Talk:Human security

message: This is a good start, but the fundamental flaw in all of these sections is that there is not enough information on how these sections relate to the Human Security agenda.  Remember, this is an article on Human Security.  People reading it want to understand more about what Human Security means and how it is practiced.  Those who want to read about terrorism, arms control, global warming, HIV/AIDS, etc can go directly to those Wikipedia articles to do so.   For example, backgound information about specific threats (eg Global Warming or disease) should be included in the respective threat articles themselves (assuming this information is not already a part of these articles).  What readers of the Human Security article want to know is how human security purports to deal with these threats and why human security provides a better alternative to what is already being done. (if you don't think it does, then perhaps the relelvant section could be moved to the "criticisms" part of the article.)
Also, be careful of using phrases such as "human security proponents argue that...." unless you have specific reference citations about whom you are talking.  A safer way to phrase such sentences might be to say something like ...  "In contrast to a more traditional security mindset, the human security school of thought highlights ..."  Overall this article needs to be much more attentive to the diversity of opinions which characterize the human security school and how it should be practiced.  Keep up the good editing!
--LMCinHK 11:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that editors have made their initial contributions to the "human security" practice section of the article, it is time to get down to some serious editing.... as mentioned, much stronger links need to be made demonstrating what these sections have to do with human security.  It is not enough to just mention that these issues demonstrate human security principles in practice, you need to show how.  All of you have made a good start, but you need to focus on explaining to the readers why these case studies represent good examples of human security in practice.  Also, as mentioned, much of this information in this section could be moved to other articles. Looking forward to reading more and keep up the good editing. --LMCinHK 00:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fundamental Flaws

message: As you may have noticed, this article has already exceeded the recommended Wikipedia article size.  Its not something we should worry about right now since we are still working out the content of this article and how best to organize this content, but it is important as a reminder to keep your contributions brief and to the point ... The quality not the quantity of your contribution is what is important here.  --LMCinHK 14:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Size

message: I made some major edits to the terrorism section, by moving chunks of this section to the terrorism article itself.  --LMCinHK 15:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terrorism

message: Hi there Chun - good work on your article - i only made some minor changes to some sentences - hope you find them ok
Cheers Charlene
(Pangaea42 10:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Development

message: I moved my description of the R2P report to the first paragraph of the “Responsibility to protect” article and focused more importance of R2P on HS - on the advice of LMCinHK – thanks. I hope the first paragraph is a bit more readable for you guys now too; dont i just love my long sentences
Cheers
Charlene
(Pangaea42 12:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work Jaime, but it is too lengthy and neds to be sharpened.  Also, since this is the opening section of the practice part of the article, it is important that the reader understands what the practice of human security entails.  For example, do supporters of R2P feel they are practicing human security? Maybe a few, but for most, no.  So why are we talking about human security practice here?  why is r2p an example of human security in action? --LMCinHK (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I have edited the section on East Timor to shorten it and referred onwards to the East Timor page. Following Lucy's suggestion i have made R2P more prominent in my section. - J Jmd33 (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Humanitarian Intervention

message: I deleted sections on H5N1, HIV/AIDS, and implementation difficulties because I didn't find these sections directly relevant to the topic of human security.  That said, if others disagree they can certainly reinstate these sections with perhaps further explanations of their relavance to the human security approach. Best, --LMCinHK 23:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to suggest shortening the comparison of the traditional and human security approach to infectious disease to one paragraph, since this seems being a duplication of the very first part of our human security article.  Would anyone comment on my idea?  Best, Leekalee 16:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I missed this question earlier.  I would move the comparison up to the concept part of the article as a way to illustarte the general points in the table.  By all means, shorten it!! Thanks.  LMCinHK 05:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infectious disease

message: I did some minor changes to the global warming section and tried to clarify the ideas a bit. There might still be some irrelevant materials and I'll try to clean it up. Blink25 12:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep up the good work!  I would take out more of the background information about the impact of global warming and limit the article to the link between climate change and human security.  The IPCC assessment reports could be linked in as well to demonstrate the disproportionate effect of global warming on poorer communities. While you're at it, you could also add a few sentences to the other relevant wikipedia global warming articles on the impact of global warming on individual security -- LMCinHK 03:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Warming 

