text:
Boston Marathon

The Boston Marathon is an annual marathon race hosted by several cities and towns in greater Boston in eastern Massachusetts, United States. It is traditionally held on Patriots' Day, the third Monday of April. Begun in 1897, the event was inspired by the success of the first marathon competition in the 1896 Summer Olympics. The Boston Marathon is the world's oldest annual marathon and ranks as one of the world's best-known road racing events. It is one of six World Marathon Majors. Its course runs from Hopkinton in southern Middlesex County to Copley Square in Boston.

The Boston Athletic Association (B.A.A.) has organized this event annually since 1897, including a "virtual alternative" after the 2020 road race was canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The race has been managed by DMSE Sports since 1988. Amateur and professional runners from all over the world compete in the Boston Marathon each year, braving the hilly Massachusetts terrain and varying weather to take part in the race.

The event attracts 500,000 spectators along the route, making it New England's most viewed sporting event. Starting with just 15 participants in 1897, the event has grown to an average of about 30,000 registered participants each year, with 30,251 people entering in 2015. The Centennial Boston Marathon in 1996 established a record as the world's largest marathon with 38,708 entrants, 36,748 starters, and 35,868 finishers.

History

 * 1) Men Since 1897
 * 2) Women Since 1966
 * 3) Men's Wheelchair Since 1975
 * 4) Women's Wheelchair Since 1977
 * 5) Men's Handcycle Since 2017
 * 6) Women's Handcycle Since 2017

All Editions Results

The Boston Marathon was first run in April 1897, having been inspired by the revival of the marathon for the 1896 Summer Olympics in Athens, Greece. Until 2020 it was the oldest continuously running marathon, and the second longest continuously running footrace in North America, having debuted five months after the Buffalo Turkey Trot.

On April 19, 1897, ten years after the establishment of the B.A.A., the association held the 24.5 mi marathon to conclude its athletic competition, the B.A.A. Games. The winner of the inaugural edition was John J. "JJ" McDermott, who ran the 24.5 mile course in 2:55:10, leading a field of 15. The event was scheduled for the recently established holiday of Patriots' Day, with the race linking the Athenian and American struggles for liberty. The race, which became known as the Boston Marathon, has been held in some form every year since then, even during the World War years and the Great Depression, making it the world's oldest annual marathon. In 1924, the starting line was moved from Metcalf's Mill in Ashland to the neighboring town of Hopkinton. The course was lengthened to 26 mi to conform to the standard set by the 1908 Summer Olympics and codified by the IAAF in 1921. The first 1.9 mile are run in Hopkinton before the runners enter Ashland.

The Boston Marathon was originally a local event, but its fame and status have attracted runners from all over the world. For most of its history, the Boston Marathon was a free event, and the only prize awarded for winning the race was a wreath woven from olive branches. However, corporate-sponsored cash prizes began to be awarded in the 1980s, when professional athletes refused to run the race unless a cash award was available. The first cash prize for winning the marathon was awarded in 1986.

Walter A. Brown was the President of the Boston Athletic Association from 1941 to 1964. During the height of the Korean War in 1951, Brown denied Koreans entry into the Boston Marathon. He stated: "While American soldiers are fighting and dying in Korea, every Korean should be fighting to protect his country instead of training for marathons. As long as the war continues there, we positively will not accept Korean entries for our race on April 19."

Bobbi Gibb, Kathrine Switzer, and Nina Kuscik
The Boston Marathon rule book made no mention of gender until after the 1967 race. Nor did the Amateur Athletic Union (AAU) exclude women from races that included men until after the 1967 Boston Marathon. Roberta "Bobbi" Gibb's attempt to register for the 1966 race was refused by race director Will Cloney in a letter in which he claimed women were physiologically incapable of running 26 miles. Gibb nevertheless ran unregistered and finished the 1966 race in three hours, twenty-one minutes and forty seconds, ahead of two-thirds of the runners. Much later, she would be recognized by the race organizers as the first woman to run the entire Boston Marathon.

In 1967, Kathrine Switzer, who registered for the race using her official AAU registration number, paying the entry fee, providing a properly acquired fitness certificate, and signing her entry form with her usual signature 'K. V. Switzer', was the first woman to run and finish with a valid official race registration. As a result of Switzer's completion of the race as the first officially registered woman runner, the AAU changed its rules to ban women from competing in races against men. Switzer finished the race despite race official Jock Semple repeatedly assaulting her in an attempt to rip off her race numbers and eject her from the race.

Nina Kuscsik was instrumental in influencing the Amateur Athletic Union, in late 1971, to increase its maximum distance for sanctioned women's races, leading to official participation by women in marathons, beginning at Boston in 1972. Kuscsik was the first woman to officially win the Boston Marathon, which occurred in 1972.

In 1996, the B.A.A. retroactively recognized as champions the unofficial women's leaders of 1966 through 1971. In 2015, about 46 percent of the entrants were female.

Rosie Ruiz, the impostor
In 1980, Rosie Ruiz crossed the finish line first in the women's race. However, marathon officials became suspicious, and it was discovered that she did not appear in race videotapes until near the end of the race, with a subsequent investigation concluding that she had skipped most of the race and blended into the crowd about a half-mile (800m) from the finish line, where she then ran to her false victory. She was disqualified eight days later, and Canadian Jacqueline Gareau was proclaimed the winner.

Participant deaths
In 1905, James Edward Brooks of North Adams, Massachusetts, died of pneumonia shortly after running the marathon. In 1996, a 61-year-old Swedish man, Humphrey Siesage, died of a heart attack during the 100th running. In 2002, Cynthia Lucero, 28, died of hyponatremia.

2011: Geoffrey Mutai and the IAAF
On April 18, 2011, Geoffrey Mutai of Kenya won the 2011 Boston Marathon in a time of 2:03:02:00. Although this was the fastest marathon ever run at the time, the International Association of Athletics Federations noted that the performance was not eligible for world record status given that the course did not satisfy rules that regarded elevation drop and start/finish separation (the latter requirement being intended to prevent advantages gained from a strong tailwind, as was the case in 2011). The Associated Press (AP) reported that Mutai had the support of other runners who describe the IAAF's rules as "flawed". According to the Boston Herald, race director Dave McGillivray said he was sending paperwork to the IAAF in an attempt to have Mutai's mark ratified as a world record. Although this was not successful, the AP indicated that the attempt to have the mark certified as a world record "would force the governing bodies to reject an unprecedented performance on the world's most prestigious marathon course".

