Talk:Geneva Consensus Declaration

Lets put our systemic bias in check
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 and  and possibly others as well. While giving an external link, removed the text of the declaration added by, 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)


 * If there are other high-quality sources with sufficient weight to counter the ones I used, then you need to present them, rather than telling other editors to find them for you. On the other hand, if you believe that well-established generally reliable sources should be disregarded on certain subjects, then you need to establish a new consensus for that at RSN. Otherwise you’re simply engaging in WP:FORUM and WP:OR. Sunrise (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The WP:PRIMARY source, representing the collective voice of 33 governments, is not WP:OR. To include it here does not make the article a WP:FORUM.  As for the talk page, it is an appropriate forum for the discussion we are now having.  Sunrise is non-responsive to my (sound) arguments, and sets up a straw man, in order to lead other editors astray, and perhaps hoping to intimidate me with policy documents and acronyms until I give up.Jaredscribe (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Moreover, discussed this talk page conversation on Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_77 with  and others, about a year ago, and didn't tell us.  Apparently you think that is a better WP:FORUM for your own WP:OR into what constitutes "mainstream ethics"?  They misrepresent my (neutral) position as "fringe", without pinging me by mentioning my username, thus I didn't have a chance to respond.  They furthermore misrepresent the article signatories from the global south as "fringe ethics" and their own parroting of the MSM as "faithful reporting of reliable sources".  Is that so?  And did not inform myself, or this talk page, that the issue was being discussed there.  Is this not an WP:Abuse of Process?  Not only that, they all but guaranteed that they would fall prey to groupthink, which is exactly what they did.  One editor , correctly pointed out that a "moral pov is hardly fringe", but has now been blocked from editing.  Antiabortion is consider "unscientific" by , and therefore fringe.  And this bad habit of claiming "science" while engaging moral assumption, unsound logic, cherry picked evidence, and presumptuous universalizing, ignorance of outside opinion, unentreatability, and political bullying, is why IMHO the fringe theories cabal should itself be considered a fringe theory at this point, by anyone purporting scholarly values, or encyclopedic mission, or actual science.  They drove away newcomers and editors from the global south, like myself, like the original poster of this article , who are not part of the (probably anglo-american, white, college eductated, leisure class) "cabal" that "runs" wikipedia and wouldn't know where to find these hidden places where the consensus to disrupt the encyclopedic mission in the name of the "mainstream thought" are made (fringe theory noticeboard).  And among the members of that cabal, they (or some sympathetic admin), banned their only honest member.  This is exactly how systemic bias operates on Wikipedia.  Jaredscribe (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone for helping to make the systemic bias on Wikipedia unavoidably obvious. Now that these editors have demonstrated bad faith or incompetence, or both, we are justified to abandon the assumption that they are in WP:GOOD FAITH.  And unless action is taken against them, and against their administrative construct at WP:FRINGE, to prevent this from re-occurring, Wikipedia as a whole is evidently biased and unfair, and we all lose reliability. Jaredscribe (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * As you can see from the article, the primary source of the declaration is nowhere to be found, and as you can see from the article history, it has been repeatedly deleted from the article by the POV pushers who consider themselves "mainstream". Moreover, there are no citations from newspapers or journals of record in the 33 signatory countries, merely from the "mainstream press" of two countries who are not signatories, and are therefore partisan to this dispute.  Not neutral.  And in the context of ethical reasoning, these press are not even generally reliable, unless you remain persuaded of the The White Man's Burden and the inherent goodness of neo-liberal capitalism.  I am not so persuaded.  But even if I were, to assume that as a universally held belief by all reliable sources worth mentioning, would compound the moral error with epistemic error.  Thus in either case, this is article is NOT WP:NEUTRAL.


 * Both the article and the (concealed) discussion of it at WP:FRINGE noticeboard, refused to even contemplate the dilemmas of women in ethnic minorities, or lower caste or class, who may be pressured or forced into abortions, and how that affects discussion of women's rights. Something that most white middle class anglo-american women and their institutional allies, who dominate the discussion of what gets defined as "mainstream" on this topic, don't face. Or women who want to get married and have children, but don't have the social or economic power to do so.  Is the "right to a husband" an inalienable right that governments can guarantee?  If so, why don't they guarantee it?  And if not, why not?  Apparently, not everything that is "good" for humanity can be guaranteed by governments as a right - whether an abortion if you believe that to be good, nor a husband if you feel that to be better.  This is precisely the moral and political reasoning of the Commission_on_Unalienable_Rights, which has far more intellectual pedigree than these editors are aware.  I'm not necessarily in agreement, but the matter should fairly represented and analyzed.  For all these reasons and more, once again, this is article is not only NOT WP:NEUTRAL, its not even WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC  Jaredscribe (talk)


 * I will add the tag again, challenging neutrality, which the editors mentioned removed. It should stay until the concerns are addressed.  And I advise administrators furthermore that for a lack of WP:CIVILITY that I consider egregious, combined with WP:TENDENTIOUS incompetence and refusal to research WP:RS from the global south, or from the Anglo-American conservative press, or to allow primary sources, or to allow my challenge tag, they should be banned from undoing, deleting or rollback on this and related articles.  At least, if not from editing them completely.  Anyone can research the local medias of the signatory nations, and until then, the primary source should remain in the article, regardless of anyone's political or ethical beliefs about the goodness or badness of abortion or of this document as it addresses the matter.  And until then, the challenge tag remains.  Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Text and Analysis
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 Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers Jaredscribe (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Section 1 § Human rights of women are inalienable
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”;

Article issues
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)
 * Since Wikipedia articles are written from the point of view of independent reliable sources, you'd have to propose such that contradict those. — Paleo  Neonate  – 03:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)