Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:32, 5 June 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human rights in the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 21 days

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 February 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human rights in the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 21 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Prison abuse photos to be released

More prison abuse photos to be released next month. Pexise (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like these will be photos from criminal investigations. I wouldn't expect to see any activities that the U.S. military had sanctioned.

It will be worth watching more to study the people who claim to oppose torture. We'll have to see how they run with it. I don't see how it applies to this article but we'll definitely need to get more names. Sadly, that BBC link only names Amrit Singh, who we already know.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, like this quote:

The ACLU says the photos show that the much-publicised abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq amounted to a specific policy. "These photographs provide visual proof that prisoner abuse by US personnel was not aberrational but widespread, reaching far beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib," said ACLU lawyer Amrit Singh.

Pexise (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

And just what do you expect her to say? She's a lawyer for the other side. It's her job to spin things that way. This is what she gets paid to do.

Perhaps you don't realize, when it comes to Abu Ghraib (which I guess is where most of these pictures will be from), the descriptions of this material are already out there as part of the investigations that were made public (e.g. Fay Report). They've been public for years.

Pictures from other investigations may come more as a surprise, but only because nobody paid attention to those cases before.

With over one million troops having been in Iraq over the years, some criminal abuse is inevitable. That should be common sense. It was the same way in WWII. Louis Till (Emmett Till's father) was convicted and executed as a soldier for his crimes against civilians. There was no "specific policy" involved in that either (no matter what any amoral ACLU lawyer might have said). The Army has been even more diligent in prosecuting them today than they were in WWII (although they haven't executed anyone yet).

This is actually what happened to Abu Ghraib. The Army prosecuted that one immediately but most of the people who claim to care about human rights ignored it until after the pictures came out. But I don't think it'll work out the same way again. They'll try, though, and that'll be intereresting to see.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• What do you mean by "lawyer for the other side"?
• The photos are from Iraq and Afghanistan. Pexise (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, first, it's obvious that she is taking sides. Just look at the quote you cited. If the abuse does reach "far beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib" then how far does it go?

Just think about it: What evidence does she have to say that, which the Democrats in Congress did not have when they pursued this? They've had access to all these pictures for years with plenty of motivation to pin this on the Bush administration if they could.

Clearly, she is speaking with authority she is does not have. I seriously doubt that she has even seen the pictures, and yet she is taking an adversarial position rather than an investigative one. There is no other way to explain this than that she is taking sides. Again, what has she seen that the Democrats did not see?

And yes, I know the pictures are from both theaters. That's why I've addressed "Pictures from other investigations" in my previous post.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• None of that is concern to us. If she is considered a credible source by the BBC, then she can be quoted in the article. Regardless, let's wait and see what comes out of this one, and add any relevant material to the article when the photos have been released. Pexise (talk) 09:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not much of a concern because this isn't really the right article to address this.

That being said, the BBC considered her a source because she's directly involved in the case against the U.S. government. That makes her a person of interest only in the same manner that a mass murderer's attorney would be. It doesn't mean she's credible or non-biased.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Photo release cancelled:

• In reversal, Obama seeks to block abuse photos, Jennifer Loven, AP, May 13, 2009

President Obama's announcement pretty much confirms my previous comments, and contradicts the ACLU's statement:

"This is not a situation in which the Pentagon has concealed or sought to justify inappropriate action," Obama said of the photos. "In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger."

In other words, it's from criminal investigations by the DoD. The ACLU lawyer was blowing smoke when she tried to pretend the photos show that the much-publicised abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq amounted to a specific policy.

If it was really a specific policy, it would have been covered up, and not prosecuted. This lawyer needs to be remembered.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Rockstone35 added a NPOV tag to the article. What exactly is NPOV? (And I very much disagree with using (minor) when adding such a tag). Dendlai (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

We had a discussion about this earlier, with no rationale offered for the addition of tags (see Conflict of Interest, Neutrality, and Factual Accuracy tags above). Pexise (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't actually mean to add "minor" to the tag, I used a program. Anyway, there is a rational for it, being the disputes seen on this talk page. There IS evidence that this is biased against the US (though, for defense of this article, an article about human rights with any country tends to be negative). --Rockstone35 (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you list some specific issues, please? This is, obviously, a topic that evokes strong opinions. Wading through the talk pages for this article would be a tedious and probably frustrating task; so could you list some specific issues that you see? Dendlai (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

One memorable problem is the question of when something becomes part of the human rights record of the U.S.

If an American soldier commits a crime not authorized or encouraged by the government, and the prosecution begins immediately, in what way does that belong here? To do so would mean that every substantial military intervention is virtually guaranteed to merit inclusion here -- including those engaged solely on behalf of human rights.

And if it does belong here, then why shouldn't Louis Till be listed as well?

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• It belongs in the article if it is a recognised human rights violation, such as torture, and/or if it is referred to by a source as a human rights violation. Don't forget that the US government is responsible for ensuring that it's agents (e.g. the military, the police, the CIA) do not commit human rights violations such as torture - something discussed at length in previous discussions.

• Also, as well as specific violations, this article deals with the general human rights record of the US and issues concerning the US and human rights (e.g. treaty ratifications, role in promoting and protecting human rights, historical participation in landmarks in human rights development such as the UDHR). Pexise (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Do other human rights articles discuss marginal criminal activities by individuals? I don't see it.

Yes, the U.S. is responsible for the acts of its soldiers, and that's why they've been prosecuted. But marginal criminal activity is simply that. Marginal criminal activity may be notable to specific articles where critics want to pretend to care about human rights, but it has no place in a general article like this one. In fact, it appears that the forthcoming photos are all from those cases that other countries might have swept under the rug.

Then what about Louis Till? Going by your standards, what justification would there be to exclude him from this article?

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• What are you referring to specifically? If you are referring to the material on Abu Ghraib, that is included because pronouncements and statements have been made my numerous human rights organisations including the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Pexise (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean regarding my position that many of America's critics don't really care about human rights?

Just look at that UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Perhaps he is, personally, a nice guy, but that position is influenced by the GA, which includes some of the worst regimes on earth. Even a good man would be stifled by its bureaucracy. Have you heard of their recent "anti-racism" conference? What kinds of "human rights" concerns could ever be expected to come out of that mess? It's only natural that anti-Americanism would get a high profile there, and the crimes of our enemies a much lower one.

To be fair, the quote we have from the guy is very guarded. He didn't try to claim that the goings-on at Abu Ghraib were a deliberate policy of the U.S. government. (And that's why Abu Ghraib doesn't belong here unless to show that the U.S. military does investigate and prosecute its own.)

But the bottom line is still, if the U.N. cared about human rights to the degree that they should, they'd have worked harder to stop real human rights abuses committed by their friends. As for the others, while I hope Amnesty and HRW are still sincere at their core, they continue to avert their eyes to the misdeeds of their friends. But you don't have to take my word for this. Just look at when they claim to care about human rights, and when they turn silent.

And what about Louis Till? It's an interesting parallel in that the facts of his crimes were also exploited by the worst political interests.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Who are these so-called "friends"? Pexise (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Can you provide an example of a country that the UNOHCHR and other human rights organisations are silent on to back up your claims? Pexise (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd have thought the "anti-racism" conference explains a lot about the U.N., but here's something more pertinent: Sanctioning Human Wrongs.

The so-called "human rights" activists are often silent when bold moves could make a real difference. For example, most of these "anti-war" demonstrations include factions from the far left (many are organized by those extreme groups). The participants include friends of Hamas, Hezbollah, and FARC.

This one included supporters of Al-Sadr, who, as you must know, has been part of the reason the Iraq war lasted so long. (This wasn't an isolated incident; they've long had a presence at these things.) That links to another article about the discovery of one of their torture chambers. Their friends don't bother with anything so tame as waterboarding.

The problem isn't simply that they befriend the wrong people. The real trouble is that some of these left-wing protestors aren't bad people. They might not be supporting war and real torture if groups like HRW and Amnesty could dare to call them on it. Instead, they choose not to -- probably a fundraising decision.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• What have groups of protesters in the US got to do with this discussion? There is no logic to your argument here.
• Your link to the *Sanctioning human wrongs article* mentions that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights attended a conference in Tehran of the Non-Aligned Movement. The Commissioner attends countless conferences all over the world - there is nothing unusual about this.
• Neither the OHCHR, Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch have refrained from highlighting and criticising human rights violations in Iran, eg: HRW page on Iran - hundreds of links to reports and statements; Amnesty International page on Iran - hundreds of statements about human rights violations in Iran here; Press releases from the UN Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights; Other statements from UN OHCHR on Iran; reports from the UN Human Rights Treaty bodies on human rights in Iran
• Not what I would describe as "silence". Pexise (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, HRW has reports on Iran. Do you think the Iranian leaders take that seriously, knowing that HRW has one on the U.S., too?

Look, I've always been willing to say that HRW and Amnesty do some good work. But filing reports is fine for an otherwise quiet think tank. HRW and Amnesty are much more than that. They have access to the eyes of millions of people who'd like to say they care about human rights -- and that's exactly what the protestors have to do with this.

I shouldn't need to tell you that mobilizing public opinion is an important function of these "human rights" organizations. Those protestors like to call themselves a Second Superpower. They can sometimes influence U.S. policy. Saddam Hussein had fully expected them to stop the invasion of Iraq outside Baghdad.

Yes, they can stop CIA from waterboarding (for a while, at least). When are they going to stop torture everywhere else? They have a bias.

You asked, who are these so-called friends, and you did me a favor by pointing out the NAM.

The only business a true human rights advocate might have with the NAM is to ask them that they start caring about human rights. Somehow, I just don't think her meetings with Dick Cheney would have gone the same way. It's fine to be cordial but not pliant.

So, to summarize, people are judged by when they choose to speak up, and by the company they keep. There's no way of getting around this.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm starting to doubt the seriousness of your complaints about these sources, but if you really are serious, why don't you take it up on the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Pexise (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

We were not discussing sources here. If we were, I'd say they're useful as long as let the reader know who said it.

But we were discussing when something is worthy of mention in a general article about human rights in the U.S. And we still haven't heard your position on Louis Till and why that does or doesn't belong here as much as you think Abu Ghraib does.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Quit deleting my tags, There is rationale.

