Template talk:Human rights

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Human rights (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 NA  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


Does anyone think we should do a section just on the UN, then break down into other international, regional, and multilateral bodies? The UN is the gold standard on human rights. I'm thinking it might help. Thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Split template or collapse subsections[edit]

This template is overwhelmingly large, it would probably be easier to use if split into several templates (e.g. Concepts & Philosophies; Organisations; Legal instruments; and Concepts that may be considered as human rights). Or at least make the major subsections individually collapsible (and start out collapsed, so can reveal as needed). Zodon (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Does it matter if the thing is always collapsed by default anyway? It's only large when opened... Tkn20 (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes it does matter, what good is something that is hard to use only when you try to use it? It is when it is expanded that it gets overwhelming. The purpose of navigational templates is to make it easy to get around, not cram in everything Wikipedia:Navigational_templates#Navigational templates provide navigation. This template has too much on it to be easily comprehended. Any one of the major sections is a bit on the large side for an easy to use navigational template, together it is just too much.
The examples on the navigational templates page show ways of making collapsible sections. I think splitting it into a few templates (as listed above) with collapsible sections would make it manageable. (Even with judicious editing there is probably just too much here for one template.) Zodon (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggest splitting template[edit]

I introduced collapsible sections into the template a while ago, however I think the template is large enough that it would make sense to split it. Suggest splitting off 3 new templates, based on the larger collapsible sections:

The human rights template would retain the fundamental concepts section, and might have links to the other templates. It might then also be expanded to include links to the geographically organized human rights topics, such as:

Individual articles could use just the sub-template, or use human rights and their sub-template (but wouldn't have to have all the other sub-templates).

  1. What do other editors think about splitting?
  2. Suggestions for improvement/refinement of the titles of the new templates?
  3. The fundamental concepts section overlaps significantly with the the rights template Template:rights. Any ideas for how to integrate the templates better (perhaps as part of splitting this template)?

Thanks. Zodon (talk) 06:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I support this motion, and suggest the merger of the "fundamental concepts" section with the upper half of Template:Rights. However, I would prefer that the resulting template not have the "human" qualifier, as rights theory is not strictly limited in scope to humans. My suggested title would be Template:Rights theory or some such. -Pfhorrest (talk) 07:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
A technical question: is it possible to thread transclusions? E.g. can one template transclude the content of another template into itself, and then be transcluded into an article? If so, it occurs to me that it would be possible to split the subsections of this template up, and transclude all the resulting templates into this (now otherwise empty) template. Thus pages with this template on them already remain unchanged, until/unless someone edits them to transclude only some of the new templates instead of the whole human rights template. -Pfhorrest (talk) 07:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I support this motion too. This is probably the best option. --Grrrlriot ( ) 19:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
In response to Pfhorrest's question, yes a template can transclude another template. It would be a bit less efficient (the server has to work a bit harder to put it all together each time the template is used). I am not sure how doing this would affect the formatting and collapsability, but worth considering as an interim measure while splitting this apart. Zodon (talk) 05:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I split one section (organizations). Figured to see if problems come up before doing the others. If anybody wants to help with changing the references on the affected pages from this template to International human rights organizations, it would be appreciated.
The suggestion of double transcluding seems to work okay, thanks Pfhorrest. Zodon (talk) 08:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for doing the hard part of the technical work. (I still don't know my wikicode very well). Looks like it's working well. I'll probably attempt to create a Template:Rights theory based on the "Fundamental Concepts" section here and the top part of Template:Rights soon, and transclude that in place of the "Fundamental Concepts" section here. Hope I don't break anything in the process... --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Update: I've created it, as you can see, but I'm uncertain how much of both Template:Rights and the "Fundamental Concepts" section here to include. So far I've just included what I see as the core of our rights theory articles, but I could see including things such as natural law and positive law, sovereignty and universality in another subsection of it; and also possible the second section of Template:Rights, including Three generations of human rights plus Civil and political rights and Economic, social and cultural rights, in a third subsection. But I'd like some input on those ideas before I go ahead and do it. I'll leave the transclusion into this template for someone else like Zodon to do when we all agree that Template:Rights theory is good enough for that. --Pfhorrest (talk) 09:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: Organizations split completed, pages on that list that linked to human rights template have been updated. Created legal instruments template. Zodon (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Update: Pages on legal instruments template have been updated. Particular rights template created. Zodon (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Split finished. Zodon (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Rights theory section/template[edit]

