Talk:Universal Declaration of Human Rights

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Human rights (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Freedom of speech (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Globalization (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Globalization, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Globalization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

/Archive 1

This article is total garbage, doesn't even list the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or its impact. ITS THE ENTIRE REASON ALL DEVELOPED NATIONS (besided USA) HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. Wikipedia can't have any credibility until this article is doesn't even list ANY of the rights. NOT ONE. ABSURD! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


Would anyone be interested in collaborating to bring the Universal Declaration of Human Rights article to FA status in time to get it posted to the Main Page as TFA for December 10, 2008, which is Human Rights Day and the 60th anniversary of the Declaration? Sarsaparilla (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I definitely think this topic demands an article of sufficient quality to be featured. However, I'd need guidance as to what pieces need to happen for the article to arrive at that point. In short, yes, I'm interested in collaborating, but in need of others to point the way and help identify the shortcomings.Lawikitejana (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


Template:Articles_of_the_Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights is very, very messy. It seems to be inappropriate to list the sections of the the UDHR there. If there aren't any objections, I will begin working on improving the template. Zenwhat (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I overhauled the template. Feedback is welcome. Zenwhat (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Very nice! Thank you. Sarsaparilla (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of the omission of the so-called "Right not to Participate in War"[edit]

I have no problem with this argument being made in the criticisms section, as long as it is written in a way befitting Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Wikipedia is not a place to present opinions, even if your opinion is that your opinion is fact. Rudy Breteler (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the constructive criticism. I stand corrected and will re-write my edit excluding the mention of any country in particular. Having said that, for the record, the reason I included the name of a country in my first edit was because that country played host to the formation of the United Nations, and continues to host the headquarters of the UN, thus being perceived as having a major role in the original drafting of its documents. However, in the interests of accommodation, I will leave out the name of that nation in my next edit of the article. (I will also improve my grammar.) Thank you for the constructive criticism. Boyd Reimer (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

New entry: Topic: The right to refuse to participate in what the UN Charter calls “the scourge of war.”

Here is a quote from Wikipedia’s Wikipedia:NPOV dispute: “If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. ….Then…explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why.”

An anonymous person did “mark the article's main page” but did not “explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why.”

Since this was not done, I can only speculate as to what the exact criticisms are. (I do not want to make the assumption that this tag was attached by the same person who made a criticism at an earlier date.) Nevertheless, since the tag was put up, I have made the following changes to accommodate what may have been a criticism about “neutrality.”

First, I have removed the footnote linking to the US military punitive measures for “deserters.” The only reason I put it there in the first place was purely in response to someone who posted a “citation needed” note—presumably asking for examples of countries which do punish those who exercise their human right to refuse to participate in what the UN Charter calls “the scourge of war.” Nevertheless, I now removed it.

Second, to provide more examples, I have employed the use of a list of countries that have mandatory Conscription.

Third, in an effort to seek other voices on the human rights issue I footnoted a link to a trusted “third party” with an excellent reputation for being neutral, namely Amnesty International. I chose them for two reasons: First, they are an international body just like the UN, which produced the “UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” (This compares “apples with apples” instead of comparing “apples with oranges.”) Second, my footnotes refer to articles that are found in their annual reports which are subtitled with the phrase, “the state of the world’s human rights.”

The reason I mentioned only Greece and the US is as follows: If you follow the footnoted links you will find that Amnesty International’s results for a search on the word “desertion” calls up their reports on the following countries: Turkey, USA, Eritrea, Armenia, Greece. I have only included Greece and USA in the article because the other countries did not originally produce the [United Nations Charter] phrase, “scourge of war.”

(To find the exact reference to “military service” in the footnote beside Greece, see Amnesty International’s report on Greece’s approach to non-religious “Conscientious objection to military service” at [1])

Neutrality was on my mind again when I put the countries of “Greece” and “US” in alphabetical order. That detail demonstrates the extent to which I am striving to be neutral.

In keeping with Wikipedia’s dispute settling policy, I will leave the NPOV tag up for a “cooling off” period of two weeks. After that, if I don’t see any attempt at dialogue from the anonymous party who posted the tag, I feel that I am justified in removing it.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one who tagged this POV, but I think I see the problem here. This section seems to be expressing the private opinion of an editor (or editors). See WP:OR. I went ahead and added the Original Research template to that section of the article to make it easier for you (and other editors and readers) to understand the issue here so that you can solve it.
Original research is not a bad thing in general, of course. It is a very good thing. But this is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are not about original research.
If this same criticism is publicly lodged against the UDHR by other than fringe elements, for example by an organisation such as AI, then it is fine to include that in the article. That would not be considered OR. Just be sure to source it, and you are good to go. Civilaffairs (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Thank you for your help in clarifying Wikipedia policy.

As you can see, in an new effort to be neutral, I have now removed any reference to any country in my edit. Hopefully that will be enough to convince the reader that the NPOV tag is now unjustified. Nevertheless, I will leave it up for two weeks in order to allow the anonymous person who put it there to dialogue with me.

In regards to the "original research" tag, I have a question: What, in precise terms, does it mean to "publicly lodge" a criticism "against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?" After reading any documents of War Resisters International it is self evident that they are not pleased with the lack of explicit reference to conscientious objection in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and its codification in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome :) If War Resisters International has objected to lack of explicit reference to conscientious objectors in the UDR in WRI documents and/or statements available to the public, that would qualify as public. It does not have to be "official". This is fine.
The OR policy is a bit hard to understand. I believe there is still a problem. Who says the the right not to participate in war is a human right? Has WRI said so? Then this must be attributed to WRI. Individual editors cannot simply decide what is a human right and write about it in WP (original research), hence the need to reference. Does that make it clearer?
This may be a problem, too: In some cases the refusal to participate in “the scourge of war” is not merely a right, but indeed a legal obligation as we see in this quote about the UN's official formulation of the Nuremberg Principles into International Law in 1950: Where is this "right and legal obligation" in the Nuremberg Principles? I don't see it anywhere. Not all military personnel are asked to commit crimes against peace, war crimes or crimes against humanity.
If you are interpreting the NP's "war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances" as "scourge of war" you have misinterpreted. Here is an example: During WWII, the Allies were fighting back against Hitler's "war of aggression in violation of international treaties". The British, Americans, Russians, Free French, Partizans, etc., were certainly involved in the "scourge of war" but they were not engaging in a "war of aggression in violation of international treaties." Indeed, many would point out that if all Americans, British, Russians, etc., had refused to participate in "the scourge of war" Hitler would have been the one to decide what our human rights are, if any. That would hardly be pleasant.
Again, I did not add the POV tag, but I would not assume it had anything to do with countries listed. It may have had to do with the whether saving "succeeding generations from the scourge of war" has anything to do with conscientious objectors and the unattributed statement about it being a human right. I hope this has been helpful. Civilaffairs (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Again, thank you for your help. Two heads are better than one.

As I understand it, you have three remaining concerns:

1. The concern about Wikipedia’s “Original Research” policy: I have addressed that with the first quote from Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Sean MacBride Nobel Lecture in which he says the following: “To the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights one more might, with relevance, be added. It is "The Right to Refuse to Kill".”

2. I have specified that it is Nuremberg Principle number four which is of relevance. As you can see, this principle deals with individuals--rather than countries. It deals with an individual’s option of “opting out”-- rather than the debate between “just and unjust wars.”

3. Your third concern is expressed in this quote: “Again, I did not add the POV tag, but I would not assume it had anything to do with countries listed. It may have had to do with the whether saving "succeeding generations from the scourge of war" has anything to do with conscientious objectors and the unattributed statement about it being a human right.”

