Talk:Human rights/Archive 3

Confusion between human rights and humanitarian law
I am separating out the humanitarian law section (and some red cross) from the human rights law section. Human rights law and humanitarian law is not the same! Humanitarian law refers to rights/laws governing armed conflict. In everyday use people may regard humanitarian law as part of human rights law, but legally and technically they are not the same. Hence I am not deleting the good work done on listing the geneva conventions, but I am moving it to the humanitarian law article.--SasiSasi (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well done. I have been thinking about the next steps for improving the IHL piece and you have done this.Joel Mc (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

it was a bit bold... but so far nobody has complained. The humanitarian law article does look like a nice little article now, although it needs editing to join it up more. The non-regular/inter-state warfare section could use some ref. to the Rome Statute (International Criminal Court. And this human rights article could use a little section on crimes against humanity (similar to the humanitarian law section, cross ref to main article). --SasiSasi (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Human Rights Council
As you can see in this commentary by Yvonne Terlingen the Human Rights Council ranks alongside the Security Council, rather than being subordinate to it.

I also feel that the prose that was changed was better (was easier to read and better structured) than that which replaced it, but obviously that is subjective... Tkn20 (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Read Article 39 of the UN Charter. A commentator cannot amend the UN Charter, even if they really really want to. Raggz (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Right to water
I asked for a cite for this, then the author stated was "self-evident" instead of citing it. I don't think it is self-evident: The possibility of a right to water has long existed, but does not yet exist.

For just one example, the "right to water" is recognized under Roman Law, still used in many countries. Justinian's Code even distinguishes between aquae haustus, the right to draw water, Inst. II, 3, 2; Dig. VIII, 3, 1.1 and aquaeductus, the right to bring water, Inst. II, 3, pr.; Dig. VIII, 3, 1.pr. Since Water is actually necessary to life, this has long been recognised by many human laws. I doubt it is legal in any country to force someone to die by denying them water, and there is no legal world body with the authority to state that the right to water does not exist. Many would argue that they already have it through clauses in many Constitutions like the US 10th Amendment. If you meant to say the right to water is not yet spelled out by the UN body, please specify this. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I did indeed mean that there is not yet a universal legal right to water - I meant to give no subjective opinion on whether there is or isn't a conceptual right to water. This is what is evident from the references given. I will replace the sentence with something clearer. I was attempting to make it clear that there is controversy about whether water is a right, a commodity for sale, or both - and if that is even possible. Tkn20 (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

PS - I don't understand how the 10th Amendment to the bill of rights makes water a legal right? I thought it was an amendment limiting the power of the federal government goverment over the states? I may be wrong, I am no expert Tkn20 (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It states that there are rights held by the people that are not spelled out and don't have to be by the Constitution, or anywhere else. Things normally taken for granted, like the right to move from one place to another, the right to do work, the right to be a member of an organization - are usually said to be covered for Americans by the 10th Amendment, even though many more recent Constitutions' Bills of Rights in other countries do spell these rights out. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What? the Tenth Amendment reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That's why states have the power to regulate things such as alcohol sales and speed limits. You're reading way too much into the Tenth Amendment if you see a universal right to water in there. --69.142.108.40 (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Does the water mean clean water? How about the right to food, and not just any food but the right to food as demanded by respective religions? And how about the right to clean air? All of which are ingredients required for survival of living things. 86.157.233.184 (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Abortion in reproductive rights
Someone keeps removing references to abortion and medical coverage rights from sections of the artice, specifically the reproducutive rights article. I have reverted it twice because the parts being removed are well referenced and, I believe, belong in the article.Tkn20 (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, would the anonymous editor who keeps deleting material from "Reproductive rights" either discuss the reasons for the deletions or stop engaging in what is beginning to look like vandalism? I'm going to revert the edit, per Tkn20. Phyesalis (talk) 03:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Henry Kissinger
"Meeting between General Augusto Pinochet and U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger (1974). Both were at risk of arrest for crimes against humanity under universal jurisdiction laws if they travelled internationally."

This is a clear OR issue. There is one citation by one commentator alleging war crimes in this article. Does Christopher Hitchens pose a risk to this Nobel Laureate, may he arrest Henry Hissinger? I intend to delete all references to Henry Kissinger because there is no demostrable relevance, and no reliable supporting sources for inclusion. Raggz (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Henry Kissinger is relevant because he advocates state sovereignty as more important than universal jurisdiction in all cases. The fact that he is himself in danger of being arrested under unveriversal jurisdiction laws is therefore also relevant. The picture adds little to the article, although I still think it is relevant, but I am happy for it to be removed. However, I contend that Kissinger is relevant to the universal jurisdiction part, and if you want other sources, there are many, including the wikipedia article on Henry Kissinger.Tkn20 (talk) 11:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You know what he advocates better than I do. If he is at risk of arrest, just offer a reliable source. An editorial stating the reasons that OJ Simpson should be indicted is not a reference that establishes that he is at risk of indictment, but that there is speculation on this. Feel free to build a decent case against Kissinger. Just use recent citations, not only from 1999 or before. I don't care about him, but I do not believe that Christopher Hitchen may indict anyone anywhere. You don't really believe that Kissinger worries about Christopher Hitchens indictments, do you? Raggz (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone here is trashing the Nobel Laureate Henry Kissinger. The article isn't about Kissinger. The Reader may look him up if interested at Henry Kissinger. He is writing a scholarly article relevant to keeping the npov policy working. Trashing him HERE is a npov violation, go trash him all you want in Henry Kissinger. Raggz (talk) 09:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is an excellent rebuttal of all the arguments Kissinger makes in that article, unfortunately I have not got the citation to hand. Also, I believe there were US citizens attempting to charge him wit war crimes and perhaps also in Belgium. I will try and find my info on this. Also, the point isn't that Kissinger has something to worry about, but it follows the idea that if you try something novel often enough, it'll succeed at some point. So attempts by others to indict Kissinger may well influence his own policy :). Also, pre-1999 references should be fine if we are talking about academic resources and fixed news links. A lot of this blew up around 1998-2002. Sephui (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

ICC/ICJ
There are numerous factual errors about the ICC and ICJ that were corrected. Raggz (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have made some amendments to the ICC and ICJ entries, some of which include replacing information you deleted, but with some extra clarifications. If you still see factual errors, could you list them here, as I don't know what they are? Tkn20 (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Universal Jurisdiction
There are a number of original research claims and factually incorrect claims about univeral jurisdiction. For example: the ICC does not claim universal jurisdiction. The ICJ has no jurisdiction, ever, over individuals.

The creation of the ICC DID NOT reduce calls for more national universal jurisdiction laws.

"Commentators' positions in the argument for and against intervention and the use of force by states are influenced by whether they believe human rights are largely a legal or moral duty and whether they are of more cosmopolitan or nationalist persuasion." I have no idea what this piece of OR is about. Raggz (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the majority of this and also have no idea what the statement above really means. I believe the ICC is intended to have universal jurisdiction, but will not have it until it is ratified by everyone. This is clearly not the case, so I have removed the statement, and the reduction in calls for universal jurisdiction laws.Tkn20 (talk) 11:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a dream that the ICC will usher in The Golden Age of International Justice. (I like the dream, even though I douibt it). The ICC could have universal jurisdiction, but it then collides with the jurisdiction of the UN. The UN defines a war crime differently than does the ICC, and is moving farther away every year. We would need to give up the UN jurisdiction for the ICC to have it. The ICC presently does not advocate universal jurisdiction.


 * The US has advocates of universal jurisdiction who advocate Pax Americana. When every nation has universal jurisdidiction, the US will as well. Will the ability to enforce universal jurisdiction be the same for the US and Chile, will a world of universal jurisdiction really be an improvement? One reason that I am skeptical of universal jurisdiction is that I believe that it will permit the powerful to legally subdue the weak. Raggz (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I propose deletion of universal jurisdiction because this is not about human rights at all, and only indirectly related to the enforcement of human rights. It is about the laws against piracy, mainly. It might someday be used to enforce human rights - and it may never be. Raggz (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

United Nations advisory standards
''Not all of them are compliant with the United Nations advisory standards as set out in the 1993 Paris Principles, but the number and effect of these institutions is increasing. ''

A reliable source is required to make the claim above. The UN Charter governs ALL of the "United Nations advisory standards", and the UN Security Council is the only authority that may be cited for this claim. If the text is reverted, and it states that some organization ALLEGES non-compliance, fine. Raggz (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

National Security
"Since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York, and due to the subsequent War on terror and concerns about national security and terrorism in countries around the world, a number of national laws and measures have come into force limiting some domestic human rights in the name of national security. They include, amongst others, the Patriot Act in the United States and detention-without-trial[111], limits on the right to protest[112] and other measures[113] in the United Kingdom. The United States has also used extraordinary rendition in order to allow suspects to be subjected to harsh interrogation that may constitute torture[114] in third party states and has employed detention without trial at its controversial facility at Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba, contrary to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[115]."

