Wikidata:Property proposal/has right

has right

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

   Not done

Description	the subject has the specified right
Data type	Item
Allowed values	items that are instances or subclasses of rights (Q780687)
Example 1	human rights human (Q5)has righthuman rights (Q8458) United States citizen (Q115674943)has righthuman rights in the United States (Q59717)
Example 2	non-human rights non-human animal (Q30126903)has rightanimal rights (Q426)nature of statement (P5102)depends on jurisdiction (Q115667526) plant (Q756)has rightplant rights (Q7201533)nature of statement (P5102)hypothetically (Q18603603)
Example 3	right that comes with a political position President of the United States (Q11696)has rightpardoning (Q115667628)action applies tofederal crime in the United States (Q2881556)statement is subject of (P805)federal pardon in the United States (Q34736359)
Example 4	rights on a particular internet server Wikidata administrator (Q115676116)has rightproperty-create (Q115667404) Wikidata property creator (Q115667414)has rightproperty-create (Q115667404) Wikimedia bot (Q108702521)has rightbot (Q115667438)nature of statement (P5102)sometimes (Q110143752)

Motivation

I think the statement human (Q5)has righthuman rights (Q8458) is so important that it very much justifies the creation of this property.

Since the proposed property is also applicable to the software domain it can be easily used more than 100 times. The data of who has which software right is interesting for software security analysis.

--Push-f (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• Astinson (WMF) (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Dr Isaac Andy (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC) Albert Villanova del Moral (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC) John Samuel (talk) JoranL (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC) Rajeeb ^(talk!) 14:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC) Tris T7 ^{TT me}
  Zblace (talk) 11:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
  Notified participants of WikiProject Human rights --Push-f (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Push-f not sure if for human rights this is as useful, as human rights are observed in specific context (mostly per country) and usually highlighted when there is absence of them, therefore needing negative modeling. Like Qatari citizens have no access to LGBT+ rights... I would be curious to learn how that can be stated? --Zblace (talk) 08:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Zblace: Thanks ... that does make much sense. I just proposed two new properties that should be more useful for the Human rights WikiProject: recognizes & does not recognize  :) --Push-f (talk) 09:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• Americans (Q846570)has righthuman rights in the United States (Q59717)? -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 16:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  Not quite ... Americans (Q846570) is instance of human population (Q33829) and nationality (Q231002), however human rights only apply to individual humans, not populations or nationalities. United States citizen (Q115674943)has righthuman rights in the United States (Q59717) would be correct. To some degree the human rights in the United States (Q59717) also apply to non-citizens ... that would be more difficult to model but should still be possible. --Push-f (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  The statement that group rights like that of the Native Americans have in the US aren't human rights seems to me like a political position. Do you think that everyone holds that position? https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-group/#GrouRighHumaRigh suggests that you are disagreeing here with the UN’s Covenants on Civil and Political Rights. The problem here is that you try to model something very complex in a simple way. We should model complex things in Wikidata in the complexity that they need and not simplify in a way that leads to issues. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 14:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  I was only thinking about individual rights and didn't consider group rights.

  If reputable sources suggest that group rights are human rights we could create the data items "human right of an individual" and "human right of a group" and state:

  • human rights (Q8458)union of (P2737)list of values as qualifiers (Q23766486)list item (P11260)human right of an individuallist item (P11260)human right of a group
  • human (Q5)has righthuman right of an individual
  • group of humans (Q16334295)has righthuman right of a group (perhaps qualified with nature of statement (P5102) if this doesn't always apply ... I don't know)

  As you can see "has right" can perfectly be used for individual rights (the subject is an individual) and group rights (the subject is a group).

  --Push-f (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Oppose
  1. I don't think the relationship between human (Q5) and human rights (Q8458) is the same relationship as the one between Wikidata administrator (Q115676116) and property-create (Q115667404).
  2. The relationship between human (Q5) and human rights (Q8458) is also not the same as the one with United States citizen (Q115674943) and human rights in the United States (Q59717). All entities that have human rights (Q8458) are human (Q5) but not all entities that have human rights in the United States (Q59717) are United States citizen (Q115674943).
  3. Lastly, individual humans (or instances of Q5) have human rights. The abstract class of Q5 doesn't.

  ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  1. Could you explain why you don't think so? Of course there's a big difference: one is an inherent right while the other one is bestowed ... however I think that could be expressed with an additional property e.g. human rights (Q8458)right gained fromno value & Wikidata administrator (Q115676116)has rightproperty-create (Q115667404)right gained frompublic election (Q40231).
  2. That argument is ridiculous: APB does not imply that A is the only item for which PB is true.
  3. Also ridiculous. Main statements on data items always apply to the entity represented by the data item. Do you think human (Q5)has characteristic (P1552)personality (Q641118) or human (Q5)uses (P2283)physical tool (Q39546) should be removed because it's "individual humans (or instances of Q5)" that have personality and use tools and not the "abstract class of Q5"?!?

  --Push-f (talk) 11:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  "human rights" is the plural of all rights that humans have. Something equivalent for Wikidata administrators would be an item titled "Wikidata administrator rights".

  I do think that uses (P2283) is too broad and bad that it gets used in a bunch of different ways and I would oppose it being created in such a broad fashion today. While it's not as bad as of (P642) I would be happy to see it gone as well. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 14:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

   Oppose conflates different kinds of rights BrokenSegue (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose Proposal seems to conflate too many concepts that are widely treated distinctly. ―BlaueBlüte (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Midleading (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)