Talk:Bill of rights

Initial comments

I believe you are looking for this, which is listed in the article's "See also" section: United States Bill of Rights. func(talk) 06:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

adding "wiki freedoms" / "wiki bill of rights"

Very badly, this article needs to add a bill of rights for wikipedia.org and its users; or a "wiki bill of rights" ... and next, here are further thoughts about that key, badly needed "bill of right(s)" of all wiki users ... ... (rest - added momentarily pc not working correctly) mity kahuna, sr sufa, jr /s/ 76.195.232.152 (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

<<

repeat pattern, "wiki freedoms" / "wiki "bill of rights"

what the lords of wikipedia do not do and repeatedly allow, is, as seen 1000's of times on wiki, where one, claimed great wiki editor terrorizes another wiki person who has something to say, something to add, and does so in never ending bully fashion;

why wiki allows such "struts" to then continue to not only participate at all, but to dom other wiki participants, makes no sense at all...(take note young James /Jimmy Wales)...

think through, that of 100 % of all wiki contributors, there is not any who are actually adding anything signficiant at all to mankind, esp such lords/ruling editors of individual wiki segments,

and what the wiki actually is, is an opportunity for freedom of expession BY ALL, not to be squelched by a self appointed jackass, who claims supreme knowledge of a tiny segment of info...

so, this is a call for "wiki freedom" and a wiki "bill of rights" for individuals NOT to be savaged by the present, cloned, Wales-generated wiki editor, jackasses >> wiki bill of rights/ wiki freedoms by big willy sr, the great I AM (not to be confused with Muslim tool the Great O Bam)

Lord Willy, Lord Krom - "all wiki participants are equally endowed by the one creator with freedom that a part of that freedom is freedom of expression on wikipedia.org and freedom of expression on wikipedia.org includes freedom from ANY interference whatsoever by "wiki editor strutz(es)" ... and wiki bill of rights freedoms include the necessity for wiki to ban permanently any wiki editor who interrferres with such wiki freedom of expression more than two times

- /s/ the supreme omnisicient ruler, the great Lord Krom, lord of the akashic record , big willy sr -the great creator - the creator of wiki bill of rights 76.192.6.141 (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

aka gm, ps; cmp, kkll /s/ 76.195.232.152 (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

... I tried to follow that and now my head hurts. A lot.    ¥    Jacky Tar  21:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Clearly been a victim of vandalisation with garbage such as BFF and linking to the bill of lefts. Reverted it to version from December 18 2006. Ryzol 04:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

More offensive language. Needs to be marked for cleanup- can someone else do that, I'm not sure. 13 October, 2008. 216.174.58.210 (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Lost content

The first paragraph got lost after a series of vandalism and reverts. It was included last in this version. On January 25th, 68.253.201.232 added a new, different introduction. --Ariovistus 21:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Entrenching a bill of rights

From reading the above last version it seems that for a bill of rights to be entrenched it means it is referred to in a constitution. This is not immediately clear from the current version, where the reference is much more oblique. Maybe a lawyer could add an attempt to explain the scope and definition of the term in laymans terms ('normal personese')? Please? 85.178.71.121 15:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hammurabi and Sharia

I have never seen either of these documents (or in the case of Sharia 'legal system') characterized as a Bill of Rights in the sense referred to in the article. Nor are any references provided (and I couldn't find any reliable sources making the claim). I am going to be WP:Bold and remove both from the list, for the following reasons: 1) Sharia law is a legal system, it is not a single document ('bill') enumerating or guaranteeing rights and or freedoms. Certainly it does contain 'rights', but in a Hohfeldian sense, as opposed to political or civil freedoms and liberties. 2) The Code of Hammurabi was either a penal code or codification of judicial decisions (and possibly even just a propaganda piece). The claim that it entrenches 'vicarious' rights is at best WP:Fringe. The Code also did not apply to 'all humans', contemporary Babylonian law had a caste system, slaves, and non-citizens. Jean Eugene Robert-Houdin 00:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rober-houdin (talk • contribs)