2013: Bombing
On April 15, 2013, the Boston Marathon was still in progress at 2:49p.m. EDT (nearly three hours after the winner crossed the finish line), when two homemade bombs were set off about 200 yd apart on Boylston Street, in approximately the last 225 yd of the course. The race was halted, preventing many from finishing. Three spectators were killed and an estimated 264 were injured. Entrants who completed at least half the course and did not finish due to the bombing were given automatic entry in 2014. In 2015, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of the perpetrators of the bombing, was found guilty of 30 federal offenses in connection with the attack and was sentenced to death. His older brother Tamerlan died after a gunfight with police and after Dzhokhar ran him over with a stolen vehicle.

2014: Women's race disqualification
Bizunesh Deba of Ethiopia was eventually named women's winner of the 2014 Boston Marathon, following the disqualification of Kenyan Rita Jeptoo from the event due to confirmed doping. Deba finished in a time of 2:19:59, and became the course record holder. Her performance bested that of Margaret Okayo, who ran a time of 2:20:43 in 2002.

2016: Bobbi Gibb as grand marshal
In the 2016 Boston Marathon, Jami Marseilles, an American, became the first female double amputee to finish the Boston Marathon. Bobbi Gibb, the first woman to have run the entire Boston Marathon (1966), was the grand marshal of the race. The Women's Open division winner, Atsede Baysa, gave Gibb her trophy; Gibb said that she would go to Baysa's native Ethiopia in 2017 and return it to her.

2020: Cancellation
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2020 Boston Marathon was initially rescheduled from April 20 to September 14. It was the first postponement in the more than 100 year uninterrupted history of the event.

On May 28, 2020, it was announced that the rescheduled marathon set for September 14 was canceled. Boston Mayor Marty Walsh said of the decision to cancel the race, "There's no way to hold this usual race format without bringing large numbers of people into close proximity. While our goal and our hope was to make progress in containing the virus and recovering our economy, this kind of event would not be responsible or realistic on September 14 or any time this year."

Runners were issued full refunds of entry fees. Organizers later staged a "virtual alternative" in September 2020 as the 124th running of the marathon. This was the second time that the format of the marathon was modified, the first having been in 1918, when the race was changed from a marathon to a military relay race (ekiden) because of World War I.

2021: Rescheduled to October
On October 28, 2020, the B.A.A. announced that the 2021 edition of the marathon would not be held in April; organizers stated that they hoped to stage the event later in the year, possibly in the autumn. In late January 2021, organizers announced October 11 as the date for the marathon, contingent upon road races being allowed in Massachusetts at that time. In March, organizers announced that the field would be limited to 20,000 runners. The race was the fourth of the five World Marathon Majors held in 2021; all the events in the series were run in the space of six weeks between late September and early November. In 2021, the B.A.A. also offered a virtual alternative to the in-person race to be completed anytime between 8-10 October.

Qualifying
The Boston Marathon is open to runners 18 or older from any nation, but they must meet certain qualifying standards. To qualify, a runner must first complete a standard marathon course certified by a national governing body affiliated with the World Athletics within a certain period of time before the date of the desired Boston Marathon (usually within approximately 18 months prior).

In the 1980s and 1990s, membership in USA Track & Field was required of all runners, but this requirement has been eliminated.

Qualifying standards for the 2013 race were tightened on February 15, 2011, by five minutes in each age-gender group for marathons run after September 23, 2011. Prospective runners in the age range of 18–34 must run a time of no more than 3:00:00 (3 hours) if male, or 3:30:00 (3 hours 30 minutes) if female; the qualifying time is adjusted upward as age increases. In addition, the 59-second grace period on qualifying times has been completely eliminated; for example, a 40- to 44-year-old male will no longer qualify with a time of 3:10:01. For many marathoners, to qualify for Boston (to "BQ") is a goal and achievement in itself.

An exception to the qualification times is for runners who receive entries from partners. About one-fifth of the marathon's spots are reserved each year for charities, sponsors, vendors, licensees, consultants, municipal officials, local running clubs, and marketers. In 2010, about 5,470 additional runners received entries through partners, including 2,515 charity runners. The marathon currently allocates spots to two dozen charities who in turn are expected to raise more than $10 million a year. In 2017, charity runners raised $34.2 million for more than 200 non-profit organizations. The Boston Athletic Association's Official Charity Program raised $17.96 million, John Hancock's Non-Profit Program raised $12.3 million, and the last $3.97 million was raised by other qualified and invitational runners.

On October 18, 2010, the 20,000 spots reserved for qualifiers were filled in a record-setting eight hours and three minutes. The speed of registration prompted the B.A.A. to change its qualifying standards for the 2013 marathon onward. In addition to lowering qualifying times, the change includes a rolling application process, which gives faster runners priority. Organizers decided not to significantly adjust the number of non-qualifiers.

On September 27, 2018, the B.A.A. announced that they were lowering the qualifying times for the 2020 marathon by another five minutes, with male runners in the 18-34 age group required to run a time of 3:00:00 (3 hours) or less and female runners in the 18-34 age group required to run a time of 3:30:00 (3 hours, 30 minutes) or less in order to qualify.

Race day
The race has traditionally been held on Patriots' Day, a state holiday in Massachusetts, and until 1969 that was every April 19, whichever day of the week that fell on. From 1969 to 2019, the holiday was observed on the third Monday in April and so the marathon date was correspondingly fixed to that Monday, often referred to by local residents as "Marathon Monday".

Starting times
Through 2005, the race began at noon (wheelchair race at 11:25a.m., and elite women at 11:31a.m.), at the official starting point in Hopkinton, Massachusetts. In 2006, the race used a staggered "wave start", where top-seeded runners (the elite men's group) and a first batch of up to 10,000 runners started at noon, with a second group starting at 12:30. The next year the starting times for the race were moved up, allowing runners to take advantage of cooler temperatures and enabling the roads to be reopened earlier. The marathon later added third and fourth waves to help further stagger the runners and reduce congestion.

The starting times for 2019 were:

 * Men's Push Rim Wheelchair: 9:02 a.m.
 * Women's Push Rim Wheelchair: 9:04 a.m.
 * Handcycles and Duos: 9:25 a.m.
 * Elite Women: 9:32 a.m.
 * Elite Men: 10 a.m.
 * Wave One: 10:02 a.m.
 * Wave Two: 10:25 a.m.
 * Wave Three: 10:50 a.m.
 * Wave Four: 11:15 a.m.

