Talk:Outline of rights

This page vs Rights

Not too long ago I redirected this page to Rights since its content appears to be mostly just a duplicate of an old version of that page. This was recently reverted.

If this page and Rights are to coexist together, we should determine what the scope of each is, so they can each be refined in their respective directions instead of just being near-copies of one another.

Suggestions? --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I have some experience with outlines (I've created hundreds of them on Wikipedia), and I'd like to take a crack at developing this page.

Though I don't see how you came to the conclusion that this was a copy of the rights article. This article doesn't have the prose that the body of the rights article has. This article is a hierarchical topic list, while the rights article is not - not only do they look vastly different, they have different purposes.

Wikipedia outlines are generally more comprehensive in scope, since the space is used mostly by topic names, which take up less space than descriptive prose. They also fit together as branches of an overall Outline of Knowledge, and as part of that set of Wikipedia articles they each share the same formatting as other outlines in the set. In addition to being a type of list article, these tree structures also serve as part of Wikipedia's Content system.

The Transhumanist 00:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

At the time the above was written it was a copy, although even then, a copy of what was at that time already an old version of Rights. When I first came to wikipedia, this page and Rights were almost identical. I greatly expanded and organized Rights, though it was still a spartan, outline-like style; and more recently another editor has flushed it out into much more verbose prose with images and such.

Given what you wrote above, I'd like to propose that the structure of Template:Rights be adapted as a basis for the outline of this page, since I structured that template as something of an outline of links to Rights-related topics anyway. There is obviously a lot of material that was left out of that template, like the list of notable people currently shared between the Rights article and this article; I think it should be removed from the Rights article and consolidated into this.

If nobody objects before I get around to it, I think I'll give that a shot tonight when I get home. --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, expand the tempate and redirect this page. Good solution. Verbal chat 07:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Er, that's not exactly what I meant. What I meant was, if we are to keep this page and not redirect it (and Transhumanist provides some decent reasons why that might be good), I think its structure should be modelled after the Rights template: that this page, if it exists, should be an "expanded template", rather than actually expanding the template. We don't want the template itself getting too unwieldy.

So, if this page stays, we would have:

1. A template, providing a minimal outline of links to rights-related topics.
2. An outline, providing a larger and more varied collection of links than are appropriate for a template.
3. An article, describing the concept of Rights in verbose prose and linking to related articles as appropriate.

All that said, I'm not necessarily arguing to keep this article -- remember I was the one who redirected it in the first place -- but I can see a case for doing so now. --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, that is the point of outlines. You posted on TT's talkpage asking him to respond here, jut to tell you, he instead posted at his talkpage: Topic outlines don't have a lot of text between links as prose articles do, and provide a bird's eye view of the subject. They are much easier to read for those who prefer hierarchical outlines. I personally agree with TT. Just thought I'd mention it in case you thought he wasn't responding. There are more arguments for outlines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of Knowledge - Highfields (talk, contribs) 12:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No, this article is basically the rights article with the text removed, and duplicates the functionality of the template and the category structure. Much better to have one article and the template. There is no need for the outline, especially with the other lists that exist. Verbal chat 09:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

That is the point of an outline - Highfields (talk, contribs) 12:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If that is so they are poor WP:CFORKs and should all be removed. Verbal chat 13:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, Outlines are not part of any approved wikipedia structure and do not have consensus at all. If you look at WP:LIST you will see (or rather not see) any mention of Outlines. Transhumansist is right that he has created nearly all these articles, which are non standard and don't even follow WP:MOS. By having this extra article we increase editor workload for no gain. They are not part of wikipedia's content system.Verbal chat 09:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Verbal is blatantly mistaken about outlines not being part of the content system. All "Outline of" articles are branches of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge - it's listed at Portal:Contents as one of Wikipedia's content systems, and it is included in Wikipedia's contents navigation bar and in Wikipedia's contents navigation footers. Outlines even have a navigation footer of their own. They help browsing the encyclopedia, and they are definitely part of Wikipedia's contents system.

Outlines are also articles: outlines are lists, and there are many outlines on Wikipedia that aren't referred to as outlines in their titles. Whether or not Verbal agrees with the names used for these lists, they're still lists. Hierarchical lists (which makes them outlines).

Besides this, Verbal is being highly misleading, because you don't have to get consensus to create pages on Wikipedia. That's how Wikipedia became so innovative and why it has grown so fast. But Verbal implies that you do have to get consensus. I didn't get consensus to create these topic lists, because it was not required that I do. You do have to get consensus to delete them, but there is no need to acquire permission to write new articles. Redirecting this page is the same as deleting it. Verbal, there is no consensus to delete it. If you wish to delete it, take it to AfD.

That being said, I'm in the process of revamping the page, to improve it to be the best outline it can be. Verbal, please do not disrupt the development process. Thank you. The Transhumanist 22:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not mistaken, Outlines are not part of any policy or guideline, and were added to the "content system" pages by you. I have removed them pending consensus for such a large change. Redirecting is not the same as deleting, and as Highfield's has pointed out this article is a poor WP:CFORK and as Pfhorrest pointed out it is duplicating functionality found elsewhere. I suggest you stop making outlines until you get some support from the wikipedia community. Verbal chat 06:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Such a large change? It's a link. It lead to a small list of between 30 and 60 pages when it took place back in April 2005, 6 months before I started editing Wikipedia. They were not added to the content system by me. They've been part of the contents system since April 2005. See [1]. Back then they were called "Basic topics" pages. The outline collection has grown slowly over the years, and now they number over 500. Your unilaterally removing the links to the outline page in the content system is disruptive. The Transhumanist 00:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

