Talk:Human rights/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Human right abuse

Human right abuse is an important subject and it isnt exactly covered well here.--Penbat (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Downgrade to C class

Currently this article has major formatting issues, it is FAR too long, and in many places is not coherent, as a consequence I am downgrading it to class C, it could really do with some work! Ajbpearce (talk) 08:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Length

As part of dealing with the article length I am creating a new article on Philosophy of human rights, using the essentially duplicated content on this page and the "history of human rights" page, the page is available in my userspace if anyone else would like to help develop it before I release it Ajbpearce (talk) 09:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Property and Value

this section seems to have no place in this article. nowhere in the body of this section does it ever link back to human rights. While a case can be made that conceptions of property and value effect the social and economic rights that we deem universal, this link is never drawn. Additionally such a link would be unfounded in this article unless a citation was provided. If no one objects I will delete this section in a few days... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.124.87 (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Universalism vs. Cultural Relativism

Cultural relativism is a self-detonating position; if cultural relativism is true, then universalism must also be true. Relativistic arguments also tend to neglect the fact that modern human rights are new to all cultures, dating back no further than the UDHR in 1948. They also don't account for the fact that the UDHR was drafted by people from many different cultures and traditions, including a US Roman Catholic, a Chinese Confucian philosopher, a French zionist and a representative from the Arab League, amongst others, and drew upon advice from thinkers such as Mahatma Gandhi.

This statement most definitely not from a neutral point-of-view, and should perhaps be altered.

enjoymoreradio (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I second this - in fact the whole Universalism vs Cultural Relativism seems to be an argument against Cultural Relativism. It really needs some cleanup but I don't have the background to construct a proper section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.142.7 (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Lede cleanup

I recently made an attempt to clean up the lede. User:Yorkshirian tonight reverted the whole thing but only mentioned disagreement to one part, so I'm coming here to discuss it, in the meanwhile I've reverted back to keep the things not explicitly objected to.

My edit summary said "human rights aren't a concept, rather there are concepts OF human rights; if they're universalist then they're not relativist; nobody calls it the Liberal Enlightenment; etc". Point by point, to elaborate:

• The first is just grammar, and I see mistakes like this all over wikipedia a lot. "Subject is the question about..." or "Subject is the concept of..." or "Subject denotes..." whatever. A human right is just a right that belongs to all humans; there are many different concepts about human rights and plenty of people disagree about what counts as a human right or if there exist any human right at all or if the concept thereof even makes any sense, but the answer to the question "What's a human right?" (a request for definition, as in, "what does it mean for something to be a human right?") is "a right belonging to all humans", or at least something along those lines, not "the concept of..." something. The concept of a human right is that of a right belonging to all humans (or something like that), but the rights themselves, whatever their objects may be or whether they exist at all, are not "a concept".
• The universalist/relativist thing: just because a right is not enjoyed by everyone everywhere does not make it "relativist". To say that someone has a right to something is to make an "ought" claim, not an "is" claim; if there really is a human right to X, then even if nobody anywhere actually has X, they still have a right to it. In other words, saying "everyone has a right to X" does not at all imply "everyone has X", so the negation of the latter can't impugn on the assertion of the former. Even more simply: if human rights really are universal, then they logically cannot be relative, as "universal" and "relative" (in this context at least) are each other's negations: something is universal if and only if it is not relative.
• The last bit is mostly my political troll senses tingling; I've never heard anybody call it the "Liberal Enlightenment", and the way that "Liberal" (especially with a capital L) is bandied about as an insult these days, it makes me very wary to see it there, like someone is trying to impugn the character of the Enlightenment by associating it with those "dirty liberals". Granted, classical liberalism and the Enlightenment have a lot of history together, but that's not my point. I'd like to see a reference to some reputable source calling it the "Liberal Enlightenment". This wariness is heightened by the use of "relativist" in the same edits, as it is often used as an insult by the same people who use "liberal" thusly.
• The rest of my edit was just grammar/organization/misc.

Please discuss. --Pfhorrest (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The current intro is from here here a pretty bold change by User:Yorkshirian that i had missed. I think that it has been improved in some ways but i have merged back in some of my old one where i think it is helpful. though feel free to to revert / improve on it ofc. The main problem is the body of this article is so looooooonngg and disconnected though, the best way to imporve this article would be to merge sections 5 & 6 into a new article, cutting down what is here and merge 7 & 8 into a new article about human rights debates or something, but that is a huge job and I just don't have the time to do it at the moment ;( Ajbpearce (talk) 11:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The concept of "human rights" is specifically in implication legislative (ie - proposing a basis for legal rights, defended in courts) formed by ethical propositions of specific moral systems (pluralism, in which it is proposed that all people regardless of cultural, organisational or ethnic associations should be tolerated, based on the Liberal Enlightenment). This sytem and concept, isn't based on some sort of esoteric mystical automatic reception in the sense as proposed by Pfhorrest (do you have any scientific evidence from peer-reviewed journals to suggest otherwise?), this is gobbledegook. Such a presentation clouds the reality of the system and its real world application, taking the concept out of a grounded application and ethical proposal, transforming into something "all in the ether", in a sort of pretentious post-modern gas-letting which is not readable, comprehendable or mirrored by its application in legal practice (for instance in the legislature of the United Nations). As for the Enlightenment been Liberal and rationalist—this is in the classical sense—just because the term is used as an epithet by some in the United States doesn't change the fact that Locke, Rousseau, etc were classical liberals. - Yorkshirian (talk) 09:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even sure where to begin here... there are so many POVs and so much conflation of concepts implicit in the above.

• You seem to disregard the possibility of natural rights entirely (surprising given your Catholic heritage; Aquinas is one of the most famous supporters of natural law), which is largely the basis of support for human rights (e.g. that people have rights naturally, in virtue of being human, without anyone having to grant them those rights). To flatly deny that is POV and thus not appropriate for wikipedia; we should state what the claim is ("human rights are..."), and then that it is controversial, rather than stating a controversial position (which yours above is) as uncontroversial fact.
• You seem to be confusing pluralism with relativism, and further still, still confusing relativism with universalism, which you haven't addressed above. A relativist claim would say something like "people in China have different rights than people in the United States", which is true in the sense of legal rights, but not in the sense of natural rights which most human rights discourse is about. When someone claims "X is a human right", they mean "all humans everywhere have a (natural) right to X", or in other words "all humans everywhere are (morally) entitled to X". That is the complete opposite of a relativist claim, and doesn't really have much to do with pluralism at all. Pluralism is the claim that there are incommensurable but in some sense equal values; which does not entail relativism. To use a silly example, one could make the universalist claim that "everyone has a right to their favorite flavor of ice cream" without saying anything about what flavor is best, or even saying "also, no flavor is really objectively best", which would be a pluralist claim. Whereas a relativist claim would be something like "Mexicans have a right to vanilla ice cream, where that is the best flavor, but not chocolate; and Brazilians have a right to chocolate ice cream, since that is the best flavor there, but not to vanilla; and people of other places have rights to the flavors which are best there, but none is really better in any objective sense").
• You are still conflating is and ought or facts and values. When someone claims "liberty is a universal human right" they are not claiming "all jurisdictions grant a legal right to liberty to all humans" (which is clearly false); they are saying all humans are morally entitled to liberty (which is debated). This confusion is further evidenced by your request for "scientific evidence": ethics, morality, norms, values, "ought" problems, whatever you would like to call them, are not even within the domain of science; science doesn't even try to answer those kinds of questions; science is only concerned with what is. I'm not claiming anything about any kind of "esoteric mystical" metaphysical facts either; I'm saying that claims of human rights are not assertions of fact at all, but assertions of value, in particular of universal value; they are not claims about what is, but about what ought to be.
• Once again I'm not disputing the association of classical liberalism with the Enlightenment, I'm only questioning the constant conjunction of the terms, and particularly the capital L on "Liberal". The Enlightenment involved a lot of ideas about liberty; and, like you mention, rationality; and also equality; and democracy; and science, and technology... so should we say "the Liberal Rational Egalitarian Democratic Scientific Technological Enlightenment" every time we mention it, or just "the Enlightenment"? Aside from that, liberty is not the defining quality of the Enlightenment as far as it's relation to human rights goes; if anything, equality is. Human rights claims don't always say things about liberty, but they all say that people have equal rights.
• More procedurally, your reverting in the middle of this discussion (especially since the still-emerging consensus does not really seem to agree with your edits, see Ajbpearce's comment above and his edit summary here) is a violation of WP:BRD, and further still, your reverts are undoing a lot more than just what you're edit summaries comment on (undoing undoubtedly valuable minor edits such as this in the process); and in some cases (like this one), your edits seem to have nothing at all to do with your edit summaries.
• Also, on the subject of that last edit... well for one it's "ethical" not "ethnical", but that implication is "automatic" as you put it, since human rights are a kind of right and all rights have something to do with legal or ethical considerations. However, since you seem to think that is not so transparent, I'm happy to include that with... well, that's on to the next point:
• Since this is still under debate and your reverting behavior is somewhat reckless, I'm partially reverting back to Ajbpearce's last version, keeping your sisterlinks addition and adding something about law and ethics per your edit summary. Addendum: actually I can't find anywhere that a mention of law and ethics doesn't sound awkward, and Adbpearce's version already mentions both legal rights and natural rights anyway.