Course
The course runs through 26 mi of winding roads, following Route 135, Route 16, Route 30 and city streets into the center of Boston, where the official finish line is located at Copley Square, alongside the Boston Public Library. The race runs through eight Massachusetts cities and towns: Hopkinton, Ashland, Framingham, Natick, Wellesley, Newton, Brookline, and Boston. The Boston Marathon is considered to be one of the more difficult marathon courses because of the Newton hills, which culminate in Heartbreak Hill near Boston College. While the three hills on Commonwealth Avenue (Route 30) are better known, a preceding hill on Washington Street (Route 16), climbing from the Charles River crossing at 16 mi, is regarded by Dave McGillivray, the long-term race director, as the course's most difficult challenge. This hill, which follows a 150 ft rise over a 1/2 mi stretch, forces many lesser-trained runners to a walking pace.

Heartbreak Hill
Heartbreak Hill is an ascent over 0.4 mi between the 20- and 21-mile (32- and 34-km) marks, near Boston College. It is the last of four "Newton hills", which begin at the 16 mi mark and challenge contestants with late (if modest) climbs after the course's general downhill trend to that point. Though Heartbreak Hill itself rises only 88 ft vertically (from an elevation of 148 to 236 ft), it comes in the portion of a marathon distance where muscle glycogen stores are most likely to be depleted—a phenomenon referred to by marathoners as "hitting the wall".

It was on this hill that, in 1936, defending champion John A. "Johnny" Kelley overtook Ellison "Tarzan" Brown, giving him a consolatory pat on the shoulder as he passed. This gesture renewed the competitive drive in Brown, who rallied, pulled ahead of Kelley, and went on to win—thereby, it was said, breaking Kelley's heart.

Records
Because the course drops 459 ft from start to finish and the start is quite far west of the finish, allowing a helpful tailwind, the Boston Marathon does not satisfy two of the criteria necessary for the ratification of world or American records.

At the 2011 Boston Marathon on April 18, 2011, Geoffrey Mutai of Kenya ran a time of 2:03:02, which was the fastest ever marathon at the time (since surpassed by Eliud Kipchoge's 2:01:39 in Berlin 2018). However, due to the reasons listed above, Mutai’s performance was not ratified as an official world record. Bezunesh Deba from Ethiopia set the women's course record with a 2:19:59 performance on April 21, 2014. This was declared after Rita Jeptoo from Kenya was disqualified following a confirmed doping violation.

Other course records include:
 * Men's Masters: John Campbell (New Zealand), 2:11:04 (set in 1990)
 * Women's Masters: Firiya Sultanova-Zhdanova (Russia), 2:27:58 (set in 2002)
 * Men's Push Rim Wheelchair: Marcel Hug (Switzerland), 1:17:06 (set in 2023)
 * Women's Push Rim Wheelchair: Manuela Schär (Switzerland), 1:28:17 (set in 2017)
 * Men's Handcycle: Tom Davis (United States), 0:58:36 (set in 2017)
 * Women's Handcycle: Alicia Dana (United States), 1:18:15 (set in 2023)

On only four occasions have world record times for marathon running been set in Boston. In 1947, the men's record time set was 2:25:39, by Suh Yun-Bok of South Korea. In 1975, a women's world record of 2:42:24 was set by Liane Winter of West Germany, and in 1983, Joan Benoit Samuelson of the United States ran a women's world record time of 2:22:43. In 2012 Joshua Cassidy of Canada set a men's wheelchair marathon world-record time of 1:18:25.

In 2007, astronaut Sunita Williams was an official entrant of the race, running a marathon distance while on the International Space Station, becoming the first person to run a marathon in space. She was sent a specialty bib and medal by the B.A.A. on the STS-117 flight of the Space Shuttle Atlantis.

The race's organizers keep a standard time clock for all entries, though official timekeeping ceases after the six-hour mark.

The B.A.A.
The Boston Athletic Association is a non-profit, organized sports association that organizes the Boston Marathon and other events.

Divisions
In 1975, the Boston Marathon became the first major marathon to include a wheelchair division competition. Bob Hall wrote race director Will Cloney to ask if he could compete in the race in his wheelchair. Cloney wrote back that he could not give Hall a race number, but would recognize Hall as an official finisher if he completed the race in under 3 hours and 30 minutes. Hall finished in 2 hours and 58 minutes, paving the way for the wheelchair division. Ernst Van Dyk, in 2004, set a course record at 1:18.29, almost 50 minutes faster than the fastest runner.

Also in 1975, the Boston Marathon first included a women's masters division, which Sylvia Weiner won, at age 44 with a time of 3:21:38.

Handcyclists have competed in the race since at least 2014. Starting in 2017, handcyclists are honored the same way runners and wheelchair racers are: with wreaths, prize money, and the playing of the men's and women's winners' national anthems.

In addition to the push rim wheelchair division, the Boston Marathon also hosts a blind/visually impaired division, and a mobility impaired program. Similar to the running divisions, a set of qualifying times has been developed for these divisions to motivate aspiring athletes and ensure competitive excellence. In 1986, the introduction of prize money at the Boston Marathon gave the push rim wheelchair division the richest prize purse in the sport. More than 1,000 people with disabilities and impairments have participated in the wheelchair division, while the other divisions have gained popularity each year. In 2013, 40 blind runners participated.

The nonbinary division of the Boston Marathon was first included in 2023; it was won by Kae Ravichandran with a time of 2:38:57.

Memorial
The Boston Marathon Memorial in Copley Square, which is near the finish line, was installed to mark the one-hundredth running of the race. A circle of granite blocks set in the ground surrounds a central medallion that traces the race course and other segments that show an elevation map of the course and the names of the winners.

Spectators
With approximately 500,000 spectators, the Boston Marathon is New England's most widely viewed sporting event. About 1,000 media members from more than 100 outlets received media credentials in 2011.

For the entire distance of the race, thousands line the sides of the course to cheer the runners on, encourage them, and provide free water and snacks to the runners.

Scream Tunnel
At Wellesley College, a women's college, it is traditional for the students to cheer on the runners in what is referred to as the Scream Tunnel. For about a quarter of a mile (400m), the students line the course, scream, and offer kisses. The Scream Tunnel is so loud runners claim it can be heard from a mile away. The tunnel is roughly half a mile (0.8km) prior to the halfway mark of the course.

