Talk:Universal Declaration of Human Rights

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the assessment scale.


Contents

[edit] UDHR and the Death Penalty

Dispute: the actual text of the Universal Declaration contains no reference to abolition of the death penalty. Therefore, the United States is not opposed to a provision of the Declaration as such, but is opposed to a particular interpretation. Alba 23:57, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree. Moved here until citations are provided.--Eloquence* 19:47, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

Among the more controversial provisions in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the disallowing of the death penalty. Many in the United States oppose this, as some states and the federal government permit the death penalty.
Still doesn't mean that the U.S. isn't violating around 10 of 'em articles though (e.g. Guantanamo -> Violating articles 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18). hehe.--85.49.224.50 01:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The U.S. is violating less of them than most countries. For example, ALL islamic countries are violating most if not all of the articles. If they continue to do so, the UN should pass a resolution declaring islam to be an anti human rights religion.
The death penalty in the US is provided for by law, and therefore is not contrary to the Declaration.
Two wrongs dosen't make a right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.214.44.133 (talk) 07:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Full text

I reverted an edit that included the full text of the declaration. Wikipedia is not the place for source documents; that's what we have Wikisource for.

There's already a link on this page to the Wikisource version, so I didn't bother copying it over there. --ESP 16:31, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)


The full text was put back, and I have removed it again. Sir Elderberry 14:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

And now there's nothing! If you remove it, please replace it with some short resumé of its contents. Otherwise WP will just wobble up and down, without improvement. Said: Rursus ☻ 11:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ten Commandments

I remember reading somewhere that the drafters of the UDHR had the Ten Commandments in mind whilst drafting, but forgot where I have read it! (the usual plight) Can someone confirm? -- Kaihsu 08:18, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)

This seems most unlikely, since the principal author was a Canadian lawyer, law professor, and even a dean of law. :) But seriously... from http://www.gnb.ca/hrc-cdp/e/humphre2.htm#Humphrey
"In 1946, Humphrey was asked to set up the UN's Division for Human Rights, of which he became the Director. In this capacity, he prepared a 400 page background paper for the proposed Universal Declaration and wrote its first draft in 1947. After further drafts and revisions by various UN officials and committees, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the UN in 1948. Humphrey was Director of the Human Rights Division until 1966."
As well, even a casual comparison of the Ten Commandments and the UDHR will show many areas where they do not even touch -- much less overlap or agree. -- Madmagic 13:00, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments For and Against

I would like to solicit arguments for and against posting the full text of UDHR in the article. --LegCircus 18:07, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Against

  • Sorry. It's already on Wikisource, and 100 other places. This article could do with some expansion, no doubt about that, but perhaps someone could write a commentary on the text of the declaration -- specific rights in each article, what they mean in practice, to what extent they are observed, etc -- rather than simply c&p-ing the text. –Hajor 18:41, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Against, for the reasons above. As well, posting the entire text is not Wikipedia policy, for anything but very short source materials. A summary/analysis of the source text within the article is fine, links to the full source text at the end of the article is also fine. Posting the full text within the article is not how Wikipedia works. Madmagic 01:50, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] For

You need to have the complete document here because in other sections of wikipedia you quote only part of article five for example and part of article 2 for example under human rights and then you have a reference to this page where there should be the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You can't send people here expecting to find the complete article five when in fact it is not here. It needs to be here. Else send them somewhere else where it can be found and don't send them here. But my vote is it needs to be here or I can not take wikipedia seriously as an encyclopedia.

Guitarsandmore October 17, 2006. user.

Just scroll to the bottom of the page where you will find the following template (right):
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
--Grimhelm 17:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Architect(s)

The fr: version describes René Cassin as a principal co-drafter, and the article on him says as much. And related to this is the category of Canadian history: is there anything more to this other than that of Prof. Humphrey being Canadian? If anything, this is world history, IMO. A-giau 06:37, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Nobel Committee claims that:

[René Cassin] was a member of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights from its creation in 1946; vice-chairman from 1946 to 1955, a period which included Eleanor Roosevelt's chairmanship (1946-1953); chairman from 1955 to 1957; and again vice-chairman in 1959. The workhorse of the Commission, he was the one most responsible for the draft of the Declaration of Human Rights [1]

A-giau 21:45, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Most translated???

Bible: 2100 languages. The record cited is phrased incorrectly or is just plain wrong, clearly. Daniel Quinlan 11:25, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

The cite is here: http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/miscinfo/record.htm . The Guinness Record is here: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/gwr5/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=53256 . It's not clear why the declaration of human rights got the record over the Bible, except perhaps they consider a "document" to be something much, much shorter than a book. I don't know, though; requires more investigation. --ESP 16:19, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Bible: 2233 "languages and dialects" http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/gwr5/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=48276 So clearly Guinness considers books and documents as different classes of text. --Fred 2 July 2005 18:53 (UTC)
Bear in mind that a language is different from a dialect. Someone from New York would speak a different dialect than someone from London, but they both still speak the same language. So the quote of 2233 "languages and dialects" for the Bible does not in itself beat the alleged record held by the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights as for all we know that figure of 2233 contains 2200 dialects but only 33 languages. Now obviously that is not the case, but this source does not help us determine the true figures. Does anyone know of another source which just refers to how many languages the Bible has been translated in to, NOT languages and dialects. -Stenun, 25 July, sometime around half past three (BST)
  • But, both Guinness citation says "languages and dialects":
    • Bible: "2,233 languages and dialects"
    • UDHR: "321 languages and dialects from Abkhaz to Zulu." --JW1805 22:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I've just now reverted an edit which removed the Guiness reference. Could someone please rephrase the Guiness reference in such a way it explains or takes into account the well-known figures on translations of the Bible? Otherwise we'll keep running into this problem in future. Cheers, Madmagic 21:35, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the Guinness reference again: it's clearly misleading. A quick web search reveals numerous sources claiming a higher number of translations for other documents, including the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments. There's no reason to privilege the GBWR, as it is, in any case, just one POV. If GBWR is using "document" to mean "short document", the number of translations of (e.g.) the Lord's Prayer is greater than those of UDHR, and, in practical terms, "document" does not, for most people, imply "short document". WMMartin 12:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

And I've reverted the article again. WMMartin, this is a contentious issue and deserves discussion -- see above, for some examples. Please allow others the time to agree or disagree with your changes here, rather than taking action on the article. Please also see Wikipedia:Revert and Wikipedia:Resolving disputes -- and let's talk before acting again, okay? Cheers, Madmagic 13:26, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I've got no interest in getting involved in a "revert war" here, but looking at the above discussion it's pretty clear that the only person who finds this "contentious" is Madmagic. Of course I would _never_ wish to imply that Madmagic has a POV he wishes to advance here, but I will note that all I've tried to do is note the number of translations, which is a factual matter, rather than a matter of ( the GBWR's inconsistent ) opinion. Last time I looked, Wikipedia dealt in facts, expressed clearly and in common language, but perhaps things are changing... WMMartin 15:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

If you're not interested in getting involved in a revert war, then let's talk reasonably and respectfully with each other here, and work cooperatively to figure out a solution to this problem with the article.
Looking immediately above, I see that someone originally wrote the Guiness citation into the article. It was then objected to by Daniel Quinlan. Daniel's objections were replied to by Fred and ESP. Further comments by JW1805 then responded to Fred and ESP. All since Mar 13, 2005. That's four Wikipedia contributors commenting on this issue in five months, about equally for/ against the citation. Before you and I began discussing it.
Given that, I don't understand why you are personalizing our discussion and claiming I'm the only Wikipedia contributor who finds this issue contentious. Your statement is not correct. Nor is it at all helpful for you to mention my objections might be based on POV. They aren't.
I've twice taken the time to courteously ask you on your Talk page to discuss the issue here before making changes in the article. I've also put a note here each time I reverted your changes. Kindly return my courtesy and let's talk reasonably and respectfully with each other -- okay? :)
On to the issues you raised above: I agree with you that Wikipedia is about facts, expressed clearly and in common language. AFAIK, it is a fact that the Guiness description of the UDHR as "the most translated document" is real. That description exists. It is stated at the guinnessworldrecords.com link just above; the cite was commented on by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, at another link also just above.
I also agree with you that the current wording of the article is confusing and difficult to understand. The Guiness citation seems obviously wrong, in comparison to the generally-known number of translations of the Bible (which are also cited by Guiness, see the third link just above.)
My main concern with completely removing the Guiness "most translated document" reference is that if this citation is left entirely out of the article, another Wikipedia contributor will then come along and add it to the article -- and then we're back into the same discussion, over and over again. As the Guiness Wikipedia article states, "The Guinness Book of Records is the world's most sold copyrighted book..." It is also considered a reliable reference authority by many people, including some Wikipedia contributors.
Ignoring the Guiness citation -- even if it is missleading or outright wrong -- will not make the Guiness citation go away. Nor will it end attempts to include it in the UDHR article, and the following attempts to remove it.
My goal is to solve the problem by briefly mentioning the citation and then briefly noting the objections to it, in an attempt to reach NPOV. Let's fix this problem issue now, and get on with other work.
Again, as I did yesterday, I suggest we reword the contentious section of the UDHR article. You're welcome to write a first draft and offer it for discussion here. Or, if you agree to hold off making any further changes to the article until this coming Monday Aug 15, I'll put up a first draft here myself for your comment before then.
It should be obvious to you I am trying to work cooperatively to fix a problem area in the UDHR article. I am trying for agreement and for NPOV. Kindly work cooperatively with me to achieve agreement and NPOV -- okay? :) Cheers, Madmagic 19:50, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
WMMartin wrote today on my talk page he has no interest in discussing this issue further. I'm going to step away from Wikipedia for at least the weekend.
If a third party would like to edit the disputed section of the article, it might help resolve this recurring issue. If not, I'll try to reword it later next week. I do hope we can reach some concensus which everyone will agree is NPOV. Cheers, Madmagic 21:56, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I've just edited the much-discussed third paragraph of the UDHR article ("Most Translated") and tried to make it as NPOV as I can. Comments by anyone are invited and welcome. Cheers, Madmagic 00:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
The citation to the GBWR doesn't work right now, which leaves things (even more) confusing. The first thing I thought of when I read that was the Bible, and so I figured there was some wrinkle. Reading the comments it seems the GBWR has separate entries for books and documents, but I'll report my own reaction: I figured the citation was taken out of context and was misleading. ConDissenter (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations for Latin American Influences, etc. (?)

I've just noticed the edits of 21:35, August 5, 2005 by user 62.215.20.183 [[2]] and reverted to the prior July 25th version last edited by user Isfisk.

There were some worthwhile-sounding improvements to the article and perhaps some truth in what was changed, but I don't know the subject well enough to allow this major edit to pass.