Here is my response to your third concern: The Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Sean MacBride refers to “The Right to Refuse to Kill.” If this right had been entrenched in the German Constitution in 1900, then it is logical that there would have been more Germans taking advantage of that right, as we see here: Of the Germans who deserted the Wehrmacht, “15,000 men were executed.” [2] With less individual aggressors, it is also logical that there would have been less of a “scourge” element to the two World Wars that followed.

Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Sean MacBride devotes an entire section of his Nobel Lecture to how “Peace and Human Rights are Inter-related.” (See link in article. [3]) Therefore it is he, not I, who makes the connection between what I understand to be the two elements in your third concern. Boyd Reimer (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

First, I want to make it clear I am not taking any side of the argument. It may appear I am, as it is necessary to identify points on contention so that POV can be cleared up and where OR might come into play according to WP standards.
If, for example, Sean MacBride has explicitly stated that "the right to refuse to kill" should be incuded in the UDC, you might word it as follows: "Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Sean MacBride contends "The Right to Refuse to Kill" should also be enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." No problem there.
Nuremberg Principle IV has nothing to do with an individual refusing military service in general. It has to do with an individual's responsibility under international law: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."
Military service is not prohibited under international law, nor is killing enemy soldiers during battle. Intentional killing of disarmed POWs and intentional targeting of unarmed civilians, for example, is prohibited. Therefore, according to Principle IV, if an individual is ordered to execute unarmed POWs or civilians (for example), and that person obeys the order (provided a moral choice was possible), that person is still liable for prosecution under international law, the order notwithstanding. In other words, an individual has the obligation (provided a moral choice is in fact possible) to refuse to carry out orders contrary to international law. There is absolutely no provision here for the right of an individual to refuse military service in general.
I, too, believe that peace and human rights are inter-related. I, too, hate what happens to people in wars. But what I pesonally believe and what I personally hate don't belong in an encyclopedia. My personal definitions of what should be human rights don't belong, either.
You have taken a phrase from the preamble of the UN Charter and used it to argue your POV that "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war" means that refusing military service should be a human right in general. This is OR, unless you can find a source for this contention. Again, the Nuremberg Principles do not include any provision for an individual to refuse to participate in the "scourge of war". They do provide provision for an individual's refusal to commit acts contrary to international law. Are you able to see the distinction now? Civilaffairs (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Thank you for this engaging dialogue. I believe in pruning ideas, and I trust that that is what you are doing. So I thank you for it.

Point One: I am not pointing out quotes that say that military service should be “prohibited.” Instead, I am pointing out quotes from historical figures that say that it should be a human right to have the option of opting out of military service. You may already agree that that is my purpose (I am not sure). I am reiterating this only for purposes of confirmation and clarification.

Point Two: You wrote, “There is absolutely no provision here [in Nuremberg Principle 4] for the right of an individual to refuse military service in general.”

At the time that principle was developed, the example of “a Nazi deserting” was foremost in the minds of the people who developed that principle. For that reason alone, I want us to try an experiment: Let us remove the word “individual” from your quote, and replace it with the word “Nazi,” and see what we get: We get the following phrase: “There is absolutely no provision here [in Nuremberg Principle 4] for the right of a Nazi to refuse military service in general.” Does that sound right? I’ll let the readers decide for themselves.

Point Three: The sub-heading “Peace and Human Rights are Inter-related” is not my own. It was written by the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Sean MacBride. Every encyclopaedia I have encountered has entries for Nobel Peace Prize Laureates. The larger encyclopaedias have room for their quotes. Wikipedia is definitely one of the larger encyclopaedias.

Point Four: I am not arguing that "sav[ing] succeeding generations from the scourge of war" means that refusing military service should be a human right in general.” Instead I have simply provided Wikipedia readers with the following quote from someone-- other than myself-- who was writing about the history of the Declaration: “the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals did much to prepare the intellectual climate for the Universal Declaration.” [7] Providing readers with a quote from the historians of the Declaration is not, in my eyes, “original research.”

Furthermore, even the link to that particular historian was not my own link. It was already in the “History” section as link number 3. (I have done no edits in the history section.)

Again, thank you for the engaging dialogue. Boyd Reimer (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to help out as I can :) I commend you for working so hard to bring this section to standard.
Point one: So long as you confine yourself to quoting non-fringe figures or organisations who contend that this should be a human right, there is no problem at all. Building your own case from basic documents like the Nuremberg Principles and the UN Charter is considered OR.
Point two: Your experiment of Let us remove the word “individual” from your quote, and replace it with the word “Nazi,” and see what we get is not applicable, because one cannot simply swap around the specific and the general and remain within the rules of logic. An active Nazi was, by definition, engaged in a crime against peace ("planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances" - Nuremberg Principle VI a) and also possibly crimes against humanity (given the Nazi ideology). Indeed, the obligation of an individual to refuse to participate in various crimes against peace and humanity (such as were perpetrated by the Nazi regime) is clear in the NP, but there this is no provision in the NP for the right of individuals to refuse military service in general. All individuals are not German citizens of the WWII era. (And, it should be noted, not all German citizens were Nazis!)
In other words, the Nuremberg Principles include the obligation of individuals to refuse in particular instances or cases, but there is no provision for the right to refuse military service in general.
Point three: No problem with “Peace and Human Rights are Inter-related”. You have attributed that to Sean MacBride. Probably a number of other notable quotable people have said the same or similar as well.
Point four: This is fine: “the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals did much to prepare the intellectual climate for the Universal Declaration.” All the rest is OR (and based on faulty logic). Let's take this, for example: failed to make explicit a person’s right and/or “responsibility under international law” to resist an “order of his Government” to participate in the “scourge of war” You have substituted the general ("scourge of war") for the specific ("war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances"). Even if this is corrected, there is still the problem of OR.
You may certainly quote WRI, no problem there. I am having trouble following the quote provided, however. The way it is presently worded, it seems to imply that the right of conscientious objection was codified in Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. After reading it carefully, I understand you mean to say that, according to WRI, the right of conscientious objection is derived from the rights specified in Article 18, but the way this is strung together is a bit confusing.
You may find this article in the Journal of International Law and Politics helpful in presenting this particular criticism of the UDHR without resorting to OR: The Status of Conscientious Objection Under Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights. According to the abstract, it "reviews various efforts by the United Nations and the Council of Europe to recognize conscientious objection." My goal here is not to argue with you, but to help you bring this section to standard. :) Civilaffairs (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Thank you for your help. Partly due to your help, I have now made the following improvements:

1. You wrote, “Building your own case from basic documents like the Nuremberg Principles and the UN Charter is considered Original Research.”

You correctly pointed out my error with this statement: “You have substituted the general ("scourge of war") for the specific ("war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances").” Therefore I have removed all references to the UN Charter phrase “scourge of war.” I agree that “war” has so many causes, and the phrase “scourge of war” was used by the UN Charter preamble in a very general way semantically. (Too general for the purposes of describing a discussion of peace issues with the context of the Declaration of Human Rights.)

However, the use of the quote about the Nuremberg Trials is still logically justified in relation to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because of the following quote: “the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals did much to prepare the intellectual climate for the Universal Declaration.” That quote from the National Coordinating Committee for UDHR50 states that there was a close relationship between the Nuremberg Trials and the Universal Declaration. All I have done is simply provide Wikipedia readers with more information about that relationship. I was not the one who “built” that relationship. That relationship is a fact of history.

The Nuremberg Principles are a direct product of the Nuremberg Trials. That too is a historical fact. I did not invent that relationship either.

2. Another improvement I made was to name the authors of quotes, and attribute quotes and/or perspectives to specific parties.

