Talk:Yogyakarta Principles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Possible sources[edit]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Copyvio concerns[edit]

This document and the website associated with it does not appear to have any copyright. I have e-mailed them to establish what the situation is, and that we are OK to use material from the Principles and explanatory information from the site as well. I have substantially reworded the article since the tag was placed, and am still working on this, as well as ensuring quoted material is clearly marked as such. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 11:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Principles and site not subject to copyright[edit]

I received a response to the e-mail to the contact on the website clarifying the issue of copyright:

Thanks Michelle - the Principles are not subject to copyright, and we would be delighted to have them referenced on Wikipedia, provided of course that appropriate links are provided to the Yogyakarta Principles website.
Best wishes, and thanks for the initiative,
John
[email protected]


Hopefully this clarifies any concerns. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good faith start, likely we should get a written confirm - Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. In this way our legal butt is covered that we have on file permission from someone representing the website. It's likely not a super duper rush as they likely have a few folks that need to read over it. -- Banjeboi 12:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have e-mailed a formal request for usage, and release of relevant material under Creative Commons. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Benji, I e-mailed the request in the format suggested on the page you linked to, and they responded:
Dear Michelle,
We are happy to provide the relevant permissions for you to use the Yogyakarta Principles and related materials in your Wikipedia article, and we agree to the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
It might be helpful for Michael O'Flaherty or myself to provide comments on your article, if you are open to this, since I noticed a couple of places where some editing might help strengthen the information in the background and context sections.
Many thanks for this, and best wishes,
John
I have said they are as welcome to edit as anybody, subject to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section blanking[edit]

13:09, 6 July 2009 121.242.112.11 (talk) (11,723 bytes) (→Launch and response) (undo) (Tag: section blanking)

This appears to be an automated section blanking tool which deleted two sections from the article with no explanation given - yet there is no detail on the tag page of how to report false positives for this. What do I do about this? Mish (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a vandal, see User talk:121.242.112.11. -- Banjeboi 07:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sources[edit]

I have removed a source twice now, inserted from two different IP's, because it is not a reliable source. This is a commercial site where people can publish articles, without peer-review by experts, rather than posting them to a blog. Please do not re-insert it without discussing this first. Mish (talk) 00:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's more helpful to state what the source is or at least a diff so others can see which one. -- Banjeboi 02:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible source[edit]

Michael O’Flaherty and John Fisher, Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and International Human Rights Law: Contextualising the Yogyakarta Principles, Human Rights Law Review 2008 8(2):207-248 at 247.[1]. -- Banjeboi 02:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rewording and so on[edit]

I have moved the item on Catholic criticism on 6 points and removed the recent insertion which duplicates and labors the points made to reduce repetition and ensure the source of the criticism is located in the one paragraph. I have also edited the wording as while it is reasonable to describe the criticism, it is not reasonable to do so using weasel words and showing clear POV against the subject in a way that it appears this is our view. I am concerned about the 'State of America' reference, because I can find no reference to this group anywhere - which suggests it is not a notable group if it has no on-line presence. Finally, the final paragraph is not sourced, it should be, especially given the derogatory tone (which I have cleaned up a bit), and if experts were deliberately excluded from the conference, this needs to be supported by citing which international human rights experts were excluded, and why they would have been expected to be invited to a conference on LGBT human rights (i.e., their notability in this area) - as it stands, it comes across as WP:OR. The rest of the criticism seems childish - they are experts, they have simply clarified the legal situation, they lay no claim to any brief or mandate, and some people disagree with the principles - that is all that needs to be said, and the section seems to do that; are unsourced ad-hominem attacks relevant in an encyclopedia - if so they need to be reproduced in the context of what the source cited says. Mish (talk) 10:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning WP:3RR User:Noergler[edit]

I posted a courtesy warning that this user was at risk of violating [[WP:3RR], and they have reverted back to an edit that lacks consensus three times within a 24 hour period:

I would urge them to refrain from engaging with other editors via an edit war, and use this talk page to discuss these edits, otherwise this will necessitate a referral to WP:ANI. Mish (talk) 10:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yogyakarta[edit]

To User:Noergler, I removed your comments as these appear to be in retaliation for my original good faith notice that you were risking slipping into violating WP:3RR and edit-warring. Mish (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you a courtesy notice that your reversion to edits which have no consensus were putting you at risk of WP:3RR, despite this, you reverted back to the edit without any attempt to discuss this on the talk page. I have placed a formal warning on the article talk page and notified you of this on your talk page, as you have now infringed WP:3RR by reverting/restoring the disputed edit three times within a 24 hour period without discussion and against consensus. Further engagement with other editors via edit-warring will result in escalation to WP:ANI, which I am keen to avoid, as I would encourage you to discuss this in a way that builds consensus. Mish (talk) 11:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mish, I am sorry but you yourself do not seem to act in very good faith. You are criticising what you have been doing yourself.

