Talk:Human rights

Cyrus cylinder vandal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opening Line / Age

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

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

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

Relativism

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request on 10 February 2012

CAT

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

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