3. In response to your suggestion, I also improved my clarity by including more of the quote from War Resisters International. I tried to clarify the distinction between “the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion” and the derived “right to conscientious objection.”

4. (It should be noted that by sheer coincidence the number 18 happens to be the number of two different articles: One article 18 is in the Declaration of Human Rights and the other article 18 is in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.)

Thanks again for your help. Boyd Reimer (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see you are working diligently to improve the article and I again commend you for it.
Again, building your own case from basic documents like the Nuremberg Principles and the UN Charter is considered Original Research. These documents do not explicitly state your premise (nor, in my opinion, do they implicitly support it). Constructing an argument for your case using these basic documents is OR, plain and simple. If you can find a reliable source which builds such a case, fine, but doing it yourself is OR.
The problem is positing a relationship between the Nuremberg Principles and the "human right" of conscientious objection.
The Nuremberg Principles dealt with defining what constitutes a war crime and were later used in the formulation of various international conventions and protocols. True, the Nuremberg Principles expressly stated the obligation to refuse to commit certain crimes. But how does the obligation not to commit crimes translate into a human right? Shall we have have a long list of "human rights" which enumerate rights not to commit various crimes?
The obligation not to commit the crimes enumerated in the NP is already covered under international law. Again, obligations to obey laws are not human rights.
Conscientious objectors do not necessarily (or even usually) object to military service on the grounds that this would obligate them to commit crimes (members of the military are under obligation not to commit acts defined as crimes under international law), but for other reasons ranging from religious to philosophical. If an individual's reason for refusing military service is that this military service would necessarily involve the individual in the commission of crimes (as in the case of your hypothetical Nazi), this is already covered under international law as an obligation. There is no need for some special "human right not to commit crimes". Even if there were such a human right enshrined in the UDHR, this would not translate as a human right to conscientious objection.
The Sean MacBride quote is fine. The WRI quote is fine. (Isn't it bothersome when they all have the same number? I felt for you on that one.) All the rest is all OR. Civilaffairs (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

In response, here are a few observations:

Point one: I am no longer quoting the UN Charter. (You’ve indicated that you are unaware of its absence.)

Point two: As you can see, I have provided Wikipedia readers with the following two quotes and links:

“The right to conscientious objection to military service is not a marginal concern outside the mainstream of international human rights protection and promotion.”—Amnesty International [4]

“If the right to life is the first of all human rights, being the one on which all other rights depend, the right to refuse to kill must be the second.” –Peace Tax Seven [5]

Point three: You wrote: “The obligation not to commit the crimes enumerated in the NP is already covered under international law.” My response: Many, if not all of the 30 Articles in the Declaration are also all double covered under international law.

You wrote: “Shall we have a long list of "human rights" which enumerate rights not to commit various crimes?” My response: Many, if not all of the 30 articles of the Declaration do exactly that: enumerate rights not to commit various crimes.

Amnesty International has a list of people who are presently behind bars simply because they refused to kill. See list at link: [6]

Yes, as long as conscription is still legal—as it is in 29 countries. (See chart in conscription), we do need a declaration to be used as a tool to reduce this present and ongoing violation of human rights.

If there were no human rights violated, or at risk of being violated, then we would have no need for any of the 30 articles in the Declaration of Human Rights. Each of the 30 articles is a response to some pre-existing or threatened violation. Take for example article 4, which declares the right to freedom from slavery. Article 4 would never have been necessary if slavery had never existed.

As long as there is a threat of slavery re-appearing, article 4 in the Declaration is needed. Likewise, as long as there is conscription, or the threat of conscription, we need a human rights article responding to that threat.

It is no small threat, as the new quote from Amnesty International states, this is “not a marginal concern.” [7] Let us remember that there were 42 million people killed in World War 2. Let us never think that it can’t happen again. This number would have been reduced if Germany had not conscripted its citizens. (After all, of the many thousands of Germans who deserted, 15,000 were executed.)

42 million people dying in 6 years is, in my eyes, a relatively more severe problem than is dealt with in the Declaration’s Article 27 b, which deals with intellectual property. There are many other international intellectual property laws which deal with the same issue that Article 27 b deals with. To use your quote: “There is no need for some special "human right not to commit crimes". And yet is it found in Article 27 b, and in many other articles of the Declaration –perhaps all articles. Which is more important, intellectual property or a life and death question? Which is more deserving of a place in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Point four: (closely related to point two): You asked, “How does the obligation not to commit crimes translate into a human right?”

In order to carry out one’s “responsibility” to follow the obligations of international law, one must first be allowed the “right” to do so. In the case of the 1940 conscripted German, this person must first be allowed the right to conscientiously object to military service before he or she is even able to carry out the international responsibility / obligation to desist from assisting aggression.

Logically speaking, rights logically precede obligations. One must have the freedom to carry out obligations. Conscription sometimes doesn’t permit the freedom to carry out one’s international obligations. Rights are a logical concomitant to obligations.

Point five: If I understand the Wikipedia policy of “Original Research” correctly, it was meant to guard against a lack of neutrality and unverifiability. Here is a quote from the policy:

“Wikipedia:No original research (NOR) is one of three content policies. The others are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) and Wikipedia:Verifiability (V). Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. Because they complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another.”

On Neutrality, I have tried to maintain Neutrality by not naming any country or party as being guilty of a violation of human rights.

On Verifiability, I have 14 links, all of which are relevant to the evolution and development of the Declaration.

So, I would like you to entertain the possibility that you may be “interpreting the [original research] policy in isolation from [the other two policies].

Point six:

Furthermore, I am not sure why you insist that what I am doing is not helping Wikipedia readers--even if it is “Original Research.” My focus has been on factual history which is directly relevant to the original development of the Declaration of Human Rights, and deals with the reasons it produced what it produced. This historical analysis will help Wikipedia readers to intellectually grapple with the issues of why the Declaration produced what it produced, and in what context.

I am simply providing the readers with a more detailed history of the issue. None of this is my own invention: That history is documented with 14 different links. If selectivity is my crime then I welcome other editors to add their own 14 links of selectivity. Isn’t that what Wikipedia is all about? I thought Wikipedia was all about different people contributing their own links, thus making the whole greater than the sum of the parts. That way the reader can go to 28 (or more links) instead of just 14 and then make up their minds for themselves—all the while increasing their own understanding of the issue.

Which document on earth is not selective?

Boyd Reimer (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

See [WP:SYN] for why constructing your own case from basic documents (like the Nuremberg Principles) is OR. The Nuremberg Principles do not explicitly state the "human right" of conscientious objection. They merely state an individual's obligation to refrain from or refuse to commit certain acts defined as crimes. Remove this part and you are fine. Civilaffairs (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Thank you for your help in fully understanding Wikipedia policy. I apologize for failing to read that policy carefully enough. It won’t happen again.

I have made all the changes you suggested. Boyd Reimer (talk) 07:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the WP:OR tag on that section, as it seems fine to me now. If the editor who added the POV tag does not stop by to check the revisions within the next few days and either remove the tag or explain why it has to stay, I think we can safely remove that one, too.
I think we have both learned from our exchange and refined our thinking. If people don't come to Wikipedia as much to learn as to contribute, something is wrong, no? No need to apologise. I am new, too. We all learn as we go along. I'm sorry if my last post seemed terse. I did not intend it that way, just in a hurry. By, the way, check your talk page. You have earned something :) Civilaffairs (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Thank you. Two heads are better than one. Have a good day.Boyd Reimer (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

New Entry: Greetings to the "anonymous" person who put up the NPOV tag. A person who was not "anonymous" made this statement 6 days ago: "If the editor who added the POV tag does not stop by to check the revisions within the next few days and either remove the tag or explain why it has to stay, I think we can safely remove that one, too." That was 6 days ago, so I am now removing the NPOV tag. Have a good day. Boyd Reimer (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Utter, complete, irredeemable crap. Needs a full rewrite.[edit]

Right now, it details the history of the universal declaration. The only USEFUL part of the page, the Wikisource link, is buried down there.