• This article is always going to have bias, and any article that has bias should have a NPOV tag.
• Amnesty International is not always a reliable source in an article about this in the same way a Nazi is not a reliable source for information about the holocaust, both would have biases.
• The USA has traditionally had an excellent human rights record. While throughout history, the USA has had numerous "questionable" human rights activities, its bad activities is only 1% of all of it's human rights. This article harps on the 1% instead of the 99%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstone35 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is always going to have bias, and any article that has bias should have a NPOV tag. Thank you for stating your intentions. Apparently you're not looking to improve what the article says, you just think it should have an NPOV tag. Your actions, while no doubt meant in good faith, are clearly disruptive. Please stop. Dlabtot (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• What is supposed reason for the NPOV tag? Could someone please tell me one specific issue with the article in terms of POV? Then, we can address that issue. If there are others, we can address them one by one. Till there are none left. Dlabtot (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• The tag continues to be added with no reason given. It is also being added using a programme so it doesn't show up on watchlists etc., otherwise I would delete it straight away. No specific reason or content has ever been offered for why the article is not NPOV. Some editors disagree that there should be any criticism of the US human rights record on Misplaced Pages, and to they add the NPOV tag for that reason. Pexise (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

'Sigh', I think it's time for my two cents. I agree with those who say the article is NPOV, but for different reasons. Namely, the article has a serious problem with Undue Weight. There is a MUCH heavier emphasis on the human right abuses, but there is also a much heavier emphasis on current events. The United States of America have been around for 200 hundred years, but the bulk of the article has to do with very recent events. Having an entire section devoted to Hurricane Katrina is like having an entire section devoted to Kent State. Also, it's fairly obvious that many of the sections of the article, namely Hurricane Katrina and Justice system and to a lesser extent Health Care, are entirely devoted to criticism of the United States. And what's with the Obama quote at the end of the Guantanemo section? It's vague, there's no context, it's just out of place. Joker1189 (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: the Obama quote - check the source: Obama is referring to the period the US has just gone through when torture was legitimised and practiced as government policy. Pexise (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the Obama quote is rather quaint. It also has great potential for irony as more of the people who like to claim they oppose "torture" start to accuse him of it, too.

The Hurricane Katrina section isn't the worst we've got but it's always been off the rails. Those "shoot to kill" orders it mentions were never more than the Governor's attempt to appear tough. How many looters were actually shot? Besides that, looting wasn't even a federal issue. When it says, "the government was accused of overreacting" that implies it's the federal government, but it wasn't.

Even if it was sufficiently notable for this article, the shooting of looters has historically been the proper response in an emergency.

I'm tempted to believe the entire section was added as a parody.

If this article was serious, we should have more stuff on natural disasters. This is something that the U.S. excels at (which is why it's not covered here). Even in Katrina, the federal response was enormous, and the casualty count turned out to be far below what the computer models had projected. People complained for two reasons: 1) a huge toll was inevitable given the scale of the disaster; and 2) politicians and so-called "human rights" activists saw an opportunity to make hay. Had Katrina happened in another country, the death toll would have been much, much higher.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW: Pexise, we still haven't heard your position on Louis Till and why that does or doesn't belong here as much as you think Abu Ghraib does.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What is your case for including Louis Till? What is your source? Pexise (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

My position is that Louis Till would not belong here. His crime was a personal one, and he was prosecuted for it by the Army. It was definitely not part of the human rights policy of the U.S.

The trouble is, the same logic applies to the Abu Ghraib photo on this article. The guards' crimes were personal ones, and they were prosecuted for it by the Army. It was definitely not part of the human rights policy of the U.S.

So, why do you think that photo belongs here but not Louis Till?

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

SO why bring it up? There are many many sources on Abu Ghraib, if there are none saying Louis Till is a human rights issue, it doesn't belong here. Pexise (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Louis Till's crimes were indeed a human rights issue, but they weren't the policy of the U.S. The same reasoning applies to the crimes of the guards at Abu Ghraib.

I'm sure many critics of the U.S. claim that Abu Ghraib was an issue of U.S. policy, but the quotes and sources we have here don't explicitly say that. Bertrand Ramcharan's statement would be worth keeping if we had other information supporting it, but it does not make a firm judgment that the incident reflected U.S. policy.

That excerpt from HRW is way too ambigious for an article like this. It probably violates SYNTH, and if not, it comes perilously close. Besides that, it's mostly about other matters found at Abu Ghraib, and that doesn't support keeping the picture.

I can understand that a lot of America's critics, rivals, and opponents want to claim that that picture represents a direct link to a deliberate policy by the Bush administration. But if they're saying such a thing, I want their names -- and precisely where they stood in a war against fascism -- to be remembered so that they can't quietly take it back later. A nebulous linkage just isn't satisfactory.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Or, let me put it another way: If there are many sources claiming that the guards' crimes at Abu Ghraib were a matter of U.S. policy (which Louis Till's crimes clearly weren't), then let's use them instead of the ones you have here now.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

We have excellent human rights sources on Abu Ghraib, there are no grounds for your complaint. Pexise (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That's simply not true.

The only thing we've got related to that picture is that Bertrand Ramcharan says (in the ref) that "there have sadly been some violations of human rights committed by some coalition soldiers."

Again, that's no different than Louis Till. If you're going to say one incident was a "human rights" issue, and not another, it would be fascinating to read that rationale.

In fact, the source characterizes Ramcharan's statement as "an apparent reference to the incidents of abuse at Abu Ghraib". Apparent??? That's an extraordinarily weak link to the photo we're using.

If we drag that photo in here, let's get a real reference to an actual person saying it's related to U.S. human rights policy. We cannot use something so weak that it later allows the person who said it to weasel out after his sympathies change. And if we can't find such a source, then ditch the misleading NPOV photo until you do.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The title of the source you question is "UN Says Abu Ghraib Abuse Could Constitute War Crime". We have that source and also a photo of said abuse, to illustrate some of what is being discussed. I really don't know what you're getting at, but I'm beginning to think you're just trying to waste my, and other editors' time. Pexise (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"Could"? That's not saying the guards' actions were a "human rights issue" that the U.S. government has committed. Otherwise, you'll need to fully explain why Louis Till shouldn't be here. So far you've only danced around it. Or is it that you don't think his crimes were a human rights issue?

If you don't know what I'm getting at then I suggest you read more closely. It is you who's wasting our time by piling on garbage that has nothing to do with the human rights policy of the U.S.

I'll tend to this myself this weekend.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no question that it's a human rights issue, hence the pronouncements of the UNOHCHR and the lengthy report published by Human Rights Watch. The sources are there and there is nothing wrong with the content. Please cease your annoying and disruptive behaviour, you have no consensus to make significant changes, you are not the only editor working on this article, so don't think you can "tend to it yourself". Pexise (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain to us the difference between a criminal act committed on the individual level as opposed to an action based on official policy and which constitutes a "human rights violation"? If a soldier shoots a French citizen in Philadelphia, is this a criminal act or a "human rights violation"? Do you understand the difference yet? The article takes criminal acts on the individual level, and then makes a jump in logic that these were actions taken on the basis of official US policy. That is the point Randy is making.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I re-added the NPOV tag. I think, given the extensive talk page content, as well as the article itself, that this is more than warranted. Ideally, this article should be balanced and neutral. It does not even approach this level. I would also remind editors to keep their comments civil. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• I note that the NPOV tage has been removed with a note that a "consensus" reached a "conclusion" this this article is neutral. A consensus of one does not a consensus make. I will be readding the tag. Please attempt to reach a consensus of more than one person before removing the tag in the future. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• As a recap the following editors think the article in question is neutral: user:Dendlai and user:Pexise. The following editors think the article is not neutral: user:Randy2063, user:Rockstone35, user:Dlabtot (who asks for sepcific examples), user:Joker1189 and user:Yachtsman1. At this point, it might be a good time for us to come to a consensus on how the article might be improved to reach neutrality. Simply discounting or denying that this article is not neutral is not a healthy manner in which to proceed. I would suggest we begin with undue weight, and work our way from there. There should be pro and contra positions regarding America's human rights record, each provided weight and each written in a scholarly manner. If this can be achieved, I think we can reach a point of neutrality that can make everyone happy. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have re-added the NPOV tag. The neutrality of this article remains in dispute. Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have added this article to the NPOV noticeboard, and comments are welcome. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree the NPOV tag needs to stay. If Pexise can't describe why the guards at Abu Ghraib belong here, but Louis Till doesn't (and I don't believe either of them belong here) then we'd better work out some guidelines.

BTW: I haven't gotten around to altering it the way I think could meet standards, but I'll get that done when I have more time.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Please use short bullet points to briefly summarize why and where this article fails to be neutral. I'm sure there is room for improvement, but I would like to see specific examples in bullet form so I can address and fix them. Tags are used to show that something needs to be fixed. Please tell me what I can do to fix it, otherwise I'm going to remove the tag. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• It's a human rights issue when it results from government policy. In the case of Abu Ghraib, we have excellent human rights sources saying that it was the result of government policy, so it belongs here.
• If you have other sources saying that what took place there were not human rights violations, please add them. Pexise (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

List of those implicated in US torture policies

Can we get a list togehter of those implicated in approval of US torture policies? Condoleezza Rice has now been named Pexise (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised you didn't mention Dick Cheney. But I think we know only that he'd been briefed. He didn't technically have any authority to approve it or to stop it, although it's obvious he supports every legal measure in the fight against fascism. BTW: The statute referenced to make the earlier determination that it was legal at the time has not been rewritten (and probably won't be).

For names who did have some authority, and who could have stopped it if they truly wanted to, there's Nancy Pelosi, Jane Harman, Bob Graham, John D. Rockefeller IV, Porter J. Goss, and Pat Roberts.

Pelosi says she only knew it had been approved, and not that they had started using it. In other words, she's conceding she knew of it ahead of time. Like most people who claim to oppose torture, the louder they whine against it, the faster they'll slink away and say nothing when it's done on their behalf. This is why it's important that we remember where everyone stands -- particularly those who today claim to oppose torture.

In any case, Goss says everyone present had been very enthusiastic. We could get the full story if those transcripts are ever released, but (not surprisingly) Pelosi has not joined the call for that.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Might be worth adding that to the article. Pexise (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It's odd that CIA director George Tenet hasn't gotten more mention.

Well, maybe not that odd. He was a Clinton appointee, and a registered Democrat. That's probably why the people who claim to oppose torture are going after the lawyers who informed the CIA what the legal parameters were.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Randy2063, if you continue to use this talk page for partisan bickering instead of improving this article, I will file a report about you at ANI. Viriditas (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't "partisan bickering." Pexise isn't American. I'm sure this didn't alter his view of these particular politicians in one way or another. My comments were meant to illuminate the bias inherent in the press and commentary we see on this subject.

If you'll note, Pexise had asked for names, and I provided some he'd be less likely to have noticed. You might also note, I didn't debate his choice of the term "torture policies."

Before throwing stones, I suggest you take a closer look at your own contributions here.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of my contributions here, none of which are partisan. My only interest is in improving this article. If you want to help, great. But if you are just here to soapbox, take it somewhere else. Viriditas (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Is Fox News a reliable source on US Human Rights issues?

