Template talk:Rights/Archive 1

Order
While I know that its alphabetical, does it strike anyone else as ironic that Youth rights are at the bottom of this template? Does that reek of adultcentrism? With that and Animal rights being first, maybe this template only illustrates the reason why there is a 10/1 ratio of animal shelters over women's shelters in the US. Just a thought. - Freechild 15:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC) "That's interesting, and really quite unfortunate about the women's shelters ratio. As far as the template goes, though, the real question is how *else* would you order them? Alphabetical order is good because it implies non-biased-ness; once you try to order them based on importance, NPOV would go right out the window, probably.  Just a thought. --71.17.49.67 21:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)"


 * And I'm sure the ratio of women's shelters to men's shelters in the United States is more than 10:1. JCDenton2052 (talk) 07:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Subdivision of this box
I think it would be a good idea to subdivide this box into a couple of different sections: one on conceptual distinctions, such as Negative and positive rights and Claim rights and liberty rights, Economic, social and cultural rights, the three generations of human rights, Natural rights and Legal rights, Human rights and Civil rights, Individual rights and Group rights, etc; and then another section on particular areas of concern, such as everything else currently in this list (all the "so-and-so's rights" links). I'm going to be bold and make this change now, but please let me know if anyone has any objections, and don't be afraid to revert if you think this is atrocious. -Pfhorrest (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

There is an abject typo, or error, fifteen lines down from start of article, page, PLEASE correct
Where you see a break in the text, the next line begins with "...dirty peoplenatural law..." This has got to go, something got gummed up and it creates an embarrassing disruption of the whole introduction. Bad for biz. Muservin (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you sure you're on the right talk page? I see no such thing here. Also, you know that you can just remove that yourself, wherever it is you found it, right? No need to seek consensus before removing blatant vandalism. -Pfhorrest (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In case anyone cares, it turns out that this was a problem on the natural rights page, not here. -Pfhorrest (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Digital rights and three generations
I have added digital rights to substantial distinctions and moved three generations of hr to conceptual distinctions (generat. of hr is a concept). I was looking to add digital rights and thats how it fitted in best, however any suggestions/contrinutions are welcome. --SasiSasi (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I had three generations under "substantial distinctions" because it is a broad categorization of rights which is based on historical relation or family resemblance rather than some strict logical question like "is this right natural or purely artificial (legal)?", "does this right grant an entitlement with matching duties for others, or simply permission for the right-holder?", "does this right require/permit action or inaction?", "and "does this right apply to all people individually or to some subset of people collectively?". Not all first-generation rights are negative individual rights, not all second-generation rights are positive group rights, and... well, I'm really not even sure how to categorize third-generation rights.


 * I like the addition of digital rights, but I would put it under Areas of Concern, as it concerns a focused bundle of rights regarding one particular aspect of life; much like LGBT rights.


 * If you don't object, I'll make these changes later tonight. -Pfhorrest (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Since there are entries that seem to parallel two of the "generations" ("Civil and political" and "Economic, social, cultural") it seems to make sense to have the three generations item close to those two items. Zodon (talk) 06:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "rights" from item listings
While I think there are benefits to removing the redundant "rights" from several of the listings, to my way of reading it the removal left the word "rights" as understood. Under that reading in the specific groups it should be "Men's", "Women's", etc. ("Men rights" doesn't make sense). If, on the other hand one wished to designate the groups to which the rights apply, (e.g. use Men and Women), then for consistency the first two items should be "Animals" and "Humans." I prefer the former, taking rights as understood, since it works for all sections (e.g. "Reproductive" describes the rights, rather than the class to whom they apply, likewise "negative and positive.")

When rights was removed from all of the theoretical items it just made the template too hard to understand, unless one knows the jargon seeing a phrase like "Natural and legal" or "Claim and liberty" gave no clue that words were missing, or what this was about. So I think there needed to be some indicator of what the missing term is, hence retaining it for first few items. Zodon (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * While I don't think there is any difficulty understanding the possessive-less listings under "groups" (and in fact I was going to suggest later tonight that it be changed to Animals and Humans to match that), I do agree that for consistency's sake, if the word "rights" is to be implied for all listings, they should have possessives. However, on the same note of consistency, I dislike displaying "rights" on the early listings and then dropping it later, and I don't think it introduces too much ambiguity given the heading of "Distinctions", though perhaps using something like "vs" instead of "and" would make that a little more clear (e.g. "Conceptual distinctions: Natural vs legal, claim vs liberty, negative vs positive" etc).


 * Also, thank you both (Zodon and Sardanaphalus) for jumping in here, I was beginning to feel I was all alone on this corner of wikipedia. -Pfhorrest (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * On second thought, looking at the template again, it just reads funny with the possessives in there, especially in context of the header "Particular groups" (which should be possessive if we were to be consistent, as in "particular groups' rights", but that doesn't seem quite right either... no pun intended). I think the particular listings should be displayed in context of their most recent header: so particular groups would be animals, humans, men, women, etc, while conceptual distinctions would be natural vs legal, claim vs liberty, etc.


 * Though honestly I'm not so sure why we needed to remove the word "rights" from everything to begin with. It saves space, sure, but seems to cause more problems than it solves. -Pfhorrest (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Without "rights", "Claim and liberty" was particularly hard to understand as a heading. Since both claim and liberty can both be nouns, it wasn't at all clear that they were being used as adjectives.  (Not to mention that they both mean things related to to right.)
 * Using versus might help some, although Claim vs. liberty still poses the same problem. (I am not up on the theory enough to know if vs. causes any logical problems - i.e. do any of the categories overlap.)
 * Although I see the benefit of the brevity provided by removing rights, I wouldn't object to it being added back in. (Or maybe somebody will come up with another way to handle it.)  Zodon (talk) 08:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually I do agree that "claim and liberty" sounds funny; even "claim and liberty rights" sounds funny to my ear, hence why I titled the article "claim rights and liberty rights" despite the redundancy. "Claims and liberties" sounds better, but then doesn't work with the implied "rights" at the end.
 * As to the overlap and "vs"... the only overlap I can think of is that the same right could be both a natural right and a legal right. Everything else is pretty exclusive, although there could be overlap in terminology (e.g. "right to free speech" might mean a claim right or a liberty right, but given a particular meaning, the same right could not be both a claim and a liberty, although one might have both a claim right and a liberty right in that particular domain). -Pfhorrest (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

