Talk:Human rights/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Discussion of Sources in Intro?

I was wondering if we could get some discussion here of the sources that were just added by a new account to the intro, to support some kind of assertions about human rights not being a "scientifically proven theory". (of course it's not science but philosophy; once again we seem to be seeing so-called "science" intrude itself onto all arenas of thought.) Can we find out what these sources are saying and look at it? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this edit includes the sources in question.

(I don't think the edit makes it clear how this relates to the various views expressed in the article. If it is introducing a new view, that should first be done in the body of the article, with possible summary in the lead. My main reason for responding was to include a link to the dif/references in question so this discussion would be clearer in the archive. If I got the wrong dif, please correct.) Zodon (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The current wording is extremely bias, because it makes out that humans rights, what Til Eulenspiegel rightly calls a philosophy, is instead "fact", "proven", "cast in stone" as a proven scientific theory would be. There is no scientific evidence to suggest that there are basic rights to which all humans are entitled to and clearly not every philosophy/theory agrees with this theory.

Human rights is a subjective theory competing amongst other theories, not a matter of fact. It should be pesented correctly with NPOV wording. For example in the real world; Robert Mugabe would seem to disgree that all humans are born with rights and freedoms which they are entitled to. As would Iran with its execution of homosexuals. Just because human rights is attractive to some, does not mean it is a scientific fact. Wikipedia cannot take "sides", just become some editors find one theory more attractive - this would breach balance/NPOV. The references which I inserted into the article, verify that human rights is deemed a theory by scholars, rather than some sort of mystical power.

Also with the term "examples of rights and freedoms which have come to be commonly thought", this is weasel wording. Commonly thought by who? This presents a bias assertion of western liberal democracies post 1945. Not an eternal human truth or cross-cultural, cross-political, cross-philosophical matter of fact that every human agrees on. On my hand there are four fingers and a thumb; this is a factual non-subjective statement that nobody on earth can deny. "Human rights refers to the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled" is not, it is an assertion, an opinion, a political stance. Make it clear. - William Bawl (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality does not mean giving fringe views equal space. Nor does it mean weasel words to avoid stating the accepted understanding of human rights. For these reasons, I strongly oppose your attempt to inject relativism into this article. Spotfixer (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Spotfixer, "fringe" is the entire history of human kind prior to 1946? This would seem to be grave ignorance on your part. "Fringe" are the cultures, philosophies, religions, political ideologies which do not happen share the same values as the ones currently used by western liberal democracies? While the philosophy of human rights recently has prevelence, it is by no means a fixed or eternal "magical power", which is guarenteed to last for ever, across the entire human race and shouldn't be presented that way in the intro. Every other political concept outside of western liberal democracies in the 20th century has contradicted this theory. Even as we speak, western liberal democracies are fighting for their "human right" centric philosophy, against ones that contradict it; baath party philosophy & also militant jihad. - William Bawl (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, William. I agree that this is a philosophical concept, and would also say, what little there is that "scientific facts" might be able to inform us regarding human rights, would fall under "sociology". I'd also add that you are correct in that it is not a "constant" that has been recognised throughout all eras of history and in all countries, but rather one that has more or less been a developing concept. That's true of most philosophy and should be obvious - so I'm not sure we need to spell it out in the lead. My edit tried to highlight its developing nature, by changing the phrasing to say it has "come to be" thought of, instead of "is" thought of ... and the article gives details on the history of how the concepts were developed. "Commonly" also seems justified to me, since the basic concept of "human rights" has for some time enjoyed something like a consensus among the United Nations signatories, including even the two countries you just named. There is of course no end to lots of different povs about how much various countries pay "lip service" to human rights, and how much they really do protect them. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

While I don't really see a POV problem with the lede as it is (it states a definition of what "human rights" means; it doesn't assert that there are such things or what they are), perhaps it would be good to add a short sentence after the quote in the lede, mentioning that there is debate both over what the correct set of human rights is (e.g. classical liberals / libertarians contest many of the purported social, economic and cultural rights), and in some cases over whether there really is a universal set of human rights at all (e.g. the "Asian values" debate and other relativism). Perhaps include an anchor link to the criticism section further down the page. Full disclosure: I am a universalist, so I'm happy for my sake with the lede as it is, but I try hard to acknowledge those I disagree with here on Wikipedia. --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The proposed edit (diff above) made the lead more wordy, less clear and more POV. Human rights are not an assertion that there are a universal set of basic rights (as stated by the edit). That would be something like an assertion of a universalist view of human rights. Somebody who believes that the set of such rights is empty can still talk about the set.

The article is large enough that there could be more material in the lead (WP:LEAD). It should clearly relate to the contents of the article, for instance as Pfhorrest suggests. Zodon (talk) 09:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Magna carta

What similar documents restriction the power of kings and establishing rights are more notable in the English language Wikipedia? If don't think Magna Carta appropriate here, what image would suggest to replace it? Zodon (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

So you've admitted ignorance of other documents, yet your default position is to revert edits by a fellow Wikipedian? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

FYI, if we include the Anglo-Norman-French Magna Carta at the very top of an article on HUMAN RIGHTS, we may as well include the restriction on Irish kings to create new laws under the Brehon Laws, or the Joyous Entry of 1356 (Duchy of Brabant), the ancient Roman Fideicommissum, or the Concordat of Worms (1122), or mention the Polish parliaments dating from 1182, or documents from the Icelandic parliament, dating from 930? or why not mention the dikasteria of ancient Athens? And I'm sure you realize the Roman Republic had a Constitution, don't you?

surely the irony of including of a photo of a document that makes crude remarks against Jews at the very top of an article on Human Rights isn't lost on you?

The Magna Carta was a watershed moment for the development of English Constitutional Law, but it is hardly of any significance with relation to Human Rights. It's a document that restricts the rights of a position (King of England) who before and after the Charter was far more of a despot and abuser of "Human Rights" than countless other earlier and contemporary rulers and governments around the world. - Ledenierhomme (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The question was which documents those objecting to the Magna Carta in this context felt were more notable. Which of the documents that you mention do you consider more notable/worth inclusion than the Magna Carta? (With source/reason, of course).

If Magna Carta is irrelevant in this context, why did Eleanor Rosevelt liken the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to it? Zodon (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Your question is wide of the mark. The Magna Carta does not explicitly deal with human rights, so the inclusion of a photo of it at the very beginning of the article is ludicrous. Roosevelt was talking about the UN Declaration as analogous to the Carta as a potentially legally-binding document for authorities. There is no question of relevance there. I can't imagine why you are so determined to see a picture of the Magna Carta at the top of this article when you are typically busy editing on such closely related topics as Anal Cancer and Female Condoms - Ledenierhomme (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you've been citing wikipolicy, let me remind you of WP:CIVIL. You're coming awfully close to personal attacks here.

Also, Zodon appears to be following WP:BRD properly here. You made a bold edit - which is good, within policy - he disagreed and reverted it, and now we're discussing it. This is the way things are supposed to go. He also seems to be open to alternative suggestions and not particularly stuck on the Magna Carta itself, just defending it's relevance. But I doubt anyone here would object to replacing the Magna Carta image with something more relevant; it's just deleting content without a better substitute that's contentious, as far as I can tell. So just pick a replacement image and lets go with that. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If an image is appropriate it is the "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen" that already exists below, the Magna Carta is nowhere near relevant enough to be the no 1 image associated with Human Rights. - Ledenierhomme (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement Essential Human Rights

This section was added recently - it lacks source citations so not sure what to do with it. If sources can be provided and it is not undue weight, a briefer mention might be in order (put the main thing in the article on the American Law Institute?). (This article too long already.) Zodon (talk) 08:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

[Section moved to talk]

Statement of Essential Human Rights

In the midst of World War II, the American Law Institute convened a committee in 1941 to study the international community's position regarding human rights law. The committee's charge was to develop a Statement of Essential Human Rights, whose goal was "to define the indispensable human rights in terms that would be acceptable to men of good will in all nations." William Draper Lewis, then acting director of the American Law Institute, was chair of the committee and the project's most outspoken advocate, touring the world to deliver speeches on the importance of a code of basic human rights. International in scope and in participation, the committee included representatives from Britain, Canada, China, France, pre-Nazi Germany, Italy, India, Latin America, Poland, Soviet Russia, Spain, and Syria.

A version of the Statement of Essential Human Rights was finalized in 1945. However, the document was not formally adopted by the American Law Institute because of disputes over some of the language in the document, particularly regarding the economic rights of individuals. However, the document proved to be lasting influence on the human rights movement that followed, especially in the drafting of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, promulgated in 1948.

[End of section moved to talk]

I'm the one who added this content. I agree that given the overall length and structure of the article, this information doesn't warrant its own section. However, I'm at a loss as to where else to put it. I think it deserves to be on this page, though, and not just ALI's page, because it is an important precursor to the UN's Human Rights Charter. I'd appreciate some advice.Bll arch (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Still needs the source, at the very least the document itself (maybe it's in an ALI publication?), but it certainly would apply to a USA specific article, maybe HR in the USA. If it applied anywhere here, it would be HR in the Americas. IMHO (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Fundamental Right

Fundamental right redirects here. Fundamental right is not synonymous with human rights. For instance, The United States recognizes Free Speech as a fundamental right. The International Copyright Treaty, The Berne Convention, permits a copyright holder to "object to any distortion, mutilation, or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation," whereas in the United States, you can distort, smear, and parody as much as you want under the freedom of speech, a fundamental right. The right to smear Christian Bale's tirade is fundamental in this country, whereas it is not in others. It is not a human right to smear Christian Bale. I don't know who created the redirect, but the English speaking world is a little dumber because of it. This is why there is a barrier to practicing law in the United States called the bar exam. 76.99.55.47 (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Claims of LGBT human rights

I've modified the first paragraph to be accurate and NPOV. First, I made it clear that these are claims of human rights. Ultimately, from an international standpoint, only official state actions can declare human rights, either through treaty, custom, or prolific existence of general principles recognized by the various states. NGOs saying something is a human right, does not make it so. And the dispute in the UN referenced in the second paragraph makes it clear that there is not a customary recognition. Second, along these lines I also divided the first sentence so that it mentioned the position of religious groups, a nice generic term as a number of those sources seemed to have been from subsets of religions, and kept all but the last reference in that first sentence. I then made a second sentence referencing Canadian law using the last reference. I am relying, heavily, upon a brief read of the wiki article the link leads to and assuming it's correct. Anyone who knows otherwise, please edit as needed.

For now I left the Lawrence v Texas brief before the US Supreme Court in, but it should ultimately be removed as a primary, advocative source. However, it does appear to contain citations that might be worthwhile references themselves. Those who have time, please read through the link. The reference, however is particularly misleading as it leaves out the actual decision of the court, by majority, relied upon privacy rights, not equal protection. Only one concurring opinion, that was not needed for a majority supported an equal protection basis. So that reference should be removed within the month. Again, I'm basing this on a review of the wikiarticle on that case, though it was not so brief as the my review of the article on the Canadian law and is consistent with what experience I've had in those justices' opinions.

So things I see that need to be done at this time:

• Pull reliable sources from the Lawrence v. Texas appellate brief link and then remove the reference to the brief itself
• Add in more regarding actual state practice, ie., the actual decision in Lawrence v. Texas. IMHO (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"only official state actions can declare human rights"? That's a strongly POV position. A lot of folks subscribe to a natural rights philosophy which takes the postion that rights exist not only without state action, but in the face of state action to the contrary; and that any refusal of such rights delegitimates the state doing so. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Orangemike. In many philosophies, any assertion of human rights is an assertion by somebody. (Whether it is a government, an NGO, or a person.)

Obviously there are many people aside from religious organizations asserting that LGBT rights are human rights. If you think more general references are needed thats fine, but requesting additional references seems a more balanced approach than to imply that this is just a religious issue. Zodon (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Both Orangemike and Zodon. I believe you misunderstand my statement quoted by Orangemike, but at any rate you are incorrect that it is POV, or at least inappropriately so. That is the stance of international law. It is states that create international law, of which human rights are a part. While anyone can assert a philosophical position, that's not helpful. The article is dealing with human rights both as a legal basis and a philosophical basis, and most of the material is dedicated to the former. The disputed material follows legal discussion and goes into Canadian law and UN consideration. Just giving various organizations', currently sub-cultures within various religions it appears, and leaving them there as determinative of law is POV and outright deceptive. Only listing various religious groups, and really subsets of unclear size within such groups, in citations and not qualifying the statement is also deceptive.

Now I agree that with the point that a right can exist without a particular state's action or even contrary to state practice, legally as well as philosophically. As I put it, the rule is in the breach. But law does look at practice amongst the general community of states. Ignoring that point is POV. And slipping in an appellate brief, the position of which regarding equal protection (from the USA standpoint) as a source, and then COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY ignoring the majority opinion of the tribunal who heard the arguments and ruled contrary to the arguments on the appellate brief is, again, POV and deceptive.