All of the original research above is being deleted as OR, if you want to revert it you will need a reliable source that authoratatively establishes that any of it is factual. You will find reliable sources that ALLEGE that it is factual, but you need an actual authoratative ruling on this to claim it as fact. None of these references establish that this was the case, they all ALLEGE this. Raggz (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the section, as even if the part above is original research, that is no reason to delete the entire section. Secondly, the part above is not original research, although it may not have been worded correctly. I have replaced it and removed parts that imply any research or assumption.Tkn20 (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The section is entirely OR, and if a few bits might not be, the section needs the full reworking you likely will do anyway? Please strive for NPOV, include the citations that the Patriot Act etc enhanced Human Rights as well as the allegations of the opposition. Citations that allege, need be reported accurately, not as facts. Raggz (talk) 12:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

UN Security Council
"The human rights enshrined in the UDHR, the Geneva Conventions and the various enforced treaties of the United Nations are theoretically enforceable in law. In practice, many rights are are very difficult to legally enforce due to the absence of consensus on the application of certain rights, the lack of relevant national legislation or of bodies empowered to take legal action to enforce them.''


 * None of the above have reliable sources. Nothing is "theoretically" enforcable. The UNSC MAY enforce anything that is wants to. The problem (from your pov) is that it doesn't want to. You are presuming that human rights violations are ignored (and I agree), but how did you and I determine that there were violations? Neither of us may do this for WP?


 * My Translation: You hold strong opinions about human rights and the failure of the UN and national authorities to enforce your opinions. We likely mostly agree on this. Our opinions, and those of commentators are merely opinions. The law is what the UNSC says that it is. Am I missing something here? Raggz (talk) 11:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

''Since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York a number of national laws and measures have come into force limiting some domestic human rights in the name of national security. They include and detention-without-trial[111], limits on the right to protest[112] and other measures[113] in the United Kingdom. The United States has also been accused of using extraordinary rendition in order to allow suspects to be subjected to harsh interrogation that may constitute torture[114] in third party states and has employed detention without trial at its controversial facility at Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba. This has bene argued to be contrary to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[115].''

All of the text deleted above was reverted without adding a reliable source for any of these claims. None of the citations establish that any human rights were denied, but all allege this. To establish a violation you at least need a charge, or ideally a verdict. If these are actual violations, why not bring it before the European Court of Human Rights? THAT would be a reliable source. All that is here are allegations.

There are many reliable sources for the counter-claim, that these measures enhanced human rights. Do we want a section on this? My thought is that long sections of debate do not belong in an encyclopedia. Raggz (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have hidden the section for the moment, as I think perhaps this article is not the place for this, but I do think it needs to mention current issues in human rights, of which this is a significant one. Some of the application of the UK laws have been found to be a breach of domestic human rights legislation, and a number of countries have brought in anti-terror legislation which limits some rights. This is probably better covered in the anti-terror legislation article though, so in general I agree with you. I might go away and think about it a bit... Tkn20 (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We should cover significant human rights issues. The first question I always ask is: What specific human right is involved? When people speculate that a human right is being compromised, and others speculate otherwise, why would we include this debate? There are thousands of such debates, maybe millions. If the UN, the ICC, the European Court of Human Rights, or a national judiciary makes an actual determination that a human right is being compromised, THEN we have a reliable source that a human right is involved. Raggz (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Corporate Human Rights
"State and non-state actors Human rights have traditionally been considered the responsibility of the State, but they are increasingly also considered the responsibility of other organisations, such as companies, NGOs, political parties, informal groups, and of individuals - all known as non-State actors. Non-State actors can also commit human rights abuses, but are not subject to human rights law other than International Humanitarian Law, which applies to all.

''Multi-national companies play an increasingly large role in the world, and are responsible for a large number of human rights abuses.[99] Although the legal and moral environment surrounding the actions of governments is reasonably well developed, that surrounding multi-national companies is both controversial and ill-defined. Multi-national companies' primary responsibility is to their shareholders, not to those affected by their actions. Such companies are often larger than the economies of the states in which they operate, and can wield significant economic and political power. No international treaties exist to specifically cover the behavior of companies with regard to human rights, and national legislation is very variable."''


 * All of the above is original research, but it is an important section, so I have not yet deleted it. The HRW citation does not really seem to support the claim, but that corporations do business with states that violate human rights AND have their own issues as well. Does anyone have time to salvage this important section? Raggz (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think "salvage" is a bit strong, but I will do a bit more work on it and knock it into shape. - Just as a reply to all your comments above, I have done a lot of work on this article, and there is quite a bit left to do, and your comments (and others) are welcome, so thankyou. I think (hope!) on the whole though, it is a lot better than it was a few weeks ago. Tkn20 (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologize. My style is less than ideal. Thank you for your work. Raggz (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

POV
The opening paragraph bluntly states that "the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law, and social, cultural and economic rights, such as the right to participate in culture, the right to work, and the right to education" are human rights. This strikes me as extremely POV. There are plenty of people who believe that several of those things (notably the right to work) are not human rights that everyone is entitled to. --Descendall (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Every claim that a human right was denied should clearly articulate what the human right denied actually is. This should cite a reliable source that supports the claim. If we follow this policy (and one other) we would then have an encyclopedia article that complies with NPOV. Raggz (talk) 07:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure I understand what you mean. My point was that the article just bluntly says that every human being has the right to be employed. That's editorializing. There are plently of people who don't believe in the concept of rights at all. There are way more who reject the idea that group rights and cultural rights exist. There are even more who believe in free-market capitalism and do not think that people have an innate right to employment. The opening article of this entry might as well just say "if you're a capitalist, you're violating human rights." It's an awfully bold assertation. --Descendall (talk) 08:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your point is right, it does say that certain things are rights. This is easily changed, and I have made an attempt. I think you are misinterpreting a right to work though - it is most commonly framed more like that everyone has the right to not be prevented from working. However, that is not clear from this introduction, so it shouldn't be so categorical. I think changing it as I have done should do that?77.73.8.70 (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think it is better saying that some people consider those things to be rights. Just to be clear, it's not that I don't believe in rights; I actually work for a human rights organization. It's just jarring to have the wikipedia article assert what are and are not the rights that humans have. You wouldn't expect to go to the article on Utilitarianism and have it say something like "act utilitarianism is correct, and rule utilitarianism is wrong." Reasonable people disagree about these things. --Descendall (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that we have consensus for Descendall to do some editing here? Raggz (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I did the best that I could. It is still a little awkward. Feel free do do whatever you want with it. --Descendall (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Great job! I'm sure that a few words will change, but real progress was made. Raggz (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I'm thinking we could establish certain rights and contextualize those rights which have been ratified as human rights by the UN/Security Council. Raggz' point about disputed rights is a good one. At some point, surely we can say that if various rights have been ratified by the UN, we can generally consider them to be "human rights" by consensus (not unanimous consent) of the international community. This contextualizes the position without making the unqualified statement that "X and Y are human rights". It becomes "X and Y have been established as human rights in the international human rights community/by the UN/proposed change here." Or something to that effect. Phyesalis (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

For example consider this quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:"When rights are embedded in international law we speak of them as human rights; but when they are enacted in national law we more frequently describe them as civil or constitutional rights. As this illustrates, it is possible for a right to exist within more than one normative system at the same time." Per a reliable reference work, those rights established in international law may be referred to as established "human rights". Thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a need to use specific words for specific meanings within an encylopedia. Most of international law does not apply to any specific nation and some applies to none. Most applies only to treaties between two nations. All nations properly ignore most of international law, because most is without argument, innapplicable. Raggz (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The UNSC interprets the UN Charter and thus all UN human rights and judicial decisions are subject to it. The international community met in 1948 and decided on the rules, and our article should adequately reflect what they actually are. Every member of the UN has waived sovereignty by treaty to join. The UN is the only judicial tribunal with the jurisdiction to act without the limitations that sovereignty imposes upon all other bodies. This is not a neglected detail, it is a missing critical fact, and ommission denies NPOV. Raggz (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. As to your previous post, maybe if you're talking about Private international law but Public international law is different. Particularly with regard to human rights. Since human rights legislation is predominantly in the sphere of public international law (as opposed to PIL), I'm thinking we can take it to be that aspect of int'l law being referred to in SEP. I'm not understanding your first statement. Since this is about the phrase/phenomenon and it is in an encyclopedia, why is there no need to try and achieve clarity - especially if there is a discussion about what, if anything, can be called a human right? Would you mind explaining that? Maybe I'm misunderstanding something. Thanks. Phyesalis (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This article has some serious issues. Tkn20 has asked for a peer-review. I'm thinking we need a good history on the origins of the UN and it's role as a human rights body and the interplay of international law, human rights and the conflicts at national levels regarding treaties, conventions, and human rights abuses (where is any abuses content in the article?). Phyesalis (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about what you have asked. Human rights legislation has three "spheres". (My comments here are OR, but only for the purpose of a concise explanation.) (1) Global (UN Law) (2) Regional (EU and/or ICC Membership) and (3) National. Many nations only have 1&3. others 1,2,3. North Korea is nearly unique for only having 3 (not a UN member).