[Outdent] The recent revision using the plurals rather than the possessives seems fine by me, and the "and" between group & individual works. However I don't think shortening Three generations of human rights to "Three generations" quite works. (If the term was 3 generations of rights, maybe, but it this way it misses out the human.) So I would rather keep the "of human rights" part of that, either in the 3 generations entry, or put in the line above (i.e. "substantial divisions of human rights"), but see what others think. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The entire "substantial distinctions" subsection needs some work (and it could probably use a better name too; that was just sort of the filler name I stuck on there). Civil and political rights is supposed to be juxtaposed to Economic, social and cultural rights, and the division between those two categories is the distinction in question, rather than there being one distinction between civil rights and political rights, and another distinction between economic rights, social rights, and cultural rights. But putting those on a single line would be WAY too long. Originally I had an "and" after Civil and political rights but that got deleted at some point. I'm not quite sure what the best solution is.
 * And you have a point about the "human" part of the three generations being important; that's a point I myself have been harping on for a while too. Perhaps we could solve this and the above problem by getting rid of the sub-subdivisions entirely, having a 1st-level division on "Theoretical Distinctions", and then another 1st-level division on "Human Rights Categories" or some such? (And then the third division I would really like to rename back to "Areas of Concern" - just "areas" is somewhat nondescript).
 * I'm going to make an experimental edit to this effect, but feel free to revert or modify it if you dislike. -Pfhorrest (talk) 03:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I only just understood what you meant about the "substantial distinctions" subsection. I was seeing that differently.  I saw it as each one of the items was a division of rights.  (Rather than an "a or b" thing between civil etc. and economic.)
 * I was looking at it as the 3 generations is kind of the heading/logic for the division (since the other two items seem to correspond to generations 1 and 2 of the "three generations"). Thus I am inclined to put 3 generations first.  I am almost inclined to number the others 1 and 2, or use three generations of human rights as the title (however that probably doesn't work because (a) it only makes sense if you already know what the three generations are, (b) there isn't a name or article for the third generation, and it looks funny to say 3 and then only give 2 of 'em, and (c) it would make the template even wider.)
 * Not trying to push my view on this over others, just explaining why I tend to put 3 generations first. And why I suggested renaming that segment "human rights divisions" or "divisions of human rights" (or could be categories/classes/categorizations - though classes tends to have other overtones, and the others are a bit long.)
 * I don't like term "Areas of concern" much - sounds like newspeak/jargon for something. (Not saying it is, and I certainly wouldn't know what it means, just that it sounds like such.)
 * I have sort of mixed feelings about the experimental edit. (It has some good points, some not so good.  Couldn't say which way I like better at this point.)


 * I took Pfhorrest's experimental edit, and made some changes to section naming and cleaned up the wraps a bit (and moved 3 generations, per above reasoning) to produce this version (which is the current version at the moment).  I also applied the same changes to the previous version, which can be found here .  (i.e. if somebody doesn't want the experimental edit part, but likes what I did to it, one can just revert to this version (which is the one just previous to the current version)).
 * I hope this isn't too confusing, I thought it made sense when I did it, but now I try to explain it. Basically, if you revert one change you will get it back to the way it was (plus my recent changes). Zodon (talk) 06:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the current version, your edits plus mine. I think I'm pretty happy with it how it is now.
 * Just to respond to a couple of your points:
 * I'm not so certain that economic/social/cultural rights correspond strictly to 2nd-gen rights; it seems to encompass some 3rd-gen too, particularly the "cultural" part of it. The distinction I drew between that and civil/political rights was to mirror how the UDHR is often divided up that way (see also ICCPR and ICESCR). But I see the point you're making and I don't object to your reordering of them; my reordering was mostly just for aesthetic reasons anyway.
 * By "areas of concern" I just meant to imply that someone somewhere of some notability was concerned enough about about the rights of some particular group of people or rights regarding some particular matter that we have an article on those specific rights; as opposed to all the specific rights which no one is particularly concerned about because there's no contention there. E.g. my right to eat chocolate ice cream is not of particular concern to anyone except perhaps as minor part of an overall concern for my rights in general; as opposed to the rights of women or minorities, or rights regarding labor or sexuality, which are issues of enough contention that we have special articles just about them. Either way, I like your groups of rights / rights of group terminology better, but I just thought I'd explain myself.
 * That's all for now. Thanks Zodon! -Pfhorrest (talk) 07:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Minority Rights
Why isn't there a link to Minority rights on this template? -- Grrrlriot (♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 02:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There are many articles that are not linked from this template, including exclusive rights, equal rights, and as you point out, minority rights. They're not there because nobody has added them yet. I'm not quite sure where in the template they would go; conceptual distinctions? Areas of special concern? If you have any suggestions, please state them. Thanks. -Pfhorrest (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Pfhorrest! Thanks for the response. Yes, That is true. Okay, I was just wondering because I noticed that other "rights" were missing as well. Areas of special concern could be a good idea for placing "minority rights" and other rights that aren't listed on this template. -- Grrrlriot (♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 04:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The template is also missing several more specific group rights, e.g. Disabled rights, Patient's rights, Consumer's rights, Elders' rights (well, Wikipedia is missing that last one as well). Not saying that this template should/shouldn't have these items, but seems like it needs a rationale/principal to guide inclusion/exclusion.  (e.g. since has LGBT rights, then others might be appropriate, or conversely, might be appropriate to remove LGBT rights).
 * Of course this also gets into the question of overlap/duplication with Template:discrimination.
 * I have been thinking about how to deal with this, but thought I would toss the question out for more general consideration. Zodon (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Zodon! Pfhorrest pointed out that other rights are missing as well and I totally agree. I also noticed that the "equal rights" article is missing from Wikipedia too...or am I wrong? If so, correct me. Like I suggested above to Pfhorrest, you could add a section to the template that says "areas of special concern" and list "minority rights" and other rights that aren't listed. It's just an idea. -- Grrrlriot (♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 04:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The section of the template currently labeled "Areas" was previously labeled "Areas of concern", but was shortened... for space, I guess? But yeah, Zodon listed minority rights there already, which seems good enough to me for now. We should come up with some sort of criteria for inclusion or exclusion though. Personally I would favor more liberal inclusion of everything rights-related under the sun (with additional divisions or subdivisions as necessary to categorize them neatly), and collapse subsections with a [show] button if the template gets too big. -Pfhorrest (talk) 04:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that Zodon listed minority rights on the template. I agree with you, Pfhorrest about more liberal inclusion of everything rights-related and if it gets too big, we can collapse the template and have a "show" button. -- Grrrlriot (♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 22:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Other rights
I just did a quick search of things which link to rights or right and have "right" in their title which are not already covered here and look like they should probably be worked in to the larger web of rights-related articles better:

Topic outline of rights is largely redundant with an old version of Rights before I came along.

Particular areas of concern: Moral rights (copyright law), Student rights, Linguistic rights, States%27 rights, Fetal rights, Buyer%27s rights

Particular rights: Right of self-defense, Right of conquest, Right to life, Priority right, Water right, Right of asylum, Right of revolution, Pre-emption right

Maybe theoretical rights categories? Substantive rights, Social rights, Meta-rights, Fundamental right, Constitutional right, Contractual rights, Statutory right, Exclusive right

Suggestions on what to do with these and how to work them in to this template (and probably into the main Rights article as well) are welcome. -Pfhorrest (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the rights template could have different categories for different rights to go under, such as "Particular rights" and under that category could go Water right, etc. I think you catch my drift. Like I said above, if the template gets too large, we could collapse it and have a show button. I think you could probably work them into the main Rights article because I noticed you have "theoretical distinctions" and "areas of concern". The ones you mentioned above could go under those sections of the Rights article. Perhaps a "Particular Rights" section on the Rights article and for example, Water right could go there. I hope this gives you some ideas. -- Grrrlriot (♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 22:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the template should have a "particular rights" section, likewise it shouldn't have the particular rights like: right to life, right of self defense, right of asylum, right of revolution or water right. A separate template would be more appropriate; many are already covered in the human rights template. (Also see  below).


 * Several of the other particular rights (Priority right, Pre-emption right, Buyer's rights, Moral rights) appear to be contractual or legal rights - again more appropriate to template for that area.


 * Right of conquest (or even better the theoretical basis for it) might be appropriate to the template. More as an alternative to or notation of the pragmatic basis of the whole concept of rights.  (It is a different kind of right from the other specific rights mentioned.)