Boston Red Sox
Every year, the Boston Red Sox play a home game at Fenway Park, starting at 11:05a.m. When the game ends, the crowd empties into Kenmore Square to cheer as the runners enter the final mile. This tradition started in 1903. In the 1940s, the Red Sox from the American League and the Boston Braves from the National League (who moved to Milwaukee after the 1953 season) alternated yearly as to which would play the morning game. In 2007, the game between the Red Sox and the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim was delayed until 12:18p.m. due to heavy rain. The marathon, which had previously been run in a wide variety of weather conditions, was not delayed. The 2018 game hosting the Baltimore Orioles was postponed into May due to rain, while 2020 saw the game not played resulting from the pandemic.

Dick and Rick Hoyt
Dick and Rick Hoyt entered the Boston Marathon 32 times. Dick was the father of Rick, who had cerebral palsy. While doctors said that Rick would never have a normal life and thought that institutionalizing him was the best option, Dick and his wife disagreed and raised him at home. Eventually, a computer device was developed that helped Rick communicate with his family, and they learned that one of his biggest passions was sports. "Team Hoyt" (Dick and Rick) started competing in charity runs, with Dick pushing Rick in a wheelchair. Through August 2008, Dick and Rick had competed in 66 marathons and 229 triathlons. Their fastest marathon finish was 2:40:47. The team completed their 30th Boston Marathon in 2012, when Dick was 72 and Rick was 50. They had intended the 2013 marathon to be their final one, but due to the Boston Marathon bombing, they were stopped a mile short of completing their run, and decided to run one more marathon the following year. They completed the 2014 marathon on April 21, 2014, having previously announced that it would be their last. In tribute to his connection with the race, Dick was named the Grand Marshal of the 2015 marathon. He died in 2021, aged 80. Rick died in May 2023.

Bandits
Unlike many other races, the Boston Marathon tolerated "bandits" (runners who do not register and obtain a bib number). They used to be held back until after all the registered runners had left the starting line, and then were released in an unofficial fourth wave. They were generally not pulled off the course and mostly allowed to cross the finish line. For decades, these unofficial runners were treated like local folk heroes, celebrated for their endurance and spunk for entering a contest with the world's most accomplished athletes. Boston Marathon race director Dave McGillivray was once a teenage bandit.

Given the increased field that was expected for the 2014 Marathon, however, organizers planned "more than ever" to discourage bandits from running. As of September 2015 the B.A.A. website states: Q: Can I run in the Boston Marathon as an unofficial or "bandit" runner? A: No, please do NOT run if you have not been officially entered in the race. Race amenities along the course and at the finish, such as fluids, medical care, and traffic safety, are provided based on the number of expected official entrants. Any addition to this by way of unofficial participants, adversely affects our ability to ensure a safe race for everyone.

Costumes
A number of people choose to run the course in a variety of costumes each year. During the 100th running in 1996, one runner wore a scale model of the Old North Church steeple on his back. Old North Church is where the signal was lit that set Paul Revere off on his midnight ride, which is commemorated each year on the same day as the Marathon. During the 2014 marathon, runners and spectators were discouraged from wearing "costumes covering the face or any non-form fitting, bulky outfits extending beyond the perimeter of the body," for security reasons following the 2013 bombing. However, state authorities and the Boston Athletic Association did not outright ban such costumes.

Ondekoza taiko drummers

Starting in the mid 1970s, members of Ondekoza, a group from Japan, would run the marathon and right after finishing the race would start playing their taiko drums at the finish line. They repeated the tradition several times in the 1970s and 1980s. The 700 lb drum would be set up at the finish line to encourage runners finishing the marathon. Bill Rodgers was a guest on Sado Island and ran marathons in Japan with Ondekoza members. The group also ran the New York City Marathon and Los Angeles Marathon, and ran 10000 mi of the perimeter of the United States from 1990 to 1993.

General reference

 * History of the Boston Marathon
 * Boston Marathon: What to Expect on Race Day
 * Boston Marathon Course Pace Band
 * Weather history
 * Course map and elevation
 * Course elevation
 * The 1918 Boston Marathon Military Relay
 * Course elevation
 * The 1918 Boston Marathon Military Relay

Photo and video stories

 * Boston Marathon Photos-2005
 * Boston Marathon Course Photos: Runner's View from Start to Finish

title: Boston Marathon


text:
Battle of Roundway Down

The Battle of Roundway Down was fought on 13 July 1643 at Roundway Down near Devizes, in Wiltshire during the First English Civil War. Despite being outnumbered and exhausted after riding overnight from Oxford, a Royalist cavalry force under Lord Wilmot won a crushing victory over the Parliamentarian Army of the West under Sir William Waller.

Viewed as their most decisive victory of the war, the Royalists secured control of South West England which they held until late 1645. Two weeks later they captured the port of Bristol, allowing them to establish links with supporters in Ireland.

Prelude
After the hard fought Battle of Lansdown, the Royalists withdrew from Lansdown to Marshfield, hoping to obtain reinforcements and supplies from their wartime capital of Oxford. They arrived in Chippenham on 7 July. Meanwhile, despite his retreat, Waller's army was largely intact after the battle and losses were quickly replaced by the Parliamentarian garrison in Bristol. Hopton's precarious position provided Waller an opportunity to crush him if he moved fast enough and Waller set out from Bath with 5,000 troops, reaching Chippenham on 9 July.

As the Parliamentarians approached, Hopton marched south to Devizes, followed by Waller who occupied Roundway Down, high ground approximately 2 kilometres north of the town. Short of materials and outnumbered, the Royalists agreed that Prince Maurice and 300 cavalry would break out and race to Oxford for reinforcements, leaving Hopton and the 3,000 Cornish foot to hold Devizes. Departing at midnight on 10 July, Maurice reached Oxford next morning; most of the Royalist field army was absent but Lord Wilmot assembled 1,500 cavalry, then set out for Devizes with Maurice and his men.

Siege of Devizes
On 11 July, Waller brought his army down from Roundway Down and deployed them on the east side of Devizes. To support an attack, he set up an artillery battery within range of the town on Coatefield Hill. Stalling for time, Hopton asked for and received a truce to allow time for negotiations. Overnight as the Parliamentarians waited for Hopton’s response, their cavalry intercepted and captured a Royalist convoy of gunpowder and ammunition that had previously been dispatched to resupply Hopton after the Battle at Lansdowne. Many of their escort escaped but 200 were captured along with the wagons.

