Talk:Rights

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eringordon. Peer reviewers: KTJeno.

Above undated message substituted from PrimeBOT (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@PrimeBOT 102.213.69.68 (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Epicgenius talk 16:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

thumb

• ... that Nazism is far right in politics? Source: Fritzsche, Peter. 1998. Germans into nazis. ISBN 978-0674350922, Eatwell, Roger 1997 Fascism, A History. Viking-Penguin. isbn:978-0140257007 pp: xvii-xxiv, 21, 26–31, 114–40, 352
  Roger Griffin: Revolution from the Right: Fascism; Parker, David. Revolutions and the Revolutionary Tradition in the West 1560-1991. ISBN 978-0415172950, pp:185–201
  • Reviewed:

Created by Ipirangafans (talk). Self-nominated at 07:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Right; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Unfortunately the nomination has to be failed as the article is not eligible for DYK; it is not newly created, has not been expanded 5x, nor has it been promoted to Good Article status. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Reads in parts like personal essay

Wanted to note/explain templates that parts of this thinly-sourced article aren't very encyclopedic in their prose or examples. Even if some unsourced sections summarize "Main page" articles, other sections could use work. Hoping to get this article rated "B" this month Superb Owl (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Does it not make more sense to define rights as things people can do or control naturally rather than simply socially-agreed entitlements and such?

I have always seen rights as the (natural) ability to control or do something without impacting someone else's rights. E.g, someone has a right to something because they earn it or because they naturally can (e.g, bodily autonomy is a right because someone has a natural right to their own possessions like their body) I don't see how something is a right because people say it is; by that definition, rights are simply ideological and have no true existence. But by my definition, i see no reason why it isn't simply a universal fact of things. I also don't see how rights can only be among humans because that would also not make sense considering my definition; but if we were to go by the definition where it is socially agreed ideas, again; it is simply not a real thing- it is just purely ideological with no truth to it. Chariot000 (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)