Talk:Special rights/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

sexual and other minorities

This document (particularly p. 20) provides an example of "special rights" in the context of general hate crime legislation protecting a number of different minorites (including religious minorities!). It is not POV to point out that gays and lesbians are minorities--unless you have statistics that would cast doubt on this conclusion. It does not imply that they are racial minorities. It is surprising to me how frequently the term "special rights" is only used for sexual minorities and not for protections for other minorities, but this is reflected in the phrase "particularly...".--Bhuck 11:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe the term "sexual minority" is commonly used, except perhaps when referring to be female, which is actually literally incorrect as it appears, for various reasons, that there are more females than males worldwide. [1][2] Using the term "minority" to describe the GLBT community is introducing a POV by placing them in the same phraseology as ethnic rights, etc. Also, can you cite some authoritative uses of special rights in a sense other than referring to homosexual/gay rights? DavidBailey 23:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, sexual minority is used more often than I realized. I concede on this point. However, I am still concerned that "special rights" are used overwhelmingly to discuss rights related to GLBT rights and not other minority groups. DavidBailey 23:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, it was surprising to me how often the term "special rights" appears only in relation to sexual minorities and not to other (ethnic or religious) minorities. It does, however, appear occasionally--I think this was the reason that another editor added the "see also" link to affirmative action, for example. And I would think that the document I cited above (I think it was from the US Dept. of Justice?) is a fairly "authoritative use". As for why there would be a statistical skew that rights for sexual minorities would be more frequently perceived as being "special" than similar rights for other minorities...one can only speculate--but such speculation might be POV.--Bhuck 10:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem is, the article, and especially the opening paragraph, doesn't make sense. Social conservatives use the term special rights in specific reference to homosexual/gay rights. I'm going to edit it back the way it was until we can come up with something better. DavidBailey 01:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Moved from article to discussion page.

Special rights is a political term used primarily by social conservatives in the United States to refer to laws that extend rights to minority groups. While it is occasionally used to describe affirmative action or hate crime legislation with regard to ethnic or religious minorities, the overwhelming majority of usage of this term is in regard to sexual minorities (e.g. prohibitions of discrimination based on sexual orientation, same sex marriage, etc.) Gay rights advocates contend that such protections confer no "special" rights, and describe these laws instead as protecting equal rights. The differing vocabulary (some might say rhetoric, though these views are often deeply held) thus mirrors the political disagreement.

Bhuck, please include some examples of how this use is so common that it belongs in the opening paragraph. Every search I do shows this term in reference to homosexual rights/activism. Please discuss before re-performing the edit. Also, the article will need significant rewriting to make sense. Right now, the entire article is oriented, including the quotes, around the idea that "Special rights is a political term used primarily by social conservatives in the United States to refer to laws that extend rights to minority groups." DavidBailey 17:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

David, I read this the first time, and I didn't see anty sort of consensus in support of removing mention of minorities other than homosexuals. On the contrary, there is mention above of reliable sources for the term extending further than sexual orientation. Al 23:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

And I still don't. Please do not revert without discussion. Al 18:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be consensus for every edit. You are introducing a view that I have not seen used. Please cite authoritative sources for this perspective before introducing it into the article. DavidBailey 01:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Al 05:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Al's right on this, David. I did a Google search on "special rights"; the first thing that comes up is this article; of course a large majority of them are about sexual orientation, but on the very first page of results we get Doomed by Special Rights, an article from the Mises institute discussing the effects of granting the disabled "special rights". We also find "Illegals want Special Rights, not Civil Rights"; Daniel Pipes talks about no special rights for Muslims. That's just some picks from the first 50 of the million and a half uses of the phrase. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the question is more appropriately phrased by addressing the issue of "Who is a social conservative?" and "If social conservatives are only concerned about not extending rights to homosexuals, what do we call the conservatives who don't want to extend rights to the disabled or to ethnic minorities?" I would have thought that such people would also be called social conservatives, but when I read the article Social conservatism, I see that that article defines the term differently. We could solve this problem in one of two ways--we could either edit the social conservatism article to expand the definition of social conservatism, or we could include other conservatives in this article's description of who uses the term. I think the former is the more correct approach, but the second is probably easier. Or we could decide that such quibbling over semantics is not worth the effort at all and just leave it as it is.--Bhuck 07:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