Unsure of inclusion of "targeted Bill of Rights" list

This article should focus on Bills of Rights that have or had actual effects and powers on the lives of real people. It should include explanation and discussion about current "Bills" and also historical ones. It should demonstrate through these histories the evolution of these documents and human rights throughout history that have gotten us to the present day. Description of certain so called Bill of Rights that existed in the USSR under Stalin and in Nazi Germany could be included only for the purpose of demonstrating how these documents are often used as propaganda and can be twisted by corrupt governments. Like the inclusion of the Chinese Bill from 1954 which failed spectacularly to prevent the great cleansing that killed tens of millions of common Chinese citizens.

Inclusion of the WIKI rights is also very reasonable since we are talking about an article on rights on Wiki and therefore anyone searching for such a list would obviously be directed here by search engines.

HOWEVER, the inclusion of these "quasi bills" for LGBT and the like that are really just mission statements created by political action groups do not really deserve the equal billing that REAL Bills with real enforceable power. Unless they have been drafted and approved by an actual legislative body and have legal powers in Courts of Law, they are nothing more than an organization's personal political agenda and violate the principles of not using Wiki as a political campaigning tool. To do so creates a bias that would require allowing undesirable counter organizations equal time under Wiki's principle of fairness. What is to say that since no actual govenmental action or public debate is required for a bill's inclusion, just the musings of a community organizer, that the NRA's Gunowner's Bill of Rights or "Joe Snow's Snowboarders Bill of Rights" doesn't also deserve to be listed? This is the slope these "targeted bills" put us on.

And in fact, these Bills of Special Rights for just certain groups run counter to the basic princples of equal protection under the law as they are designed to foster the belief that some persons deserve greater protection than everyone else. Bills of Rights are intended to apply to all persons equally and not be targeted for just one group. This is EXACTLY the kind of thinking that allowed the mass genocides of the 20th century in Africa, Southeast Asia and communist China and communist Russia that granted people of certain classes or origins a higher civic value than others. Its what allowed Pol Pot to kill millions of city dwellers, and Mao and Stalin to kill millions of intellectuals and free-thinkers. Until these "Targeted Agenda Items" are put in their proper context as pure "political posturing," they shoiuld be dropped from this article.

Furthermore, the inclusion of so many non-critical non-life threatening "Bills of Rights," like the gamers' Bill and the passengers' Bill, seriously diminishes the levity of this subject. This demonstrates many to not take the subject of basic human rights seriously (or that they take their own rights for granted), and this dilution will have devastating concequences for billions around the world and contirbutes to the errosion of rights for all mankind. 1.229.130.160 (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Obvious Poltical Agenda!!!!

How is the question of when a person is eligible for protection by a Bill of Rights not of vital importance to this subject? When someone offers a non-bias notation that courts and legislatures around the world are still working out exactly when a human becomes entitled to Bill of Rights "protection" and it is immediately stripped from the article, its obvious that this reference is being used to push personal political beliefs IN VIOLATION OF WIKI RULES. 1.229.130.160 (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Australia Bill of Rights

Greetings

Australia does not possess a 'Bill of Rights'

Politicians and public servants are employed by the citizenry. The citizens have all of the available rights. The servants of the citizens (politicians/public servants) cannot limit the rights of their masters without their masters' consent.

In Australia, politicians are limited by the Constitution which separates power of the judiciary, federal government and the sovereign States and limits their power to do bad things. We do not need a Bill of Rights unless it constrains our politicians.

TKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.96.120 (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Note

FYI, I just turned the Bill of Rights into a disambiguation page. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hatnote about bill of rights in other countries

Should there be a hatnote regarding the Bill of rights in England and the US? I believe there should be because in those countries, the "Bill of rights" refers to their Bill of Rights. Since the primary meaning of "Bill of rights" in those countries refer to these bills of rights, they should be in the hatnote, not only in the disambiguation page. Rockstonetalk to me! 17:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)