• Is Fox News a reliable source? Pexise (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that'd depend on the situation. If it's a talk or political commentary show, it would likely be questionable as a source (as any talk show, such as Lou Dobbs or Glen Beck on CNN, would be). If it's regarding an event that they cover on their regular news-casts, I don't think there would be any basis in saying it's less reliable than any other news program, however you could probably find another ("less polarizing") source for such "cookie cutter" news (ie CNN or the BBC). Are you disputing a particular reference? TastyCakes (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the use of this source, from the FNC website: Pexise (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Its fine. Yes, Fox News is often accused of a conservative bias. Virtually every American news source has been accused of bias, including CNN and MSNBC. We can't rule them all out. Unless you can point out anything wrong with the article in question, it should stay, unless you can find another source. Joker1189 (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Joker1189 (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that story looks like a reliable source to me. It refers to statements made by relevant people, and there's no basis for suspecting any of it is made up. TastyCakes (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think the article is in danger of recentism regarding this issue. TastyCakes (talk) 20:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree - I would like to see another source to back up these claims. Also, how reliable is an un-named US official? Pexise (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a good question, I don't know if Misplaced Pages has any guidelines regarding publications quoting unnamed sources. I suspect if anything it'll be something not particularly helpful, like it being decided on a case by case basis. TastyCakes (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've posted the question on the Reliable sources noticeboard. Conclusion so far is that "As for the Fox News article, I suppose there would be nothing wrong with using it to verify a statement that Fox News disagrees with the CIA about how many times the CIA waterboarded detainees." Pexise (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless your willing to not use sources from MSNBC and CNN, this whole discussion should end. --Rockstone35 (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. Quoting "an unnamed U.S. official" in a report attributed to FNC, is not aceptable, and does not meet the "reliable source" criteria by any stretch of the imagination. The statement and source should be removed. We do not quote "unnamed" officials in encyclopedia articles, and we most certainly do not use Fox News when we do. Viriditas (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Fox News has a vetting process for sources, and meets the standards for "reliable source" as defined under Misplaced Pages policy as a mainstream news organization. This is under discussion right now at . As the author should also note, reporters often do not "name" their sources, and when a NY Times Reporter went to jail for not naming hers, some thought it a "human rights" violation. I would suggest, rather than engage in this fruitless "subjective source" debate, you merely point out what countering sources said. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll add that the initial reports on waterboarding from ABCNews were from unnamed CIA personnel. If we're going to dispose of everything not linked to a named source then we have a lot of work to do throwing more things out.

Viriditas also added information from the Katrina section from the Institute for Southern Studies that he identifies as "a nonpartisan research center." Well, they may have to call themselves "nonpartisan" for tax reasons, but they're not unbiased by any stretch of the imagination. Their article calls them progressive. They're off-the-charts.

I'm not in favor of getting rid of those left-wing sources as long as they're identified. As I often say, I don't want these views to be forgotten the way the they've been allowed to disappear in the past.

People who don't think FoxNews can be used as a reliable source need to go to dKosopedia.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the source that is used, the business newspaper, New Orleans CityBusiness, calls the Institute for Southern Studies "nonpartisan". People who think that Fox News is considered a "reliable source" have the burden of proof to demonstrate that it meets the criteria, not only for Misplaced Pages, but for the topic itself. We do not inject disputed and controversial content based on anonymous sources into an encyclopedia, merely because a news outlet with a history of poor fact-checking and partisan bias says so. You need to find a second source that supports the material without relying on anonymity, and you need to show that the source is relevant to the topic. Viriditas (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Is Fox News a reliable source on US Human Rights issues? Those who claim it is need to show that the specific source in question meets the criteria. Please do so, now. Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. It is a mainstream media outlet with a vetting process and easily meets WP's definition on this basis. People who think that Fox News is not considered a "reliable source" have the burden of proof to demonstrate that it does not meet this criteria, not only for Misplaced Pages, but for the topic itself. If you have any facts aside from the arguments I have seen here showing it is not a reliable source, please provide them now. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but that's not how it works, nor is that the only criterion for inclusion. First, there is a great deal of evidence that suggests that Fox News is not reliable. Second, you need to be able to show that the author of the article is considered an authority on the topic. Third, the material in question should be easily verified in other news reports by competing media outlets. Fourth, the source cited in the article is "anonymous" and is being used by Fox News to directly challenge a story that appeared in the New York Times. By so doing, Fox News is making an extraordinary claim: Sheikh Mohammed was not waterboarded 183 times. And yet, when one reads the story, one realizes that there is no evidence for this extraordinary claim, other than than the authority of Fox News itself who tells us we must believe them because an anonymous person said so. Meanwhile, we have a memo from the Bush administration that says Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in March 2003, and we have multiple news outlets reporting it -- except Fox News. What does that tell you? Viriditas (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

FoxNews is a reliable source. The reporter was a real reporter and not one of their commentators. What matters is that a real reporter for a reliable source can be trusted to have had contacts with a government official.

This is no different than how we got our first information on EIT. It came from an ABC News reporter who had met with an unnamed CIA official. We could have doubted his information, too, but there was no reasonable doubt that the ABC News reporter did indeed meet with a CIA official, and that the CIA official was making that claim. It was quite proper to put such a claim here as long as we attribute it to an unnamed source for ABC News.

Your distrust of FoxNews is no different than others' distrust of sources like MSNBC or the Guardian (often called "al-Guardian") or the Institute for Southern Studies.

On the Institute for Southern Studies, yes it's "nonpartisan." They have to say that for tax reasons. But it's run by Julian Bond, after all. To describe them as "nonpartisan" is like describing the Christian Coalition as "nonpartisan." That's also true, but we wouldn't describe them here that way lest some reader get the idea that they're unbiased.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Please show me a reliable news source other than Fox News that has attacked the New York Times article and the Bush memo. Please explain why only Fox News is claiming that an "anonymous" source told them that Sheikh Mohammed was not waterboarded 183 times. When only one news source challenges all the others, and when they use "anonymous" evidence to do it, they must be discounted. Furthermore, Fox News has a long and sordid record of poor fact-checking and distorting news stories for political gain. In an encyclopedia that uses the best sources avaialable, they cannot be taken seriously. Now, show me a reliable source other than Fox News that has challenged the memo. Show it to me now. Viriditas (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

A "great deal of evidence Fox News is not reliable?" Please share with us your "evidence". Thanks a lot.Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Fox News Channel controversies. Now please stop changing the subject. Viriditas (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

And if you'll note, there are also articles on these topics:

• BBC controversies
• CBS News#Controversies
• CNN controversies
• United States journalism scandals

Nor does it end there:

• Associated Press#Controversies
• 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies
• Walter Duranty (who could be the biggest of journalism's embarrassment)

We could go on and on. Frankly, to put FoxNews beneath regular news sources is something I'd expect from dKosopedia. That's especially so when we consider what we're talking about. If you read the original source, the point FoxNews is making is the more rational one.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 06:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Try Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism (2004) and this website. Fox News certainly comes at the bottom when we use the word "journalism". These reports show that it is one of the most biased news sources in the world. The transcript for the film is available here. Their entire operation violates the very concept of journalism. Given these and other facts, Fox News does not meet the criteria for a "reliable source", either on Misplaced Pages or anywhere else. If you think they do, then please prove it. The reliable source guideline states that such a source must have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Clearly, Fox News does not. Viriditas (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I could easily counter that by directing you to opposing groups like the Media Research Center but I don't see where that gets us -- especially if you seriously believe that any organization run by Julian Bond could be referred to as "nonpartisan" without snickering. You evidently believe all of this stuff.

Any cursory reading of your materials on Outfoxed will bring up the names FAIR, Center for American Progress, and MoveOn. Has it occurred to you how rip-roaringly funny it is to cite them as though they are "objective" judges of character?

BTW: I've read a lot of those links. I'm not at all impressed at how easily it can be taken apart.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

ICRC Report

The ICRC Report does not say that KSM claimed to have only been waterboarded 5 times. What it says is: Mr Khaled Shaik Mohammed gave the following description of this method of ill-treatment, used in his third place of detention: "I would be strapped to a special bed, which can be rotated into a vertical position. A cloth would be placed over my face. Watter was then poured onto the cloth by one of the guards so that I could not breathe. This obviously could only be done for one or two minutes at a time. The cloth was then removed and the bed was put into a vertical position. The whole process was then repeated during about 1 hour". The procedure was applied during five different sessions during the first month of interrogation in his third place of detention. Dlabtot (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, yes, he did state 'five occasions' but the claim that this 'conflicts' with the torture memo footnote is simply a false claim made by Fox News. The footnote does not say 183 occasions or 183 sessions. The footnote says: The CIA used the waterboard "at least 83 times during August 2002" in the interrogation of Zubaydah (IG Report at 90), and 183 times during March 2003 in the interrogation of KSM, (see id. at 91). The plain meaning is that the CIA used the waterboard 183 times during 5 sessions. There is absolutely no conflict. Dlabtot (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It all comes down to semantics if you ask me. You can make the case for either interpretation. Personally, when I first heard 183 times, I thought of 183 sessions. I personally think it makes more sense to speak in terms of sessions. It's easier to make the mistake of believing '183 times' means '183 sessions', not '183 applications', because that's how we tend to interpret things. If I told you "My wife cheated on me two times", you'd be thinking in terms of men, or maybe instances, but certainly not in terms of orgasms. If I said "My brother cheated on a test three times", you're definitely not in thinking in terms of specific questions. When it comes to torture, I think we tend to view a torture session as one "unit" of torture. Let's be honest, if John McCain said the North Koreans tortured him twenty times, and it turned out it was applied in less than fifteen minutes, the American people would feel gipped. But that's just my opinion. Honestly, the thing to do is to keep the source, but make it clearer what it's actually indicating. Joker1189 (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It obviously needed some more clarity, but the FoxNews story explains what had previously been confusing.

The line we have about "This may have gone beyond even what was allowed by the CIA's own directives" shows that some people believed "times" meant "sessions".

Here's a bigger excerpt from the original document:

During a session, water may be applied up to six times for ten seconds or longer (but never more than 40 seconds). In a 24-hour period, a detainee may be subjected to up to twelve minutes of water application. See id. at 42. Additionally, the waterboard may be used on as many as five days during a 30-day approval period. ... The CIA used the waterboard "at least 83 times during August 2002" in the interrogation of Zubaydah, IG Report at 90, and 183 times during March 2003 in the interrogation of KSM, see id, at 91. (page 37)

Clearly, the word "times" is not the same thing as sessions. That fits the meaning of Fox's U.S. source.

BTW: This bit about FoxNews helps to illustrate our POV problem. It's one thing to dislike them but it's quite another to think it's normal to regard them as an automatically unacceptable source for WP. Conservatives sneer at "al-Guardian" in much the same way but I don't see anyone saying we should exclude them.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If we thought of 'times' to mean 'applications', the BBC would have us belief that CIA directives state water-boarding can be used less than two minutes a day. It's reasonable to believe then, that at least once the media used 'times' with the explicit belief it referred to number of sessions, not applications. I was apathetic before, but now I have to agree. The source should stay. Joker1189 (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Here's a suggestion - Try compromise and put BOTH sources. Misplaced Pages is a not a battlefield. This is not about putting the source that supports an underlying belief, this is about neutrality. Misplaced Pages is not a battlefield. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Counter-suggestion: Not all sources are equivalent, and not all POV need to be represented. Viriditas (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this Article about Human Rights in the United States?

Just checking, because most of it appears to reflect either conspiracy theory of the first order (Hurricane Katrina disastor response a violation of human rights), or about human rights OF the United States outside of the United States. I would suggest paring this down to get rid of the Katrina portion, and eliminating most of the items regarding human rights outside of the United States as being unrelated to the topic at hand.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This is true. Although you can push US army bases on foreign soil to be also in the US, if you wanted to. Sceptre 15:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is not remotely true in this universe. There are close to a thousand reliable sources on the topic of Hurricane Katrina and human rights, and it's been addressed in multiple reports by research centers and think tanks, the United Nations, and NGOs since 2006, and is still under discussion by those groups. Ignorance is not a valid rationale. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. I have edited the sections you provided on euthanasia because this was a private act by doctors at non-state hospitals, and was not reflective of state action. Including it is akin to accusing the UK of a human rights violation when one of its citizens kills another citizen during a confrontation. And while I realize that these matters are of some importance to you, please be advised that civility is taken rather seriously in this project. Keep your comments civil. I am editing your comments on that basis. Kindly refrain from such acts in the future.