In this regard I note that it was David Bailey who modified the term "conservatives" to "social conservatives" in the first place, less than a month ago, in his first edit to this article.--Bhuck 07:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It is misleading and mis-stating to infer that all conservatives wish a particular social agenda, which is why I changed it to social conservatives. After all, there are many other kinds, such as fiscal conservatives or conservatives that believe in the limits of governmental power. The entire article was written as a discussion and contrast of social conservative principles. DavidBailey 03:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It might be more accurate to say "conservatives and libertarians", as both are known for characterizing demands for equality as "special rights". Al 15:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Bhuck and Alienus, if you feel this article needs to reflect a more general view on special rights than the debate between social conservatives and homosexuals, then this article needs to be split into sections and written to distinguish between the different arguments. Currently, it is written specifically around the issues related to rights for homosexuals, and frankly reads very strangely when you start to drop in additional views into the paragraphs. I'm reverting until a complete rewrite is done. I don't have time for it myself. Regards. DavidBailey 20:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That was entirely premature. The lead has to give an overview, and this includes the fact that the term has been applied outside of its main meaning. Al 21:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Aside from which, I'm not sure we have a consensus on what the "main" meaning is. I think the main meaning is more the libertarian usage, and the social conservative usage is just much more common, even though it is only one aspect of the more general term.--Bhuck 13:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

In this particular case, you really can't argue that "special rights" is not overwhelmingly used to refer to rights specifically targeted to homosexuals. Saying it isn't the "main" use doesn't make sense. Claiming that the libertarian use the main use is POV. Although other uses exist, they are quite rare. Frankly, I don't care whether the other uses are in the article or not, but to just drop them in without rewriting sections of the article makes it very awkward. The whole article is written from the perspective that it is the social conservative term use being referred to. DavidBailey 23:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Why can this not be argued? I am normally considered a social conservative (though more libertatian), and I use the term often, and primarily in regard to rights conferred to ethnic minorities. I absolutely deny the claim that the "overwhelming" majority of use is regarding gays -- I am not even convinced it is the majority at all, except in the last couple of years, but that's only because gay rights has been a much bigger issue in the U.S. since Lawrence v. Texas, and hardly justifies the blanket statement based on less than three years since then -- and the corresponding obviously false claim that "social conservatives ... only" use it to refer to gays.

What really bothers me though is the implication that these are NOT accurately called "special rights." In fact, they are, and there's no reasonable debate about it. You can fire someone for being ugly or fat, but not for being black or female. How is that not a special right? If it were about equal rights, I'd be able to fire you for your skin color, as I can fire you for pretty much any other reason. I don't oppose the special rights conferred on people for their skin color or gender, as I think they are at least temporarily necessary due to widespread and pervasive societal wrongs, but I see no justification for arguing the rights are not "special." Pudge 18:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Understand what I am saying. I am happy to include all points of view in this article. I'm just saying the article should start with the most common usage, and then have separate sections for the other uses. I think the Libertarian view is valid and should be included. DavidBailey 00:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