The damn "Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights" has random links that are useful to nobody.

I wanted to read about the right of brotherhood. What do I get? The literal meaning, a few organizations aaaand... MEANINGS IN ENTERTAINMENT.

Honestly. Things like this are why Wikipedia needs Uncyclopedia's "Crap" template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Be specific about the points which are to be improved. Be Bold means add content, not editorializing empty phrases. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Not exactly that bad, in my opinion more like "OK", but decidedly lacking some description of the human rights listed in the declaration. Said: Rursus 11:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's my review (not to be entered into the article, yet, it doesn't make sense, yet):
1. freedom and equality,
2. list of equalities: race, color, sex, nationality etc..,
3. basal rights: existence, freedom, security,
4. prohibition against slavery,
5. prohibition against torture and cruel punishments,
6-11. equality before law, and this declaration, legal rights of the human, rights against arbitrary and unlawful treatment from state,
12. personal privacy rights against arbitrary and unlawful treatment from state,
13. freedoms of geographical movements,
14. international rights of asylum,
15. rights to belong to a nation,
16. rights to marriage, pair relations, children and family,
17. rights to property,
18-20. freedom of thought, conscience and religion, political opinion, and to organize leagues,
21. democratical political rights to partake in goverment, rights for regular general elections of goverment, rights to access public service,
22-23. economic, social and cultural rights as the basis for the individual's rights to social security, rights to work, rights to equal salary for equal work, rights to be able to sustain self and family on the salary, and rights to form trade unions,
24-25. rights to enough daily and weekly rest, and vacations rights of healthy food, health care, living standards, security for unemployed, widows, and single mothers, as well as their children.
26. right (and plight) to free elementary and fundamental education, advanced education shall be available to anyone merited,
27. everybody's right to culture and science, everybody's right of protection of scientific, literary and artistic intellectual work,
28. the meta-right of anyone to an order supporting this list of rights,
29. limitations of the rights in a very metaphysical formulation: the individual has duties to a community supporting this list of rights, and cannot violate any law which purpose is to maintain this list of rights, and the mega-caveat that no right can be exercised in contrast to UN:s rules and principles.
30. all these principles are valid, and none, neither state nor individual, can countervent one by claiming another.
L8R! Said: Rursus 12:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion everything mixed in a gooey and unsystematic blob. Said: Rursus 12:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The list of 30 rights should be added in the main article, without them article is incomplete.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpgmanjeri (talkcontribs) 09:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Jeane Kirkpatrick Quotations Misrepresented?[edit]

This section of the article seems to misrepresent the quotations and it should therefore be removed. -- Jeane Kirkpatrick, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, argued that certain economic rights cannot be human rights; Kirkpatrick called the Declaration "a letter to Santa Claus",[16] saying, "Neither nature, experience, nor probability informs these lists of 'entitlements', which are subject to no constraints except those of the mind and appetite of their authors." -- These quotations appear to be originally sourced from p. 130 of Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, _Legitimacy and Force_ (1988). They refer not to the Declaration of Human Rights, but to a committee report by the Human Rights Commission in the 1980s: "As a matter of fact, recently in Geneva, where the Human Rights Commission is meeting, there has been affirmed a right to development ... to a new economic order, the right to peace, and the right to an end to the arms race. Such declarations of human rights take on the character, as one critic said, of a letter to Santa Claus. ... Neither nature nor experience nor probability informs these lists of entitlements." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Chinas Human Rights???[edit]

The section entitled "Chinas Human Rights" is a confusing edit. Did the editor mean to list the countries who did and did not vote for ratification of the Declaration of Human Rights in the General Assembly of 1948? If so, please create a sub-section called, "Ratification vote." In order to remain neutral, list the way all countries voted--not just some. This could be part of the history main section.

The section seems to be off the topic. Wikipedia already has an entry for Human rights in the People's Republic of China. It also has a entry for Human rights in the United States, and perhaps other countries as well. If we want to remain neutral then we should either link all or link none to this article.

Also, did the editor mean to put an apostrophe in the word, "Chinas?" Boyd Reimer (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Boyd Reimer (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. As the edit was unsourced and off-topic, I went ahead and deleted that section. If the editor comes here to answer your questions, we can reconsider. Civilaffairs (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

commentary and materials[edit]

...looked like an under construction geocities page, and smelled like wp:or. move it to your sandbox and fix it if possible, but wp:or can't be fixed Solenodon (talk) 06:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"Property Rights Criticism"[edit]

This section is currently limited to the conservative/right-libertarian/Randist perspectives, but there is criticism from the far-left as well, based on the idea that a declaration of private property rights is an implied endorsement of capitalism.

My Google-foo is not strong, so I'm mentioning this here in case someone else has a source at hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage[edit]

I would be interested to see if anyone has suggested adding "sex" to the list of variables not discriminated on by the right to marry and raise a family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that and related issues (eg. not to be discriminated because of sexual orientation) has been suggested but it wouldn't be possible to get Catholic or Muslim countries like Iran etc. to agree with it. At least that's what I've heard. I agree that it would be interesting to know more about this, and also the reasoning and debates behind the other articles.
Apis (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Merger with Fundamental Rights[edit]

I have suggested the Fundamental Rights article be merged into this. On second thoughts I guess this could have been better expressed as a delete for the other article. It contains a reference to the EU which I have mentioned on the talk page there should be deleted. All that is left are a small listing of rights which on the face of it have striking similarity to the rights in the UDHR or failing that those in the United States Constitution. Comments please below.--Hauskalainen (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete fundamental rights, it is mostly original research.--Buridan (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I am reverting the "merge" for the following reasons: (1) a redirect without carrying over any of the data is not a merge. (2) Numerous articles that link to content inside Fundamental right are now being redirected to this article, when they have absolutely nothing to do with the UDHR (most of those are discussing the very points of U.S. Constitutional Law which Buridan describes as OR above). (3) Numerous other articles having nothing to do with neither the U.S. Constitution nor with the UDHR also link to "Fundamental right," usually in discussion of legal or constitutional issues in non-European nations. (4) Despite all that, I agree that the article needs work; and it won't get the necessary work by using a merge request ignored for three days as an end run for AfD. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 21:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
you are right, it should have been redirected to Human right, not merged with anything, which is now done. It doesn't need work. It needs deleted. it is just ideological original research. There was no content in fundamental right that was not covered better in human right. --Buridan (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Human rights and the legal concept of a "fundamental rights" are only loosely related concepts, if for no other reason than because jurisprudence in any given sovereign state varies widely. The set of "fundamental rights" discussed in SCOTUS precedents is but a small subject of Human rights as defined by the UN. Also, as noted on Talk:Fundamental right there are two active project teams that consider the fundamental right article to be of High importance. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 00:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
umm so? the article is an unverified mess. if you want a good article, then take it to your sandbox and fix it. when it is fixed, take off the direct. otherwise, it is just embarrassing and not notable. Contrarily, unverified non-notable material is ... under some policy, whereas 'high importance' articles are not. --Buridan (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest that we take this issue to the 2 project pages for further discussion with a wider range of editors? I personally and of the the view that the redirect should, in retrospect, have been to Human right. If the article is really about the US constitution reference to Fundamental rights then the article should be re-edited to remove anything outside that subject area and then renamed Fundamental Rights (United States constitution). Alternatively it could be slimmed right down to a kind of disambiguation page with 3 possible links to Human rights Constitution of the United States and Universal Declaration of Human Rights depending on what the reader is looking for.--Hauskalainen (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have taken it to the project pages, and given notice of that on Talk:Fundamental right --KGF0 ( T | C ) 21:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


