Talk:Social equality/Archive 1

Archive 1

Redirect to social inequality

as per Wikipedia policy its not necessary to have separate articles on social inequality and social equality, hence the redirect. Both articles essentially said the same, except that the social equality article had absolutely no references or serious research!!--SasiSasi (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV, original discussion

This:

The fight for social and legal equality was seen during the sixties in the United States in the Civil Rights movement. Though ultimately defeated by subversion by those in power then as now, the civil rights movement made great progress, and the ideals professed by the movement put some hope into the oppressed masses of the illiterate and impoverished peoples.

is clearly not NPOV. I'd like to see some mention of particular areas of progress (Civil Rights Act), and the discussion properly framed in neutral terms. -- DAD 21:35, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs to be revised, for the reason stated by the original dissenter.

The offending text has been removed, and I think this article, though probably qualifying as a stub, is no longer NPOV.

Kinds of Equality Needed

To turn this article into Neutral Point of View, I suggest adding the various types of equality various different political groups are promoting. Such as Formal Equality, Substantial Equality, Absolute Equality, etc. : aCute

I agree. When I read the article I was surprised not to see even a mention of procedural equality. (I've been trying to find its obverse, which I suspect is "positional equality," but haven't confirmed yet.) JKeck (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV, part two

Recent edits have been unencyclopedic and geared towards feminism, for example. This is why I reverted. It's not that I don't like feminism (I do!), but that's not what this particular article is about. Plus the latest edits were essay-style writing. Like I said, unencyclopedic. --Jacqui M Schedler 21:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

equality among the people

I am not a rebel, i'm not to be underminded, i am a 13 year old male with a couple things to say 1. all equal rights websites have nothing that tells the truth 2. these websites are all about when its history 3.these websites need opinoins on equal rights 4. why aren't students (children) given the same equal rights 5.the government tries to work by the constitution, but they are trying to take away our freedom

- I disagree. I am 18. Children really do not know as much as they want to think they know but that is not an insult. We grow and learn every day. I will know more in a month than i know now. It is a process of development. However, in the start children need more of a foundation from which to start. The government educates the children until they reach a reasonable age in which they can make their own decisions. Its not about them taking your rights away.

Anyway I am writing in this because I want someone to put the idea of Social equality as being balanced between 2 definitions. Is it something to demand or is it a right? Social equality is the right to association, or the demand to association with fellow men?

That's right, governments educate the children, not restrict the children. I do not see how he would confuse that with taking rights away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.215.65.87 (talk) 04:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

We would like to be added as a link on this page

Hi, we are from Catalyst magazine. We think that visitors to this page would benefit from the articles in our free magazine and on our website. We would like to be added as a link if possible. If so, please let us know at intern@catalystmagazine.org

Catalyst is a new magazine from the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), in the UK. Catalyst was launched in January, and content from the first six issues can be seen at www.catalystmagazine.org, along with regular web exclusive articles. Catalyst’s aim is to encourage debates on race and related issues like equality, identity, nationality, belonging and citizenship, engaging with views across the political spectrum to encourage frank and open discussion.

It is international in scope, covering anything from policy and the law, to economics, politics, sport, the arts and so on. It was launched to shed light on particular issues, rather than promote a CRE line. It is a free, bi-monthly publication, written in plain English so that it is accessible to all, and aimed at a broad, general readership. Anyone can subscribe via the website or by calling our distributors, TSO, on (+44) 0870 240 3697.

Thanks!

Social Equality=Equal Rights

I was thinking that this article should be called 'equal rights', even though social equality is pretty much the same thing or perhaps an 'equal rights' article should be created? --Grrrlriot (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Social equality is a much stronger requirement than equal rights. "Equal rights" is more limited in scope, and can also be in conflict with social equality. The difference is also subject to the controversies about the definition of "right". An article on equal rights should be created. --Vuo (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree. An article on equal rights or perhaps equality, Which would be better? --Grrrlriot (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That depend on what you want to describe. Equality and Equal rights are not the same thing. This is a distinction that most people don't understand.DSArmageddon (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree; equal rights, equality and social equality are distinct concepts. For equality, a concept needs to be defined. For example, a handicapped person and a A1 class person are not equal in fighter pilot recruiting. This does not mean their equal rights or social equality are threatened. Equal rights can be in an obvious conflict with social equality. For example, nearly all countries consider property rights as a part of equal rights. This does not mean there is social equality. For example, in South Africa, when equal rights were instituted, the whites were allowed to keep their property, even if this leads to rather obvious social inequality. And speaking of "equal rights", it depends highly on the social context (when, where, which people) which rights exactly are included. For example, saying that Fronde was a struggle for liberties and rights of the parlements is highly misleading, because in 17th century France, "liberties" and parlement are very different from modern-day "equal rights" and "parliaments". --Vuo (talk) 10:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the POV tag should be removed, because I think I have fixed it. --User:Iambus (speak | proposal) 05:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Iambus has been blocked from editing Wikipedia, so I think I'll review those "fixes". -Yamara ✉ 07:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

His edits were done away with awhile back.
I have moved the redirects of Equal rights to a disambiguation page, with the exception of the Rights template, which still points here. This is to facilitate an article on Equal rights; the disambig page is "frontloaded" with a link to the Equal rights redirect, and an article can be built there. Also, feedback on the Equal rights disambig would be welcome. --Yamara ✉ 02:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This article confuses social equality or the right to equality with individual rights... individual rights are by definition held by each individual on equal terms (libertarianism). as well human rights are by definition held by all humans on equal terms. This assumption is however not true if for example one looks at group rights. As it stands I don’t see a need for this article, as the subject is extensively covered elsewhere. Also, you cant just invent rights, such as "equal rights" (show me one legal instrument that uses this term, or even a serious source)--SasiSasi (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Term "social equality" is used by recent sources such as Yale University Press and the European University Institute's Department of Law. Google has 546,000 non-Wikipedia hits for the phrase: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Social+equality%22&btnG=Google+Search Also the transwikis seem to list mainly "social equality" not "social inequality".

Article restored pending expansion. --Yamara ✉ 03:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Major revision needed

Citing current version:

Social equality is a social state of affairs in which all people within a specific society or isolated group have the same status in a certain respect, at the very least in voting rights, freedom of speech and assembly, the extent of property rights as well as the access to education, health care and other social securities.

An ideal situation of social equality does, for various reasons, not exist in any society in the world today. The reasons for this are widely debated. Reasons cited for social inequality include commonly economics, immigration/emigration, foreign politics and national politics.

The first sentence is simply not correct. It essentially talks about equal rights, not social equality. The second paragraph is nearly although not completely information-free. --Vuo (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

attack on socialism doesn't fit -- the article doesn't even mention socialism

I removed the paragraph "Criticism of socialist view of social equality" because the article is about social equality, and not about socialism. It had opined:

"Criticism of socialist view of social equality"

One concern about modern socialism is the taxpayer-subsidized access to equal things such as health care or education. The problem arises when individual chooses not to use the public service or good, but have to subsidize it nonetheless, thus creating a social imbalance in distribution of goods and services. An example of this is education. Western education systems often provide free public education to all citizens, but do not provide compensation to those who choose alternative education methods (such as homeschooling or private schooling).

The so-called "social imbalance" isn't explained, and the education example is either poorly explained, or is simply a bad example. This entire paragraph appears to be a clumsy free market attack on the concept of social equality, presumably because some attempts to achieve social equality do not follow capitalistic principles.

The concept of social equality described here is an ideal, and there is no specific formula proposed to achieve it, so such criticism is out of place.

Also, the article needs to be foot-noted! Richard Myers (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)