Talk:Economic, social and cultural rights

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Human rights High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: Libertarianism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as High-importance). Economics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The original social rights article was a complete fabrication, with no references, confusing civil and political rights with economic, social and cultural rights.--SasiSasi (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making it kind of a pet project to mine to try to better-organize the various articles about rights, and I'm at a bit of a loss as to where to fit this article with respect to the others. It appears to have originally existed in contrast to

Since this article is so stubby to begin with, I'm tempted to say we should just incorporate the unique information in it into other related articles. But I'm open to other suggestions. Thoughts? -Pfhorrest (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further consideration, I'm thinking that juxtaposing civil rights with human rights is redundant with the natural and legal rights articles, and this article would better serve in juxtaposition to

Since there is no consensus as to whether ESC rights are fully justiciable, perhaps the relevant section of this article should refer to the debate on this topic, rather than assert only that these rights are fully justiciable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.169.174 (talk) 09:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been, over time, a number of edits to the connective clause in the first sentence of the lede, referencing this article's sister article on

Another editor later took objection to that as POV, biased against the position that economic, social, and cultural rights are an inseparable part of the whole that is human rights, and changed the connective clause to something like "inseparable from". I found that to be POV in the opposite direction, and we eventually settled on "compare with". Today, User:Lapsed Pacifist changed it to "as opposed to", which seems to be interpretable as POV of the manner earlier complained of.

In the interest of maintaining NPOV, I've changed it to "as distinguished from"; I'm hoping the positive connotations of "distinguished" will keep people from thinking the article places economic, social, and cultural rights as subordinate to civil and political rights (which would be POV), while still indicating the common division of human rights into these two categories.

However, I thought it might be wise to open up a discussion here on the exact ideal wording. Thoughts? --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"As distinct from" sounds slightly better to me. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 07:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was actually my first though to change it to, but I thought the double-meaning of "distinguished" (either a synonym for "distinct", or a superlative) might subtly ward off complaints from the rights-are-an-indivisible-whole camp (which I am not a part of, for the record). But if you'd like to change it I won't object, and this talk thread is here now for anyone who does. --Pfhorrest (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Distinct it is. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i have added the link to civil and political rights to the section on genreations of rights. so its now:

According to

positive rights.^{[citation needed}

]

it now mirrors the intro to civil and political rights, which in the last para states:

Civil and political rights comprise the first portion of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (with economic, social and cultural rights comprising the second portion). The theory of three generations of human rights considers this group of rights to be "first-generation rights", and the theory of negative and positive rights considers them to be generally negative rights.

--92.4.70.219 (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]