I've touched up my Template:Rights theory a bit to be a more suitable replacement for the "Fundamental concepts" division of this template, but I'm unsure how to transclude it in place. Zodon, help? --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of splitting this into a new section (just to make things easier to find).
Happy to lend a hand with the mechanics, however I am a little unsure about a couple of aspects of the rights theory template.
  • I would prefer to keep the changes in doing this mechanical (synchronize the template content fully first - see Content of rights theory template section below).
  • I am not sure why having these items in a separate template that is transcluded into this template is desirable. What is the overall plan for how these will work together. (see template coordination, below).
  • The business of transcluding the subsection templates came about because I didn't want to break things too badly while I fixed things up after splitting the template. (As it turned out I found the Autowiki browser, so fix-up didn't take too long). Not sure what role it should have in future of this template. Zodon (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The code to include the template would be to remove "sect1 =" and change "list1 =" to something like "list1 = {{Rights theory|child|title=Fundamental concepts and philosophies}}" Zodon (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Content of rights theory template[edit]

  • One is the items that are not included on it - specifically it doesn't include Freedom (philosophy), Universality (philosophy), and Fiduciary law, which are in the section of the human rights template.
    • I don't know enough about the theory in this area to be clear about why these should or shouldn't be included.
    • They do seem to relate (well freedom and universality), and there should be something about legal rights, though whether fiduciary is the best link for that I don't know.
    • However the articles don't seem to transclude the template, so maybe the relation has been rejected/questioned by the editors of those articles?
    • So if removal of those items from the template is proposed, I think it should be done separately (synchronize the sections before doing transclusion) - just to keep the record clearer as to what is happening. Zodon (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I found universality (philosophy) to be largely redundant with Universal jurisdiction in this context. Freedom (philosophy) seemed a rather broad topic not entirely concerned with moral or political freedom, but also with some topics only tangentially related to rights, such as metaphysical freedom of the will. Likewise, Fiduciary law seemed a bit too weakly connected with the subject of rights (the link there being that fiduciary law is law concerning a particular class of duties, and when one is owed a duty by another, one has a claim right against that other; but not all claim rights relate to the sort of duties covered by fiduciary law, and I dare say most do not). You make a good point about doing things cleanly though, so I'm going to remove those three from this template in a moment, and we'll see if anyone objects, before doing anything more with splitting off a new template.
The reason this template is not transcluded into anything besides the four "theory" articles from Template:Rights is just because I hadn't transcluded it there yet.
See next section for more comments on the intent behind all this... --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Template coordination[edit]

I am unsure of the intent/direction of the Rights theory template. What plans are for how {{rights}}, {{human rights}} and {{rights theory}} will work together.
  • I think that coordinating rights and human rights in some way makes sense. They both include largely duplicate sections.
  • Trying to share the section (transcluding it into both templates) has some technical problems (since rights is a sidebar template and human rights is a navbox template). I have experimented with such things, but not ready for use yet. Even if the mechanics are ironed out, it still leaves the intellectual duplication of having the links on two templates on the relevant pages.
  • If the theory section is removed from the human rights template or the rights template (or both), they will shrink to almost non-existance. Zodon (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I was under the impression that you were aiming to split Template:Human rights into a variety of sub-templates, doing away with it entirely in the end, but meanwhile transcluding all the new templates into this master template as a way of easing the transition. I created Template:Rights theory as an attempt to help with that effort, thinking that it could replace the "Fundamental concepts" section. I also thought... and I could swear I commented on such earlier, but I don't see my comments now... that it would be good to dissolve Template:Rights and merge its contents into these various rights footers, and then do away with Template:Rights, since there is so much reproduction of content between them.
If this was all just a big misunderstanding then we can just delete Template:Rights Template:Rights theory since nobody's got any work invested in it yet but me, and I was just trying to assist your project. --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I had not planned to do away with the template human rights. I was just trying to reduce the size of it to something more manageable. The three sections I split out each were plenty large enough to be navigation templates in their own right. That said, I am not particularly averse to the human rights template going away, just hadn't really thought about it. (Need to consider what to do with the geographic navigation, e.g.) Sorry wasn't clear on what I had in mind.
Some form of coordination/consolidation of the template rights, theory section of human rights, and now the Freedom template would be nice. But at this point I don't have a particular plan of how to do that (what should go where, etc.). If you (or somebody else) has an organizational plan in mind (e.g. what we do with the contents of template:rights), please share.
I assume in the last sentence you meant delete Template:Rights theory? I wouldn't necessarily delete rights theory just yet - might as well try to come up with a plan before we forge ahead. Zodon (talk) 09:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes I meant Template:Rights theory, sorry. As for plans, I don't really have any ideas more specific than what I already mentioned... but if I come up with anything I'll speak up. --Pfhorrest (talk)

