Talk:Dignity

message: I am unsure of why it is stated that dignity is "even" applied for plants. I do think this word is obsolete in this context and with it comes a subjective note on the value of plants in society. It implies that there is a hierarchy of being on our planet, which is merely a subjective belief. The concept of dignity applies to all organisms, not to all organisms and "even" some other organisms. This seems to be a very timely articulation reminiscent of older encyclopedias that mirrored the subjective (not objective) political tone of the time, with articles that singled out minorities in the 1950s, for example. I will therefore remove the word "even" from the article for the reasons stated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.131.220.5 (talk) 08:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word removal 

message: I'm not entirely convinced by this definition of dignity.  Can't dignity be a quality that isn't bestowed from the outside?  
Aren't there anarchistic definitions of dignity that specifically preculude "respect" and "esteem" as bestowing "dignity".
Does a slave necessarily have less dignity than a king?  Or perhaps a slave always has more dignity than a king. 
I've often thought that dignity had a paradoxical quality in that seeking to be dignified is the least dignified stance possible.
I don't dispute the NPOV of this article, I dispute its correctness at all.
On the other hand I think I'd have to be a poet to define dignity.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.105.65.5 (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: It's a good thing that ravers value respect, but by exclusively mentioning them, wikipedia makes it look as if they have a sort of 'monoploy' on 'true' respect or something to that effect.
However, other creed's also emphasize respect.
The muslim, christian, rastafarian and many (most) others claim to value respect as a virtue.
So either mention them all or none, I think.
Therefore I will remove thius part from the entry.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.151.162.212 (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  On raver culture 

message: Just as raver culture, I don't think we should list them, for the same reasons.
If we list them, shouldn't we also list similar organizations that try to dignify other minorities? And why should we only list an American organisation if there are also similar organisations in other countries?
Edit: I now see the reason DignityUSA was mentioned, because Dignity is part of it´s name.
Still, I don´t think they should be on the dignity page, but if a vet disagrees with me, go ahead and undo the change.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.151.162.212 (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  On DignityUSA 

message: ::From Wikipedia:Votes for deletion; (decision was to keep):
 WP:WINAD. Angela
**Delete, same reason. Maximus Rex 20:32, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marked for deletion 

message: Most of this should be in the respect article, if anywhere. --Kapow 03:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Respect 

message: I'm of half a mind of blanking this page until something more coherent is written.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cjwright79 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Agreed, this page is terrible ROxBo 08:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a sh-tty article, needs to be completely re-done 

message: Okay, I see that nobody is actually want to discuss anything, but they don't hesitate to clean other people's work severely. Well, it is always easier to destroy than to create something meaningful. Today I reviewed what was left from my first editing and I worked some more on the text to improve and make the idea clearer. It took several hours for me to write few paragraphs, yes, to create something is a hard work. I will continue with the rest next time. Hope people will appreciate, and that increases my dignity! :-)
--Abuhar 05:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here is another trial. 

message: I removed the DignityUSA disambiguation link at the top of the article because it didn't seem to be to stand out more than any other article involving the word "dignity", or be likely to be confused with the basic term itself. If someone wishes to create a proper Dignity (disambiguation) article to link to at the top of this one, here are some entries which should probably be included, in the order they appear in an "All pages" query for "Dignit":
* Dignitas
* Dignitas International
* Dignitatis Humanae
* Dignity, Democracy, Motherland
* DignityUSA
* Dignity Battalions
* Dignity (Ar-Namys) Party
* Dignity Village
* Dignity and Shame
* Dignity for Disabled
* The Dignity of Labour
* Dignité (Centrale des Syndicats Libres de Côte d'Ivoire)
Since I'm in a bit of a rush at the moment, I'll leave the actual creation and addition of one-line descriptions for each entry to an interested party. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguations 

message: I made many changes today: moved text on "respect" into corresponding article, so did with links on the concept of "respect." description of DignityUSA added to Dignity-ambiguation.
Well, not much left but it is better a little left than a big wrong impression. Concept of respect can't substitute the concept of dignity.     Abuhar 04:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Putting things in order - "respect" goes to "respect" article. 

