Talk:History of human rights

New article

This is a spin-out from Human rights, covering the historical antecedents to the modern human rights movement. Phyesalis (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Citing Sources

All sources listed in the footnotes need to be cited in full, not just given abbreviated citations. The source cited "Ball, Gready 2007" needs to be cited as "Ball and Gready, 2007"; the way it's currently cited would be appropriate for a book authored by someone named Gready Ball, but not for one written by two authors named Olivia Ball and Paul Gready. Christopher Powell (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

i think there needs to be more articles cited than just one Ramanit (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Ramanit

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "LewisNYRB" :
  • Lewis (1998)
  • {{cite news | last=Lewis | first=Bernard | title=Islamic Revolution |date=January 21, 1998 | publisher=The New York Review of Books | url=http://www.nybooks.com/articles/4557}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Opposition

The article too often speaks of human rights as if they were a given, that they were created out of the blue. In fact, this was one of the main reasons human rights had to wait until 1948 to be universally accepted. Before 1948, human rights were ideologically associated with the French revolution and the rights of man, and any social group who had historically opposed the French revolution in any minor or major way was suspected of being against human rights. For instance, during the Dreyfus affair, supporters of human rights were said to be pro-Dreyfus, while anti-Dreyfus people were said to be against human rights. It was a very complicated business until the 1948 charter. 69.157.229.153 (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Cyrus Cylinder

Cyrus cylinder should not be included in this article. Due to its persian name ("cylinder of human rights"), and strong Shah propaganda, most iranians believe what is currently written in this article, although reading the text of the cylinder provides an answer: there is no mention of human rights there.

One should remove it from the article, and then, most importantly, remove all the vandalism from Iranian computers which will happen quite often (from people who are sincerly convinced what they write is true).

I redirect people to former discussions (on the "human rights" page) for more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hehiheho (talk • contribs) 20:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The concept of the Persians being good to Jews and captured peoples is well documented, let's keep politics out of this and not react to what Iranians "believe". Read the bible, frye, durant, all the others scholars who support the idea. This section doesn't warrant complete removal because one guy decided it need to be removed and then another decided to remove it. The issue of human rights fir the persians is based on interpretations of scholars the same as the other ancient artifacts. I bid you Shalom Jdravan (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As the poster above says, read the talk page archives. You will find that this has been discussed many times in the past. It's pseudohistorical nonsense. Prioryman (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What talk page archives? The section has a lot sources from historians. Stop pushing your Point Of View (POV)! Jdravan (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Prioryman. The Cyrus Cylinder stuff is Pahlavi-era pseudoscience and pseudohistory. We have been over this a million times. Athenean (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello!!!! What are you talking about? Whose we and when have you been over this? that section has a bunch of good sources! None of them have to do with Pahlavi. This is ridiculous. Jdravan (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Jdravan is right--the solid RS that endorse Cyrus have nothing to do with modern Iranian POV, and the critics have not given one source that denigrates CyrusRjensen (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Cyrus is well-established in the scholarly RS. For examples, see Damien Kingsbury. Human rights in Asia: a reassessment of the Asian values debate (Macmillan 2008) - Page 21; Sabine C. Carey, The Politics of Human Rights: The Quest for Dignity (2010) p 19; Paul Gordon Lauren, The evolution of international human rights (2003) Page 11; Willem Adriaan Veenhoven, Case studies on human rights and fundamental freedoms: a world survey: Volume 1 (1975) Page 244; etc. Rjensen (talk) 04:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If you look at what actual historians say, they explicitly reject the claim. See Cyrus Cylinder#Human rights. The claim is one that was promoted by the late Shah of Iran as part of his regime's propaganda and was subsequently picked up by non-historians and Iranian nationalists (note that none of the sources you cite are historians). When it comes to historical matters, we should defer to what the professional historians say, rather than promoting nationalist pseudohistory. -- Prioryman (talk) 08:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be making bold assertions Prioryman: "Actual historians" do NOT explicitly reject the claim. The late of Shah of Iran's endorsement neither supports or negates the extant research that indicates that reliable sources do believe that Cyrus Cylinder is a charter/declaration of human rights. Calling points "nationalist pseudohistory" doesn't make it so, nor does your wholesale erasure of an entire, well sourced section really help with the fixing the article. Bear in mind that the section discusses a lot more than just the cylinder. As a result of 1) JdRavans and Jensens (especially since he supports his points), and 2) Athenean and Prioryman sweeping edits and full erasure of the section...I will be reverting the article to its original state. GoetheFromm (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the action has already been done, lol. GoetheFromm (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What should be done is to edit section in questions, but definitely not its entire erasure. GoetheFromm (talk) 10:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I've moved it to Talk:History of human rights/Cyrus Cylinder as we should not have a one-sided version in the article, and we can do without it while it is fixed. GoetheFromm, since you have suggested that it needs editing, perhaps you might want to have a go at writing it from a NPOV viewpoint? Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