User 62.215.20.183 (or anyone) please provide citations, sources and references to substantiate the major recent edits. Until they're provided, let's keep to the known and documented facts about the creation of the UDHR. :) Cheers, Madmagic 03:33, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies

The declaration seems to consist of two parts - civil and social. While the civil part receives the most exposure, and carries little controversy, the social part contains many ideals associated with left side of political spectrum of most Western democracies, and these are not universally accepted (right to unemployment protection, social security, guaranteed standard of living). Additionally, while compulsory elementary education may be a good thing, it hardly qualifies as a right. Article 21 (1) and (3) writes democratic form of government into the human rights. Considering that modern democracies have violated other rights in the past, which human rights are superior - that of non-discrimination, security of person, freedom from persecution, etc., or that of the will of the people? Considering democracy's shortcomings, does it deserve glorification as a universal right? pslusarz 02:28, August 8, 2005 (CST)

I don't really care that much about democracy, but mentioning empty religious terms like conscience or brotherhood on a declaration that is supposed to constitute a fundament of modern societies is laughable. 82.139.47.117 14:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The declaration does not form part of international law, but it is a powerful tool in applying diplomatic and moral pressure to governments, and it is customary to follow it. There are many, many nations who do not follow the statutes of the UDHR. Theocracies (that deny women or members of minority religious faiths specific rights) are just one example. I think this should be changed, but I'm not sure of the best way to rework it. QuinnHK 05:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

At first, I was going to dispute your points, but I realized you are dead on. I rephrased that sentence; feel free to revise further if it seems inadequate. --SuperNova |T|C| 07:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism Section

The criticism section needs to be rewritten. It is a series of sentence fragments and only begins to assess the criticism of this document. --Ggbroad 15:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I just added a bunch of facts about the relationship of Islam to the UDHR, correcting and updating the stereotype of the cracker who quoted the older David Littman study. Teetotaler
Hey, some orientalist deleted the reference to the Rudolph Peters study and replaced it with a 'Citation Needed'. I deleted that and replaced the reference which is to Peters' 2005 study, "Crimen and Punishment in Islamic Law" --Teetotaler 20 May, 2007

[edit] Speculation on difference between Bible and UDHR

I've removed (twice!) the unfounded speculation that the reason the UDHR is listed as the "most translated document" is that the Bible is a religious work. Until someone can show what the different criteria are, such that the Bible isn't considered for the record, can we please leave our guesses out of the article? My guess is that a "document", according to Guinness, is a work much smaller than a book like the Bible. But until we have confirmation from Guinness, let's not add our guesses. --ESP 14:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Evan. My mistakes for reverting your prior edit, and for making the guess -- twice. :) As previously mentioned on your Talk page in my note of Sept 19, there's already been a fair amount of disagreement over the 'Most Translated' issue, see above on this page.
Personally, I prefer the way you've phrased it now, and I hope others will also be satisfied with the current wording. Cheers, Madmagic 04:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CHeck the date

Check the date of when the Bill of rights was written

Fixed. You know, if you see something that isn't right, you can always Be Bold and rectify said situation. Danthemankhan(talk) 05:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References in Entertainment

I changed the title of the song that U2 play while showing the UDHR on their 2005/06 tour. It is "Miss Sarajevo", not "Running to Stand Still".

At two concerts I attended, "Running to Stand Still" was played. Furthermore, at all 3 U.S. shows I attended, the U.S. crowds gave a warm reception to the UDHR, particularly the Boston crowd, and to the mention of torture. I would really like to see that "hatchet shot" at the U.S. dropped, unless a citation can be supported. 72.200.165.150 05:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who signed?

A list of signatories/ratifiers, or alternatively since most presumably both signed and ratified, a list of non-signatories/ratifiers would be a good addendum. DanielDemaret 07:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

if someone who didn't sign break the rights he will still be guilty of something he didn't agree? ..."universal" yeah right i hope tha ets read that if they decide to attack us.

[edit] Vatican not a signatory?

Under the Trivia section, it states:

"Though the Vatican's policies are in almost complete accord with the UDHR, it is not signatory, due to Vatican City's non-recognition of religious freedom amongst its citizens."

This is absolutely wrong. The UDHR has no signatories at all. Even the article itself states that there were no signatories under the heading 'Structure and Legal Implications'.

I believe that it is the UN Charter to which the Vatican is not a signatory and hence not a member either, but merely a permanent observer.

I have gone ahead and removed this statement, per here and the following subhead, as the statement is unsourced AND contradicts a statement elsewhere in this article (one with a source). --SuperNova |T|C| 07:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vatican Trivia statement

Though the Vatican's policies are in almost complete accord with the UDHR, it is not signatory, due to Vatican City's non-recognition of religious freedom amongst its citizens

is unsourced, and sounds highly dubious to me. For a start, the NPOV consensus appears to be that the Holy See is sovereign, not "the Vatican", and I'm not sure when they last had genuine elections (universal and equal suffrage, before someone mentions the pope).

Remove as unsourced?

RandomP 23:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed this statement; see previous subheading. --SuperNova |T|C| 07:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bricker Amendment

For some time I have been working on revisions to the Bricker Amendment article. I finally posted it and have a PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1. I'd welcome comments. I know all those references may seem extravagant, but I'm hoping to get it as an FA and those voters want lots of footnotes. PedanticallySpeaking 16:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality of UDHR and US Bill of Rights

Neutrality dispute no kidding. The current talk of the United States makes it sound like slavery, WWII internment camps and the genocide of native americans are still going on. News Flash Slavery is gone and so is the Native American genocide, the only one that is has relevence today is WWII internment of the respective races because the Partiot act could allow that (in certain instances), but so far i dont believe that any american has been taken prisoner because of the patriot act, without some real evidence (the US bill of rights only covers US citizens, anyone caught in Iraq or Afganistan who are being tortured is another issue). And What do u mean the UDHR and the US Bill of Rights cant be compared? Most of those rights are covered by the first amendment completely. The only rights the US bill of rights does not provide explicity are the right to an education, which is covered by public education anyway. i have no idea what imminent domain is though so i cant argue about it Blue 19:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it is in the article. The whole unsourced section pre-supposes that one has some interest and knowledge of the US bill of rights. I have neither.--Zleitzen 11:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed on freedom of expression and opinion removed.