Anyway, it is good to see that you are now beginning to understand that you cannot simply remove the critical section. I have no problem with you editing that section as long as (a) the outcome is in proper English, which currently is not the case (that's the reason why I again put my text), and (b) you do not remove content for which there is a good reference. In that sense: try again, but with correct English. Or else I will improve your text.

Concerning the question who has not been invited: I imagine that prominent human rights experts like Mary Ann Glendon, Michel Schooyans, Georg Ress, Javier Borrego, etc. would not have given any support to the YP. Have they been invited? No.

If you have better information (e.g. on people who were invited but declined the invitation), you can of course add it. But please do not destroy an information just because you do not like it.

I am glad to see you have taken the warning seriously, although your subsequent revert and tone of your comments above is not encouraging, and shows little indication of any good faith, despite my notifying you of the risks of generating an edit war through your heavy-handed approach to editing without seeking consensus. Without sources, the information you inserted is unreliable - and will be removed, there is no point duplicating material in the article, and using derogatory language cannot be sustained. I have no issues with a genuine criticism section, but what you inserted is not critical, the part benjiboi addressed is fine, but most of the rest is unverifiable ad-hominem attack. We do not allow that in the encyclopedia. I have reverted your reversions twice, you have reverted to an edit which has no consensus four times now. The language used was fine, apart from one word ('a'). The language now is atrocious - the first statement in both the final and penultimate paragraphs are meaningless. Mish (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - the ANI on edit warring is here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Noergler reported by User:MishMich (Result: )

Updated - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Noergler reported by User:MishMich (Result: warned)

Mish has been far more patient with this than is called for; notable criticism which is sourced is welcome. There is nothing to suggest this isn't just one of hundreds of anti-LGBT advocacy groups pushing their views in a brief to the UN. If there is evidence that this brief actually has had any impact then present that. Otherwise this violates WP:Soap to blow this up and list all their points and inflated "concern". -- Banjeboi 02:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started to revert your edit, but I agree that the unsourced and dubious material is unsustainable, and what is left is quite isolated and partisan, and the detail I had retained and expanded upon was probably WP:UNDUE. A single paragraph does not warrant its own section, and given the limited detail of the 'positive' response (which was widely covered in the LGBT press), the balance does seem about right and best accommodated within the single section on responses. Mish (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Principles were covered in the mainstream media, (Rozzi/C-Fam's criticism was not mentioned): [2]
I'm giving the other editor the benefit of the doubt for the moment. If you do find notable and sourced criticism I would suggest switching them out in the near future. We can't allow building a soapbox on articles but we do want other views. -- Banjeboi 04:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

about vandalism[edit]

I am disturbed that the article has been victim of vandalism on November 1 2010, just after my editing on references and source. I also disturbed that the official site of UNHCR was attacked at the same time, which would consist unlawful attack to reputation of persons who are persecuted because of their sexual orientation and genger identity.

I earnestly hope that the actor of the vandalism will be investigated, identified and duly punished, if necessary. --LilyKitty (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Yogyakarta Principles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead needs work[edit]

The lead section is opaque and needs work. In particular, it lacks a clear, brief, defining first sentence as the guideline recommends. I will be making some changes to improve the first sentence and the rest of the lead, and welcome collaborators. Mathglot (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a section from the lead:

The Principles were developed to enhance the individual sovereignty of subjective identity, a principal articulated in a host of international human rights laws that protect the authentic reality of individual identity and sovereignty from the legal fictions and social constructs of national or state collectivist ideologies. The issue is further articulated by the struggles of indigenous peoples, gender and religious identity communities worldwide.

The first sentence is gobbledygook; I don't even know what it's trying to say. The second sentence (like the first) has no citation, and even if true, is awkward ("The issue is further articulated by..."—who says that?). Mathglot (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible legal challenges[edit]

@180.244.130.242:. Please discuss here sources that you believe support the text that you have been trying to add to the article. So far, none of the sources provided have supported the claims of "legal actions and class action lawsuits" against "all supporters, stakeholders, and organisers" behind the Yogyakarta Principles. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yogyakarta_Principles&oldid=1208404633"