 * Likewise, Divine right would make sense (only coverage I find is Divine right of kings, but the theory would appear to be parallel to Divine law vs. Natural law and Divine right vs Natural right). Zodon (talk) 05:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Scope of template
I don't think the template should have everything rights related (as suggested above), but we should try to keep it focused and fairly small.


 * 1) There is already a very broad template for human rights Template:human rights.  Which has, for instance a laundry-list of concepts that have been considered human rights.  No sense in duplicating what is there.
 * 2) The discrimination template also covers some similar ground Template:discrimination, especially in the movements section.
 * 3) Vertically oriented templates become unwieldly faster than horizontally oriented ones.  (And rights is currently vertically oriented).  (And since they are often at the top of the article, delays while loading/rendering large templates are more significant than for templates placed at the end.)
 * 4) Once a template has grown too big, it becomes quite a chore to split it also (witness human rights).  Editing the template is easy enough, but having to fix all the uses is quite a chore.

I think the rights template should give an overview, with links to major areas/distinctions/categories (as it currently does - civil rights, human rights, etc.) and not cover individual issues (because there are too many of them). Which doesn't mean it can't be expanded, but should keep focused on the broad picture. (e.g. add general coverage of contractual rights, but the particulars should go elsewhere.) Zodon (talk) 05:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there much in the law templates that overlaps with this also? (Several of the particular rights listed relate to legal/contractual/constitutional law.) Zodon (talk) 06:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I concede regarding your concerns about technical issues with the template growing too large. I'm also becoming fond of the idea of merging this template in with the "fundamental concepts" section of the human rights footer, though preferably not under the title of "human rights" since rights theory is not necessarily limited in scope to humans. I would suggest calling the resulting template "rights theory" or some such... but I'm about to post on Template talk:Human rights about that in a second. My point here is that, if that does occur, we can stop worrying about particular areas of concern and the excessive growth of this template, leaving that to other templates. -Pfhorrest (talk) 07:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I get what your saying now, Zodon and I do agree. Most templates like the human rights and the discrimination template do have links to other rights. Pfhorrest, You do have a good idea about merging this template with "fundamental concepts" section of the human rights footer. -- Grrrlriot (♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 18:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Splitting human rights template
I think the human rights template Template:human rights should be split. While discussion of that should occur on the talk page there, I mention it here because readers here might also be interested, and because it might be that part of the splitting process might interact with what is to be covered in the rights template. Zodon (talk) 05:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Elders' rights
I have been thinking of starting the Elders' rights article, however, I need sources. If somebody could help me find some good sources to start the article, I would be willing to start the article. Thanks in advance! -- Grrrlriot (♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 22:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have much in the line of references. There might be something in the references in the articles in Category:Ageism (though much of that has a bias towards youth), especially in the sub-category on Category:Elder rights activists.  Also, AARP and Category:Seniors' organizations might have something.  Hope that helps.  Zodon (talk) 06:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Zodon! That helps me out some. I will try to hunt for more references as well. -- Grrrlriot (♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 20:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The use of the phrase "Rights of Groups" in this template is extremely confusing and inappropriate
I changed the template.

The use of the term "rights of groups" in this template is extremely confusing and inappropriate.

For example, fathers' rights are based on the idea that individual fathers have a natural right to parenting time, and members of the fathers' rights movement oppose governments' ability and willingness to violate fathers' natural rights. Although individual fathers may form fathers' rights groups, a father's rights are individual rights. Considering the idea that individual rights are balanced with the rights of the group, it is the government that is asserting the rights of the group. Michael H 34 (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * (Edit: damn you are fast. I've made my new section a response to yours).


 * A recent edit by User:Michael_H_34 changed the headings "rights of groups" and "other groups of rights" to "Categories of rights" and "Other categories of rights", on the grounds that the term "group" was "incredibly inappropriate and confusing to readers". I'm not quite certain why you think it's inappropriate, Michael, but since your edit significantly changed the meaning of the headings, I've reverted it. Please explain here what your objection is, and I will explain why I reverted.


 * The two subdivisions were intended to be, more verbosely stated:
 * Rights of groups are rights pertaining to particular classes (or groups) of individuals, i.e. "Ps' rights" are the rights that anyone who is a P (e.g. a man, a woman, a child, a father, a mother, a student, etc) has specifically in virtue of being a P.
 * Other groups of rights are categories (or groups) of rights not united by being specific to a particular class of individuals, but by some other common subject, i.e. "Q rights" are rights pertaining to the subject matter Q (e.g. labor, sexuality, etc), where "Q" is not just "anything involving people who are Ps".


 * Changing it as you did to "Categories of rights" and "Other categories of rights" makes the second subdivision sound like just more of the first. Please explain why you object to the term "group", and maybe we can change the headings to address that concern without destroying the distinction between the two subdivisions. -Pfhorrest (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Followup: ok, now I understand your concern. However, I think there is still some mix-up here, because the headings did not mean to imply that the rights were held by some sort of organized movement representing the particular classes of people, but rather that they are rights pertaining specifically to particular classes of people. E.g. I, not being a father, have no fathers' rights - only fathers have fathers' rights- but upon becoming a father I will immediately have whatever rights fathers have in virtue of being fathers, without having to join any organized fathers' rights group. The rights are held by individuals, as you say, but the articles previously classes as "rights of groups" in this template are the rights of individuals inasmuch as they are members of a certain classes of individuals.
 * However, my main concern is with the meaning change described above, and I'm not particularly attached to the term "groups" here, so if you can suggest another term that will preserve the semantic difference between the two headings, I'll be happy with that. But your "categories of rights" and "other categories of rights" does not meet that criterion. -Pfhorrest (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Michael H - I also don't see what the problem is, could you please explain further. Pfhorrest's statement of the meaning of the sections corresponds quite well with how I interpret them.  (Well I would say Rights of groups - are rights pertaining to members of particular classes (or groups) of individuals, but from the example that seems to be what pfhorrest means also).
 * Perhaps the problem is partly an issue with possible confusion with the term Group rights, which appears to have several meanings, and the similar title that was used "rights of groups" was not incompatible with some of those meanings. (However the Wikipedia article on group rights is not particularly clear about what group rights are.  If this is the source of the confusion, can somebody suggest a better reference for what are group rights?)
 * Is the issue that some of the items should be grouped differently? (I have sort of wondered about e.g., Authors rights, Minority rights, LGBT rights).
 * I liked the previous headings better: "group" is shorter/simpler word than category
 * I agree with Pfhorrest that "categories" and "other categories" was unclear.
 * As far as "Rights pertaining to particular groups of individuals" - long, complicated, "of individuals" does define it more specifically to exclude groups that contain collective members, but not clear that we have any cases where we need to make that distinction. (For instance animal rights is certainly divided into sub-groups for which more or fewer rights are asserted.  And if you look at a collective organism such as a sponge, do you consider the collection to have the rights or the individual sub-parts.)  Anyway, it appears to be a more cumbersome way of saying "Rights of groups"
 * Perhaps "Rights of members of particular groups" might be getting more toward the distinction Michael H is concerned about? (I don't think it is an improvement, since I think the extra detail obscures rather than clarifies, but I offer it up for discussion.)
 * None of the discussion above makes clear what the problem was with "Other groups of rights"
 * Per WP:BRD, and since the current version just seems to be a longer and more complex way of saying what was said more simply before, I am reverting to the previous headings. (Not trying to push one version - just figure we should discuss it, then make changes once reach consensus).  Zodon (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is simple.

The term group has double meaning in this case and therefore, using the term is ambiguous and confusing to readers.