It plainly says this one in article 19.

http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm

"Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. "

[edit] Is the right to own property contained in the declaration?

If yes, this should be mentioned in the article. If not, likewise. Tullie 18:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Chapter 17 covers this.


[edit] Two non-binding covenants?

Quote this article "The declaration has served as the foundation for the original two legally non-binding UN human rights covenants, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights."

Link to IC on Civil/Political Rights states "To solve this problem, two binding Covenants were created instead of one: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights."

Should one of these be fixed or am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.77.131 (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guiness world record

stated that GWR has record for it being the most translated Document. citation goes to a 404, citation need —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.106.41 (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference for Jeane Kirkpatrick invalid

The following link, http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=210, was used as a reference to support that Jeane Kirkpatrick believed that "economic rights must be provided by others through forceful extraction, for example taxation, and that they negate other peoples' inalienable rights." After following the link, I couldn't find one reference to Kirkpatrick in the opinion piece. I have taken that opinion out from the bullet point of Kirkpatrick and made it more general by claiming that some conservatives believe that.--Hugo Estrada (talk) 11:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FA

Would anyone be interested in collaborating to bring the Universal Declaration of Human Rights article to FA status in time to get it posted to the Main Page as TFA for December 10, 2008, which is Human Rights Day and the 60th anniversary of the Declaration? Sarsaparilla (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I definitely think this topic demands an article of sufficient quality to be featured. However, I'd need guidance as to what pieces need to happen for the article to arrive at that point. In short, yes, I'm interested in collaborating, but in need of others to point the way and help identify the shortcomings.Lawikitejana (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Articles_of_the_Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

Template:Articles_of_the_Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights is very, very messy. It seems to be inappropriate to list the sections of the the UDHR there. If there aren't any objections, I will begin working on improving the template. Zenwhat (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I overhauled the template. Feedback is welcome. Zenwhat (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Very nice! Thank you. Sarsaparilla (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of the omission of the so-called "Right not to Participate in War"

I have no problem with this argument being made in the criticisms section, as long as it is written in a way befitting Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Wikipedia is not a place to present opinions, even if your opinion is that your opinion is fact. Rudy Breteler (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Accommodation:
Thank you for the constructive criticism. I stand corrected and will re-write my edit excluding the mention of any country in particular. Having said that, for the record, the reason I included the name of a country in my first edit was because that country played host to the formation of the United Nations, and continues to host the headquarters of the UN, thus being perceived as having a major role in the original drafting of its documents. However, in the interests of accommodation, I will leave out the name of that nation in my next edit of the article. (I will also improve my grammar.) Thank you for the constructive criticism. Boyd Reimer (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

New entry: Topic: The right to refuse to participate in what the UN Charter calls “the scourge of war.”

Here is a quote from Wikipedia’s Wikipedia:NPOV dispute: “If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. ….Then…explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why.”

An anonymous person did “mark the article's main page” but did not “explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why.”

Since this was not done, I can only speculate as to what the exact criticisms are. (I do not want to make the assumption that this tag was attached by the same person who made a criticism at an earlier date.) Nevertheless, since the tag was put up, I have made the following changes to accommodate what may have been a criticism about “neutrality.”

First, I have removed the footnote linking to the US military punitive measures for “deserters.” The only reason I put it there in the first place was purely in response to someone who posted a “citation needed” note—presumably asking for examples of countries which do punish those who exercise their human right to refuse to participate in what the UN Charter calls “the scourge of war.” Nevertheless, I now removed it.

Second, to provide more examples, I have employed the use of a list of countries that have mandatory Conscription.

Third, in an effort to seek other voices on the human rights issue I footnoted a link to a trusted “third party” with an excellent reputation for being neutral, namely Amnesty International. I chose them for two reasons: First, they are an international body just like the UN, which produced the “UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” (This compares “apples with apples” instead of comparing “apples with oranges.”) Second, my footnotes refer to articles that are found in their annual reports which are subtitled with the phrase, “the state of the world’s human rights.”

The reason I mentioned only Greece and the US is as follows: If you follow the footnoted links you will find that Amnesty International’s results for a search on the word “desertion” calls up their reports on the following countries: Turkey, USA, Eritrea, Armenia, Greece. I have only included Greece and USA in the article because the other countries did not originally produce the [United Nations Charter] phrase, “scourge of war.”

(To find the exact reference to “military service” in the footnote beside Greece, see Amnesty International’s report on Greece’s approach to non-religious “Conscientious objection to military service” at [3])

Neutrality was on my mind again when I put the countries of “Greece” and “US” in alphabetical order. That detail demonstrates the extent to which I am striving to be neutral.

In keeping with Wikipedia’s dispute settling policy, I will leave the NPOV tag up for a “cooling off” period of two weeks. After that, if I don’t see any attempt at dialogue from the anonymous party who posted the tag, I feel that I am justified in removing it.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one who tagged this POV, but I think I see the problem here. This section seems to be expressing the private opinion of an editor (or editors). See WP:OR. I went ahead and added the Original Research template to that section of the article to make it easier for you (and other editors and readers) to understand the issue here so that you can solve it.
Original research is not a bad thing in general, of course. It is a very good thing. But this is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are not about original research.
If this same criticism is publicly lodged against the UDHR by other than fringe elements, for example by an organisation such as AI, then it is fine to include that in the article. That would not be considered OR. Just be sure to source it, and you are good to go. Civilaffairs (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Thank you for your help in clarifying Wikipedia policy.