message: Dignity is an invention of liberal communist propaganda machine. If you think your dignity has been taken away, it's actually your own fault and you are making pathetic excuses for people not liking you. Get over it losers. Let's change this article to reflect these important points. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.189.49.55 (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: let's remove the liberal communist propaganda

message: It's a bit hard to know where to start with this article, but at a minimum it needs to put the concept in historical perspective. Where is Kant (for example)? This is an encyclopedic topic but I'm afraid that I agree with those who are saying we almost need to statt again. Metamagician3000 01:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ahistorical

message: Just removed this image from the article; firstly, there's no discussion of facial expressions associated with dignity in the article, and secondly, the caption isn't sourced. (Seems a little vain, too, though I'll assume good faith for now.) Extraordinary Machine 18:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facial expression image removed 

message: The whole start of the article reads like someone's trying to make a case, without defining their terms.
This sort of article is very susceptible to weasel words and loaded language anyway.
(what's a "soul" for example?!)
Articles should objectively report current understanding of a term from as many credible perspectives with as much credible evidence as possible.
"When viewed as an intrinsically defined quality, any newborn already has his or her dignity, as he or she has a soul."
Evidence please! Who says a baby is born with a soul, and how do we detect it or quantify it? Are some people born with more dignity than others? Can we extract it and sell it on eBay?!
"The soul's presence is encompassing; just as one cannot have half a soul, one cannot have only half of one's dignity."
Evidence please! Says who? If you can't detect a soul, how do you know how big it is, or how many there are per person? Or whether some people have 'em and some don't?! More to the point, have you got a source for this claim! Who are you reporting?!
"The intrinsically-defined concept of dignity is therefore an infinite concept, suggesting that the highest worth that manifests in each person is their dignity, and that even an infant has dignity equal to that of an adult."
Evidence please! Why is it "therefore an infinite concept"? Infinite in what way - volume? viscosity? duration? diameter? atomic mass? smell? crumbliness? sociological merit? Where's the support for this conclusion anyway? Why does it suggest anything?
Who says an infant has equal, greater, or lesser dignity than an adult! how do you prove that?
Thus, dignity is not a quality of being highly valued, but is intrinsically the highest human value itself.
"Thus"! "Value"? Is a "quality" a "value" then? I'm confused! What do you mean "highest" and how do you establish what makes it higher than other "values"? (It's loaded language, that's what it is). Don't non-humans have dignity then?
WHERE ARE YOUR SOURCES!? WHO'S EVIDENCE ARE YOU REPORTING!?
This article is bollocks - sort it out! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.113.23.157 (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't agree more. And I don't think that the article in its current form can be saved, it has to be started from scratch. By more than one person, preferrably. — Mütze 18:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Umm, since nobody seems to care about a rewrite, how about a deletion? Or a blanking, then stub? — Mütze 16:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stubified! Simões (talk/contribs) 03:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not an article, it's an essay 

message: The German version quotes Immanuel Kant, and might be a good source, I'll try to summarize.
Every Human has dignity, due to his autonomy. He gains autonomy by being able to recognize and abide to the golden rule.
So indeed it's not a property that you acquire from others due to your actions (which I think the author got mixed up with honour and respect), but is intrinsic to being a human being. Whoever takes the burden of writing this article should look up Kants definition more thoroughly, since it is the one on which the Grundgesetz (German constitution) refers to. "Die würde des Menschen ist unantastbar." Artikel 1 Absatz 1
Mbarkhau 20:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Look up Kant 

message: --CopyToWiktionaryBot (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008-03-19 Automated pywikipediabot message 

message: I have added significantly to this article and removed a section. First, I will explain why I added, then I will give reasons for the particular additions. 
The article prior to this edit was quite sparse as well as highly editorialized. There was no definition given for dignity and much of the article was concerned with how dignity is used in human rights documents in a way that was contradictory. However, since the term dignity has had quite a specific use in discourse and philosophy for many centuries it seems to not do the topic justice for this narrow criticism to be the main focus of the article. 
Therefore, I added as follows: 
(a) a definition - This definition - "the quality that belongs to a human being by virtue of which the person deserves to be acted towards with humanity" is what I would suppose would be the general consensual understanding of dignity and attempts to encapsulate the meaning of the term as it is used in discourse.  
(b) Introduction - Summarizes how the term is generally used. Summarizes the use in philosophy, which the rest of the article elaborates upon. 
(b) Pico Della Mirandola - offers a well known and accepted neo-Platonist interpretation of human dignity. This is probably representative of the dominant philosophical world view prior to Kant. 
(c) Kant - is the well recognized basis for the modern view on the subject. For Kant, dignity is quite intertwined with reason, morality and autonomy and he is quite explicit on this. 
(d) Human rights discourse - I left much of what was previously in the article on the subject, though it could probably be improved a lot. I removed the parts which seemed to express quite a narrow and not very well cited opinion. 
I confess that I have yet to cite this article properly. I will do so shortly, but will require a bit more research. I was also going to add a section on Gandhi and moral dignity as he uses the term quite a bit. However, I have not yet found adequate material, but may add this later.   
Generally, I would suggest that the additions serve as an appropriate core for the article as this offers a historical treatment covering the main divisions in philosophy that focus on dignity. Perhaps there are more sections that could be added to this. 
86.0.124.120 (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significant additions 