Consider this your first and last warning. Do not edit my comments again like you did here. My comments were directly addressing the argument. Per Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments, do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. Viriditas (talk) 08:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The human rights stance on Hurricane Katrine stems from a strained reading of the U.N. Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, which provides that governments are responsible for preventingand avoiding conditions that might lead to displacement of persons, and for taking all measures possible to minimize displacement and its adverse effects. Under this theory, the US Army Corps of Engineers failed to meet this obligation by enforcing and/or re-building levees in New Orleans. The guiding principles also state a national governments’ obligations to protect people during displacement,regardless of whether that displacement is due to conflict or disaster. The Principles guarantee, among other things, the human right to dignity, security, liberty of movement, and respect of family life. They also forbid discrimination of any sort, whether it be on the basis of race, language, national origin, legal or social status, age, disability, or property. It is alleged that the US failed to meet this guiding principle when people without automobiles were not evacuated, and the majority of these individuals were black and/or the elderly. Prisoners were left behind in jails when cowardly guards fled their posts. The Guiding Principles obligate governments to provide humanitarian assistance to internally displaced persons in accordance with the principles of humanity and impartiality and without discrimination. They statethat international humanitarian organizations and other appropriate actors have the right to offer assistance and that consent to do so shall not be withheld—especially when authorities are unable or unwilling to provide the needed assistance themselves. They also mandate that international humanitarian organizations offering assistance are obligated to protect the human rights of IDPs. It is alleged that principles were not always honored in the wake of Hurricane Katrina because of fraud by private contractors, and refusal to accept aid from foreign governments, who offered medical aid and equipment, as well as the mismanagement of the American Red Cross in assisting with efforts. Other points include the cost of housing, medical care expenses, etc. Do we now have it all straight?]

The problem you have is rather obvious as the United States is a Federal Democracy, not a unitarian form of government. Government is shared in this case on three levels - municipal, state and federal. Each layer of government has a different job in disastor assistance. Municipal government normally provides the manpower and has jurisdiction over the means of providing logistics and evacuation plans from its jurisdiction. State government has, under the US constitution, primary jurisdiction over the health and welfare of its citizens. The federal government provides the monetary considerations and additional resources to assist in disastor relief. In this case, the first line of defense, the municpal government, fell apart, which meant that contray to their own evacuation plans, they failed to bus their own citizens without automonbiles out of the city. Instead, lines of busses were left in the city. The guards at the prions you identify were municipal employees, and they abandoned their posts. The police force left. The next line was the State of Louisiana. Under law, the state has the primary power to assist its own municplities. The State failed. Once the State failed, the State then requests "Relief Disastor Assistance" from the federal government, which has to be invited into the territory of the "sovereign" state. Once requested, the federal government then declares the area in question a Federal Disastor Area, and FEMA enters the picture. In other words, the role of making such a request for federal aid and assistance falls to the Governor of the State. In this case it was Blanco, who dragged her feet for days.] The result was an epic breakdown in leadership on all levsl of government. Bush could have declared martial law in the early hours, but that would most likely have lead to a separate human rights violation section. Once the federal government was allowed into the city, they engaged in rescue efforts and other steps to ensure food, medical care and other steps were taken for the remaining citizens. Couyld it have been done better? Certainly, but this particular disastor engulfed an area roughly the size of the United Kingdom, not just New Orleans. the entire number displaced? 400,000. ] What does that mean? Take the entire population of Baltimore City, and find them new homes. Even the guidelines you cite to at Principle 7, subparagraph 2 state: "The authorities undertaking such displacement shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to the displaced persons, that such displacements are effected in satisfactory conditions of safety, nutrition, health and hygiene, and that members of the same family are not separated". I would suggest that housing and assistance for such a number of people was provided "to the greatest extent practicable".

In conclusion, I don't think Hurricane Katrina was a Human Rights violation, I think it was a human disastor generally. It showed the pitfalls of lousy local leaders coupled with a gigantic natural disastor of biblical proportions that overwhelmed the federal government. I think its inclusion in this article is seriously misplaced, and that you are stretching by including it. It deserves its own article, but is not an example of a human rights violation in the United States. Thank you. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a single reliable source that best represents your view, using the term "human rights". Please note, interpreting primary sources in a controversial or disputed article, requires good secondary sources that portray the point drawn from the primary source. If this isn't clear, please request help on the reliable sources noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 08:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have provided the sources, and they make the same points. They are relied upon extensively, and linked. If it is your contention that these sources are "unreliable", please provide specific examples of why you so contend. If it is your contention that they do not support my argument, please provide specific examples of why you so contend. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not how we use sources on Misplaced Pages, and if you still don't understand your problem, please contact the reliable sources noticeboard. Let's make this very simple. Please provide one source that supports your claim that the U.S. response to Hurricane Katrina did not violate human rights. Just one source please. Or, to make this even easier for you, provide just one source that criticizes the conclusions in dispute. Can you do that? Viriditas (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

We also don't prove negatives, on wikipedia or anywhere else. The sources I provide do not even mention the term. For a look at the sources, "click" on the links above. I have also separately responded on the NPOV board, but then again, you already knew that.Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Please provide one source that directly addresses or challenges any of the conclusions or statements reached in the Katrina section. If you cannot, then you must drop your dispute. Viriditas (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I follow this logic - You are asking me for a source that makes a negative claim? My sources already provided already do that rather amply because they point to leadership failure, and not your claim of discrimination, as the cause of the misery. Please provide me with one source, just one, that shows positively that discrimination was the underlying reason for the failure in response time. Thanks a bunch.Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

None of the sources you "provided" have addressed the topic. To refresh your frazzled memory, you are the one that has made negative claims. You said, "I don't think Hurricane Katrina was a Human Rights violation." Great, now show sources that support that claim. You can't. Instead, you show sources that don't discuss the topic. Either address my request, or I will chalk this up to disruptive behavior on your part. You maintain that "the human rights stance on Hurricane Katrine stems from a strained reading of the U.N. Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement." Now, prove it with sources that directly address your claims. You can't because they don't exist. Original research is not allowed, so stop interpreting multiple sources to say what they don't say. Put up or shut up. Answer the question. Viriditas (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time to work this in right now, but I suggest taking a look at this from Popular Mechanics.

Bumbling by top disaster-management officials fueled a perception of general inaction, one that was compounded by impassioned news anchors. In fact, the response to Hurricane Katrina was by far the largest--and fastest-rescue effort in U.S. history, with nearly 100,000 emergency personnel arriving on the scene within three days of the storm's landfall.

Dozens of National Guard and Coast Guard helicopters flew rescue operations that first day--some just 2 hours after Katrina hit the coast. Hoistless Army helicopters improvised rescues, carefully hovering on rooftops to pick up survivors. On the ground, "guardsmen had to chop their way through, moving trees and recreating roadways," says Jack Harrison of the National Guard. By the end of the week, 50,000 National Guard troops in the Gulf Coast region had saved 17,000 people; 4000 Coast Guard personnel saved more than 33,000.

These units had help from local, state and national responders, including five helicopters from the Navy ship Bataan and choppers from the Air Force and police. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries dispatched 250 agents in boats. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), state police and sheriffs' departments launched rescue flotillas. By Wednesday morning, volunteers and national teams joined the effort, including eight units from California's Swift Water Rescue. By Sept. 8, the waterborne operation had rescued 20,000.

While the press focused on FEMA's shortcomings, this broad array of local, state and national responders pulled off an extraordinary success--especially given the huge area devastated by the storm. Computer simulations of a Katrina-strength hurricane had estimated a worst-case-scenario death toll of more than 60,000 people in Louisiana. The actual number was 1077 in that state. (emphasis mine)

People who don't think the U.S. government responded strongly to this disaster just hadn't considered (or, more likely, chose to ignore) its vast scope.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Great. Find a reliable source that says that as a rebuttal to those who make claims about human rights violations. Until you do that, this thread is closed. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you've said it all.

It would be interesting to see if the other editors would agree with you on that. Frankly, I'd be surprised if even those who'd otherwise generally share your perspective would go that far.

Until they're willing to admit that they do, this source (which is highly respected and truly non-partisan) does belong here more than the ravings of Julian Bond's outfit.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Justifying the use of the NPOV tag

I would like to see short bullet points listing specific neutrality problems so that I can address them and fix the article. Each point should consist of less than 25 words. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The consensus at this point is that the article is not neutral. See supra. If you remove the tag, I will report you for edit warring. This is getting ridiculous. I will be preparing a list of points as to why this article fails neutrality that will be extensive, and I will post it within 24 hours. Be warned, it may say things you disagree with. In light of that fact, I ask that you comply with WP:CIV when reponding to it.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I can and will remove the tag if you cannot answer my request to justify its use. Now, please justify the use of the tag with short bullet points explaining how the problem can be fixed. If you refuse to do this, the tag will be removed, and this discussion will be used as evidence. I will not respond your usual list of "extensive" distractions. Talk page etiquette requires short and succinct points that are easy to address with the goal of improving the article. Please reply to my request with a short reply addressing specific neutrality problems in bullet point form. If additional clarification is needed, then a short discussion may take place. Viriditas (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

A consensus of one then? Thanks for the confirmation. This will take some time, as this article's problems are huge. As stated, the "bullet point" list you request will be provided.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What part of what I'm saying isn't reasonable to you? The tag is used to alert editors to a problem so they can fix it. It isn't used at the personal whim and fancy of POV pushers. If you can't specifically address the neutrality problems that you say exist in simple to understand language, then I can only conclude that they don't exist and the tag should be removed. Viriditas (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The only true POV pusher I have seen around here is you. Neutrality has been disputed above by numerous posters, and they have posted on it extensively. Where would you like me to start my bullet list? The content forks for human rights violation outside of the United States, or the undue weight portion of the article? Please let me know. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks, now? Tsk, tsk. I thought for sure I was going to get a few more false accusations of uncivil behavior before you started to show your true colors. To refresh your memory again: You deleted material from the article. I restored it with sources and expanded it. That is not "POV pushing"; it's the very definition of good editing. In other words, I cleaned up after your POV pushing by representing the subject you falsely claimed did not exist. Is that clear? You can start your bullet list right below here. Viriditas (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks are your stock in trade, so it would make sense you would direct my attention to them if they appear, or play the victim when they don't. I merely state the obvious, no attack necessary. Your position clearly discounts any countering opinion as "wrong" and advocates your own position as "right". It ignores neutrality, which is the preferred "pov". As stated, it will be up in the next day. Some of us have to work.Yachtsman1 (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were working. More personal attacks? Tsk, tsk. I await your justification for your use of the NPOV tag, which I suspect will arrive Real Soon Now. Of course, if it doesn't, I'll just remove the tag. Viriditas (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

And if you remove the tag, I will simply re-add it, and await a consensus of more than you to counter the tag. Until that happy moment, I remain --Yachtsman1 (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not how it works. The person adding the tag has to use the talk page to explain how the tag can be removed, and the explanation must be reasonable and easy to understand. It should also entail both a quick-fix solution and a long-term approach. This is because tag warring is a common tactic used by POV pushers to hold articles hostage, and they will often move the goal posts depending on which way the wind blows. Viriditas (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

