11:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) Suggest a concrete wording.--Fenice 11:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning inclusion of majority views

You say "major views on civil rights," which provides you with leeway to judge what views are significant. user: TJive

  • wasn't my idea, is an official wikipedia policy--Fenice 11:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is official Wikipedia policy to disregard views you do not hold as insignificant? While a common practice, this being officially encouraged would be news to me. --TJive 13:18, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • The opposite is true, read the policy.--Fenice 13:35, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If the opposite of, "to disregard views you do not hold as insignificant" is the policy of Wikipedia then it is you who needs to read the section.

and you do not provide a context which suggests in what fashion these are matters of civil rights, who says so, and that people disagree. user: TJive

This doesn't address it in the slightest. --TJive 13:18, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

This is the relevant quote from WP:NPOV, from Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

Your assertion about abortion is wrong. There. --TJive 13:47, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

...? Wrong section I guess?--Fenice 14:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] feminism section

Hence we have such a passage as:

Whereas radical feminists believe that an improvement of the situation for women can only be achieved through a revolutionary change, liberal feminism suggests a more practical approach. Liberal feminists try to achieve equality for women through social reforms by changing institutions and law so as to accomodate gender equality. This approach proved successful. It was liberal feminism that initiated changes in European institutions and that brought about legislature against the discrimination of women. In some European countries (f. i. Austria) job adverts may not be worded in such a way so as to exclude female applicants. Public institutions often try to increase the number of females and encourage women to apply.
What is the "improvement"? In what fashion was this need found and how was it resolved? How does the legislation relate to civil rights? What exactly is equality in these terms and who accepts it? Who defines success thereafter?
It may be you, and the rest may be of your ideology, but it is not for this article to state. --TJive 10:38, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but it is hard to believe you are serious and not trolling. No_one in their right mind would suggest an article on civil rights leaving out feminism (as I suppose your cryptic statement intends). Now, what if I'd seriously suggest leaving out race? Are you serious? --Fenice 11:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That you happen not to agree and see feminism restricted to a part of society is irrelevant. Major issues need to be included, even if not all editors agree.--Fenice 11:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I most emphatically did not suggest a deletion of the relevant paragraph nor anything else, necessarily. I did say that I dispute the characterization of the instance which, as in the smaller case of abortion, has been worded to avoid and ignore the possibility of differing perspectives on the relevance of feminism to civil rights in the first place, much less the peripheral issues ("equality" and so on), all of which you have chosen to not address in favor of ad hominem attacks. --TJive 13:18, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

abortion does not even appear in the section. (...?) Fenice
It doesn't even appear in credible context at all, because you deleted it (even the see also link). --TJive 13:50, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
There was no feminism section when I deleted it, check the page history.--Fenice 13:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Which was not was I was talking about, as is apparent in the succession of the messages. --TJive 15:01, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

If you can find a notable person that says feminism doesn't have anything to do with civil rights, please put it on the discussion page before you insert it. --Fenice 13:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't have to put anything on the discussion page before editing, I was simply giving David the benefit of the doubt. You just want to delete views you don't like. --TJive 13:50, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
In case you're not just trolling - you are free to add to or reword the paragraph.--Fenice 11:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apparently I will have to, considering you are so hostile to other possibilities. --TJive 13:18, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you first name other possibilities and then consider if others are hostile to it?--Fenice 13:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I already did, and you promptly deleted it. --TJive 13:50, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

On this talk page, or do you mean the sentence above?--Fenice 14:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am referring to the section above which, if it is indicative to your attitude about inclusion of different perspectives, gives pause to anyone who attempts to add them in any section whatsoever. I will probably attempt to do so eventually. --TJive 15:01, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
huh? I just don't get where your comprehension problem is. You don't seem to be able to follow the discussion or your trolling. We are talking about your criticism about including a section on feminism in an article on the civil rights movement, remember? I think what you are so confused about is that you probably draw conclusions from your own behaviour to the behaviour on others. I have not said I will not include different positions. I pointed you to the NPOV-policy, remember? So I am curious on your new text on feminism. --Fenice 16:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wow. It is only you who has projected onto others his own mistakes, so the accusation of extrapolating behavior proves doubly ironic. I never once said I objected to feminism as being included here; that is merely a position that you have constructed for me. Incidentally, I don't particularly see the need for what could very easily be hundreds of KBs of specific sections regarding real and alleged civil rights concerns/campaigns (a point which David seemed to be hinting towards, if I read him correctly). However, the only thing I objected to was your gentle ideological treatment of feminism with no regard to either NPOV or the conceptual approach laid out (though I believe it has its own limitations which I was attempting to address with him). Hence, a giddy enumeration of platforms you are sympathetic to which is evident in the treatment--the list (letter, really) to Santa Claus. --TJive 04:29, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