 * Europeans have a distinct regional outlook that the entire world is 1,2,3, because the EU is this way. Americans see 1&3 as normal. Europeans have given up on national sovereignty and are often unaware that it persists and dominates international human rights law, except by an action of the UNSC. This has lead to unproductive communication failure, because what is actual international human rights law is misunderstood.


 * International human rights progress would be significantly enhanced if those who favor a post-sovereign world were to realize that legally, this has yet to occur. Presently they believe that nations that insist upon national sovereignty are human rights offenders for this reason alone. Our article claims this. Raggz (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge Human rights education discussion
The discussion on merging Human rights education into this article is at Talk:Human rights education —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkn20 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Raggz (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I think we should merge Human rights treaty bodies into this article as it just repeats the Human rights section Tkn20 (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Agreed. Raggz (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment/proposal - First, this article is 111 kb long before adding this material. It is an intro article to a vast subject, so length itself isn't so much an issue. I suggest that we take out all the early human rights info and create a History of human rights sub-article. Leave everything from early modern era in the article and copy it over at the spin-out. This would get the relevant info up to the top of the body of the article and create room for other sections, like ones that specifically enumerate and discuss the proposed/contested human rights. As for the merger, I think we should leave the list and get the info into the article in prose form. Thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I like your creative spirit. I propose that we give you carte blanche to follow your creative idea, and then we tear into whatever we don't like. It is not possible for any committee to create anything worthwhile, individuals create. Committees are for reviewing creations. I say follow WP policy on this, Phyesalis, be bold. 5P


 * "Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles. Although it should be aimed for, perfection is not required. Do not worry about messing up. All prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content." Raggz (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Why, thank you! I have gone ahead and made the basic move (see link above). I'll be back at it, fine tuning etc, later. Feedback (not to mention editing) would be most welcome. Phyesalis (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The article now gives the false impression that there was no early history of human rights before the English Magna Carta. If you won't mention that there was such a thing, won't you at least link the new article ? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Good point, I am planning on going back and summarizing the removed material, I'm just doing it in stages. There is a link under the second section. I was trying to figure out where to place the Magna Carta info within the existing sections, but I think maybe at the end of the summary of the old info (and then move the link up). Thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Security Council
The article states that the Security Council is the final authority for the interpretation of the UN Charter. Having made mistakes in this already, I clearly don't fully understand the workings of the Security Council. I have read article 39 of the charter, and it doesn't to me say that the security council is the final authority of interpreting the charter - is there a clearer citation that explains this? I can't find anything.Tkn20 (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well put. All organs of the UN report to the Security Council. This is well enough known (as a source of frustration for many, including the deleted citation) that it may not often be stated. In regard to human rights and the UN, they are what the Security Council says that they are (or more commonly doesn't say).


 * There are the Regional bodies and the ICC, these apply only to their members. The ICJ only applies with consent. ONLY the UNSC may impose upon sovereignty, the members have consented to this by treaty.


 * From International Court of Justice. "The Court's workload is characterised by a wide range of judicial activity. Its main functions are to settle legal disputes submitted to it by member states and to give advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it by duly authorized international organs, agencies and the UN General Assembly. The ICJ has dealt with relatively few cases in its history, but there has clearly been an increased willingness to use the Court since the 1980s, especially among developing countries. The United States withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986, and so accepts the court's jurisdiction only on a case-to-case basis. Chapter XIV of the United Nations Charter authorizes the UN Security Council to enforce World Court rulings, but this is subject to the veto of the Permanent Five. Presently there are twelve cases on the World Court's docket."


 * Chapter V of the United Nations Charter: Article 24 gives the Security Council "primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security" and requires the UNSC to act in accordance with the UN's purposes and principles. Article 25 requires members to "accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council," a mandate that does not apply with respect to the decisions of any other UN body, with the exception of the World Court's decisions once a country has accepted its jurisdiction. Raggz (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is more editing work to be done here. Would you like to to try this? I believe that there is consensus for revising the text to enhance accuracy. We might need more tweaking, but would you like to do this? Raggz (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I can have a go - it feels like we need a short section on the Security Council, in addition to some clarification about inter-agency relationships in other sections, explaining that:


 * It can refer cases to the ICC
 * It can take action to enforce rulings from the ICJ even if a country has not accepted its jurisdiction.
 * It is the only body which, through its mandate to protect peace and security, can impose on nations sovereinty.


 * Are these right? Is is the case (and this is for my understanding, not necessarily for inclusion) that there is a gap in the enforcement of human rights law because hypothetically the security council could not enforce a human right if that was likely to reduce peace and security? It sounds like a potential conflict of interest to me... Tkn20 (talk) 10:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly correct. The list is far more extensive. The UNSC interprets the UN Charter (Art. 39) and can in practice require any nation to do almost anything, and may order any sanction. This is an awesome level of power, and the five vetoes are necessary to limit the exercise of these powers to situations with true international consensus. I suggest dealing with what sovereignty means and why it is important.


 * The UN was designed for sovereign nations to cooperate.
 * There is a competing modern view that we are entering a post-sovereignty era, and this is largely a European view due to European politics.


 * There is no "gap" in UNSC authority, nor for UNSC jurisdiction, there is an intended requirement for international political consensus. The UNSC is not a democratic institution. It is an international political institution designed to make political decisions. The greatest weakness of the UNSC is the same as its greatest strength, without consensus it is impotent.


 * Tyranny is the name for any government that lacks the consent of the governed, and because the UNSC is not a democratic institution it could easily implement tyranny. The inheirant need for consensus (vetoes) is all that stands between it and tyranny.


 * The designers intended that it be difficult for the UNSC to enforce human rights, or anything else. The UNSC is designed so that international action to enforce human rights should be difficult, but not imposssible, as it was before the UN. If the UNSC governed with the consent of the governed, and if it was a democratic institution, it would not have been designed to require such a high degree of consensus. Raggz (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Defamation of religions
FROM Human Rights Council: ''"The Council has sparked concern from free speech and human rights groups over a proposed resolution, introduced by Pakistan, that would prevent "defamation of religions." Human Rights Watch noted that passing a resolution concerned with religion, rather than individual freedoms, could result in a mandate to stifle freedom of expression and thought in countries around the world.  Freedom House said that the resolution went against what the Human Rights Council should stand for, protecting human rights and freedom of speech, calling it “a perversion of the language and institutions hitherto used to protect human rights”.  The resolution itself at first calls for freedom of religion, but then goes on to say  that people must speak “with responsibility”, and freedoms of speech may be limited in areas regarding “public health and morals” or “respect for religions and beliefs”. Of the Council's members from the Organization of the Islamic Conference, 16 of 17 voted for the resolution, along with China, Russia, and South Africa. The 14 members that voted against included all of the European Union, Japan, Ukraine and South Korea. Nine developing countries abstained from the vote." ''

The world's newest human right to emerge is described above. It is interesting because it comes from outside of the West, a global view of human rights rather than a Western view. The UN has passed it, so by international law all UN members now need conform to this? How do we handle this? I will be editing in a section after everyone weighs in. Raggz (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The UN Security Council & human rights
Human rights violations occur when any state or non-state actor breaches any of the UDHR treaty or other international human rights or humanitarian law as determined by the UN Security Council or by a regional or national judiciary."

Someone modified the above (in italics), Why? The claim was that an actual violation of a UN human right may be documented without action by the UNSC. May we have an example? Otherwise I will revert. It is important to document exactly how human rights violations are determined. Allegations of course, do not require proof, but violations do require a reliable source that a violation actually occured. Raggz (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

my contribution to the peer review request...
In the last section, references are made to Article 39, which deals with peace and security. These are relevant to humanitarian law, not human rights law. They are still distinct topics, and we should not go so far as to conflate the two when there is still considerable academic debate on whether convergence of the two laws is a good thing or not.

As far as I understand, the ICJ has very rarely pronounced on human rights - I believe one case is Las Palmas and the other is one that it was either based on or came after it. I think that may be something to include.

Also missing in this largely legal treatment of the subject is an aside to reservation of HR treaties and general comment no 24 by the HR Committee.

Philosophical justifications for HR... surely more must exist? Or perhaps a fleshing out of what is already there would aid. It appears disjointed to me, despite my familiarity with the names of the writers.

Also, what about all the other UN agencies that 'aid' - ILO and WHO have been important in providing forums for debate and advancement, as well as assistance to nations which aids in realizing some of the progressive ESC rights.

For the universal jurisdiction bit: again this is mostly relevant to humanitarian law (intervention in an on-going conflict) or as stted there already, the holding to account of those who commit crimes against humanity etc. A discussion of how litigation in Spain aided Argentine courts in removing a 20-year blockade on the prosecution of those they deemed responsible for the atrocities. Can't remember the cases, but am sure it could be found online somewhere.