--Pfhorrest (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Natural law and the modern concept of human rights are not the same thing (in the context that they are popularly spread today, as ensrined in the legislature of the United Nations, this derives from specifically from Enlightenment sources and concepts). I will reply in full to you later on, got a bit on at the moment. However, I would agree with Ajbpearce that the body of the article itself is a mess and highly disconnected. It needs a lot of work and effort put into it to tie up the the loose ends and achieve something presentable. - Yorkshirian (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Natural rights (not the same as natural law, but a closely related topic) are very much an Enlightenment-era concept; perhaps not originating there but certainly very important within the discourse of that period. See philosophers like Locke and politicians like Jefferson... both (the former indirectly via the latter) highly influential on the US Declaration of Independence and thence on the US Constitution and Bill of Rights and thence on the UDHR.

I eagerly await the rest of your reply. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

LGBT rights section

There's been a lot of edit warring around the LGBT rights section lately, particularly between User:Dougcweho and User:Schrandit, with discussion happening in the edit notes, but it seems appropriate to open up a proper discussion section on it here.

My position: Doug (if I may call him that) seems to be editing in a good-faith fashion and not intentionally POV-pushing, but his POV does show through some, and his edits need some tempering. In general I agree with Schrandit that the section on LGBT rights in this article should be brief, and main'd to the main LGBT rights article for more information. This article is too long as it is already, and is supposed to cover human rights in general, so we don't want to go into too much detail on one particular area of it.

(As an aside: there doesn't appear to be a main "LGBT rights" article at the moment, which is something I noticed a while back when organizing the Right sidebar and Rights-related articles around Wikipedia. Instead there is a list of current LGBT rights by country or territory, which LGBT Rights presently redirects to, and a history of LGBT social movements, along with many other more specific articles on various LGBT issues. Perhaps Dougcweho could focus his efforts in pulling information from those articles to create a proper article on LGBT Rights in general, which could then be main'd from here?)

Regarding the most recent edits, I disagree with Schrandit's rationale for removing the phrase "human and civil rights" from the first sentence of this section, though not with the edit itself. He wrote in his edit summary "if they were human rights they wouldn't be in this section, maybe some day, not today". That statement has an obvious POV against a natural rights account of human rights, whereby something either is or is not a human right and things don't become them over time just by agreement or legislation. However as the entire article is about Human Rights in the first place, I don't think it's necessary to restate in the beginning of each section that the rights being discussed are (at least controversially as in this case) human rights. On that grounds I support the edit.

--Pfhorrest (talk) 06:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Pfhorrest's assessment and advice of the situation. I welcome his edits without reservation. Meanwhile, I will further edit the entry according to his advice.--DCX (talk) 09:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Howdy, I do believe in Natural Rights and Natural Law, but when they are contested how do we agree on where to put them? I am fairly pro-life and believe with all my heart that the section below (fetal rights) are human rights but at present that is a very contested opinion and much legislation weighs in against it. Maybe it is one of those Truth v. Verifiability issues. When a right is contested and not included in legislation like the UNDHR I am inclined not to lable it as a Human Right.

I agree that at present the article "LGBT rights" is very lacking and thats why I put listed 2 other better articles as main on the top of the section. Doug pointed out that Sodomy Laws don't have the greatest connotations in the world and that they are mentioned later in the body of the section. I could go either way on that. - Schrandit (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

My general approach in philosophy articles (where there's rarely consensus in the field) has been to state a straightforward definition of the concept, sometimes with a qualifier like "supposed" or "purported" or "controversial", and then immediately state it's controversiality, then proceed to discuss the concept more, and then criticisms of it. So in the case you mentioned, I would write something like "Fetal rights are the supposed the rights of unborn children, including [right1, right2, right3, etc]. The existence of fetal rights is hotly contested by [parties X, Y, and Z]." for the beginning of the lede, then go on to discuss the concept in more detail for the rest of the lede and article, with a criticism section at the bottom. An alternate approach can be to say, for that second sentence, "[concept] is generally supported by [parties A, B, and C], yet is contested by [parties X, Y, and Z]". --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to bring up the Yogukarta Principles for a bit. They just don't seem to be that big a deal. They were written in 2006 and really havn't gone any where. They have not been adopted by any body at all. There were some displays of support near their release but that was 4 years ago and nothing has happened since. Is is really appropriate to lend them such, in my opinon, undue weight? - Schrandit (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The importance of mentioning the Yog Principles it is the first international declaration to address LGBTI rights and to give background and relation to the French UN proposal. I do agree that the entry, as I originally wrote had too much information on the principles.--DCX (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool, perhaps some paring back is called for. Do we know that this was the first? And keep in mind, anybody can make an international declaration. - Schrandit (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I should say it is the first charter to be presented to the United Nations and an important milestone. I have been researching this and my claim that it is the "first charter" may not be verifiable. Probably a group such as Amnesty INTL had made one earlier but I haven't come across anything in any research. There have been various declarations against discrimination and homophobia for European Union countries such as 1997 treaty of Amsterdam and 2000 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, there was talk of a "Gay Magna Carta", but again it was intended for US state, perhaps federal law only.--DCX (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If it is the first to be presented at the UN that would be worth noting. - Schrandit (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Redirection from "Rights of man"

The Rights of man page redirects to Human rights, but there is a different article called Rights of Man.

It can be confused too with Men's rights, looking like an androcentric redirect.

What can be done? Change the redirection of "Rights of man" to Rights of Man? Or put on the top of Human rights article the relatively long warning below?

"Rights of man" redirects here. For the book by Thomas Paine, see Rights of Man. For the rights of male people, see Men's rights. For the document of rights published on French Revolution, see Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

Robfbms (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Reality check

Closing this discussion per wp:NOTFORUM. No actual changes to article being discussed.