← Guys. Let's take a step back. Fighting over an NPOV tag is not a good way for anyone to spend their time. Leaving aside some of the more heated rhetoric, the initial request is a reasonable one. It may help to reboot the conversation and focus it on specific issues of article content and sourcing. Yachtsman1, if you see a huge number of NPOV issues, it will still be helpful to break the problem down into individual, bite-sized pieces and tackle them one-by-one. Identify what you believe is the biggest NPOV issue (Katrina?) and briefly list the specific issues you see with it. Even if you have done this before, in the reams of discussion above, it will be helpful to do it again in a focused and (ideally) dispassionate manner. The most constructive approach of all would be to simultaneously propose alternate wording that you believe would better reflect NPOV. MastCell  16:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Cutpasted from ANI: I believe that most of the article is neutral. However, there are a few snags with the article. The Katrina section needs more citations; the whole first half of the first paragraph is unsourced, including a quote by a living person. Sorensen's quote needs context as to when and why it was said, and the whole waterboarding section needs copyediting. And finally, the Gitmo section needs a massive overhaul, because the whole section is all over the place, some facts don't have citation, etc. Sceptre 16:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Sceptre 16:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, can you tag the issues you note? I would like to fix them, if it is possible. Viriditas (talk) 08:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Mosedschurte

This article is almost a comedic riot of silliness (and quite embarrassing for Misplaced Pages). I had no idea it existed until seeing its mention on the NPOV board. It includes:

• Discussions of "human rights" outside the U.S. (directly contravening its title), such as actions in Iraq by the U.S. Army.
• A discussion of U.S. workers working longer hours than in some other countries (seriously, this is actually shoehorned into this article)
• A discussion of the simple employment-at-will legal existence (which exists in almost every country on earth) -- the idea of which in a purported "human rights" article is so laughable, this alone is embarrassing to Misplaced Pages
• A generalized sentence of "treatment of autistics" (as if this were relevant to "human rights")
• Incredible WP:Undue Weight negative mentions of individual cases heavily weighting in sections of the article addresssing where the United States literally leads the world (by a wide margin), such as Freedom of Expression.
• Despite that the United States has the world's #1 most aggressive civil recourse system for gender and racial discrimination (by a huge margin, by the way, nothing else in the world is even in the ballpark of the massive Title VII judgments available to U.S. plaintiffs in these cases), literally no mention of this is made (????), nor any mention of the massive (compared to every other country no the planet) U.S. racial and gender preferences for minorities and women, with, instead, WP:Undue Weight given to every prior historical negative.
• It -- hold the laughs -- actually contains an entire section on the rescue efforts for Hurricane Katrina (where half of an entire city under sea level was flooded via levy breaks) as a "human rights" violation. Even were this addressed as a "human rights violation" in reports of serious note, a section on it is beyond laughable in the WP:Undue Weight category, especially given that few (if any) countries in the world could have even mounted the size of rescue efforts put forth (not that they didn't have problems). Honestly, this section was so ridiculously out of place in a purportedly Encylopedic article on "Human Rights" for a nation of 300 million people that I though at one point that it was going to quote Kanye West.
• The "International Human Rights" section is virtual archetypal example of POV editing and WP:Undue Weight in a Misplaced Pages article section. They should freeze that text and put it somewhere as an exemplary how-not-to-edit blockquote. For example, forget just being a major actor, the United States has actually literally led the world in funding and providing professionals for the major war crimes tribunals addressing the Rwandan Genocide and the Bosnian Genocide (never mind the Nuremberg Trials et al.); is the largest funder of UN peacekeeping troops; led the NATO action stopping the Slobodan Milošević repression of ethinc Albanaians in Kosovo; was the leader attempting to get U.N action to stop the Darfur massacres; was the primary actor (or close thereto) in opposing the two biggest human rights violators in world history (Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin); has given literally billions of dollars a year for decades -- the world leader by far -- in aid to address dictator-caused famines and other human rights abuses around the world; has effectively led the push against the most ghastly police state in the world today (North Korea); the list goes on even too long to begin to recount the leadership in this arena. Yet virtually none of this is mentioned, with huge weight being given to every purported negative international human rights source in existence. The end reading of which is utterly laughable as a section.

In short, it's a virtual panoply of POV-constructed sections. It would take probably weeks to go through this article with the major comparative sources on recourse and enforcement of relevant rules regarding comparisons to other countries to write anything remotely NPOV. Right now, it looks like something that could have been written by the heavily discredited (to put it mildly) UN "Human Right Commission" headed by such NPOV/Human rights stalwarts as Syria and Libya attempting to find anything to spin negatively to blow grossly out of proportion. Mosedschurte (talk) 05:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Up at bat, eh? Welcome. Your understanding of the concept of "undue weight" appears to be in serious error. Please actually read the policy you linked to above. I'm going to start by addressing your assessment of the Katrina section. You claim that this section is lacking "reports of serious note". Could you describe what you mean? These are good sources that describe the issue. You seem to be proposing that anything negative about the U.S. human rights record should be removed, and only pro-U.S. sources should be used. Is that a correct observation of your position? If so, it goes against the very notion of NPOV. I would like a response from you, Mosedschurte, and not the predicted tag-team response from the usual suspects I expect, having seen this same charade play out for several years now. In other words, to focus on this one point, what would an acceptable human rights section on Katrina look like? Please keep WP:ENEMY in mind when you compose your reply. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 06:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: "You seem to be proposing that anything negative about the U.S. human rights record should be removed, and only pro-U.S. sources should be used. Is that a correct observation of your position?"

Is that a joke? I didn't mention a single "pro-U.S." source in my entire post. This appears to be some sort of stock response.

See my comments at the bottom. All discussion of human rights advancement is connected at the hip with an anlysis of critical and what you would call "negative" portrayal. Do you understand this or do I need to explain it to you further? Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: "In other words, to focus on this one point, what would an acceptable human rights section on Katrina look like?"

This is beyond easy. To begin with, as the most simple of editing decisions, there would simply not be an ENTIRE SECTION in an article "Human Rights in the United States" devoted to the rescue efforts for a single hurricane in the year 2005. This could not be more straight forward in an article of this breadth of scope on a country of 300 million people with a 200+ year history. Keep in mind that not only is there, right now, NOT a section in the International Human Rights section on, say,-- to give just ONE example -- the U.S. taking the lead in the Nuremberg Trials, prosecuting the worst violations of human rights in world history, but it may not even be mentioned in the entire article. Yet there is an entire section on the rescue efforts in a single hurricane in an article purporting to address "Human Rights". To even type as much generates laughs. This does not reflect the balance of secondary sources on these matters, to put it mildly (rather, it would be about 1,000-to-1 the opposite direction).

Considering the attention this subject has received from human rights organizations and nonpartisan groups, there are enough secondary sources to describe it in its own section, however it might be viewed as more balanced (from your POV) if related historical rights issues were included. So, the answer is not to delete it but to expand it. This isn't the first time this has happened, and there are other related issues, such as environmental justice and environmental racism that are connected. Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: "the predicted tag-team response from the usual suspects I expect, having seen this same charade play out for several years now.""Charade"? Pointing out the rather comical POV and gross WP:Undue Weight issues herein.

I disagree. You want to paint a rosy picture of the U.S. that is divorced from reality, when in fact, history shows that all human rights have been fought for and won by people who have criticized the status quo. No human rights have been given to anyone. Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think he's saying that we're using too many negative sources, not that we should remain completely positive. Which is understandable: humans by nature tend to write more in criticism than in praise. Sceptre 07:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. On a more very basic Misplaced Pages editing note, the weight devoted to negative (and irrelevant given the article scope) text is WELL, WELL beyond undue given the breadth of sources on the history overall in the sections addressed herein. I just pointed out a few very basic areas that jump off the page given even just a very rudimentary knowledge of world history and U.S. legal history.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I recently added three sources to the further reading section (a three volume set) that celebrate the role of the U.S. in promoting human rights at home and around the world. It should be used and added to the article. The history of human rights advancement in the U.S. comes in the wake of negative attention. You can see this when you look at the overall picture. So, the problem isn't the use of negative sources, but how we present the positive outcome, if there is one. Mosedschurte, do you understand that the positive advancement of human rights in the U.S. has come out of the criticism of negative incidents? You cannot separate the two, but you can present the problem as a whole. I'm not getting the sense that you understand this. Viriditas (talk) 07:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Mosedschurte, do you understand that the positive advancement of human rights in the U.S. has come out of the criticism of negative incidents?"

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of our tasks as Misplaced Pages editors. We as Misplaced Pages editors are not here to "advance human rights in the U.S." through publishing "criticism of negative incidents" on Misplaced Pages.

Rather, we're here to edit articles reflecting the balance of information from reliable sources and magnitude of issues on the articles in which we edit. Skipping over (or spending just a sentence or two on) all of the massive world historical leadership positions taken by the U.S. on literally the largest human rights issues in world history and largest efforts to stop human rights violations worldwide while simultaneously devoting an entire multiparagraph section on, say, rescue efforts regarding one hurricane (presented as a "human rights" violation) is CLEARLY not reflecting the balance of sources and contextual importance of the issues in the article.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding (deliberately or mistakenly) what I have written. To repeat it again for you so that it is perfectly clear: the positive advancement of human rights in the U.S. has come out of the criticism of negative incidents. This is a function of history, and does not represent any personal or political POV. It is in fact, reflective of every single source on the subject. Either you are ignoring the history of human rights in the U.S. or you are purposefully skewing an accurate portrayal of the subject. Our job as editors is to write the best article we can, using the best sources (i.e. not Fox News). And, we do not ignore the historical role of human rights in relation to a tragedy like Katrina. We use the best sources we have to represent the topic. If you have sources that challenge this view, then please provide them. Viriditas (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)

Re: "To repeat it again for you so that it is perfectly clear: the positive advancement of human rights in the U.S. has come out of the criticism of negative incidents. This is function of history, and does not represent any personal or political POV."

But it's simply NOT our job as Misplaced Pages editors to undertake the publication of this criticism for such advancement.

Rather, it is to reflect the sources and events in context. For example, suffice to say that the number of sources about, say, the U.S. leadership at the Nuremberg Trials, prosecuting the Rwandan Genocide, leading the opposition to the worst human rights abusers in history such as Joseph Stalin, leading in U.N. Peacekeeping funding to stop human rights abuses, the world's #1 most aggressive civil recourse for racial discrimination and gender discrimination in Title VII, one of the most aggressive (if not the most aggressive) Freedom of Expression legal structures in the world, etc. entirely dwarfs the sources of claims that the rescue efforts of a single hurricane in 2005 being a "human rights" violation. Yet, humorously from a Misplaced Pages editors perspective, the latter is actually been given a multi-paragraph section in a "human rights" article while almost none (or maybe none) of the former are even mentioned.

Re: " Our job as editors is to write the best article we can, using the best sources (i.e. not Fox News)."