However, the only thing I objected to was your gentle ideological treatment of feminism with no regard to either NPOV or the conceptual approach laid out (though I believe it has its own limitations which I was attempting to address with him).
...well, then take a wild guess why you where asked several times to suggest a text? Could it just be it's the aim of Wikipedia here to produce text? Think about it. And read the wikiquette.--Fenice 04:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You kept meandering about yourself, though I will be the first to admit the futility of a half-arsed pissing contest.
I may contribute something in time (I have other--non wiki--things to do right now), but I am less interested in developing the structure (in other words the included sections and whether some are moved to a separate article) as the content (the flavorful wording and how the concepts relate). --TJive 12:47, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Which is to say I would probably wait and see what comes of it before taking such a look. I don't know if David was even coming back or not either. Oh well. --TJive 12:48, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Also in your text here above, TJive, you say you do not like the structure (of the civil rights movement-part I assume). I agree, the structure is not fully developed yet. The usual way on wikipedia is to suggest an alternative structure, you seem to have something in your mind already. Also, for new suggestions, can you please open a separate paragraph, thank you.--Fenice 05:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From the intro: The theories set out below explain why such laws should not be considered legitimate, but do not explain why the case failed to declare the general principle that all manifestations of segregation were a breach of civil rights (that would be more properly a question of politics).
This does not belong into the intro. First of all, for all I know it is US-centric. It pertains only to the theoretical background.--Fenice 10:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I think the relation of feminism to Civil Rights is misunderstood.

In 1996 or so, California has a voter proposition on the ballot known as Proposition 209. What did Proposition 209 say? To summarise...

http://www.sen.ca.gov/sor/reports/REPORTS_BY_SUBJ/STATE_BALLOT_PROPOSITIONS/Prop209.htm

(a) The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.

The feminist response? They were horrified and mounted an campaign against Prop 209. N.O.W. claimed that it's anti-CCRI rally drew 200,000 opposed to it. One needs to realize that feminism is female advocacy, not advocacy for equal or Civil Rights.

This is well documented and you can still find dozens of web pages on the net even ten years after the event. Feminists want preferences for women, not equal rights, and feminism is opposed to the Civil Rights of white men (whom they have accused of oppressing women for all of history).

The feminist war against Proposition 209 was not unexpected however, a few years earlier in 1992 or so the Regents of the UC school system met to discuss removing race and sex as admission criteria. The feminist response? Immediate and loud protest. Protracted protest that did not end when the UC Regents did decide to remove race and sex as admission criteria. The protest was rendered moot only by proposition 209 itself, which then became the object of attack.

Feminist lobbying has defeated similar measures in congress after 209.

One might ask why, 30 years after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, race and sex *were* part of the admission criteria? But I suspect that the Wiki editors don't think such a discussion worthy of inclusion (given the text above this). I'd love to be wrong, everything above is well documented and easy to show. It's not some some extreme minority viewpoint.