On the morning of 12 July, Waller ended talks and began an assault, first bombarding the town with artillery before his infantry attacked the outworks and fortifications. Despite hours of fierce hand-to-hand combat, at the end of the day the Royalists remained in control of Devizes. Early next morning, Wilmot's relief force neared Roundway Down, and as they did so fired several cannon to warn Hopton of their approach. Waller now abandoned the siege and marched his force north to intercept them; reaching the high ground, the infantry and artillery were placed in the centre, with Waller commanding the cavalry on the left and Sir Arthur Haselrig the right.

Battle

The Royalist cavalry was divided into three brigades; as well as being in overall command, Wilmot led the brigade on the left, with Sir John Byron on the right, and the Earl of Crawford in reserve. Despite having ridden all night, Wilmot attacked immediately and caught Waller out of position, with Haselrig and his regiment of "London lobsters" in an exposed forward position. Haselrig tried to rally his men but withdrew when he saw Byron preparing to attack, and rejoined the rest of Waller's cavalry.

As Waller advanced down the hill, Byron continued his attack supported by Wilmot and the Royalist reserve under Crawford; with their infantry unable to fire for fear of hitting their own men, the Parliamentarian cavalry were swept from the field. Pursued by the Royalists, some of them rode over the edge of a 300 ft steep precipice and into an area that became known as "the Bloody Ditch".

Now isolated and with 3,000 Royalists from Devizes advancing against their rear, Waller ordered his infantry into defensive squares and began withdrawing towards the northwest. After approximately an hour, Byron’s cavalry returned from their pursuit and captured the Parliamentarian artillery which they turned on the retreating enemy, quickly causing them to break apart. Fleeing in all directions, many were cut down by Wilmot's men; Waller and the remnants of his cavalry escaped toward Bristol, leaving the remainder to surrender.

Aftermath
The Parliamentarian army in the west was virtually wiped out, with losses estimated to be as many as 600 killed and 1,200 captured, along with their artillery, wagons, gunpowder, ammunition, and supplies. In his letter reporting the victory, Byron lists Royalist losses as "very few killed, but many hurt", although this applies only to officers and other "gentlemen". Arguably the most comprehensive Royalist victory of the war, it secured the south-west and less than two weeks later they captured the vital port of Bristol, allowing them to establish links with their supporters in Ireland.

The battle was an outstanding victory for the Royalists; despite travelling over 60 kilometres directly onto the battlefield, 1,800 cavalry defeated a superior force of 5,000 including cavalry, infantry, and artillery. They were helped by the high quality of Wilmot's force, which contained some of the most experienced units in the Royalist army, and the "deplorable tactics" employed by Haselrig, who awaited Wilmot's charge at the halt, hoping their carbine fire would drive them off. This was a mistake commonly made by Parliamentarian cavalry leaders in the early stages of the war. Conversely, Waller’s reputation as a military leader suffered because of the loss, even though historians claim that his leadership at both Lansdowne and Roundway Down was without fault.

The village of Roundway is today a small hamlet 2 kilometres north of Devizes with a population of approximately 25 residents. Discussions regarding permanent burial sites for those who lost their lives in the battle are under consideration today.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Battle of Roundway Down


text:
Talk:Individual and group rights

This article fails to compare individual rights to group rights
Because it has no meat about group rights, though reference #1 is good and meaty. The article is almost entirely libertarian POV. How the Philosophies section can omit Raz is beyond me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhuben (talk • contribs) 13:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

better to let a criminal go free; than to execute an innocent
"People who argue that individual rights are more important than social control are called, "individual rights advocates". This school of thought holds that it is better to let a criminal go free; than to execute, imprison, or otherwise punish an innocent person." is the bugers in ur nose Is this actually true? I don't think any "individual rights advocates" actually believe that fairly sentenxed criminals should go unpunished, although the majority probably believe that criminals should certainly not be executed, regardless of their crimes. Does the author have any evidence for to support this? -- Axon

You are reading it wrong, advocates of individual rights do not believe that criminals should go unpunished. It is the question of fairness which leads to the debate itself, as we can never be sure what is truly fair, we must inevitably error in one direction or the other. Individual rights advocates say its better that we error in favor of setting criminals free, than convict innocent people in an attempt to ensure we also convict all the criminals. In essence, individual rights advocates interpret "reasonable doubt" very broadly.Shino Baku

I understand what the author is trying to get at, I just question the veracity. Do individual rights advocates really consider themselves in this way (in which case some supporting evidence would be useful) or, as I think, is this more how they are viewed by their opponents? If so it seems to me that this is bias and would be better placed elsewhere in the article in a 'opponents criticise individual rights advocates because...' type sentence. -- Axon

Its not criticism. Its better to set criminals free than imprison innocent people. The rights of the individual to due process and justice are more important than the "rights" of the state to impose its laws. Shino Baku

I appreciate what is being said may not necessarily a criticism and what you are trying to say. What I'm asking is 'is this claim really true for the majority of individual rights advocates?' and 'what evidence is there to support this?' The claim may well be true, but I would just like verification one way or the other. -- Axon

Definition of individual rights
What is your definiton of individual rights? Shino Baku

The same as everyone else's: that they are the rights an individual has, such as a right to privacy, anonymity, etc., that trump the rights of the state. I suppose, and this is what I assume you're getting at, that such rights allow some guilty individuals to walk free at the expense of protecting everyone's individual rights. However, I would contest this view and argue that police already have enough powers to convict the guilty successfully, and that the ratio of guilty to innocent people walking away from a court of law does not actually change that much with increased police powers at the expense of individual rights. Of course, I'm neither an individual rights advocate nor an expert in the field. Which is why I ask for proof of that 'individual rights' advocates see themselves in this way. -- Axon

If Im given the freedom to board an airline without being searched for a gun, wouldn't you think it reasonable to conclude that by allowing me to have increased freedoms, one is also allowing criminals to have increased freedom? Whenever one advocates increased individual rights, one is arguing that the loss of that right is worse than extending that right to criminals. If I argue that all citizens should be allowed to own an assault rifle, I am arguing that although potential criminals will then be able to own an assault rifle, I would rather let the criminals have that freedom, than lose that freedom myself.