Fox News? Who has ever mentioned Fox News? As indicated now, you're not even responding to discussion, but rather, spouting some sort of political slogans.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I said above, you aren't "getting it", either willfully or not. Thankfully, I can easily prove my point in few words. I'll do it now: If you were to rewrite this article, and as your first step. you were to create an outline, what subtopics would the outline contain? Please note, your entire outline would have a single theme: the positive advancement of human rights in the U.S. arising out of the criticism of negative incidents. Do you disagree? Then provide an outline that does not show this. You cannot. This is because it is a historical fact reflected by all of the sources on the topic. You don't seem to understand this concept. FYI... Fox News is a topic of ongoing discussion several threads up. It might help to familiarize yourself with the talk page instead of making ignorant accusations. I can't help but notice that you are repeatedly trying to hijack this thread by changing the subject. In case you have forgotten, the topic is human rights in the United States. Please confine your discussion to that topic. Viriditas (talk) 07:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Thankfully, I can easily prove my point in few words. I'll do it now: If you were to rewrite this article, and as your first step. you were to create an outline, what subtopics would the outline contain? Please note, your entire outline would have a single theme: the positive advancement of human rights in the U.S. arising out of the criticism of negative incidents."

--Well, that pretty much does it for reasonable non-silly discussion. You just asked a question to "prove your point", then hilariously answered it yourself re what "I'd do."

--Perhaps this is in indication as to why this article is in such a laughable state in terms of POV and WP:Undue Weight.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No response to my challenge other than a personal attack? Tsk, tsk, it's too early for that. Considering that my first major edit to this article was at 05:18, 19 May 2009, and only to the Katrina section, I'm afraid you can't blame me for the problems in this article. In the past, I have tried to mediate disputes on this page, and I've made reverts to blankings by Raggz et al. but I haven't really participated in this article before now. But, please, propose your outline. If you were to rewrite this article, how would you do it? Viriditas (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Not only have I not seen a single personal attack towards Viriditas, I have not seen a single attempt to reach a conensus by this editor either. If you can work with others, great, if not, your present course of conduct is hardly constructive. Please try to work to each a consensus on the POV problems in this article, and stop with the non sequitors. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop addressing the editor and address the questions asked of you. You and Mosedschurte have been unable to address any questions asked of you. All you do is attack editors. Your behavior is transparent and needs to stop. Your threats in the above thread to continue edit warring over the POV tag, even when requests for justification have been made, are disruptive. Propose solutions or don't edit here. Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

As I have been instructed not to address the above-editor, I will therefore not directly address the editor. I concur with Mosedschurte on the basis of the reasons he has provided. I also agree with the other editors on this thread, including Joker and Randy, that the article in question violates neutrality. There is a consensus that this is the case, for the reasons provided by all of us. As it stands, the article requires clean up. I have accomplished the following based on consensus:

• Reworked the introduction to reflect the article's content, and to ensure neutrality;
• I have added a piece in the race section displaying that Obama has been voted in as president, and linked to one of his speeches as a cite;
• I have proposed the elimination of US human rights outside of the United States as a content fork and as being inapplicable to the subject of human rights in the United States;
• I have proposed elimination of the Hurricane Katrine section of the article as a violation of neutrality, and on the basis of undue weight.

Any other suggestions on improvements to this article from editors I can communicate with directly are appreciated. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think all initial points by Mosedschurte are valid and can serve as a basis for improving this article.Biophys (talk) 03:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of human rights outside the U.S.

Mosedschurte objects to this topic, but authors like Michael Ignatieff have covered it in books like American Exceptionalism and Human Rights (2005) and it is an important subtopic. Viriditas (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of U.S. workers working longer hours than other countries

Mosedschurte objects to this topic, but it is an important part of labor rights, a subtopic directly related to human rights in the U.S. Viriditas (talk) 07:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

To put it mildly, you're not exactly helping the silliness of your POV and WP:Undue Weight concerns with the commission of subtopics such as this given the many points made above.Mosedschurte (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you address this discussion without personal attacks? Try it. Do you need me to find you sources on labor rights as human rights in the U.S. or can you find them yourself? Do you understand the concept of WP:ENEMY? Do you understand that we need to be able to write articles that do not represent our personal POV? Is any of this making sense to you? Viriditas (talk) 08:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What's the mean and standard deviation for hours per week? If it's within a standard deviation, then criticism and praise should be balanced. Sceptre 18:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Viriditas (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Treatment of autistics

Mosedschurte objects to this topic, but it is an important component of the disability rights movement, a subtopic of human rights in the U.S. Viriditas (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree that autism could be considered part of the disability rights movement. That said, the current sourcing is poor. The article states that the "United States Government currently is heavily criticized for it's poor treatment of autistics, especially in the fields of employment." OK - but the cited source is a handful of letters to the editor of the Washington Post, in response to an op-ed column. That's not what I would call evidence of "heavy criticism", especially compared to the sourcing for other items (U.N. reports, scholarly works, etc). Maybe we can find a better source? MastCell  16:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The original editor did not pay any attention to the human rights component. Glancing at Gbooks, there are a number of good sources on this, even one which describes both sides of the argument.(Mesibov et al. 1997) One important point is whether the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities comes into play here. Viriditas (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Problems

I'm probably not the only one to weigh in on this, but I'll try to be specific

• Why is there only one blockquote about opposition to Universal healthcare, that hardly covers the scope of the opposition's position.
• I can tell the person who wrote the death penalty section is against it, so who is for it and what do they think?
• The prison system section has lots of weasel wording (heck the whole thing uses vague terms like "some" and "social critics"
• Additionally, the prison system is nothing but condemnation, are there steps being taken to fix the problems, reasons for the overcrowding and other problems. Also, does Pelican Bay and others really justify sweeping statements like those used? Isolated incidents are hardly ever representative of a whole (and you must prove they are)
• The next section, what do the police have to say about the situation? Why are isolated incidents used, I've seen cases where officers shot a man over 100 times because "that's all the bullets they had." Does this mean cops go around shooting ppl excessively all over the US?
• A hurricane is never going to have happy results, the section seems to be a little WP:FRINGE.
• For the Human rights treaties not signed or signed but not ratified section, you either need to give a little reasoning and background, or get rid of it. To simply say "they didn't sign it," doesn't give reasoning (and could be implied to be simply they didn't care)
• The entire international human rights section is grossly out of balance. Surely the amount of money we spend, the number of charity organizations that are supported from here, and the work we've done through gov't programs like peace corp warrant more than a paragraph versus 14 paragraphs of things we didn't do or did wrong.

I didn't read the top few sections but really this article focuses on one side of the issue far, far too much. You need to give the other side if you want an WP:NPOV article. Soxwon (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Having read just the racial section I must say I'm not impressed. It doesn't even mention the 13th or 15th amendment or even the emancipation proclamation or any of the other positive elements of US history. This is not a list of US sins. I'll read some of the other sections but really, shouldn't the race section have gotten adaquete coverage before moving on to all these things we didn't sign and Katrina? Soxwon (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

For the feminism section, what about the National Organization of Women? Soxwon (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

For the accused section, Ex Post Facto and Habeas Corpus and the 7th amendment (jury trial)?? Soxwon (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Having just run across the article, these were my similar observations in a section above.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon, do you think this article is the place to discuss opposition to Universal healthcare? If so, tell me how you would do it. Which human rights-related sources would you use? Are you aware of the human rights issues associated with U.S. prisons? Should the most notable incidents drawn from good sources be used as examples? As for excessive violence from law enforcement in the U.S., have you reviewed the literature? Police brutality and excessive violence in the U.S have been the focus of human rights groups and the UN. What is "fringe" about the Katrina section? Please describe the problem so I can fix it. Finally, has human rights in the U.S. increased or decreased after 9/11? I have more questions, but I would like you to answer those first. Not Mosedschurte, but you, Soxwon. Viriditas (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to treat this as a POV fork I'll put it up for deletion. You must have BOTH sides fairly represented on any given issue if you are going to include it, or you are going to make it into an attack article. As for Katrina, where should I begin. The fact the majority of it comes from the same two partisan sources, or the fact that the one sentence that doesn't, is completely different than the article it quotes. And btw, how about addressing all of the information that you neglected to mention? Soxwon (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know what you are talking about. You must have me confused with someone else. Can you please address my questions? Also, please show that the "majority of it comes from the same two partisan sources". I don't see that at all. Also, please show me specifically how the source differs from the material. These are reasonable questions and should be very easy for you to answer. You say you have a problem with the material. Fine, please show me the problem so I can either fix it or remove it. Viriditas (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Katrina

(outdent)Two partisan sources: and . All of the others refer back to these two sources save for the AP article. The AP article does not support the statment made in any way:

The UN Human Rights Committee and other groups allege that these problems reflected racial and economic prejudice; most of those trapped in New Orleans were African-American and poor.

First of all from the article itself: Both experts are independent and unpaid. Secondly if you actually read the article it says that the main problem is that the replacement housing will be at market rate, rather than subsidized. Nowhere does it make sweeping comments about racial and economic prejudice. In short, the paragraph is poorly sourced and POV. Soxwon (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

To directly address your points: 1)The secondary source used (New Orleans CityBusiness), describes ISS as "nonpartisan". Are you challenging that statement? If so, what reliable source are you using that calls them "partisan". Please provide it. 2) I see your problem with AP. You failed to actually look at reference 99. Look at it again. There is more than one source being used - there are three, and they all compliment each other. Did you review the other two sources? The source you are referring to is only used to show that, The experts said the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and local governments will violate the human rights of thousands of New Orleans residents by demolishing public housing units. The majority of those affected are black and many were devastated by Hurricane Katrina, they said. That's it. The other two sources support and compliment the material about the "UN Human Rights Committee and other groups allege that these problems reflected racial and economic prejudice." I have it saved offline, so let me pull the quote for you. But more to the point, I'm not clear on what you are challenging. Can you specifically state what you are challenging? The sources appear at the end of the sentence/paragraph per best practices. Are you challenging any part of this statement? If so, please specifically state which part. The UN Human Rights Committee and other groups allege that these problems reflected racial and economic prejudice is referenced to Klapper, Bradley (2006-07-28). "U.N. Panel Takes U.S. to Task Over Katrina". AP Online (The America's Intelligence Wire), and is a news article covering the findings from the UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations on Report of the USA to the Human Rights Committee (July 27, 2006). I'll try and see if I can clear up any of the ambiguities (which you were right to observe) with some kind of cleanup effort. Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Biophys, I asked you to explain your reasoning at 07:13. You didn't, and at 14:59 you removed the material. This is not how Misplaced Pages works. Please use the talk page. The discussion both on the talk page and on the NPOV noticeboard shows no consensus for removal. Please do not bring your long history of edit warring to Human rights in the United States or act as a proxy for other edit warriors. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been already discussed (see above). Almost all editors except you suggested this material be removed. It is not notable with regard to human rights. Moreover, all this content can be found in Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina, and as such represents POV fork.Biophys (talk) 00:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not true. Please provide an actual reason for deletion and diffs of what you claim above. I've asked you to provide an actual reason other than "I don't like it" and I haven't received one. I'm looking at more than a dozen reliable sources on the subject in front of me, consisting of newspaper articles, journal articles, research studies funded by Brookings, reports from the UN, and books about human rights released by academic publishing houses. I'm reading a journal right now that has the entire issue devoted to Katrina. The claim that this is "not notable with regard to human rights" is not true by any stretch of the imagination. If you would please provide with a description of your personal criteria for inclusion, then we can begin to have a discussion. This is a reasonable request. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length by numerous editors above in many sections discussing its many problems for an article on "human rights" -- they have been raised ad nauseum. The idea that no reason has been given for its deletion was simply false. Numerous editors have given such reasons.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No reason has been given for its deletion. This is a true statement. Please provide a reason based on evidence and state your standard for inclusion. This is a reasonable request. I will personally remove the material if anyone can demonstrate a valid reason why it should not be in the article in any form, including a summary style from a new article, which I am in the process of creating. If there is an objection to blockquotes, then I would share that objection and agree that prose supported by secondary sources is favored over large primary source blockquotes. This is why I am creating a new article about this subject. But I expect this information to be in this article in some form (preferably 2-4 paragraphs, possibly intermixed in the racial section, possibly in a different section), and I haven't seen a single argument against inclusion. All I see is the usual supsects handwaving and edit warring. Want me to remove the content? Fine, then convince me based on Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines why it shouldn't appear here. Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Guys, please let's calm down.