I suggest removing this section, as it seems to be original research, supported by unreliable sources -

The Cuban government has been accused of ordering copies of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be burned or otherwise destroyed.cite web|url= Ordered Burned or Destroyed by Cuban Courts in April 2003}}cite book|url= Bradbury condemns Cuban book burning: 'Fahrenheit 451' author takes stance while U.S. librarians ignore counterparts}} name="burnedburieddumped">cite web|url="Library books burned, buried, dumped": Mystery solved?|date=March 9, 2000}} (talk) 23:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

oskjoh: I agree, and have removed it. Reasons: 1) If the sources are thruthful, then they only suggest that copies of the UDHR has been destroyed along with other books (belonging to independent librarians), not that it is Cuban policy to censor the UDHR. 2) The "Independent Libraries" have received massive criticism from the ALA (and their international counterpart) for not being actual libraries, but rather PR machines directed towards the mass media in the "first world". This would correspond to the explicit US policy for creating negative PR towards Cuba by purchasing various kinds of "cuban independent (insert profession-noun)". (This correspondence isn't proof, of course, I'm just mentioning it to suggest a possible explanation). 3) The UDHR is posted on walls in schools etc. all over Cuba, and is clearly not subject to censorship (I am aware that this statement might be considered "original research", lest I give some internet-proof of it (time-consuming)). /oskjoh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oskjoh (talkcontribs) 16:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The "positive rights/property rights" criticism section[edit]

Here are the recent rationales that have been given for removing it, followed by my response supporting keeping and expanding the section:

"POV-pushing, irrelevant"- The Libertarian/Objectivist/Conservative/Classical Liberal/Objectivst/Anarchist positions are equally as important as any other group's. Cherry picking which groups are allowed to have criticism sections based on arbitrary standards seems like a clear NPOV violation.

"only referenced bloggers"- That does not disqualify the information. From WP:RS"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I'm going to add a quote from Stephan Kinsella a libertarian legal theorist (who has been published by third parties in the field of legal theory)to supplement the current information.

"criticism on incorrect article, needs moving to human rights or [positive rights]"- The current source (and the new source provided) directly address the UDHR. It is the topic of their discussions. I don't follow the logic at all as to why this is the wrong article for the quotes to be on. So, if an expert in the field writes that he is against the Patriot Act because of wiretapping telephones, then his quotes could go on the Wiretapping and Telephones pages, but not on the Patriot Act page? I don't think so. Masebrock (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sorry for my poor edit summary, I ran out of space while writing it - i did put some more on that IP's talk page but I may well not have explained myself particularly well. First i have done some rewording so that it makes it clear that these sources are explicitly opposed to the UDHR. Secondly I am going to remove the first source, which is a minor and questionable source, and anyway does not really fairly represent the point for which it is put in for ( that there is a significant group of libertarians opposed to the UDHR for that reason). I have left the second source, but i would be much more comfortable with a detailed opinion piece by a major libertarian on the UDHR rather than the quotation of a rather throwaway line from a (reliable) blog postAjbpearce (talk) 11:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll explore the subject further and see if I can find any major organization's position on the subject. Good call on removing the first source by the way, I should have done that myself.Masebrock (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Please write the authors and related persons completely about UDHR[edit]

The members of drafting committee for UDHR, see

  • John Peter Humphrey (Director, UN Division of Human Rights)
  • Eleanor Roosevelt, Chairperson
  • Peng-chun Chang, Vice-Chair
  • Charles Habib Malik, Rapporteur
  • René Cassin

William Hodgson Hernán Santa Cruz Alexander E. Bogomolov Charles Dukes (Lord Dukeston)

Excluding the persons attached a symbol *, 4 people should be added.

Eleanor Roosevelt was the Chairperson, so she should be put the 1st or 2nd position, and Peng-chun Chang was the Vice-Chair followed by Mrs. Roosevelt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks for looking this up, i will try and update the article abit tomorrow! Ajbpearce (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Commemoration chapter[edit]

I'd like to add next to that there is this stamp, and change as follows:


Commemoration: International Human Rights Day and Post Stamp[edit]

50 years of the Universal declaration of human rights


also following:

Commemoration:2 € Commemorative Coins for the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[edit]

In 2008, Belgium, Finland Italy and Portugal coined 2 € Commemorative Coins for the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Number of 2€ coins coined and put in circulation - you just have a look at the 2€ coins in your pocket if you see it on the back of your 2€ coin - :

  • Belgium:
  • Finland:
  • Italy:
  • Portugal:

--SvenAERTS (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect and uncorroborated statements.[edit]

The article states in its opening paragraph:

"The Declaration has been translated into at least 375 languages and dialects, making it the most widely translated document in the world.[1]"

While does support the current list of 375 languages and dialects, it makes no claims to being "the most widely translated document in the world."

According to the Protestant Cannon of the Bible is currently translated into 451 languages and dialects. The New Testament portion of the Protestant Cannon of the Bible is currently translated into 1185 languages and dialects. Even if the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Right's website had made the claim to be the most widely translated document, it would be false based on their numbers.

Tavrock (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The following links are relevant.
[The word "Guinness" has two ens; the word "canon" has one en in its middle.]
Wavelength (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Reasons why Soviet bloc abstained[edit]

I think it would be worthy to mention why the Soviet bloc countries abstained from voting. Did they propose an alternative variant? --MathFacts (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


The fist precursors sentence is good but needs more elaboration than the reference to the Cyrus cylinder. The development of many moral philosophies and religious traditions, such as Buddhism, could be cited. I qualified references to the Cyrus cylinder to make them consistent with the Wikipedia article about same, which suggests that the Shah's claims were propagandistic and not supported by the actual text of the cylinder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lastudies (talkcontribs) 02:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism sections[edit]

Many governments of predominantly Muslim nations have not objected to the Declaration. The main international criticism has come from the governments of China and Singapore, and the resulting debate is known in human rights and international law circles as the "Asian values" controversy. China's criticism should come before mention of "Islamic criticism," and in both cases the emphasis should be on state claims rather than religions or cultures that governments claim to uphold. It should be noted that some cultural relativists in Western countries have given support to China's claims. Also, there should be a distinction between the so-called "cultural defense" for human rights abuses, on the one hand, and China's argument that the United States and other Western governments are hypocritical in their human rights policies when they shield their repressive allies from criticism.