I do appreciate that other than subsets of religious groups advocate the existence of rights premised upon, or without regard to, sexual orientation and transexual issues, and that being rights other than life, liberty, due process shared. I'm also aware that there are, from and NPOV, strong positions, and rule of law, indicating that what is argued for is actually privileges, not rights. Right now, the latter is not reflected at all, and the former is provided as a general opinion without qualification. Even with broadening the sources, the main push for the assertions in the article are special interest groups and that should be reflected anyway. Until broader sources are provided, the sentence should remain qualified. Even with broader sources, there should be clear, if not entirely distinct groups, that should be pointed out anyway. IMHO (talk) 07:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

PS to the above. I wish to be particular about any disputed human rights because of the fact that human rights are fundamental and that treating any claimed right on equal ground with established human rights has a tendency to weaken true human rights, particulary when people act presumptively. Joking about one's human right to beer on a Saturday night can be amusing. Actual diminishment of one's view of the right (of others) to be free from torture compared to beer on a Saturday night, is not. IMHO (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The argument that states or international law creates human rights is circular. While international law may claim to regulate what is/is not human rights, it appears dubious that proponents of natural rights would accept that claim. (Whether it is the stance of international law that human rights are legal rights and not natural rights is also not clear.)

Since the rights involved appear to be things that have been widely claimed as human rights (life, freedom from violence, right to family life, etc.), and just extending/reaffirming that applies to people regardless of sexual orientation, etc. - hard to see how this is claiming privileges rather than rights.

While more references might be apropos, the opinion that human rights do/should not depend on gender or sexual preference is widely enough held that trying to enumerate/characterize all the supporting groups is probably not helpful. Characterizing the support as just religious is more misleading than leaving it general. Zodon (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Zodon on all points. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

An example of LGBT right being explicitly recognised is the South African Bill of Rights. Human rights originate from egalitarianism and hence make the assumption that all humans are equal (not everybody agrees with that). Group rights have emerged based on the argument that some group specific rights are necessary for the realisation of equality. "...where the group is regarded as being in a situation such that it needs special protective rights if its members are to enjoy human rights on terms equal with the majority of the population." In legal terms only nation states can create human rights law, that’s why wikipedia has a human rights article, as well as an human rights law article (which needs work).--SasiSasi (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Source issues/removal

I'm looking at couple of sources right now, but figured a single section, with subsections identifying where the source is/was located would help. Resigned as forgot to log in IMHO (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead

The very first sentence had a footnote to a publishing company and year of publication. No source title or author. Such sources are meaningless and do not provide any support. Resigned as forgot to log in IMHO (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And thank you to Zodon for pointing out the bibliography to my blind eyes. IMHO (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

History

• Firestone (1999) p. 118. I left that in for now, on the offchance that Firestone is an author's and it may be useful to find the actual source, but there is no Firestone in the bibliography, or anywhere else in the article (according to the find function of my broswer). IMHO (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

LGBT rights

Removed Conservative Rabbis Allow Ordained Gays, Same-Sex Unions article at [[1]] as source for arguments for LGBT rights as human rights. The article discussed a sect of Judaism permitting same sex marriage and the ordination of homosexual rabbis within the religion. There is no mention of human rights, and, as reported it is an individual rabbi's choice to allow the marriage (so not really a right). Not every allowance to an LGBT issue means it was recognized as a right, and this article is a far cry from it. That's leaving alone the OR interpretation needed to stretch that far anyway. Resigned as forgot to log in IMHO (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Abortion Rights v. Fetal Rights = A Human Rights Controversy

I'm curious where people are completing and then integrating: Talk:Human_rights/temp into the main article.

I feel sad and frustrated when it seems that we can't get two sides to be open to the legitimacy of each others perspectives.

In the last two paragraphs someone has added [citation needed] tags to almost every paragraph sentence. And there seems to be some debate over whether there is human rights tension between Reproductive Rights vs. Fetal Rights or Abortion Rights vs. Fetal Rights. I thought I could help out be collecting here citations that involve this issue (I've included some relevant quotes from the cited sources):

• World Briefing | Europe: Fetal Rights A National Issue

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/09/world/world-briefing-europe-fetal-rights-a-national-issue.html

"The European Court of Human Rights rejected an appeal to give full human rights to a fetus, saying legal rights of the unborn must be determined on the national level."

• Abortion on Demand

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,903771,00.html

"Though acknowledging that there are wide differences of opinion about the moment when human existence begins..."

"Some biologists believe that humanity begins at conception because the fertilized egg cell contains human DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). Manhattan Lawyer Cyril Means Jr., among others, finds this line of reasoning unconvincing: each sperm and egg also contain DNA, yet hardly anyone would argue, even metaphysically, that spermatozoa and ova possess the value of human beings."

• The War Over Fetal Rights By Debra Rosenberg, Newsweek

http://newsmine.org/content.php?ol=nature-health/society/war-over-fetal-rights.txt

"Along with forcing Americans into more-nuanced stances, the new science is also fanning longstanding, divisive political feuds--over the legality and morality of ending a pregnancy, about the rights of a woman versus the rights of an embryo or fetus, and, ultimately, over the meaning of human life."

• A Question of Fetal Rights, or Politics?

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/may/28/news/mn-3539?s=g&n=n&m=Broad&rd

'"We want to protect the fetus as a human being with certain rights and dignities, while still protecting the right of the mother to make decisions about her body," explained Blake Gunderson, a Fresno County prosecutor who recently won a double murder conviction against a woman who dismembered a pregnant mother.

Gunderson frames the issue this way: "Does a fetus deserve any less protection than a grown adult, just because it hasn't been born yet?"

Unborn victim laws deeply disturb many abortion rights activists because they enshrine into law the concept of fetus as person. Critics see that as a brash first step toward criminalizing abortion.

"The law cannot hold both that a pregnant woman is two persons and, at the same time, allow her to have an abortion," said Heather Boonstra, senior public policy associate at the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit corporation for reproductive research, policy analysis and public education.

The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act "is on a collision course with Roe vs. Wade," agreed Monica Hobbs, legislative counsel for the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy. "If it becomes law, we would have the debate about where life begins in federal courthouses all across the country."'

• When is an Abortion not an Abortion?

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1170368,00.html

"The strategy was to chip away at Roe to try to shrink it, change its shape, and over time promote a "culture of life" that would view abortion less as a right than a tragedy, perhaps eventually a crime. That gradual approach requires a certain level of hypocrisy—or at least a willing suspension of moral belief—because if you truly equate abortion with murder, it's hard to settle for slowing it down rather than stopping it altogether, right away: the Purist approach."

• Fetal Rights: what happened to the woman?

http://www.brynmawr.edu/Alumnae/bulletin/nv06/FetalRights.shtml

• What's wrong with fetal rights?

http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/fetalrights/16530res19960731.html

'the ACLU opposes the creation of theories of "fetal rights."'

• The Issue of Fetal Rights in Canada

(editors note spam link removed on archiving by Ajbpearce (talk) 11:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC))

• Court Rejects use of European Human Rights Law to Establish Fetal Rights

http://reproductiverights.org/en/press-room/court-rejects-use-of-european-human-rights-law-to-establish-fetal-rights

• Does a Fetus Have Rights?

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/p/fetus_rights.htm

"The only treaty that specifically grants rights to fetuses is the American Convention on Human Rights of 1969, signed by 24 Latin American countries, which states that human beings have rights beginning at the moment of conception. The United States is not a signatory to this treaty. The treaty does not require that signatories ban abortion, according to the most recent binding interpretation."

"The conundrum posed by abortion rests in the tension between a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy and the potential rights of the potential human being."

"Most philosophies of natural rights would hold that fetuses have rights when they become sentient or self-aware, which presumes a neurophysiological definition of personhood. Self-awareness as we generally understand it would require substantial neocortical development, which seems to occur at or near week 23. In the premodern era, self-awareness was most often presumed to occur at quickening, which generally takes place around the 20th week of pregnancy."

• Roe, 35 years later

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/01/22/roe_v_wade_anniversary/

'Gloria Feldt: "It's time to establish reproductive rights in a human and civil rights framework"'

• Did you just call me a zygote?

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2008/09/16/egg_person/index.html

'But alas, it's true. Proposed Amendment 48 (PDF), which will indeed be on the ballot in November, is described as an amendment to change the definition of the term "person" to "include any human being from the moment of fertilization as 'person' is used in those provisions of the Colorado constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law."'

• Human Rights

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Human_rights

• UN's Resources and Links on Human Rights

http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/resources.asp

I hope these links and quotes will help in citing the draft article. Hoping To Help (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Morality and the Human Rights

I'm reverting this addition:

"Oddly, some people put constraints on the human rights of others. Many argue that bigots use religion, color, nationality, socio-economic status, education level, and other issues, to immorally limit the human rights of others. However, since some laws do not take morality or ethics into account, certain acts that are immoral and unethical from a human rights perspective, are allowable from a legal perspective."

I think it addresses some useful issues. But it's unsourced, non-neutral, contains weasel words, and it's language is highly un-encyclopedic. Hoping To Help (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Constitution of Medina as human right document

since when it was consider as human rights document? Oren.tal (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

wrong year for creation of human rights council

quote from http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/ (homepage of human rights council): "The Council was created by the UN General Assembly on 15 March 2006[...]"

in the article at wikipedia it says:" The United Nations Human Rights Council, created at the 2005 World Summit [...]"

or does the wikipedia author talks about some important steps in the creation of the council???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.0.72.9 (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Page targetted by banned user Karmaisking

Just a heads up. The active sockpuppet-using banned user Karmaisking has announced that this is one of the pages that he targets. Please keep an eye out for POV pushing by this user's sockpuppets. --LK (talk) 09:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This topic is written more like a position paper than an encyclopedia article.

192.138.62.36 (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

When will Universal Solution will arise for .......

As a matter of human rights.

I am eagerly waiting for

1. Solution from international governments to stop all those, with tuff punishments for viewing roads, viewing public's residences, reading thoughts, and even for killing. This is very often in chennai.

2. You might ask how i know all these. I know these because i am a listening to many voices, without any mobile or telephone.

3. They call this in chennai as physic business.

4. International Governments should stop especially, TV operators.

5. All these are advantage for Mr.Karunanithi's family therefore he is distributing free Television sets to public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chennai venkata krishna (talk • contribs) 11:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is English, right? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Strange, this looks like English, but I can't understand any of it. Could this be in code? Rreagan007 (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

think Midnight's Children, it seems to make more sense if you apply that literary style to the reading of the comment Darigan (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Critique of "Critiques of Human Rights" section

The "Critiques of Human Rights" section states "Philosophers who have criticised the concept of human rights include ... Karl Marx..." While Marx criticized a particular, narrow application of the term "Human Rights" to only those that stressed the acquisition of personal property, he was an adamant proponent of freedom of speech and many other rights that are enumerated throughout this article. To say that he was against the "concept of human rights", per se, is misleading. Because Marx WAS involved in the discussion of what, specifically, constitute Human Rights, it would be better to elaborate on his views, or remove him from this list altogether. Any Marxists out there who care to elaborate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.156.8.56 (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

human rights about hamas.

I am palestinian,and i think your report about the war in Gaza is very correct.And I think hamas is agroup of criminals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.55.188 (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

HumanRightsdicks

What the hell does that mean? Should that be deleted? m w (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Phthinosuchusisanancestor

• Thankfully, it already has. Ruodyssey (talk) 08:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Cyrus Cylinder

It is surprising to see that the whole article makes no mention of Cyrus or his cylinder as one of the earliest known forms of human rights. Even UN and many scholars agree that Cyrus created the first charter of human rights, and yet there is not even a single word about it. I ask someone with more knowledge on this topic to add a sentence about this to the article as it is a vital part of the development of human rights (more so that Islam and India [?!?!?]). Thank you! --Arad (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This has come up many times before. The bottom line is that historians - as opposed to politicians - reject the interpretation of the cylinder as a charter of human rights, and its inclusion here would constitute undue weight on a pseudohistorical theory. Please see Cyrus cylinder#As a charter of human rights for more details. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Just because some scholar disagrees, does that mean it's not the case and doesn't EVEN deserve a mention? As far as I know the declaration of Human Rights as we know it today was drafted at the United Nations. Don't take this personally, but do you, or the scholars, claim they know more about the Human Rights than UN who also agrees that Cyrus Cylinder can be considered as a form of Human Rights, and has a replica on display? Come on, be real, Islam and Akbar the Great of India deserve a mention (BTW, Islamic World and Koran openly allowed slavery) and Cyrus doesn't? --Arad (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• As Undue weight mentions, this is a SIGNIFICANT view point and its inclusion is necessary to balance out the article. EVEN if it's a minor one, it still deserves a tiny phrase. --Arad (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• A video by Humanrights.com --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot8YGiRtB7U

I am happy that someone is mentioning this. ChrisO is the one resposible of removal of mentions of Cyrus Cylinder in most wikipedia article. It is interesting that while he/she keeps talking about WP:UNDIE and WP:POV as the main reasons of his actions, but at the same time he is the one who has added the paragraph

• "Although other civilizations – notably those of India, China and the Islamic world – were at least equal to Europe at various stages in history, and in many respects in advance of it, they did not manage to propagate a universal ethics of rights. There were, nonetheless, notable examples of pre-Enlightenment non-European rulers enacting charters of tolerance. The "Great Moghul," Akbar the Great of India, granted religious minorities legal status in his realm and condemned traditional Indian practices such as the burning of widows (suttee) and slavery.[3] However, it is unclear how much such liberties can be described as "human rights" in the modern sense. Some historians argue that in non-Western cultures – and indeed in the West before the late Middle Ages – there was no concept of human rights, although important ethical concepts were nonetheless present. The concept of rights certainly existed in pre-modern cultures; ancient philosophers such as Aristotle wrote extensively on the rights (to dikaion in ancient Greek, roughly a "just claim") of citizens to property and participation in public affairs. However, neither the Greeks nor the Romans had any concept of universal human rights; slavery, for instance, was justified both in classical and medieval times as a natural condition.[4] Medieval charters of liberty such as the English Magna Carta were not charters of human rights, let alone general charters of rights. They instead constituted a form of limited political and legal agreement to address specific political circumstances, in the case of Magna Carta later being mythologised in the course of early modern debates about rights."

