![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Text and Analysis section is where editors can cite notable criticism with reference to the primary source. Lets use same section on talk to debate which criticism are notable for inclusion. The opinions of the American press, in this case, constitute a fringe minority compared to the 33 other signatories from Africa, Asia, and South America, and shouldn't be the basis for this article, per WP:Due Weight, or debates in it. UK and European press, such as the Guardian, shouldn't even be quoted for anything but the facts, if that, since their nations already dominate multilateral institutions, but did not join this multilateral effort. Let's not hypocritically contribute to wikipedia's existing problem with WP:Systemic bias by quoting them, and please read the essay first if you intend to engage controversial edits here in a fair manner. Jaredscribe ( talk) 04:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm addressing the tendentious criticisms from he western press, now removed, from Sunrise and Ezlev and possibly others as well. While giving an external link, Captain Calm removed the text of the declaration added by Vijaydoshi7, who is a new editor that created the article and who has since backed off. In general, yes we should base the article on secondary sources, with reference to straight quotes from primary source, that are not synthetic, or interpretive, per WP:NOR. But if we cite western press that pour contempt on the signatory countries, while failing or refusing to cite their press, and deleting the text that they all agreed to, it amounts to pre-emptive WP:Personal attacks against editors from those parts of the world. I assume that y'all were in WP:Good Faith but merely ignorant of your own privelege and the bias it creates, so if you wish to make constructive edits that are critical of the subject of this article, please research commentary and analysis from women's groups and dissidents in the global south, and deploy them in criticism of the declaration or the countries that signed it. Lets not base this on hypocritical commentary from the usual suspects NBC, CNN, the Guardian, the NYT, and the WaPo, who all of a sudden now that they're not in charge decide to start hating multilateralism. Jaredscribe ( talk) 04:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Vijaydoshi7 can reintroduce smaller blockquotes of primary source text here. Secondary sources commenting on each blockquote should be from the press of signatory nations (other than the US, which is overrepresented), they should handle both sides of each issue, per WP:Due Weight. (And there are more issues to analyze than just abortion). If you have only side of the political debate to cite, or if you're going to remove another editors citation, please put them here in talk until others can be found. Let's also remember that English is not everyone's first language and Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers Jaredscribe ( talk) 04:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Reaffirm “all are equal before the law,” and “human rights of women are
an inalienable, integral, and indivisible part of all human rights and fundamental
freedoms”;
This article is suffering quite badly from WP:COATRACK and WP:SYNTH in the second paragraph which I would propose be removed. PailSimon ( talk) 00:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Text and Analysis section is where editors can cite notable criticism with reference to the primary source. Lets use same section on talk to debate which criticism are notable for inclusion. The opinions of the American press, in this case, constitute a fringe minority compared to the 33 other signatories from Africa, Asia, and South America, and shouldn't be the basis for this article, per WP:Due Weight, or debates in it. UK and European press, such as the Guardian, shouldn't even be quoted for anything but the facts, if that, since their nations already dominate multilateral institutions, but did not join this multilateral effort. Let's not hypocritically contribute to wikipedia's existing problem with WP:Systemic bias by quoting them, and please read the essay first if you intend to engage controversial edits here in a fair manner. Jaredscribe ( talk) 04:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm addressing the tendentious criticisms from he western press, now removed, from Sunrise and Ezlev and possibly others as well. While giving an external link, Captain Calm removed the text of the declaration added by Vijaydoshi7, who is a new editor that created the article and who has since backed off. In general, yes we should base the article on secondary sources, with reference to straight quotes from primary source, that are not synthetic, or interpretive, per WP:NOR. But if we cite western press that pour contempt on the signatory countries, while failing or refusing to cite their press, and deleting the text that they all agreed to, it amounts to pre-emptive WP:Personal attacks against editors from those parts of the world. I assume that y'all were in WP:Good Faith but merely ignorant of your own privelege and the bias it creates, so if you wish to make constructive edits that are critical of the subject of this article, please research commentary and analysis from women's groups and dissidents in the global south, and deploy them in criticism of the declaration or the countries that signed it. Lets not base this on hypocritical commentary from the usual suspects NBC, CNN, the Guardian, the NYT, and the WaPo, who all of a sudden now that they're not in charge decide to start hating multilateralism. Jaredscribe ( talk) 04:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Vijaydoshi7 can reintroduce smaller blockquotes of primary source text here. Secondary sources commenting on each blockquote should be from the press of signatory nations (other than the US, which is overrepresented), they should handle both sides of each issue, per WP:Due Weight. (And there are more issues to analyze than just abortion). If you have only side of the political debate to cite, or if you're going to remove another editors citation, please put them here in talk until others can be found. Let's also remember that English is not everyone's first language and Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers Jaredscribe ( talk) 04:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Reaffirm “all are equal before the law,” and “human rights of women are
an inalienable, integral, and indivisible part of all human rights and fundamental
freedoms”;
This article is suffering quite badly from WP:COATRACK and WP:SYNTH in the second paragraph which I would propose be removed. PailSimon ( talk) 00:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)