Groups of indivduals support rights for individuals over the rights of groups.

By using the term group as it is first used in the sentence above, you have hidden the truth of the entire sentence in the template.

Please do not use group in this template except next to individuals. Categories is a perfectly fine word to use and does not hide meaning for the reader. Michael H 34 (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * Then please explain.
 * What are the two meanings of group you see in this case?
 * So far I have not found any clear statement on Wikipedia of what the rights of a group even means.
 * Where can I find a clear statement?
 * The only relevant examples I am aware of are things like corporations which make a group into a fictional individual, but the rites or powers exercised are still the same as those of an individual - e.g. to enter into a contract, etc. (In which case the rights of a group are not different in nature than the rights of an individual.)
 * Which sentence above?
 * Please be more explicit in your posts so we can understand what the difficulty is. Without knowing what meanings how can we see what problems you see, or disambiguate it?
 * As to changing the template, while it is under discussion, kindly discuss rather than reverting.
 * It was already pointed out that the dual use of categories without further clarification of the distinctions between the two lists is not acceptable to two other editors.
 * It is fine if you feel strongly about something, but that is not a valid reason for making an edit under Wikpedia policy. (Others may also feel strongly, just using that as a basis is apt to lead to edit warring.)  Instead, references to reliable sources and clear explanations would be more helpful as basis for edits and to persuade others.  Zodon (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why the term "groups" in the sentence below must be read in context.


 * Groups of indivduals support rights for individuals over the rights of groups.

On the template, the term groups could not be read in context by the reader.

Please explain the justification for using a term with double meaning that cannot be read in context on the template.

"It was already pointed out that the dual use of categories without further clarification of the distinctions between the two lists is not acceptable to two other editors."

I apologize if I did not read this. I agree with them.

Michael H 34 (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

I don't understand the question in the first "please explain ... " sentence. You used the sentence you are asking for an explanation of, and I already asked what the rights of groups are (assuming that it is similar to group rights). Perhaps you could explain what you are trying to get at?

Instead of just asserting that there are two meanings (without explaining what they are) and that the meanings can't be disambiguated (without responding to the various clarification suggestions):


 * Please explain what you see as the two meanings of group are in this context. (e.g. an explanation similar to what Pfhorrest did for Rights of groups and Other groups of rights. A reference to a readily available explanation.  Examples from common experience.  Something concrete.)

As far as I know group means an unordered collection of discrete items; words with similar meanings include set and class. Unfortunately set is a more technical term and probably not as widely understood, and class has other connotations (e.g. lower class, etc.) So, while I have tried to come up with another term that is clear and concise I haven't come up with anything better than group. Zodon (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Various phrasings have been suggested to clarify the meaning of the titles, to add context to group. Even if you don't think they are quite the thing, more specific comments on what are problems with specific suggestions, and suggestions for improvements would be helpful.

"Individual_rights refer to the rights of individuals, in contrast with group rights." Individual rights and group rights are part of the template. However, one of the headings in the template had been "rights of groups", and this heading was directly above "groups of people" who support individual rights over group rights. Michael H 34 (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * I found the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (external link from the article on group rights) much more helpful than the Group rights article.
 * As far as I can tell, one meaning of group rights (specifically group-differentiated rights) is to do with equality of rights (i.e. the rights of the members of this group vs. the rights of the members of some other group).
 * The other meaning appears to be to ascribe to certain groups the status of an entity capable of holding rights independent of the group member's rights, or as some combination of their joint rights.


 * No place in this template does it indicate that the articles under the title "rights of groups" deal exclusively with those that support individual rights over group rights. If one assumed that that was the grouping intended, then I can see where rights of groups might be confusing.
 * Clearly some of the articles under that heading deal with "group rights" in the non-equality sense (i.e. group-differentiated rights), for instance human rights vs. animal rights. Even animal rights advocates typically don't ascribe to animals other than H. Sapiens rights that are often considered human rights.
 * Just because there weren't any articles dealing with rights-bearing groups in the list doesn't mean that they wouldn't go there. (Since the list is of rights that pertain to members of the

group, that is where I would be inclined to put an article about, for instance, the rights of nations.)
 * Since the entities included in the groups under that heading included all sentient beings that we know of, clearly not all of them "support individual rights over group rights." (Or else all writings propounding theories of group rights come from non-human, non-animal sources.)


 * Does the current "Grouped by right holder," work for folks? (Aside from questions of pluralization, noted other talk item here.)  Though I put it together as a temporary measure, if it addresses the issue brought up here, I think we can leave it as the section title.