I had not seen this article until now, but it seems to be written like a visit to Disneyland. It seems to have been written by a PR agency. It misses that minor concept called REALITY. E.g. Are the Burakumin subject to human rights violations in Japan just because they manufacture leather? Sadly so. What did these people do that was so terrible? Their major crime is that their parents made shoes - really, read the article. Why no mention of that? And of course, the Caste system in India continues to date. Love the Tata Nano? - check the news on how they got the land for it. It is all in the news, but only if you read the news. So the case of Suu Kyi is highly visible, but there are huge issues beyond that. I was surprised to read that there are slave in Italy and even Wikinews carried that, but no mention of these things in the article. Of course there are big quotes from the UN, but then, that is just like posters for Disneyland. Time to fix the article, whoever maintains this article. History2007 (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC) No set group of people "maintain" any Wikipedia article. If you think this article needs a section on contemporary, ongoing human rights violations (and you have reliable sources to back any claims made there), then please go ahead and make one. I'd actually be rather surprised if there wasn't such an article somewhere on Wikipedia already; perhaps you could find and improve said article and {{main}} it from here, since this article is already excruciatingly long and needs to be broken up into smaller articles anyway. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC) I do not know the topic well enough, but on most pages there are a group of locals who hang out and know the topic. None owns it, but they usually hang around. I was just really surprised to read this press release (...excuse me article) and thought I would make a comment. Making another article does not solve the problem here, for this page will continue to remain as unreal as Disneyland. It may need a NPOV flag I think anyway. 22:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC) By the way, POV tag was also based on the rosy tone of the article. Please do not remove tags without discussion. History2007 (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC) History2007, a dispute does not exist when one editor enters an article talk page, states that they have little knowledge of the subject and then decides that the article must violate "neutrality" because he considers it to be "as unreal as disneyland". If there are specific sections of this article or wording that is unsatisfactory, then feel free to bring it up however such vague broad-brush mere assertions are not sufficient grounds on which to base a dispute on the neutrality of the article.Ajbpearce (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Sadly, editing Wikipedia does not require an academic degree on the topic. I would like to see a change to that policy, but until that happens anyone can edit anywhere. A tag may be placed by any editor who thinks a subject is not being treated in the NPOV manner. I do think that this article looks at the topic with rose colored glasses. And I would like to see changes to its tone. Hence the flag. History2007 (talk) 05:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Heavens. If I understand you correctly, you are claiming this page is not neutral because you agree with the concept of human rights as the article explains it, but are upset because the real world doesn't seem to respect your high-minded ideals. Or are you a pragmatist who thinks that the idea of human rights is stupid because no one respects them anyway? Either way, this article seems to accurately portray the norm of human rights as it has played out in international law and philosophy - t might use some broadening to include events where human rights are not being respected, but that might risk a bunch of political battles on the page. what do others think? Either way, I see no real reason to keep the NPOV tags, so I'll remove them. --Ludwigs2 16:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Now that there are two people against it, it may come off for a while, unless someone else thinks it is needed. I do not think human rights are stupid, but I think the large style quotes etc. seems to imply that human rights are taken seriously in the world - they are not. So the article does seem like a press release to me. As for this article seems to accurately portray the norm of human rights as it has played out in international law and philosophy that is certainly your viewpoint, and given that Wikipedia is a "numbers game" its truth has almost no bearing on the POV tag, for the haphazard nature of consensus depends on who happens to look here on what day. I will gradually try to add facts and references to the article as time goes on. That is less of a numbers game. History2007 (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC) I think user History2007 confuses crime with policy: slavery in Italy or caste discrimination in India do occur but are prohibited by local law and actively prosecuted and that's really all you can ask from a state. So these things should definitely not be filed under "human rights abuses by Italy and India", it's just crime. There could be a section about most forms of crime being a violation of human rights (that's why they're called crimes), but it should be separate from abuses by states or terrorists. A reality check would be nice though: specifically in the "Asia" and "Africa" sections it wouldn't hurt to state that many countries violate the treaties they signed and that a significant portion of the UN membership comes nowhere near living up to the charter. 213.93.101.238 (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Thank you for clarifying that "caste discrimination in India is actively prosecuted". Ignorant me was under the impression that the authorities looked the other way in most cases. And by the way, how do you spell lip service? Your comment is an example of how human rights get lip service around the world, but if you are from a lower caste in India, you would either laugh or cry if someone told you that caste discrimination in India is actively prosecuted. By the way did you know that some Burakumin in Japan just commit suicide because they are so fed up with discrimination against them? I guess they must also be misinformed. History2007 (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC) This is a grey area and you know it: every country knows discrimination and other forms of crime and every country has corrupt officials. Caste discrimination is against the law in India, it has been for 60 years so the government of India does not condone it, although corrupt local officials could. It doesn't get prosecuted every time, but the fact that it did result in more than one conviction means discrimination is not part of government policy, just as running drugscartels isn't part of Mexico's policy, even though plenty of officials have been bribed. Or to give another example: child abuse is rampant all over the world but even in "perfect" countries in northern Europe only a fraction of molesters ever get convicted (just look at all those priests), this is not because governments condone the abuse but because victims are being pressured into remaining silent and when they do speak out it is very difficult to get enough evidence for a conviction, the latter is also the reason why so few people are being convicted for money laundering even though every government hates money laundering because it means less taxes are being payed. This isn't "lip service": I'd be the first to help you campaign for more accountability regarding caste discrimination but I'm not falsely accusing the Indian government of condoning discrimination, just as I'm not accusing the government of Germany of condoning pedophile priests or the government of the United States of condoning money laundering. 213.93.101.238 (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC) That again goes to show how ignorant I really am. I was totally unaware of the fact that there are "perfect countries" in Northern Europe. I was under the mistaken impression that perfection was manufactured in Culver City by the studios. Thanks for informing me. The IP pref 213 traces to a perfect location I guess. But anyway, our thoughts are so far apart that I will not respond further. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC) I put the word perfect in quotation marks for a reason. These countries set the standard when it comes to human rights and are currently the closest to what is realistically possible. They do of course have some minor flaws but where you and I disagree (I think) is that I don't believe a world without injustice is possible, no matter how strictly human rights are protected: I think it is impossible to have laws that make sure all the bad guys are locked up and all the good guys are safe and free. It's because rights often conflict: an Indian company that can choose between a Dalit and a Brahmin, both having the same resumee could choose the Brahmin because they are prejudiced against Dalits, they can do this a million times over, and the Dalits can go to court when they suspect discrimination, but the court will have to rule that they cannot force the company to fire their non-Dalits and hire the Dalits because the non-Dalits, having the same resumees, have just as much right to work at the company. An atheist can call a Muslim names on the street but he cannot be convicted for it because of free speech (after all, people get criticized for their ideas, and religion is an idea, all the time). A child molester can intimidate his victims not to report him so he gets away with it. You can see with your very own eyes a terrorist loading a nuclear bomb in his car, but you can't torture him to find out where he hid it and thus save a million lives (well you could, but not without breaching his human rights). I believe these "intersections of rights" are a fundamental flaw of every legal system. As far as I can tell you believe however that injustice can always be tackled through better human rights laws. We disagree on that but I'm not calling you ignorant for it, maybe you're right and I'm wrong, I don't know, I'm not god. 213.93.101.238 (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Geez, History2007, can you cut the sarcasm before I have to go find a gas mask? You seem to be missing the value of international norms. 100 years ago, if a country wanted to execute large numbers of its citizens (for whatever damned reason: genocide, political purges, population control, the premier waking up with a hangover) then every other country in the world - assuming they noticed at all - would shrug and go back to business as usual. now, at least, there are norms so that other countries can stand up and say "This is wrong!". There are still tremendous problems to be overcome (mostly in the forms of state sovereignty - it takes a lot to muster enough support in the international community to collectively violate a state's sovereignty for the protection of its own people), but it's a step. what we have is better than what we had, even if its not very good, so if you want to continue bitching about how bad it is, you'd best recognize what progress has been made. --Ludwigs2 20:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Sarcasm? Moi? Never crossed my mind. But I am not complaining about the world, I am commenting on the fact that the article seems to look mostly on the bright side of the feeble progress that you mentioned. And I would never advocate the use of force as you suggested. I was commenting on the neglect within the article about the "let us look the other way" attitude on local human rights issues across the globe, somewhat akin to the fact that at one point voting rights existed for blacks in the southern parts of the US, but it took a lot of effort for them to be granted in practice. But anyway, all this talk does not give me a chance to research and edit the article, so let us talk less, edit more. History2007 (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Ludwigs, on a less-sarcastic note, I added the fact that if someone in one of those "perfect" Euro-countries has a human rights problem, they can quickly run to a beautiful building in Strasbourg, designed by Richard Rogers, and the honorable judges will immediately listen to their problem in about 46 years. Is that reassuring? History2007 (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Or they can just call a random tv-station or newspaper and their problem will be fixed within weeks if their problem was real. Most of the time though the people taking the Strassbourg route are illegal immigrants who know their request will eventually be denied by the honorable judges but hope the lengthy procedure will keep them in their host country long enough that they can conceive children and apply for a visa on "humanitarian" grounds and then sponge off their host country's welfare system for the rest of their lives, and then there are the tinfoil hat conspiracy nuts who send thousands of requests to Strassbourg each year about chemtrails and last but not least the "sensitive types" (the types who forget that people also have responsibilities in addition to rights) who think their rights were violated because the police had the audacity to arrest them for committing a crime... If people stopped abusing the system it would be a lot faster. Special:Contributions/213.93.101.238|213.93.101.238]] (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Translation: The court of public opinion is their only hope. Of course, in places in Europe such as Italy, the truly diverse ownership structure of tv and media will facilitate the airing of issues, wink, wink. History2007 (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Is Italy in Northern Europe? Last time I checked it wasn't... P.S. there are various courts of appeal on the national level, the system has to screw up really bad before you have to take a legitimate claim to Strassbourg. The chances of that happening are a lot smaller than the chances a dangerous criminal gets away with his crimes because gathering the necessary evidence would compromise his human rights, ergo you'll always have some filth slip through the cracks, even in the most perfect of systems (though you'll never hear Amnesty make a fuss when a murderer gets to walk free and starts killing again during the time he could've been in prison). 213.93.101.238 (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Translation: You are admitting problems in Europe. Anything south of Hamburg is 2nd rate? Only those who speak Hochdeutsch have rights? Any way, enough of this. History2007 (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC) I do admit problems in Europe, that's why I only mentioned Northern Europeans countries as setting the standard, there are plenty of problems in countries like Italy or Turkey. There are also problems in Northern Europe, but few to none of those problems can be traced to human rights. 213.93.101.238 (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Is there a statistical correlation between the ability to cook and the availability of human rights? The Italians can cook, but have problems, the Dutch can not cook but are perfect? Is there no human right to decent cuisine? Just kidding, I will really have to stop now. History2007 (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC) The Dutch are more open/less religious: in the Netherlands (or Scandinavia) anything goes, in Italy or Turkey (or pretty much any other religious country) anything goes as long as no one sees you (only appearances matter). If something in the Netherlands is prohibited you can be pretty sure it's because the Dutch think it's just wrong, anything they don't think is wrong is allowed. In more religious countries anything that you don't want your neighbor catch you doing is prohibited (because if you vote for them to be allowed people will think you're doing those things) but of course both you and your neighbor will still be doing it behind closed curtains and there's no one you can turn to if something goes wrong, that's really a culture of self-denial and leads to illogical restrictions on human rights. I guess the Italians spend so much time behind closed curtains they have more time to practice cooking... 213.93.101.238 (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Look, I really want to stop, but you are making it hard. That is not true because there is a deeper law: the Chinese (not to mention the Mexicans) can also cook but have no rights. So perhaps if all Chinese decided to stop and only cook Knackwurst, then they might suddenly get human rights in 30 days. Let us suggest it to them as an experiment. History2007 (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Has the following view been treated yet?

This article has a section about philosophers laying the foundation of human rights by coming up with "natural rights", while others (usually those who don't know what it's like to live in a state without human rights) contend that human rights are a Western invention. I propose the following view, but I do not know if it has already been thought of by philosophers or anyone else, so maybe someone on Wikipedia could tell me if it has.

1) It costs a society considerable resources to maintain the law, resources that could've been spent on something else.

2) People do not want their rights (whatever they may be) violated, more specifically people do not want to be harmed and they do not want other people to have more rights than they do.