• When I looked up human rights aspects of Hurricane Katrina in google books, there were hundreds of hits, including the ones below documenting the involvement of Amnesty International and many other human rights organisations. There are more than 2500 google news hits for "human rights" and "hurricane katrina". These are indications that this has been a major topic. I think we should have brief summary of the issue, with a link to the relevant standalone article. JN466 17:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate rationale for removal of Katrina section

This edit removing the Katrina section had the edit summary "rm POV fork to Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina. Also undue weight. We can not reflect each UN report here."

This edit summary misconstrues the meaning of WP:POV fork. Creating a POV fork means that content (praise or criticism) is deleted from one article but inserted or retained in another related article, creating two articles with different POVs: e.g. one positive, one negative. In this sense, it is the removal of this section which is actually creating a POV fork, by deleting all human rights-related criticism of the Katrina response from this article and retaining it elsewhere.

As for the second part of the argument, We can not reflect each UN report here: given that that the UN did report on this and there was widespread controversy around this topic, I think it is appropriate to include a summary of it in the present article, along with a link to the main article.

Accordingly, I endorse the restoration of the section by Viriditas. JN466 12:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

For reference, sources testifying to the importance of the Hurricane Katrina response as a human right issue are easy to find: Greenwood Publishing Group, House Committee Hearing, Columbia University Press, Carolina Academic Press and many many others. JN466 12:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Are any of these sources from an international organization that has found that the United States violated a convention, treaty or international law regarding Hurricane Katrina survivors as a matter of law? The subject of human rights violations does not rest on the allegations of organizations, but rests solely in the international bodies with recognized powers to make such a pronouncement and/or courts. In other words, if it does not come from the UN and/or one of its commissions, agencies and/or courts, it's not worth citing, unless to clarify such a pronouncement/finding. It's lie saying someone has been found guilty of a crime when they have not been to court. Thank you. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

This list is incomplete

Journals

• "Natural Disasters and the Rule of Law". Human Rights: Journal of the Section of Individual Rights & Responsibilities. 33 (4). ABA Publishing. Fall 2006. ISSN 0046-8185. Editorial board This issue has eight articles devoted to a discussion of human rights and Katrina.
• Fletcher, Laurel E. (March 2007). "Latino Workers and Human Rights in the Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina" (PDF). Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law. 28 (1). Boalt Hall School of Law: 107–162. ISSN 0046-8185. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

News reports

• Alter, Jonathan (2004-09-19). "The Other America". Special Report. Newsweek. Retrieved 2009-05-20.
• "Report says U.S. Katrina response fails to meet its own human rights principles". New Orleans CityBusiness. 2008-01-16. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• Klapper, Bradley (2006-07-28). "U.N. Panel Takes U.S. to Task Over Katrina". AP Online. The America's Intelligence Wire. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• Sothern, Billy (2006-01-02). "Left to Die". The Nation. pp. 19–22.

Research studies

• "Hurricane Katrina and the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement" (PDF). Institute for Southern Studies. Jan., 2008. Retrieved 2009-05-18. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Goldman, Lynn. Christine Coussens, Institute of Medicine. (2007) Environmental public health impacts of disasters: Hurricane Katrina. National Academies Press. ISBN 0309105005
• Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population-based Study of Labor and Human Rights. Payson Center, International Law Clinic, and the Human Rights Center, University of California, Berkeley Special Report. Laurel Fletcher, Phuong Pham, Eric Stover, and Patrick Vinck. June 2006

Books

• Bullard, Robert (2009). Race, Place, and Environmental Justice After Hurricane Katrina. Westview Press. ISBN 0813344247. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Levitt, Jeremy (2009). Hurricane Katrina: America's Unnatural Disaster. University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 0803217609. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Bringing Human Rights Home: A History of Human Rights in the United States. Praeger Publishers. 2007. ISBN 027598821X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)

Comments on Reliable sources

If you're going to post "reliable sources" in an effort to support your contention that Katrina belongs here, it might help if you leave out the ones we're going to laugh at.

Jonathan Alter is an opinion columnist. He's well respected, but he's a liberal, and therefore hardly objective when it comes to pointing fingers at the Bush administration. I think it's fine to use him to provide color and context but he doesn't confirm anything.

I guess the AP story on the "U.N. Panel" is about Doudou Diène. He's a Senegalese socialist (who also complained about the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, btw). Most U.N. "human rights" sources are hypocrites. Quote him and a lot of readers won't take you seriously. Even so, I don't think his opinion on Katrina, as stated here, is strong enough to be worth mentioning. A recommendation that poor people get jobs in reconstruction is hardly notable.

As I said before, the so-called "non-partisan" Institute for Southern Studies is not an objective source. Anyone who thinks about it is going to click on that link, see it's run by Julian Bond, and they'll know that's not an objective source. Again, the ISS has to call themselves "non-partisan" for tax reasons. It would be as if we referred to the Christian Coalition as "non-partisan." That would technically be true as well, but anyone who reads that would think it was meant to be intentionally deceptive.

New Orleans CityBusiness is just reporting what the ISS had said. From what I've seen, they're not saying they agree.

I don't know why you think this stuff will help. What's to be gained if readers don't take this article seriously? -- Randy2063 (talk) 04:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but it doesn't sound like you understand how we use sources on Misplaced Pages. If you have a particular question about a source being used or content, then please ask, but your comments above are completely irrelevant. We have a reliable secondary source referring to the ISS as "non-partisan". In order for your claim to have any merit, you would need to provide another reliable source showing that they have been described as "partisan". Do you understand? Your POV does not have any bearing on this topic. We only go by what good sources say. Viriditas (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it is you who doesn't understand. As I've said at least twice before, yes, I agree that the ISS is "non-partisan." But that's IRRELEVANT AND DECEPTIVE.

You are using the label "non-partisan" to make it appear as though the ISS is a neutral observer. It is not.

NOBODY believes Julian Bond is an objective judge of the facts surrounding Katrina. Got that? NOBODY. To label the ISS as "non-partisan" serves only to blur the facts. Blurring the facts is not what we're supposed to be doing here.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That's your opinion; the term "non-partisan" comes from a secondary source. Can you point me to a good source that calls them "partisan"? The study in question was funded by Brookings. The article on Brookings, calls them "non-partisan" as well. At what point are you going to admit that you don't have a leg to stand on? Viriditas (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right only in that it's a complete waste of time trying to reason with you.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I just showed you that there are multiple sources referring to both the ISS and Brookings as nonpartisan. Can you provide a good source that says they are not? Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just call it "progressive"? The Institute for Southern Studies article calls them that, too.

You've never answered what you'd think of an article that labels the "Christian Coalition" as "non-partisan."

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how distracting me from this topic will help, but I'll bite: Can you find me a good reliable source that calls the CC "non-partisan"? Or, are you just making this up? Viriditas (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I would never say the Christian Coalition is "nonpartisan" in the sense that you seem to think we're talking about the word. What I am saying is that the word "nonpartisan" has another meaning in the law.

As the article Nonpartisan#United States of America explains, "nonpartisan" does not always mean unbiased.

If you want to keep it like this, go ahead. As I said, I'm not going to waste more of my time. Readers can click their way to the ISS article to see Julian Bond's name. Perhaps they'll be like you and believe that an organization started by Julian Bond is objective.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me try this one more time. Do you have good sources that say that ISS is partisan? Please provide them. We don't edit based on the opinions of editors . Surely you know that? Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you even read what I said? Partisanship is also irrelevant. I was saying that the term "nonpartisan" is irrelevant and deceptive. It does not necessarily mean "unbiased" even though some people would think it does.

Here's the history of the ISS. They're loons. But you don't need to take that site's word for it, or mine. The fact that they were founded by Julian Bond should tell you enough.

But if you want to sit with a smile on your face imagining that everyone who reads this article is going to be fooled by the word "nonpartisan" then you'd better think again. Some people will be fooled. Others will read about Julian Bond and start laughing at you.

And that's fine with me, so I'm signing off.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to think that we edit Misplaced Pages based on personal beliefs about people and ideas. Well, we don't. We edit based on sources, and unless you have sources, good sources, saying that the ISS is partisan, then you don't have an argument. Understand? Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

ISS is not a human rights organization. ] Putting aside the issue of partisanship, and as I have seen countless times on this thread, ISS in not being a human rights organization is not reliable as a source on this subject matter. I believe that was also the rationale used to eliminate a Washington Post article I linked as a source previously. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody claimed ISS was a human rights organization, nor do they have to be one to be used as a reliable source. (Nor could you make such an argument as such a criterion would contradict the RS guideline) So, the first two points you have just made have been refuted. Third, nobody claimed the Washington Post article was removed for either of these reasons. What was claimed was that the Washington Post article was removed for two reasons: 1) The news article did not discuss human rights in relation to Katrina, and 2) You interpreted the article to say something it did not. The fact is, the ISS research report is discussed by many reliable secondary sources in direct relation to human rights, and the report itself discusses these rights. If this isn't making sense to you, please ask someone to explain it to you or bring it up somewhere else. You appear to have a basic misunderstanding of what kind of sources we use and how we use them. Viriditas (talk) 08:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Response by Mosedschurte

In response to my many POV and WP:Undue Weight points above, I received responses from this editor such as:

• "Mosedschurte, do you understand that the positive advancement of human rights in the U.S. has come out of the criticism of negative incidents?" (Viriditas)
• "You seem to be proposing that anything negative about the U.S. human rights record should be removed, and only pro-U.S. sources should be used."(Viriditas)
• "Our job as editors is to write the best article we can, using the best sources (i.e. not Fox News)."(Viriditas)
• "You want to paint a rosy picture of the U.S. that is divorced from reality, when in fact, history shows that all human rights have been fought for and won by people who have criticized the status quo. No human rights have been given to anyone."(Viriditas)

Not exactly building confidence as editing with an NPOV.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop ignoring my questions per talk page guidelines. Failure to answer them but continuing to make the same points will get you in trouble. I asked you above to provide an outline for a potential rewrite that meets your objections. So far, you have remained silent on the matter, but still show up here to make personal attacks. Your strategy of "scrolling" the discussion off the page with the use of distracting commentary is tiring. Please address the questions asked of you. Viriditas (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Please stop ignoring my questions per talk page guidelines. Failure to answer them but continuing to make the same points will get you in trouble." (Viriditas)