As I wandered in here from the see also section of Rights I just had to laugh upon seeing this thread. Why am I not surprised to see another Verbal vs. Transhumanist sparring match repeating the same old arguments. I really don't want to involve myself in this but I just have to say this.. Verbal, you've been hounding this guy for god knows how long, quit cyber-bullying and just let him create his silly outlines. -- œ^™ 18:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the problem, "his outlines". If outlines get an exemption from our current rules or are somehow integrated, then I will drop my opposition or help integrate them properly. Also, I am hounding nobody. If The Transhumanist would take his arguments to the community rather than plastering them everywhere as though part of wikipedia lore, that would also be great. Verbal chat 18:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thousands of editors have edited the outlines. The outlines have developed beyond my capacity to keep up with them. Verbal's activities have been anti-outline, and he actively hampers development of them. He even removed the links to the outline subpage of Wikipedia's main contents page, even though they've been part of the contents system (and linked from the main contents page) for years. He has been violating Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. The Transhumanist 02:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It really is simple, finish the RfC and show consensus. Verbal chat 10:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio in lede?

Verbal, the lede was from wikipedia's own article Rights, which is most certainly not a copyvio from anywhere. I've watched it's meticulous construction from scratch by several editors over the past couple of years; just check the history there. I'm restoring it. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Copying from other articles is a copyvio. As a list it should have a very short introduction. Verbal chat 08:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Copying from other articles on Wikipedia is a copyvio? I find that extremely hard to believe. Cite a policy please? Aside from the fact that I wrote most of that lede myself, it was cited in the edit note as coming from Rights, so people can see the contribution history there. And besides, if things like project forking are legit...

Either way I agree that it needs to be short, which is why I only restored the first sentence. --Pfhorrest (talk) 09:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The copyvio was the version before, and I'm afraid your link doesn't meet the GDFL requirements. However, I see no problem with the current lead, should the article be kept. It should probably be changed back to its original, standard and WP:LIST supported name. For the rules, see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. This is a huge copyright mess that has been created almost entirely by the transhumanist, who hasn't done anything to try and fix it. Verbal chat 09:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The current version is just the first sentence of the version you said was copyvio, so if that was copyvio then this should be too. But Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper_attribution says "A statement in the edit summary such as copied content from [[article name]]; see that article's history for attribution" should suffice. I didn't say "see that article's history for attribution" in my edit summary, but I did say "import lede/definition from [[Rights]]", which provides the link to the original source with the available edit history that your cited policy says is sufficient. --Pfhorrest (talk) 11:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree, as I say the current version is fine. Verbal chat 11:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Reorganization

I've just made a first pass at organizing this page in a style similar to Template:Rights. I replaced the "Basis" section with a "Theoretical distinctions" section and a "Other divisions" section modelled after those of the aforementioned template, but with extra, related links included. I'm still not sure that that is the ideal organizational structure, but it's better than "By basis". Only Natural and legal rights and the related article Social rights discuss the basis of rights (i.e. where rights originate; are they inherent natural elements of the world, do they arising automatically from the tacit agreement to a social contract, are they explicit artificial creations of the state, etc). Natural law, Positive law, and Social contract are obviously closely related to that topic.

Negative and positive rights, Claim rights and liberty rights, and Individual rights and Group rights are all about different, orthogonal distinctions of rights, and not about the basis or origin of rights; and Three generations of human rights, and Civil and political rights and Economic, social and cultural rights are different types of distinction entirely, so I left them in their own section as in the template.

I've also broken the "By type" into "By claimant" and "Other types". "Other types" still needs much organization; it's kind of a dump of unsorted rights links at the moment. Lastly I've imported the "Notable people" section from Rights and merged it with the list of people here, since being a list it really belongs here more than it does there.

The rest of it still needs lots of cleanup, but I'm not sure where to go from here. Any suggestions? --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

scope

This outline is mostly only showing proponents to the increase of rights but not (yet) others including Marxism/ists (John Lennon, Stalin etc). Is this intentional or should these be added?-- penubag  (talk) 08:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If Marx, Lennon, Stalin, etc have things to say about rights (either that there should be more or less or different kinds of them) then I'd say yes, but if other people are just saying that they curtailed people's rights... actually I think that could work as it's own section too. Something like Human rights proponents for one section, and Accused human rights violators for another. --Pfhorrest (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a great idea; I couldn't think of what to call it but you nailed it. -- penubag  (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Quick explanation of Wikipedia outlines

"Outline" is short for "hierarchical outline". There are two types of outlines: sentence outlines (like those you made in school to plan a paper), and topic outlines (like the topical synopses that professors hand out at the beginning of a college course). Outlines on Wikipedia are primarily topic outlines that serve 2 main purposes: they provide taxonomical classification of subjects showing what topics belong to a subject and how they are related to each other (via their placement in the tree structure), and as subject-based tables of contents linked to topics in the encyclopedia. The hierarchy is maintained through the use of heading levels and indented bullets. See Wikipedia:Outlines for a more in-depth explanation. The Transhumanist 00:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Accused limitators

I think that the "Accused limitators" section is highly WP:POV and should be removed or edited. Who has accused them. Why are dictators like Stalin who defiantly did limit rights put along side Philosophers such as Marx and Engels. Why aren't dictators like Hitler and Pinochet included who clearly did more to curtail rights in the world than Rosa Luxemburg.

Really if this section is to remain we should probably give citations to authors accusing the specific people of limiting rights and only include individuals that can be properly referenced. Please give your thoughts. Cakelot1 (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I've now removed the "Accused limitators" section entirely for reasons noted above. The remaining list might want to be split into something like "Philosophers of rights" and "Activists for rights" but I'll leave it like this for now. Cakelot1 (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)