Talk:Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Transferred text:[edit]


The World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry, one of the organizations involved in the official consultative process that developed the convention, has produced a user-friendly guide to implementation, with particular attention to its relevance for people with psychosocial disabilities (see mental disorder).[1]

I'm not sure that this is really appropriate for an encyclopedia, and where it is, it should be integrated into the detailed explanation of convention provisions. --IdiotSavant (talk) 02:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify further what you're not sure of? I appreciate it could be used to further explain some of the provisions as they relate to psychosocial disability, but at the same time it exists as a guide to implementation of this convention which is the subject of this article, produced by an organization that contributed to the development and wording of this convention, which is the subject of this article. It was in no way meant as "link spam", which seems an innacurate term not assuming good faith - did you notice the link is to a third party site describing the work, via a third party disability rights newsletter? There's other guides that could be added to that section produced by disability rights organizations, would trying to cover them be spam?[2] EverSince (talk) 11:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC) i.e. I can see why you saw it how you did, but the "link" was a citation (that I would have put in ref tags but didn't have the time just then) supporting the statement. EverSince (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the relevance of WikiProject Barack Obama?[edit]

Obama isn't mentioned at all anywhere in the article. The convention doesn't seem to have much to do with him at all. Roger (talk) 08:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


The map has not been updated since September 2010 thus it does not display any changes in the signatories or parties since then. Unfortunately my wiki-cartography skills are nonexistent. Can someone who knows how, please update the map. Roger (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The map needs to be updated again. Roger (talk) 12:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I suggest to convert to an svg-file, which is much easier to update in a text editor for nitwits like me. Shall I give it a try? L.tak (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
There is actually a specialist mapmaking project here that has the proper tools to do the updating - I know nothing about how it's done. Roger (talk) 14:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
The point is, that when you use the svg files, you (and I) can do it yourself; extremely easily. I asked the mapmakers a lot; and they have often helped out; but it feels as a burden to ask to often. If you save for example the svg file of the File:Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child.svg I just made in your text editor (click on the file, then follow the link to commons, then right click on the image); and then open it in textedit, you'll find a section near the top like this:

.dz, .ar, .au, .at, .az, .be, .br, .bn, .bg, .ca, .cn, .co, .km, .ci, .hr, .cu, .cy, .fr, .ga, .gm, .de, .gr, .hn, .hu, .is, .id, .ir, .it, .jp, .lt, .lu, .my, .ml, .mt, .mh, .mr, .mx, .fm, .mc, .ma, .nr, .ng, .no, .pk, .ph, .pl, .pt, .md, .ro, .ru, .sm, .sn, .es, .se, .tg, .tn, .ua, .gb, .vn, .zm, .zw, .af, .al, .bd, .by, .bj, .bo, .bf, .cm, .cf, .cl, .ck, .cr, .cz, .cd, .dk, .gl, .ec, .sv, .gq, .ee, .et, .fj, .fi, .ge, .gh, .gt, .gn, .gw, .ht, .va, .in, .ie, .kz, .mw, .mu, .mn, .na, .nl, .nz, .ne, .pg, .py, .pe, .kr, .ws, .sg, .sk, .si, .za, .lk, .ch, .tj, .th, .tr, .ug, .ve, .bi, .kh, .cv, .cg, .ke, .lr, .mg, .sc, .sl, .uy, .np, .sa, .kw, .qa, .om, .om, .ae, .ye, .kg, .bh, .ni, .am, .lc, .lv, .la, .rw, .pa, .li, .dm, .vc, .sz, .dj, .mv, .gy, .tm, .tz, .kn, .td, .ls, .uz, .ba, .gd, .jm, .bt, .sr, .do, .cw, .aw, .sx, .bs, .ad, .ag, .bb, .bz, .bw, .er, .jo, .ki, .ly, .me, .mz, .nu, .pw, .st, .rs, .sb, .sd, .mk, .tl, .to, .tt, .tv, .vu, .iq, .lb,.nc, .il, .mm, .ao, .kp, .eg, .sy

{ opacity: 1; fill: #00aa00; }

/* Signed only states */

.us, .so

{ opacity: 1; fill: #926ec6; }

/* Non-signatory states */


{ opacity: 1; fill: #ff9911; }

Now, by changing the locations of the country codes, you can change an party from signatory to party etcetc... I just learned 6 months ago, and it works great! L.tak (talk) 17:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 Done Feel free to point out any mistakes. I decided not to colour the European Union as it requires two new colours: (EU-country that ratified; EU country that did not ratify). Can be done easily though... L.tak (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)!

Non-state parties signatories[edit]

What exactly are "non-state parties signatories"? I understand that "state parties signatories" are countries that have officially accepted this convention but "non-state parties signatories" has me baffled. Roger (talk) 09:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Link error?[edit]

The link to the Beijing-Declaration of 2000 leads to Fourth World Conference on Women of 1995.--FreedomSarah (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It's obviously wrong so I took it out. Roger (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing mentioned about this Worthy declaration and the United States?[edit]

Why isn't there anything mentioned about how the Tea Party has blocked this bill? One wonders if the Tea Party blocked it because they are worried that the Disabled will receive too many rights? Magnum Serpentine (talk) 05:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Signatories and Parties mismatch[edit]

The latest update has introduced a paradox, according to this article there are 160 signatories and 161 parties, but this is impossible. All parties are also signatories, but signatories are not neccessarily also parties. This is because a signatory becomes a party when it ratifies the treaty. Ratification is the step that comes after signing, it cannot happen before. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The solution for the paradox is the "accession", becoming a party through delivering an instrument of accession, which has the same legal effect -well generally, not with most HCCH treaties- as signature&ratification... Often done because signature period is only one year or so. See also here --L.tak (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)