Now here are mainstream sources on Cyrus Cylinder

• Cyrus cylinder is described as "introducing a new and humanitarian tone in a world" at a time of history that too often "ruled by the most implacable cruelty",(See: Kurht, Amélie (1983). "The Cyrus Cylinder..)
• The text of Cyrus cylinder itself! For example

The worship of Marduk, the king of the gods, he [Nabonidus] [chang]ed into abomination. Daily he used to do evil against his city [Babylon] ... He [Marduk] scanned and looked [through] all the countries, searching for a righteous ruler willing to lead [him] [in the annual procession]. [Then] he pronounced the name of Cyrus, king of Anshan, declared him to be[come] the ruler of all the world ... I am Cyrus, king of the world, great king, legitimate king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four rims [of the earth], son of Cambyses, great king, king of Anshan, grandson of Cyrus, great king, king of Anshan, descendant of Teispes, great king, king of Anshan, of a family [which] always [exercised] kingship; whose rule Bel [Marduk] and Nebo love, whom they want as king to please their hearts ... I did not allow anybody to terrorize [any place] of the [country of Sumer] and Akkad. I strove for peace in Babylon and in all his [other] sacred cities. As to the inhabitants of Babylon ... I abolished forced labour ... From Nineveh, Assur and Susa, Akkad, Eshnunna, Zamban, Me-Turnu and Der until the region of Gutium, I returned to these sacred cities on the other side of the Tigris, the sanctuaries of which have been ruins for a long time, the images which [used] to live therein and established for them permanent sanctuaries. I [also] gathered all their [former] inhabitants and returned [to them] their habitations.

• Now the question is NOT whether the whole Cyrus cylinder is about what had been done or not. The point is that "CYRUS CYLINDER IS AS A DOCUMENT WITH CERTAIN VALUES REGARDING HUMAN RIGHT". I urgue people to think about this, as the very fact that "universal charter of human right of United Nations" is ONLY a document and valuable as document and the people who wrote and signed it first are indeed the worst hunam right abusers. I repeat "CYRUS CYLINDER" as a document is worth mentioning in this article, no matter we believe Cyrus the Great was a king following that document or not, no matter we belive that the document is a correct report of history or not. Xashaiar (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I second that Xashaiar and thanks a lot! As you said the Cylinder is a document worth mentioning and no one claims it is an accurate record of what Cyrus did or didn't, it is simply an early form of a "human rights" document and for 550BC, it is rather revolutionary. If I recall correctly, many nations today do not respect the charter of UN, does that mean it is not a charter for human rights? It deserves a mention, and the fact that many scholars and UN credit it to be an early form of "human rights" document, gives it enough significance for a spot in an encyclopedia. --Arad (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's take this from the top.

• The consensus of historians is that the Cyrus cylinder is a foundation deposit written in a fairly standard Babylonian style using themes that previous Babylonian rulers had employed to legitimise their rule.
• The viewpoint that the CC is a "human rights" text is one that was put forward by the late Shah of Iran as part of his efforts to associate his regime with Cyrus. It is an explicitly political viewpoint which has very little support among historians. Many have explicitly rejected the "human rights" interpretation as anachronistic and tendentious.
• When it comes to interpreting the context of archaeological artifacts such as the CC, we rely on the consensus view of historians, not politicians - just as we rely on scientists to interpret scientific evidence. We don't rely on the views of politicians or our own personal views (which is original research).
• I'm afraid the Kuhrt quote you've given is very misleading and out of context. Kuhrt is in fact one of the strongest advocates against the "human rights" interpretation. She explicitly argues in the 1983 piece you cite that Cyrus's policy was not a unique act of tolerance, nor was it a new federalist policy. She points out that the CC is specifically related to Babylon and the text is a typical example of the long-standing Babylonian genre of "building texts". She also notes that just like any other ancient Near Eastern empire, the Persians also destroyed temples and deported peoples. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

So what? I quoted Kuhrt just because you are quoting her everywhere. She just summarized what had been said by some scholars. Their names are mentioned by Kuhrt. Regarding the late Shah: again so what? Cyrus the Great did issue the document and it is "of no interest to us whether the document is Old Persian style or Babylonian style". Your point of view is exclusively about CYRUS THE GREAT and not CYRUS CYLINDER. As I said, we are not discussing the "behaviour of that man" we are discussing "a piece of texts" no matter it was correct reporting of history or not. Here is what Josef Wiesehofer said about the above quoted texts of Cyrus Cylinder:

Many scholars have read into these last sentences a confirmation of the Old Testament passages about the steps taken by Cyrus towards the erection of the Jerusalem temple and the repatriation of the Judaeans, some even going so far as to believe that the instructions to this effect were actually provided in these very formulations of the Cyrus Cylinder. In any event, the clemency Herodotus ascribed to Cyrus, the aptitudes Xenophon saw in him, his mission according to the Old Testament and his piety as described in the Babylon inscription – all combine in the eyes of many observers to form a harmonious character study of the first Persian king.

— Ancient Persia 1997

Do you get the point about this document? The document is important and not its accuracy as a historical recording. Xashaiar (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

She is quoting two people, the 1950s Israeli leader David Ben Gurion and 1960s historian Maurice Leroy, specifically to refute their views. They do not represent the consensus of modern scholarly opinion. We can't present outdated scholarship (and non-scholarship in Ben Gurion's case) as representative of modern scholarly consensus. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Josef is not SHE. "1960s historian Maurice Leroy" so what? Please take this WP:POV pushing somewhere else. According to wikipedia policy: "SIGNIFICANT view point and its inclusion is necessary to balance out the article. EVEN if it's a minor one". If your norm of scholars is A. Kuhrt, then you see she "does see significance of Maurice Leroy view" and mention them. Here we should mention these as well. Even A. Kuhrt makes it clear that, regarding the view on Cyrus Cylinder and Cyrus "..they do also reflect a general say and widely held view of Achaemenid imperialism which compares it favourably with that of the earlier Assyrians" (Kuhrt's "the Cyrus cylinder.." page 83)So even your A. Kuhrt does say that the mainstream view on Cyrus the Great is what you disagree with. Xashaiar (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you try getting hold of the article rather than constantly repeating this single out of context quotation? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, a neutral observer here (never heard of this Cyrus Cylinder until this argument), here to give a third party opinion. I think Xashaiar has a point about representing significant minority opinions, however presuming ChrisO is correct about it being an opinion of ill repute amongst modern historians, then that fact should be noted to avoid giving undue weight. And the discussion of this should not take up very much room in this article. Might I suggest a short sentence such as "Some sources cite the Cyrus Cylinder as one of the earliest human rights documents[1], though a majority of modern historians disagree with these claims[2]." (Where [1] and [2] are the relevant citations for these claims, which you all seem to have at the ready already). --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's undue weight, to be honest. It is a viewpoint primarily being promoted by Iranian nationalists and supporters of the late Shah, who came up with the idea of the CC being a "human rights document" for domestic political reasons in the 1960s. As far as historiography goes it's a fringe viewpoint - there have been a number of discussions about it on Wikipedia's WP:FTN#fringe theories noticeboard. (See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Cyrus cylinder and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 13#Cyrus cylinder as a charter of human rights.) It's relevant in the context of the Cyrus cylinder article, where it is discussed at some length (probably too much, actually), but it's not relevant in an article that's supposed to be an overview of the entire field of human rights. The subject's scope is big enough as it is without dragging in obscure Middle Eastern political controversies. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

0. The question is "not" about the accuracy of Cyrus cylinder as a record of history, but the document itself regardless of being 100% or 0% historically accurate. 1. ChrisO you should read WP:OR. What you have added on Akbar the Great and Islam is original research and unacceptable. But I have not deleted your OR. 2. You should read WP:PA because you should stop ad hominem|. "do not accuse iranian scholars of being iranian nationalist". 3. Josef wiehoffer is mainstream scholar and NON-IRANIAN and a. kuhrt is not in that level. Hence you can not play the game of WP:POV. 4. According to wp:undue there should not be "any" mention of a. kuhr because thats only her opinion and worth/worthless as such. 5. the authority on human right is the human right organization itself. See what Arad told you and linked. 6. Curus cylinder is appropriate because its text. See above quoted text. I know you have access to wrong and false translation of the Cylinder but Josef wiesehofer and the cambridge ancient history have the correct translation. See above. 7. Wikipedia is supposed to be non eurocentric. I have no interest in responding in civil manner to comments like your designation "obscure Middle Eastern political controversies". 8. READ AD HOMINEM. Xashaiar (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I myself can't see it deserving the first paragraph of history, as is the case. However, I could see it being mentioned as an example of the declarations of that type from that part of he world and integrated into the text of what is currently the second paragraph, giving the topic of rights in old Iran/Babylonia no more space than any of the others. The repeated inclusion of such information in statements from most of the monarchs could be seen as being indicative that the monarchs and people at least theoretically gave the principles some regard, even if only in principle or at the beginning of their terms. John Carter (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion. The text of the Cyrus cylinder actually isn't particularly unique - Babylonian and Assyrian rulers made similar declarations, which Cyrus essentially copied. The rulers of Mesopotamia basically used such documents as a way of saying "the gods chose me, I am a merciful ruler, I look after the welfare of my people." The problem is that I don't think you can relate it to "human rights" as a concept. The modern historical consensus explicitly rejects that interpretation - it's been called anachronistic and tendentious. The cylinder says nothing whatsoever about rights; it speaks only of the king taking action to benefit his people. You can read the British Museum's translation here. The cylinder has been interpreted for over 100 years as a statement of royal propaganda. The "human rights" viewpoint is merely something that the late Shah cooked up in the late 1960s as a way of legitimising his own (very repressive) regime. It has never had much credibility among historians. Josef Wiesehofer discusses the origins of the "human rights" myth in "Kyros, der Schah und 2500 Jahre Menschenrechte. Historische Mythenbildung zur Zeit der Pahlavi-Dynastie", in Conermann, Stephan (ed.), Mythen, Geschichte(n), Identitäten. Der Kampf um die Vergangenheit. (EB-Verlag, Schenefeld/Hamburg 1999). Clearly, if the cylinder is not related to "human rights" as a concept, it doesn't belong in an article about human rights. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. There is no single document that is particularly interesting from before Cyrus the Great that ever ever been called "of human right values" as much as Cyrus Cylinder has been. The very fact that "there are many who do consider Cyrus Cylinder of certain humanitarian/human right related values" is itself the best proof of its deserving of mention. Now as for being the first to be mentioned, well history section follows date. The older the sooner mention. Also why YOURSELF relate akbar the great to human right? First look what you have added, then criticize Arad (and many others in history page). Xashaiar (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I can offer one solution: We quote directly the Cylinder itself and remove every editor point of view, but in this case your Original research on Akbar the Great and Islam should be put under delete key. Xashaiar (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't work that way, as I've already explained. And please try not to be so aggressive towards other contributors. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Why? Seems J. Wiesehofer has followed that. As long as a secondary source (like J. Wiesehofer, M. Leney, etc) can accompany that, it is fine. Xashaiar (talk) 01:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think Wiesehofer follows it? In the German article I just cited, he explicitly rejects it: "Cyrus can be viewed as a human rights pioneer just as little as the Shah can be viewed as an enlightened and philantropic ruler." In the source you've cited in Cyrus the Great, you're misrepresenting Wiesehofer: he reports how earlier historians have viewed Cyrus but, like Kuhrt, who you also misrepresented, he cites this view in order to reject it. The traditional view of Cyrus, based on ancient Greek sources, was a generally benevolent one. In the book you cite, he goes on to call the CC "a piece of propaganda at Cyrus's service" and describe it as "an Achaemenid propaganda document intended to legitimize and glorify Cyrus's rule in Babylonia.". Note the lack of any mention of human rights. As with Kuhrt, you appear to be cherry-picking out-of-context quotes to portray historians as saying something that is precisely the opposite of what they are actually saying. Please take more care with sources. Quote mining is not a reputable method of research. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you have to be more creful about sources. 1. On Kuhrt, I did not say what she says (you seem to confuse the author of citation with "some scholars" in the sentence): I did say what some have said and chose the wording of Kuhrt. That's fine, because we have the quote from one who disagrees with it. 2. About wiesehofer, you are again wrong: his mention of "charter of human right" is fine with me and I did not challenge that, but I did quote him (please see the reference to his his book I cited in this very talk page) where he says: Cyrus cylinder text is "from the view points of many schoars" in 100% agreement with the image of Cyrus in other places: Herodetus, Old testament, etc. What is wrong with using wiesehofer wording? Did I wrote "wiesehofer is one of those"? No I did not. I chose his wording and "as a summary" and I do not think your link to Quote mining is appropriate here (I only used their summaries of certain point of view they happen to criticise, and there is no wikipedia policy that tells me that I can not use an article as a source for a statement that appears in the article explicitly). The traditional view is more than interesting for inclusion (modern scholars may think differently, but I do not see why we should ignore mentioning of traditional view). Cyrus cylinder is, for me, not a propaganda: the reason "there is no base for such behaviour from Achaemenian kings elsewhere" and it is only eurocenterism that advocate otherwise. Even so, we are not talking about Cyrus the Great work in Babylon but we are talking about a document that does have interesting points in it that no other ancient document has. There are enough sources that see Cyrus cylinder very appropriate and significant in this subject whence its mention in this article. 3. Please do not question all ancient sources because you dislike their treatment of a good Achaemenian empire. It is very ironic that "all that are bad about ancient Iran and come from ancient sources are regarded as truth and the main sources of tv programs, scholarly works, .. but anything good from the same sources about the same history are considered wrong, propaganda, ...". This eurocentrism is a strange phenomena. Moreover you still need to answer to original question of the original editor above: A. Why you did include about Akbar the Great and ancient Indian, Islamic, ancient Chinese in the history section while removing Cyrus the Great? Isn't it POV pushing? B. Isnt your addition of the paragraph I quoted above pure OR? C. The incusion of Cyrus cylinder in this article is not the same as claiming it to be first charter of human right. Therefore your sources on "cyrus cylinder is not a human right charter" is irrelevant. Xashaiar (talk) 02:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The CC has always been seen as a work of propaganda, ever since it was discovered in the 1880s. The issue that has been in dispute between historians is what it tells us about Cyrus himself, not whether it is some kind of "human rights charter" - a claim that nobody made before the Shah. As for why I included Akbar etc, it is because the work I cited on the history of human rights (Ishay, Micheline (2008). The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalization Era. University of California Press.) cites those as examples of early grants of rights. The book does not even mention Cyrus. It's hardly OR if it reflects what the source says. It's also flatly wrong (and, frankly, OR on your part) to claim that the CC is unique. It's not. It's a perfectly standard foundation deposit with standard themes that were used by Babylonian and Assyrian rulers before Cyrus. This is discussed in some detail in Amélie Kuhrt's works. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree with ChrisO. Completely WP:UNDUE. Pease stop being ridiculous over this. It was a 1970s propaganda stunt of the Shah's. This has been discussed enough, and then some. Do get over it. --dab (𒁳) 06:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It does not appear to be in dispute that mainstream contemporary historians are of the consensus that the Cyrus cylinder is not a human rights charter. Until someone convincingly argues otherwise, I think mentioning the cylinder in this article would be a violation of WP:MNA, WP:GEVAL and WP:UNDUE, among others. Gabbe (talk) 07:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Agree with Chris and others. I'm not seeing the Cyrus Cylinder described as a "charter of human rights" in The Cambridge History of Iran or Encyclopaedia Iranica. It's a work of propaganda (Cambridge History Vol. 2 p.410 describes the Cylinder and a verse record as "masterpieces of political propaganda" and "skilled instruments of tendentious history"). --Folantin (talk) 08:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