The education section mischaracterizes the views of alternative education proponents. They do advocate education for all, but they believe that most schools, public and private, do a poor job of it. The Declaration was not meant to prohibit home schooling or other alternative education. The word "compulsory" in the Declaration was put there to stress that even the children of extremely poor families, who would otherwise keep their children out of school in order to put them to work, should be afforded an education. The word "compulsory" is an elaboration of the universal right to education in the face of social conditions that can prevent it. I have worked in alternative education for more than thirty years and never heard anyone there – parents, teachers or proponents – object to any clause of the Declaration. On the contrary, its history and virtues are taught more seriously in alternative schools than in conventional schools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lastudies (talkcontribs) 03:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the section is notable enough to exist, given that most Muslim countries have signed the declaration and accept it. Those that criticize it openly are fringe voice that don't deserve a space here. We wouldn't include Ahmedinejad's views in the Holocaust article, so why include his regime's views here?VR talk 22:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Full text[edit]

I don't think Wikipedia should be reproducing the full text of the document in this article. Why don't we summarize instead of copying it word-by-word? DHN (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, unless there is problem with copy rights, we can copy the full text of such an important declaration. I think we just leave the artical this way. Any paraphrasing would misinterpret the spirit of the text--Trananh1980 (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
what version held the full text? There has been recent vandalism and restoring it to the previous state leaves the article in the strange state of never saying what are human rights. -- (talk) 13:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The full text of the UDHR used to be in the article, i clearly remember it! In a nice box, well-formatted, i copypasted the UDHR from there to mail it to people or post it elsewhere online on several occasions. I cannot believe that it is gone! I dont see ANY POSSIBLE justification for why this shouldnt be in the article, given that the individual articles of the declaration are so short and compact and well formulated. This needs to be the HEART of the article, and then you can go from there and talk about the interpretation of specific words, phrases, and articles in the declaration, like what exactly is torture. (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


Praise for the document should consist of third party criticism, and not self-aggrandizing by two of the authors of the document (Malik and Roosevelt). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No Mention of Self Defense[edit]

If for no other reason than the date of adoption--three years after WW II--it's remarkable that the declaration makes no specific mention of an inherent right of self defense, either between individuals or between individuals and nation-states. Perhaps some nation-states (USSR?) objected, fearing it would establish an international rationale for resistance to govt oppression. If anyone has background on the omission, it would be welcomed here.

B. Tillman May 16 '11.Btillman (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly they had in mind the sought-after ends ennunciated in the concluding paragraph of the preamble -- including to "strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Does this article even list the rights?[edit]

I have only skimmed the article, but I don't see any particular section listing the rights that this declaration specifies. Wouldn't it make sense for this article to actually list what the subject contains? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

i agree, its missing.

so ill just dump it here! (i dont know enough about formatting to put it into the article myself, but why not put it here, all of you are free to clean up the formatting here as well ;) )


Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1.

   * All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

   * Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

   * Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.

   * No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.

   * No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

   * Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

   * All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.

   * Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.

   * No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

   * Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.

   * (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
   * (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.

   * No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.

   * (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
   * (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.

   * (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
   * (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.

   * (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
   * (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.

   * (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
   * (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
   * (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.

   * (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
   * (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.

   * Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.

   * Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.

   * (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
   * (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.

   * (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
   * (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
   * (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.

   * Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.

   * (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
   * (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
   * (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
   * (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.

   * Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.

   * (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
   * (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.

   * (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
   * (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
   * (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.

   * (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
   * (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.

   * Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.

   * (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
   * (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
   * (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.

   * Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Now put it in the article. Please. It used to be here, i used to copypaste the full text or individual articles from here. Just look at it, paraphrasing or summing it up is pointless, look at how compact and well-written it is and how much weight each individual article carries. I care about human rights, so i look up the original text every now and then, if there is any text that could be considered sacred for me, as a non-religious person, its this one.

Also, i think the article used to be much better i nthe past, what has happened? the old one used to include info about how it was publicised around the world and in how many languages it was translated, that its in fact one of the most-translated pieces of literature. (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Aah, i just had to do it, i just somehow squeezed it into the article. Much better now. Now i can read it here and copypaste it here, the article is almost fixed, minus the formatting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

This Declaration does of course exclude White people who are 100% legal targets of genoicide by the nonwhite races. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

List format in the "Adoption" section[edit]

The Adoption section's list of countries began as a single paragraph (02:28, 9 August 2008). Subsequent changes are very recent: to a bulleted list alphabetically within regions, by Dudeman5685 (00:22, 14 September 2011); conversion from bulleted to numbered, plus flags, by Vanjagenije (20:17, 10 December 2011); and to a single alpha list without regional sections, by by Lacrimosus (20:31, 10 December 2011). That latest transition can be seen by viewing this revision, and then the next one.

I find the geographic breakdown helpful, as it adds information. E.g., that geographic grouping helped me get perspective on the "Islamic criticism" section. Does anyone share my preference for restoring the geographic breakdown, or oppose it?

I'm less concerned about restoring the former columnar layout, but I do find that the compactness of the columnar layout made the section easier to grasp. Unfortunately, I didn't find any discussion of this issue in either WP:EMBED or WP:LIST, both of which discuss the use of tables, but not columns (except tabular ones); however, there is an example of this columnar layout in WP:EMBED#Long_sequences. Your comments on restoring the former columnar layout?

I'm indifferent about restoring the flag icons and the paragraph numbering. Your comments?

Separate from the above, I plan to remove (if you don't do so first) the word "the" that Lacrimosus inserted before some of the country names as part of that same edit.

Thank you, --Rich Janis (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I've moved the Libertarians section here[edit]

The Libertarians section needs a lot of work. I've moved it here because I didn't want to clutter the article up with tags. I've indicated some concerns in the moved content requoted below.

Many libertarians see human rights in a fundamentally different way than laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[citation needed] According to many libertarians, when one has a right, one has a right.[huh?] [citation needed] Therefore[Huh?] human rights in libertarian philosophy are, for example, the right of self determination for one's own life, liberty, and the products of one's liberty (property). These are, in this instance, called fundamental rights.[original research?] This is not the case in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[original research?] Many libertarians see the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as an equivalent to animal rights, since the rights enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are, an enumeration of desires, and these desires, in most cases, since the available resources are limited, are conflicting with each other. These rights are coverted by the legislation of the government that has accepted them. But since these rights are conflicting, because of the limited resources, "rulers" acting as slave masters of the "human animals", are needed in order to determine whether a claimed right is applicable or whether another right is more important. [1][failed verification]

Prof Frank Van Dun writes: "I confess that I was shocked. I read with distaste and disbelief the Universal Declaration’s message that a person’s fundamental rights were none other than to be treated without cruelty and taken care of by the powers that be. My first impression was that it was adapted from the charter of some society for the protection of animals, with humans in the role of animals and governments in the role of their keepers. My thinking about rights, undeveloped as it then was, clearly was inspired by sources other than the Universal Declaration. It was not until later that I discovered how different those sources were."[citation needed]

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyright infringement on including full text of UDHR[edit]

From my understanding of the UN copyright policy, including the full text of the UDHR is in fact a copyright violation. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but unless someone can get permission from the UN, unfortunately the full text cannot be included. I have not yet deleted the text from this talk page or the article itself, as I'd like someone with better copyright knowledge to check first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Im unfortunately not an expert, but i consider it IMPOSSIBLE that this document could have any copyright other than for the intent of preventing unauthorized modification. Constitutions of Nations are not copyrighted. Contracts are not copyrighted. Laws are not copyrighted. The same is true for international texts of law or international contracts. Then, not being an expert, i can make a judgement by looking at the intent: This document is intended to be translated into all existing languages and intended to be dissiminated into the last corner of the world, in all media. Also, i can look at precedent: This document has been published in hundreds of countries in thousands of newspapers, on flyers and radio stations, in 150-200 languages, and that in the week after it was launched. I say the full document MUST BE in the article, its short enough and important enough and it is what people expect when they look it up on wikipedia. (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I disagree that the bulk of this article should be a reprint of the original document. The full text is prominently linked from the article, and is also very, very easy to find in Google. Someone disappointed not to find it on this page is only a single mouse click away from it. A good comparison would be the United States Constitution, which does not include the full text, but simply links to it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Agree with removal, irrespective of copyright status. It is adequately linked to Wikisource, which is what it's there for. RashersTierney (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I disagree, it is not adequately linked. I will only accept a lack of the UDHR in the article about the UDHR if the links to the document are prominent and effective at bringing people to the UDHR. I will proceed in a few days unless things change here. (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Not copyright violation[edit]