DougWeller, sounds great, I will definitely take a stab at editing the section. Will take some time and I invite others to edit as well. GoetheFromm (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh wait a second! I disagree that "we can do without it while it is fixed." I will work on editing it, certainly, but removing in the meantime is highly unnecessary and disallows other users to be exposed and edit themselves. Moreover, the section is still informative and useful. GoetheFromm (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

And you could easily have tweaked it just a tiny bit to make it less POV. A matter of less than a minute. Dougweller (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, let's give people a chance too. GoetheFromm (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Please don't tell me what I can or cannot do, I'm trying my best. I'm not as good as you. GoetheFromm (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You could have doesn't mean me telling you what you can do (there's a subtle distinction), but yes, I'm fast. :-). But tiny tweaks really don't take much time and can make a big difference. Dougweller (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting point. GoetheFromm (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned the principal purpose of the article should be to be informative. At the moment this section is not informative. It's just a set of assertions and counter-assertions. What we neede is an explanation of what in the document leads it to be proclaimed a charter of rights and why it has been denied that status. At the moment we just get "oh yet it is; oh no it's not" at useless length. I'd suggest a shorter section saying something like: "The Cyrus cylinder is a proclamation of Cyrus's policies after his capture of Babylon. He mentions liberating captured peoples and returning the statues of gods to their sanctuaries. Since he calls himself to be a "universal ruler" this document has been portrayed as a declaration of univeral rights. Scholars of ancient Babylonian culture assert that it is a programme of reforms, fairly typical of the type of proclamations of piety and justice made by new monarchs." Paul B (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul Barlow, I really like what you wrote above, I support it. GoetheFromm (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that some people who want to remove any possitive mention of Cyrus in Wikipedia can read This

It does not mention "Human rights" but does the Magna Charta do it? No...

So jsut because Babylonian kings used to make such declarations does not mean that we should ignore Cyrus. Because Cyrus DID free around 50000 jews from captivity and sent them back to their lands. In addition did the Persians not use slaves as forexample the greeks. The Greeks had a society of slaves. 1/3 of Sparta was of slaves. In Persia however the majority of the work force was paid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsaces (talk • contribs) 09:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I propose we edit the history of Democracy. Because after all, Athenian "Democracy" consisted of nothing more than land-owning, Athenian males being allowed to vote, whilst women had to cover themselves in public and could not leave the home without a male guardian and were seen as inferior. Sounds an awful lot like Afghanistan today, doesn't it? The point is that just because it doesn't fit the modern definition of "human rights" doesn't mean that it isn't a "precursor" to the modern concept, as Pahlavi actually referred to the cylinder as to the United Nations. In an age when Assyrians were impaling Jews (seen here in reliefs constructed by the proud perpetrators: http:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/JudeanImpalement_Roaf185.jpg/250px-JudeanImpalement_Roaf185.jpg), rebuilding the temples of and repatriating subject peoples to their homelands was revolutionary, just as allowing all "citizens" (no matter how narrow and elitist the definition was) a vote on matters of state was revolutionary in its own right, and LED to what we today think of as "democracy". Kitrino (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