3) Religion cannot be agreed upon through rational means: there is no way of proving a religion is right, or "more right" than another religion that may hold very different, even opposite, views.

4) Because of 1) and 2) it doesn't make sense to have laws that cause irrational restrictions, in other words: if there's no rational way to show a certain practice causes harm to the rights of people, security or the economy then there is no point in spending resources to maintain a ban on that practice. Because of 3) religious reasons don't count.

I believe that from this you can construct most, if not all, of today's human rights. Because this process excludes religious and cultural components (they cannot rationally be defended) it leads to a set of universal human rights. 213.93.101.238 (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It is almost all WP:OR. History2007 (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I wasn't planning on putting it on Wikipedia, not unless some famous philosopher had thought of it before me, if I'm really the first then it is all original research. 213.93.101.238 (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

So, anyone else wants to call "original research" on this one? Am I really the first person on god's green Earth to think of this simple rationalization of human rights, somehow I find that hard to believe. 213.93.101.238 (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Human rights not being upheld

The regional sections say things like "A number of Asian countries are accused of serious human rights abuses by the international community and human rights organisations." This seems a bit weak to me: although discussions on human rights violations often dive into morally grey areas there are a number of countries who openly disregard the human rights of the UN charter and by openly I mean they actually legalize these abuses in their laws, such as Islamic countries with laws that openly discriminate women and non-muslims, no morally grey areas there and no state of emergency or lack of evidence either. Can we say something like "A number of ... countries commit human rights abuses"? 213.93.101.238 (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Property rights?

Where does the China property rights] issue fit in this article, based on the categorization?. People are setting themselves on fire now, so it should probably go in. I am not sure where, but if someone wants to add it, it shows a new angle. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Admin detention

Are there admin detentions elsewhere in the world now. To my surprise, the Swiss were using it up to the 1980s. Others now? Does it need a section? Link = [1] The question is despite all the UN hoopla in Geneva, how was this kept quiet in the 1970s. Is it ongoing in Europe? Asia? History2007 (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Human right abuse

"Human rights abuse" redirects here but this article desnt cover human rights from the abuse perspective and it should do.--Penbat (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Article Structure

Currently imho the biggest problem with this article is that its structure is a mess. It desperatley needs pruning but its difficult to do that when the structure is lacking in real coherence. I have made several attempts offline to reorganise it, but never produced something satisfactory. Anyway, posting this here in the hope that someone else will have some suggestions on how to reorganise and trim the article, or to highlight it as a big "to-do" that someone could hopefully tackle! Ajbpearce (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Highlighted. --M4gnum0n (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Further to this, i have come up with a "goal" structure to work towards that I think would move the article forward in a positive direction. I think it has some significant weaknesses in that much of the "practise of human rights" is relegated reasonably far down the page, but it is bourne from thinking hard about how we can retain the breatdth of this page while reorganising it to give it a much more comprhensive and ordered feel. Comments and suggested improvements would be most welcome! Ajbpearce (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Structure

• - [ ] Introduction
  • - [ ] History
    • - [ ] Philosophical foundations
    • - [ ] Enlightenment
    • - [ ] Modern Human Rights Movement
• - [ ] Human Rights Theory
  • - [ ] Philosophy of human rights
    • - [ ] Anaylisis
    • - [ ] justifications
    • - [ ] Criticism
  • - [ ] Substantive Rights
    • - [ ] Introduction
    • - [ ] Classifying Human Rights
    • - [ ] 3 generations
    • - [ ] other classifications
    • - [ ] Links in to some prominent rights articles (e.g freedom of speech)
  • - [ ] Evolution of rights
    • - [ ] here some of the current "are they rights questions"
• - [ ] Protecting Human Rights
  • - [ ] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
  • - [ ] The other bits currently at the top of the article e.g international organisations ect ect would go here, with some further rejiging- but that can be worked out later
  • - [ ] Section on Human rights violations
  • - [ ] Possibly something on notable human rights defenders e.g Mandela, Aung Sung Su Kii ect
• - [ ] End

Looks pretty good to me. --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Nongovernmental organizations

What are you looking to get across in this section of the article? I notice that it stated that this section requires expansion. Do you plan to expand on this particular section of your article? To me it seems a little unfinished and not very organized or thought through. I noticed that in this section you had spelling issues that need to be corrected. I also noticed your wordage and I think you could have pick better wordage in some places.

In this section of the article I read where you stated that sometimes some organizations move away from there original ideals. I like that you put that in your article, but would have liked it more if you had maybe put an example for this. Sometimes this happens with organizations because of many reason for example as the times changes they might want to associate themselves with a new, but they still want to keep or say that are still upholding their original views that the organization was built on.Kaeleomel (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Kaeleomel

I found no spelling errors in that section. However I have cleaned it up a bit and made it more neutral. Who is this "you" that you are addressing? -- Alarics (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

i might be the 'you' that kaeleomel was talking about since i did do a previous edit to this section. anyway, i have added an example. i can add more, but i am afraid that it will then be too weighty to the criticism and not balanced. Soosim (talk) 08:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it already reads to me as unbalanced now that you have added more about Prof Steinberg. We need some opposing view to balance his views in order to make it NPOV. -- Alarics (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Water Rights

This article states that there is no human right to water, but in July 2010, the UN declared access to clean and safe water and sanitation a basic human right. This clearly needs to be incorporated into the "water" section.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=35456&Cr=sanitation&Cr1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.109.103 (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Las Casas

No mention of Bartolomé de Las Casas or the Valladolid debate?·Maunus·ƛ· 16:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I don;t know anything about those subjects, but if you feel they would be appropriate, they may fit within the History of human rights article.Ajbpearce (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of CMI external link

Hi

I added a link to the research institute CMI yesterday on the human rights page, and it was subsequently deleted as spam, or as unsuitable for the page. This link was not intended as any promotion of the institute (it an independent research centre funded by research grants and does not work to maximise profits of any kind). I thought the link to both the institute and its work on Rights and Legal Institutions highly relevant to the topic and very useful to readers. The information on the site is of high academic standard and is therefore considered unbiased and consequently suitable for an encyclopedic site such as Wikipedia. I therefore hope you will allow the link to remain on the page. Fay.farstad (talk) 07:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk pageAjbpearce (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No mention of Persa

It's kind of weird that there is no mention of Persia, Cyrus the Great, and the Cyrus Cylinder anywhere in this article while there are many mentions of Greek historians (not sure why?). Pictures/explanations of the contributions by the Persians and a section just on the Cyrus Cylinder/Cyrus the Great should definitely be added along with the incident of the Jews being freed. It's well known that Cyrus the Great was the first ruler who believed and practised human-rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.163.64 (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutral phrasing

I changed the recently-added phrase "universal human rights did not exist in the ancient world" to "the ancient world did not possess the concept of universal human rights" for the sake of neutrality. By a natural rights viewpoint, whatever human rights 'exist' now (in whatever sense they 'exist') have always existed and applied to all humans everywhere, whether or not they were recognized or enforced; and thus the old phrasing would be seen as incorrect. By a social constructivist viewpoint, they didn't exist until they were recognized and enforced, so the old phrasing would be seen as fine. But the new phrasing would be seen as true by either viewpoint; whether or not they really 'existed' or not in ancient times, there's no bias in saying people then had no concept of them.

If I have time, I'm going to double-check the article for other such biased declarations later, but I wanted to flag this for other editors as well. --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Animated Video about Human Rights

The german non-profit organisation /e-politik.de/ e.V. has released an animated video about human rights (CC License): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbul3hxYGNU Maybe it could be of use for this article? Best, Jan Künzl --93.218.127.119 (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Universal and egalitarian human rights

The article says "Human rights are conceived as universal and egalitarian, with all people having equal rights by virtue of being human." Although this is widely accepted in the West, this is not widely accepted by most people. I recommend deletion from the lead in favor of a sepaerate secti8on or article. 71.202.48.48 (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

At this point it is backed up by a citation (the definition of human rights, given in the previous sentence, and at the end of the lead). If you think it should be moved, please either move it or suggest moving, rather than simply deleting it. If you think there are other significant views (e.g. that this is not widely accepted by most people), please provide citations to WP:RS to verify that claim so that said other views can be incorporated. Zodon (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Please also be aware that the lead summarizes the article, so often items in the lead will be based on sourced material later in the article, so may not have their own individual citations. It is important to check the whole article for sources before saying something in the lead is unsourced. I have added citations to the sentence in question just to make it clearer. Zodon (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Further reading too large

The further readings section has gotten over-large. (43 items). Note that the usual recommended number is "about 6". (No need to get hung up on exact numbers, we can agree to have a bit more than that.) I removed a few items. I moved a couple of geographic-specific items to the article on human rights of the relevant area (Africa). For some of the items I removed the title does not clearly indicate that they are related to human rights (mostly dealing with religion), and for one, though the content seemed apropos, the title suggested that it was not in English (making it less useful for further reading in English language Wikipedia). If some of the items deleted are particularly vital further readings for human rights in general, please explain here why they are important to have.