message: I should note that when adding to the page I often used the term 'man' in description of certain philosophical concepts in line with the conventional use at the time. I am not sure however what is the general convention at Wikipedia regarding this. 
86.0.124.120 (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "man" 

message: To 86.0.124.120: If you persist in vandalizing this article, I will ask the administrators to keep you out of it.
I have remodeled the article to incorporate your contribution. Your contribution follows mine because your contribution:
#adds no useful information to the article;
#substantiates some of the information in my contribution;
#may be only the beginning of a very long list if every sect chooses to offer a sample of its dogma.
Pyrrhon8 (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I notice that the current page has been re-edited removing quite a helpful definition. Also, there are a number of absurdities in the current article which show an embarassing ignorance of basic intellectual history. 
Why would Kant be placed under a section on Dignity and Christianity when he is the major thinker to have provided a specifically non-religious defintion for dignity and human rights? If anything, Kant and Pico Mirandella should be placed under a section of Dignity and Philosophy. 
I would hazard a reason as the real reason why Pyrrohn8 does not wish to place a definition of dignity at the top is because s/he is quite adamant about insisting in this entry that dignity in international documents is underfined and is equivalent to 'just because.' However, this is a narrow opinion at best and not accepted as consensus by scholarly opinion. There is, in fact, as the pieces on Kant and Della Mirandola indicate a long tradition of discussions and defining dignity in philosophy that is not based upon theology. 
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.226.95 (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an offence against human dignity to vandalize the work of Pyrrhon8. -- Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyrrhon8 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies 

message: Pyrrhon8, I do not know if you are actually aware of what the purpose of Wikipedia is, but it is not a vehicle for your personal opinions. If you read the guidance notes on the Wikipedia site, it will expressly state that articles should be written from a neutral perspective and not in an essay-like form. What is this paragraph doing here then?
"Equating Dignity with humanness is meaningless. To say that a person has dignity, that is, that a human is human does not impart any useful information. The statement does not prove anything."
It is a bit preposterous to call Kant a dogmatist since he is probably the philosopher who, more than anyone else, undermined dogmatic thought. 
I have no choice but to change back the label that you have given this "Dignity and Dogmatists" to the more sensible label "Dignity and Philosophers." I will also once again replace the definition at the top of the page. 
Really, the internet is full of discussion forums that you could join where these insights would be very appreciated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.4.136 (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please, this is not an essay 

message: I will provide a leading paragraph as quickly as I am able. Pyrrhon8 (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First draft of a leading paragraph is now in place. BTW, thank you Bobo192. Pyrrhon8 (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your help Twas Now. Pyrrhon8 (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leading paragraph 

message: This article once had a section called 'Dignity and Dogma.' I removed the section because its inane gibberish was offensive to dignity and reason. Those who like dogma should take the section and create a new article. Pyrrhon8 (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dignity and Dogma 

message: This article is utter rubbish as it stands. It reads like somebody is trying to fit their first-year undergraduate essay into a Wikipedia article. I am actually surprised that this is acceptable given Wikipedia's standards. I have tried to change this, but a clever user called Pyrrhon8 keeps reverting it back to the article at its current abysmal level. What are you meant to do within Wikipedia if someone treats an article as their own personal fortress?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.226.95 (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is rubbish 

message: Ladies and gentlemen, Cicero79 is much too generous. He is too lavish with his praise. I am but a humble candle in a vast, dark universe. My weak flame would be nothing were it not for you: the other candles of Wikipedia. Thank you! Together, we have said, "Let there be light"; and here it is. Together, we have created something good--something that will keep the shadows at bay a while longer--something that is worth defending to the last candle. Let it be so! Pyrrhon8 (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ladies and Gentlemen 

message: Pyrrhon, please don't do that.  it's not like I'm not going to see that you reverted my edits.  the version you keep trying to press is no where near as developed as what's currently here - if you want to make changes, please discuss them so we can come to some sort of compromise.  constantly reasserting your preferred version is a bit rude.  --Ludwigs2 03:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  revert under the cover of a revision? 