"Think of as 'democracy?'" You seem to be confusing several related concepts. Democracy has nothing to do with human rights; it is a system of government where enfranchised citizens have representative power. Athens was actually one of few true democracies, since all of those land-owning men actually voted directly (as opposed to electing representatives and pretending that it's the same as voting). If you "think of" democracy another way, it's because you are confusing "democratic" with "egalitarian." The United States, for example, has always been a modern democracy, despite having disenfranchised various people in many ways. 184.99.164.203 (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Cyrus Cylinder

(moved from rjensen talk page)

I just saw your edit at the History of Human Rights article, given that there is a dispute over the cylinder, don't you think that both perspectives should be shown rather than just one? Dougweller (talk) 13:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

yes, I agree. Rjensen (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

in my opinion, this is a fad of the 1970s, based on a propaganda piece by Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. It has no relevance to a discussion of the actual history of human rights. This thing is notable enough to be given a section at the Cyrus Cylinder, but it isn't relevant to the History of human rights (or we could cite each and every manumission document from the Roman empire, etc. etc.). We have here a typical Iron Age document that was inflated because of the Biblical relevance of Cyrus, and further by the desire of Pahlavi to look good in front of the UN. Interesting, but very tangential to a history of human rights. --dab (𒁳) 15:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It isn't even suggested in the Encyclopedia Iranica: [1]. Dougweller (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Joining in on this discussion...

I agree, all (not both) perspectives should be shown rather than one.

Bear in mind that the Human Right article is on the Persian Empire and general policies as well as on the Cyrus Cylinder. I think that it is important that his distinction is made and that when discussing the issue, that the Cyrus Cylinder isn't conflated with other instances in Ancient Persia of the existence of human rights.

On another note, 'Biblical reverence' already indicates the extent of cultural impact of Persian policies on the ancient world. The United Nations position of the Cyrus Cylinder also indicates the modern cultural influence of cylinder and of human rights. An assumption that the entire topic is 'fad from the 70s' (and therefore negating the whole of ancient history because of one decade in the 20th century), I feel, undermines what we all are trying to do here. GoetheFromm (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What are exactly are "we" (or rather you I guess) are trying to do here?--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you mocking me? In this instance, "we" are trying to resolve POV issues and introduce/maintain reliable source to the History of Human Rights page, specifically with regards to the Persian empire. Does that answer your question? GoetheFromm (talk) 12:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, please note that this discussion was on rjensen's page and moved here by rjensen, which might explain its seeming discontinuity with the rest of the page, maybe. GoetheFromm (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Not really. It was a serious question to know which alleged or real POV by who you want to fix.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion raised by Dab however is whether this is significant enough to be here. I realise that the cylinder was used by Pahlavi and the UN for political reasons (which isn't a criticism, just an observation which is I think correct), is that enough for this article? As Dab says, we aren't going to list everything in the entire history of human rights there. Until we decide if it belongs here we don't need to discuss the content. Dougweller (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Mo. Rez. Pahlavi and the UN did and do indeed promote the notion that Cylinder was first human rights. But this fact shouldn't take away from the veracity whether the cylinder is considered or regarded by a relevant some as the first charter of human rights.

And the claim that the proposition: "The Cyrus Cylinder was the first human rights charter" is only one supported by the Shah of Iran is just not true. It has been brought up numerous times that there are scholars who support that view.

Last as I said before: "Bear in mind that the Human Right article is on the Persian Empire and general policies as well as on the Cyrus Cylinder. I think that it is important that his distinction is made and that when discussing the issue, that the Cyrus Cylinder isn't conflated with other instances in Ancient Persia of the existence of human rights."

What say you, dbachmann? GoetheFromm (talk) 13:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I absolutely disagree with your course of action. It is inconsistent and needless. You yourself have said that it is simple to make edits. Then do it. The material was already there, so keep it until you can fix it. Don't erase, wholesale.