The directive is that the Universal Declaration is to be generated and distributed throughout the world in educational institutions. This is how it can be found in Ancash Quechua, for instance, sold with other small local language handbooks. These are as nearly as possible, word for word translations. Wikipedia meets the qualification of an educational institution by all standards. KSRolph (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Im no copyrights expert, but i think i can still make a judgement call on that: If there is any copyright, it is only to prevent unauthorized modification. Im sure of this for 4 reasons:
- Analogy. Constitutions of nations, laws, international treaties, and press releases are not copyrighted.
- Intent. This document is intended to be translated into all languages and to be disseminated into every corner of the world. The original intent was no less than to reach every human on earth.
- Precedent. During the week after its launch, it has been published by thousands of newspapers in hundreds of nations and in hundreds of languages across the globe in full length, also it got published in a variety of media. As far as i know, there have been no copyright problems.
- Impact. If there would have historically been copyright-related publishing problems with this document, this would be significant enough for inclusion in the article. If there would TODAY be a real copyright-problem with publishing it on wikipedia, i guess it would be a scandal of epic proportions since human rights organisations care deeply about this document and most of these have media access and law professionals.
So no, the copyright-argument to keep the UDHR out of the article about the UDHR is not valid, there are no copyright problems here. (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Countries voted in favour of the Declaration[edit]

Why are some country names (e.g.: "Chile") wikilinked to a special article of that country (e.g.: "Presidential Republic (1925–1973)" ) and not to the main article of the country (e.g: "Chile")?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I also found that it says 48 countries voted in favor, I counted 49. Also, I do not see Honduras neither voting in favour, against or not voting at all. I'm pretty sure Honduras was one of the founding members of the UN. (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


I've removed the feminism sidebar. To have "universal" in the title and attribute the article to feminism is inherently logically inconsistant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjsa (talkcontribs) 03:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Full text of document[edit]

As a tagger proposed in July, I've boldly removed the full text of the document from the article for a few reasons: 1) to allow for expansion on the history of the UDHR (which I'm hoping to do in the coming weeks); 2) links to Wikisource and an external link to the UN already provide this text to the interested reader; 3) it solves the subheading problem the article is tagged for; 4) arguably similar documents (the Magna Carta, the US Constitution) don't include the full text in their articles. Let me know if you consider this a reasonable step; if not, feel free to revert. Cheers! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I am vehemently against it. As Gandalf said: You shall not pass. The document is concise, not too long, written in a very good language that can hardly be shortened without loss of meaning. Easy to understand. Then, the document is intended to be translated into all languages and disseminated to all people. But the main reason is: Its what people expect when they search for it on Wikipedia. Guess what brought me here? I just wanted to read the UDHR again, to see which of its articles the church of scientology violates. And now im shocked and surprised that its gone again. I wont do the edit today, but i will make sure the document is in the article, its now on my to-do-list. Wikipedia is, among other things, meant to be a repository of knowledge, of course there are limits, but this document is so short and so important that it is definitively within the limits. Best Regards (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm fine with discussing it further, but I'd ask that since another editor has already agreed with the move above, you seek consensus before re-inserting it; let's gather some other opinions. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Agree, per my comment above. RashersTierney (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Fine, ill wait a bit. But i guess opinions are quite set, it is clear that certain people want this document to be hidden away and that other people want it to be publicised, and of course it would be best if this can be fixed within the wikipedia community. I like wikipedia and i am a contributor, but i like the UDHR more and sometimes Wikipedia misbehaves. The last problem of this scale that i noticed and got fixed was on german Wikipedia when the war between Anonymous and Scientology was going down, and there was no article about Anonymous on german wikipedia (got deleted repeatedly), and the articles about scientology were weak, lacked the strongest sources. I got it fixed. Here, in this case, i just noticed it, im still thinking. I will definitely get the full UDHR into the article, its right by my standards and totally compatible with wikipedias standards, but i need to think more about strategy. If i see a chance to get it done as an anonymous variable-ip foreign user here in Wikipedia, meaning that my arguments convince, that would be optimal. But if not.... People sacrificed their life for this document. And today many young people are donating time to defend this document. To keep it simple, there is popular demand for having the full document in the article, i guess im just the first one that really noticed that its gone again. (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you might ask at WP:WikiProject Human rights for additional opinions. All I can do is assure you that there's no conspiracy here, as you seem to be suggesting with the Scientology analogy--it's just a question of what part of WikiMedia the full text is best kept in.
On a related note, regardless of what happens with the document full-text, would you be interested in helping me research to expand the history, responses, etc. sections of this article in the coming weeks? I'm finishing off the article on Eleanor Roosevelt and hoping to use some of the same sources to bring this up to Good or Featured Article status. If you're looking to promote the UDHR, we couldn't do much better than getting it to Wikipedia's main page. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
You seem very rational, i think there is one conditions under which i could accept not having the full document right in the article: It must be accessible in full at a maximum distance of one click from the article, prominently and if necessary in several places so that people that want to see the document can see it quickly and without searching. Maybe a fold-out, can Wikipedia do that? It must be prominent enough / done well enough that at least 20% of the people that go here see the full document in readable form without leaving wikimedia. Otherwise, my push to have the full document right inside the article will proceed and (well i said i will wait a few days so i will and i want to try wiki-internal first), if necessary expand. If such measures cannot be implemented immediately, i would like to have the full UDHR in the article in the meantime. In any case, the current state is something i will tolerate for a few days, not longer. (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
It's currently linked twice under external links--full text of document is the first link, and on the right hand side, the reader is directed to wikisource. But I agree with you that it might be helpful to move that Wikisource link to a more prominent place in the article. Perhaps the "structure" section can be expanded to give a better summary of the text (in fact, it should be), and the Wikisource link can be moved up. I'm about 2-3 days away from being done with Roosevelt, and can then start giving a redesign of this article my full attention. If you'd like to take a shot at providing a summary of the document in that space in the meantime, I'd be glad to have a collaborator. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
As i said, ill wait a few days, but concerning summary.... Just look at the original, much of it just cannot be summarized, you can shorten the preamble and a few of the articles, but most of the articles just cannot be shortened or summarized. For Example:

Article 17.