 * I still don't see what was the problem with the other heading, "other groups of rights." Don't see how it could be confused with rights of groups (except for cases of dyslexia) or rights of individuals.  I would like to go back to it, since it more explicitly indicated the common feature of members of that list. Zodon (talk) 08:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be satisfied with "grouped by right holder" and "other groups of rights". -Pfhorrest (talk) 08:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, grouped by rights holder is a big improvement on rights of groups. Michael H 34 (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Minority rights
Should minority rights be moved up to the section now labeled Grouped by rights holder? Michael H 34 (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * I also wondered about that (as mentioned in previous talk item), also about LGBT rights. In both cases the item appears to be differentiated by the rights holder, rather than the rights themselves. Zodon (talk) 08:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My original thoughts behind placing LGBT rights under 'other' rather than 'by right holder' was that, while sexual orientation is something that people may identify themselves by, and thus a group-differentiator, it's not something inherent in a person like sex or race or species. Well, ok, I guess that itself is an issue of contention, i.e. whether people are "born gay" or if it's a "lifestyle choice", though I consider that a false dichotomy, but that's not really what I'm getting at.
 * My thought was that LGBT rights are something like religious rights, in that religion is something you might group people by, but religious rights are really about freedom of worship as applicable to everyone, not the rights of any particular religious denomination, or the rights of religious people vs irreligious people. Likewise, though sexual orientation is something you might group people by, LGBT rights are about the freedom of anyone to have sex with, marry, etc, who they want to, not the rights of a particular gender/orientation group (hence the ever-increasing string of letters in that acronym; it used to be just lesbians and gays, then oh yeah bi people too, and transsexuals... nowadays some places just say "queer", in a non-derogatory sense, as in "queer studies" instead of "LGBT studies" or the "queer student union" instead of the "GLBTSU").
 * However, on another note, I notice now that LGBT rights actually redirects to LGBT social movements. Is that article really a rights article at all? Should it be included in this template to begin with? -Pfhorrest (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I see the same differentiation between rights holders and the rights themselves as Zodon. Although LGBT may be considered a social movement, this doesn't mean that those who identify themselves as members would like rights, in particular the right to marry.  In my opinion, the LGBT category should be included on the template.  In my opinion, both the minority and the LGBT categories should be included with those in Grouped by rights holder.  Michael H 34 (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * I don't have a particular preference one way or the other about whether LGBT rights should be included in this template. As noted elsewhere in the talk, there is considerable overlap between this template and template:discrimination sidebar, so if this starts to expand to cover all the rights groups for various then it might be prudent to consider splitting out a separate template to cover them.
 * If LGBT rights are to be included on this template, then that does appear to be the appropriate article. Gay rights (and similar) seem to redirect to the LGBT social movements page.
 * While I see Pfhorrest's reasoning on putting it under other, I guess I see it as more relating to the group because most of the rights desired by LGBT also apply to other groups (e.g. right to marry, to love, etc.); so the right to marry only becomes an LGBT right when applied to L/G/B/T couple, but the right to authorize the public performance of a work remains a part of authors' rights regardless of who exercises it. (i.e., an article about sexual and marriage rights would go in the groups of rights (even if it amounted to the same rights as LGBT rights), but if you call it LGBT rights, then it seems more like it belongs in the rights holders.)
 * But it isn't totally clear cut which section to put it in, I can see both sides, I just lean toward the differentiation by group in this case. Zodon (talk) 07:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Authors' rights
Which section to put Authors' rights in has bothered me a little - though it is in the section differenteated by right holder, it seems like maybe it should go under the other rights grouping. Authors' rights are a specific set of rights relating to control of a created work, attribution, remuneration, etc. The property rights seem definitely apropos of the other rights group (can be transferred, etc., not even specific to the author), also Authors' rights seem more similar to Digital, Labor or Reproductive rights in that they apply to almost everyone and are more readily distinguished as groups of rights than by particular properties of the rights holder. (Certainly in a literate society most people create items of "authorship," even if it is just e-mails, voice-mail messages, refrigerator art and posts on WikiPedia.) So the differentiation of the group to whom the rights apply is not particularly interesting. Zodon (talk) 08:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Perhaps Intellectual property can be added to the template.  Michael H 34 (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * I also agree that it should be moved to the 'Other' subsection, but I disagree about renaming it to intellectual property. The link itself is to Authors' rights, and per that page, property rights are only one part of authors' rights; though they're not recognized in the US, apparently many European countries recognize "moral rights" of authors separate from their economic rights in the work. -Pfhorrest (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that intellectual property rights should not replace authors rights. That's why I changed my suggestion that we consider adding intellectual property rights to the template rather than replacing authors' rights.  Michael H 34 (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Right holder vs rights holder
A recent edit changed heading3 to read "by rights holder" rather than "by right holder". The pluralized version sounds odd to my ear, so I've reverted it. (Thanks for the other cleanup though, Sardanophalus). Opinions? -Pfhorrest (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Additions to the template?
The article on rights includes reference to patient rights and prisoners' rights, but these are not included on the template. Should they be added? Michael H 34 (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * Sounds good to me. -Pfhorrest (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Labor rights
I put labor rights back under the "other groups of rights" for similar reasons to why I suggested that Authors' rights go there. Labor rights appear to be more a grouping of rights (such as: Fair remuneration · Equal pay for equal work · Trade union membership · Right to social security · Leisure and rest · Right to work ). Such rights/considerations may apply to most people (and possibly animals), even those not traditionally considered "workers," (e.g. child labor, homemakers, etc.) But again I see how it could be viewed either way, so if somebody wants to make a case for moving it. Zodon (talk) 07:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * maybe I am missing something, but workers are then right holders... some of them are recognised human rights, and one has these rights by virtue of being a worker. I am not sure if I get the distinction you are making. I would move it.--SasiSasi (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Labor rights may apply to those that are often not called "workers". So if one defines worker as those to whom labor rights apply then worker becomes a synonym for human (or animal), so not a very useful distinguishing characteristic.  Seems more distinct if consider it by the rights involved.  Sort of like reproductive rights, they generally apply to a class of people, but that class winds up being not very distinct from humans, so not as useful as a distinguisher.  Also, the article in question is titled labor rights, so using the term used by the article gives less chance for confusion (e.g. one might interpret worker in a western industrial/commercial paid labor context.)  Zodon (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * the article is titles "Labor rights or workers' rights" and redirects from workers rights. They are rights holders, I still dont see your point. But anyway.--SasiSasi (talk) 12:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Rights theory
As User:Zodon has begun the splitting up of Template:Human rights, I have begun work on Template:Rights theory, which I hope to someday supplant the "Fundamental concepts" section of Template:Human rights as well as the upper portion of this template. I just want to bring everyone's attention to that so that we can make the new template as good as can be. --Pfhorrest (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Aesthetics
Hi there, could we make the template wider - the width of the discrimination template roughly. Many templates have about this width and the rights template would look aesthetically better when its bordering on other templates if it had a wider width (see Group rights).--SasiSasi (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * While I see the appeal of having the template similar in width to discrimination, the aesthetic appeal probably depends on screen size. (The templates are tall enough that most of the time the two templates are not on screen at the same time on my screen).
 * I think the template should be kept as narrow as feasible. If anything a little narrower than it currently is would be better.  If it is going to be a vertical list, it shouldn't have long lines of items.
 * For instance, many of the items on the current template make sense on an individual line. (theory - individual or group; right holders - men or women) Making it wider would tend to destroy that pattern.  (e.g. Animals, Humans, Men, Women on same line).
 * The wider we make overhead items like this template, the less space there is for article content, especially on smaller screens or for those who use larger fonts. (Some use 1024x768 or less, e.g. laptops, internet appliances, etc.)  On 1024x768 the Wikipedia navigation material takes the left 1/3 or so of the screen, the rights template takes the right 1/3, leaving the middle 1/3 for the actual content one wants to read.  Discrimination squishes that even more.
 * IMHO the discrimination template is way too big for a sidebar template, it should be narrower (and not as tall), or converted to a navbox. Zodon (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Prostitutes' Rights add
Have "invited" those that have recently worked on the template to consider adding prostitutes, (see World Charter for Prostitutes' Rights).--SasiSasi (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable to me, I think Right holders would be the place to put it (it appears this refers to extending/protecting the human/labor rights of members of this group, rather than being a particular group of rights).
 * In terms of which article to link to, I think Sex worker rights might be a better one to include - though it is somewhat less developed, it would mirror the structure elsewhere on this template (e.g. human rights links to human rights article, rather than the Universal declaration on human rights). But I don't feel strongly on that, if others think the World Charter article is more appropriate, linking to that is fine. Zodon (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * the Sex worker rights article would appear most app... but its in awful shape! I have vague memories that I wanted to work on it before I went on holidays. Anyway, I am for linking the Sex worker rights article.--SasiSasi (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as whether to use the term Prostitutes or Sex workers for the link on this template, I am inclined to sex worker as the more neutral term, but not an area I know much about. A brief skim of the articles seems to indicate that they are used fairly interchangeably.  So at this point I don't have a strong preference one way or other. Zodon (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think if we link to the sex worker rights article it should be sex workers, which would include prostitutes and for example stripper or sex slaves or involuntary "prostitutes". Using the term sex worker also means we dont have to get drawn into the debate on what is a prostitute (voluntary/involuntary, sexual acts performed etc), and its gender neutral, and it would include children ("prostitute" appears to be used mainly in reference to adult females).
 * I am currently trying to mobilise some people who have worked on sex worker related articles recently, maybe we can get this article into some sort of acceptable shape.--SasiSasi (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I approve, think it should be called "sex workers' rights", placed under Right Holders, and link to the sex workers' rights article, which could use some cleaning up. --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

We already include Labor as a category on the template. Why should the template make a distinction for sex workers as opposed to other workers? Michael H 34 (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * good question, working on the World Charter for Prostitutes' Rights article leaves me with the impression that sex workers claim/need rights beyond what are standard workers' rights (freedom of association, freedom from discrimination, right to collective bargaining)... I guess this relates partly to the fact that in many cases their work is criminalised, informal, and/or involuntary. A strong element of the sex workers rights movement is the call for decriminalisation - i.e. the right to perform this sort of work legally and hence enjoy standard workers rights.
 * In any case, I think this is a valid question, and I would be in favour of including sex workers separately, especially because they are not covered by workers rights standard setting bodies such as International Labour Organization (ILO).--SasiSasi (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If I may play devil's advocate to your proposal, I suggest that in terms of rights, similarities and overlaps exist between sex workers and other workers. The right to collectively bargain is a right sought by some other workers, and decriminalization of prostitution might be viewed as something very much akin to the right to work. Michael H 34 (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