Who came up with the 'full belly thesis' btw? Hadn't heard of it before.

By the by, HR has been moving fast lately and I haven't kept up with it; it also isn't my subject of expertise, so feel free to challenge me on some parts. :) Sephui (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent points, I hope you help edit here. Article 39 is here because there needed to be some reliable source why the Human Rights Council cannot legislate HRs or send cases to the ICC. Raggz (talk) 09:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, across the board. Thank you. We had more info on the cultural/religious history of Human rights, but are in a bit of a transitional period, having moved much of it to History of human rights. Perhaps we could move the "concepts" section further up in the body and expand more of the philosophical aspects? Or maybe we should think about reintroducing some of the material from HoHR? Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phyesalis (talk • contribs) 20:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops, meant "Philosophies" not "concepts". Phyesalis (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the re-introduction. We shouldn't be too worried about the size of the article - it is a serious topic, and for people with no knowledge of the topic, a more coherent intro is needed. Sephui (talk) 13:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sephui seems to have a creative editing impulse and I suggest that we should encourage this impulse. Unless someone objects, I suggest that we have consensus for Sephui to do some revising and editing to improve the article.

''Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles. Although it should be aimed for, perfection is not required. Do not worry about messing up. All prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content. Remember — whatever you write here will be preserved for posterity.'' 5p Raggz (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine with me. Though Sephui doesn't need our invitation, it was nice of you (Raggz) to phrase it so nicely. Phyesalis (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks both of you, but unfortunately I will not be editing this article. I simply don't have the time to do a good job of it, my comments above were merely things I picked up on in the hope that someone with more time and desire will find it helpful. Sephui (talk) 13:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

CRITICISM
There are many reasons i am completely against the entire Human Rights Act, can we put that on the article, i'm sure lots of others agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.147.180 (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --69.142.108.40 (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Needing Sources/References
I would be willing to create the following human rights articles: Human rights in Canada, Human Rights in Chile, Human rights in Italy, Human rights in Poland, and Human rights in South Africa. However, I need sources/references. If somebody could list some references or sources for me to use for the articles, I would gladly create the articles. Thanks! --Grrrlriot (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Merging
As I have said on the Human rights law talk page, the reason I'm suggesting a merge is that about a year ago when I was writing the law page, I looked at what should be put as the best page to put down for the law in this field: I noticed this Human rights page was far more developed than the Human rights law page, and so I made this the dominant link. Looking at it again, I see that nothing has developed on the HR law page. Thinking on it a bit, it makes sense. When you have a right, that's only anything meaningful when it's in law, so anything that would be on a Human rights law page, would necessarily have to be treated in a thorough and detailed way in any page on a Human rights page (and vice versa). It'd just be duplication. Given there is not much difference anyway between "law" and "rights" (some languages are accustomed to use the terms interchangeably, e.g. French and German) I think the HR law page should simply redirect to what is an excellent treatment and summary here. All in favour?  Wik idea  23:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I would note though, there is lots to do here as well, like proper referencing. But I think the structure is superb and those who have done the work (Tkn20 and Andy Marchbanks most recently) deserve full credit! Why not go for GA or FA status?  Wik idea  23:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The destination article is very long, but the other article could be merged successfully as it is rather short. The main concern I would have is that you thoroughly read the dest. article to avoid repeating information. Good LuckBeeblbrox (talk) 04:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I added the Human rights law content as a "Background" section under "International human rights law."  Feel free to move this around, though.  Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if it should remain like this or if more changes are needed. I just discovered there is a separate article International human rights law.  I made Human rights law redirect to it.  In human rights we essentially have a full-fledged article on International human rights law, so this needs to be resolved with the actual article International human rights law.


 * Maybe the content on International human rights law from the human rights article should be put into the International human rights law article, and the current content of International human rights law could be used in a summary within the human rights article. Let me know what you think.  Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the merge: I just cleaned up the international human rights law article, summary stile for instruments, and needs more info on customary law, jurisdiction etc. I think the international humanitarian law and international human rights law article are important ref. article (if worked on), and I think it is useful to have the international human rights law article separate from the human rights article. For a start the UDHR and regional instruments do not from international human rights law (treaty law), and there are many aspects of human rights which are not law. Apart from that it also makes practical sense, as the human rights article is already very long. --SasiSasi (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

UDI
Currently the article says:
 * leading to the adoption of the United States Declaration of Independence ... established certain rights.

How can this be true? If it was then the war of independence would not have been necessary. It was the United States constitution that established certain rights within the United States not the unilateral declaration of independence which only declared them to be so. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

POV
There are a lot of phrases in this entire article that are completely out of line with WP:NPOV. I have no time to fix them now, but until fixed, the tag should remain. — BQZip01 — talk 07:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Which phrases? It's a long article, please be specific.  Thanks!  Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I would start in the legal section. Associating the War on Terrorism with the "legal issues" section is troublesome and places undue anti-American weight on such issues. There are many phrases contained in that section alone which violate WP:NPOV and WP:V. Once those are changed, such issues can be addressed in above sections. — BQZip01 —  talk 20:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose having that in the "see also" portion was undue weight. I moved the example into the section instead, and expanded on it.  Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What else? Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything else? If not, we should remove the tag. I'm sure in such a long article there are some things which aren't as objective and neutral as they could be, but on the whole the article is very neutral and almost all statements are well referenced. Tkn20 (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Seeing no further issues, I have removed the tag. Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Relationship between human rights and human security
Human rights and human security are two concepts that are closely related - with the human security school of thought owing much to human rights but the two now being somewhat related. The two concepts can also be easily confused. For these reasons, I feel it is worthwhile to have a section in this article that describes the relationship between the two and also points out their similarities and differences. Timschocker (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Would this be more appropriately placed in the Philosophies section? It would seem so to me as its dealing with a theoretical perspective.--Woland (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Human vs Civil rights
The intro currently states:
 * "Examples of rights and freedoms which are often thought of as human rights include civil and political rights".

Surely, by definition, "human rights" are rights that apply to all humans everywhere, by virtue of being human. Whereas civil and political rights are rights that a state has granted to its citizen. Of course, there is a lot of overlap: something can be a human right and a civil right (if a state recognizes and protects a human right), a human right but not a civil right (if a state ignores or infringes it), or a civil right but not a human right (any right that a state grants its citizens that is not a universal human right). To claim, as the intro does, that civil rights are human rights is (IMO) to mix up two related but separate concepts. 212.159.79.130 (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Prisoners of war in Islam
I just removed this "see also" from the Geneva Conventions section, because it makes no mention of the Geneva Conventions. If someone thinks this topic should be included, please describe it in the text. Thanks! Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Universalism vs cultural relativism section
The second paragraph doesn't seem right with me.

Proponents of cultural relativism suggest that human rights are not all universal, and indeed conflict with some cultures and threaten their survival.

I really think that a statement like this needs to be sourced. Aside from this I don't actually think its true, at least in the anthropological/sociological use of the term. At the very least it needs to be verifiable.--Woland (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The spelling of "who's" should be changed to whose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phlyfisher (talk • contribs) 21:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Existence of intrinsic human rights
There is no mention in the entire article of philosophical debate on whether or not human rights exist at all, or are merely constructs by today's global society. This is very distinct from debates on their natures which all take the premise that human rights exist.


 * Hey, please sign your posts. I think actually that the beginning of the Philosophies section deals with this. It may not state it explicitly but it is in there. As of now the article is really long so I don't think that a new section would be appropriate on this. Peace-out. --Woland (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

International human rights law
The section Human rights was more developed than the article International human rights law, so I recently added the content from this page into International human rights law. Would anyone object if I then shorten the section in this article to a few paragraphs? (To avoid repetition, shorten a long article, etc.) Michael  134.84.96.142 (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it would be better to merge the articles. An article on human rights which does not have serious coverage of law is not complete. Human rights are largely a legal thing. Tkn20 (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * By a merge, do you mean making International human rights law redirect to Human rights? That would seem to contradict Summary style.  In any case, all of the content is now in International human rights law.  Michael  134.84.96.142 (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is biased in favor of human rights
It has no criticism section and it makes no mention of Jeremy Bentham or David Hume, both of them very notable philosophers who criticize the notion of human rights. Can we get something like Inalienable_rights here?--Goon Noot (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I would imagine that relatively few people have criticised the concept of human rights, but if you know something about these criticisms, why don't -you- make the section? It could be of interest, if properly sourced. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Criticism sections are generally frowned upon. I think it could be a good idea though to intersperse sourced criticisms in relevant areas of the article, so long as it is not original research.--Woland (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Neither Bentham nor Hume were against human rights - they didn't acknowledge natural rights. The article perhaps doesn't make the difference clear enough, so maybe it's worth including some further explanation of this, and of Bentham and Hume's views, in the part on natural rights.Tkn20 (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Human rights law merger proposal
Human rights (whether you believe in natural rights or not) is in practice a legal concept. As such, it seems to me that International human rights law should be merged into this page. Everything covered on that page is duplicated on this one, and it would be inappropriate to remove any of the material on this page as it would leave an incomplete image of human rights. Do people agree?Tkn20 (talk) 09:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I would prefer that we use Summary style and shorten the section in this article to only maybe a paragraph on each document. After all, this article is quite long.  Also, be aware that there is a small bit of unique content in the International human rights law article.  Michael  207.69.137.29 (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Michael. To add to that there is a also a distinction between what we call "human rights" and codified law dealing those rights, to some notable viewpoints anyway. The tag should be removed if there are no other dissenting views.--Woland (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

section NPOV
The section on reproductive rights describes a distinct point of view in language that assumes that it is true. It is without doubt that when the term “reproductive rights” is used, abortion is included; however, whether human rights includes abortion (or reproductive rights at all) is hotly debated.[1]  Even the those who advocate the position that reproductive rights are legally binding[2] acknowledge that the mention of these rights in international treaties is implicit, not explicit; those documents that explicitly mention them do not have the status of treaties. There is at least one internationally-recognized human rights treaty that not only does not mention abortion by name, but implicitly rejects it.[3]