message: I suggest:
1)	the paragraph about David Hume and the Is-ought problem should be reinstated in the section entitled Philosophy:
That paragraph is the core of the article because that paragraph explains the absurdity of using dignity or any other abstraction as a reason for anything. That paragraph explains why we often see dignity in the company of perversity and paradox. 
2)	the section entitled Religion should be reinstated:
Those who invoke dignity often say that their ideas about dignity arise out of their religion. (See photo above.) I see no good reason for Ludwigs2 to censor this section.
3)	the introductory paragraphs (courtesy of Ludwigs2) should be improved or eliminated.
An introduction should summarize the article. This introduction does not summarize the article. To summarize the article is difficult because the concept of dignity is amorphous. Generalizing about dignity produces misinformation. Dignity is not a term limited to moral, ethical, or political discussions. Anybody can use dignity for all sorts of reasons. It is false to say dignity is about beings. Writers talk about the dignity of the liberal arts, the dignity of work, and the dignity of science to name but a few subjects. It is false to say dignity is generally proscriptive and cautionary. Ludwigs2 provides no evidence to support his claims. The claim without explanation that dignity is “closely related” to other words tells us nothing useful. The introduction by Ludwigs2 lacks the verifiable,  properly referenced, relevant information that Wikipedia recommends. PYRRHON  talk   15:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: this is a passage about Aldergrove (who's already over-represented in the article), not Hume.  if you want to cite Hume, cite Hume.
Some sects hold that a being has dignity if the being resembles the kind of god that looks like a person. For example, the Catechism_of_the_Catholic_Church insists the "dignity of the human person is rooted in his or her creation in the image and likeness of God." "All human beings," says the Church, "in as much as they are created in the image of God, have the dignity of a person." The catechism says, "The right to the exercise of freedom belongs to everyone because it is inseparable from his or her dignity as a human person." PYRRHON  talk   15:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

text: see what I wrote in the section above.  this bit is just unsupportable.  --Ludwigs2 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving this article 

message: The main body of the Dignity article begins rather abruptly, i.e., "A philosopher, Pico De Mirandello...". Firstly, this sentence and the first sentence of the next paragraphs are structured quite awkwardly. 
Secondly, shouldn´t the section on philosophy begin with a paragraph, or at least a sentence or two, giving a general overview on the scope of the philosophical discussion on the topic and on the role this has within philosophy, (of which substantial things can be said, especially in relation to ethics).
Thirdly, the discussion of the philosophers are not very expository or explanatory, but merely state what the philosophers "said". This does very little to elucidate the topic or deepen understanding for the reader, which is after all the function of philosophy.
Fourthly, there is one paragraph given for Pico, one for Kant and then two for a philosopher, Aldergrove, who is not well known, does not generally have a Wikipedia page and seems to virtually not exist on a google search. The other philosophers mentioned are also not well known. Perhaps this section should be better structured to reflect the mainstream of philosophical thought (although, granted, the section on Aldergrove refers to Hume, who is most certainly mainstream).    
Fifthly, perhaps there are other figures who should be mentioned in this section. In particular, Gandhi comes to mind for which the idea of diginity as upholding moral worth was an essential concept.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.247.161 (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few suggested changes for philosophy section  

message: While some may view this as nit-picking, I think the first sentence or two are quite one-sided (don't know about the rest of it). Regardless of what I think of as true, a bit of neutral wording is in order. 'God-given'? In the spirit of Wikipedia's neutrality and hence secularism, I'll change this to something along the lines of innate, or natural (since that's essentially what it means to those invested in a God, or Gods). If there's a problem with my grammar or wording, don't just delete it, fix it. If you do delete it, I'd like an explanation (maybe it is supposed to be indicative of its origins in the Enlightenment).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.148.9 (talk) 08:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this was fixed already, but just as an FYI, I chose 'God-given' because that was the common enlightenment era understanding of the idea.  but you're right, it was unnecessary.  --Ludwigs2 23:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the purpose of secularity 

message: Pyrrhon - I'm not sure why you reverted that.  my edit was intended to improve prose and flow as well as expand some of the ideas out, not to make any serious content changes.  can you tell me why you reverted it?  am I missing something?  --Ludwigs2 23:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not going to play games with you. Go play on Conservapedia! PYRRHON  talk   05:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

text: That would be fine with me.  Prrhon?  --Ludwigs2 14:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My comments on the Third Opinion by NativeForeigner are available  here. The comments are in a great block of text. There is no help for that. PYRRHON  talk   17:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup reversion? 