[edit] History

There is a lot of detail now in the terminology-section. Maybe we should have a section on history.--Fenice 06:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was responding to the work of others and decided not to arbitrarily cut it. I tend to the view that the article is on the long side as it stands and adding any more to it, particularly on something as open-ended as history, would be counterproductive to general understanding. Although I still believe that elements specific to one legal system or right should be separate pages. -David91 08:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, right now there is no room. It belongs to the civil rights movement part dangling at the end. --Fenice 05:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record: Civil rights history redirects here. Might be a good idea to change it to redirect to Civil rights movement after the split.--Fenice 05:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The ancient rome thing is incorrect. Or it is so simplified that it is thus incorrect.But I fixed it. The plebes could vote and hold office. Although things changed in the early republic, at no point as far as I know were they completely barred from public life. the page on Conflict of the Orders is pretty good. Novium 21:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I always considered the power of the plebeians to vote in the Assembly to be illusory until the concilium plebis and the introduction of the tribunes but you are technically correct. Thank you for making the adjustment.David91 11:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split page

I think the page is long enough to be split - into civil rights and civil rights movement which is a redirect now (the only argument given for it to be turned into a redirect in the first place was that it contained a copyvio.) We could stick to the usual format and have a short summary of that article here (like we now have for feminism, Amcn civil rights-movement etc. and point to the main article.) --Fenice 05:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Ireland

The Northern Ireland section is of dubious quality. Perhaps it should be in a separate article altogether. Much of it seems written in a rather POV way, especially with regards to current employment, which is not backed up with any evidence. User Lapsed Pacifist has contributed here - this user has quite a habit of writing and subtly modifying many articles to portray an Irish Republican POV, which I am trying to root out. Therefore I have added the POV tag. Jonto 02:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I cannot speak for Lapsed Pacifist but we seem to have combined on this element so I will make the first response. Sadly, the assertion that the current employment element is not backed up with any evidence, is relatively untrue. With the exception of the reference to a requirement of passport (which I have not been able to track down), all the other employment elements are clearly verified in the sources quoted. I would also like clarification of the opinion that the whole is written in a rather POV way. Please specify which elements are NPOV and support the allegation, and we can negotiate reasonably over any amendments to the text to arrive at a consensus view. While I agree that this element should not be here, neither should all the other country and issue specific elements following the introduction, so if this goes they all must go. You cannot, with respect, single out one geographic element and stigmatise it without also considering it contextually. I hope that we can move quickly to remove the NPOV tag by agreement and now wait with interest for your detailed reply. -David91 04:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

On default of a reply to my request for a justification for inserting the NPOV tag, I have removed it. No doubt, as and when Jonto returns, the matter can be debated calmly and agreement reached on whether any amendment is required to the text. -David91 16:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion in the definition of "civil rights"

"Civil rights" means rights secured by law. The very word "civil" means "of or pertaining to a citizen" (from the Latin civilis). Strictly, "civil rights" are the rights secured to a citizen by the government, although in the U.S. the term has come to encompass similar rights given to non-citizen residents.

Google gives the following definitions of "civil rights":

  • The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/civil%20rights
  • rights held by individuals and groups derived from the social contract - the common consent of society at large to the rules under which its members live. The term relates in particular to the ideas outlined by Rousseau in The Social Contract. Under this conception, civil rights derive from society rather than God or nature [see Human Rights, and Natural Rights] and can be changed. On the one hand this gives the state the power to deprive people of liberties they once had (eg the ability to drugs, or to drink alcohol), but also enables "progressive" political groups to argue
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/virtual/glossary.htm
  • rights and privileges of citizens, historically Lewis Latimer had fewer civil rights than Thomas Edison had because of Latimer's skin color
http://www.gelighting.com/na/home/gela/students/glossary.htm
  • Whereas the rights of African-Americans should have been secured with the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Constitutional Amendments (1865-1868), it was actually a full century before a complete Civil Rights Act (1965) entered the books. It guaranteed voting rights, which had been incomplete in the face of local registration requirements, and prohibited various sorts of discrimination and segregation. This act had implications not only for blacks, but for all minorities; it spoke against gender-based discrimination also.
http://pbsvideodb.pbs.org/resources/civilwar/primary/glossry.html
  • Violations of civil liberties such as the personal, natural rights guaranteed and protected by the US Constitution. Includes the Civil Rights Acts, such as those enacted after the Civil War, and more recently in 1957 and 1964.
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/app11.html
  • . The rights that go with citizenship, that one acquires simply by being a citizen. Not all of these are inalienable rights, however--see rights. For example, a citizen may lose the right to vote if convicted of certain crimes.
http://www.unmc.edu/ethics/words.html
  • As was common around the world, Slavery was legal but many free people were uneasy leading to the American Civil War. By 1886 all Indians had be relocated on Reservations. 1916 Marcus Garvey sets up Universal Negro Improvement Association branches in New York and other northern cities. 1921 Marie Stopes opens her first birth control clinic - to reduce burden on impoverished families. Dr Martin Luther King Jr worked hard for civil rights for African Americans and all other races.
http://www.embassy.org.nz/encycl/u2encyc.htm
  • The recognition of the basic rights of persons in a free society.
http://www.scu.edu/pm/resources/theoglossary/print.html
  • civil right: right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of Congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I think that in the U.S. the word "civil" has drifted a bit, so that it emphasizes government rather than citizenry, e.g. "civil service" (employment by the government). But the meaning of the citizenry still exists in such terms as "civil unrest".