Though I removed a few, the list is still way too long. Please look at it and consider which ones are really essential reading for human rights as a whole, and which ones might be more appropriate in another article, or used as references, or simply removed. 08:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I've gone through and tried to remove as many links as possible, I have tried to leave works that are written with an academic focus, are broad enough to be relevant to the subject of human rights as a whole, and in depth enough to add to the article. Generally, I have removed journal articles (which are generally too narrow and not generally available), books focusing on a more narrow area of human rights (be better in specific articles) and "very short introduction" style books that probably do not add much to are article as they are also only intended as introductions. Feel free to revert though if you think I have gotten rid of something that should stay in though. I also removed some things that were clearly no longer relevant, for example there was a link to Amnesty International's 2004 annual report on human rights - well it is now 2011 so this is out of date and in any case would be better served by an external link to the amnesty international site Ajbpearce (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Human Rights Council

A paragraph under the section 'Human Rights Council' reads as follows:

The United Nations Security Council has the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security and is the only body of the UN that can authorize the use of force. It has been criticised for failing to take action to prevent human rights abuses, including the Darfur crisis, the Srebrenica massacre and the Rwandan Genocide.[45] For example, critics blamed the presence of non-democracies on the Security Council for its failure regarding.[46]

There appears to be a grammatical error in the last sentence which ends with the word "regarding". Regarding what? I'm not in a position to correct this as I'm not sure what it means. redherring (talk) 09:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Opening Line / Age

The quote comes from http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/human-rights-basics, but it has been changed. The website says: "Human rights are basic rights and freedoms that all people are entitled to regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, race, religion, language, or other status.", whereas wikipedia has""basic rights and freedoms that all people are entitled to regardless of nationality, sex, age, national or ethnic origin, race, religion, language, or other status.". The main difference is one word: Age. Age is a sensitive issue in the UDHR - they're not often a specified group in Article 2. I didn't want to change it without first checking whether there's agreement? ~~:D~~ (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Ideally, we would not be defining human rights with a definition provided by a human rights advocacy group anyway - but we have that current quotation just because it is an easy to understand and relatively succinct definition that leads into the article pretty well. I have removed age because we should keep anything in quotation marks accurate, and in any case we are not looking for an exhaustive list of possible forms of discrimination here but a short quotation to explain what human rights are.86.66.141.228 (talk) 09:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC) - ooops that was me not logged in Ajbpearce (talk) 09:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that it is a good idea to replace the Amnesty def. I moved the quotes so that it is clear that "commonly understood" comes from the quoted authority not an editor as it is a bit of a waffle. Using the HUMAN RIGHTS REFERENCE HANDBOOK is a good idea since it can be found on line at: Human Rights Reference HandbookJoel Mc (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Relativism

The Relativism and Universalism section was heavily skewed towards a pro-universalism POV. I am not a relativist, but both sides of the argument need to be presented fairly. I have already made some changes, but there is still more work that needs to be done to fix the neutrality of the section.--Universalist55 (talk) 03:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That whole section is a mess anyway, (though note we are not trying to "present both sides of the argument as they are discussed in reliable sources, which probably includes strong criticism of relativism as a position) I put it in an "other issues" section at the bottom of the article as it does not fit anywhere else at the moment, ideally we would have a much shorter paragraph in the article on this issue in the theory section, with a link to a longer article on the topic - though that is a very long term project.Ajbpearce (talk) 09:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Scholars are actually very divided on the issue, like most philosophical positions, neither the universalist or relativist positions can be empirically proven, so there remains no consensus as to which is "better". The current sources are from scholars that argue against relativism, but, as any search for "Eurocentrism" literature indicates, there are many scholars that take the opposite position. I'll improve that article by adding more sources. That the current section has many universalist and anti-relativist arguments without sources, needs to be fixed immediately or taken out.--Universalist55 (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that ideally, the section should be merged with the Philosophy section once it is cleaned up.--Universalist55 (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

when all human rights are blocked then which human right is applicable???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.207.233 (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Cyrus cylinder vandal

Abj, no worries about that IP. I warned and if he does that again, will get him blocked, and will be easy because uses a fixed IP - and guess where it geo-locates to: land of cyrus. History2007 (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, its a very frustrating issue for the article because It seems to be a perpetual whackamole topic for this article every few weeks, mostly from iranian IP addresses. Though I doubt it will help stop them it might be an idea for us to put up an FAQ box on it or something Ajbpearce (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that the pending changes feature has been implemented, why not ask at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for this article to be given pending changes status? That would enable such edits to be caught before they get into the article text. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be ok with me, although I have seen worse cases of vandalism. Much worse. History2007 (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Abj, I suppose something should be said about the cylinder as the United Nations has declared the relic to be an "ancient declaration of human rights". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.71.185.151 (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a long discussion about this on the talk page from last year, because consensus used to be that the discussion on Cyrus_cylinder#Human_rights precluded it form inclusion here, and for that reason I have kept reverting additions of it when I notice them. i still feel its inclusion probably violates WP:UNDUE but I wasn't around at the time and it is an irritatingly persistent issue. I suggest if editors really want it added they, first ensure that they are doing so not because of their personal views on the issue and second, come up with a proposed addition and get support for it through an RFC or similar from editors who would not be naturally inclined to show it support. What is no good is another talkpage discussion as fractious and bad faith as the last one, or random unexplained and poorly sourced additions to the article that appear as WP:POV pushing when added in isolation Ajbpearce (talk) 10:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views. See this edits. Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Tobby72 (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 February 2012

CAT

59.167.117.90 (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a request--Jac16888 ^Talk 01:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 April 2012

Hello, please add in External Link of "Human rights" in Wikipedia

• The International Institute of Human Rights

Best regards.

Vincent Gouvion (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: This is the English Wikipedia. That external link is on the French Wikipedia article, as it should be. — Bility (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Link added. For anyone working in the human rights field, this is an important and well respected institution. For those who only read English, you may wish to note that the website is bilingual. This, by the way, is not the English Wikipedia: it is the English-language version of Wikipedia, compiled mainly by non-English people. Brocach (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Article Improvement Points

Improve "Substantive Rights" Section

What exactly qualify as "Substantive" Rights? to give substantial existence to: to substantiate an idea through action. Supaiku (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Human rights movement

I've created a redirect from that topic here, but it should be created as a separate article. The concepts of human rights and the movements that support it are two different ones. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you search through Category:Human_rights for something that might cover it but have a different name? In any case a good repository of info for creating an article. CarolMooreDC 23:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The only relevant article I can find is a human rights group, but it is a more narrow topic (like what social movement organization is to a social movement). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Lack of Objectivity

This article lacks of some objectivity, focusing on the american aspect of Human Rights history. It would be something good to develop the French Declaration of the Rights of Man which is the first document introducing a so spelled notion of Human Rights. This article says nothing about its content and its consequences as a symbol in the European continent. The European history further compared to the american one would give us a more interesting and objective article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.49.61 (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

History of human rights (declarations)

I am surprised that the article makes no mention of the oldest and the best known written declaration of absolute, individual human rights which are: 1. - the right to the truth, 2. - the right to life, 3. - the right to a natural family 4. - the right to ownership of property. These are to be found and more easily recognised in negative form in the Mosaic Covenant and the Ten Commandments. EddieL899 (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:very long

Why is "very long" added back? --George Ho (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I tagged the article as {{very long}} because it is, indeed, very long. Wikipedia:Article size is the relevant guideline. --M4gnum0n (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

So? What's wrong with it as "very long"? I don't see anything that affects the quality of this article. Navigation and editing issues have barely affected this article's quality. --George Ho (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yours is not a question specific to this article, but a general one. You already started two discussions (here and here) about the usefulness of {{very long}}, and another one in which you even question the very WP:SIZE guideline! So come back here if/when you find consensus on your proposals, as nowadays mine is standard tagging practice. --M4gnum0n (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

What are issues that make this article very long? What are unnecessary details? What sections to be split then? --George Ho (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems like you are now agreeing with me on the existence of a length problem in this article, since you are asking for possible solutions... Good.

