This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Human rights template. |
|
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
![]() | This template was considered for deletion on 2019 October 15. The result of the discussion was "do not merge". |
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)
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)
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).
Thanks. Zodon ( talk) 06:03, 24 October 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
The template has previously listed "childrens, intersex, mens, and womens" rights on the top section. I have taken the step of removing the "mens" entry, which linked to the Mens Rights Movement page. Including it in this area is absolutely giving undue weight to what is essentially a fringe theory that has few adoptees and almost no recognition outside of small North American and European internet circles.
A quick google search will indicate the dramatically different weight and form of the push for greater rights for marginalized people and "mens rights" -- women's rights includes links to historical accounts of the evolution of their theory, nonprofits and human rights organizations discussing their current projects..."mens rights" has no such documentation, but primarily news articles *about* the very small online subculture that advocates for "MRM."
Furthermore, of the List of human rights organisations, I can see none that are "MRM" oriented, because "mens rights" is not a genuine human rights movement, but generally anger at the expansion of rights to historically marginalized individuals.
I hope that explaining my reasoning has helped make it clear why this change ought to be implemented. Because "men's rights activists" are prone to bad behavior on Wikipedia (gamergate, discretionary sanctions permitted on the "MRM" page, etc.) a request for edit protection may be in the future. Emoprog ( talk) 03:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Human rights template. |
|
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
![]() | This template was considered for deletion on 2019 October 15. The result of the discussion was "do not merge". |
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)
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)
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).
Thanks. Zodon ( talk) 06:03, 24 October 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
The template has previously listed "childrens, intersex, mens, and womens" rights on the top section. I have taken the step of removing the "mens" entry, which linked to the Mens Rights Movement page. Including it in this area is absolutely giving undue weight to what is essentially a fringe theory that has few adoptees and almost no recognition outside of small North American and European internet circles.
A quick google search will indicate the dramatically different weight and form of the push for greater rights for marginalized people and "mens rights" -- women's rights includes links to historical accounts of the evolution of their theory, nonprofits and human rights organizations discussing their current projects..."mens rights" has no such documentation, but primarily news articles *about* the very small online subculture that advocates for "MRM."
Furthermore, of the List of human rights organisations, I can see none that are "MRM" oriented, because "mens rights" is not a genuine human rights movement, but generally anger at the expansion of rights to historically marginalized individuals.
I hope that explaining my reasoning has helped make it clear why this change ought to be implemented. Because "men's rights activists" are prone to bad behavior on Wikipedia (gamergate, discretionary sanctions permitted on the "MRM" page, etc.) a request for edit protection may be in the future. Emoprog ( talk) 03:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)