Talk:Three generations of human rights

message: Vasak first mentions "third generation human rights" in November, 1977. 
Source: 
Vasak, Karel, “Human Rights: A Thirty-Year Struggle: the Sustained Efforts to give Force of law to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, UNESCO COURIER 30: 11, Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, Nov. 1977. 
Oneofshibumi 17:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I've added the citation. - Jmabel | Talk 20:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vasak mentions 3-Generation in 1977

message: Where does the civil liberty, the right to bear arms fit in? I inserted it, then reviewed it, and it didn't fit because the focus is purely European. Is this about Europe? I already added text to this effect. If not, the the  right to bear arms is an important right intended to deter tyranny. Would this make it first-genertion? Raggz 22:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's definitely first generation. 63.95.64.254 (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[right to bear arms]]

message: > When first generation human rights are limited this directly limits second generation rights. <
Which is totally not true! The soviet block badly limited free speech, religious practice or posession of private property, but "right to be employed", "right to housing" and "universal health care", as well as "social security" and public order (police) were beautifully maintained. People who had litte interest in politics could live very comfortably and without the slightest worry of insecurity of person in some 1970s WARPAC bloc country, like Hungary. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally mistaken interpretation in the article 

message: The criticism section is wholly unreferenced and of dubious credibility - I suggest a speedy deletion of this section enless sources can be provided. Pexise (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: Privacy & Profit
I have a serious question!  If someone could Observe you in your home without your knowledge or you have knowledge and can't prove or figure out how there doing it!! Then like reality TV you see the exact actions and situations played out on television! It's happened so often you know it's not a coincidence because personal things said in your bedroom are repeated in exact same nature and it's the same writer and producer! They're making a ton of money and it sounds so bazarre that no one believes you! You don't talk about it often because the issues are personal and because of the timing the show is portrayed and when it happened you.  You would  have to tell all your personal business to prove it's happening almost like blackmail!! This actually is happening to me!  And yes I've reported it in person to local office and the new among politicians but no response and I'm not crazy!! I guess it's only a crime if I can afford a pricey lawyer to prove it! I intend to keep complaining until I get justice because it's still happening! Angela M.Jones74.99.164.26 (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil Rights with all the new technology! 

message: The criticism (and response) section is beyond the scope of the article to include such. This is not a discussion in pros or cons, just a mere article stating what are the "generations" of rights. It should be deleted (both, cons and pros).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.237.207.119 (talk) 12:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: I like the idea of including a "Criticism" section in a topical article, as it can serve as both an abstract of existing criticism, and perhaps more importantly serve as a jumping-off point for further learning on a given topic.  This is especially valuable where schools of thought are concerned, as it can be difficult to locate an opposing view without knowing its name, which is the condition of those who might most benefit from study on the subject.
I don't care for the "responses to Criticism" section, as it threatens to become a back-and-forth.  
My opposition to a "response to criticism" section is two-fold in this instance.  First, the main parts of the article should illustrate the point sufficiently for a reader to compare the point against relevant criticism of the point.  Criticism which is not relevant should be deleted, not rebutted.  Second, these "responses" are quite weak, and while they are no doubt facts, they do not advance a discussion or illuminate the original point in a meaningful way.  That is my response to the content itself, however, and I mention it only to back-up my first point, by posing this question: should I rebut the inane points mentioned in the "response to criticism" by pointing out how weak the points are?  Or can we just avoid a back-and-forth on this?
Proposal: Delete Response to Criticism  Haakondahl (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed about back-and-forth being unbecoming of an encyclopedia, but the content of the Responses to Criticism section is well-cited and relevant. I've just deleted the section heading; the "Criticism" section is for reporting on discussions of the merits of an idea put forth, not just attacks on the idea. --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Criticism 

message: I came across this here: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2006/09/04/fourth-generation-human-rights.html (written 4 years ago). - K (talk) 09:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a 4th Generation worthy of a Wikipedia Article? 

message: Although Vasak´s three generational approach is commonly accepted today, should not at least other possibilities to divide human rights be named? 
I could think of T.H.Marshall or Jellinek´s status theory that have suggested a generational approach to human rights long before Vasak, but from a similar, e.g. historical, perspective.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssrkhrsechu (talk • contribs) 19:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other generational divisions of human rights 

message: :The Directorate-General for the Environment of the European Commission has as its mission "protecting, preserving and improving the environment for present and future generations, and promoting sustainable development."
I can't find any reference to this in the mission statement --HazimJ (talk) 07:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Mission of the Directorate-General for the Environment of the European Commission 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Three generations of human rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090715094108/http://www.hoover.org:80/multimedia/uk/47825927.html to http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uk/47825927.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100104072827/http://www.hoover.org:80/multimedia/uk/72025472.html to http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uk/72025472.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified