Talk:Civil rights history
Have you read the pages on Neutral Point of View (NPV) yet? I can understand your wanting to be positive in your approach toward this topic, but, if I may suggest, you may want to present a more balanced and less strident viewpoint. F. Lee Horn
- True, but not even worth thinking about until we get a few more paragraphs full of historical events and figures in here. There just isn't much here yet to be NPOV about! I've added a bare-bones outline and a few links to imporant figures. Let's try to flesh out this outline, and begin to fill in some information. Hopefully, soon someone with some real knowledge of this topic will come by and add some real detail. RK
I don't think that "equal rights" for homosexuals is part of civil rights history. Giving what i feel is immorality the same legal standing as morality isn't a matter of civil rights, that's merely what gay rights advocates would like us to think. The wikipedia isn't supposed to buy into any particular philisophy; that wouldn't be NPOV. You might say, however, that gay rights activists have portrayed their struggle as ..., etc. What's next, equal rights for pedophiles? "Hey, her mom said it was okay, isn't that right, Lolita?" --User:Ed Poor
As with all groups, there's generally a spectrum, from those who want just a little reform to those who want everything re-ordered with them on top. Extremes are generally not representative of the movement, though; that's why they're called extreme. Certainly many homosexuals have been compaigning just for civil rights: non-discrimination and equal treatment under law. That certainly deserves inclusion under the civil rights history. As for the crack about pedophiles, society has defined children as a specially protected segment of society not capable of being consenting partners to sexual acts. No such persons are involved in the homosexual relationships being discussed. By analogy, one can't say that "whoever heard of freedom of political speech? Next they'll be advocating freedom of announcing State secrets to everyone." I think that's known as the "slippery slope" logical fallacy... -- April
Ed, don't be disingenuous. It's offensive. YOu know how it got put in, because it's in the history. Why was it put in?
- There is a viable gay, lesbian, and bisexual rights movement in this country and in many other countires. They exist, and their existence can't be legitimately denied.
- The rights that these people are fighting for are rights from the state, i.e., civil, rights. These rights include equal status under the law in all areas regulated by law.
To me, this says that gays should be included as a group belonging to an overall history of the civil rights movements.
Then why doesn't someone put it in?
Start a discussion about improving the Civil rights history page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "Civil rights history" page.
