Well, there is law, and everyone is equal before the law. All groups. Do you realy think, popularity is a reasonable basis for creating a special category in a topic? I don't think. And not only regards to this special 'rights', in regard to any issue. We don't state that God exists in Wikipedia, despite the vast majority of humankind believing it and all major religions being of high popularity and importance. This ignorance of public opinion and popularity is nececary for objectivity.

Well, I know you have a very different views than I have, there are lots of people, billions with thousands of different views, that's the reason there should always be a concensus, isn't it? I think, consensus is in deleting 'special' human rights of any kind. I'm not talking even about the biased nature of the whole 'human rights' thing, that's another topic.

Look at other countries, like Germany, France, there were no special 'rights', only themes dedicated to Law, until some biased 'enthusiast' changed it. Whasn't 'Law' good name for justice category? Why creating discputes and cofusion? People with different views can co-exist only if we don't divide ourselves on ideoligical basis.

I know there are some people, which want to expand certain ideologies, but why their platform for this should be Wikipedia, site, which is wholeheartidly dedicated to facts, and not promotion of ideologies.

It creates controversy. It violates principles of neuthrality. Imagine there was not a 'lbgt' sections, but religious freedom section, by the way religios liberty is our basic right (read the Declaration of Human rights, an idiotic document on which the whole topic of 'rights' is based). But if 'religiouc freedom' section will be placed, it will only reflect the views of the person who did it, for on which basis did he chose this? 1) He is a religious person. 2) He simpatises with religious people. But this is not objective. We have a conflict. I'll agree with you, if in every country there will be placed a section dedicated to religious freedom, including Arab-world countries. Unless, I'll never support the deliberate choice of placing some personal agendas and ideologies (if it can exist, than only in a balanced way). Everything should be balanced, or it should be placed on propogandists's sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.34.136.120 (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The article is now protected from editing for a week to give time for a consensus to form. Just to be clear, I could just as easily have blocked the edit warriors and that is exactly what they should expect should edit warring resume after the protection expires. Also, it is not conducive to discussion to make comments like this [1] in edit summaries as it very clearly demonstrates that you are acting out of personal prejudice and not a genuine interest in improving Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting remark. I never said I don't like anyone. I've only pointed out that the inclusion of special rights is just mere propaganda, and the basis for the inclusion is ideology and nothing else. Could you tell me, on what basis have you provided a special link only to that group? I don't think it's the top priority of any human rights organisation. Why than you make the impression that this is the most important himan rights issue? Only because you have your own opinions wich you want to propogandise. I stand only for neuthrality, you have to include 1) No groups 2) All groups 3) Most important groups sorted by importance. Your statous-quo is unneuthral, so you violate Wikipedia's principle. Some person have deliberatly chosen a group based on his own preferences, and nobody has done anything, and this applies to all countries Templates. It's not fair, not neuthral and not objective, it gives a reader a wrong impression that this group's rights are the most important. I mean, people, don't you see your're severely unfair? Why don't you listen to my agruments, which are plain and simple? This would have a strong negative impact on Wikipedia's reputation. Don't ally yourself with ideological lobbist groups, please. Be fair and honest.

46.34.136.120 (talk) David Greenfield 14:18 23.12.2012

• Should, for example, the "States" and "Districts" links in this template, also in a parenthesis, also therefore be removed? Or, perhaps a better example, the "airports" links in parentheses beside "Transport" links in other templates like this one be removed? Or, in fact, permit no links in parentheses in this and other templates like it? 213.246.94.204 (talk) 11:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, this is another matter. "States", "Districs" does not create controversy. It's not of an ideological nature. But people who added 'special' rights conveyed their special 'massage' by that, thus violated the neuthrality principle, they've tried to show their own prejudices as a matter of fact in Wikipedia. That's inapropriate in encycplopedias without bias (Though fine for Conservapedia, Metapedia etc. and other prejudice-based proclamations). It's similar to adding Christianity to religious section - by the way the largest religion in Germany.

P.S. And "states", "disctricts" categories are fine objectively, because they are sorted by some objective heirarchy, no personal bias here. If any intelligent man could do the same with human rights (sort them by importance), I'd agree, but not shure it's possible to measure the importance objectively, thus we should remove everything or add everything alphabeticly.

46.34.136.120 (talk) David Greenfield 14:18 23.12.2012