There are enough evidence and sources to keep it in. GoetheFromm (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Whatever happens to this material, there's no excuse for keeping in absolutely false information such as the claim that the cylinder states that Cyrus abolished slavery and promoted freedom of religion. That comes from the fake translation that can be seen here. The real cylinder says nothing about slavery or freedom of religion, as can be seen from the British Museum's translation of it [2]. Prioryman (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree no false information should be allowed.

Prioryman, make sure that you distinguish between the fake translation and the actual actions of the Persians. Sometimes the fake translation and the Persians overlap. Get what I mean? GoetheFromm (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Eh, no. You will have to elaborate. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I will elaborate...then. The fake translation makes mention to there being no slavery, etc. The translation is false so it cannot be used (obviously). The Ancient Persians are known by other means to have not used or utilizes slaves for royal constructions (they used paid workers) and it is also known that Persians did not have large scale slavery. So, the the fake translation and the actual actions of the Persians overlap even though one is false (the false translation) and the other true. Get what I mean? GoetheFromm (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The entire section entitled "Early history of human rights" is problematic, because none of the examples listed are human rights but are instead citizens rights. Human rights are universal, and that concept only came into being with the French declaration of 1789. Of course the article should cover periods earlier than this, because elements from previous history influenced the later human rights, but the current wording makes it seem like there existed these earlier examples of "human rights", when that is not the case. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

GoetheFromm is simply making things up at this stage. I took the trouble to read the sources that he's citing in his latest amendments [3]. They say nothing about "freedom of religion" or Cyrus using paid workers rather than slaves. Both claims come from a fake translation of the cylinder, as I've pointed out above. They are not supported, or even mentioned, by the cited sources, and the cylinder says nothing about such issues. This isn't a matter of differing interpretations, it's indisputable fact. Prioryman (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's get one thing straight, Prioryman. I'm not interested in adding unsourced material or material with no basis in fact. What I have been preventing is your removal of an entire sections of material because of a couple of unsourced or misrepresented citation. Such actions are not the way wikipedia works. 1) I might recommend the use of citation needed [citation needed] to you. 2) You seem to mixing up the concepts of Ancient Persia, Cyrus the Great, and the Cyrus Cylinder into one issue. a) Fact: The "majority view" of historians is that Ancient Persia is regarded as being an extraordinarily tolerant and progressive society for human rights (whether it was called that back then is not the point). b) Fact: The "majority view" of historians is that Cyrus the Great is known to have been a uniquely enlightened ruler, especially in the context of his era. c) The Cyrus Cylinder is considered by some (not all) to be a "Charter of Human Rights." So, since you don't seem to understand what I've been over and over again, point #2 is what I am wedded to and advocating. You might not be recognizing the way wikipedia works. You have to allow other editors the right to address points, rather than removing information that is indeed verfiable. Personally, as an editor, I'm a firm "gradualist," and believe that point #2 will eventually be the norm on the article in question. Also, it'd be appreciated if you practice being careful not attacking editors to emphasize your points. I notice that you have a propensity to do this, as evident on the Fringe theories notice board Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Cyrus_Cylinder_and_human_rights. GoetheFromm (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You will need more than just stating a bunch of claims as "facts". And since this article is not about Cyrus the Great, it is especially important to establish the notability of the last of your claims, namely that the Cyrus cylinder should be seen as a "charter of human rights" and that this view is so widely accepted that it warrants mention here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh really, Saddhiyama, how many times do you want points 1,2, and be addressed? See Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Cyrus_Cylinder_and_human_rights. Inicidentally it is Prioryman who brought this issue up. So do me favor, actually read the discussion... best, GoetheFromm (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Material that is poorly sourced or uncited should be removed on sight. The purpose of cn tags is NOT to allow the insertion of unsourced material. I agree with Prioryman and the rest that claims about freedom of religion are false, and their inclusion (and edit-warring over them) constitutes tendentious editing. Athenean (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I too agree with both of you that using Cyrus Cylinder as evidence of freedom of religion is questionable. I am not advocating the use of citation needed for tendentious material. Seriously, people don't read into things that aren't being stated. Prioryman has had a history of removing sourced and unsourced material in one shot. That is my concern. GoetheFromm (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If there is no reliable source confirming the claim of freedom of religion, that claim stays out of the article until a reliable source can be found. There is simply no way we are going to leave that claim in the article with the cn tag over it in the absence of any source. Athenean (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Athenean, ARE YOU READING WHAT I'VE WRITTEN! (I'll stop yelling). I'm not advocating the inclusion of the religion part. I agree that it is not sourced. I recommend that you Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Cyrus_Cylinder_and_human_rights. The discussion is active right now, it was initiated by Prioryman, it might help you understand the issue at hand. Sorry for yelling, you were driving me crazy., lol. Best, GoetheFromm (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