Well, splitting a section is never a brainless operation, and in this case I think it is more difficult than the average, because the article is already in Summary style. Nonetheless, something has to be done, and the template is useful in pointing that. --M4gnum0n (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not say that this article is very long. Somehow, whatever I said is either interpretted vaguely or manipulatively. I intend to replace "very long" with something, like "overly detailed" or "split". However, which ones are not necessary or needed to be split? If there is nothing to be done to address issues that make this article very long, then the tag must be removed. --George Ho (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

My intent is not to manipulate your words, I am just following a normal collaborative problem solving procedure here, like this:

1. Agree that there is a problem;
2. Then talk about the merits of possible solutions.

You are indeed still asking for solutions, so I thought that you aknowledged that some action is needed. And please note that point 1 is the one of importance here, because if both of us are not able to solve a problem, it does not magically disappear. --M4gnum0n (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Tell me: how and what makes this article's length an issue? Tagging it as "very long" without knowing specific issues isn't helping here. --George Ho (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The issues with lengthy articles are already adequately summarized in Wikipedia:Article size, issues which you already know but somehow philosophically reject. General consensus is against you and states that very long articles are indeed a problem, and a template has been created to categorize them. Both of us not having an immediate solution to this specific problem is, again, irrelevant. --M4gnum0n (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Admit it: You tagged it because of the article's size which may (or may not) affect readability or navigation or editing, not because it needs splitting or anything. Again, the "very long" tag is too vague, and even readilibity, navigation, or editing issues are something minor that may not be or should not be a big thing. Even citing the guideline as your proof of your point doesn't help me side with you. --George Ho (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Obviously citing the guideline could not help, because you do not agree with it. You are against the very existence of {{very long}} and even WP:SIZE, and are conducting a personal crusade to remove/reform them. But you cannot act on your conviction here because it is against standard practice. And that is all. --M4gnum0n (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I should have earlier said: "Even tagging this article with "very long" to prove your point doesn't help me side with you". I will be careful with my words next time you reply and dodge my questions about specific issues that may make this article... "lengthy", such as either one long section that needs its own independence or one section that needs a rewrite. An article can't be tagged just generally because it's long and editing or reading a long article is difficult. template:rewrite could do the trick in one of the sections, not the top of the article. As for this article, I've made a review on this article: the length is fine as is, writing is concise, and readability is neat for those interested on this topic. --George Ho (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"An article can't be tagged just generally because it's long and editing or reading a long article is difficult". Well, actually, YES it can, it is the very purpose of the template. And no, {{rewrite}} could not do the trick, as it has a different scope. As you even proposed[2] {{restructure}} and the vague {{cleanup}} as replacements, I think you are a little confused about cleanup templates. --M4gnum0n (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a point of moderation here: often times, asking "what solution would you propose?" is a means of clarifying what problem is being claimed, not an acknowledgement of the problem. E.g. "Your grammar sucks." - "What would you change about it?" - "So you agree your grammar sucks and are looking for ways to improve it?" - "No, I just want to know more specifically what it is you think needs improvement." So the question here is, what is the cause of and solution to this article being "too long", according to those who think it is - too detailed coverage of too broad a topic (so split parts of it out), extraneous or irrelevant information (so remove parts of it), overly verbose style (so rewrite it to make it more concise)? The proposed solution clarifies the exact problem being asserted. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The grammar example is reasonable, but I do not think it applies here. Do not be fooled: this discussion was never meant to be about the length of this specific article (as it should be), because he believes that {{very long}} is never appropriate, being based on a guideline that should really be an essay. --M4gnum0n (talk) 09:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

If one subtopic needs a stand-alone article, which subtopic? If there is too much detail, which detail? If too wordy, tell me. --George Ho (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully you will get an answer from the ones who will come to this article thanks to the template I put on top of it.--M4gnum0n (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Update - The "Template:very long" tag is removed. As far as I'm reading it, no summarization is needed. Either Template:very long section or Template:split section should suffice enough, as "very long" is too much. --George Ho (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Lack of Objectivity

This article displays an absolute lack of objectivity. It reads throughout as though it is putting forward activists arguments and Wikipedia is no place for this. The whole article should be re-written to give a neutral viewpoint which is one of the basic principles of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.11.46 (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Corporations can exercise human rights?

The article corporation claims "Corporations can exercise human rights", which sounds very strange and is not supported by the source cited (South African Constitution Art.8, especially Art.(4)). That constitution does not mention the word "corporation" and does not use a synonym or talk about anything similar when it mentions human rights. --Espoo (talk) 07:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

UN Human Rights Council Logo

File:United Nations Human Rights Council Logo.svg Earlier today User:VernoWhitney:

• deleted the UN Human Rights Council Logo from this article with the edit summary "removing non-free image in violation of WP:NFCC#3, #8 and #10c".
• I reverted that change with the comment "rv, there is a non-free use rational for this logo on its image page, I don't see the problem here."
• He reverted my revert with the comment "read the entire policy please - a single FUR for a different article is not enough - as before, this is in violation of WP:NFCC#8 and 10c".
• And, finally, I reverted again with the comment "rv, I don't agree that the logo shouldn't be used here. Lets discuss this on the talk page.)"

This item is to provide a place to get the discussion started. I'll enter more of my own comments in a few minutes. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we should do whatever we need to do to continue using the logo here, rather than deleting it. To that end, I just added a second FUR to the description for the logo, which should take care of WP:NFCC#10(3). I think the use of the logo next to the "Human Rights Council" section of this article is as least as worthwhile as using the logo as part of the "United Nations Human Rights Council" article or really any logo with any Wikipedia article. The logo is displayed here at a smaller size than it is in the "United Nations Human Rights Council" article. The logo has been used as part of this article for over two years (since February 2010), as far as I know without complaint (I searched the article history and the Talk and Talk archive pages for the word "logo" and didn't find anything beyond the original addition of the logo to the article and a change to make the logo a bit smaller). I did read and reread WP:NFCC#3, #8 and #10(3). I still don't see a problem and certainly not any more of a problem than using the logo with the "United Nations Human Rights Council" article. One of the rationales given in WP:NFCC is: "To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content". Does anyone honestly think that the UN is likely to sue Wikipedia for using this logo? If someone feels that there is still a problem using the logo (I don't), "WP:Ignore all rules" should be applied. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 05:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, please read the entire policy - your use of the image here on the talk page was also a violation of the non-free image policy (WP:NFCC#9) that I have now corrected.

Continuing, you are correct, an additional FUR takes care of #10c.

Now #3 calls for minimal usage. The logo is already being used in the other article which is linked from directly next to the image. See also part of the guideline, WP:NFC#UUI #6 about notable images, but equally applicable to similar situations. In short, there's no need for (and little gained from having) the image in both locations.

Finally, and most importantly, #8, which I believe is what Orangemike was referring to when he removed it again requires contextual signifiance. How does the logo of a particular organization help a reader understand the topic of human rights? Note--the article as a whole, not simply the section. Does the reader have a worse understanding of the article if they do not see that organization's logo? If there was (sourced) discussion about the logo that somehow belonged here as well as the organization's article, then it's use is plausible, but as it stands it is a curiosity at best.

Wikipedia's concerns are purposefully and explicitly stricter than that required by fair use, and the mere fact that we may not be sued for a use does not give us free reign to use non-free content whenever and however we wish to. Minimizing legal exposure is a reason for the policy, but not the only reason. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I added it back and corrected formatting, but I didn't realize this was a NF image. as such, its use is superfluous and fails WP:NFCC. Accordingly, it should be removed. This is an article about human rights (which apply universally). That subject is not lacking should this image not be included. Buffs (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Reducing the Magna Carta To Insignificance

Is this article some sort of joke? The Magna Carta is internationally recognised around the world as the foundation to modern human rights, however not according to some editor on Wikipedia, rather he has cited a non npov and attempted to marginalize it, subsequently I've edited the article accordingly and returned it to some semblance of neutrality. Twobells (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Protestant reformation?

Although I understand that the Laws of Burgos weren't necessarily successful in their endeavor, change is a process. I read an interesting blog post (http://blogs.loc.gov/law/2012/12/the-laws-of-burgos-500-years-of-human-rights/) on these laws and I think this should be included in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.249.137 (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

LGBT Rights

The statement,

"Through the way many because of their religious beliefs claim that they support human rights in general while denying that LGBT rights are human rights, LGBT rights stand prominent in the very defense of the universal principle of the human rights. If human rights are understood in a way that makes it possible to exclude the basic rights of certain groups only because of certain religious and cultural prejudices, we find that the principle of universality is taken right out of the human rights, and human rights are transformed to a set of rules only reflecting certain historically values."

is completely biased and is blatantly written in favour of adopting LGBT rights as "human rights". Please remove or edit this as necessary, thank you! --220.255.92.84 (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I strongly agree; this paragraph does not keep in line with Wikipedia:NPOV at all. It sounds more like an argument than a statement of fact. I'm removing it. The rest of that section is quite unbiased, however and I will leave that alone. Kupiakos (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Human rights in healthcare settings/Patient rights

Health as a human right is foundational of global health and public health theory and practice. According to the WHO, the right to health is defined as the “highest attainable standard of health” and asserts that governments are responsible for ensuring conditions that facilitate such standards. More broadly, it is understood to include the right to access healthcare, health information, enjoy autonomy and privacy when receiving healthcare services, and generally enjoy access to economic, social, and other structural conditions that produce a high standard of health.

Within the larger realm of human rights and health, healthcare delivery implies certain rights to patients. Such rights include the right to privacy, information, life, and quality care, as well as freedom from discrimination, torture, and cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment. Violations of patient rights are especially acute among members of marginalized groups, such as ethnic and sexual minorities, women, those living with disabilities, migrants and displaced persons, and people living with infectious diseases. For instance, in transitional countries in Eastern Europe, patients living with HIV may have their statuses publically disclosed, Roma may be segregated into inadequately conditioned wards, persons with disabilities may be contained and medicated against their will, drug users may be denied anesthesia during operations, and women of marginalized groups and transgender persons may be forced or coerced into sterilization.

Human rights concerns in the healthcare context are not limited to patients, but include healthcare providers. Providers have the right to decent working conditions, freedom of association, and freedom to provide or refuse a procedure based on their moral obligations. Returning to examples from transitional countries, healthcare providers may be forced to perform procedures that contradict their moral beliefs, deny the highest standards of care to marginalized groups, disclose confidential information, and cover up crimes against humanity or torture. Furthermore, providers who do not oblige these pressures are often persecuted.