message: Just to get started, I'm going to clean up the intro a bit.  Currently it states that Human Security is in opposition to traditional security, which I'm removing because later in the article it is stated that the two are complementary.  Also, the focus on the individual rather than the state is repeated twice in the same paragraph.
Sarawickert 17:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done.  LMCinHK 01:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: I've made some changes in the Relationship with traditional security part.
There were parts that seemed to be repeating the same things: especially with the text and the table. Also, the table seemed to be very biased and from an unfair way of writing so i've tried to improve that a bit.  How do you guys like the new table?
I'm also thinking about deleting the last paragraph about the 'cycle of mutual distrust' because I cant really think that it is relevent enough to the article of 'Human Security' itself nor the 'Relationship' to take up so much space.  Can you give me some opinions on this?
I also think the "actor(s)" part in this section is not quite what we're looking for... I'll have to change that soon, but I'm really not quite sure how it should be rounded up.  would be thankful if you all can help!
Aki s50 19:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the formating of the table but the content still needs work.  It is too vague to really explain the fundamental differences between the two approaches.  I have cleaned it up a bit, but it still needs work.  LMCinHK 06:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Kenny, you have made a good start, but this section needs more work.  1) It needs to start with a sentence that describes the relationship between human and traditional security, not simply with a definition of traditional security. 2) it is too long and wordy. Think about inserting some of your key ideas into the table then deleting the rest. 3) your writing is not objective enough, especially when you talk about the importance of the state.  Readers do not want to read Kenny's opinion, they want to read about the scholarly/policy consensus on the issue. Tone it down and be sure to cite references to validate your position.--LMCinHK (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: LMC -- I have added certain citations.  For the part of state security, actually i am extracting from chapter 1 of the report which is not my own thought.  Would this be more objective?  Though you mentioned this part being too wordy, I do not figure out how to tailor this passage.  Feel free to correct my words and give any advice to me. Tokenny (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have cut three paragraphs out of these section because I found them to be too long and not directly related to understanding human security.  That said, there still needs to be one or two sentences that describe how national and human security are complimentary and one or two sentence that describe when and how their respective objectives may clash. --LMCinHK (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship with traditional security 

message: I have made some significant edits to the overall structure of the article which I think provide it with a better balance.  That said, some of the writing remains incomprehensible, with arguments that are poorly defended or made without clear links to the concept of human security.  Go back and review your contributions to insure that they don't fall into that category. LMCinHK 03:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to Clean-Up

message: :Image:ICISSr2p.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 08:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:ICISSr2p.png

message: It was suggested, without elaboration, that the security of person page be merged with the human security page. I disagree.
According to Wikipedia guidelines, pages should be merged if they duplicate, overlap, one could be considered a subsection of the other, or one provides context/background for the other (thanks Alice). None of these conditions have been met in this case.  Security of persons, as far as I can tell, refers to a specific human right codified in various national constitutions.  Human security is an emerging paradigm for thinking about global politics.  While these phrases share similar language, as security of persons is based on human rights law, I would think it should be merged into that article/group of articles. As it stands, it is not directly relevant to the human security article.
This discussion does beg the question about how human security and human rights are related.  It makes sense that the human security article include a short section on the relationship between human security and human rights. It would go along way towards helping people understand human security and how it is different from human rights. --LMCinHK (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your discussion of the Security of Person page LMC. I have added a section on the relationship between human security and human rights, to try and succinctly explain the differences and similarities between the two concepts. Aleppitt (talk) 04:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Security of Persons Merger / Relationship with Human Rights

message: I have radically edited this section as I felt that it did not clearly demonstrate the links between gender and human security. To demonstrate the links i have discussed: the neglect of gender under traditional security; how human security, through it's focus on the individual, seeks to address this; how women are often the worst victims of security threats; and, how human security seeks to protect and empower women so global peace and security can be achieved.
I have left out specific examples as this is under the 'concept' section of the human security page. However, I would strongly advise the addition of some women's security examples in the 'practice' section. For instance: under 'humanitarian intervention', a discussion of rape as a form of political violence (i.e. in Sierra Leone or the Democratic Republic of Congo) could be included; and under 'infectious disease', a discussion of how HIV/AIDS effects women more than men could be included. Aleppitt (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a section in the terrorism part on the role of women in fighting terrorism. I would be happy to add examples if you happen to have one in mind.  Jenicheung (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender and human security 

message: I have edited the two sub-sections but retained the introductory paragraph of the article since it pointed out succinctly the reason for the rise of the two schools and their main difference. I have made two major editing on the Freedom from Fear section as I think it's necessary to let the wikipedia users know that the school does concede on the close links of violent threats with other areas of threats. Also, I included "the responsibility to protect" doctrine in light of the Darfur conflicts to bring out a reflection about the effectiveness of the school.
For the Freedom from Want school, I have deleted the example of Japan since it is debateable whether Japanese foreign policies truly reflect the adoption of this school's agenda. On the other hand, I added a concluding paragraph pointing out the relationship between the two schools in reality, for instance, the Japanese government's claim in adopting both schools and the UNDP1994 's calling for attention to both schools.
I've refrained from probing into real-life applications, such as the adoption of R2P by various states since they will be discussed in the practice section and it will make the whole piece of article more coherent and less repetitive.Hui ning425 (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Freedom from Fear vs Freedom from Want

message: I have added two points on "What constitutes a security threat" and "How to prioritize security threats" in this part. I think it is necessary for wikipedia users to know under human security concept, there is still yet a clear guideline on in what circumstances social issues like human rights abuse should be securitized and treated as security threat. Also on prioritization, with so many security threats included under human security paradigm, yet it is very hard to deal with all issues at one time, lack of principles on how to prioritize these threats makes the concept vague and without a focus.Anniewcm (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms:Ambiguity of concept