message: After carefully looking at the differences between the disputed versions, I feel that while both versions of the articles have advantages, the version that was reverted was an attempt to make the article flow better.  I find it a more understandable article.  I would like to remind both authors however to Assume Good Faith.  I do prefer the original version after line twenty by Prrhon.  I feel like the changes should probably be kept, and changes should be made to that version. (I can understand it a bit better than the version that was reverted to)  Both of you should feel free to leave any comments on my talk page.  Additionally, I have added this page to my watchlist.  Thanks, <I>NativeForeigner</I> Talk/Contribs 06:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be fine with me.  Prrhon?  --Ludwigs2 14:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My comments on the Third Opinion by NativeForeigner are available  here. The comments are in a great block of text. There is no help for that. PYRRHON  talk   17:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Opinion

message: I'm sorry, Pyrrhon, but you can not revert the page to your preferred version (of over 6 months ago) without discussion on the talk page.  that's simply not acceptable.  --Ludwigs2 18:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  reverted last changes 

message: I have protected this page before blocks need to be handed out here. This edit warring has carried on long enough, and that's what it is an edit war. Each person constantly reverting the other with no sensible discussion between you just sniping at each other. Discuss the issues or it's possible blocks may end up being involved for disruptive editing, or article bans may need to be considered. Please discuss in a civilised manner, don't discuss each other discuss the article and its content. Canterbury Tail talk 13:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, that's helpful.  I'd like to make one request in the interest of fairness.  I think the section about Aldergrove deleted by an IP editor here should be restored to the protected article pending further discussion.  Pyrrhon has made decent arguments for this inclusion in the past, I'm not convinced that Aldergrove is as non-notable as the IP says, and I don't want to add any fuel to the fire by excluding a reference that Pyrrhon clearly feels is important.  Do i need to make a formal  request, or will this do?  --Ludwigs2 17:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Protection is not an endorsement of the version. However if all parties on this talk page agree for it to go in, then I shall edit it to do so. Canterbury Tail talk 20:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ok.  let's see what others have to say.  --Ludwigs2 20:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: I have been told that the vandalism which has afflicted Dignity during the past two years is not vandalism. I beg to differ. Here is why.
Wikipedia:Vandalism has a gray box near the bottom of its page. The first row in the box says that one example of vandalism is this:
, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary.
I reverted attempts to remove a significant part of Dignity because editors removed that part without a legitimate reason.  User:128.223.222.75, a limited-purpose account (one edit at that time), gave no reason for removing a big chunk of the article. User: 67.171.228.196, a single-purpose account, removed material because, he said, I was "some other fool"; the comments by Aldergrove were "without citations"; and the article was "pathetic self-promotion." None of those comments has any connection with reality. None of those comments deserves any response. User: 81.100.129.228 a limited-purpose account, gave no reason for blanking part of the article. At no time did any editor mention any policy that the article was violating or mention any harm that the article was allegedly causing.
Accordingly, what I removed was vandalism. Contrary to what some administrators seem to want to believe, removing vandalism is not subject to the 3R Rule; removing vandalism is NOT edit warring. I repeat: removing vandalism is NOT edit warring. In case I am not making myself clear, I offer this quotation from WP:Edit_warring, "." An editor not only may but should revert vandalism as often as the vandalism reappears. Removing vandalism and keeping an article from being turned into drivel are the practices of good editors. Sometimes excellent editors will effect several reversions to one article in one day. Those editors have no qualms about making many reversions to stop vandalism because removing vandalism is not subject to the 3R Rule since removing vandalism is NOT edit warring. Removing vandalism is NOT disruptive editing. Disruptive editing has as its aim to make an article bad. Removing vandalism does not make an article bad. No administrator should accuse an editor of being a single-purpose account or of being a disruptive editor merely because an editor makes reversions to counter vandalism. No administrator should notify an editor that he is liable to be blocked for doing what every editor should be doing. PYRRHON  talk   02:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Vandalism and the first sentence of the second paragraph, "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Vandalism is an edit intended to damage the encyclopedia, and what you describe is a WP:Content dispute. Blanking content in the belief that it is not encyclopedic, is improperly formatted, violates policy or guideline, or otherwise in the good faith belief that such removal improves the project is not vandalism. Your understanding of policy is again at fault. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

text: As stated on your talk page, (1) "All or significant parts" does not equate to "your pet paragraph". (2) Good reason has been given repeatedly, but you choose not to hear. The WP:FORUMSHOP is now closed. Guy (Help!) 08:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism2 