And the discussion on the Fringe ref desk clearly shows a consensus that the claim about the cylinder being "an early example of human rights" is fringe. So I am not sure what it is that you are trying to say when you keep referring to that discussion. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't show that. I'm gonna assume that you misread it because there is no possible way a person could say that it "clearly" shows that. GoetheFromm (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, as I have also stated above, that the section entitled "Early history of human rights" is fundamentally flawed, in that it seems to propose an assumption that there were a number of "early examples of human rights", when "human rights" as a concept is a modern phenomenom. What there was, was a number of "ethical contributions" (as Micheline R. Ishay calls it in her "The History of Human Rights", p. 15.) to what would later become human rights. Now, the section could, and should indeed, contain a survey of these ethical contributions, but it should be made with secondary sources that specifically dealt with human rights, not as the current synthesis of various examples sourced with mainly primary sources or with other Wikipedia articles. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Your point that the entire section of human rights in the ancients world is problematic is something I do I agree with. GoetheFromm (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

How many unprecedented principles of human rights were there?

Maybe it's a bad phrase if it's used more than once. :-) Dougweller (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is generally plagued by a lot of naive boosterism. The first paragraph of the Maurya section is entirely unsourced, and contains a lot of booster-ish language. Ditto the Islami section. I suspect these sections were added or greatly expanded by Jagged85, a notorious booster whose edits are subject to a wikipedia-wide cleanup operation. I will check. Athenean (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree, Athenean, this is a problem throughout the article. The topic itself lends itself to boosterism. GoetheFromm (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the unsourced superlative stuff about the Mauryas. The Islamic section is more complicated. I've tagged it for now, but my inclination, based on my experience with the editor who added it (see this RfC [4]), is to remove it entirely. Athenean (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

none of this is relevant. All it does is establish that the notion of ethics or being nice to your fellow man predates the actual human rights movement. However, this article is about the actual human rights movement, not the anthropological roots of ethical behaviour. Take it to Evolution of morality, where Cyrus and Islam will not be "early" examples, but very late examples in a process that has started about seven million years ago. --dab (𒁳) 13:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A modest proposal

I'm going to make a modest proposal here. I propose that we rewrite the Cyrus Cylinder section to reflect only and exactly what the cited sources say - no more, no less. If a statement is not explicitly supported in a source it should not appear in the article. If someone adds a statement that is not supported by a source, it should be removed from the article. Does everyone agree? (This is after all supposed to be a basic rule of Wikipedia, isn't it?) Prioryman (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me and required by policy anyhow.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Prioryman, your proposal doesn't even begin to address the problem. Lots of things can be "supported by sources". The real question is, does it have any kind of relevance to the article topic?

The oldest known fossil penguin species is Waimanu manneringi, which lived in the early Paleocene epoch of New Zealand, or about 62 mya. reference: Slack, Kerryn E.; Jones, Craig M.; Ando, Tatsuro; Harrison G. L. "Abby"; Fordyce R. Ewan; Arnason, Ulfur & Penny, David (2006): Early Penguin Fossils, plus Mitochondrial Genomes, Calibrate Avian Evolution. Molecular Biology and Evolution 23(6): 1144-1155. doi:10.1093/molbev/msj124

following your proposal, I could insert this referenced statement in the article and you couldn't touch it because it is "supported in a source".