message: I have now changed the section of AP landmines into one of Global disarmament.First I briefly talk about the issue, and its relation to Human Security. In the next para, I go on to give examples of some of the past efforts that have been made in this area.
Then there is a whole subsection relating to AP landmines in particular. In the first para, I differentiate between the traditional and human security views on AP landmines. Then I move on to the Ottawa Convention and its success in terms of Human Security. Then the next para points out the criticisms of the treaty.--Tisha87 (talk) 04:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: AP landmines

message: I have re-write the previous Prevention session into Prevention and Rebuilding to better illustrate the Human Security model's view on a broader scope of security from conflicts prevention (root cause & direct measures) to post-intervention rebuilding efforts. The sub-sections illustrate the background and possible approaches of Prevention and Rebuidling. Examples are also given. They are not as detailed as the previous version of Prevention as to keep this section sticks to a conceptual introduction instead of providing practicing examples. Difficulties of pursuing prevention and rebuilding measures are suggested. Mujitang (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prevention and Rebuilding 

message: The original version only sets out two points on contravention of state sovereignty and doubts on the use of human security as to tool to legitimize unwarranted interventions very briefly.
I have elaborated on the distrust of critics and expanded it to include the new Marxists insight of foster dependency of LDCs to continue with an exploitative relationship by the developed countries as well as an excuse to wage wars. Also, I have added in more examples in regard to China's human rights issue and the Iraqi War.
I have introduced new points on the fear on ineffectiveness of the human security paradigm due to the lukewarn response of states and  a lack of political will particularly in view of the new rise of terrorism.
Finally, I have restructured the article so that it starts by introducing the conflicts between the traditional view of state sovereignty and human security. Then I proceed to talk about the doubts on human security's vulnerability to unconscionable use by countries to extend their national interest. Finally, I discuss the effectiveness of human security due to the lack of political will. (Eugenia Chan)
(New edits on 30 April 2008)
I have also added in new subheadings to make it more comprehensive as our ariticlemainly comprises of two points i.e. the distrust of human security as tool of those developed countries and its political infeasibility. (Eugenia Chan)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanyingtung (talk • contribs) 05:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticism: state sovereignty 

message: This section was too brief that it only mentioned the potential problem with human security, that is the possibility of being abused by superpowers as an excuse to invade other countries.  This seems not adequate so my colleague Eugenia and I decided to expand this section to enhance its readability.
I have made some new points on the applicability of human security on the issue of terrorism, explaining and comparing the strategies employed by the traditional security advocates and human security advocates.
My colleague Eugenia has elaborated the conflicts of implementing state sovereignty and human security ideas, by referring to the example of R2P (responsibility to protect), etc.  She also introduced ideas from Marxists to illustrate the theory of "fostering dependency" by superpowers on weaker countries.
I hope our edits will bring new perspectives to readers.
--Ivankennon (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticism: state sovereignty (2) 

message: Slight change in this part- adding links of natural law and natural rights to help the understanding of original ideas of human rights and human security. And during quick reading, I found some authors seem to make a distinction between HR and HS by defining HR maintaining luck egalitarianism; while HS has a threshold to give every human being the equal condition to fulfill their basic needs. It is added in too.
Vivi88 (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship with HR 

message: Though the two schools of human security categorized in UNDP 1994 report are most popular approaches for now, many scholars are still working for a more consistant and concrete interpretation of human security. In another word, human security is an idea still developing. So I did some quick reading to gather some different ideas and approaches after 1994. Basically they all try to find more concrete "value", "want", "need" through different approaches.
Vivi88 (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent idea.  There are in fact a growing number of ideas floating around about how to best practice human security. Your additions to this section provide an important start to reporting on this expanded conceptual discussion.  I have tried to clean it up a bit, but will look forward to seeing this important section clarified. --LMCinHK (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other General Approaches Related （Under FFF and FFW) 

message: In such a net style encyclopedia, the entry of "human security" should not be isolated. In Team 4 discussion, we found a "see also" section was lacked here. So we spent a lot time checking those relevant entries. Some most relavant ones are added now; still more to be done.
Vivi88 (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: I have deleted the "wikiproject human rights" association for this article and would request that Wikipedians who would like to classify human security as a subset of "human rights" explain their rationale for doing so.  While human security has its roots in human rights principles (and many would argue that it remains in this tradition), human security could also be said to have emerged in response to the perceived failure of "human rights," so represents a break with the human rights tradition (especially in the legal sense). Either way, the way human security is categorized remains controversial, so requires further discussion.  Look forward to hearing other views on this issue.  --LMCinHK (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject Human Rights 

message: U21/HKU Human security students have ceased to be formally involved in the editing of this article as of June 2008. As the academic adviser to the course, I have deleted large sections of the article which were either overly verbose or had tenuous links to the concept of human security (or both). Needless to say, more editorial work is needed (and could well turn this piece into a "featured article"), but U21/HKU students can be proud of their contributions thus far. Well done to all those students who made thoughtful contributions and I hope you stay involved as Wikipedians. --LMCinHK (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of U21/HKU Human Security Educational Project