As you can see, in an new effort to be neutral, I have now removed any reference to any country in my edit. Hopefully that will be enough to convince the reader that the NPOV tag is now unjustified. Nevertheless, I will leave it up for two weeks in order to allow the anonymous person who put it there to dialogue with me.

In regards to the "original research" tag, I have a question: What, in precise terms, does it mean to "publicly lodge" a criticism "against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?" After reading any documents of War Resisters International it is self evident that they are not pleased with the lack of explicit reference to conscientious objection in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and its codification in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome :) If War Resisters International has objected to lack of explicit reference to conscientious objectors in the UDR in WRI documents and/or statements available to the public, that would qualify as public. It does not have to be "official". This is fine.
The OR policy is a bit hard to understand. I believe there is still a problem. Who says the the right not to participate in war is a human right? Has WRI said so? Then this must be attributed to WRI. Individual editors cannot simply decide what is a human right and write about it in WP (original research), hence the need to reference. Does that make it clearer?
This may be a problem, too: In some cases the refusal to participate in “the scourge of war” is not merely a right, but indeed a legal obligation as we see in this quote about the UN's official formulation of the Nuremberg Principles into International Law in 1950: Where is this "right and legal obligation" in the Nuremberg Principles? I don't see it anywhere. Not all military personnel are asked to commit crimes against peace, war crimes or crimes against humanity.
If you are interpreting the NP's "war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances" as "scourge of war" you have misinterpreted. Here is an example: During WWII, the Allies were fighting back against Hitler's "war of aggression in violation of international treaties". The British, Americans, Russians, Free French, Partizans, etc., were certainly involved in the "scourge of war" but they were not engaging in a "war of aggression in violation of international treaties." Indeed, many would point out that if all Americans, British, Russians, etc., had refused to participate in "the scourge of war" Hitler would have been the one to decide what our human rights are, if any. That would hardly be pleasant.
Again, I did not add the POV tag, but I would not assume it had anything to do with countries listed. It may have had to do with the whether saving "succeeding generations from the scourge of war" has anything to do with conscientious objectors and the unattributed statement about it being a human right. I hope this has been helpful. Civilaffairs (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Again, thank you for your help. Two heads are better than one.

As I understand it, you have three remaining concerns:

1. The concern about Wikipedia’s “Original Research” policy: I have addressed that with the first quote from Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Sean MacBride Nobel Lecture in which he says the following: “To the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights one more might, with relevance, be added. It is "The Right to Refuse to Kill".”

2. I have specified that it is Nuremberg Principle number four which is of relevance. As you can see, this principle deals with individuals--rather than countries. It deals with an individual’s option of “opting out”-- rather than the debate between “just and unjust wars.”

3. Your third concern is expressed in this quote: “Again, I did not add the POV tag, but I would not assume it had anything to do with countries listed. It may have had to do with the whether saving "succeeding generations from the scourge of war" has anything to do with conscientious objectors and the unattributed statement about it being a human right.”

Here is my response to your third concern: The Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Sean MacBride refers to “The Right to Refuse to Kill.” If this right had been entrenched in the German Constitution in 1900, then it is logical that there would have been more Germans taking advantage of that right, as we see here: Of the Germans who deserted the Wehrmacht, “15,000 men were executed.” [4] With less individual aggressors, it is also logical that there would have been less of a “scourge” element to the two World Wars that followed.

Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Sean MacBride devotes an entire section of his Nobel Lecture to how “Peace and Human Rights are Inter-related.” (See link in article. [5]) Therefore it is he, not I, who makes the connection between what I understand to be the two elements in your third concern. Boyd Reimer (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

First, I want to make it clear I am not taking any side of the argument. It may appear I am, as it is necessary to identify points on contention so that POV can be cleared up and where OR might come into play according to WP standards.
If, for example, Sean MacBride has explicitly stated that "the right to refuse to kill" should be incuded in the UDC, you might word it as follows: "Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Sean MacBride contends "The Right to Refuse to Kill" should also be enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." No problem there.
Nuremberg Principle IV has nothing to do with an individual refusing military service in general. It has to do with an individual's responsibility under international law: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."
Military service is not prohibited under international law, nor is killing enemy soldiers during battle. Intentional killing of disarmed POWs and intentional targeting of unarmed civilians, for example, is prohibited. Therefore, according to Principle IV, if an individual is ordered to execute unarmed POWs or civilians (for example), and that person obeys the order (provided a moral choice was possible), that person is still liable for prosecution under international law, the order notwithstanding. In other words, an individual has the obligation (provided a moral choice is in fact possible) to refuse to carry out orders contrary to international law. There is absolutely no provision here for the right of an individual to refuse military service in general.
I, too, believe that peace and human rights are inter-related. I, too, hate what happens to people in wars. But what I pesonally believe and what I personally hate don't belong in an encyclopedia. My personal definitions of what should be human rights don't belong, either.
You have taken a phrase from the preamble of the UN Charter and used it to argue your POV that "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war" means that refusing military service should be a human right in general. This is OR, unless you can find a source for this contention. Again, the Nuremberg Principles do not include any provision for an individual to refuse to participate in the "scourge of war". They do provide provision for an individual's refusal to commit acts contrary to international law. Are you able to see the distinction now? Civilaffairs (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Thank you for this engaging dialogue. I believe in pruning ideas, and I trust that that is what you are doing. So I thank you for it.

Point One: I am not pointing out quotes that say that military service should be “prohibited.” Instead, I am pointing out quotes from historical figures that say that it should be a human right to have the option of opting out of military service. You may already agree that that is my purpose (I am not sure). I am reiterating this only for purposes of confirmation and clarification.

Point Two: You wrote, “There is absolutely no provision here [in Nuremberg Principle 4] for the right of an individual to refuse military service in general.”