you entirely misunderstand the "basic rules of Wikipedia". The basic rule is, as long as no reference is cited, there is not even a discussion. As soon as a quotable reference is cited, the disussion may begin. See WP:DUE. At some point, the discussion will also end, after everything has been said and done. In the case of the Cyrus Cylinder, this point has been reached about two years ago, see Talk:Cyrus Cylinder.

the upshot is that this article shouldn't even have a "Cyrus Cylinder" section, never mind its content, simply because 1970s Iranian propaganda isn't relevant to the article topic. --dab (𒁳) 12:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That is however only a part of thruth as well. Proganda or not, it is definitely notable that UN fell for it and has enshrined it. And beyond propaganda there is fringe view by some historian and human rights experts, that see the Cyrus cylinder as an "early human declaration". By omitting the issue altogether we might do the reader a disservice, since he is likely to encounter such description elsewhere and hence WP should provide some background information on that. Also we would have the problem of new editors constantly inserting it again as they perceive it as yet missing information rather than an intentional exclusion.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

What would be WP:DUE in my opinion? I would suggest that the entire "early history" section needs to be collapsed into a short paragraph, stating that some aspects of the human rights movement have been argued to have predecessors in antiquity and the medieval period, see Cyrus Cylinder, edicts of Ashoka, Early reforms under Islam, Magna Charta. That's it. it clears the way for the actual topic, the evolution of the notion of "human rights" during the modern period. --dab (𒁳) 12:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, dab, I think that your "proposal" above is a good one. That is, collapsing the entire section into short paragraph, stating that some aspect of the human rights movement have been argued to have predecessors in antiquity and the medieval period. I agree that it very well clears the way for the actual topic: the evolution of human rights in the modern period. GoetheFromm (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

actually, the fact that it suddenly became desireable for the Iranians to be the "source of human rights" in the 1970s is very much a relevant part of the history of human rights. Only, it is part of its 20th-century history: the increase of the reach of the concept after the end of WWII. The entire Cyrus Cylinder thing should be moved to a section that discusses human rights, the Middle East and the UN during the 1970s. --dab (𒁳) 13:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That is an interesting suggestion, however we would probably need different sources on that.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Some vs. Many

There are editors on the History of Human Rights page (see edit history) indicating that the word "some" is weasel? Many is a judgment of quantity, which is not appropriate for encyclopedic material. Moreover, "some" entails "many" and where as "many" does not entail "some." Thus the word "some" is more appropriate in article. In addition, on this specific issue regarding the human rights questions, some has been advocated as the correct usage by editors. The talk and edit record indicates this. Lastly, wouldn't a reference be needed to indicate from a reliable source that "many" believe in order for the word "many" to be included? It feels like POV pushing to put "many." Feedback on this issue? Thanks. GoetheFromm (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Not that anyone needs this, but I refer you to WP:WEASEL, in which the unsupported use of "most" (ie, many) is considered weasel. Yes, the word "some" can also be considered weasel, but the word "some" is only weasel if there is not a reliable source indicating that there is at least one reliable individual that believes it. The burden for the word "many" requires a source to indicate that it is the majority or prevalent view. GoetheFromm (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

In the context of the human rights page, the issue as to who or how many are in support of the Cyrus Cylinder being a a declaration of human rights, is up for debate (as evidenced by the continual talks regarding it). As "Many" requires a gerater burden of evidence to be utilized, the word "some" with all its limitations, seems to be the right choice on the issue. Tell me your thoughts on my argument. GoetheFromm (talk) 23:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Cyrus cilinder.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Cyrus cilinder.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

More on Antiquity

who may ever believe if Cyrus had any thing to do with human rights unless if he is decieved by propaganda and ignorance?

just see what Greek references say about ways and methods of Persians: greedy, bloody, treacherous, swingers, pederasts...... such people could be any thing but human rights keepers!

---

Greek sources? Oh, I don't know. Let's take for example the fact that the only extant source that we have on the Ionian revolt is Herodotus, a Greek (or Greek-speaker, rather) who famously and perhaps not surprisingly was shown to have a heavy anti-Persian bias and exaggerated many accounts of destruction amongst other dubious "facts", such as his unforgettable and in the context of modern archaeological studies, utterly laughable allegation that the Giza Pyramids were constructed by 100,000 "slaves" - who we now know were in fact paid laborers. In fact, it was the European Greeks who held slaves, not those "barbarian" orientals.

