A Conversation for Rights

A636040 - Rights

Post 1

Gone again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A636040

This is my attempt to describe, maybe define, 'rights'. I hope you agree with me that it constitutes a worthy Guide Entry. Thanks for your interest.

Pattern-chaser


A636040 - Rights

Post 2

David Conway

Hi Pattern-chaser,

You express your opinions very well.

I'm not sure that this qualfies as a factual entry, though. There are a lot of differing opinions on exactly what 'rights' are within the context of Western Europe and North America alone. There are, I am sure, other cultures that have entirely different ideas about 'rights'.

I'd say that if you can make the article more objective, presenting opinions that others have expressed as to the definition of 'rights', you'll be off to a good start.

You may want to consider making your article quite a bit bigger or making your title quite a bit smaller. 'Rights' covers a lot of ground. 'Western European Views on Rights and Duties' might be more accurate.

I'd also suggest that you add some quotations on the topic of 'rights'. I'm sure that there are a lot of them out there!

Good luck. smiley - smiley

NBY


A636040 - Rights

Post 3

xyroth

I do not see anything wrong with this entry, and I especially don't see the western bias that not banned yet can apparently see.

I would be interested in having it pointed out to me, as I obviously can't spot it.

ps this entry deals with what rights are, not what rights do you have, and thus should be generally applicable.

a trivial point that people also tend to forget, although they have the right to do (whatever), this is a limited right, as they are not (by definition) allowed to use their rights to prevent someone else exercising the same rights.


A636040 - Rights

Post 4

Orcus

Hi, Pattern-chaser, an interesting piece. I'm not overly convinced on this becoming an edited guide entry unfortunately as it does seem a piece of opinion rather than a factual entry smiley - erm
A worthy piece of work nevertheless which I enjoyed reading, I've got one or two comments to make but they are off-topic for Peer Review so I'll post them to the entry itself.

I'll be interested to see others reactions to this.

smiley - cheers

Orcus


A636040 - Rights

Post 5

Gone again

NBY wrote: "You express your opinions very well." Why thank you! smiley - smiley "I'm not sure that this qualifies as a factual entry, though." I agree. This hang-up the Guide has with facts is a significant problem for me. If I want facts, wouldn't I do better referring to (say) Encyclopadia Brittanica? But if the *questions* are more important to me than the answers, isn't the Guide the sort of place I should start looking? C'mon BBC/H2G2 - confront your problem with facts, and get over it. Pretty please. smiley - winkeye

NBY continued "There are a lot of differing opinions on exactly what 'rights' are within the context of Western Europe and North America alone. There are, I am sure, other cultures that have entirely different ideas about 'rights'." I'm not convinced of that. I'm sure there is much variation on 'what (things) are rights', but I suspect that 'what rights are' is more generally accepted. Roughly speaking, rights are things to which you are entitled. That will satisfy most seekers for a definition of 'rights', won't it? [Please respond, as NBY has done, if you disagree: if I'm wrong, I need to know. Thanks. smiley - smiley]

NBY ended with the suggestion that "You may want to consider making your article quite a bit bigger or making your title quite a bit smaller. 'Rights' covers a lot of ground. ... I'd also suggest that you add some quotations on the topic of 'rights'." Perhaps I've got it all wrong, but I think that 'rights' covers very little ground. [As I've said, actual rights such as 'the right to carry a gun' can (and should) lead to long and complicated discussion, but that's a different matter.] I'll look for some quotations on 'rights'; if you know of any, will you pass them on?

Xyroth also responded. Hi Xyroth! Long time, no see (well, write)! smiley - winkeye Happily, Xyroth agrees with me on one point: "this entry deals with what rights are, not what rights do you have, and thus should be generally applicable." Well said, that man! smiley - smiley Xyroth also offered an interesting extension to the discussion: "a trivial point that people also tend to forget, although they have the right to do (whatever), this is a limited right, as they are not (by definition) allowed to use their rights to prevent someone else exercising the same rights." I'll see if I can squeeze that in somewhere, if that's OK?

Then Orcus arrived. Welcome to the party, Orcus! Now Orcus is a Scout, and I need the approval of one or more Scouts to get my entry accepted, so I listened carefully. Orcus made the expected observation, I'm afraid smiley - sadface "I'm not overly convinced on this becoming an edited guide entry unfortunately as it does seem a piece of opinion rather than a factual entry." Can someone please explain to me why it is wrong for a Guide entry not to be entirely factual? If you think about it, there is very little knowledge, inside or outside the Guide, that is truly and exclusively factual.