Legal reform is necessary to prevent violations of patient and practitioner rights within healthcare, particularly healthcare delivery, and especially in transitional countries. Gransford (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The article mentions that Health Care rights may be surpassed by or ignored in favor of other civil rights, pointing to the article Right to health. It may be a better place for the above content and could possibly be used to improve the status of that article. Meclee (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I see no mention either of a right to refuse medical treatment or to self-medicate
Medical professionals own our bodies?
Laurel Bush (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

The subheading 1.1 17th - 18th century is wrong because the content under this subheading includes the works of Las Casas, Vitoria and Sepulveda, all of whom lived, wrote and intervened in the public debate in the 16th century. (The Valladolid Debate was in 1550 -1551). The subheading should read "16th- 18th century" Atahualpa1492 (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Atahualpa1492

 Done. I made this change. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 05:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

incomplete

"Alain de Benoist questions human rights premises of human equality." In what way? 117.199.3.90 (talk) 06:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Querry

Edit request

In "Freedom of Movement", "...limits of respect for the liberty and rights of others,[1] and to leave that state and return at any time." There is an embedded source attribution in the copy/pasted header from the main Freedom of Movement page. The [1] needs to be either removed or correctly attributed. 12.249.227.174 (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

HUMAN RIGHTS

discuss the following human rights in the bills of rights. also argue and give practical examples indicating how you feel they have been violated in your workplace or elswhere. 1. equality 2. assembly, demonstration, picket and petition 3. freedom of association citizenship ← — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.151.129.211 (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

No, do your own homework. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2014

Please I got some good stuff to add

64.222.109.104 (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

What stuff are you going to add? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2014

E Kuc (talk) 08:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2014

106.204.63.241 (talk) 05:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC) prashant

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Your request is blank. Stickee (talk) 07:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to add a little bit about the inclusion of Human Rights in the the UN Charter being brought about by "the effort of a few deeply committed delegates and the representatives of some 42 private organizations" (Stewart Harawira 2005:124). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Developmentnerd (talk • contribs) 08:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Source for 2005 world summit reaffirmation

Hi there, I found a source for the the quotation from the 2005 world summit outcome (http://www.un.org/democracyfund/sites/www.un.org.democracyfund/files/video_embed_field_thumbnails/youtube/A-RES-60-1-E.pdf). As this article is protected from editing by unregistered users (and possibly non-sysops, I didn't bother to check), I would appreciate if a registered user/sysop (whatever the case may require) could add it to then my behalf. It is also worth noting that the links to what was presumably the same document on 2005 World Summit are dead links. Thank you for your time. 130.56.79.45 (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Lost reference

Please the red error tag in the reflist for refname "COOK". Staszek Lem (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I restored the citation, it was removed here, I am not sure if it supports the claim still as I have not read it but it should not have been removed without a note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs) 01:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Categories

Remove the Culture category and possibly the Law one. 203.109.161.2 (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: You have not given a clear reason why this change should be made or linked to a consensus supporting it. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 08:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Human rights

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Human rights's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named ":0":

• From Atlantic slave trade: Thornton, John. A Cultural History of the Atlantic World 1250-1820. 2012, p. 64.
• From Jean Baudrillard: Jean Baudrillard. "The Spirit of Terrorism", European Graduate School. 2 November 2001, Translated by Rachel Bloul
• From Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women: "Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women". www.ohchr.org. Retrieved 2015-05-08.
• From United States Declaration of Independence: Boyd (1976), The Declaration of Independence: The Mystery of the Lost Original, pg. 438
• From Socialism: "Profile of Salvador Allende". BBC. 8 September 2003.
• From British Empire: Ferguson, Niall (2004). Empire, The rise and demise of the British world order and the lessons for global power. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-02328-2.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned ref: philosophy

I wanted to add to the complete text of the article ref. here as David Kennedy had listed pragmatic worries and polemical charges concerning human rights in 2002 in Harvard Human Rights Journal.[30]

http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/dkennedy/publications/Internation%20Human%20Rights%20Regime%20CUP%202012.pdf

The historical role of christianity in the development of European human rights and a couple of other notions

Now I am an atheist, but it is my understanding from studying history, that christianity played a central role in the gradual development of human rights in Europe. That is not surprising, as Europe was a dominantly christian continent for centuries, and the so called universal human rights are very much a product of European culture (seen still today in how "universal" human rights are in any larger extent respected only in countries that belong to the western cultural hemisphere). The role of christianity, christian philosophers and christian ethics and their secularisation is only briefly mentioned in the article in one sentence as a possible theory. No mention of Martin Luther to name just one historical figure who had a transformative impact. I notice from earlier edits (edit wars) that someone tried to add cited information and sources on the role of christianity, but it was all removed. I would like to understand how this is justified?

I don't think that it's a coincidence that the concept of individual human rights developed in Europe and nowhere else in the form we understand these rights today (in the west). Secular thinkers played a key role in advancing these rights further, and in fighting some of the harmful sides of christianity, during the age of enlightenment and the age of reason and in the post WW2 (and WW1) moral crisis, but much of the original cultural impetus, spirit and moral background for the rights of man came from the New Testament. How the character of Jesus accords equal human dignity to the fallen woman, and rebukes the self-righteous stone throwers, holds in an embryonic state the spirit and morality of universal human rights. A key literal work, in my view, to understanding the role christianity played in the development of human rights is Charles Margrave Taylor's Sources of the Self. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_of_the_Self

And there's no mention of Immanuel Kant in the article, who was arguably the most important philosopher of human rights and had a huge influence on later moral philosophers. Yet there is ample room for controversial branchings, in the context of human rights, such as climate change or trade agreements, which broaden the term into something that is very difficult to get a hold on. In addition to key intellectuals, such as philosophers and other revolutionary thinkers, it'd be of importance, for placing the development of human rights in context, to describe the social movements like the reformation, abolitionists and suffragettes, the common men and women that fought for their rights and those of the powerless and won them, and paved the way towards more universal human rights. The many streams of the western cultural and social evolution that flowed into one another and formed a larger river and changed social fabrics, common morality, attitudes and world views. It's impossible to understand the declaration of human rights without this background. Why, for an example, many of the "universal" rights have not been adopted globally 67 years after their declaration.

I think this article requires major work. And the topic is of such huge importance, that it should be almost expedient to see this as a featured article of top quality. Sadly I think it currently deserves the C-rating. Maybe a workgroup and a concentrated collective effort to first rethink and then rewrite this article. 176.93.56.84 (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

very thoughtful comment. I edit a lot of human rights articles but have to read Kant yet, I will order a book then join your working group if there ends up being one. all the books I have read refer to Kant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs) 14:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Please provide reliable secondary or tertiary sources for your claims. We cannot use original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is one source for the origin of the concept of human rights: Stefan-Ludwig Hoffman, "Genealogies of Human Rights", in Human Rights in the Twentieth Century, Stefan-Ludwig Hoffman, editor (Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 1–28.

Two works discussed often discussed in this regard are: Richard A. Bauman, Human Rights in Ancient Rome (Routledge, 2000) and Paul Veyne, “Humanitas: Romans and Non-Romans,” in Andrea Giardina, editor and Lydia G. Cochrane, translator, The Romans (University of Chicago Press, 1993), pp. 342–369.

The concept of humanitas was developed by Cicero, a lawyer, and his circle, who were interested in Greek Stoicism. Certainly, the thinkers of the Enlightenment looked back to Ancient Rome and its legal and political system. Voltaire, for example, idolized and used to dress up as Cicero. See Peter Gay's, The Party of Humanity (1964) for a memorable discussion of the Enlightenment attitude to Cicero.

Bauman, a scholar of Roman and modern civil law, argues that the Ancient Roman concept of humanitas was virtually synonymous with modern conceptions of human rights and was certainly the ancestor of, modern human rights declarations. According to him, in Ancient Rome, the question of humanitas came up in the context of debates about harsh legal punishments (i.e, torture and mutilation -- amputation and castration and the like) and the treatment of conquered peoples and slaves. He says that during the first century of the empire, Stoicism was a dissenting movement of protest against imperial tyranny on the part of those who remembered their lost republican liberties; and leading Stoics, like Seneca, were subjected to government persecution/ and or death. Under the so-called good emperors of the second century, however, Stoicism instead became established imperial philosophy, and edicts were proclaimed protecting slaves from maltreatment, for example, and forbidding torture and mutilation of the human body. You might say that Roman Stoicism paved the way for Christianity, or you might say that Roman legal traditions passed into Christianity through canon law and were even adopted by Christian barbarians into their own (non-Roman) legal systems. In the Christian Middle Ages, Seneca and Cicero were regarded virtually as saints.