For discussion purposes, the following link is a UN document concerning the right to work:  The concerns of sex workers are not covered, which lends some support to the view that decriminalization of prostitution is not something that directly overlaps with workers' rights.Michael H 34 (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * Purpose of a wp:navigation template is to make it easier to find similar or related articles. So while we don't want to lose focus or include too many articles, it may be helpful to have links to labor rights from sex workers rights, and vice-versa.  When the list gets too big, we can look at splitting it (or converting to a navbox template, etc.)  A quick check of category:Labor templates  didn't show a template dealing with workers in different fields, so doesn't look like it is something that is already covered by another template.  (But given how we keep finding other similar templates, it is hard to be sure.)
 * After all, the template already includes humans, so why include men, women, children, youth, mothers, fathers, etc.? (Not advocating removal, just pointing out that many of the rights holders articles already overlap.) Zodon (talk) 08:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That is a good point. There is already overlap between the right holders. I am not advocating either way, but I agree with you that we do not want to include too many articles on the template. If a particular type of worker is included on the template, why not another? Why include sex workers as opposed to other types of workers? Perhaps the issue of decriminalization is the distinction that supports the inclusion of the sex workers' rights article on the template. Michael H 34 (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * I think the first criterion is, is there an article about it? Are there articles about rights of other groups of workers?  I didn't find any other obvious ones looking in the category tree the other day, but it is easy to not find things. Zodon (talk) 07:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * there would be a case for including child workers rights... the ILO has various conventions that regulate the rights of workers under the age of 18 (which is a reality in most countries and is legal in certain situations)... however there is no wikipedia article on this, only child labor, which does not cover the workers' rights of children. I guess this is a matter of work in progress, its wikipedia after all.
 * regarding templates, personally I don’t see them primarily as an attempt to comprehensively establish categorisations, but more as a useful tools to direct readers to other existing articles that might be of interest. As far as I am concerned they are a good way of making the ever growing content of Wikipedia more accessible (so are intext wikilinks, I spend a lot of time on those).
 * I guess one sees that with the freedom template, I think it made sense at the time it was created, and was appropriate for the articles that were around at the time. As the depth of coverage increases (articles relating to rights for example), there will always be the need to review templates and establishing the most appropriate format. --SasiSasi (talk) 09:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I have updated the Sex worker rights article, so at least its now of decent quality (except for all the typos I undoubtedly missed).--SasiSasi (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Freedom template?
By the way... how does this template relate to the Freedom template ... its in the Freedom of speech article. I can see the overlap - the right to freedom of speech or association, but I wondered if we could have a look at this. In the moment I would be in favour or replacing the Freedom template in favour of the rights template.--SasiSasi (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice find. I added some links and categorization so that hopefully those working on the various templates will at least know that the other ones exists. (Don't know yet how, but coordination would be nice.)  Zodon (talk) 08:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the freedom one is an old one and not widely used because it’s so wishi washi. I have a look at it later today, maybe we can merge it.--SasiSasi (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have done some work to recat the links in the freedom template (see Freedom), it still overlaps with this template (rights section specifically, topic more generally). I am not really thinking about merging the two anymore, I think the two templates can co-exist.--SasiSasi (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Fetal rights
I have removed fetal rights from this. The article of "fetal rights" clearly states what fetal rights activists *want*, but have yet to acheive. We are legal persons at birth. Guyforsports (talk) 07:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've undone your edit. This template merely links to articles about purported rights; it makes no claims as to which if any of those rights claims are valid. Plenty of people dispute the validity of claims to natural rights, positive rights, group rights, animal rights... in fact I'd be surprised if any of the listed categories of rights was completely uncontroversial. Being selective about which rights articles to link from this template is POV. --03:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why was my addition of 'people' to the chart removed?AThousandYoung (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

People
Natural/Inalienable Rights Theory defines Natural Rights as attributes of PEOPLE. Men, women, humans, aliens, AIs, angels, etc have rights because and only because they are people. I placed People in the list of who has rights and it was removed. The note implies that the person who changed what I entered thinks "Human" and "Person" are synonymous on a legal/philosphical level which is not true. This revision shows a frightening ignorance and/or attempt to manipulate peoples' perceptions of rights e.g. implies the current debate about dolphin rights is not about treating dolphins as humans' equal, but simply about being a little nicer to them which is not true. This debate about dolphins being persons is much more profound in meaning and implications than simply another discussion about animal cruelty.

''If the doctrine of reincarnation allows the soul of a man to be reborn in the body of an animal, such as a hog, if we knew that the soul of a man was in one of our hogs, it would require us to call the hog a man. Locke pairs the examples of a rational talking parrot with a creature that has the shape of a man but cannot engage in rational discourse as a thought experiment which demonstrates that rational discourse is neither a necessary or sufficient condition for being a man. If man is a living body, an animal of a certain shape, then what is a person? A person is an intelligent thinking being that can know itself as itself the same thinking thing in different times and places.''

