Talk:Legal rights

Merger with natural rights

The content of this article appears to be mostly redundant with the article on Rights simpliciter (and in fact Legal right singular, until a moment ago, redirected there rather than here). I propose that this topic is best treated in distinction with Natural rights, in a manner mirroring Negative and positive rights and Claim rights and liberty rights. Since Natural rights already discusses that distinction in much more detail than here (although biased from a Natural rights POV), I propose that this article be merged into that article (minus redundancies with Rights simpliciter), and that be article renamed to Natural and legal rights. Thoughts? -Pfhorrest (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natural and Legal rights are to entirely different fields of equality. One deals with what a man is born with while the other deals with what that man's country gives him. If these two were combined under a page called rights then that would be acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.31.42.136 (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed about the difference between Natural and Legal rights, but I was not suggesting that those two subjects be merged into one article on Rights simpliciter; we already have one of those. I was suggesting that this article on Legal rights and the article on Natural rights be merged into an article discussing the difference between Natural rights and Legal rights, which is mostly what the Natural rights article does already.

Basically: the existence of legal rights is uncontroversial, and for discussion of the various legal rights that exist in various countries, there already exist articles on the various laws of various countries, leaving little subject area for this article. But the existence of natural rights, and their relation to legal rights, is controversial, so the natural rights article spends some time discussing the difference and that relationship, though it does so from an unabashedly Natural Rights point of view. (I am a Natural Rights theorist myself, so I'm not complaining about that POV, just commenting). I am merely suggesting that what little original content there still is here be merged into natural rights, and that article moved to Natural and legal rights and reworded to a less POV account of that distinction, much like Negative and positive rights and Claim rights and liberty rights. -Pfhorrest (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split again?

I've reverted this talk page back to the last version before the above-discussed merger (after which point all talk has occurred at Talk:Natural and legal rights) because User:Blue-Haired Lawyer (hereafter "BHL", if you will) recently split this article out again from Natural and legal rights, to which it had been merged.

As you can see in the above discussion, the reason for the merger was the very small amount of content here. Most of it was redundant with Rights in general; with that article in existence, the subject of this article must be about rights only inasmuch as they are of a legal nature. The content added here by BHL is more substantiative than what was here before, but I have my doubts about how much more there is to add on the subject of rights qua their legality alone.

I would suggest that instead of splitting this article out now, the content BHL has added be used to flesh out the legal-rights side of Natural and legal rights (which is in sore need of it, because of how little content there was here to merge there), and if that article gets too big, then two articles on "Natural rights" and "Legal rights" be split out again.

In any case, if a split does occur, then Natural and legal rights should become Natural rights again. It wouldn't make any sense, for comparison, to have an article on Negative and positive rights and then a separate article on Positive rights.

Also, in case the articles are split again / this stays split out, the proper title should be Legal rights, not Legal right. All rights-related articles are currently in the plural (see the discussion which lead to that), so we shouldn't have just one of them break that consistency.

--Pfhorrest (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a split. I don't think everyone who looks up legal right on Wikipedia wishes to have an article comparing them to natural right, even if this article never expands beyond two paragraphs. As far as using the plural is concerned, I fine with it if that's the convention. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 10:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And again

The problem with the merger is that it assumes that any discussion of legal rights can only take place in a certain dialectic: ie that between natural and legal rights. Just as much as it is possible to contrast legal rights with natural right, it is also possible to contrast legal rights with legal duties. In any event as I can see no problem with having one article on legal rights and another on natural and legal rights I think I'll revert the change. We are not about to run out of paper. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 14:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not running out of paper, but of unnecessary redundancy between articles. What more is there to say on the relation between legal rights and legal duties than there is to say on the relation between rights and duties in general? That material would belong at the article Rights and/or at Duty; unless there is something special to say about them as they pertain to rights and duties as legal concepts beyond that more general sense, there's no need for this article just to cover that.

Unless you can explicate what exactly there is to say about specifically legal rights beyond things there are to say about rights in general (which should go at Rights) or about rights as a legal concept compared to rights as a moral concept (which should go at Natural and legal rights), I fail to see the purpose of an article at this name, and intend to revert it to the redirect again. --Pfhorrest (talk)

There is no redundancy in this article, it is just a short article on a specific kind of right. I have said pretty much everything I wish to say about this merge. You have no consensus to merge this article. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 14:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have no consensus to undo a merger which has stood uncontested (besides your one drive-by attempt at a split a year ago) for years. And it sounds like you are explicitly refusing the D in BRD, which is a dangerous position to take. I am going to revert your changes again; please make an argument for them, call an 3PO or RFC or something if you want more discussion than just the two of us, but you made a change, it was reverted, now let's discuss.

I posed a question to you before, perhaps a little too indirectly, so here it is more to the point: what do you see belonging at this article title which is not merely on the subject of rights in general, or on the distinction between natural and legal rights? --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus??

The only person who ever agreed with the deletion was you!? — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 00:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested a Wikipedia:Third opinion. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 00:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only person who ever posts on this talk page is you. All other discussion has happened on the talk page of the merged article. Please take the discussion there if you want to get a proper audience of interested parties. --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact upon examination this page only exists here because of another editor wrongly singularizing all the "rights" articles across the wiki. This page used to be Talk:Legal rights and had no comments since its creation until my merge proposal at the top, five years ago; and then no further comments until you began your intermittent crusade to fork the article three years after that. If there were to be an article on legal rights separate from the one on natural rights, it would belong at Legal rights anyway. This talk page shouldn't be here. --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no merged article. Just this one which you keep deleting! — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 09:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Legal right → Talk:Legal rights – This talk page was originally attached to Talk:Legal rights and was stranded here after now-reverted page moves by User:Oliver Pereira five years ago. Pfhorrest (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this requested move template may not be suited to request what I'm trying to request -- I'm only requesting the talk page be moved back to the article it belongs with, not that the whole article (which is currently just a redirect) by moved. Sorry for any confusion, admins responding to this. --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to use the multimove template to request this sort of move. But, as it is a technical request, you can also use WP:RMTR request process. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is at Natural and legal rights, which has its own talk page. I recommend simply leaving this talk page as is and perhaps tagging it with {{Talk page of redirect}}. Legal rights is a redirect, just like Legal right is, so I really don't see the benefit in moving here. --BDD (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the earliest comments on this talk page are discussing how "this article" (meaning Legal rights) should be merged and how "Legal right" (as though that was not the article this page is attached to) is already a redirect to the proposed merge target. Those comments make no sense when this talk page is attached to Legal right rather than Legal rights. I agree neither talk page should be used because both articles are redirects, but for preserving the history of what was said on what article, this talk page should be attached to Legal rights rather than Legal right. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename as housekeeping to keep talk page with edit history it is concerned with. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Update I seem to have misread the pagehistories. Thanks for the heads up BHL -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah I guess I misread them too. The early comments on this page speak of it as though it was at Talk:Legal rights, which I think confused me. I do think that this article (with its talk page) should be moved back to Talk:Legal rights as a more proper way of reverting the changes made by Oliver Pereira, which would clear up that confusion, and have this edit history back in the proper place if ever Legal rights was to be split off from Natural and legal rights. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment actually the proposed move would do the exact opposite: move a talk page without moving its associated former article. If we were to revive an article on legal rights it would make sense to move Legal right and Talk:Legal right to Legal rights and Talk:Legal rights, but otherwise we're just juggling redirects. In any event the article and talk pages should be kept together not separated. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 14:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think we're all agreed that the (redirected) article Legal right should be moved to Legal rights and it's talk page (this page) should follow. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 15:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.