Thanks for the visit, Orcus, and for the other comments you made against the entry itself. And thanks to NBY and Xyroth too.

More comments, please!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"


A636040 - Rights

Post 6

Gone again

I found a nice quote, NBY, which now heads my proposed Guide Entry. I hope you like it. smiley - winkeye

I haven't made any other changes yet. I'm unsure if I'm supposed to make changes to a proposed entry, or whether I should only do so when advised by a Scout (for example)? I'm sure someone will let me know! smiley - winkeye

Pattern-chaser


A636040 - Rights

Post 7

David Conway

Hello again, Pattern-chaser.

I think an entry that focuses on the questions only wouldn't have a problem getting into the guide. Likewise, an entry that poses the questions and lists a number of possible answers, giving the arguments for and against each proposed answer. The problem comes in when an entry provides an answer, which may not be universally accepted, as THE answer. Opinion expressed as fact.

AS for h2g2/BBC confronting their problem with facts, please don't hold your breath, unless you *like* being that interesting shade of blue.

If you look at my personal space, you'll find that I'm not overly-fond of all the policies here at h2g2. However, with the right to submit entries to the edited guide comes the responsibility to make sure that those entries comply with the guidelines of what will be accepted into the edited guide. This doesn't mean that you can't or shouldn't work to change those guidelines, or push to the outermost limits of those guidelines. It *does* mean that you have to live with them until such time as they change, hopefully with your help if you don't like them.

I can easily accept the general definition of a 'right' as a thing to which one is entitled. I withdraw my objection, which was based on the differing opinions of exactly what those things are.

Keeping with the very general definition of 'rights', I also withdraw my objection to the title.

I like the quotation. It's a goodun.

Regarding when you're supposed to change your entry, all I can say is that it's *your* entry. Comments here are suggestions, not orders. Suggestions from scouts may carry a bit more weight than those from others, but they're still just suggestions. If you think a suggestion will improve your entry, act on it. Otherwise, feel free to ignore it or quesiton it, as you did with mine.

Good luck!

NBY


A636040 - Rights

Post 8

caper_plip

Hi there!

I like the quote... very retrospective!

By the by, you don't have to just take suggestions from Scouts! Suggestions from non-Scout Researchers can also be taken into account! And it's your choice whether you put those suggestions into your Entry... it is yours!

Just one small point from me... the Edited Guide doesn't allow first person unless it's a personal experience (like My Life With A Cyst On My Brain), so all 'I, my, me' references should be in third person, but to get round this, you could use 'this Researcher thinks...' or 'in this Researcher's experience...'

Keep up the work!

Caper Plip (a non-Scoutsmiley - ok)smiley - borgsmiley - tennisball


A636040 - Rights

Post 9

Ormondroyd

The reasons why this Entry is unacceptable for the Edited Guide in its present form are obvious if you read the Writing Guidelines - http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/Writing-Guidelines - with particular reference to sections 9 and 13.

Like Not Banned Yet and many others, I am dissatisfied with some aspects of the way h2g2 is run, but I think that the requirement to present a balanced view of contentious issues in Edited Entries is a necessary one. People are clearly likely to be driven away from the site if opinions with which they strongly disagree are presented as if they were facts. I would be offended if this article in its present form were to be presented in the Edited Guide in the guise of a definitive Entry on 'Rights', because I vehemently disagree with many of the opinions it expresses.

To complain because the Edited Guide doesn't accept strongly opinionated pieces such as this is rather like complaining that your local library doesn't screen films, or that the 'Guinness Book Of Records' doesn't have recipes in it. That isn't the Guide's function! It's meant to be a source of information, not a source of rhetoric, however well-argued or entertaining that rhetoric might be.

Unfortuntely, 'The h2g2 Post' is currently out of action due to the sad fact that Shazz, its Editor, is ill. But when it returns, this article would make a fine contribution. 'The Post' is generally more than happy to accept opinionated, provocative articles.

As for this Entry being added to the Edited Guide, though, I think it's obvious that massive changes would need to be made before that could happen. That being the case, it might be a good idea to move this thread to the Writing Workshop.