As Jeremy Bentham said:

 * "Every law is an infraction of liberty"

Shino Baku

I appreciate the logic Shino, but I would still like evidence backing up the assertion that individual rights advocates really see themselves in this way. Otherwise, this is just opinion dressed up as fact. The logic does not necessarily follow in all cases. For example, the right to privacy is often claimed to make it harder to catch criminals, but I've often heard privacy rights advocates disclaim this. -- Axon

Right, but those are privacy rights advocates, we are dealing specifically with individual rights advocates. Now granted, the statement in question is a POV and thus not necessarily correct, for example, I would not necessarily agree that we must extend individual rights to allowing personal ownership of nuclear weapons on the grounds that the loss of these individual rights is a greater "crime" than any possible crime that could be committed by a criminal who is given these rights.

Naturally, privacy rights advocates have a vested interest in maintaining a POV in which they argue that increased individual rights are not only good, but they won't even result in increased criminal behavior Perhaps someone even argues that increased privacy will result in more criminals being caught...because...I can't think of a reason why. Certainly, privacy rights is a subbranch of individual rights and you will find people who argue, "Yes, increased privacy will make it easier for criminals to operate in secrecy; however, the ill effects of those criminal actions will NOT equal the ill effects of curtailing privacy rights." This latter argument being exactly what is expressed in the article.

Perhaps most importantly, which is why I do hope I find you a source, the expression regarding "It is better to set a criminal free, than imprison an innocent man" is not merely an extrapolation of individual rights theory, but its some kind of actual quote from somewhere. The idea essentially is, if we remove enough individual rights, we can have a police state and arrest everybody, and thus arrest all the criminals; but, it is better to arrest nobody and arrest none of the criminals (than to arrest everybody). Shino Baku

Kubigula offered a definition that seems like original research:

 * "Individual rights" identify limits of how one individual may interact with another in society. Individual rights are distinct from human rights as the possession of these rights does not depend on humanness as the source of authority, but rather the actions of the individual.

I have never heard that definition before. By the standard def, individual rights do depend on humanness. Furthermore, the distinction between individual rights and human rights has to do with positive rights or minimal benefits. Individual rights don't include positive rights or benefits; human rights do (cf: UN Declaration of Rights). So I changed the def to the following normal definition:

 * "Individual rights" are the rights of individuals by virtue of their humanness, i.e. their nature as sentient beings. Individual rights provide principles to delimit the interaction of individuals in society with respect to personal interactions and the distribution of goods and services. Individual rights are sometimes held to be distinct from human rights, because the latter class is often considered to include human goods and benefits (positive rights) rather than rights proper (negative rights.) Individual rights are an individual's moral claim to freedom of action. Such rights may be respected or recognized by others for reasons of reciprocity, contract, pragmatism, or as a moral imperitive.

PhilLiberty 06:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Americentric definition
I've just taken a quick look at the page and this discussion. I do not really this discussion is getting to the heart of the problem with this article in that the concept of individual rights is contested outside the United States (once again a Americentric Wikipedia entry). As you will see in recent edits I have done on Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Freedom of speech (Canada) there are many countries (developed out of the United Nations System) that see collective rights as being a necessary balance against individual rights. I have only briefly touched upon these topics but there is a large literature out there on these issues. As far as the quote is concerned there are some famous criminal scholars who have said similar quotes I will try and dig one up in my spare time. it has come up again lately in discussions about DNA evidence uncovering so many convicted felons that were really innocent victims of sloppy police work. Alex756

I'm not sure that the following is true......

 * Despite the fact that fair trials and open-ended tolerance of dissent may have costs no less significant than food or homes, the United States and other countries maintained that there was a definite moral difference between their traditional negative rights and the more intervention and distribution-focused positive rights.

First of all, enough though positive rights aren't in much evidence in U.S. Federal constitutional law, there are a lot of state constitutions which contain positive rights (i.e. a judicially enforcable right to public education). Second, even though its not in U.S. constitutional law, the notion of positive rights is not absent from U.S. political dialogue. One of FDR's four freedoms is freedom from want. Finally, most conservatives and libertarians that I know don't believe that negative rights are morally superior to positive rights. The belief is that only by the protection of negative rights can there be the prosperity that makes positive rights possible. -- User:Roadrunner

Why no mention of God-given rights in this article? Isn't that the foundation of the belief of individual rights? That they are given to man by God? The Declaration of Independence makes reference to this belief and the Bill of Rights enumerates it.--[Bogart]

 * "Americancentric" human rights are not described at all by this article. This article does not describe the fundamental human rights of Americans under the United States, which are profoundly different than those described. For this reason, some disclaimer should be inserted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 07:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

 * That would be unnecessary. That would give undue emphasis on "American-centric" definition whereas the US is not the only country in the world. __earth (Talk) 10:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

 * "granted by government" is wrong for the United States and most likely anywhere. When a "right" is granted by government, it's not really a right, but an "entitlement" temporarily "granted" by those who currently hold power. A right is more fundamental than an entitlement. "America-centric" problem is a non-starter with me. If you're going to have an article titled "individual rights", then you can't have a definition that is clearly wrong somewhere. Given that the US is THE country founded on liberal philosophy, with individual rights strongly encoded into basic Constitutional guarantees, it would be dead wrong to try to write an article in denial of the "American" concept. I would caution against "balancing" the article by trying to distort it to an average with countries that lack individual rights in their political structure. Of course there are those who "disagree" with indivudal rights - but that doesn't mean that the definition of individual rights tends towards the opposite Marxist collective concept of "justice". Rogerfgay 10:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed Paragraph
I removed the following from the page:

 * Conversely, adherents of socialist and communist philosophies sometimes argue for a few restrictions on negative rights if they provide a significant increase in positive rights. This line of thought was also popular in the 1950s and 1960s in some communist states. However in the 1980s, it appeared that judged from their own standard of providing positive rights (such as the right to economic prosperity), those governments appeared lacking, and this was a major factor in the collapse of many such regimes in the late 1980s. Contemporary communists and socialists point to the corruption that existed in those countries (resulting from their lack of democracy) as the main cause of their failure to deliver positive rights to their citizens. While the Soviet Union collapsed, the democratic socialist systems that put a similar emphasis on positive rights, but without neglecting negative rights, (i.e. nations such as the Scandinavian countries) prospered.

This paragraph is hopelessly POV. Not everyone believes the distiction between positive and negative rights is valid. Also what counts as socialist and communist, and what they believe is a complex issue. There is no justification given for saying that some communist states held this POV. The word some is evasive, and non-concreate. Why the Soviet Union collapsed is another complex issue, which can be debated at great lengths. To say that a country has prospered because of its emphasis on "positive rights" is also debatable.

I also removed the following:

 * The idea that economic prosperity overrides negative rights was also used to justify right wing East Asian regimes in the 1960s and is still used by the government of the People's Republic of China to justify its political system.

This seems questionable, but is ok if one might find a reference. I don't know how much creedence the idea of positive/negative rights is given outside of American right-wing circles. millerc 07:35, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Focus of Article wrong
This is a very bizarre entry.

I think the entire focus of this article is wrong. Rather than defining what individual rights are and the different ways that they are defined and applied, it makes unsubstantiated assertions about what proponents of individual rights believe. Interesting definitions can be found in U.N. Charters and the U.S. Constitution, including providing instances where such rights are grossly violated.

All liberals who believe in individual rights agree that they must balanced. The old adage says that your right to extend your arm ends at my nose. Laws are needed not to hold up the state in and of itself, but to ensure and harmony among individuals with different interests but with the same rights. Since criminals grossly violate the individual rights of others, they go to jail. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.42.124.32  (talk • contribs)   13:45, 11 February 2006.

"In practice, no Canadian government has ever chosen to face the political consequences of actually overriding the Charter."

This is false. Firstly, you need to refer to the "Notwithstanding Clause" by name. Secondly, it has been invoked several times by several provincial governments.

This article is badly flawed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.42.124.32  (talk • contribs)   13:51, 11 February 2006.

This article is a big bunch of crap and really is just gobbledy gook.

Templates
This thing has way too many templates. Whoever came up with the sidemounted list template instead of the bottom template should be tickled under his soles for eternity. Joffeloff 22:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree'd 68.161.214.170 01:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

UN Declaration of Human rights
I want to substantially alter the paragraph about the UN declaration of human rights. The UN declaration of human rights is not a statement about individual rights, it is a human rights issue meaning they describe both individual rights and rights that can only be issued by government and are not contingent on duties to be performed by the individual. Mrdthree 11:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK so I will. Human rights are not individual rights. Mrdthree 19:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

cluttering boxes
Don't you think think that those boxes on rights, liberalism and conservatism are cluttering the article's page? __earth (Talk) 07:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Gathering sources
Lets slowly gather names and addresses of sources for ibdividual rights here. Mrdthree 10:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC) OK so my reading of current usage is that 'individual rights' are held by some to be moral rights and others to be a bundle of moral and legal rights. IN particular libertarian/individualist strains hold individual rights to be moral rights and the ABA Section on Individual Rights talks about the advancement of human rights, civil liberties, and social justice. Mrdthree 09:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC) I guess the next thing is to go to AMazon and look at the thesis of books with the phrase in the title.Mrdthree 09:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC).
 * OK going down the Amazon List, searching books for "individual rights"sampling text using google books. Top six returns are textbooks that arent searchable.Mrdthree 10:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "FIRE’s GUIDE TO DUE PROCESS AND FAIR PROCEDURE ON CAMPUS" by Harvey A. Silverglate, Josh Gewolb.RELEVANT EXCERPTS: "FIRE’s mission is to defend, sustain, and restore individual rights at America’s colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience—the essential qualities of civil liberty and human dignity. FIRE’s core goals are to protect the unprotected against repressive behavior and partisan policies of all kinds, to educate the public about the threat to individual rights that exists on our campuses, and to lead the way in the necessary and moral effort to preserve the rights of students and faculty to speak their minds, to honor their consciences, and to be treated honestly, fairly, and equally by their institutions."Mrdthree 11:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Enforcing Equality: Congress, the Constitution, and the Protection of Individual Rights" by Rebecca Zietlow (Author). Toledo Law School. COMMENT: Doesnt define individual rights or discuss more than 2 examples. Cites "Steve Clark" and argues against unversalizable human rights in favor of relativistic human rights. Says politics reduces to belongingness rights, which are rights of inclusion granted to minorities by the majority to participate in political, economic and social institutions and goods. OPINION: dont include mention.Mrdthree 10:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 9-13 unsearcheable textbooks. " Individual Rights Reconsidered: Are the Truths of the U.S. Declaration of Independence Lasting?". Tibor Machan (Ed.). COMMENT: Famous libertarian theorist.Searchability minimal, dont feel like summarizing .Contributors: Ronald Hamowy, Tibor R. Machan, Eric Mack, Tom G. Palmer, Douglas B. Rasmussen.Mrdthree 11:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think thats enough for Amazon. Suffice to say the best sellers in individual rights are law school textbooks, save a few recent essays. Mrdthree 11:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I will look at Amazon uK to see what is different.Mrdthree 16:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * AMAZON UK : Liberty, Right and Nature: Individual Rights in Later Scholastic Thought (Ideas in Context): Individual Rights in Later Scholastic Thought."Annabel S. Brett (Au) and Quentin Skinner;Lorraine Daston;Dorothy Ross;James Tully(Eds).. COMMENTS: critiques claim that individual rights originate in the equivalence of the Latin concepts of ius and dominium in the 13-14th century. Ius is normative (ought) and dominium is practical sovereign power (and force). Problem is she talks about subjective and objective rights being historical components of individual rights. I guess the summary is one ought not hinder subjective rights (of the will), and one ought to do objective right (be just to one another). QUOTES: "natural law as right as the object of justice ('objective rights')", "right as a faculty or liberty of the individual ('subjective right')","the primary dominium a man has is that which he has over his own will". "If a man renounces it, he annhiliates himself".OPINION: great.Mrdthree 16:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * great number of childrens books and US law textbooks and then Rebecca Zietlow book, tibor machan book and at #30 A Life of One's Own: Individual Rights and the Welfare State. David Kelley .COMMENT: objectivist thinker. SUMMARY: Individual rights as liberty rights or welfare rights. "Liberty rights protect the individual's freedom from interference by others, including the government. Welfare rights, by contrast, are based on a concept of positive freedom". "Liberty rights are concerned with the processes by which we interact. Welfare rights are concerned with the outcomes." Mrdthree 17:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * CONCLUSIONS OF SOURCING: Major sources for popular understanding of individual rights are the real politics of legal text books, classical individual rights theorists, libertarian (some left, some right), and objectivist thinkers. Mrdthree 17:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and vague
This article appears to be NPOV (a POV that I agree with, but nevertheless) and somewhat vague on what exactly individual rights are.