Looking back on this issue, I notice that Template:Substantive human rights is turning into most of what this (Template:Human rights) used to be; that this has content redundant (almost identical) with Template:Rights theory but doesn't appear to simply transclude the latter; and neither does this transclude Template:Substantive human rights as I thought was the intention. I don't know how to do transcludes, technically, so I can't really fix any of this myself, but... help? Thoughts? --Pfhorrest (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Abortion as a reproductive right[edit]

This seems very simple to me. Abortion is considered a reproductive right. We have it under the heading "Concepts that may be considered as human rights" so we aren't taking sides and list a number of other disputed so-called rights. I don't understand the reasoning for removing it, and it seems that conversations taking place elsewhere are trying to be used here. Please, let's discuss this matter here. If we want to make changes to this template, they need to be discussed here, not on other pages. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 02:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the discussion belongs here, so I am moving it. The following discussion occurred on Talk:Abortion#Wikiproject human rights, moving it here because so far it has centered on this template and has had very little to do with the content of the article on abortion. So this seems the appropriate place to have the discussion. Thank you. Zodon (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved from talk abortion[edit]

I have added this article to wikiproject human rights, and also added the human rights footer to the article. This follows the addition of reproductive rights to the main human rights article and some discussion on the topic on its talk page. I am not intending to say whether abortion is or is not a human right - just that it comes into the sphere of human rights discourse.Tkn20 (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't have too much disagreement with that. Nearly every person feels that either abortion is a human right everyone deserves, OR it is a violation of basic human rights. Either way, it fits the topic. -BaronGrackle (talk) 03:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
In the footer, this article is under "reproductive rights". This is a one-sided way of looking at the issue, wouldn't you say? --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
That's true, but there's also "Right to life" under Civil and Political rights, which addresses the other end of the debate. Next to it is "Right to die", which many people like me consider as abominable as the "right" to abortion. We don't have to agree with them, but enough people do agree that it should be somewhere on the list. -BaronGrackle (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand. However, the difference is that it's the article about Abortion, not an article about the movement to legalize abortion as a "reproductive right" that's included in the section. This puts a POV spin on the article. The examples you brought up are all about movements. --Pwnage8 (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