At the time that principle was developed, the example of “a Nazi deserting” was foremost in the minds of the people who developed that principle. For that reason alone, I want us to try an experiment: Let us remove the word “individual” from your quote, and replace it with the word “Nazi,” and see what we get: We get the following phrase: “There is absolutely no provision here [in Nuremberg Principle 4] for the right of a Nazi to refuse military service in general.” Does that sound right? I’ll let the readers decide for themselves.

Point Three: The sub-heading “Peace and Human Rights are Inter-related” is not my own. It was written by the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Sean MacBride. Every encyclopaedia I have encountered has entries for Nobel Peace Prize Laureates. The larger encyclopaedias have room for their quotes. Wikipedia is definitely one of the larger encyclopaedias.

Point Four: I am not arguing that "sav[ing] succeeding generations from the scourge of war" means that refusing military service should be a human right in general.” Instead I have simply provided Wikipedia readers with the following quote from someone-- other than myself-- who was writing about the history of the Declaration: “the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals did much to prepare the intellectual climate for the Universal Declaration.” [7] Providing readers with a quote from the historians of the Declaration is not, in my eyes, “original research.”

Furthermore, even the link to that particular historian was not my own link. It was already in the “History” section as link number 3. (I have done no edits in the history section.)

Again, thank you for the engaging dialogue. Boyd Reimer (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to help out as I can :) I commend you for working so hard to bring this section to standard.
Point one: So long as you confine yourself to quoting non-fringe figures or organisations who contend that this should be a human right, there is no problem at all. Building your own case from basic documents like the Nuremberg Principles and the UN Charter is considered OR.
Point two: Your experiment of Let us remove the word “individual” from your quote, and replace it with the word “Nazi,” and see what we get is not applicable, because one cannot simply swap around the specific and the general and remain within the rules of logic. An active Nazi was, by definition, engaged in a crime against peace ("planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances" - Nuremberg Principle VI a) and also possibly crimes against humanity (given the Nazi ideology). Indeed, the obligation of an individual to refuse to participate in various crimes against peace and humanity (such as were perpetrated by the Nazi regime) is clear in the NP, but there this is no provision in the NP for the right of individuals to refuse military service in general. All individuals are not German citizens of the WWII era. (And, it should be noted, not all German citizens were Nazis!)
In other words, the Nuremberg Principles include the obligation of individuals to refuse in particular instances or cases, but there is no provision for the right to refuse military service in general.
Point three: No problem with “Peace and Human Rights are Inter-related”. You have attributed that to Sean MacBride. Probably a number of other notable quotable people have said the same or similar as well.
Point four: This is fine: “the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals did much to prepare the intellectual climate for the Universal Declaration.” All the rest is OR (and based on faulty logic). Let's take this, for example: failed to make explicit a person’s right and/or “responsibility under international law” to resist an “order of his Government” to participate in the “scourge of war” You have substituted the general ("scourge of war") for the specific ("war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances"). Even if this is corrected, there is still the problem of OR.
You may certainly quote WRI, no problem there. I am having trouble following the quote provided, however. The way it is presently worded, it seems to imply that the right of conscientious objection was codified in Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. After reading it carefully, I understand you mean to say that, according to WRI, the right of conscientious objection is derived from the rights specified in Article 18, but the way this is strung together is a bit confusing.
You may find this article in the Journal of International Law and Politics helpful in presenting this particular criticism of the UDHR without resorting to OR: The Status of Conscientious Objection Under Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights. According to the abstract, it "reviews various efforts by the United Nations and the Council of Europe to recognize conscientious objection." My goal here is not to argue with you, but to help you bring this section to standard. :) Civilaffairs (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Thank you for your help. Partly due to your help, I have now made the following improvements:

1. You wrote, “Building your own case from basic documents like the Nuremberg Principles and the UN Charter is considered Original Research.”

You correctly pointed out my error with this statement: “You have substituted the general ("scourge of war") for the specific ("war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances").” Therefore I have removed all references to the UN Charter phrase “scourge of war.” I agree that “war” has so many causes, and the phrase “scourge of war” was used by the UN Charter preamble in a very general way semantically. (Too general for the purposes of describing a discussion of peace issues with the context of the Declaration of Human Rights.)

However, the use of the quote about the Nuremberg Trials is still logically justified in relation to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because of the following quote: “the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals did much to prepare the intellectual climate for the Universal Declaration.” That quote from the National Coordinating Committee for UDHR50 states that there was a close relationship between the Nuremberg Trials and the Universal Declaration. All I have done is simply provide Wikipedia readers with more information about that relationship. I was not the one who “built” that relationship. That relationship is a fact of history.

The Nuremberg Principles are a direct product of the Nuremberg Trials. That too is a historical fact. I did not invent that relationship either.

2. Another improvement I made was to name the authors of quotes, and attribute quotes and/or perspectives to specific parties.

3. In response to your suggestion, I also improved my clarity by including more of the quote from War Resisters International. I tried to clarify the distinction between “the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion” and the derived “right to conscientious objection.”

4. (It should be noted that by sheer coincidence the number 18 happens to be the number of two different articles: One article 18 is in the Declaration of Human Rights and the other article 18 is in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.)