message: I've made an interim edit to the first sentence which began by calling dignity a term, while this article is about dignity, not the word "dignity". (See WP:REFERS). But the first sentence really needs a full rewrite to fix the problem, because dignity is also not a concept; rather there is a concept of dignity. Whatever that concept is of, that is what dignity is, and the first sentence should say "Dignity is..." and then whatever the concept of dignity is the concept of, or equivalently whatever the term "dignity" refers to (or, as the sentence still reads, signifies). But since I am not well versed in this topic I wanted to open discussion here to formulate the new first sentence rather than just writing "Dignity is..." something myself and getting it wrong.
So, what is dignity? --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topics not terms 

message: I have just added lack of sanitation as an example of violation of human dignity. I heave provided one source but could dig out more if needed. I am not sure if I have put it in the correct place in the article but I think it is a very important example, affecting so many people in this world 1 billion - do you agree? EvM-Susana (talk) 09:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added lack of sanitation as an example of violation of dignity 

message: I think female genital mutilation (FGM) is an important example for a violation of dignity of women, so I have added a sentence and hyperlink to the FGM article. I hope that people who know much more about the concept of dignity than I do, will take a look at the talk page of the FGM article: I am trying to convince the other editors that a sentence mentioning violation of dignity (with hyperlink) would be justified to make the connection. So far, people are resisting my suggestion but perhaps someone coming from the dignity side could add their opinion?EvM-Susana (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added female genital mutilation as an example 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dignity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100620172623/http://cooperativeindividualism.org/adler-mortimer_dignity-of-man.html to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/adler-mortimer_dignity-of-man.html
*Added  tag to http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowFullDoc/cs/A-13.4/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Dignity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130405163507/http://www.tolueislam.org/Parwez/expo/expo_037.htm to http://www.tolueislam.org/Parwez/expo/expo_037.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220183350/http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm to http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081113231959/http://ccne-ethique.fr/docs/en/avis008.pdf to http://www.ccne-ethique.fr/docs/en/avis008.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100818061730/http://www.smer.se/Bazment/266.aspx to http://www.smer.se/Bazment/266.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081113231600/http://ccne-ethique.fr/docs/en/avis053.pdf to http://www.ccne-ethique.fr/docs/en/avis053.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090202172716/http://www.stern.de/presse/stern/%3A25.03.2003-Benetton-Werbung%3A/505780.html to http://www.stern.de/presse/stern/%3A25.03.2003-Benetton-Werbung%3A/505780.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090202111015/http://www.gkpn.de/singer2.htm to http://www.gkpn.de/singer2.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Dignity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130405162608/http://www.tolueislam.org/Parwez/expo/expo_031.htm to http://www.tolueislam.org/Parwez/expo/expo_031.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080916023939/http://www.bioethics.gov/ to http://www.bioethics.gov/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowFullDoc/cs/A-13.4///en
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am going to search different quotes from multiple religious documents/doctrines/bibles to add more depth to the "Religion" section, and to also add more material from reliable sources to give a bigger point of reference to this section and how religion ties to Dignity.Erikamichaeledits (talk) 07:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding more material to "Religion" section 

message: Whoa. Where and when did dignity get be a "right?" Surprising article. Disappointing really. 
Consider these. 
From https://www.dictionary.com/browse/dignity
noun, plural dig·ni·ties.
bearing, conduct, or speech indicative of self-respect or appreciation of the formality or gravity of an occasion or situation.
nobility or elevation of character; worthiness:
dignity of sentiments.
elevated rank, office, station, etc.
relative standing; rank.
a sign or token of respect:
an impertinent question unworthy of the dignity of an answer.
Archaic.
person of high rank or title.
such persons collectively.
From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dignity
dignity noun
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.
dig·​ni·​ty | \ ˈdig-nə-tē  \
plural dignities
Essential Meaning of dignity
1: a way of appearing or behaving that suggests seriousness and self-control
She showed dignity in defeat.
The ceremony was conducted with great dignity.
2: the quality of being worthy of honor or respect
Theirs is a country that cherishes freedom and human dignity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrpetersen1 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Dignity? 

message: The topic of "Human dignity and Shia Islam" is probably notable, but this article is not in good shape from the content policy adherence POV. This topic can be adequately covered in Dignity#religion, but much of the content here is not salvageable save a total rewrite. As such, I'd like to smerge or WP:BLAR this article to that section. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No opinion on the merge but please note I moved that to Human dignity (Shia Islam). CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Human dignity, the foundation stone of Islamic civilization in the Shiite approach]] into [[Dignity]]