In the first paragraph it distinguishes them from from both civil rights (itself a term of multiple meanings, so no help there), from legal rights (which would identify them with natural rights), from group rights (which I would hold the proper antonym of individual rights to be), and from privileges (which all rights are contrasted with, not just individual rights).

I propose that this article be focused to concentrate on the opposite of group rights, since the distinction from privileges is redundant due to this being an article about rights in the first place, we already have articles on natural rights and legal rights establishing that distinction (and both legal rights and natural rights can theoretically be of either individual or group nature), and civil rights has several different meanings, the relevant one here seeming to be synonymous with legal rights, regarding which see previous.

Furthermore, in the second paragraph this article claims that only negative rights are "rights proper". While I am of a libertarian bent myself and would deny that anyone has any natural positive rights, on a purely theoretical and conceptual level positive rights are still a form of right, and there most certainly are positive legal rights "proper".

I'm going to go ahead and clean up this article a bit later today, but if anyone has any problems, here is my justification. -Pfhorrest (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This page, "Individual Rights" is in the midst of Anarchy. Wiki Rule of Law: Hard solid definitions please, sighted by sources that are actually defining Natural Rights. Origins. History. Failures. Present state of affairs. The Talk page is not only not a forum, but the wiki article should not be a personal philosophical journy for some among you who appear to want to rule the world. Clean this page up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki truth enlighten (talk • contribs) 07:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Merger with Group rights
I propose that this article be merged with Group rights in a manner mirroring negative and positive rights and claim rights and liberty rights. They still seem largely redundant to me. For example, both include a first section on "Western discourse" which look like derivatives of the same original paragraph, and both contain an "Objectivist view" section which as far as I can tell are identical between the two articles. The majority of the remainder of both articles seem to be discussing how group rights differ from individual rights or vice versa. Thoughts? --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Source problems
In one of the sources, the one by Peter Jones, his name goes to a disambiguation page. Is that because we don't know which Peter Jones it is, or because Wikipedia doesn't have a page on him, or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.67.61.102 (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, source #4 is a dead link.

British reverse discrimination claims
At the moment the article says "the British government [2] seeks to favour historically disadvantaged groups at the expense of members of a historically dominant group in the areas of university admissions or employment.[3] ". That assertion is a) not backed up by the sources cited, which say nothing about UK universities and are just dictionary definitions from US dictionaries (bizarrely) and b) is untrue in any case (as I understand the issue - correct me if I'm wrong).

I would propose to delete the sentence I quoted unless someone can provide a citation that actually confirms the statement. Any thoughts? Luzzy fogic (talk) 11:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Removing incoherent sentences
While reading the "Philosophies" section of the article I came upon the following words: "Interceding within that spectrum for the actual availing of collective governance to be allotted systematization and their undivided agency, but relegated for the regulation of such freedom toward constructed entities is the federative process. A faculty of federalism that lends to relative de-standardization of governance under its auspices, unlike libertarian or socialistic manners of state. Federated structures allow for diversity of power distribution between the alternating group and individual interest schemata where neither liberal nor collective type governing alone can codify in variation." OK, those three quote-unquote "sentences" do not make a lick of sense. I am removing them from the article. Qdiderot (talk) 10:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

This article is a disaster.
I cannot believe this is an actual article. The only one wikipedia has on collective rights. The current contents of this article are: (1) a summary sentence cribbed from a philosophical encyclopedia. (2) A section stating only that collective rights are those held by minority groups based on immutable features and organizations. Which I find doubtful. and (3) a philosophy section that consists of a "classical liberal" and "right libertarian" perspective on the role of government, Which I'm 90% sure don't actually agree with each other, a summary of Ayn Rand's strange understanding of what rights are, and A paragraph on Adam Smith, that seems the least relevant of the three. I can't help but notice the extreme imbalance of perspectives here, even if I'm charitable enough to accept that the parts about "right libertarians" and Rand are accurate. And Rand somehow takes half the citations.

This is not even a stub article. 75.159.45.228 (talk) 05:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Adding on to this: It appears the more objectionable sections have been removed in the interim; but two works by Any Rand that are nowhere cited remain in the references section. And as a fiction novel, Atlas Shrugged has no reason to be there at all. The external link may also be a doubtful addition. I'll see about removing these atavisms in the morning. I agree the article could use a general overhaul.
 * N.B. I wonder how "individual vs. collective rights" relates to the problem in German jurisprudence of Individual- vs. Kollektivrechtsgüter (≈ individual vs. collective legal goods). It's probably the same issue, but on a different metatheoretical level. I'd have to look into it.
 * §§ LegFun §§ talk §§ 23:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

europe and international laws
Even if countries of europe, and the world have signed for the protection of individual human rights, and all conventions protecting handicaps and childrens, we can constate that they didn't remove the laws made by humans before that conteract those humans rights and protection. many decision that are also made by governments or instituion are made to control and keep people poor or under a certain level because everything is about economy.

The logic of a new world under humans right must be that laws that destroy humans right and freedom of individuality, must be remove and destroyed because wrong.

We also have to remind governments that slavery was abolish, and now also animals are protected when rare or when they move from the food chain to the pet status. It is there fore also illegal to remove right for humans to decide for themselve if they want to do something for their own person or body. no one kan decide for you, you only can give the persmission to give or do something that regard you, your person, your body your status, you time and so on.

The mening is that there is no consentment from your side if a country or an institution, or a groupe of person want to administrate your life your organs, your time and so on. no laws justify the administrativ decision to registrer you without your consent first, and not the opposite.

Also if any decision that is from other make your life in danger, economicaly or psychologicaly, or physicaly you have the right to say no before they do so not after.

so it doesn't matter if this is about health, organs, work time, money, freedom. remember those who want to change the laws to enslave other are already enjoying time payed by the systems and they must not remove the same right that they enjoy from the new generations.

international humans right watch and protection, what are you doing about it that is the big question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.238.206.130 (talk) 08:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Article fails to give a single example of a collective right
... or to explain how a right can be exercised at all if no individual is able to exercise it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.131.1.130 (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Individual and group rights