"He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future." Orwell's principle was as applicable in 529 BC as it was in 1984. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with ChrisO, dab, and Gabbe for the reasons already given. The CC may be deserving of a short mention like the one suggested by Pfhorrest, but the current one has serious WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL problems, as well as making a number of unsupported statements. Ergative rlt (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it. It was completely unsourced, blatant OR and POV, as well as being simply false. Arad appears to be drawing on a fake translation of the CC circulated by Iranian nationalists that speaks of slavery being abolished. In reality, the CC says nothing about slavery. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no WP:CONS. Most people here agree that there must be a mention of Cyrus cylinder. Xashaiar (talk) I see there is actually WP:CONS. Most people agree that there must be a mention of Cyrus Cylinder, but two people Chriso and Dab do disagree. Dab has been invited by ChrisO to this page and as usual the person who accompany him. Xashaiar (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC) nIf you remove things, all the material on ancient history must be removed. Xashaiar (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't ignore what I've just written above. It cites no sources, so it fails verifiability. It makes claims that are blatantly false - the CC says nothing about slavery. It therefore fails original research. It's undue weight on a fringe theory, so it fails neutral point of view. This material does not belong in Wikipedia, let alone in this article. If you're not willing to follow Wikipedia's basic content policies, you should not be editing articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I want to explain to you the obvious;

• Do not do admin shopping as you did above. Do not ask people who are no involved to come and vote in your favour.
• If you remove ancient history, fine. But you are pushing for you POV: either you remove the entire section on ancinet history or you keep the good edit by Arad
• Follow WP:CONS mthat is please count the number of people in favour of the edit by Arad and those against.
• Do not do PA as you did above earlier (that is please do not "ad hominem").

Your addition of Islam and akbar the great is OR and if you are concerned about OR then first remove them. Xashaiar (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Original research does not mean "that which you do not agree with". There is nothing OR about sourced material from a mainstream academic work published by a major academic press. Please desist, or I will request that you be blocked. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Chris, you still fail to say 1) How did you consider Islam to be related to Human Rights and included it in the article? 2) What other documents do you refer to when you say Assyrian kings before Cyrus made same claims as he did? 3) Is United Nations an Iranian Nationalist organisation, a supporter of Shah or that their view on the history of human trights is "insignificant" and undue weight? And please stop calling on your puppets to come and inject your opinion into this forum. Maybe the edit I made is too much, but a mention of Cyrus Cylinder has to be made. --Arad (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

1) Read the cited work (Ishay, Micheline (2008). The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalization Era. University of California Press.) It's an academic work published by a major academic press. If you don't like what it says, too bad, but it's not remotely original research. 2) Read Cyrus cylinder. It's all described in there - I'm not going to repeat it here. 3) The United Nations is not an authority on the historical meaning of archaeological artifacts. That's the job of historians, not diplomats and politicians. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Friends Xashiyar and Arad and other reads,

The claim that Cyrus Cylinder was called a "human rights" charter by the Shah is false but unfortunately it was censored it out by ChrisO. The claim is in the talk page of Cyrus Cylinder.

There is enough sources in relation to Cyrus the Great and Human rights [2].

I am not going to get involved more than this due to lack of time, but ChrisO was a user who lost his adminship and has generalized users based on their background and nationality several times. There is enough sources on Human rights and Cyrus the Great.. (not the Cylinder but the persoanlity of Cyrus the Great himself). I would gather all these into some 30-50 sources and include it. To connect it to the Cylinder and its "propaganda" by ChrisO would be synthesis.: [3].

I am not going get involved more, but I hope Xashiyar or Arad can first list some of the 30-50 sources [4] (not about the Cylinder necessarily but Cyrus himself) (also use other search words instead of "human rights") and then call for a general Rfc or mediation.

Thanks --Nepaheshgar (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that user is only against Cyrus otherwise I have given the summary of Wiesehofer of the view on Cyrus the great. If we consider the numder of sources who DO give credit to Cyrus Cylinder and Cyrus the Great "directly" related to modern concept of human rights, then I do not see why it can not be mentioned. I give you one example: 1. Ann Elizabeth Mayer writes about cyrus cylinder: "..although it does not use the language of human rights, the ancient cylinder comprises ideas that are related to modern concepts of rights" (page 8". This is from "legal expert point of view". Xashaiar (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Or alternatively we can just block editors who insist on repeatedly violating basic content policies. Remember Ariobarza (talk · contribs)? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Nepaheshgar's long string of quotations is trying to prove (the Classical excerpts are particularly irrelevant). The "human rights" issue is about a lot more than whether Cyrus was generally a nice guy. Axworthy certainly doesn't agree with the idea that the CC is a human rights charter. He specifically describes this view as "an exaggeration and a misrepresentation" (Iran: Empire of the Mind p.13). --Folantin (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

To ChrisO , please do not threaten users as this can be reported. I am not here to waste my time and neither I am scared of any threat. Note I am not making any threats, but threatening to ban users is not really the way to approach a complex issue.

As per what Folantin commented, I am not talking about the Cylinder. I am talking about Cyrus the Great:

Curtis, Tallis and Salvini:“ Because of the reference to just and peaceful rule, and to the restoration of deported peoples and their gods the cylinder has in recent years been referred to in some quarters as a kind of 'Charter of Human Rights'. Such a concept would have been quite alien to Cyrus's contemporaries, and indeed the cylinder says nothing of human rights; but return of the Jews and of other deported peoples were a significant reversal of the policies of ealier Assyrian and Babylonian Kings ”

Talbott opines on the issue of Human Rights and Cyrus and believes the concept of human rights is a 20th century concept. Nevertheless he states:“ Perhaps the earliest known advocate of religious tolerance was Cyrus the Great, king of Persia in the sixth century B.C.E. Cyrus also opposed slavery and freed thousands of slaves. These facts do not make Cyrus or Ashoka an advocate of human rights. They do show that ideas that led to the development of human rights are not limited to one cultural tradition. "

Axworthy states:"it is reasonable to see in the policy some of the spirit of moral earnestness and justice that pervaded the religion of Zoroaster. The presence of those values in the background helps to explain why the Cyrus Cylinder is couched in such different terms from the militaristic thunder and arrogance of Sennacherib. The old answer was terror and a big stick, but the Persian Empire would be run in a more devolved, permissive spirit. Once again, an encounter with complexity, acceptance of the complexity, and a response. This was something new. "

Thus two/three things: 1) religious freedom 2) Freedom of captives (Jews and Non-Jews) are related as the author says "ideas that led to the development of human rights"

As per Arad, Xashiyar..please do not mention the Cylinder. Concentrate on the above two: Thus two things: 1) religious freedom 2) Freedom of captives (Jews and Non-Jews) are related as the author says "ideas that led to the development of human rights". And also Akbar the Great was also religiously tolerant. As per Islam, giving women at that time inheritence and stopping the burying of girls and etc. are important. Don't concentrate on these or the cylinder. There are lots of sources that mention Cyrus with regards to religious freedom and freedom of captives and have the word "human rights" or "development of human rights". I just mentioned two of these sources (Curtis and Talbott). These surely can be included. Please do a more thorough search in google books and you find dozens or so of such sources probably. Just don't add anything cylinder related. But concentrate on 1) religious freedom 2) release of captives and Jews. 3) allowing the Jews religious freedom to rebuilt their temple after being deprieved from it by babylonians. And sources that do not have anything to with the cylinder itself are many [5] [6]... none of these books mention the cylinder (there are more) and to connect them with the cylinder is a violation of WP:synthesis. Thanks--Nepaheshgar (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The question is simple: Why wikipedia can not quote for example from Ann Elizabeth Mayer who writes about cyrus cylinder: "..although it does not use the language of human rights, the ancient cylinder comprises ideas that are related to modern concepts of rights" (page 8 (this is legal point of view and directly involved in human rights academy), Also note the initial quote from wiesehofer who does say "many saw Cyrus Cylinder as a confirmation of other accounts about Cyrus the Great" and "some have believed Cyrus the Great did exatly what had been reported". No matter J. Wiesehofer himself agree or not, the fact that there have been/are who do believe on these, should be enugh reason to include Cyrus the Great and his Cylinder in this article. Xashaiar (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You have copied and pasted material from this site [7]. It must be removed as a copyright violation. The site also quotes Axworthy selectively. Interestingly it omits the sentence I just quoted where he says the description of the CC as a charter of human rights is "an exaggeration and a misrepresentation". Very dubious. --Folantin (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope some of the materials were sent to me..I did not copy it. They are quotations from various books and do not violate copy rights. If I have a text from that article (not the quote) then that can be copy right and if you find it, I'll remove it. But actual quotes have nothing to do with any particular article. I am not also talking about CC but CG himself. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The material includes word-for-word copying of the site I've linked (which is not a reliable source in any case, given its distortion of what Axworthy actually wrote). You must remove this material. --Folantin (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

One simple observation: WP:RS applies to thing included in the article and not about where one can get "an idea what to include". Xashaiar (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It does not mean I copied it from the site. Even if it is word by word, it can be found in other places and writings. It is by Axworthy (I am not sure what has been snipped). Either way, there is no violation of copy right as these are quotes from actual book. They are not the writing of the author of that site. Any quote can be double checked, but we are not talking about CC but CG himself. Talbott opines on the issue of Human Rights and Cyrus and believes the concept of human rights is a 20th century concept. Nevertheless he states:“ Perhaps the earliest known advocate of religious tolerance was Cyrus the Great, king of Persia in the sixth century B.C.E. Cyrus also opposed slavery and freed thousands of slaves. These facts do not make Cyrus or Ashoka an advocate of human rights. They do show that ideas that led to the development of human rights are not limited to one cultural tradition. " So no CC but CG should be included as 6th century B.C. makes it noticeable. Most of my quotes are not from that site, but some of them are replica of that site. They all might have come from a common source which that site copied. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

William Talbott is a philosopher [8], not a historian. He is not an authoritative source on ancient Mesopotamian history and his mention of Cyrus is a single throw-away line which doesn't cite any sources and states as fact something which we know to be false (i.e. that Cyrus opposed slavery - that's from the fake translation of the cylinder). It would be undue weight to give him equal promenence to actual historians of the Achaemenid period. Curtis, Tallis and Andre-Salvini are saying nothing that we don't already know, i.e. that some make the claim that the CC is a human rights charter. As for all the things you mention, exercises of royal mercy are not the same thing as recognitions of inherent rights. Cyrus massacred opponents, sacked cities, destroyed temples and deported peoples, just like any other ruler of his time - hardly a sign of someone with a unique respect for the rights of his subjects. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Plus, quoting Gobineau? Come on! But nothing can stop the chauvinist POV-pushing.--Folantin (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Please mind WP:OR which you are heavily violating. The fact is William Talbott is WP:RS and WP:verifiable. If you do not like an WP:RS source, then you need to show its invalidity not by our WP:OR but by another WP:RS that has directly rejected Talbott. Connecting his quote to CC is a violation of WP:synthesis on your part. And his book is actually about human rights which means he has done work on it and is a specialized work on human rights. As per Cyrus "massacaring opponents, sacking cities, destorying temples and deporting people", that is your WP:OR. It is based on a debatable reading on the battle of Opis. However "destroying temples" and "deporting people" is not in there. As per "sacking cities and massacaring opponents" (based on a reading of battle of Opis challengned by Lambert) you should know that we are talking about 6th century B.C.. Second please read carefully what Talbott states: Perhaps the earliest known advocate of religious tolerance was Cyrus the Great, king of Persia in the sixth century B.C.E. Cyrus also opposed slavery and freed thousands of slaves. These facts do not make Cyrus or Ashoka an advocate of human rights. They do show that ideas that led to the development of human rights are not limited to one cultural tradition. It is very clear. He is not stating that "Cyrus was an advocate of human rights" in the 20th century. However he has mentioned: 1) Early advocate of religious freedom 2) opposed slavery and freed thousands of slaves. These are ideas also shared by human rights. There is no mention of CC. Also the book is about the specialized topic of Human rights. As per its significance, the date itself 6th century B.C. And note even Axworthy who opposes the relation of CC with human rights himself states Cyrus was overall a benevolent king. So do not add CC to the debate. I can easily find many quotes like these in google books. The fact is even if CC is not mentioned CG's two acts: 1) relative religious freedom (as exemplified by allowing Jews to rebuild their temple) 2) freeing thousands of Slaves (Jews of babylon) are concepts that lead to the "idea of human rights" --Nepaheshgar (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The last sentence needs to be looked at twice if you want to see how it just doesn't make sense. Cyrus' actions, however commendable, only lead to the idea of human rights if for patriotic reasons you want them to. Moreschi (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Come on, people. There is a good deal of regrettable silliness here. Applying the Cyrus cylinder to the human rights article is about as anachronistic as applying Homer to the history article. There simply isn't a valid point to be made. "Human rights" as a universal spectrum can only be dated with any accuracy to the last couple centuries, and while the concept of specific rights applying to specific groups of people does have a much longer history, even there the Cyrus cylinder would be worthless. All Nepaheshgar's posts show is that Cyrus the Great would possibly be on topic in benevolent despotism: at human rights, he is wildly off. Moreschi (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The accusation of Copy right violation was uncalled for:

As per the false accusation of copy right violation

A) Frye, Danmadayev, Plato, Talbott, Curtis , Woods, Laursen and most of those quotes are not in the website. Approximately 70% of these quotes are not in the website

B) The website is quoting books and those books do not belong to the website. Is that too hard to understand?

C) These quotes exist outside the website. The website has no copy right over them. They are from books, some of them even passed their copy right dates. Quoting some sentences from a book is not a violation of wikipedia copy right.

D) Not a single sentence from the author of that website is mentioned. Only some of the quotes he has used were also used by me. There is no proof I am quoting him or he is quoting me.

E) We can find exact wikipedia articles in many websites.. does that mean it should be deleted.

The actual quotes are here[9] It is not copy right these people are concerned about, but simply they do not want any positive mention fo Cyrus. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC) --Nepaheshgar (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It was a verbatim copy-and-paste from that website. The references to "the late Alfred Comte de Gobineau" and "Professor Michael Axworthy" are a dead giveaway. Gobineau died in 1882, so that's a peculiar use of "late", and Axworthy isn't a professor. --Folantin (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand a simple point. If a website quotes a book and I quote the exact book, it does not make that book the property of that website. Also about 70-80% of the quotes were not in the website. Read them again. Was Plato there? Frye? Danmadayev? Talbott? Woods? Laursen? LS. Fried? and etc. None of those books are written by the author of that website. The website does not own those books hence it has no copy right over those books. I did not deny 20-30% of the stuff I quoted are the same books as that website. But the website has no ownership over those books. Quoting a paragraph or couple of sentences from books in Wikipedia is a normal thing and I have seen everyone do it. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Nepaheshgar for the efforts. To everyone: Please understand that no one is claiming that CC was a modern charter of human rights or if Persian Empire obeyed it 100%. But for its time, it was very close to a simple human rights document. The quotes from antiquity (someone called "irrelevant") also give credibility that Cyrus did not just write down some nice words, but applied them to his empire, perhaps for the first time in human history, therefore he and his cylinder deserve to be mentioned. I'm not sure if Islam deserves a mention. But if it does, so does CC. Chris bases his argument of the fact that some historians say Cyrus was just as cruel as other rulers of his time, but were the Greek historians of the time paid by Cyrus to write such words? I don't think so. --66.36.128.168 (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The cylinder was pure propaganda, nothing more. The fact remains that there is no reason for putting Cyrus in here above the other enlightened despots of history, some of whom made grand claims of their benevolence as well. Other than the fact that the Shah made political capital out of it that his still pulling the wool over the eyes of today's Iranian patriots. Moreschi (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

To Moreschi,

I am not talking about the Cyrus Cylinder. I am talking about exactly two things: 1) religious tolerance 2) freedom of slaves, captives and opposition to slavery. Both of these are mentioned by scholars, even those who believe CC could have been propaganda.

Please Note: A) "Religious toleration was a remarkable feature of Persian rule and there is no question that Cyrus himself was a liberal-minded promoter of this humane and intelligent policy” -- Max Mallowan. 'Cyrus the Great'. In Cambridge History of Iran (Volume 2: The Median and Achaemenean Periods), Cambridge , Cambridge University Press, pp.392-419. Max Mallowan B) Laursen comments: - {{Obviously the friendship of the Greek temples could not be obtained if Cyrus was not benevolent towards the Greek priests and their religion. As we shall see shortly, there is further evidence that indeed these temples were granted special privilege by at least some of the Achaemenid Kings.}} C) W. J. Talbott, "Which Rights Should be Universal?", Oxford University Press US, 2005. excerpt from pg 40): Perhaps the earliest known advocate of religious tolerance was Cyrus the Great, king of Persia in the sixth century B.C.E. Cyrus also opposed slavery and freed thousands of slaves. These facts do not make Cyrus or Ashoka an advocate of human rights. They do show that ideas that led to the development of human rights are not limited to one cultural tradition.

I do not see any mention of the Cyrus Cylinder. But several different authors have mentioned religious tolerance. None of them have mentioned the CC. I have not seen even a single quote from the opposite side that Cyrus was "a religious Zoroastrian bigot". The Achaemenid Cyrus and Darius did not impose Zoroastrianism on anyone. They honored other religious traditions. Author C has mentioned religious tolerance and has related to "similar ideas that led to the development of human rights". None of these mention the CC. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)--Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

As Moreschi has pointed out, at best that makes Cyrus an enlightened despot. You appear to believe that is equivalent to promoting human rights, which is original research on your part. As I've pointed out, Talbott is not a historian, does not do any more than mention Cyrus in an unsourced passing mention, and is contradicted by a consensus of actual historians. A non-expert minority POV should not be used to supplant the consensus view of experts in the field. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The focus is on two things: A) religious tolerance. B) Freeing of captives. Nothing is mentioned about CC. Your quotes about CC are irrelevant. Several authors outside of CC have mentioned that Cyrus the Great promoted religious freedom. I do not see any mention of the Cyrus Cylinder. But several different authors have mentioned religious tolerance. None of them have mentioned the CC. I have not seen even a single quote from the opposite side that Cyrus was "a religious Zoroastrian bigot". The Achaemenid Cyrus and Darius did not impose Zoroastrianism on anyone. They honored other religious traditions. Author C has mentioned religious tolerance and has related to "similar ideas that led to the development of human rights". None of these mention the CC. For 6th century B.C., religious tolerance specially in the Middle East is noteworthy. Fighting against ultra-nationalism is a good thing, but neither Talbott or Laursen or Mallowan are Iranian nationalists. They simply point to religious tolerance by Cyrus. Did Cyrus force the captive Jews of babylon to become Zoroastrians? Or did he give them freedom to rebuild their temple? For a 6th century B.C... these things are noteworthy. Darius the Great for example exempted taxes from Greek and Egyptian temples and etc. I do not see me mentioning CC do you?

You simply have not provided a single quote from any author that Cyrus was a religious bigot. So you are committing synthesis WP:synthesis by trying to tie characterization of the Cylinder. You need to prove that the above authors are wrong about religious tolerance of Cyrus by showing equivalent scholarly sources that call Cyrus the Great a religious bigot. Else your criticsm does not stand. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Bull. Take this to enlightened absolutism where it might belong. Otherwise this is {{offtopic}} chatter and a waste of everyone's time. Moreschi (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. This section of the talk page is called "Cyrus Cylinder", so it's hardly surprising the focus is the Cyrus Cylinder, an alleged "human rights charter". Speculation about Cyrus's true character, positive or negative, belongs on the Cyrus the Great talk page. --Folantin (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a non-scholarly and emotional view of looking at history. We cannot expect that the 6th century B.C. be a place of secular democracy. Even discrimination against blacks was ended (and not fully) in the USA recently. This article needs objectivity. The religious policy of Achaemenid and the tolerance of various religions for 6th century B.C. and even exempting the temples of Greeks, Egyptians and etc. from taxes and etc. are noteworthy. Several books mentioning human rights (Talbott was just one of them) have mentioned these. The opposite side of this debate has not brought a single source mentioning Cyrus was a religious bigot. However I have provided scholarly sources mentioning the religious tolerance of Cyrus as noteworthy and books about human rights have mentioned. Yes you might want to intrepret it as "enlightened desport" but at the same time you might want to think about the mindset of humans in the 6th century B.C.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Argh! Seriously! Look, I would agree with almost everything you are saying if you were saying this at Talk:Enlightened absolutism, if you had attempted to write a "history" section of pre-Enlightenment benevolent despots. At human rights this is just incoherent nonsense - can't you see the anachronism? Just because this is a notable meme in Iranian nationalism doesn't mean it merits mention here: it merits mention at Iranian nationalism. Moreschi (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If that was the case, then my friend so is mentioning Akbar the Great, Islam (which did make some headways) and etc. But ChrisO defended these. Why the double standard?--Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not ChrisO and I see little reason for the Akbar reference either, which I would be inclined to remove. There does not seem to be any reference to Islam. Moreschi (talk) 22:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Akbar is cited in an actual work of academic history written by a historian and published by an academic press - Micheline Ishay's The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalization Era (University of California Press, 2008). I've pointed this out repeatedly. Ishay's work is exactly the kind of thing we should be citing: a book that traces the development of the concept of human rights through history. (Cyrus is not mentioned.) Nepaheshgar, on the other hand, is scrabbling around on nationalist websites pulling out selective quotations from non-experts. There is no double standard - the two are simply not comparable. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. Moreschi (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

No that is not a fair point. The statement quoted here is: "The "Great Moghul," Akbar the Great of India, granted religious minorities legal status in his realm and condemned traditional Indian practices such as the burning of widows (suttee) and slavery" . And the book is: "Ishay, Micheline (2008). The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalization Era. University of California Press. p. 66-67" is not written by a historian of Moghuls. I am sure I can find many hitorians of Moghuls that will describe various attacks, sacks and harems of Akbar the Great. ChrisO used his own WP:OR to make claims on Cyrus. There is also dozens of books on history of human rights mentioning Cyrus outside of CC. Note the article on Akbar_the_great. He also sacked cities and killed his enemies. Cyrus the Great promoted religious freedom (and ChrisO does not have a single source that he did) 2500 years ago. There is a big double standard here. The fact of the matter is 729 google books have Cyrus the Great and Human rights [10] mentioned. Neither Ishay or Talbott are historians of Moghul or Achaemenid era. All the laws of wikipedia with regards to WP:RS and WP:verifiability are being intrepreted by users here as they wish. The fact is based on WP:RS, Talbott can be quoted and if there is need for more sources, I can easily bring it. Religious tolerance and freeing of captives, tax exemption from religious temples and etc. are all mentioned. If other scholarly sources quote Talbott or the likes, then by any guidelines of wikipedia it can be quoted here. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Out of context again. Ishay cites Akbar as an example of a ruler granting a charter of religious tolerance - in the case of Akbar, granting legal status to religious minorities - before the era of human rights. As our article says, "However, it is unclear how much such liberties can be described as "human rights" in the modern sense." Ishay cites such examples to discuss the question of why it was the West (and not China or India or Persia) that formulated the modern concept of human rights. As for Ishay's credentials, I suggest you look at her personal website. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Again Talbott states the same thing. He mentions religious freedom and freeing of slaves by Cyrus and mentions: "ideals that led to the development of human rights are not limited to one cultural tradition". His resume is also impressive:[11] and complies with WP:RS. He teaches courses on the philosophy of human rights. The quote I mentioned from Talbott should be included if the one by Ishay is mentioned. You can't use your varying arguments like "X is not a historian". Also you did not have a quote contradicting any of my quotes with regards to promotion of religious tolerance. Synthesizing the characteristics of the CC with the general promotion of religious tolerance is in violation of WP:synthesis .--Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Also please mind WP:OWN. There are 4480 google scholars that quote Talbott. [[12]]. By WP:RS, the quote of him about Cyrus can be mentioned. As per its significance, I believe it is much more significance than Akbar, given its 6th century B.C. date as well as the fact that there are other books that mention this. I agree characterization of the Cyrus Cylinder as a charter of 20th century definition of modern human rights is anachronism. However, we cannot suppress information like Talbott and etc. when they are writing a book about human rights. Even if you feel the information is incorrect, by WP:RS , you cannot suppress it. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There are some problems unsaved. 1. Why Akbar the Great is there? 2. There are many sources that are not by Iranian people and DO give direct human right credit to Cyrus the Great and Cyrus Cylinder, why we can not mention? When this is the traditional view on this man. 3. Akbar the Great religious tolerence is the reason why this man is mentioned here when Cyrus the Great religion tolerence is undisputed. What is the reaosn that "disputed religion tolerence of Akbar the Great" makes him be mentioned here but "undisputed religion tolerence of Cyrus the Great" makes this man not appropriate to be mentioned here? Xashaiar (talk) 23:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This has got completely out of hand. I have asked for admin intervention against the policy violations repeatedly being carried out by Arad, Nepaheshgar and Xashaiar. Please see WP:AN/I#Iranian nationalist disruption of human rights articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well you have violated WP:3rr and users should abide by the laws of wikipedia. I have no hard feelings for anyone here including of course Moreschi and Folantin or even ChrisO. But there is a clear double standard here as I pointed out. I do not like ethnic nationalism (except in its defensive case) however some people are taking this too far. But from a normal Iranian perspective, given the country's current government, religious tolerance is significant and that is why the issue attracts Iranians (not necessarily nationalism). And despite the fact that there are dozens of quotes outsides the context of the cyrus cylinder which clearly relate Achaemenids with religious tolerance (in books written about human right and explicitly mentioning ideals of human rights and all the books being written by non-Iranians), one should reach at a compromise. So I urge Xashiyar/Arad to work for a compromise, but first gather more reliable sources. And no, user cannot throw out sources based on their own wishes. By any wikipedia rule, someone like Talbott fits the criterion of materials that can be quoted per WP:RS. As per undo weight, we do not need to mention CC and the problem does not come up. Thank you.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Section break

The three editors above (Arad, Nepaheshgar and Xashaiar) have been blocked indefinitely. The block of Nepaheshgar is being discussed at WP:AN/I#Block of Nepaheshgar. Comments from other parties in this discussion would be welcomed. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

My take in a nutshell: We go with what scholarly consensus says. Scholarly consensus regards the Cyrus Cylinder as a work of propaganda not a "charter of human rights".--Folantin (talk) 12:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

They have't been blocked indefinitely. And we are not discussing the cylinder but what Talbott has said about Cyrus and the Achaemenids in general in a book about human rights which fits WP:RS (judging by the number of citations of the book) and is not WP:UNDO. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

They are all now unblocked, as were you, Chris, following your own block for 3RR violation, and for the same reason, promising to avoid guideline violations. Good luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think an arbitration is inevitable now. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Religious tolerance and Achaemenids

Would like some non-involved (and I do mean non-involved) opinion on this

Here are my sources (keeping in mind the reference to Akbar the Great):

W.J. Talbott opines on the issue of Human Rights and Cyrus and believes the concept of human rights is a 20th century concept. Nevertheless he states:“Perhaps the earliest known advocate of religious tolerance was Cyrus the Great, king of Persia in the sixth century B.C.E. Cyrus also opposed slavery and freed thousands of slaves. These facts do not make Cyrus or Ashoka an advocate of human rights. They do show that ideas that led to the development of human rights are not limited to one cultural tradition. "(W. J. Talbott, "Which Rights Should be Universal?", Oxford University Press US, 2005.)

He is a full professor and teaches courses on the philosophy of human rights. [13]

It is WP:RS and WP:verifiable. A third opinion is most welcomed.

And note the subject is not about the nature of Cyrus Cylinder, but rather the policies of Cyrus the Great.

In support of the above:

John Christian Laursen. Religious Toleration: "the Variety of Rites" from Cyrus to Defoe. John Christian Laursen Published by Macmillan, 1999. pg 18"Obviously the friendship of the Greek temples could not be obtained if Cyrus was not benevolent towards the Greek priests and their religion. As we shall see shortly, there is further evidence that indeed these temples were granted special privilege by at least some of the Achaemenid Kings." Here is his webpage [14]

These are reliable sources by any account and they are not making any claims on CC itself. Note Greek temples are not even mentioned in CC. The first statement by Talbott is not about CC. Several other authors have mentioned religious tolerance as a hallmark of Cyrus the Great and have connected it to early ideals that are shared by the ideals of human rights. Thank you--Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see another editor (may be involved) give the counter argument before I can give my opinion. Sole Soul (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Initial thought: One example is enough for the idea that there were "examples of pre-Enlightenment non-European rulers enacting charters of tolerance". Sole Soul (talk) 00:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm visiting this page and talk page for the first time, coming from the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. I suggest the following for consideration to break the include Cyrus vs don't include Cyrus logjam. There is a subarticle on History of human rights. The Talbott mention of Cyrus would fit very well there. Then, I think the history section in this article could do with redrafting so that it summarises the longer discussion in History of human rights. At the moment it starts with an awkward "it's a European concept, no it isn't, yes it is", which can only confuse a non-expert reader. (Remember that this is an article that will be accessed frequently by high school students.) A chronological structure will avoid giving undue prominence to European developments and will show how a fully-developed concept of "human rights" emerged from precursors. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have re-added the section, but changed the wording, trying to write a NPOV version. I've also added 2 sources to it. I think it's wrong to speak of "human rights" in case of Cyrus, as he was an ancient ruler. But it is important to mention that his rule was significantly different from that of his predecessors. As such, Cyrus's reign marked a first step toward more benevolent concepts of rule and he served as a role model for future benevolent rulers. Tajik (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you should add it to the History of human rights article and leave it out of this article until there has been further discussion. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Why? Why not in this article? Human rights did not pop out of nowhere. It's an evolutionary concept, and it's origins are to be found in antiquity, among the early founders of religion, the earliest benevolent kings and rulers. Tajik (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

First, that's original research on your part. You need to cite a source that traces a direct line from the concept of royal mercy to the utterly different concept of inalienable human rights. As Josef Wiesehöfer says (Ancient Persia: from 550 BC to 650 AD, p. 55), "the modern conception of religious tolerance as a humanistic principle ... was alien to them." Second, most of your recent edit was completely uncited and therefore failed verifiability and original research. Third, the only source you did cite - a book by Kaveh Farrokh - is an unreliable source. Farrokh's reliability and notability has been extensively discussed elsewhere, as a result of which Wikipedia articles about him and his book have been deleted or redirected. He's an amateur historian with no academic qualifications in the field of historiography, a minimal publication history and no citations from any other sources. Fourth, it's grossly disproportionate weight on Cyrus. This article is not about Cyrus and it's not about the Cyrus Cylinder. It's not even about the history of human rights. We're talking about one small section in a large article on the entire topic of human rights, which is meant to be a summary of the history of human rights. Fifth, the view of the CC as a human rights charter is a fringe theory which has little or no credibility among mainstream academic historians, many of whom explicitly reject it. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether Kaveh Farrokh is reliable or not is not your business and not your decision. Kaveh Farrokh is credible enough to be cited by the History Channel and to be praised by Richard Nelson Frye. I doubt that you could ever reach such a status, no offense. As for the sources: I actually cited two sources. The other one was J.Curtis/N.Tallis/B.André-Salvini, "Forgotten empire: the world of ancient Persia", University of California Press, 1st ed., 2005, Page 59 where the Cyrus Cylinder and its meaning are explicitly stated (seemingly, this book is considered "propaganda" by User:Moreschi). It makes clear that it cannot be regarded as the "first human rights charta", as propagated by some. I fully agree. But it also mentions - and that part I quoted almost word by word - that Cyrus's rule was significantly different, and significantly more benevolent than others that came before him or that came after him. The authoritative Encyclopædia Iranica states in the respective article:

• "According to the Cyrus cylinder, he permitted foreigners who had been forcibly settled in Babylonia to return to their own lands, including the Jews of the Babylonian cap­tivity, who were also permitted to rebuild their temple in Jerusalem. Two versions of his edict on the latter point have been preserved in the Book of Ezra, one in Hebrew, the other in Aramaic (Bickerman, pp. 72­-108). [...] The emperor nevertheless appears to have initiated a general policy of permitting religious freedom throughout his domains. According to Babylonian texts, he relaxed the harsh rule of Nabonidus. For example, in the so-called “Verse Account of Nabonidus” it is said that Cyrus liberated those who had been oppressed and restored the statues of the Babylonian gods to their sanctuaries (Landsberger and Bauer, pp. 88-94). According to the Babylonian chronicle, Cyrus brought peace to the people of Babylon and kept the army from the temples (Grayson, 1975a, p. 110, col. 3 ll. 16-20). [...] the generally tolerant character of Cyrus’ reign is borne out by Jewish sources. Chapters 40-55 of the Book of Isaiah were probably written by a witness to the fall of Babylon, and some extended passages are similar in both spirit and context to contemporary Babylonian texts praising Cyrus and condemning Nabonidus. Cyrus is mentioned twice by name and designated as the anointed one (messiah) of Yahweh. [...] Cyrus thus seems generally to have respected the customs and religions of conquered lands. The Per­sians themselves called him their father (Herodotus, 3.89). The priests of Babylon recognized him as the appointed of Marduk and the Jews as a messiah sent by Yahweh. Even the Greeks considered him a great conqueror and a wise statesman (e.g., Plato, Laws 3.694A-D); Xenophon, in his Cyropaedia, portrayed him as an ideal ruler (Avery, pp. 529-31; Hirsch, pp. 84-86)." - CYRUS, by Rüdiger Schmitt

Of course this is not "human rights" according to our modern understanding, but 2500 years ago, it was a major change. And that's why it is very often quoted at least in regard of human rights, even though the Cyrus Cylinder is - of course - not a "human rights charta". Tajik (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Kaveh Farrokh has been discussed at length at Talk:Kaveh Farrokh and also in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaveh Farrokh. I'm not going to rehash that discussion except to point out being cited by the History Channel and "praised by Richard Nelson Frye" is not sufficient to establish the reliability of a source, particularly when the specific book in question has been heavily criticised by real historians. If you believe Farrokh is a reliable source, I suggest that you ask for second opinions on the reliable sources noticeboard.

Sorry, I missed your latter source. Forgotten Empire is the companion book to an exhibition of the same name at the British Museum a few years ago (which I attended), where the CC was a central exhibit. The book clearly states that the CC says nothing of human rights and the concept would have been completely alien to Cyrus. As such, it's irrelevant to this article. You can't cite a statement that refutes a link between the CC and human rights in support of a claim that there is a connection between the two - that's not only original research, it's a contradiction and it completely misrepresents what the source says. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hold on a second. I told you that I quoted that part almost word by word. Actually, my version of the article stated:

• There were, nonetheless, notable examples of pre-Enlightenment non-European rulers enacting charters of tolerance. For example, the 6th century BC Persian foundation deposit known as the Cyrus Cylinder is interpreted by some as an example of an early human rights document,[3] granting religious freedom and various other social liberties in the Achaemenid Empire. Although the cylinder says nothing of human rights - in fact, such a concept would have probably been alien to Cyrus's contemporaries - it nonetheless marked a significant reversal of the policies of earlier kings and rulers.

You are not being honest in here, because you purposely cut off one sentence that matters. Because the book states: ...; but the return of the Jews and of other deported peoples was a significant reversal of the policies of earlier Assyrian and Babylonian kings. That's also exactly what I wrote, just changing the wording a little bit. So what's the problem with adding this short section to the history section? It does not propagate that "Cyrus invented human rights", but it correctly states that there were certain kings (in this case Cyrus) in pre-modern times who are notable for their benevolent rule, tolerating different religions in their empire and freeing slaves (that is undisputed among scholars). Nobody seems to have any problems with Akbar the Great in this article, who - according to legend - buried slave girls alive (see Anarkali). Tajik (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Akbar is cited in an example in a mainstream academic history of human rights, written by a mainstream human rights expert and published by a mainstream academic press - namely Micheline Ishay's The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalization Era (University of California Press, 2008). Check the book; you won't find Cyrus even mentioned in it. Ishay does not describe Akbar as a precursor of human rights. He did do nasty things (and so did Cyrus for that matter; he massacred his enemies, destroyed cities and deported peoples, just like any other ruler of the time). She mentions him to contrast various examples of a monarch's treating subjects mercifully or granting them privileges (which of course his successors could repeal) with the modern concept of inalienable rights, which do not depend on the goodwill of the ruler and cannot be removed. Wiesehöfer again: "Even religious policy, as we have seen, was largely determined by this principle of the necessary proof of loyalty ... Cyrus and Xerxes were ready, for political reasons, to accept and respect the creeds of their subjects and to promote their cults, as long as such conduct would consolidate the bond between ruler and subjects." (My italics.) -- ChrisO (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Wiesonhöfer's quote does not prove your point at all. It does not matter why Cyrus made certain decisions. What matters is that he made them. In many ways, Cyrus's system was more effective than many others that came after him. Even today, 60 years after World War 2, we still see massive violations of human rights by countries that are supposed to protect them (i.e. Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, Gaza_war#Gaza_humanitarian_crisis, etc.). So still today - 2500 years after Cyrus - human rights still depend on the powerful, those who decide whether certain rights are appropriate or not. B.G. Ramcharan states:

• ... elements of rights idea, such as law an justice, can be traced to ancient civilizations, such as ancient Egypt, India, Mesopotamia, Sumeria, and Persia. The famous decree of Cyrus issued in 539 BCE after his conquest of Babylon, provided for the protection of human rights. ... (B.G. Ramcharan, "Contemporary Human Rights Ideas", Routledge Global Institutions, 1st ed., 2008, Introduction).

So why not adding that to the article? Tajik (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Because it's flatly false. Historians of the Achaemenid period explicitly reject it and the actual cylinder says nothing whatsoever about human rights - read it yourself here. Ramcharan is evidently citing the infamous fake translation of the CC that was circulated to promote the Shah's propagandistic viewpoint. According to the blurb for Preventive diplomacy at the UN, Ramcharan is a "former UN civil servant". Diplomats aren't experts in archaeological/historical interpretation. You need to find a source from a historian, not someone who's outside their field of expertise. You wouldn't use a dentist as a source on Iranian culture, so why would you use a civil servant as a source on ancient Mesopotamian history? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) In relation to my suggestion above (to add to the History of human rights article), I would like to clarify that it was made on the basis that there was a reliable source in Talbott. I would definitely NOT support the inclusion of anything that is sourced mainly or exclusively to Kaveh Farrokh, who has been discussed before and is not reliable for history. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, Talbott is a philosopher, not a historian, and he only mentions Cyrus in a single unsourced mention in passing. He makes assertions that appear nowhere in reliable historical sources ("Cyrus also opposed slavery"). His viewpoint is contradicted by a consensus of actual historians. We shouldn't represent a non-expert minority POV as equivalent to the expert consensus. The problem we have here is that (1) the idea that the CC had anything to do with human rights was put forward by the late Shah of Iran for propaganda reasons and widely promoted as an asserted fact by his supporters; (2) a number of non-experts - lawyers, diplomats, etc - mistakenly believed that it was a proven fact and cited it as such; but (3) the actual experts, the historians themselves, emphatically reject the idea. When it comes to interpreting historical artefacts, mainstream academic historians of the period are the most reliable sources. As WP:V says, "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science." -- ChrisO (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, you might like to look at some of the guidance on Wikipedia:Fringe theories: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." The idea that the CC is a kind of human rights charter has little or no support among historians of the ancient Near East. The prevailing view is that the CC is a self-serving propaganda text of a well-established type. This is no more controversial in ANE studies than the idea of evolution is among biologists. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Chris. I have no investment whatever in this. I was just responding to the post on FTN and thought a compromise might be possible, hence my suggestion for discussion. But it hasn't moved the discussion on and I don't have anything else that I can suggest. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments without CC and double arguments

Although supposed to be on a break, I have to really point this out. I apologize if what I write is long, but this is a complicated discussion and one should be prepared to discuss.

ChrisO states: "Akbar is cited in an example in a mainstream academic history of human rights, written by a mainstream human rights expert and published by a mainstream academic press - namely Micheline Ishay's "

Okay if you need a human rights expert Talbott is an expert and he has been cited 4200+ times in google scholar and his book is published by an academic press. He is mainstream academic by wikipedia standards. Also I could not find how many times Akbar is cited in Ishay's work, but how much he is cited in one book is not a criterion for inclusion. [15].

Now there seems to be a opposite comment by ChrisO. ChrisO states: "As I said above, Talbott is a philosopher, not a historian, and he only mentions Cyrus in a single unsourced mention in passing."

Okay if you need a history expert, then Micheline Ishay is not expert historian. We also have expert historians: J.Curtis/N.Tallis/B.André-Salvini, Forgotten empire: the world of ancient Persia, University of California Press, 1st ed., 2005, Page 59

Or here is another historian confirming what Talbot stated:

"Religious toleration was a remarkable feature of Persian rule and there is no question that Cyrus himself was a liberal-minded promoter of this humane and intelligent policy” -- Max Mallowan. 'Cyrus the Great'. In Cambridge History of Iran (Volume 2: The Median and Achaemenean Periods), Cambridge , Cambridge University Press, pp.392-419.

So this is not how wikipedia works and we cannot make up our criterion for what to include or not include. We must strictly and I mean strictly follow WP:RS and WP:verifiability.

It seems the arguments are again being convoluted with CC, which is not my intention. Of course wether CC is worth mentioning here or not, is another argument. Thanks to ItsemJudith for following up on the discussion btw.

The criterion about this article is not necessary "historians" since a historian is not necessarily an expert on what constitutes human rights. For example, ChrisO on the battle of Opis was shown that neither Kuhrt nor Wiesehofer understand Akkadian (or have any published papers or books on Akkadian) but he made another argument that his sources were Achaemenid experts. Okay following the same logic, then Talbott is an expert on human rights and teaches courses on its philosophy. In this context, the source that cites Akbar Shah herself is not a historian of the Mughal India.

Also an Achaemenid historian is not necessarily qualified to speak about the concepts of human rights. We simply need to follow wikipedia guidelines here because if we do not, then anyone can intrepret things the way they wish. Following wikipedia guidelines is simple with regards to scholarly sources. We look at WP:RS and WP:verifiability. We see how many times is a book cited. The fact is a full university professor whose book is quite cited and who is quite well cited (google scholars) has written a book on human rights and he does not need to be an Achaemenid historian. Just like Ishay is not a Moghul historian. Indeed what constitutes human rights is not for historians of the classics decide, but for experts on human rights decide (my opinion). How many publications does Kuhrt have on human rights? Simply we need to accept that Talbott has done the research, and his work has been published by a reliable publisher and is well cited. As per what ChrisO is arguing with regards to Cyrus Cylinder, as noted, I have not discussed anything with regards to Cyrus Cylinder neither has Talbott. I agree that characterizing the CC as a charter of human rights is an anachronism. However, Wiesehofer/Kuhrt try to do a psycho-analysis on Cyrus the Great and come up with the conclusion such as "His policy towards his subject was to maximize his rule, and rule his subjects and that is why he was tolerant". But it works the other way: "You be religiously tolerant, and virtous and your empire is more stable". However, that is what happens to Achaemenid studies when you have dearth of real logicians/historians and instead add pscyho-analysism on the intention of a King 2500 years (something which is at best guesswork).

Other users here might be discussing the CC. I am not. We need to follow the guidelines strictly and not come up with our own criterion of inclusion. I do not want to quote WP:RS (as it will make my message too long but users should look at). Talbott is a reliable source and should be included. He teaches courses on the philosophy of human rights, is a full professor at a reliable institution, and is assumed to have done his research. Besides Cyrus, he also mentions Ashoka. We need to follow WP:RS and WP:verifiability. We cannot use WP:synthesis (in this case using the characterization of Kuhrt and Wiesehofer on the CC) to not mention CG. And Kuhrt, Wisehofer or etc. can also be said to not be experts in what is human rights, the philosophy of human rights and etc. Yes, to quote Chris: "As WP:V says, "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science."". This is an academic book, cited well in google books, written by an expert in human rights (whom you have no proof that he has not done his own independent research) and is considered a reliable source by WP:RS.

Also, just a friendly note, if I or anyone else here is called "Iranian nationalist" I will make a report and if the report does not yield result, then an equivalent name calling will be coined for any user who cannot respond to arguments and has to classify their opponents based on their ethnicity intead of concentrating on the argument. Thank you. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Nepaheshgar, do you think it is possible for you to post short messages without drowning the talk page in walls of text? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll be away till the weekend (my good word so it won't take your time) and so that should be plenty of time to read two or three paragraphs. I did not intend for it to be a long message but there are some details that should be addressed which I can't cut out. Thanks.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to summarize Nepaheshgar's comment in one or two sentences. All he is saying is that there are real and reliable historians who say that Cyrus the Great was in fact liberal, tolerant, and humane, at least in the context of the 6th century BC. He cites following source:

• "Religious toleration was a remarkable feature of Persian rule and there is no question that Cyrus himself was a liberal-minded promoter of this humane and intelligent policy” -- Max Mallowan. 'Cyrus the Great'. In Cambridge History of Iran (Volume 2: The Median and Achaemenean Periods), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 392-419.

Tajik (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned the quote from Max Mallowan is here: [16]. And the quote by Talbott meets WP:NPOV and WP:verifiability. Unless there is any serious objection (not user's personal opinion but by standard wikipedia guidelines and strictly following guidelines), the quote by Talbott should be included. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not relevant to the topic of human rights. There is no consensus to include this content and most editors who have commented here agree that it should not be included. If you want to promote Cyrus the Great go and do so on that article, but don't spam other articles with irrelevant content to promote your agenda. You are cherry-picking

favourable quotations from outdated sources - Mallowan died over 30 years ago. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what I am saying. Talbott meets WP:RS and WP:verifiability and he is not talking about Cyrus Cyliunder. Youu need to show without personal opinions (it doesn't need your approval) to why not include Talbott's statement about religious tolerance from Ashoka and Cyrus the Great. I have cited [{WP:RS]] and WP:verifiability. Other outside users agreed he is an acceptable source (you can't discount him). Obviously he is an academic in a US university and teaches courses on the philosophy of human rights. Also Maxowallan might be from 30 years ago, but other scholars have mentioned religious tolerance and achaemenid era. [17]. Do you agree to an RfC? --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do you consider a philosopher to be an expert on ancient Near Eastern history? And WP:RS is not the last word for what content should be included. Material might well be reliably sourced but if it's not relevant to the topic there's no reason to include it. You have yet to make any coherent case for why material praising Cyrus the Great should be added to this article, and you are ignoring the good advice of the other contributors to this talk page. And by the way, please see [18]. There may well be an RfC, but not one that you would enjoy. Whether it become necessary is entirely up to you. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I see your link and as I said, it does not intimidate me if that is your intention. "Nepaheshgar has pursued a consistent pattern of editing and talk page discussions aimed at promoting positive views of Cyrus the Great, an iconic figure to Iranian nationalists, and minimising or eliminating negative views."

I have not removed a single valid source in any article nor I have edited this article. About the dispute in November 2008, I accepted mediation and after it yielded no results, I did not pursue the article.

That is the process of dispute resolution (discussion page->Rfc->Mediation..). I have discussed sources in the talkpage. If you recall, I also withdrew a complaint on 3rr last year due to Jachoman's advice on yourself. I have not even edited this article, and I have asked for input from other users on the inclusion of Talbott. Some of them even have agreed with what I have stated more than what you have stated (Iamjudith for example accepts Talbott as a valid source for the article). We need an RfC on the inclusion of Talbott as a source with his academic credentials[19]. And WP:RS and WP:verifiability is a core policy.

You say: "Why do you consider a philosopher to be an expert on ancient Near Eastern history? ". I never did. But the article is not about ancient history! And Talbott is not just a philosopher but an expert on the philosophy of human rights as he teaches courses on the subject and has written books on the subject. A historian is not necessarily someone that knows what constitutes the concepts of human rights or the ideas of it. A historian of Achaemenid era studies the history of that era and someone that has written books on human rights is more relevant for this article. However, how do you know Talbott did not do his research? It is your word against his basically. How many articles does for example Kuhrt have on human rights And which one of your sources exactly state that Cyrus the Great did not follow a policy of "religious tolerance" to contradict his statement. Even Kuhrt or Briant do not make such a claim. Also countering: "What makes Ashay an expert on the Mughal era?"

You stated:"Cyrus ...destroyed temples and deported peoples". Where is exactly your source for the "destruction of temples"? I will agree to an RfC as I said on the inclusion of Talbott as a valid WP:RS and WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability source. As per its relevance, other users above have indicated it is relevant and the philosopher teaches courses on the "philosophy of human rights".

My basis for inclusion of Talbott are here:

1) It is important to show concepts related to human rights do not belong to one tradition. The term "Human rights" might have been coined in the last century, but some of the ideals it teaches have been practiced by various socities. The relevance of what Talbott states is important and he brings the example of Cyrus and Ashoka.

2) Talbott is a Professor of a major university who teaches coures on the philosophy of human rights (he is not just a philosopher). If Talbott is not a historian, then neither is Ashay. But the article's discussion is about human rights and not Achaemenids. Else Ashay is not a historian of the Mughal era. Talbott teaches a course on the philosophy of human rights. I do not think Kuhrt teaches such a course. As it states in the guideliens: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science".

3) His book is well cited and is acceptable by WP:RS and WP:verifiability. What he states does not contradict Kuhrt for example, since he has noted stated anything about the cylinder.

4) The statements characterizing the Cyrus Cylinder by some Achaemenid histroains is irrelevant as we need a source that directly states "Cyrus... destroyed temples" (your claim) or "Cyrus was religiously intolerant". From the onset of the discussion I have stated the Cyrus Cylinder is not a human rights charter and while I might personally disagree with the viewpoint of Kuhrt/Wiesehofer, I have not pushed my own viewpoint as I follow guidelines. You have stated" Cyrus...destroyed temples". I have not even found such a statement in Kuhrt. Which historian has stated this? Based on what primary sources?

A neutral user asked for a source that contradicts Talbott. Where is it? How is characterizing the Cyrus Cylinder as a propaganda contradict what Talbott states other than WP:synthesis?

I think following dispute resolution, it would be good to seek an RfC. As I said, I will abide with an RfC. However the RfC should not be a character assassination, but simply focuses on the discussion. It should be a well intentioned RfC on wether Talbott is a reliable source for this article and meets the guidelines set by wikipedia. A 3rd neutral opinion is welcomed. I believe he is, and you do not believe he is. If other users judge it is not, then I will abide by their opinion. And that would be the end of issue. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

3rd opinion needed on the inclusion of Talbott

I need a third opinion on wether this source is relevant to the article and its meets WP:RS and WP:verifiability criterion.

"W. J. Talbott, "Which Rights Should be Universal?", Oxford University Press US, 2005. excerpt from pg 40): Perhaps the earliest known advocate of religious tolerance was Cyrus the Great, king of Persia in the sixth century B.C.E. Cyrus also opposed slavery and freed thousands of slaves. These facts do not make Cyrus or Ashoka an advocate of human rights. They do show that ideas that led to the development of human rights are not limited to one cultural tradition. "

How is it relevant to the article? Precisely by the statement: " They do show that ideas that led to the development of human rights are not limited to one cultural tradition".

Counter argument to the inclusion of Talbott (as best as I understood it).

1) "Cyrus Cylinder is a propaganda tool according to some modern historians.".

My counter-counter argument(ECCM): "Talbott does not mention the Cyrus cylinder". Neither is the characterization of the Cyrus Cylinder relevant to the actual policies of Cyrus with regards to religious tolerance. So any discussion with regards to Cyrus Cylinder is a WP:synthesis.

2) "Talbott is a philosopher but not a historian of the ancient Near East". My CCM: A) Okay but there are other historians that state the same thing: "Cyrus thus seems generally to have respected the customs and religions of conquered lands. The Per­sians themselves called him their father (Herodotus, 3.89). The priests of Babylon recognized him as the appointed of Marduk and the Jews as a messiah sent by Yahweh. Even the Greeks considered him a great conqueror and a wise statesman (e.g., Plato, Laws 3.694A-D); Xenophon, in his Cyropaedia, portrayed him as an ideal ruler (Avery, pp. 529-31; Hirsch, pp. 84-86). " (Cyrus II The Great, in Encyclopedia Iranica by Muhammad A. Dandamayev [20]). B) The article is not about Ancient Near East. It is about Human Rights. The person in question is highly regarded academic: [21] and teaches courses called " Philosophy of Human Rights" [22].

So I need a 3rd opinion. Is Talbott a valid source for this article based on WP:RS and WP:verifiability or he is as the other side claims WP:fringe.

Thank you and I am ready to abide by neutral 3rd party opinion. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source itself to level an opinion on it per se, but I've been watching this whole debate here unfold since it began and I agree with your points, Nepaheshgar. ChrisO's objection to any mention of Cyrus seems similar to me to a reductio ad Hitlerum, to wit: Iranian nationalists appeal to Cyrus for moral legitimacy, Iranian nationalists are bad m'kay (or at least unreliable sources regarding the history of human rights), therefore Cyrus is unfit for inclusion in an article about human rights. Alrighty then, and Hitler was a vegetarian therefore all vegetarians are Nazis...

I don't think Cyrus needs very much mention in this article (that would be undue weight), nor do I think this article especially hurts for lack of mention of him, but I don't see any reason to make such a strong objection to its inclusion as ChrisO has. (Which, honestly, strikes me as more reactionary than reasonable). A short mention of him seems to fit in well with the short mention of Akbar in the first paragraph of the history section, as part of showing various threads of political and philosophical thought that lead up to the modern concept of human rights.

I would even suggest that perhaps a few others be included there as well (sourced, of course); perhaps one Chinese and one Islamic to collaborate the currently-uncited mention of those cultures at the beginning of that sentence. This would inflate that first paragraph a bit much, but it could be cleanly broken at the sentence beginning "However, it is unclear how much..." This would give us a clean segue into the history of human rights:

• One paragraph on proto-human-rights concepts outside of Europe (Akbar, Cyrus, etc).
• One paragraph on proto-human-rights concepts within Europe (Aristotle's to dikaion, etc).
• Then the beginnings of the modern human-rights concept proper.

I hope this third party opinion has been helpful. --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

(Oh and in case I wasn't clear, that means yes, I think Talbott and his mention of Cyrus sounds like an acceptable source for inclusion in this article). --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've already discussed the specific problems with Talbott; to recap:

• He's a philosopher, not an historian, and he's not an authoritative source of any kind on Ancient Near Eastern history.
• His assertion about Cyrus is a single unsourced throw-away line. He cites no sources for his words and says nothing else about Cyrus in the whole of the rest of his book.
• His assertion is wrong. Note that he claims Cyrus opposed slavery. That's found nowhere in the historical record, but it is found in a fake translation of the Cyrus cylinder circulated by Iranian nationalists (see [23] for discussion). That's the danger of using non-experts as sources - they can get things badly wrong.

More fundamentally, your argument for including Cyrus relies on connecting him with "proto-human-rights concepts". The problem is that this association is explicitly rejected by historians of the Ancient Near East (ANE) as "tendentious", "anachronistic", etc. WP:V#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources tells us that we need "exceptional sources" for a claim that is "contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in ... history". If you can find a historian of the ANE associating Cyrus with human rights then maybe we can discuss that, but using a non-expert to promote a claim that the ANE historical community has strongly rejected is a straightforward violation of WP:V. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Nepaheshgar already addressed your objection that "he's a philosopher, not an historian", and I think his response, as far as general principle goes, is sound: a philosopher, especially one who specializes in human rights issues, could certainly be a reliable source on the history of human rights (and historical veins of thought leading up to that concept).

However, since you claim that Talbott's own sources are in turn unreliable, I am now wary of his reliability as a source on this particular issue, especially in light of your point on exceptional claims. Not being an expert in this field myself, I'll bow out of this discussion again and let you all continue duking it out. --Pfhorrest (talk) 09:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the 3rd opinion. ChrisO's claim that Talbott used some misleading translation to arrive at his conclusion is a leap of faith. Opposing slavery could also be taken as for example he freed Jewish captives after the fall of Babylon. I'll just summarize my answer and my final response here (I am not going to respond to any more repeated arguments). However I have added some sources again (and I am quoting them which might make this response long, but it is due to quoting these and the response is actually not that long):

A) "He's a philosopher, not an historian, and he's not an authoritative source of any kind on Ancient Near Eastern history.". He is a philosopher specializing on the concept of human rights. The issue of human rights does not need a Near Eastern history expert since a Near Eastern history expert is not a person that is an expert on human rights. For example when someone like Ashay mentions the Moghul AkbarShah, she is not an expert in the Moghuls. B) "His assertion about Cyrus is a single unsourced throw-away line. He cites no sources for his words and says nothing else about Cyrus in the whole of the rest of his book."

That is not a good enough reason to discount as we are assuming the source did not do its research. Here are some ANE that agree in the same light:

Professor T. Cuyler Young Jr(another Achaemenid expert): "Because of the religious, ethnic and social tolerance with which the Achaemenids chose to rule, one cannot speak of an imperial social structure. Earlier attempts at empire in ancient West Asia had been anything but tolerant. Why therefore were the Achaemenids so different? The answer to the question is two-fold: on the one hand, tolerance was a realistic policy. Given the size and diversity of their empire, probably no other approach would have worked. On the other hand, such a policy probably fitted their own idealized traditions of social structure…"(Cotterell, A. (Editor) (1993). Classical Civilizations. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books. In Young, The Achaemenids (559-330 BC), pp.160)

Another respectable one: "Cyrus thus seems generally to have respected the customs and religions of conquered lands. The Per­sians themselves called him their father (Herodotus, 3.89). The priests of Babylon recognized him as the appointed of Marduk and the Jews as a messiah sent by Yahweh. Even the Greeks considered him a great conqueror and a wise statesman (e.g., Plato, Laws 3.694A-D); Xenophon, in his Cyropaedia, portrayed him as an ideal ruler (Avery, pp. 529-31; Hirsch, pp. 84-86). "(Cyrus II The Great, in Encyclopedia Iranica by Muhammad A. Dandamayev [24].

Max Mallowan (published in 1985). "Religious toleration was a remarkable feature of Persian rule and there is no question that Cyrus himself was a liberal-minded promoter of this humane and intelligent policy" -- 'Cyrus the Great'. In Cambridge History of Iran (Volume 2: The Median and Achaemenean Periods), Cambridge , Cambridge University Press, pp.392-419 (1985)

C) Response to: "His assertion is wrong. Note that he claims Cyrus opposed slavery. That's found nowhere in the historical record, but it is found in a fake translation of the Cyrus cylinder circulated by Iranian nationalists (see [http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/cyrus_cylinder.html""

Again what does the issue have to do with "Iranian nationalists" and how do we know Talbott used such a fake translation of the Cylinder? As per ancient historical record, here is one. Christopher Tuplin. "Achaemenid Studies", Published by Franz Steiner Verlag, 1996. pg 162:"Under Cyrus the Persians liberated themselves and became master of others, but allowed some freedom to subjects, even allowed them to be equals; so soldiers were loyal and wise counselors could be found and there was a spirit of freedom, friendship and community." "Cyrus, we are told, was not only a courageous man in war, but he was also considerate and humane in his treatment of his subjects. And it was for this reason that the Persians called him Father."(Diodorus Siculus. Diodorus of Sicily in Twelve Volumes with an English Translation by C. H. Oldfather. Vol. 4-8. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann, Ltd. 1989. Book 9, 22-24 )

And a modern one: "According to the Cyrus cylinder, he permitted foreigners who had been forcibly settled in Babylonia to return to their own lands, including the Jews of the Babylonian cap­tivity, who were also permitted to rebuild their temple in Jerusalem. Two versions of his edict on the latter point have been preserved in the Book of Ezra, one in Hebrew, the other in Aramaic" Cyrus II The Great, in Encyclopedia Iranica by Muhammad A. Dandamayev.

Dandamayev: "On the whole, there was only a small number of slaves in relation to the number of free persons even in the most developed countries of the Achaemenid empire, and slave labor was in no position to supplant the labor of free workers. The basis of agriculture was the labor of free farmers and tenants and in handicrafts the labor of free artisans, whose occupation was usually inherited within the family, likewise predominated. In these countries of the empire, slavery had already undergone important changes by the time of the emergence of the Persian state. Debt slavery was no longer common. The practice of pledging one’s person for debt, not to mention self-sale, had totally disappeared by the Persian period. In the case of nonpayment of a debt by the appointed deadline, the creditor could turn the children of the debtor into slaves. A creditor could arrest an insolvent debtor and confine him to debtor’s prison. However, the creditor could not sell a debtor into slavery to a third party. Usually the debtor paid off the loan by free work for the creditor, thereby retaining his freedom. "(Banda,Bardabari (Slavery in the Achaemenid periond), M. A. Dandamayev, Encyclopedia Iranica)

So, as per Talbott's assertion, Cyrus did not need to abolish slavery, but overall the Achaemenids did make some modifications. He did also free captives of the Babylonians who were taken to slavery because of religion (i.e. Jews and others). So for its own time and place, some modifications from previous rulers were made.

D)

He States: "More fundamentally, your argument for including Cyrus relies on connecting him with "proto-human-rights concepts". The problem is that this association is explicitly rejected by historians of the Ancient Near East (ANE) as "tendentious", "anachronistic", etc. "

No historian of ancient near east as fas as I can tell has stated Achaemenids were religiously intolerant. As per "proto-human rights concepts" that is not what Talbott states. He states ideals that are shared in the concepts of human rights can be seen in other non-Western cultures. I believe a respect academic who teaches the philosophy of human rights as a course is more specialized for this topic and I assumed good faith that he did research into the sources I mentioned above (rather than use a fake translation of the cylinder which he does not mention). His citations are numerous.

Like Pfhorrest, I am leaving this discussion due to being busy in real lifea and not needing any more wikidrama. Last time one of ChrisO's friends blocked me permanently for using the talkpage and asking for an RfC, instead ChrisO got 2 minutes for breaking 3rr. This has given the user the right to even revert my discussion on the talkpage. [25] and if I mention it to the administration board, I am sure I'll get blocked.

The user has pointed to two things: A) "ChrisO's objection to any mention of Cyrus seems similar to me to a reductio ad Hitlerum, to wit: Iranian nationalists appeal to Cyrus for moral legitimacy, Iranian nationalists are bad m'kay (or at least unreliable sources regarding the history of human rights), therefore Cyrus is unfit for inclusion in an article about human rights. Alrighty then, and Hitler was a vegetarian therefore all vegetarians are Nazis"

Agree totally.

B) "I don't see any reason to make such a strong objection to its inclusion as ChrisO has" The strong objection probably has to do with outside of wikipedia affair and the duel between Jona Lendering[26] and Farrokh[27] here. That is why ChrisO even wrote explictly that Cyrus "Destroyed...temples". When I asked for a source on which religious temple Cyrus destroyed (I could not find a source in any historian), I was not given a response.

For now, due to being busy and not needing anymore wiki-drama, I am leaving this discussion as the fact that I almost got banned permanently without even editing the main page shows that it is useless to continue the discussion and there are other articles I'll try to contribute to. Thanks. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how I managed to revert your contribution last night. That was not my intention at all - I must have clicked the wrong link. Apologies. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the explanation. Good luck with the article. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

reworking of the "currently debated rights" issues

I would welcome any comments from other editors as to how we could improve or ameliorate this section of the article - at the moment there appear to be real issues within the section, it reads like a disparate list of controversial issues within the human rights context and i am not convinced that it really helps the article as it currently stands Ajbpearce (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed and I recommend some serious editing. 71.202.48.48 (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)