And the fact that many Greeks who lived during the period of Persian domination would malign Persians is not shocking in the slightest. Xenophon's "Cyropaedia" however, is a document written by a Greek of that period with a favorable view. In it, he describes the life of Cyrus for the purposes of examining him as the "ideal ruler". Not at all surprising, given that many Greek cities in Ionia who assented to Persian rule were patronized heavily, such as Ephesus, where Achaemenid rulers financed the lavish Temple of Artemis for the Ephesians and their support. And many sources note that Greeks, among many other peoples such as Egyptians and men of the "Phoenician" cities served in the Persian military. That's right, Greeks fighting under the banner of those alleged barbarians who want nothing more than to reach into the future, eat your white, Christian children and force them to wear hejabs and destroy baseball, apple pie and democracy while they're at it. Yes, that evil barbarian empire, fighting against the Greeks who gave birth to everything of worth in our modern world, from whose very rectums freedom and justice for all sprung.

Let us not forget, it was the people of Athens who decided to have Socrates executed.

Let us not forget, it was Alexander who ended Athenian democracy for good.

History does not function in black and white, in "good" and "evil". It merely is, with the same individuals and nations contributing tremendously beautiful and useful ideas, concepts and inventions (yes, even democracy..) and also committing horrible atrocities.

You, though, I suppose you're getting your historical knowledge from the movie "300" and poorly-written Western-Civ high school textbooks.

Oh, and I've got a revelation for you on the pederasty front that you mentioned the Persians as engaging in. Those dastardly Pers...er I mean, classical Greeks??! Enjoy!:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece Kitrino (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

"utterly laughable allegation that the Giza Pyramids were constructed by 100,000 "slaves" - who we now know were in fact paid laborers." -- yeah but they were "paid" in onions - and the Pharaohs didn't give them any legal choice in the matter! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Early Islamic Caliphate: Undue Weight

I copy-pasted the Early Islamic Caliphate section in an application counting the number of characters of a text. It has more characters than "Early Modern period and Age of Enlightenment", "19th century to World War I" and "Between World War I and World War II" combined. I am not a specialist of the topic, so I am unsure to be qualified for editing and shortening the text. Although, it appears clearly that an undue weight is given to this section. I hence label the section with an appropriate tag. I actually suspect additionally boosterism. (Hehiheho (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC))

Possible source for a revamp

I did a Teaching Company course entitled "The Rights of Man" by Paul Gordon Lauren about a month ago, and the framework plus information would be well suited for this article. Since the information is on CD-audios from a local library, it is difficult to offer inline easy-to-check references; so I am wondering whether anybody might object in advance before I comb through the course and pick out specific points, as well as possibly adapt his time frame with major events? There is another book by the same author here which probably has much of the same material. And, looking above in the talk page, I remember PGL mentioning Cyrus as important.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be admissible as a source, but using the book instead of the CD is to be preferred as it is much easier for others to check. However though admissible in general and probably an authoritative on (modern) human rights in general Gordon doesn't strike me as good source for claims regarding ancient history since he doesn't seem to have a background for that (see his website).--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Noted, and thank you for your comment. I'll try to use the book more than the CD-audios if I add information; with luck, much of the material will be the same. My sense is that Paul Gordon Lauren is an excellent source for the overall framework of human rights -- that is it might be helpful overall for this article if we develop sections somewhat along the lines of PGL's time frame. My sense was that PGL was somewhat POV-ish in the more recent material, since he had somewhat of a left-leaning perspective (and misses one of the other sides regarding human rights) but I think I can counterbalance stuff if necessary from other sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Twelve Articles (Memmingen, 1525) are missing

The Twelve Articles written and published during the German Peasants' War of 1525 deserve to be mentioned in my opinion, maybe alongside the Laws of Burgos (1511). --217.224.88.177 (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)