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/supplement.html AThousandYoung (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You are entirely correct that "people" and "humans" are not coextensive sets, however the reason your edit was reverted was because this template is an organized list of links to other rights-related articles, and a link to the article you linked to already exists: Natural and legal rights. If there was a separate article on People's rights or Persons' rights or something, that would warrant inclusion, but there's not. [edit: apparently People's rights does exist, but it's new and has never been anything but a redirect to Bill of rights and then to United States Bill of Rights; I just now changed it to redirect to Rights instead, since it's not at all clear what that article is supposed to be about, and nothing but this comment appears to link to it...] --Pfhorrest (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Consumer rights/ protection as a rights claimant
I think we should put consumers in the rights claimant section. There is no "consumer rights" page but there is a consumer protection page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_protection It can also redirect from consumer rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_rights Thanks98.228.223.184 (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Immigrants as a rights claimant
I would like to see immigrants as a rights claimant, however, there is no immigrant rights page. However, there is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immigrants_rights&redirect=no and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration which can be redirected there from immigrant rights — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.223.184 (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Rights claimants creep
In response to the above two sections and some other recent activity, I think we need to be wary of creeping growth in the rights claimants section. If we could list any special interest group in there at all, the list would grow to unwieldy size very quickly. I think we should limit it to only claimants where we have actual articles on the subject of their rights. I'm tentatively open to the idea of claimants where there is a redirect from a rights article to a different name, but I'm very hesitant because as above Immigrants rights just redirects to Immigration and the latter is not on the whole a rights-related article. Something like LGBT rights which once (but apparently no longer) redirected to LGBT social movements might be more acceptable, because the latter article is at least about a closely rights-related issue (a social movement seeking among other things to secure more rights for the claimants). --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Use of logo
The logo being used on this template is not a widely recognized logo for human rights. It is not Wikipedia's place to promote its use. If it achieves widespread use outside of Wikipedia, then it will be appropriate for us to adopt it, but not before then. I propose removing it from the template. Kaldari (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's been pushed all over relevant WP articles by User:WhiteWriter and broadly rejected by everybody at WP:Human rights except for User:Boud who mostly commented on how to get sufficient permission to use it, not whether it was appropriate to use, about a year ago. See WT:WikiProject_Human_rights/Archive_7 and WT:WikiProject_Human_rights/Archive_7. I haven't had time to really fight it but if anyone wants to take up that torch they have my support. --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I confess I added it to the template without knowing, so to speak, its pedigree, so I don't mind whether or not it's used here. I think, though, the template feels underpowered without an image, so I found File:Civil rights.JPG as an alternative. CsDix (talk) 11:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If users here do not lke it, i dont have any particular interest in using it here. Just you should know that this logo was elected by masssive international agreement, that is by far bigger than wikipedia entire active body. You will never convince me that image chosen by one or two persons here on talk is better then this logo, created for very this purpose. This logo is THE ONLY logo in usage that was some official meaning and confirmation in background, while all others have nothing. All best. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 02:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The objection, I think, is not that any group of Wikipedians are any more authoritative than the contest that picked that human rights logo, it's that nobody can authoritatively make "the logo" for human rights, and we at wikipedia would be better off picking some image which is merely widely iconic and representative of rights without it claiming to be the official logo of human rights. By using this logo, we endorse the authority of the contest to pick a logo for an abstract concept; by using almost any other image, we don't endorse any authority to do so, we just put a pretty picture commonly associated with the subject for beautifications purposes.
 * Consider Template:Philosophy_sidebar. For illustration, it has a triptych of portraits of widely-recognized philosophers from around the world (Socrates, Confucius, Avicienna). Even if it was just a bust of Socrates (which I think is also used somewhere else on WP), that wouldn't be claiming that Socrates is the official figurehead of all philosophy; just that he is an iconic figure in philosophy.
 * Frankly the idea of coming up with a logo not for a specific organization but for an abstract concept is patently absurd. A logo is like a brand. Giving something a logo implies the giver has ownership of that concept. But abstract concepts can't be owned. Human rights, as a concept, cannot have an official logo -- nobody has the authority to do so, and this contest acting like it does is simply farcical. And Wikipedia shouldn't be endorsing such a thing. It would be a farce if we came up with a logo too, but nobody is suggesting that.
 * If I were to suggest an illustration for human rights, I'd probably go for a combination of several different iconic images. The liberty torch that was on WP:HR before was a good one (and contrary to objections is not inherently American; the figure of Liberty personified bearing a torch is European in origin, for example France had a statue of said figure before the US did, and gave the US theirs). The scales of justice would also make a good representation. For that matter Justice has a personification too, so perhaps stand them side by side, Lady Liberty with her torch and Lady Justice with her scales, and you've got some pretty iconic rights-related imagery right there. --Pfhorrest (talk) 09:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand your logic, but i still must say that i disagree. Abstract concepts do have logos for a quite some time. And by using it, i dont think that we say: "This is official logo", but only: "This logo is visual presentation of human rights." Also, i must say that Lady Liberty is very much "no" to me, as it is representation of America. America is on the very opposite side of human rights chain, so it would be very wrong to use anything even remotely related to that. Therefore, this logo is totally neutral, it contains no language or face, and it is only a visual presentation of rights. Without any insinuations, wherever you are located in the world. No to Lady Liberty torch. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 19:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm getting get the feeling that your push here is directly motivated by anti-Americanism, which makes the whole thing feel rather biased. (I won't defend America as a bastion of all things good, but it's hardly the worst offender out there as you make it out to be). I guess you also missed my reply to that objection above: Lady Liberty is neither American in origin nor exclusively American in domain. See Liberty_(goddess) which I linked before. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, its not, but i doubt that Lady Liberty in any form is good for this. Maybe the best solution for now would be to leave it without image? Or maybe something different? Something third? :) -- WhiteWriterspeaks 20:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If not File:Civil rights.JPG (which I realize may also be controversial), how about something from here? CsDix (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think this template should have any logo or graphic. There is no universally recognized symbol for human rights, so anything we use in the meantime is just going to be decoration, which is discouraged by WP:ICONS. Kaldari (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Gender parenthesis
I would like to suggest that rather than having things spread out in purely alphabetical order, we group it like "Men (Fathers)" and "Women (Mothers)" since these are basically sub-groups of the gendered rights movements. I am surprised at the lack of "parents' rights" here though. Ranze (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Disability rights
I have taken the liberty of adding a link to Disability rights movement to the template. I piped it to "Disabled persons" in line with the others in the "Rights by claimant" section but "Disability rights" is the "natural" and widely used term. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2014
Please replace the current version with the following, which improves the template's appearance by setting the class "plainlist" for the first two sections (result shown opposite):

Thank you,

213.246.114.212 (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done. However, I used the plainlist and hlist templates, which have the same effect. --User:Anon126 (talk - contribs) 22:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Intersex rights
The rights of people born with differences in sex characteristics are attracting increased attention, and the page on intersex includes significant detail on human rights abuses and instruments. It's distinct from LGBT, disability and women, although the issues arguably intersect with each of them. Trankuility (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2015
Please add the following entry after "Creditors" and before "Fathers"

| Elders

Thank you, 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done Stickee (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

"Rights claimants... fetuses" contentious
Fetuses" appearing under "Rights claimants" makes no sense - fetuses aren't "claiming" rights, they're not claiming anything, they're fetuses. It should be removed from this subsection.--TyrS (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey again, TyrS. My take is that it is included because, regardless of what any one person thinks, it is a belief that fetuses have rights; they don't have to technically claim anything. Some of society speaks up for them because they cannot. To these people, it is only natural that fetuses would want these rights if they could talk. Furthermore, the article is titled Fetal rights, which is another reason it is included in the template. I'm certain it will be added back because of this. Flyer22 (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it is one thing saying that other people claim rights for fetuses, we got plenty of reliable sources for that. But saying that "that fetuses would want these rights if they could talk". You would need a source for that.
 * I don’t think TyrS is saying fetuses don’t have rights or that people don’t claim rights on the behalf of fetuses. I think he is making a grammatical point. And I think he is right. Animals should also be removed from the subsection- because animals don’t claim rights for themselves, humans do. Similarly most children, certainly infants, don’t claim rights, adults do on their behalf.
 * I think the way to resolve this is to find another title - an alternative to "rights claimants". The section anyway overlaps with "Other groups of rights" - why are authors in "Other group of rights" and animals in "rights claimants". Does not make sense. I think as the template got expanded it started to get a bit messy.
 * Anyway - can I suggest that we merge the two section under the heading "Group rights". or any other heading that might be appropriate.--SasiSasi (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This was also brought up in the section above. And, LOL, I'm pretty sure that the line "Fetuses would want these rights if they could talk" cannot be sourced in any valid way, since fetuses cannot talk and we certainly cannot read their minds (which likely haven't developed a language we would understand anyway).