Please remember that WP:V and WP:NPOV are two different policies[4]; that the pro-reproductive-rights point of view is well-sourced does not prove that it is correct. In summary, the article should not directly state that reproductive rights are “a subset of human rights” but should mention the fact that this is controversial, at least among the general public, and should also include a neutral description of the contrary point of view.

proposed edit
As a first step towards fixing the problem that I see with the article's POV, I propose to move the "reproductive rights" section into the "currently debated rights" section. Then, I think that all that would remain to be done would be some tweaking of the wording. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree it should be moved out of the human rights theory section (no other distinct rights are in there, so this shouldn't be either). The difficulty is that some parts of reproductive rights are legally binding, and some aren't (for example, genital mutilation is outlawed by international law, abortion is legally allowed by many national laws). I would move it to the currently debated rights section, but it should be made clear which are legally a right (and what law makes it so), and which are just "debated".Tkn20 (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph for Deletion
"Many groups and movements have managed to achieve profound social changes over the course of the 20th century in the name of human rights. In Western Europe and North America, labour unions brought about laws granting workers the right to strike, establishing minimum work conditions and forbidding or regulating child labour. The women's rights movement succeeded in gaining for many women the right to vote. National liberation movements in many countries succeeded in driving out colonial powers. One of the most influential was Mahatma Gandhi's movement to free his native India from British rule. Movements by long-oppressed racial and religious minorities succeeded in many parts of the world, among them the civil rights movement, and more recent diverse identity politics movements, on behalf of women and minorities in the United States."

I am not aware that voting, prohibition of child labor, or identity politics sufficently fall under the label human rights, unless your a marxist. Voting is a political right and denying it to women is not a violation of human rights although it could be argued its a violation of civil rights as citizens of a nation, child labor is a practice that can but does not always violate human rights (remember when child labor existed in modern countries we had zero workplace safety regulations, and female labor was also considered exploitive) and as for identity politics this is not human rights, it promarily fascism. I disagree that anything in this covers human rights, its inclusion confuses the matter and role's a bunch of differant issues into one.

All humans have the right not to be tortured, but not all humans are entitled to vote, thats the right of humans that belong to a country or organization. 216.255.11.165 (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Article 21.3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) gives the right to universal suffrage (ie the right to vote). Article 23.4 gives the right to join a trade union. Both of these are therefore human rights enshrined in international law. The UDHR enshrines political, civil and social rights as human rights, and this definition is accepted by the United Nations and all its member states. Article 32 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states:

"1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child's education, or to be harmful to the child's health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development.

2. States Parties shall take legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to ensure the implementation of the present article. To this end, and having regard to the relevant provisions of other international instruments, States Parties shall in particular: (a) Provide for a minimum age or minimum ages for admission to employment;

(b) Provide for appropriate regulation of the hours and conditions of employment;

(c) Provide for appropriate penalties or other sanctions to ensure the effective enforcement of the present article."

So in all countries except the US and Somalia, which have not ratified the convention, it is indeed a human right for children not work where such work would interfere with their education. In the US there are several other laws which make child labour illegal, so I would argue it is also a right there, if not necessarily a "human right".

Identity politics is relevant exactly because these rights are universal - they apply to all, and not only to those in power or those in the majority. I think you should learn more about the meaning of human rights, and of the term Marxist for that matter (I think a good many non-Marxists would strongly disagree with you), before making sweeping statements like those above.Tkn20 (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Declaration of Human Rights is NOT international law. It is a declaration of the principles and beliefs held by the U.N. but does not constitute law, just as the U.S. Declaration of Independence does not constitute law.

Universal suffrage can not be a human right, as suffrage (or voting) is a civil right, to vote you have to be a citizen of a political entity. A non-citizen of a nation is not allowed to vote in that nations ellections despite being a human. That is practiced by every nation on earth. Furthermore not all citizens are permitted to vote in their nations ellections.

Prohibition of Child labor, is not the same as the right not to be forced to work when it would interfere with education. I never mentioned anything about trade unions so I don't know why you bring that up. The U.S. is not a signature to the convention on the rights of the child.

Identity politics are the exact opposite of human rights because they are universal, that means in theory it is immoral from a human rights basis to vote for a candidate because you identify with them on account of race, religion. In case you forgot Adolph Hitler, Mao Zedong, and Vladimir Lennin all supported identity politics, supporting the Aryan Race, or the Working Classes, on this basis alone.

Perhaps you should do yourself a favor and actually go back to school. 216.255.11.165 (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Your points being what they are, when some people speak of human rights they are not speaking of rights given to them by codified law. They are speaking of innate rights, many do include such things as the right to vote. This is what some people and organizations think and believe, even if you personally disagree with it. We want verifiability not truth remember and as such talk pages are not for this type of argument.--Woland (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * To clarify - the UDHR is part of customary international law. It is also enshrined in law by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). I should perhaps have stated this explicity above to explain my statements about law. I mentioned trade unions because they are mentioned in the paragraph you quote. I argued that identity politics is relevant to human rights because human rights are universal, not because identity politics are necessarily right. As with all politics, some identity politics is good, some is bad - and nobody agrees about which is which. As stated above, that is not what this article is about. I apologise if I offended anyone, I got a bit carried away with my objections to what was written - I hope it's not taken personally. Tkn20 (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken.

However as Woland brought up verifiability not truth I would point out that none of this paragraph is sourced to provide such an arguement, and that when most of these issues were taking place, Womens Suffrage, Child Labor, ect. . . human rights covenants did not exist, nor did the U.N.

My primary problem is that this paragraph as included sounds like it is an editor's POV that these issues are human rights issues, yet it provides no sources, statements, ect. . . to back up what it says from mainstream sources. In other words it sounds like its someones opinion to include these topics under the human rights label, rather than it being clear. Any one of these topics could be disputed, as I have, that they are legitimate human rights.

On the other hand this section makes no mention of non-disputed human rights progress such as establishment of rule of law,the right not to be arbitraily imprisioned, the abolition of torture and human trafficking, ect. .  .  216.255.11.165 (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As it has come up a number of times, there are a number of NPOV issues with this article, including this specific section. I agree that these things definitely need to be sourced. There does seem to be a huge disparity of dissenting views as well. Personally, I'm not aware of reliable sources that argue against any of the specific human rights or even more generally; I would think that they do exist though and should be included (preferably not in a criticism section, they're just ghastly). I suppose though that the first step would be to try and source the  statements already extant in the article and go from there.  If a statement can't be sourced then of course they should be deleted. These kinds of articles are always a bit of a sticky wicket. --Woland (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it just be better to replace it with a paragrapgh documenting the progress of human rights abuses, paticularly ones that are not contraversial, especially in regard to the items I mentioned, such as human trafficking, torture, arbitrary imprisionment, rule of law, as there has been a great deal of progress in all of these areas. 216.255.11.165 (talk) 03:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

TOTALLY DISPUTED - Why Wikipedia has the "reputation" it does
So, the "Powers that be" at Wikipedia who pull out ALL THE STOPS to get what they want, locking pages, etc. consider THIS to be "cool" and acceptable:


 * Current gay rights issues, such as same-sex marriage, gay adoption rights, and discrimination is considered by some to be a violation of human rights. Current campaigns, such as the human rights campaign, specifically focuses on the rights of the LGBT community. 


 * With Several Added References. The WHO question has been answered.


 * Current gay rights issues, such as same-sex marriage, gay adoption rights, and protection from discrimination are considered by some    to be human rights. Current campaigns, such as the Human Rights Campaign, specifically focus on the rights of the LGBT community.

But not this:


 * Current family rights issues, such as right to marry, right to decide on the number of children, right to educate children in agreement with parents' religious and social views, right to exist, to lawful independence, to privacy, to integrity and to stability, right to an income sufficient to feed the spouse and children, to live together, to a housing appropriate for the family size etc. is a subject of concern of the Catholics 


 * WHY Not Approach it this way?


