Talk:International Year of the Child

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations: United Nations Start‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.

No context

This article is meaningless without the historical context of United Nations endeavours to improve the lot of children on the global scale. SJB (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SJB, I've restored the content for now; can you reform it to address the issue of having too much disjointed information here by reworking the content into a narrative rather than a timeline? • Freechild'sup? 13:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Year of the Child, not children's rights in general. There may be a place on Wikipedia for some of the information that has been added to the article, but this isn't it. This article is about 1979 alone. Much happened in that year in regard to the UN proclamation and children's rights; it was a big deal. Please stay on-topic and avoid original research. Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 20:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, context is important for any topic, including this one. Please consider that before reverting the edits I make next time. • Freechild'sup? 00:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did. None of the things you or the other user added were germane to this article, as explained above, and by adding unrelated material to this article, rather than to a more appropriate location, you are indulging in original research. As mentioned above, if you can add more sourced material directly pertaining to the events of 1979, this would be more than welcome. Events of a similar nature in other years are not pertinent. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 07:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the International Year of the child isn't about Children's Rights in general, then what is it about? Please publish any germane material that amounts to a 'big deal' in 1979, since content to date is poor and in dire need of improvement. I tried my best.SJB (talk) 09:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I've transferred this discussion from the User's personal page as indicative of wilful obstruction. SJB (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Year of the Child

The IYOC is a point in the continuum from the Declaration in 1959 to the Milennium Development Declaration and into the present day. This is noted in the second sentence. Without that context, and the subsequent developments listed, the article is confused and meaningless.SJB (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly "confused and meaningless"; it's just a short stub. The article about the year should be about the year itself. The continuum you describe may have a place on Wikipedia, but the place for it would be a broader article such as Children's rights, otherwise we would have concerns reagarding WP:NOR. Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 08:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcome. The IYOC is a result of the 1959 Declaration (and previous devlopments from the turn of the century), as are subsequent developments from MDG to the Declaration of 10 December 2008 as Human Rights Day, commencing the International Year of Human Rights Learning. All citations are in the public domain, there is no original research and nowhere is a POV stated; indeed the Timeline of development allows contextualisation of many otherwise random stubs, including IYOC.

If you care to look at the Children's rights article [1] it's scope is vast and does not accomodate the international political and economic measures for development of the cause.SJB (talk) 09:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a random stub. It's an article about a specific event, and only that event. If you feel you have more to write about the general topic of children's rights, and there isn't a place for it, create a new article (Timeline of United Nations children's rights initiatives, say). This isn't the place for information about events in later or earlier years; again, like all other Wikipedia articles, it's about a single topic, namely the Year of the Child in 1979, about which there is much more that can be said (what happened in that year, what member states did to celebrate it, whose idea it was, etc.). ProhibitOnions ^(T) 07:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please publish the details which would amplify an otherwise poor article about a major Human Rights issue. And no, I don't have an agenda, apart from making the information avaialble.SJB (talk) 09:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you had an agenda. Wikipedia doesn't rely on self-publishing, but only on reliable sources (WP:SOURCE). Again, children's rights may well be a major human rights issue, but an article about a UN initiative is not the place to put general information, nor is it a place to proffer an opinion (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a publisher of original thought). If you have reliable, sourced information (I don't know where you get the idea that sources must be "in the public domain" -- they don't), you can add it to Wikipedia. But it has to be in the appropriate place. If it's about children's rights in general, then it belongs in that article. If it's about the International Year of the Child specifically (such as specific celebrations, initiatives undertaken that year within the aegis of the UN proclamation, postage stamps issued, or similar), it belongs in that article. If it's about something else, and an appropriate article does not exist, create one. Again, you would be well advised to read through the major policies and guidelines, among them Wikipedia:Writing better articles, Wikipedia:How to edit a page, and Wikipedia:Your first article. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 11:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify which references you consider to be 'a soapbox', indiscriminate information, or orginal thought. Please also publish the missing information. SJB (talk) 11:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 11:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion. The article remains of poor quality. Pity really.SJB (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a positive intervention on my Timeline. Pity you couldn't be more positive about IYOC. SJB (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! Look, if you don't think there's enough in that article, why don't you add more pertinent information. Google "international year of the child" 1979 -- you'll find plenty about things that went on that year, along with directly relevant background information, such as the decision to declare the IYOC, made by the UN in December 1976, and directly relevant legacy material, such as a follow-up conference specifically dedicated to the 10th anniversary of the declaration. I haven't had time to add this stuff, but it's not hard to find. Again, if you stay on-topic, that's fine; broader subject matter belongs in another article, which is what links are for. There are three million articles on en.wikipedia, so specificity is essential. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 19:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must reiterate the point that the IYOC article is meaningless without the historical context of UN endeavours to improve the lot of children on the global scale. I tried to do so, but you are unwilling to accept what is an eminently reasonable premise. Accordingly, the fact that a rock concert took place is apparently the only 'Big Deal' information from your particular, specific perspective. Trivia, from mine and in terms of what IYOC sought to achieve. As previously indicated, a considerable number of the 3 million articles on en.wikipedia are otherwise randon stubs without the contextualisation of the global children's rights movement, of which IYOC was one element. SJB (talk) 10:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior

ProhibitOnions, please do not be combative and disruptive in your editing. All articles are works-in-progress, and your reversion of the edits I have made, coupled with the deletion of more than half of the article's content, is nothing more than brutally ignorance of the time, energy and labor others have contributed to this article. Please refrain from such behavior in the future, and do a favor to frequent and significant editors to articles by discussing major edits to the article on the relevant talk page. If you intend to continuing acting in an abrupt, disregarding and non-collaborative fashion with respect towards this article I will ask now that we enter into mediation in order to resolve our differences of approach. Your actions in response to my coming edits will demonstrate your response. • Freechild'sup? 00:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be WP:CIVIL - your comments above are a clear personal attack. I have explained my edits, politely, on the talk page. A new user has added totally irrelevant material to that article; I removed it, and suggested it be placed in a more appropriate location. There was little or nothing added to the article about its actual topic. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a soapbox, and claiming events that happened in 1989 have a place in an article about 1979 is original research; I am surprised that you, as a more experienced editor, are defending this, although your username suggests you have an agenda in this area. As far as major edits go, it was I who created the article in the first place. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 07:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]