Thanks again for your help. Boyd Reimer (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see you are working diligently to improve the article and I again commend you for it.
Again, building your own case from basic documents like the Nuremberg Principles and the UN Charter is considered Original Research. These documents do not explicitly state your premise (nor, in my opinion, do they implicitly support it). Constructing an argument for your case using these basic documents is OR, plain and simple. If you can find a reliable source which builds such a case, fine, but doing it yourself is OR.
The problem is positing a relationship between the Nuremberg Principles and the "human right" of conscientious objection.
The Nuremberg Principles dealt with defining what constitutes a war crime and were later used in the formulation of various international conventions and protocols. True, the Nuremberg Principles expressly stated the obligation to refuse to commit certain crimes. But how does the obligation not to commit crimes translate into a human right? Shall we have have a long list of "human rights" which enumerate rights not to commit various crimes?
The obligation not to commit the crimes enumerated in the NP is already covered under international law. Again, obligations to obey laws are not human rights.
Conscientious objectors do not necessarily (or even usually) object to military service on the grounds that this would obligate them to commit crimes (members of the military are under obligation not to commit acts defined as crimes under international law), but for other reasons ranging from religious to philosophical. If an individual's reason for refusing military service is that this military service would necessarily involve the individual in the commission of crimes (as in the case of your hypothetical Nazi), this is already covered under international law as an obligation. There is no need for some special "human right not to commit crimes". Even if there were such a human right enshrined in the UDHR, this would not translate as a human right to conscientious objection.
The Sean MacBride quote is fine. The WRI quote is fine. (Isn't it bothersome when they all have the same number? I felt for you on that one.) All the rest is all OR. Civilaffairs (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

In response, here are a few observations:

Point one: I am no longer quoting the UN Charter. (You’ve indicated that you are unaware of its absence.)

Point two: As you can see, I have provided Wikipedia readers with the following two quotes and links:

“The right to conscientious objection to military service is not a marginal concern outside the mainstream of international human rights protection and promotion.”—Amnesty International [6]

“If the right to life is the first of all human rights, being the one on which all other rights depend, the right to refuse to kill must be the second.” –Peace Tax Seven [7]

Point three: You wrote: “The obligation not to commit the crimes enumerated in the NP is already covered under international law.” My response: Many, if not all of the 30 Articles in the Declaration are also all double covered under international law.

You wrote: “Shall we have a long list of "human rights" which enumerate rights not to commit various crimes?” My response: Many, if not all of the 30 articles of the Declaration do exactly that: enumerate rights not to commit various crimes.

Amnesty International has a list of people who are presently behind bars simply because they refused to kill. See list at link: [8]

Yes, as long as conscription is still legal—as it is in 29 countries. (See chart in conscription), we do need a declaration to be used as a tool to reduce this present and ongoing violation of human rights.

If there were no human rights violated, or at risk of being violated, then we would have no need for any of the 30 articles in the Declaration of Human Rights. Each of the 30 articles is a response to some pre-existing or threatened violation. Take for example article 4, which declares the right to freedom from slavery. Article 4 would never have been necessary if slavery had never existed.

As long as there is a threat of slavery re-appearing, article 4 in the Declaration is needed. Likewise, as long as there is conscription, or the threat of conscription, we need a human rights article responding to that threat.

It is no small threat, as the new quote from Amnesty International states, this is “not a marginal concern.” [9] Let us remember that there were 42 million people killed in World War 2. Let us never think that it can’t happen again. This number would have been reduced if Germany had not conscripted its citizens. (After all, of the many thousands of Germans who deserted, 15,000 were executed.)

42 million people dying in 6 years is, in my eyes, a relatively more severe problem than is dealt with in the Declaration’s Article 27 b, which deals with intellectual property. There are many other international intellectual property laws which deal with the same issue that Article 27 b deals with. To use your quote: “There is no need for some special "human right not to commit crimes". And yet is it found in Article 27 b, and in many other articles of the Declaration –perhaps all articles. Which is more important, intellectual property or a life and death question? Which is more deserving of a place in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Point four: (closely related to point two): You asked, “How does the obligation not to commit crimes translate into a human right?”

In order to carry out one’s “responsibility” to follow the obligations of international law, one must first be allowed the “right” to do so. In the case of the 1940 conscripted German, this person must first be allowed the right to conscientiously object to military service before he or she is even able to carry out the international responsibility / obligation to desist from assisting aggression.

Logically speaking, rights logically precede obligations. One must have the freedom to carry out obligations. Conscription sometimes doesn’t permit the freedom to carry out one’s international obligations. Rights are a logical concomitant to obligations.

Point five: If I understand the Wikipedia policy of “Original Research” correctly, it was meant to guard against a lack of neutrality and unverifiability. Here is a quote from the policy:

“Wikipedia:No original research (NOR) is one of three content policies. The others are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) and Wikipedia:Verifiability (V). Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. Because they complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another.”

On Neutrality, I have tried to maintain Neutrality by not naming any country or party as being guilty of a violation of human rights.

On Verifiability, I have 14 links, all of which are relevant to the evolution and development of the Declaration.

So, I would like you to entertain the possibility that you may be “interpreting the [original research] policy in isolation from [the other two policies].

Point six:

Furthermore, I am not sure why you insist that what I am doing is not helping Wikipedia readers--even if it is “Original Research.” My focus has been on factual history which is directly relevant to the original development of the Declaration of Human Rights, and deals with the reasons it produced what it produced. This historical analysis will help Wikipedia readers to intellectually grapple with the issues of why the Declaration produced what it produced, and in what context.

I am simply providing the readers with a more detailed history of the issue. None of this is my own invention: That history is documented with 14 different links. If selectivity is my crime then I welcome other editors to add their own 14 links of selectivity. Isn’t that what Wikipedia is all about? I thought Wikipedia was all about different people contributing their own links, thus making the whole greater than the sum of the parts. That way the reader can go to 28 (or more links) instead of just 14 and then make up their minds for themselves—all the while increasing their own understanding of the issue.

Which document on earth is not selective?