On the other hand, Paul Veyne's vivid reminders of Roman cruelty and brutalities in actual practice (as opposed to their literature) are often cited as a counter argument to what many regard as Bauman's overstatements about Roman attitudes to human dignity. Nevertheless, notwithstanding possible overstatements, Bauman's demonstration of the connection between humanitas romana and its expression in Roman legal tradition is quite convincing. Mballen (talk) 06:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Mballen (talk) 06:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: see also:

• Iulian Gabriel Hruşcă, "Humanitas Romana and Edictum Mediolanese, Inter-conditionalities and Transitions for the Benefit of Equity and Tolerance," International Journal of Cultural and Linguistic Communication 3:2 (April / June 2013):166-170. Discusses an edict of toleration issued by the Christian emperor Constantine.
• Stephen Bennetts, " Human Rights in the Ancient World by Richard Bauman (Routledge Classical Monographs, London and New York, 2000)" , Australian Journal of Human Rights 11 (2001): 7 Review and succinct summary of contents of Bauman's book, which evidently appeared in Australia as a monograph "Human Rights in the Ancient World". Mballen (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Explainer Video about Human Rights

The media company edeos has produced an animated explainer about Human Rights under a cc license. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Video_Human_Rights.webm Maybe its interesting for this article? --Edeos (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The "replace[ment] [of] synonyms for said"

In Special:Diff/737867816, Turkeybutt JC replaced what he considered to be "synonyms" with the generic (and supposedly neutral) word "state". I take issue with that edit, for using "state" in the context of "so-and-so state that <something>" implies a degree of truth and an assertion of this <something> being an absolute fact.

Considering this editor's problematic history (more on User_talk:Floquenbeam#Problematic_and_a_bit_tiresome), I have taken the liberty to revert the change. Chenzw  Talk  02:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I read somewhere that "say", "state", "write", "comment", and "according to". Perhaps I should'v sticked with "said", "wrote" and "according to" and "is mentioned by".

• "so-and-so said that <something>" simply implies that they just said something. This is very neutral and accurate.
• "so-and-so wrote that <something>" also implies that they just wrote something. This is also neutral and accurate.

I don't think that any other synonyms are necessary. As words such as reveal, point out, find, disclose, debunk, explain, confess, admit, etc. imply that the statement is true.

Words such as claim, assert, insist, thought, argue, etc. imply some doubt on the statement. We have to just use the general terms said or wrote. --Turkeybutt (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

CSCE

Why isn't the CSCE mentioned here somewhere? The Helsinki Final Act of 1975 has one basket almost completely dedicated to human rights and greatly improved human rights in Eastern Europe in the Cold War. Laristyna (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2017

Please add under right to bear firearms

No human right to bear firearms exists under international law, in particular there is no human right to self-defense and its means. Instead, states are under an obligation to reasonably limit access to firearms as part of their duty to protect the right to life. Hotbridge (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done--Too generalised and POV-ed to incorporate.Provide more WP:RS.Regrets!Winged Blades ^Godric 10:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Human rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130117073042/http://www.droits-fondamentaux.org/spip.php?article27 to http://www.droits-fondamentaux.org/spip.php?article27
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120317161306/http://www.alaindebenoist.com/pdf/au-dela_des_droits_de_l_homme.pdf to http://www.alaindebenoist.com/pdf/au-dela_des_droits_de_l_homme.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101012101425/http://www.oxfam.org/en/news/pressreleases2006/pr060428_un to http://www.oxfam.org/en/news/pressreleases2006/pr060428_un
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/The%20Court/The%20Court/History%20of%20the%20Court/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101108052518/https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-9&chapter=4&lang=en to http://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-9&chapter=4&lang=en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100209072059/http://www.ilo.org/global/Themes/Forced_Labour/lang--en/index.htm to http://www.ilo.org/global/Themes/Forced_Labour/lang--en/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716093517/http://www.smfcdn.com/assets/pubs/un_chronicle.pdf to http://www.smfcdn.com/assets/pubs/un_chronicle.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501101647/http://www.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2009-05-15-voa30-68815957.html?rss=human+rights+and+law to http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2009-05-15-voa30-68815957.html?rss=human+rights+and+law
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050524075958/http://www.achpr.org/english/_info/charter_en.html to http://www.achpr.org/english/_info/charter_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on Talk:Israel

There is a discussion at Talk:Israel#Edit request concerning additions regarding human rights violations about whether or not to include content about allegations of human rights abuses in the "Israeli-occupied territories" section.

The content is notable, reliably sourced, relevant and due there and other articles of countries such as China also have information on such allegations and there is no reason why the Israel should be an exception and ommit information based on whatever doesn't fit Israeli editors' views.

Please comment.

--Fixuture (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I do think inclusion of this would be okay, though I would like it under a section like, Human rights controversies, and ideally, that would include other countries than just Israel, as that could be a bit singling out if you catch my drift. We should have relativists vs universalists renamed to controversies, because Human rights, are not accepted by everyone, i.e half the planet. Factsoverfeelings (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding a human rights acceptance map?

Is there a map we could add that illustrates more clearly for the reader exactly which countries have Human rights? Can we have this done? Factsoverfeelings (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Human rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080109184227/http://www.un.org/aboutun/chart_en.pdf to http://www.un.org/aboutun/chart_en.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2009-05-15-voa30-68815957.html?rss=human%20rights%20and%20law
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100712090630/http://www.amnestyusa.org/lgbt-human-rights/about-lgbt-human-rights/page.do?id=1106573 to http://www.amnestyusa.org/lgbt-human-rights/about-lgbt-human-rights/page.do?id=1106573
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217232401/http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf to http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080504224635/http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/jihr/v2/5/ to http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/jihr/v2/5/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Split is needed

The concept of violations of human rights is so notable, it really should have its own article. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://urj.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=13462&pge_prg_id=57308&pge_id=1607
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100406074229/http://www.cusd.chico.k12.ca.us/~bsilva/projects/russia/stalin/great_purge.htm to http://www.cusd.chico.k12.ca.us/~bsilva/projects/russia/stalin/great_purge.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Sexual orientation and gender identity

How is a human right given to everyone but when one choose to live the non-traditional route they are punished for trying to make themselves happy? — MychelleS (talk) 011:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Human rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120505173723/http://velesova-sloboda.org/misc/benoist-die-religion-der-menschenrechte.html to http://www.velesova-sloboda.org/misc/benoist-die-religion-der-menschenrechte.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120505201210/http://velesova-sloboda.org/polit/benoist-religiya-prav-cheloveka.html to http://www.velesova-sloboda.org/polit/benoist-religiya-prav-cheloveka.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527095857/http://www.newint.org/issue337/facts.htm to http://www.newint.org/issue337/facts.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100823042210/http://ilga.org/ilga/en/article/1111 to http://ilga.org/ilga/en/article/1111
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100516054224/http://www.amnestyusa.org/lgbt-human-rights/country-information/page.do?id=1106576 to http://www.amnestyusa.org/lgbt-human-rights/country-information/page.do?id=1106576
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080120140923/http://www.amnestyusa.org/Stop_Violence_Against_Women_SVAW/Reproductive_Rights/page.do?id=1108242&n1=3&n2=39&n3=1101 to http://www.amnestyusa.org/Stop_Violence_Against_Women_SVAW/Reproductive_Rights/page.do?id=1108242&n1=3&n2=39&n3=1101

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Human rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120328001040/http://www.hrea.org/erc/Library/display_doc.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hrc.upeace.org%2Ffiles%2Fhuman%2520rights%2520reference%2520handbook.pdf&external=N to http://www.hrea.org/erc/Library/display_doc.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hrc.upeace.org%2Ffiles%2Fhuman%2520rights%2520reference%2520handbook.pdf&external=N
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120328001040/http://www.hrea.org/erc/Library/display_doc.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hrc.upeace.org%2Ffiles%2Fhuman%2520rights%2520reference%2520handbook.pdf&external=N to http://www.hrea.org/erc/Library/display_doc.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hrc.upeace.org%2Ffiles%2Fhuman%2520rights%2520reference%2520handbook.pdf&external=N

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Possible Add on to the article

Would Non-governmental actors be able to include the black lives matter organization to its examples because it is a group that also fights for equal rights? --Tacoby Cobb Jr. (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. @Tacoby Cobb Jr.: In my opinion, no because 1) Black Lives Matter is solely in the United States, while most entries in that section are international 2) their focus is narrowly on a certain type of human rights violation, and 3) some people may view the characterization of Black Lives Matter as a "human rights" organization as pro-Black lives Matter POV.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  16:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Could add the major history that has started within the twenty first century, also the human rights when it comes to war globally. Aubreycyr (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Aubreycyr Aubreycyr (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Citation Needed in "Universal Declaration of Human Rights"

Although the UDHR is a non-binding resolution, it is now considered by some to have acquired the force of international customary law which may be invoked in appropriate circumstances by national and other tribunals. Richard B. Lillich, "The Growing Importance of Customary International Human Rights Law," Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 25, no. Issues 1 & 2 (1995/1996): 1-30, URL=http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/gjicl/vol25/iss1/2/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exasper8dCabbage (talk • contribs) 20:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Right as a behaviour?

Dear Wikipedia,

First of all, what does this even mean? "Human rights are moral principles or norms that describe certain standards of human behaviour"

Human behaviour to others, or the person's human behaviour? First this is unclear, second if the meaning was the latter option, then it would be a rule, not a right. You need to change this.

By the way, many of your definitions are vague because you define the words using other such vague words like "norms" or "moral principals", and convoluted word choice like above, something with one context, like "define" or "create" instead of "describe".

Thank you and Kind regards, Anonymous user who upholds clarity

--27.33.243.117 (talk) 03:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)