 * Current gay rights issues, such as same-sex marriage, gay adoption rights, and protection from discrimination are considered to be human rights by some   , while rejected by others . Current campaigns, such as the Human Rights Campaign, specifically focus on the rights of the LGBT community.

This is exactly, in a nutshell, why "Wikipedia" deserves the reputation it has. This dispute is not going to end before it is pasted ALL OVER THE WEB, and A LOT MORE PEOPLE HAVE COMMENTED ON IT, I promise you! Wikipedia admins uncompromising nature and rigid authoritarianism IS GOING TO BE EXPOSED THIS TIME!!! 70.105.19.50 (talk) 11:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Reverting back and forth is a drain on our resources. A more useful approach is to follow bold, revert, discuss cycle, through calm, dispassionate arguments. El_C 11:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You have essentially misused your authority to enshrine your own fringe concept of what "human rights" are, this is serious business, and this is tantamount to A DECLARATION OF WAR on your part; so if it "drains your resources", I'm not shedding any tears! Prepare for much, much, much more, until this is resolved in a satisfactory compromise that is not totally one-sided! 70.105.19.50 (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All of the issues in your paragraph are either 1) not generally considered issues or 2) already covered in other parts of the article. The short paragraph on gay rights is the only information on that particular issue. If you had read the article you would see that religion has already been covered. We don't need to have a section about each religion and what specific concerns they have, if we did we would be writing a book, not an article. --Woland (talk) 12:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As a practicing Roman Catholic myself, I agree with Woland37 above. The concerns of Catholics as expressed above are neither particularly unique to Catholics, as several other groups hold the same opinion. While there is a valid question whether a group of that size, roughly 1/6 the world population, is separately notable enough for content relating to its official statements to be presented, there is more than enough room in other articles for such material to be included. I do however think that an article on Human rights and the Roman Catholic Church would be a good idea, given the number of comments the body has made over time regarding the subject. John Carter (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

European Court of Human Rights
This statement in the article is incorrect:
 * the European Union has established the European Court of Human Rights which enforces European human rights law on a regional basis.

The European Union's courts (namely the European Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance) are in fact almost purely dedicated to regulation of trade under the various treaties and instruments that form EU law.

The European Court of Human Rights, on the other hand, is actually established as a body of the Council of Europe, a European body slightly older than the EU and with a broader membership (although a requirement of EU membership is to be a member of the Council). The bodies are independent of one another. The statement that the European Court of Human Rights is responsible for enforcing (or at least interpreting) human rights law (among Council members) is correct. It is the ultimate court of appeal in human rights cases, which must first be held in the local jurisdiction before progressing to the Court, which sits in Strasbourg. --82.18.14.143 (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this better? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That looks okay to me. --82.18.14.143 (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protection & Copyediting
While searching for articles in need of copyediting, I came across this article. Clean-up is obviously needed, but on the other hand this article clearly needs its semi-protected status. This is a high-importance article that sadly seems to be a target for vandalism. I am not familiar with the protocol in this situation. I say we remove this article's semi-protected status for at least a little while so we can do some clean-up. Agree/Disagree? 3Juno3 (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why does the semi-protection have to be removed for the article to be copy-edited... by the way, the anti-copyright article is being GA reviewed and needs copyediting, if anybody is interested.--SasiSasi (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Never mind, editing has been restored to this article. (It was turned off for a time, but I guess it was unrelated to its semi-protected status.)I'll take a crack at copyediting this now. 3Juno3 (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

semi-protection has been set on this article since June, this means new and unregistered user are blocked from editing this article, but established users (more than 50 edits?) are not. However indefinite protection is discouraged and it should be removed from this article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Burma
In the violations section Burma is shown as "Myanmar (Burma)", which is contrary to consensus on the article of the contrary. I suggest a change to simply "Burma"

I'd have edited it, but it is protected. RedBird486 (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Grammar
Shouldn't this edit be reverted?

"Established" rights or no?
Regarding this recent edit, I'd like to propose that in order to avoid the awkwardness of language in the newer version, but to reflect the concern behind this edit, that we use the phrase "established certain legal rights". That phrase is unambiguously true regardless of the intention behind the establishment of those rights (whether they were meant to codify pre-existing natural rights in law, or just to establish new rights in law only), and directs the discussion about legal rights vs natural rights to the appropriate articles without cluttering up this page. I'm going to make this edit now, but if it is controversial, here is my justification. -Pfhorrest (talk) 07:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your rationale for this, in terms of simplifying language, and the need for clarity; the wording I used in my edit was awkward. But I would counterargue that the U.S. Declaration of Independence didn't establish legal recognition of human/natural rights; it was only the declaration of legal separation of the U.S. states from the British Empire (unlike the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, which did codify rights). The Declaration of Independence used the rhetoric of human/natural rights to make the case for the separation of the colonies; to Jefferson, and to many of the Continental Congress, the rights Jefferson talked about were already immanent (self-evident) in humanity, nature, and law.
 * -Katana0182 (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a good point, and I actually paused to wonder about that when making my edit - "wait, the Declaration of Independence doesn't establish any laws at all, it just declares independence; why is this being spoken of in the same sentence as the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen?". I think perhaps if we change the DOI ref to the US Bill of Rights, it would all make more sense. -Pfhorrest (talk) 01:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Human Rights and Rights simpliciter
A while ago I posted to the talk page of WikiProject Human rights regarding combining the efforts of said project and some of my recent efforts on various theoretical articles about Rights simpliciter. It has received no response so far, so I figure this talk page is at least slightly more active, perhaps I should direct some of you over there. Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Human_rights with any ideas you may have on the matter. Thanks. -Pfhorrest (talk) 08:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Locke/Rousseau/Hobbes
Hobbes preceded Locke, who preceded Rousseau, so to argue that Rousseau's arguments influenced Locke is patently false. Would someone correct this, please? Locke died before Rousseau was born--he was a 17th century philosopher, and Rousseau was an 18th century philosopher. I can't believe no one else has fixed this.-J Jarvis

Still, no one has fixed this. It is a major mistake to say that Rousseau influenced Locke. -J Jarvis, 7 Nov 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.128.224 (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * So go ahead and fix it.--Woland (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism...much needed!
There is no space for criticism of human rights...and boy, does human rights need criticism. Purely, from my own left-wing informed opinion

Human rights - as somebody said: 'its avoiding the problem.' It's the white-gloss paint on the outside of the shit-house. It is Machevellian system to distract people away from the systematic violence within the system of liberal democracy, which everyday we are denied real equality. It is measure of control, rather than liberation; who wrote it? The rich and the powerful! Because as everyone should know liberty does not come from a few scraps of paper, it comes the ability to meet someone as a equal, through power (this includes violence) and wealth. i.e. All the humans rights in the world mean absolutely nothing if you are poor or weak. You cannot feed your family on human rights, neither can you house yourself, or get employment. It purely guarantees the right for one person to exploit people through pretending to ignore and shield all the hidden exploitation that happens in capitalist democracy.

It seems to me that this article has been written by typical sunny-day middle-class liberal who continues to speak of legal equality, whilst ignoring the fundamental inequality within a liberal democracy...I know this will have some of you coughing up your muesli...it actually the daily grind of being poor and being faced with unimaginable wealth and power that is the real problem of liberal democracies, and from all other exploitation and inequality comes from...I can tell you from the bottom of the social ladder, human rights mean [explitive deleted]...we could possibly see human rights as the mask that hides capitalism's grotesque face...

I do see some benefits of human rights if they are properly balanced with a degree socio-economic equality...but they worse than nothing in the unequal situation much of the liberal democracies find themselves in the early 21st century...

This is without getting on particular culture or bullshit-religious criticism of human rights... --Madkafir (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Too long; didn't read.--Woland (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Criticism sections are discouraged, better to work different views with WP:RS into the text. See also WP:etiquette Zodon (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * in any case, you would need references and sources if you wanted to add any of the above to the article... your critique is not unique, there are more scholarly contributors who have argued along these lines (see also the "Asian value" debate around human rights). I think it would be helpful to have an additional article (someone has suggested an article called "religion and human rights" at some point). There is much to be said about the developing country and development economics perspective on human rights as well... maybe "human rights and development".--SasiSasi (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Edits contrasting reproductive and fetal rights
The topic of abortion deserves detailed treatment in the reproductive rights section, and a statement that deals with the contrast between abortion rights (a subset of reproductive rights) and fetal rights is warranted. These two concepts are currently battling each other at the UN, which has yet to recognize either. The fetal rights section is undeveloped and needs further treatment. I gave these issues certain treatment, but am being reverted by a POV editor who is asserting a certain editorial control in an unreasonable way. He has had an opportunity to address these issues on the talk page and has yet failed to do so.