A636040 - Rights

Post 10

xyroth

shame on you ormondroyd. You say that it is in breach of conditions 9 & 13. fair enough. so suggest that it be changed to third person, and suggest how it can be extended to cover the other sides of the discussion in a balanced way.

don't just jump on it and suggest that it isn't ready yet. this thread is being worked on by a number of people, and thus has the potential to conform to the guidelines. A lot of entries which were much further in breach of them than this have been worked on, and brought to edited status, without this heavy handed type of comment.

It is this sort of heavy handed ness that drives off new researchers. please do better next time smiley - winkeye

So tell us oh might scout, what needs adding to make it less "opinionated"?

put your money where your mouth is!


A636040 - Rights

Post 11

Ormondroyd

If a lot of people are working on rewriting an Entry, isn't The Writing Workshop the proper place for that Entry? Isn't that precisely what TWW was set up for?

It's very difficult for me to contribute constructively to the development of this Entry without going into smiley - devil's advocate mode, because I profoundly disagree with its central argument, i.e. that 'rights' are the root of many modern evils. I think that some of the great advances of the 20th Century came from the overdue recognition of the rights of sections of the community who had previously been denied those rights.


A636040 - Rights

Post 12

xyroth

true, the extension of rights to everyone (especially groups that were unfairly denied them) has helped. but without the clear stetement of what responsibilities come with those rights, a lot of trouble has been caused.

for example the right to speak freely, has often been used to incite racial and or religious hatred. This has been because the responsibility to use that right so as not to incite has been unwritten. in fact, this got so bad that a seperate offence of incitement had to be made a criminal offence just to balance the lack of balance in the original statement of that right.

You could pick up on dozens of other rights, each with their inherent responsibilities to go with them, where the lack of statement of these responsibilities have resulted in injustice, or in the drafting of easily abusable laws which need not have been written if the original "right" had been defined properly in the first place to include the responsibilities.

An extreme case of this has to be the way that some "women's rights" organisations were actively working against prostrate and testicular cancer education schemes, because it was not "equal" to women, while at the same time pushing for breast and cervical cancer educational schemes.

This problem was caused because the legislatures framed the laws to give "equal rights" to women, but not to men. as the pigs say in animal farm, all are created equal, but some are more equal than others.


A636040 - Rights

Post 13

Gone again

Ormondroyd said "I would be offended if this article in its present form were to be presented in the Edited Guide in the guise of a definitive Entry on 'Rights', because I vehemently disagree with many of the opinions it expresses." Well, I thank you for your honesty, but I'm astonished! I can't see anything in the short piece I wrote that might provoke such hostility.

Hoping that I am not mistaken, I have taken a quote from a later posting as clarification from Ormondroyd: "I profoundly disagree with its central argument, i.e. that 'rights' are the root of many modern evils."

Clearly the need for a careful rewrite is urgent! My central argument is that rights_divorced_from_duties are wrong; I'm upset to learn that it might be understood as an attack on rights.

When Ormondroyd says "I think that some of the great advances of the 20th Century came from the overdue recognition of the rights of sections of the community who had previously been denied those rights.", I can do nothing but agree. This is my belief too. To bring it into the context of my offering, I would describe the rights you refer to as duties that have been long-neglected by the majority.

The reason this isn't referred to in my piece is that it is drifting dangerously close to arguing the correctness of *particular* rights. These are certainly matters of opinion, involving individual, religious and social morals, for a start. It was not, and is not, my intention to pronounce on such matters.

Ormondroyd, I apologise for my poor prose; you have *completely* misunderstood my intentions. I wonder if this is what upset Orcus too? Please consider this guide entry temporarily withdrawn. I'll rewrite, in the light of comments made here, and I'll be back! smiley - winkeye

--------------------------------

I do take your point about opinions and the Guide, but I do not concede the argument. You would allow an entry about the Big Bang, I suspect, even though it is nothing but speculative fantasy.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"


A636040 - Rights

Post 14

David Conway

Actually, I suspect that an entry on the Big Bang would be accepted only if it were presented as 'one of the theories'.


Thread Moved

Post 15

h2g2 auto-messages

Editorial Note: This conversation has been moved from 'Peer Review' to 'Peer Review Sin Bin'. ...because it has been superseded by http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F48874?thread=144330


Thread Moved

Post 16

h2g2 auto-messages

Editorial Note: This conversation has been moved from 'Peer Review Sin Bin' to 'Rights'.

Back to Entry - became Edited Entry A670042 Rights


Key: Complain about this post