Various other terms, especially "human rights", refer to the more theoretical concept that persons have inherent rights simply by being human. But the very purpose of the civil rights movement in the U.S. was to have various human rights recognized by law.

I think the article, while containing a great deal of scholarship, can use a little more structure and I am going to start by clarifying the definition of civil rights in the first sentence.

Masonbarge

[edit] Civil Rights vs Affirmative Action, film at 11.

While the page is intetesting, it seems overly PC and somewhat incomplete.

While the 1964 Civil Rights act is excessivly verbose in defining what discriminating is illegal, it's always discrimination against an individual WRT race or (after president Carter) sex. That is, this right is an individual right.

Now most people are confused about what a right is. A right is something that the federal government is forbidden from legislating against. It is not an entitlement.

Another interesting fact is that the Supereme Court cannot create a right, nor can an act of congress. In fact, the president cannot create a right either. The full amendment process must be followed.

If there is a right to not be discriminated against because of one's race, for example, the government is prohibited from requiring or practicing racist discrimination. But the government does require racist discrimination, it's called Affirmative Action. Said action is both direct racist discrimination (think set-asides) and a requirement for racist discrimination (both government wide, for government contractors and subcontractors, and by any company that can be sued by the EEOC, which has been found in gross violation of the laws it is empowered to enforce). And lets not forget about colleges, which have been under the US governments mandate since a bill passed sometime in the 1960's.

If the government is free to discrimninate on the basis of race, and free to require that others also discriminate on the basis of race, then there can be no right to be free from such discrimination.

Now many argue that Affirmative Action is not discrimination and a requirement to discriminate, but this is disproven by decades of lawsuits against the government for the last 30 years, almost all lost. The same can be said for State agencies, the military, and for many corporations.

Either you can have Civil Rights, or you can have Affirmative Action, but you cannot have both. Affirmative Action is itself a direct clear violation of the letter and intent of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as well as the 14th Amendendment, which requires equal protection under the law.

Sen. Hubert Humphrey, a chief author of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, promised to "eat [his] hat" if the law would result in reverse discrimination. And anyone who reads it will see that the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits in excessive detail anything even remotely like Affirmative Action.

While I did not appreciate it at the time, the effect of the 1964 CRA was to grant the federal government legislative authority in this area. Once said legislative authority is enshrined into law and accepted, it then can be turned around and in the case of a really liberal Supreme Court, used as the authority to create what the letter and intent of the law specifically prohibit.

Nothing above is factually incorrect, inherently biased, or misleading. Somehow I find it interesting that in a page on Civil Rights, no mention is made of Affirmative Action, itself a direct clear violation of Civil Rights.

There are many other Civil Rights issues that never got press. The Lilith Festival for example violates men's Civil Rights. It was a paying gig, not a charity event, and men were denied employment for reasons specifically prohibited by both federal and State laws. No State government sued and neither did the federal government. Had women been denied employment in this fashion, I'd expect it to be front page news with feminists crying and shaking their fists on the front page. Denying women employment because of they are women, now that's wrong. Denying men employment because of their sex is not even news.