One of the sections in question: "''Because reproductive rights typically carry strong support for induced abortion," reproductive rights as promoted is an extremely controversial concept. In 2008, the Center for Reproductive Rights, along with ten other organizations, started lobbying the United Nations to include reproductive rights within its "peer review" of nations. Because the group promotes free and unencumbered access to abortion services, it is being challenged by a coalition of pro-life groups, who promote the opposing concept of fetal rights (below) as a human right. ''"-Zahd (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Spotfixer (talk) 05:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not good enough. Give some actual rationale for reverting my changes and I will find some honest compromise with your views. So far, the only thing I can tell about what you think is that you have a POV, and are acting out based on that POV. -Zahd (talk) 05:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Spotfixer claimed on my talk: "Zahd is a repeat offender when it comes to pushing his POV on topics relating to human sexuality". The topic is human rights, not sexuality. More to the point, the issue at hand is abortion; I don't know what your concept of "human sexuality" is, but abortion isn't actually a sexy topic, if you understand what it really is. -Zahd (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to hold both ends of this conversation, you're welcome to do so, but I think you'll find that it will fail to be persuasive. Your user page bears the following testimony:
 * "I am a human being who has recently devoted himself in discipleship to the Father of creation, and to a deeper understanding of and faith in his love and purpose for all people who abide in Him and his law of love."

I think this makes your motives quite plain. Spotfixer (talk) 05:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So I'm a person who happens to know there is a God. Am I somehow barred from editing in NPOV terms an article that relates to issues that interest me? Certainly your motives are as plain as day, and I know this even though you have not yet stated anything on your user page. -Zahd (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're a person who "knows" many things that just aren't so, and you're editing this encyclopedia to reflect your biases. Unfortunately for you, there is a firm policy requiring neutrality, so people keep reverting your changes.  People will keep doing this until you stop being so biased.  Spotfixer (talk) 06:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you want to discuss the existence of God? It seems that you might benefit from understanding the opposing view a little more. You do realize that you are acting out a bias, and your accusations of my lacking neutrality don't carry water. Thusfar, most people who have reverted me have been acting out of a bias, and have been pretty plain in expressing that, just as you have been. Should I give up and say "you people aren't reasonable enough to discuss this with?"-Zahd (talk) 06:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be under the mistaken impression that this is some sort of debate forum or your personal bully pulpit. I have no interest in hearing you try and fail to prove the existence of God, much less justify your medieval code of ethics.  Instead, I suggest you learn more about this project so that you can effectively contribute to it, if only by learning to limit yourself to the subjects that you can be objective about.  Have you tried BtVS? Spotfixer (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, you dont believe in God, but you like vampire stories. I can see now that I'm dealing with a younger being, and that you've got no concept yet of the value of faith in the divine, and how much more real that is than vampires, space invaders, and goblins. Certainly the religious point of view can at times be "medieval", but we are past that aren't we? I'm not being barbarous to you am I? As for objectivity, I have it in abundance. That you don't see it means you're not entirely as bright as you could be. -Zahd (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The point you're missing here is that it doesn't matter what we believe, only what we can support with reliable sources. So long as you continue to miss this point, you will have your changes undone. Spotfixer (talk) 06:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no issue of required sources. I can supply them, and have done so, albeit not for every line. I can do that, and then I imagine you would be satisfied. -Zahd (talk) 06:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, you are the source of these ideas, and while you may consider yourself reliable and neutral, you are simply mistaken. When you act on that mistake, we will correct you. Spotfixer (talk) 06:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're violating AGF and DBAD. Sorry, but basically what you just said is, "If I don't like your edits, I will revert you." Ive been completely neutral, and anyone who looks at my edits objectively will agree with that. -Zahd (talk) 06:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * At this point, I've explained precisely why your edits will be reverted. What you do with this knowledge is up to you. Spotfixer (talk) 06:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If I may make an observation as a neutral third party here:
 * Spotfixer, though I suspect I have much more in common with your opinions than with Zahd's, as far as issues of religiosity and its relation to bias, we irreligious people must be careful not to be bigots ourselves. My point being, you're attacking the messenger, not the message, and that's not conductive to making any progress here. Please point out what of Zahd's statements you find to be unreliably sourced and NPOV, and then we can all discuss the merits of those criticisms, rather than just saying "you're religious and so everything you say is biased".
 * Also please note that as you are the one reverting Zahd's edits without prior explanation, you will fall afoul of 3RR before he does: he made a good faith edit, and then you reverted it without discussing it here on the talk page, thus beginning this edit war. Either way, both sides of an edit war can be held responsible for it, no matter who started it.
 * Footnote: per Edit_war, Believing that an adversary is "wrong", "POV pushing" or "uncooperative" never excuses edit warring. (Emphasis mine). --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments on proposed edit
The proposed addition under reproductive rights is biased and dubious in the statement that "reproductive rights typically carry strong support for induced abortion." As far as I am aware most people do not support abortion. They may support its availability as a last resort, but that is not the same thing as propounding it. (As then president Clinton put it, "Abortion should be safe, legal and rare.") The remainder of the sentence "... as promoted" is unclear.

It is unclear how significant the rest of the proposed addition to reproductive rights is. It appears to be more of a news item/recentism. This article is about human rights in general, and is already larger than would be ideal. Coverage of individual topics here has to be kept focused and short. The potential conflict between abortion rights and fetal rights is already mentioned in the section on fetal rights. More detailed coverage of individual cases seems more appropriate in more specialized articles.

It is also problematic in that it overemphasizes contradiction between reproductive rights and fetal rights. Most of reproductive rights has nothing to do with fetal rights; the trade-off between rights of the mother and unborn child is only a small and relatively rare part of reproductive rights. People often focus on a controversy or one small aspect of something and think that characterizes the whole. This is frequently exploited by advocates in an area, trying to make it seem that the part they support or object to is all there is to something. (e.g. a few years ago if you mentioned the internet, pornography was the first thing people associated with it). We should keep the coverage clear and neutral. Reproductive rights are not just abortion (not even primarily abortion).

As far as the fetal rights section, I would disagree that it is undeveloped or needs further treatment. Again the coverage here is a summary, it should cover the main points as briefly as possible, without going into detail.

The first paragraph of your proposed changes (not listed above, but based on your recent edits) seems to use a lot more words to say the same thing as what the first 3 sentences of the current section says.

Again the suggested edit tends to confuse reproductive rights with abortion rights.

Removing implantation and adding ensoulment doesn't seem to clarify much. The claimed time of this appears to vary all the way from fertilization to quickening and probably beyond. At least we can get a fair idea of when implantation happens. Ensoulment is also less general (only applies to select religions/philosophies). The edit might also tend to misrepresent ensoulment as being only associated with pro-life/earlier times of ensoulment.

The rest of the proposed changes to the wording of the end of the paragraph make it less neutral ("void," "claimed right," "destroy," etc.) As with so many cases of conflicting rights, it is a trade-off, not an all or nothing.

So the existing wording is better than the proposed changes in that it is shorter, it covers the main points of the material, it is clearer, and it uses less polarizing language.

If anything I think the item on fetal rights might be improved by including the possibility that rights are not an all or nothing kind of thing. The presentation currently is too cut and dried - "rights start applying at time x," (the only question being when time x is), which ignores the gradual development view. Many human traits and abilities are not developed instantaneously (speech, bipedal stance, empathy, responsibility, ...). Maybe rights are similar - another example of how people have problems with "becomings." Many want something to be a or b (a particle or a wave), not some combination. Zodon (talk) 10:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Response to above

 * Zodon wrote: "The proposed addition under reproductive rights is biased and dubious in the statement that "reproductive rights typically carry strong support for induced abortion." As far as I am aware most people do not support abortion. They may support its availability as a last resort, but that is not the same thing as propounding it.


 * Its disingenuous to suggest that the two are different, unrelated, or aren't inextricable. Even if people say they don't support abortion, in supporting reproductive rights, they would in fact be doing that. Don't pretend to confuse support for the right and support for the act: they are, in the end, inextricable aren't they? Reproductive rights is a managed concept, meaning that there are organizations who not only propose and promote it, but they actually have the privilege of defining it for everybody. The concept of reproductive rights is vague on its surface (it contains a selection of several 'sub-rights'), and therefore it requires definition, which certain groups and coalitions of these groups do. The term in fact has little meaning outside of the definitions as proposed by proponents. They more often than not (and that may be understating it) demand that "safe abortion" be counted as woman's right, and as a reproductive right. Therefore it is valid to state that there is a connection, and that the promotion of reproductive rights almost always (unless they drop abortion from their definition) carries with it the promotion of "safe abortion." Its not just valid to state this, its in fact required that we state this.


 * "It is unclear how significant the rest of the proposed addition to reproductive rights is. It appears to be more of a news item/recentism." The idea that something is less encyclopedic because it happens to be recent or current news is a strange one. In fact "recentism" appears to be a neologism you just coined. I'm not certain there is a policy here which says 'wikipedia articles should not contain up to date information that relates to the subject.' In fact I'm quite certain there is no such policy. I'm certain you are wrong in saying that a short description of the UN's dealings with both reproductive and fetal rights is not relevant. It most certainly is.