I have removed the footer, and the article from it, due to the POV issues described above. --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe you have consensus for this change. It's not at all clear to me that describing abortion as a "reproductive rights" issue is inherently POV in any particular direction. Nandesuka (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
There was no consensus for the insertion in the first place. And yes, as I have stated above, including abortion as a "reproductive right" is pro-choice POV. A neutral way to go about this would be to insert the pro choice article into the footer instead of the main article, because only the pro choice movement believes it is a reproductive right. The main article is supposed to be neutral, which means it cannot support either POV. That's why including this article in the footer would violate NPOV. It's already biased towards a POV before the reader has even gotten to the page. --Pwnage8 (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The same (erroneous) logic would support removing "right to life" from the footer as well, and would be an equally ridiculous assertion. Nandesuka (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
No, it couldn't be used to remove that, because the article is about the movement with that perspective on life, not life itself. Same thing here. If we want to present this neutrally, we should include the movement that considers abortion as a right, not abortion itself. --Pwnage8 (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The Right to legal abortion has been on the reproductive rights page for a reasonable period of time (had at least tacit agreement there), so I think it is fair to say that its inclusion here was consistent with that consensus. Certainly the discussion above had no clear consensus for removal (if anything it seemed to lean towards retaining the link). I find the argument that it should link to the pro choice article a bit perplexing. I would have thought that the abortion article gave a more neutral coverage of the issue than that covering advocacy. The right to a legal abortion is unquestionably one of the rights often claimed as reproductive rights, so as long as the template has a detailed list of claimed rights, this one should certainly be included. As to what it should link to - I think the abortion article makes the most sense of the articles so far proposed. Zodon (talk) 04:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In what way is the Right to life article about a movement? It appears to be about a legal principal or belief. Perhaps you are thinking of the article on Pro-life, which is not what the footer links to? Zodon (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It can be both, really. There was a right to life movement around the time that the Terry Schaivo case gained widespread media attention. I really meant both movement and belief. I should've been more clear though. See, "pro-choice" is both a belief and movement. But if that's all you can come up with, then there's not much of an argument against my position. --Pwnage8 (talk) 05:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
How about suggesting some solutions? It would appear that you don't like the way the whole section is titled/conceived. Title says "Concepts that may be considered as human rights," and most of the items that do not have a specific "right of ...," or "freedom of ..." article link to the general concept involved, rather than to pro or con advocacy items. (e.g. Liberty, personal security, slavery, torture, exile, privacy, nationality, marriage, family, social security, property, intellectual property, culture, health care, female genital cutting, POW). So linking to abortion is consistent with these other entries. If abortion should be treated differently from the rest, why? If you are advocating general rewrite, please give more examples of better items to link to for all the rest of the items and better title for the section. Zodon (talk) 08:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The difference is that abortion is hotly disputed on both sides, whereas the ones you brought up are generally considered rights by everyone, or at least the vast majority. Controversial topics like "right to life" need representation from both sides, and there is a "right to die" article in the footer as well. Notice how "right to life" is not linked as "life". So we can't side with only the pro-choice viewpoint on this matter by linking the main abortion article, but we can document what group/movement/belief/etc believes it to be a right. Right now pro-choice is the best fit, as far as I know. --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
A lot of people would not agree with that distinction. Many of these topics have been and still are hotly debated and fought over, with active advocacy on both sides. (e.g. Liberty, Torture, Privacy, Slavery, Marriage, Intellectual property, health care, female genital cutting, social security, come to mind as items about which there has been significant recent debate/activity on both sides, and I am sure folks more up on current world events could come up with more.)
Another matter that still hasn't been clearly addressed is why it is more neutral to link to one side of the debate on the topic than to the topic of debate. It is obvious how linking to the pro-choice article could be considered siding with the pro-choice viewpoint, but how is linking to the main abortion article siding with the pro-choice viewpoint? Zodon (talk) 10:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It is more neutral to link to one side of the debate, because the other side already has a link (Fetal rights). Linking to the article on the subject from the human rights template puts a one-sided view on the topic right off the bat. Please excuse the lateness of the reply, but the stupidity inherent in this discussion was a big turn off. And that's not a personal attack, because I have nothing against any of you, I'm just saying this debate is really dumb, and I didn't feel like dealing with it. Furthermore, please do not construe my comments as assuming bad faith, because that's not the case at all. Now let's get back to it... --Pwnage8 (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume "fetal rights" is linked through a redirect, since the phrase doesn't appear in the template. Which link are you referring to? Zodon (talk) 05:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
It's actually linked from or described in several of the articles in the template, like Right to life. I actually saw it in the template, but it seems to have been removed. The reason I'm saying that the main Abortion article shouldn't be linked is that it's not neutral (this seems to be lost on you). It implies that everyone who is for "reproductive rights" supports abortion, which isn't the case. Abortion is not viewed as a reproductive right by everybody. The way the template was set up before (having "right to" before every supposed right) was even worse than it is now. I propose going back to that format, and creating a "Right to legal abortion" article, thereby solving the neutrality issue. The way it is now, this template is a violation of WP:NPOV. At the very least there should be a direct link to fetal rights. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The template doesn't say that it lists rights that everyone agrees to as human rights. Not everyone agrees about right to life, right to die, freedom from torture, freedom from involuntary genital modification, etc. Having them on the template doesn't imply unanimity, just that these are concepts that have been asserted as human rights.
If having "right to" before each item was worse, then why propose going back to that format? (Not objecting to that format, it just seems unclear.)
The section in question of this template is about rights themselves, not the groups to whom they apply. Fetal rights does not appear to be a specific right, and therefore doesn't belong in this section of this template. There are already templates that deal with navigating rights by the groups to whom they apply, better to put it on those templates then to add another section to this one. Also, rather than creating links to two sides on a debate about an issue it seems simpler to leave it as it is, linking to the article about the issue itself (which has links to various sides). Zodon (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)