But I am questioning whether that IS the most common usage. Even if it is the most common usage right now -- which I am not convinced of entirely, but am willing to stipulate for the sake of argument -- my contention is that this is a very temporary situation caused by recent political activity, and such a blanket statement of predominance is not warranted; perhaps if somehow the phrasing were specifically temporal, such as "in recent years, with the rise of importance of the issue of homosexual rights, the majority of the usage has become related to homosexual rights." This term is not new, and predates the prevalence of this issue by decades. Further, the term "overwhelming majority" does not appear to me to be warranted at all, and saying "social conservatives ... only" use it to refer to gays is patently false, as I am proof positive of. If nothing else, please do correct this glaring error. Pudge 15:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"Main" can also be regarded in the sense of historical-etymological development and not just in the sense of frequency-of-use. I would prefer that the order of discussion be from most general to most specific (in terms of what the term encompasses). For the time being, I will not make an edit to reflect this preference, in order to give you and others a chance to respond to this argument. In the version that I prefer, it is not true that the "whole article is written from the perspective that it is the social conservative term use being referred to"--instead, the social conservative use is discussed in the social conservative section, whereas more general uses of the term are discussed outside that section.--Bhuck 13:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Which wouldn't seem like a problem except that the social conservative section is the only sub-section in the article. Therefore you are taking the historical/general view and using it at the top of the article, and moving the most common uses to the bottom of the article via a sub-section. Wikipedia articles should offer the most relevant information at the beginning, then branch into more in-depth discussion of the various other parts of the topic. You have basically turned this on its head. DavidBailey 03:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Splitting different views into different sections

Alienus and Bhuck, rather than continuing to revert my edits, I'd like to understand why it is so important to you that this article, which describes a term overwhelmingly used by social conservatives to describe the efforts of gay activists to legally expand rights for gays, cannot be left explaining this without you introducing other relatively rare and unrelated views into the summary paragraph instead of further down in the article, and in changing the wording to the extent that the article becomes vague and easily misunderstood? DavidBailey 11:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• You really think the version you keep reverting makes the article vague? In what way? Easily misunderstood? To whom? Discussion on Wikipedia does not mean "I get it my way regardless of how many people disagree with me." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It also does not mean that someone trying to improve an article should be reverted if three people disagree with him. Shall I bring some people of like mind to into the discussion to outnumber you? The number of editors doesn't matter. The viewpoints, clarity, and quality of the editing and text does. DavidBailey 01:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. But Wikipedia is a work made by consensus, not by individuals. Tell you what -- I'll enter an request for comments to get some more eyes here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Oh, and a note to everyone here -- it takes two to edit war. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, and have myself mediated many such disputes such as in Michael Jackson. But you should understand that Bhuck and Alienus have taken it upon themselves to cruise through nearly every article I work on and specifically oppose me and any others with similar opinions. They both proffer a very strong gay perspective and call it NPOV wording. The terms and perspective they use are all from the gay rights perspective. When articles offer an even remote obstacle to their opinions, they rewrite them to fit their viewpoint. Often, if an article discusses items politically related to homosexuality, they will introducing edits that distract from the main topic or discredit those who hold an opposing view to gay rights activists. An example of this kind of abuse for Bhuck is nuclear family. An example of this abuse with Alienus is homosexual agenda. When I try to contribute, I am nearly always reverted, not edited. After reverting me, even if I have established a consensus with the editors that have been working on the article, Alienus changes it to match his perspective, and when I revert him, he claims that I am edit warring with him. I find dealing with someone who choses to ignore WP policies regarding civility and consensus extremely troubling and a great waste of time when I could be researching and adding citations, text, and strengthening articles. DavidBailey 03:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why you consider it "abuse" when I make edits that make clear how terms developed (such as nuclear family, to distinguish from extended family, or here, putting special rights in a more general context and then showing how specific political constellations try to take "ownership" of those terms). If libertarians consider Affirmative Action to be a "special right", but don't spend as much time pushing that term on Internet blogs as social conservatives do, that doesn't mean that including libertarian views on racial issues is promoting gay rights. I am curious to see what effects mediation will have here.--Bhuck 09:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

And indeed, I have not removed it from the article, but simply split it into a different section. If I look up a term, I should find the most common uses discussed first, followed by a historical perspective and then into the more esoteric. It does not make sense that an opening paragraph should discuss relatively obscure perspectives. DavidBailey 03:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)