 * "It is also problematic in that it overemphasizes contradiction between reproductive rights and fetal rights." The two concepts, as most often stated, are directly opposed. If the fetus has human rights, the mother (for lack of a better term) does not have a "reproductive right" to destroy the fetus, because it is protected. Likewise, if a mother (FLOABT) has the right to destroy a fetus, the fetus cannot have a right to life because that would contradict. This is so plain and simple, I find it to be extremely disingenuous that you would claim that these are not contradictory.


 * "Most of reproductive rights has nothing to do with fetal rights; the trade-off between rights of the mother and unborn child is only a small and relatively rare part of reproductive rights." This is ridiculous. The "rare" "trade-off" of fetal rights in favor of mother's rights means the fetus' death! In certain cases; about 850K a year in the U.S. alone. Most "reproductive rights" deal with other matters, true. (I think those other rights are marvelous. Access to birth control, no forced sterilizations, etc. are excellent ideas). But the part that is relevant to the legal status of the fetus is serious, in that it not only claims such life is not as valid, but says that a process that destroys such life is a "right" for the individual woman. The individual fetus disagrees, or so I'm told.


 * "As far as the fetal rights section, I would disagree that it is undeveloped or needs further treatment." I can agree to this, provided the fetal rights section gets a rewrite. For one, it begins with a statement about its (claimed) inherent controversy. The writers of the reproductive rights section go out of their way to avoid stating that those claimed rights are even the least bit controversial; they don't even mention any controversy, and barely mention abortion. So, in addition to finding your point of view to be disingenuous and ridiculous, I also have to call it hypocritical. -Zahd (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Zodon wrote "Removing implantation and adding ensoulment doesn't seem to clarify much. The claimed time of this appears to vary all the way from fertilization to quickening and probably beyond." At the core of the human being concept, as far as the pro-life view is concerned, is the soul, not the biology of the being. There are problems with both side's claimed definitions. For example we can point out that most fertilized eggs appear to be destroyed naturally. This makes the life at conception concept an arbitrary one, and one unrelated to the concept of the soul. On the other hand, the idea that ensoulment (and therefore humanity) cannot happen until certain arbitrary biological things happen (birth, movement, pain, etc.) is likewise arbitrary and even a bit ludicrous. Both sides have attempted to make a designation; even Augustine proclaimed the silly notion that males and females were ensouled at different gestational ages. Of course all of this belongs at the abortion article, but it nevertheless rests on the concept of ensoulment, not on the arbitrary claims on both sides that try to pinpoint a date of such ensoulment. -Zahd (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * May I just say, this is not an article about abortion!! and neither is this talk page the place to discuss this issue at length. Again, the Fetal right section needs to be referenced, otherwise it should be removed as per wikipedia policies.--SasiSasi (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course its not. We aren't getting into the detail of the abortion debate here. We simply have to reference the abortion debate as the main sticking point in two (count them) distinct concepts of human rights, which in turn makes them almost diametrically opposed. (Unless RR drops abortion from its list of claimed rights, which its unlikely to do.) -Zahd (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * maybe I am not very patient, but nothing of what you wrote above can make it in the article, because it is not referenced. Wikipedia articles or their talk pages are not the place for original research or philosophical debates, there are other more appropriate forums for this. I am all for a well referenced short section on how fetal rights relate to human rights.--SasiSasi (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It was not my intention to debate any of these topics themselves, just to point out some of the areas that could be improved about the proposed edit.


 * I said that the significance of the item was unclear/not established, not that it was not significant (i.e. it would be improved by providing information/sources establishing its significance). See also Recentism.


 * My paragraph about "... contradiction between reproductive rights and fetal rights" might be more clearly stated thusly: Since most of the rights claimed as reproductive rights tend to prevent abortion (right to contraception, sex education, reproductive healthcare, etc.), or have little to do with fetal rights (e.g., MGM), it seems clearer to use a more specific term to contrast with fetal rights, e.g., abortion rights.


 * Views on the existance, significance and timing of ensoulment appear to vary widely. (Per WP article on ensoulment.) The proposed edit linked ensoulment to a "pro-life" stance and appeared to imply an early date.  Therefore lacking NPOV. Zodon (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Fetal rights cleanup
The section cites absolutely no sources. There is no point in arguing about the wording, if there are no sources. The section should not be like this in this article in any case. Its one of the few sections that has no references and drags down the overall quality of the article. Without sources this is purely a dispute between what various editors think fetal rights are. Which it should not be. The section should be based on reliable sources. Not editor opinion. Unless sources are added I think the section should be removed. Its pretty lazy editing to write a section without referencing any sources. Also, I agree with Zodon that this should not be about abortion. There is an abortion article! We need to find reliable sources that discuss the relationship between fetal and human rights, otherwise there is no need for this section.—SasiSasi (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * SasiSasi wrote: "Also, I agree with Zodon that this should not be about abortion. There is an abortion article!" Surely the claimed concept of fetal rights requires treatment, not to mention detail about its relation to other claimed human rights. I don't see how anyone could disagree with this. As far as needing some sources, I agree. The talk page should be fine as a scratchpad. -Zahd (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Making link to working space for RR and FR sections. Join in to make changes: Human rights/Fetal, reproductive sections -Zahd (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That link is now at Talk:Human rights/temp. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In the moment the fetal right section is purely about pro-choice and pro-live arguments, it does not make the link between fetal rights and human rights. The section should make the link, otherwise it has no place in this article, because this article is about human rights. Sometimes I get the impression you two are more interested in leaving massive messages on talk pages than contributing to articles.
 * and again, we need sources, otherwise this section should be removed. --SasiSasi (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The draft section should not be an article Subpages, it should be in talk: (or user:) namespace. Therefor moved it to talk:Human rights/temp.  The discussion page content moved to below. Zodon (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment
This is an interesting article. I suggest the quote at the beginning be moved more into the body of the article. I also wanted to point out, as I did in an edit summary, that parts of the article seem to be more essay and argument oriented than encyclopedic. But I see work is being done on the article and sourcse are being added so I withold final judgement. It's an interesting topic, so give me a heads up when it's finished so I can have a look. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to give Zahd more rope to hang himself, I certainly won't interfere. I'm leaving your rollback in place and giving him a chance to make this neutral and cited.  However, unless he succeeds, I'm not letting him insert any of this text in the main article.  And, in my estimation, he is not likely to succeed. Spotfixer (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I will remove the fetal rights section, as it is it does not link to human rights and has no sources... once Zahd has established a referenced section that is relevant to this particular article it can be added again, but the way the section is in the moment it cants stay.--SasiSasi (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That was a little fast. Fetal rights are clearly a contentious issue in terms of Human Rights with varying levels of recognition by states and international bodies.  Just check out article 4 of The OAS's Inter-American Commission on Human Rights - Schrandit (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The section was very bad! I think Zahd is working on such a section, maybe let him know, I think he is struggling to find sources making the link.--SasiSasi (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Future generations
I find it unclear what the point of the section on future generations is. It is under currently debated rights, but doesn't seem to state what debate is involved. The content seems to fall within the realm of environmental rights (section preceding). Is it supposed to be a subsection of that? (The lead from the environmental rights section would provide it with some context, which it currently lacks - setting it as trade-off of the rights of now vs. rights of then.) Zodon (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Why dont you inform yourself by reading the declaration instead of assuming that the environment section provides a lead. I have added some more info on what issues are covered in the declaration. I have to see if I find a secondary source summarising the state of the current debate.--SasiSasi (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it not unreasonable to expect this article to stand on its own (i.e. the article should provide enough information that one isn't required to read the declaration in order to understand what is said here.) I would expect that enough of it was reproduced here for me to understand what is said here.
 * Reading it I might not conclude the same thing about what is debated as others do. (To whit my guess at what the debate might be about, which appears to not be what you had in mind.)
 * I did not assume that it was a subsection of the environment section, merely observed that that appeared to be one possibility - either that the heading was inadvertently put at the wrong level, or as one way of providing the missing information for the section. Zodon (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I was commenting on you implementing changes to the article without reading the related content, purely based on your assumptions.--SasiSasi (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No idea what you mean, could you give examples please? Thanks.  Zodon (talk) 05:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * like "rearrange sections - grouping resource scarcity ones together (enviro/future generations, water)"... --SasiSasi (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Where in the fetal rights subsection (which is the one I moved), or in its references, does it indicate that it relates to resource scarcity? Water rights definitely are (per background sections), so are environmental rights.  The future generations section talks about resource scarcity issues - like war, existence of human environment, existence of humankind.  But I left future generations in the middle so it could be grouped in either direction.
 * If the future generations item doesn't relate to resource scarcity, then that reinforces my observation that the item should make it clear what the controversy/controversies are. Zodon (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * yawn... are you finished now.--SasiSasi (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)