 * But as for an extra heading, I'm not against it. I was just giving my take on why it might make sense to some people to include fetuses in the Rights template (as cited above in the previous discussion). I can't think of a better heading right now, though. Flyer22 (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Having interacted with TyrS a few times, I also believe that TyrS is a she, by the way (just letting you know due to the reference of "he"). Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * anything is possible :-) lets see what TyrS comes up with re heading. We should also include sex workers in the template, see Sex workers' rights.--SasiSasi (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, Flyer & Sasi, sorry I haven't chimed in yet, I forgot to watch this page. I agree with Sasi that "Animals" should also not go under "claimants" and that "Authors" should. ("Children" as claimants is a bit iffy too though, hmmm. There are a few actual child advocates for chilren's rights, aren't there?) The best solution I can think of is to change "Other groups of rights" to just "Other". See below for how it would look. (I've alphabetized everything under "claimants" & "Other") (p.s. I don't care what gender I'm referred to as (: Think of me as a brain in a jar.) (p.p.s. this is beside the point, but just for "fun", to follow on from Flyer's "Some of society speaks up for [fetuses] because they cannot. To these people, it is only natural that fetuses would want these rights if they could talk." - This is mainly about abortion, with the 'fetal rights' advocates assuming that all fetuses "would want to be born". However, one could say with equal validity that if fetuses could communicate and see what they were going to be born into they'd be grateful to be aborted. Both statements/assumptions are purely speculative and empirically unsupportable. Just putting my 2 cents in on this somewhat off-the-topic topic.) --TyrS 01:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * [NOTE: I've moved the example template referenced in the post above from below it to next to it, as otherwise it would be next to mine and look like my suggestion]


 * As the person who first structured this template (it used to just be an alphabetical list), I'd like to clarify what the point of those two last sections are. Their titles have changed a lot through several past debates on the talk page, but they are in essence supposed to be:
 * Rights claimed in virtue of who or what the right-holder is (e.g. a woman), apart from just being someone who does something (e.g. an author).
 * Rights about some thing that anyone might do, or about some general facet of life (e.g. labor, sex, language, etc), regardless of who the right-holder is.
 * The original names for the sections were "Rights of groups" and "Other groups of rights", or something like that. If you look at the talk history above, you'll see how that evolved: someone complained that "rights of groups" was confusing with "group rights", so it got changed to something like "grouped by right holder", which in turn got shortened to just "right holders". Then someone had an issue with saying that everyone listed there really holds those rights, which might be a contentious claim, so "holders" became "claimants". Now that has the issue you're raising that some of the individuals purported to have rights in virtue of who or what they are can't really claim to have rights, since they can't speak, and possibly can't even think, "I have/deserve such-and-such rights".


 * For illustration, I still think LGBT rights belongs in the second category (where they used to be), because they're not so much about extending rights to people in virtue of their LGBT identity, as it is about rights to engage in LGBT activities. They're rights about anyone's freedom to choose their sexual orientation or gender identity or other such LGBT issues; not about LGBT people's rights to do things like vote or own property or whatever which might otherwise be denied of them in virtue of who or what they are.


 * Contrast that with say women's rights, or animal rights, or fetal rights, which are all basically saying "these individuals count as full fledged people and deserve (at least some of) the same rights as everyone else"; and compare it with labor rights, or language rights, which are saying "everyone is permitted or entitled to do or have such-and-such".


 * I think perhaps the most concise way of putting it would be:
 * Specific sets of individuals who purportedly have or deserve rights in general.
 * Specific sets of rights which individuals purportedly have or deserve in general.


 * Or in even more precise predicate logic terms, the categories are about claims of the following forms:
 * "For all (or at least most) rights R, for every individual x of set S, R(x)" = "S's rights"
 * "For all (or at least most) individuals x, for every right R of set S, R(x)" = "S rights"


 * Coming up with concise but accurate names for these two divisions seems difficult, but I think it makes a much more logical division that "people who claim rights for themselves" and "other rights stuff" which is effectively what you're suggesting. I hadn't really wrapped my own head around how to characterize the second section until now, hence the "other" in its title since the beginning, but the point of the first section is definitely about who is claimed to have rights, in virtual of being who they are, regardless of who is doing that claiming; worrying about who can claim for themselves to have rights seems kind of silly.


 * Hope this helps,
 * --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Pfhorrest.
 * I understand that it's complicated & difficult to get this right and discussion has taken place in the past, but I don't agree with you when you describe it as "silly" to object to animals and fetuses being labelled "claimants". This indicates that Wikipedia is stating that animals & fetuses claim rights for themselves in the same way that the other groups do, and is neither logical nor neutral in tone.--TyrS 04:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyranny Sue (talk • contribs)
 * Hi Sue. I'm sorry if I caused offense by saying "silly". I wasn't meaning to dismiss that objection about animals and fetuses being labeled "claimants" as invalid; it's a very good point about the wording of the header for that section. What I meant to call "silly" (or more eloquently put, a little "arbitrary") is the idea of categorizing rights into those who are claimed by somebody for themselves, and everything else, where the things in "everything else" are a very diverse group; whereas my intended division is a clear logical one between "rights of any sort, as they pertain to some particular sets of individuals (e.g. women, animals, fetuses)", and "rights of some particular sort (e.g. labor-related, sex-related, language-related), as they pertain to any set of individuals"
 * In other words, I acknowledge your objection, but I'm suggesting that the solution to the objection is to rename the sections to more accurately reflect their purpose (as I am in favor of the purpose they're meant to serve), rather than to repurpose them to fit the names they have now (as you seem to be suggesting). --Pfhorrest (talk)


 * Hey, Pfhorrest,
 * Thank you for seeing my point. I know what you mean and I can easily see why the contentiousness of labelling fetuses (and animals) as claimants was overlooked. Renaming the sections is a good idea but I can't think of anything at the moment and the proposal I made above was kind of a stopgap suggestion, since I anticipate it being tricky to come up with perfect section names. (I've also just changed my "nonsensical" in this section title to "contentious" to avoid being too snarky about it.)  TyrS  chatties  11:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we should rename the sections as well. The claimant/non claimant won’t get us anywhere, surely some workers claim rights for themselves in that context, and some don’t, etc, etc...
 * Templates are a good way to make other wikipedia article accessible to users, and as long as the categorisation makes sense to the average person, its fine. There are so many attempts to classify and categorise rights, all of them have their difficulties (see individual v group rights, generations of rights etc). I think we really just ought to find a non-controversial section heading to make all the different articles relating to rights accessible.
 * See my suggestion on the right, happy to discuss, can’t say I have the definitive answer. Its definitely uncontroversial.--SasiSasi (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't like putting the theoretical distinctions and human rights divisions below all the others; the way you have it organized that's basically as miscellaneous group of rights at the top, while I think miscellanea belong at the bottom. I'm also not happy about destroying the distinction between rights-by-who-has-them and rights-by-what-is-had-by-them. Just because the distinction is hard to capture in phrases short enough for section headings doesn't mean we should throw it out. It's really simple to state in a full sentence: those are all about someone having a right to something. One section groups them by the someone, and another groups them by the something. I think this is a useful categorization to keep, we just need to brainstorm names for them. The first thing that comes to mind is "by right holder" and "by right held", but that raises the same issues that caused "right-holder" to be changed to "right-claimant" before. Maybe just "by who" and "by what"? It's kind of silly but I think given the examples in each section it will make sense in context. Still not an ideal solution though. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I would not say that the list of rights we have is a "miscellaneous" group of rights. They are the rights the template is about. The categorisations that are in the template are in most cases extremely theoretical and not widely known or accepted. I am not sure why a template on rights should list them first and the rights as "miscellaneous" at the bottom.
 * Putting the right at the top, right under the heading also means that we don’t have to think about a subheading. I am against trying to categorise the rights in the template. There is no widely accepted categorisation of rights with no overlap or coverage of all the rights articles we have in Wikipedia.--SasiSasi (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * An alternative would be this:

I've bitten the bullet and boldly renamed the section to Rights by beneficiary. I'd say there was consensus for a rename, and "beneficiary" may apply to fetuses and animals where "claimant" may not. Diego (talk) 10:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)