[edit] Disagreement with the def

User:Nat Krause, who says he can't edit personally right now due to being in mainland China, disagrees with this def. As a favor to him, and because on a quick view his concerns make sense, I'm quoting him here: "Dear sir or madam:

Consider the following definiton of "civil rights", offered by Wikipedia: "Civil rights are the protections and privileges of personal liberty given to all citizens by law. Civil rights are distinguished from 'human rights' or 'natural rights'; civil rights are rights that persons do have, while natural or human rights are rights that many scholars think that people should have." I believe this to be patently false, because

a) If civil rights were rights that people "do have" in the sense of enjoying them in practice, then they wouldn't need to have Civil Rights Movements to get the government to let them enjoy their legally guaranteed civil rights.

b) Natural rights are, by definition, rights that people have by nature, i.e. before scholars start thinking about stuff, thus it is false to say that they "are rights that many scholars think that people should have." The same is arguably true of human rights, as well.

Truly yours,

Economist" from http://paste.lisp.org/display/12843

(Posted by JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC))


Agreed, for example in the United States the 2nd ammendment is part of the United States constitution, but in many cities across the USA, people are not allowed to own firearms, is this not a direct violation of someones civil rights? How come some rights are more special than others? Are minorities and gays entitled to more rights than the rest of society?

[edit] Civil Rights Name Debate - Counter Plan

The Civil Rights section should be renamed to Divine Rights thus solving this issue.

[edit] Liberalism?

I don't understand why liberalism should be included in the civil rights movement page. Socialism and other ideologies have contributed to civil rights. However, liberalism and socialism (Stalinism) both have been counter-civil rights at some point in time as well. W123

Because a key element of the philosophical examination of rights is the assertion of rights in the liberal sense of the word and, because this is an apolitical page, attempting to maintain an NPOV approach, all views are represented. David91 02:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Divine?

Why would we say Divine Rights as the title? People recgonize Civil Rights better than Divine.

-Jarrad from the United Kingdom

[edit] Opening paragraph

We shouldn't go into specifics with U.S. (or U.K.) examples in the opening paragraph. Better just list what the term is understood to mean worldwide and specify later on. Rain74 20:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


I gotta project to do so please edit it and give me some incidents about civil rights kay

The Selma to Montgomery marches of 1965 were a series of 3 marches made from Selma on the south eastern coast of North America . On the first march, Sunday 7th march 1965, ( later called bloody Sunday,) ^00 protesters for equal rights marched from Selma along U.S. Route 80. They got only as far as the Edmund Pettus Bridge six blocks away, where state police and local lawmen attacked them with clubs and tear gas and whips and drove them back into Selma. Amelia Boynton Robinson was beaten nearly to death, the next day her picture was in newspapers and magazines across the world.

The second march was disallowed when Martin Luther King Jr. asked for a court order to stop police interfering. When the judge heard his reason the court order was replaced with a restraining order, preventing the march from taking place. After the second march, James Reeb from Boston who had come for the second march and had agreed to stay, was attacked with a club in front of the Silver Moon Café, a place for whites to hang out. Being turned away by the small local hospital in Selma (said to be full at the time), Reeb's friends were forced to take him to University Hospital in Birmingham, two hours away. Reeb died on Thursday, March 11, at University Hospital with his wife by his side.

[edit] privileges?

I was struck to find rights be refered to as privileges in the first sentence of this article. A privilege implies that something is an extra or bonus ability that can justly be taken away. Isn't that contradictory to the concept of civil rights?

[edit] Need to distinguish the term under German and American law.

In civil law jurisdictions such as Germany, the term "civil right" means something very, very different than what the term means in the United States. For example, if we have a contract, and you don't pay me, the grounds for a lawsuit in German law is that you have violated my "civil rights" (i.e. a right to demand payment from you as a result of a contract which is created under the German civil code).

The term means something very different in the United States.cash camp in the buildin

Roadrunner (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish contribution

Why is there nothing in this article on the ENORMOUS Jewish contribution to the Civil Rights movement?!

this is so damn typical... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topk (talk • contribs) 15:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism

delete line: i like bananas they are good id like to fight the monkey that steals my banana. what a jerk Carolinacosmina (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)