  * (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
  * (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
How could you possibly shorten that??!? You can shorten out the formatting, that it is article 17, but with that formatting it has all that validity and history. Challenge: Sum it up for me. Just the text, disregard the formatting, paraphrase article 17 1 and 2 for me. (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Seek outside views if you like, but please do not make ultimatums. RashersTierney (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the ultimatums aren't productive. All that will happen if you try to reinclude this against editorial consensus is that you'll end up blocked. As for the summary, it gets shortened to "right to property", probably in a sentence enumerating other rights. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, i didnt want to seem threatening. But Wikipedia guidelines tell me that this should either be in Wikipedia, or in Wikimedia. And then more specific guidelines tell me that this should either be in the article itself, or prominently linked. There are no copyright issues. Also, you cannot threaten me with a ban so easily, i have variable IP as is common in europe, it changes at least every 24 hours, so you could only hit the provider by hitting one of the IPs in the pool, and other innocent users that later use the IP. I just do not see any editorial consensus for removing the document from the article here, where is it? And the number of people involved here is way too low, this is right now under the radar. All i ever "threatened" would be publicity, specifically aimed here, how exactly is that a threat? If i say ill maybe get some people here to get involved and make sure the UDHR is prominently featured here, what of that would be threatening to Wikipedia? The traffic, the new ideas, what? If you want to keep the UDHR out of Wikipedia, you should feel threatened by me, but im threatening NOONE here, im threatening the IDEA: "The UDHR should not be in the wikipedia article about the UDHR, because it shall be hidden away". If you defend that, do feel threatened. By the way, i see no good and valid argument here on why the UDHR shouldnt be in the article, given that it has been in the article in full for extended periods of time. So WHY is it not in the article, and why did it get removed? (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
to make the whole unfortunate "threat"-issue more clear, i would contact: Amnesty international, human rights watch, red cross/red crescent, Anonymous, and a bunch of local groups, and a bunch of groups i am connected to. The only bad news they would get is that the UDHR is currently not present on wikipedia and that from the article about the UDHR it is really, really hard to find, which cannot be tolerated. And thats how it is, i think on the Internet, if you stand AGAINST the UDHR, you are on the wrong side of history. Now before accusing me of being threatening again, WHAT is the threat? (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I said "ultimatum", actually, not threat. You stated that you were giving us a time period, or else; not sure what else you'd call it. Unfortunately, you seem to have declined even the common sense suggestion to ask at another talk page for more opinions. My invitation is sincere that I'd be glad for your help in researching and expanding this article, but beyond that, I think that brings our discussion to a close for now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Um excuse me, but i have to agree with I am a Senior in High School and am doing a project on "What is Freedom". I came here looking for the UDHR but found it's history. As an Average user who come mostly to find the information QUICKLY, I do not really care if the document is linked in the "external links" section because I don't LOOK there. Please let put the document on here. It should literally be the second thing I see on the page, with exception to the title and the "table of contents" section that is on every page. Thanks!! --Firdude (talk) 01:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Commenting from the sidelines, I'll observe that having the full text in the article has in the past led to periods when the text presented in the article was incorrect, with this being corrected as and when it was noticed by editors who cared about correcting it. I've made such corrections here a few times (see e.g., [8] and [9]). Currently, the second sentence of the lead reads, "The full text is published by the United Nations on its website.", followed by a link to a footnote reading, "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", and pointing to the full (and correct) text on the UN website. That beats the heck out of presenting a sometimes-incorrect version of the UDHR in this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Article 16 in conflict with article 3[edit]

Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (see ) currently states that: "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family."

The UN should change this text to: "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry. They also have the right to reproduce, during periods in which there is no overpopulation."

Else, the article is in conflict with article 3 (Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person) because when a certain population number is reached, it inevitably leads to the starvation (and other deprivations) of people, as there is just too little space to grow sufficient food, ... to feed all these people. (talk) 08:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Article 3 being incomplete, inhumane in some cases[edit]

Article 3 states "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person"; however this should be changed to "Everyone has the right to life, the right to refuse life (euthanasia*1), liberty and security of person"

The *1 should further explain the term euthanasia; namely: the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering, and explain that it can only be applied in a situation when no medical solutions exist to relieve the pain and suffering, and that the pain and suffering is so extreme that the person has no quality of life to speak of any more due to it. Xovady (talk) 07:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Article 3 says, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." That is a direct quote of the entire article.
You are apparently trying to make a POV argument here. This is not the place to do that. See WP:NOTSOAPBOX.
If that POV argument has been made or reported in reliable secondary sources, it might be appropriate to mention that here and to cite those sources. See WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


While reading the article I stumbled across the nations listed. 50 nations listed, but 48 should have been voting in favor? After some checks, I made some changes:

1) Romania and Israel couldn't have voted, because Romania entered UN in 1955 and Israel in 1948. I deleted them from the list.

See: UN. "United Nations member States - Growth in United Nations membership, 1945-present". United Nations. Retrieved 2013-07-12. 

2) Most parts of the list where in alphabetical order. I rearranged those nations which where not in place: Greece, Iceland, Pakistan, Sweden and Syria.

3) According to the UN (link above) Thailands name while the voting has been held was Siam. So I changed it to the correct term.

4) Replaced the sentence on SA, incl. ref.

5) Added a sentence on Saudi Arabia, incl. ref.

and by the way: In 1948 Honduras and Yemen allready have been members of UN. Does anybody know why they are not mentioned in connection with the vote? --AKor4711 (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Answer: They have been absent for vote.
Jost Müller-Neuhof (2008-12-10). "Menschenrechte: Die mächtigste Idee der Welt". Der Tagesspiegel (in German). Retrieved 2013-07-12. 
--AKor4711 (talk) 07:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Contents of the declaration[edit]

This article spends little time actually discussing the contents of the declaration (presumably because it once contained the verbatim text, which was later removed). The most it is mentioned is in the short "Structure" section, which lays out the basic general concepts of the document in a single paragraph. Gordon P. Hemsley 17:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree fully with you. Why would there be a page here about the UDHR if it doesnt even say what the UDHR says?!?!? (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)firdude

I also agree. I came to this page because I wanted to find out what some articles of the UHDR were. I was disappointed. This article should either include an outline of the UDHR, or be renamed something like "History of the UDHR", because history and reaction are the only things it discusses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to help craft a proposal[edit]

Surveillance awareness day is a proposal for the English Wikipedia to take special steps to promote awareness of global surveillance on February 11, 2014. That date is chosen to coincide with similar actions being taken by organizations such as Mozilla, Reddit, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Feedback from editors of this article would be greatly appreciated. Please come join us as we brainstorm, polish, and present this proposal to the Wikipedia Community. --HectorMoffet (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Article 29 (3)[edit]

"These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." This is like reading the North Korean Constitution.

In other words: "If you exercise these rights and freedoms based on principles contrary to the UN's then your rights declared here by the UN are null and void by default." Yeah, we totally should disarm ourselves and give them a world army. This should be mentioned in the criticism section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"Force of law?"[edit]

This edit caught my eye. The removal of the supporting cite and the insertion of "to be followed by all" as if the UDHR was enforceable on individuals bothered me. I was going to revert it, but "force of international law" (whatever that is) bothered me. The cited supporting source is unavailable to me, so I don't know what it has to say on whatever page in there that the cite is relying upon for support. Digging around a bit, I found some sources (e.g., [10]) which assert that the UDHR bears no force of law. I'm not a legal eagle, so I'm not really sure what is right here; I do see, though, that this assertion has been in the article for quite a while (see [11]). I punted here and added the qualifier "normative" and added a citation of a source which supports that addition. Please clarify (probably best done in the Legal effect section rather than in the lead) or otherwise improve as needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Lead photo and caption[edit]

This edit, which twiddled the caption of the lead photo, caught my eye. Actually, I've wondered in passing, "why Spanish?" many times but have not raised that here. The photo was inserted in this December 21, 2006 edit, with a caption saying, "Eleanor Roosevelt with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." (and including a WP:SELFREDIRECT). On December 29, this edit added "Spanish translation of" to the caption. I see that the image page has photos with Eleanor Roosevelt holding the Spanish language and the English language versions of the UDHR. It occurs to me to wonder why we choose to use the photo showing her holding the Spanish language version on the English language Wikipedia. I don't really have an objection, but I do wonder about it. Is there some unstated editorial WP:POV reason for this?

I see here that only half a dozen articles link to this photo. That being the case, it might not be unreasonable to propose changing the image to use the photo showing Eleanor Roosevelt holding the English language version of the UDHR. Alternatively, it would of course also be possible to create File:EleanorRooseveltHumanRights.png (English version) and use that as the lead image in this article (leaving this issue, if it is an issue, to be separately resolved for those other articles which link to the image showing Eleanor Roosevelt holding the Spanish language version of the UDHR). I'm wondering whether this ought to be done. I guess the answer to that question depends on the answer to the question posed in the paragraph above.

Comments? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^