Boyd Reimer (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


See [WP:SYN] for why constructing your own case from basic documents (like the Nuremberg Principles) is OR. The Nuremberg Principles do not explicitly state the "human right" of conscientious objection. They merely state an individual's obligation to refrain from or refuse to commit certain acts defined as crimes. Remove this part and you are fine. Civilaffairs (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Thank you for your help in fully understanding Wikipedia policy. I apologize for failing to read that policy carefully enough. It won’t happen again.

I have made all the changes you suggested. Boyd Reimer (talk) 07:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the WP:OR tag on that section, as it seems fine to me now. If the editor who added the POV tag does not stop by to check the revisions within the next few days and either remove the tag or explain why it has to stay, I think we can safely remove that one, too.
I think we have both learned from our exchange and refined our thinking. If people don't come to Wikipedia as much to learn as to contribute, something is wrong, no? No need to apologise. I am new, too. We all learn as we go along. I'm sorry if my last post seemed terse. I did not intend it that way, just in a hurry. By, the way, check your talk page. You have earned something :) Civilaffairs (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Thank you. Two heads are better than one. Have a good day.Boyd Reimer (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

New Entry: Greetings to the "anonymous" person who put up the NPOV tag. A person who was not "anonymous" made this statement 6 days ago: "If the editor who added the POV tag does not stop by to check the revisions within the next few days and either remove the tag or explain why it has to stay, I think we can safely remove that one, too." That was 6 days ago, so I am now removing the NPOV tag. Have a good day. Boyd Reimer (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Utter, complete, irredeemable crap. Needs a full rewrite.

Right now, it details the history of the universal declaration. The only USEFUL part of the page, the Wikisource link, is buried down there.

The damn "Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights" has random links that are useful to nobody.

I wanted to read about the right of brotherhood. What do I get? The literal meaning, a few organizations aaaand... MEANINGS IN ENTERTAINMENT.

Honestly. Things like this are why Wikipedia needs Uncyclopedia's "Crap" template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.197.39.178 (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Be specific about the points which are to be improved. Be Bold means add content, not editorializing empty phrases. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Not exactly that bad, in my opinion more like "OK", but decidedly lacking some description of the human rights listed in the declaration. Said: Rursus ☻ 11:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's my review (not to be entered into the article, yet, it doesn't make sense, yet):
1. freedom and equality,
2. list of equalities: race, color, sex, nationality etc..,
3. basal rights: existence, freedom, security,
4. prohibition against slavery,
5. prohibition against torture and cruel punishments,
6-11. equality before law, and this declaration, legal rights of the human, rights against arbitrary and unlawful treatment from state,
12. personal privacy rights against arbitrary and unlawful treatment from state,
13. freedoms of geographical movements,
14. international rights of asylum,
15. rights to belong to a nation,
16. rights to marriage, pair relations, children and family,
17. rights to property,
18-20. freedom of thought, conscience and religion, political opinion, and to organize leagues,
21. democratical political rights to partake in goverment, rights for regular general elections of goverment, rights to access public service,
22-23. economic, social and cultural rights as the basis for the individual's rights to social security, rights to work, rights to equal salary for equal work, rights to be able to sustain self and family on the salary, and rights to form trade unions,
24-25. rights to enough daily and weekly rest, and vacations rights of healthy food, health care, living standards, security for unemployed, widows, and single mothers, as well as their children.
26. right (and plight) to free elementary and fundamental education, advanced education shall be available to anyone merited,
27. everybody's right to culture and science, everybody's right of protection of scientific, literary and artistic intellectual work,
28. the meta-right of anyone to an order supporting this list of rights,
29. limitations of the rights in a very metaphysical formulation: the individual has duties to a community supporting this list of rights, and cannot violate any law which purpose is to maintain this list of rights, and the mega-caveat that no right can be exercised in contrast to UN:s rules and principles.
30. all these principles are valid, and none, neither state nor individual, can countervent one by claiming another.
L8R! Said: Rursus ☻ 12:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion everything mixed in a gooey and unsystematic blob. Said: Rursus ☻ 12:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jeane Kirkpatrick Quotations Misrepresented?

This section of the article seems to misrepresent the quotations and it should therefore be removed. -- Jeane Kirkpatrick, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, argued that certain economic rights cannot be human rights; Kirkpatrick called the Declaration "a letter to Santa Claus",[16] saying, "Neither nature, experience, nor probability informs these lists of 'entitlements', which are subject to no constraints except those of the mind and appetite of their authors." -- These quotations appear to be originally sourced from p. 130 of Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, _Legitimacy and Force_ (1988). They refer not to the Declaration of Human Rights, but to a committee report by the Human Rights Commission in the 1980s: "As a matter of fact, recently in Geneva, where the Human Rights Commission is meeting, there has been affirmed a right to development ... to a new economic order, the right to peace, and the right to an end to the arms race. Such declarations of human rights take on the character, as one critic said, of a letter to Santa Claus. ... Neither nature nor experience nor probability informs these lists of entitlements." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.242.131.67 (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Chinas Human Rights???

The section entitled "Chinas Human Rights" is a confusing edit. Did the editor mean to list the countries who did and did not vote for ratification of the Declaration of Human Rights in the General Assembly of 1948? If so, please create a sub-section called, "Ratification vote." In order to remain neutral, list the way all countries voted--not just some. This could be part of the history main section.

The section seems to be off the topic. Wikipedia already has an entry for Human rights in the People's Republic of China. It also has a entry for Human rights in the United States, and perhaps other countries as well. If we want to remain neutral then we should either link all or link none to this article.

Also, did the editor mean to put an apostrophe in the word, "Chinas?" Boyd Reimer (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Boyd Reimer (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. As the edit was unsourced and off-topic, I went ahead and deleted that section. If the editor comes here to answer your questions, we can reconsider. Civilaffairs (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs