Revision as of 13:03, 5 April 2013 editMar4d (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers84,737 edits →Not much HRV: comment← Previous edit |
Revision as of 13:04, 5 April 2013 edit undoMar4d (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers84,737 edits →Not much HRVNext edit → |
Line 21: |
Line 21: |
|
:*First the heading of this discussion suggested by Mrt '''Not much HRV''', that means he admits there‘s HRV though not much. Secondly, I have given all the reasons in ] why to include the content which may be reffered to. '']''] 15:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
:*First the heading of this discussion suggested by Mrt '''Not much HRV''', that means he admits there‘s HRV though not much. Secondly, I have given all the reasons in ] why to include the content which may be reffered to. '']''] 15:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
**(after edit conflict) There is clearly a disagreement over whether human rights violations are a modern invention or whether the term can also be applied to earlier atrocities and more or less systematic mistreatments before the term came into use. I am inclined to think it is more useful to cover the events, perhaps with a note in the article on terminology (when the modern term came into use) than to make a division based on what words were used in earlier times. I have therefore made an initial rearrangement of the article to incoporate the earlier material as Background and divided that part and the part on the current (post-partition) situation into subsections. I've expanded the lead a bit but I think it needs further work so I've templated it accordingly. The Background section clearly needs proper expansion of the Afghan rule section, and the creation of a section before that on Mughal rule. And I have omitted one sub-point (Chinese occupation) that was rightly flagged as not in the source. I think this is a better basis from which to judge what the article will look like with the earlier parts of the history included. Responses? ] (]) 15:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
**(after edit conflict) There is clearly a disagreement over whether human rights violations are a modern invention or whether the term can also be applied to earlier atrocities and more or less systematic mistreatments before the term came into use. I am inclined to think it is more useful to cover the events, perhaps with a note in the article on terminology (when the modern term came into use) than to make a division based on what words were used in earlier times. I have therefore made an initial rearrangement of the article to incoporate the earlier material as Background and divided that part and the part on the current (post-partition) situation into subsections. I've expanded the lead a bit but I think it needs further work so I've templated it accordingly. The Background section clearly needs proper expansion of the Afghan rule section, and the creation of a section before that on Mughal rule. And I have omitted one sub-point (Chinese occupation) that was rightly flagged as not in the source. I think this is a better basis from which to judge what the article will look like with the earlier parts of the history included. Responses? ] (]) 15:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
:: Just because the phrase 'human rights abuses' is perceived as a recent terminology cannot be used as grounds for denying that atrocities have taken place against humans in all stages of history. The article would do well to cover not only modern human rights issues but it should go into history as well IMO, because the context of the latter is still relevant to the broader topic. When we talk about human rights violations, we mean anything and everything that has violated basic human freedoms. This definition extends to previous empires and dynasties' treatment of the people they ruled and their imposition of discriminatory laws or systematic violations of other rights of people etc. The content recently inserted into the article is fair and relevant. The burden lies on the remover of the content to substantiate their objections. ''']''' (]) 13:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
::: Just because the phrase 'human rights abuses' is perceived as a recent terminology cannot be used as grounds for denying that atrocities have taken place against humans in all stages of history. The article would do well to cover not only modern human rights issues but it should go into history as well IMO, because the context of the latter is still relevant to the broader topic. When we talk about human rights violations, we mean anything and everything that has violated basic human freedoms. This definition extends to previous empires and dynasties' treatment of the people they ruled and their imposition of discriminatory laws or systematic violations of other rights of people etc. The content recently inserted into the article is fair and relevant. The burden lies on the remover of the content to substantiate their objections. ''']''' (]) 13:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC) |