I can't say I'm surprised at threats at this point. If you're going to threaten people in violation of Misplaced Pages policy, try to make it less ineffectual than a threat to get other editors "in trouble" if they "ignor my questions".Mosedschurte (talk) 06:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Another personal attack? Please answer the question and get back on topic. Viriditas (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This is again, simply false. Not a single "personal attack" in the comments, and in fact, the last one was just out to point your Misplaced Pages policy violation with a false threat. And yet more deflection, including demands to answer your interrogatories, rather than discussing the glaringly obvious and overwhelming POV and WP:Undue Weight problems editors have pointed out regarding this article.Mosedschurte (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You've distracted away from the direction with nothing but personal attacks, and all you can do is address the editor, rather than the points raised. Please stop your disruptive behavior. Viriditas (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur. There has been no attempt to reach a consensus on these topics. Instead, we have denial, and the playing of the victim card. We need to work TOGETHER to reach cosnensus. Unfortunately, Viriditas's hostility towards anyone with a countering point of view is making this difficult. Please try to remain constructive and reach a consensus on how to make this article neutral. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, I've seen this little tag-team charade too many times. All I've seen from Mosedschurte and Yachtsman1 are personal attacks, evasions of points, promotion of unreliable sources, and non-neutral edits (see below). Answer the questions asked of you, and address the topic. I've directly addressed the problems raised in this article and I've attempted to help fix them, only to be attacked by you Yachtsman1. If you can't discuss the topic without discussing the editor, then don't edit here. It's that simple. Your little "game" of making a criticism and attacking anyone who responds to it with a tag-team is old and tired, and many editors before you have tried it. None have succeeded. Viriditas (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a personal attack, please stop. List your concerns, and then end. Also, please assume good faith as required. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you address the questions asked of you and stop addressing editors. Your behavior is disruptive and does not help improve the article. I have assumed good faith, until proven otherwise, with your continued attacks above. Please focus on the topic, instead of constantly distracting away from it. This isn't Fox News, where you get to attack people and make stuff up. This is Misplaced Pages. Now, address my questions above. Viriditas (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your post. The "questions" have already been addressed by many editors at this time. See supra. I have also made a fresh review of Misplaced Pages policy, and nowhere does it require me to provide further explanation on a neutrality discussion than what we have here. At this point, we should be trying to reach consensus on how best to achieve neutrality on this article. I would suggest that at this point, you show how us what you propose to improve the article in question so that consensus can be reached. Thank you again. The obvious points that have been made is that we should eliminate undue weight, eliminate human rights outside of the United States, and eliminate the section on Hurricane Katrina as a human rights violation. So far, there are numerous editors who have reached this consensus, and I can omnly count you as in opposition. In a spirit of cooperation and in order to incorporate your views, please provide us with your view on how neutrality can be achieved. Thank you again.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I already have above, and you refused to answer my questions. Right now, I don't consider you to be working in good faith. I consider you to be a hostile, POV pusher who makes personal attacks and distracts from the discussion and is incapable of discussing the topic. This isn't Fox News. This is Misplaced Pages. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

And that's your point of view, and that's the problem. You have tarred me with the "Fox News" brush, and you have absolutely not a clue how wrong you are. This is not an election, this is not a war, and this is not a contest of who watches which news outlet. Objectifying your perceived "opponents" with these tactics is terrible form, and uncivil. Just thought you should know. Misplaced Pages is not a battlefield.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality in the racial section

Mosedschurte, with all your crocodile concerns about neutrality, your most recent changes attempt to show only one side to the history of human rights and race in the United States. Looking at your most recent changes, you deleted material about the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the lack of human rights in the early U.S. in regards to African Americans and Native Americans, and slavery. In fact you skip more than a century of history and start the section in 1964! You finally admit at the end, out of historical and chronological sequence and very briefly, that slavery was legal at one time and Native Americans did not have rights. Is this your idea of neutrality? Which one of these sources even discusses human rights? If this isn't a whitewash, then I have to ask, what is? How is this section neutral? Considering the weight of history and recent events, why are you skipping most of it, and focusing only on the most recent advancements? Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Current issues

• Deletion of a link to the civil rights movement
• Deletion of the title page to abolitionist Anthony Benezet's book Some Historical Account of Guinea, London, 1788. Benezet and the Quakers organized the first human rights organization in the United States,(Lauren 2003:33) and Mosedschurte deleted this and replaced it with an image of LBJ.
• Condensing 188 years of the history of human rights in the U.S. from 1776-1964 to a very small paragraph at the end of the section out of chronological order, and focusing only on the most recent 45 years.
• Sources: are they actually discussing human rights?

I have to agree (partially) with Viriditas. The pendulum has swung too far and it doesn't show the whole story. The second paragraph is too much 1964. Where is the emancipation proclamation or the 15th amendment. Also where is the Dred Scott decision, Plessy v. Ferguson, or Uncle Tom's Cabin? Soxwon (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've listed some concerns above. Do the sources even discuss human rights? Replacing Benezet with LBJ is way over the top. Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Complaint dept.

This is apparently Mosedschurte's justification for his edits: On a more very basic Misplaced Pages editing note, the weight devoted to negative (and irrelevant given the article scope) text is WELL, WELL beyond undue given the breadth of sources on the history overall in the sections addressed herein. I just pointed out a few very basic areas that jump off the page given even just a very rudimentary knowledge of world history and U.S. legal history.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not following that. How is the last 45 years of history more important than 188 years of history from 1776-1964? And how is this "irrelevant"? The truism holds: the people who tend to complain the most about neutrality are the ones who can't adhere to it. Viriditas (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a personal attack, please stop. List your concerns, and then end. Also, please assume good faith as required. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Then I suggest you don't understand the definition and use of WP:NPA. What I have written above is not a personal attack in any way. Please contact an administrator to help you understand what I have written. Viriditas (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA - "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done..." I understand this policy quite well, thank you. Please stop violating it.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I can provide many diffs of you doing that right here on this page. Would you like to see them? You've started every personal attack on this page, and when I respond asking you to stop, you turn around and accuse me of making a personal attack. Your disruptive behavior is tired and old and only serves to distract and hijack threads. Go away. Viriditas (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Unconstructive recriminations will be ignored. Time to improve the article. I have added the fact that Barrack Obama was elected the first Afircan American president of the United States and links to his inaugural speech from 2009. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources have to be about or describe human rights. You cannot just add any source you want or any type of information that supports your POV. Furthermore, the authors have to be fairly competent (journalists, professors, educators, etc.) and cannot be your average Fox News talking head. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again. The POV I want to reach is "neutrality", a balanced approach to the subject at hand. I will use any source I deem appropriate and which is reliable to support that mission. Thank you again for your thoughts.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is most certainly not how we edit Misplaced Pages. You will not use any source you "deem appropriate". You will use sources that directly address the topic of human rights in the United States, and if you don't, your content will be removed. Viriditas (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again for your thoughts. I will use the sources that meet the definition of "reliable" as defined by Misplaced Pages, not by the definitions provided by you in this thread. Please let me know if you would like a link to actual wikipedia policy on what constitutes a reliable sourse so that you can then learn how "we" edit Misplaced Pages in accordance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Thank you again.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for offer of help, but I've been here long enough to use them and know how they work. Your most recent edit to the lead section shows that you do not. Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your thoughts. The lead section has thirteen cites, which were from the prior incaranation with changes in verbage, but not substance or citation. Again, thank you so very much.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't be dishonest. We have diffs which show you adding unsourced material and even adding "citation needed". Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

And thirteen cites, and this is an introduction that replaced some portion that basically said the human rights history in the united states was "complex", and unsourced. Thanks again for your thoughts.Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Re: "In fact you skip more than a century of history and start the section in 1964!" (Viriditas)

Yet another inaccuracy. The section doesn't start with any year. It actually starts with EXISTING human rights-related racial equality law in the United States, and it is the 14th and 15th amendments -- which are both currently in effect -- not the CRA. The CRA is the next paragraph.

The paragraph at the bottom summarizes past now inactive law (pre-13th-15th amendments, SBE pre-Brown, etc.). This could not be more straight forward. And the signing of the 1964 CRA photo is an easy slam dunk call for the image for the section -- it is by far the most important active law in the United States and, as the secondary sources have stated, probably the most important Civil Rights law in history.

Same thing for the Gender equality section. 20th Amendment, then CRA addition, then Sexual Harrassment, etc. Mosedschurte (talk) 03:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Where is the emancipation proclamation or the 15th amendment."

If you'll look, the 15th Amendment, which is still active law in the U.S., is in the very FIRST PARAGRAPH. Actually BEFORE the CRA. The 13th Amendment, which constitutionally ended slavery, is also discussed and wikilinked in the third paragraph of the section.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You skipped 188 years of human rights in the United States in order to whitewash the history. This is not acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 04:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality in lead section

Yachtsman1, your recent edits to the lead section do not adhere to NPOV, introduce unsourced material, and remove criticism that is integral to a balanced lead. Please defend this edit. Unsourced material can be removed immediately, and the lead section is not the place to for purple prose or non-neutral summaries. I think you are trying to bait me into an edit war, because there is no justification for your edits. So I will ask you to self-revert at this time. The lead should follow WP:LEAD and your recent edits do not. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. The lead section already has one critique of US human rights policy outside of the United States, so I got rid of the other as undue weight. Indeed, the entire portion on US human rights violations outside of its borders counters the topic at hand. The source on the ICC does not show an "undermining" by the US of the ICC, but instead opposition to it, and refusal to sign the document, and therefore violated POV, and was changed to "opposed". The prior opeing, which acts as a summary, also lacked citations (and none are really needed in an opening anyway), so I find your present stance mystifying in this respect. I will also remind you that you do not own this article, and that you must assume good faith. If you choose to engage in an edit war, that's your choice. I would suggest you refrain from doing so. I would also direct your attention to the article Human rights in the United Kingdom for an article that serves as my template. This article is constructed correctly, covers the subject at hand, and has the rhyme and reason so missing from the jumbled mess of an article we are discussing. Thank you again.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Every article must be treated on its merits alone, and the decision to use Human rights in the United Kingdom as a "template" for this article, is a discussion you failed to have on this talk page. Unilateral editing, especially on articles that have a long history of controversy and dispute, only makes the problems worse, and could result in a block if you continue. Your comments above show an inability to engage in direct discussion, and your POV of "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" is not going to work here. Your edits seem to consist of adding kindling to a wildfire I and others are trying to put out. Please do not edit unilaterlally in the future, and do not add unsourced material to the article, and please do not change the lead section to match your POV rather than the focus of the article. The lead needs to reflect the article, not your personal opinion. Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. This article is being treated on its "merits", which I find less than meritorious indeed, as do a number of other editors. The article I linked simply has rhyme and reason, is neutral, and shines above the jumbled mess we have here, so as a template, it works. I also dislike being threatened, so please stop doing so in the future. This is itself a violation of WP:CIV. I also find your points that I cannot "engage in a direct discussion" when I have addressed your posts point for point throughout this process to be wildly inaccurate. The lead reflects the article, it just does so "neutrally". If you find it does not, kindly provide specific examples and we will try to reach a consensus on this subject. Thank you again for your thoughts.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You have not addressed any of my points in any discussion. Instead, you continue push your POV and boast about not having to follow any guideline or policy. Again, this is not a unilateral process. You need to be able to discuss your edits and defend them. Viriditas (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your personal attack. I will let my comments speak for themselves. Again, thank you so very much.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Your comments have not addressed my questions or points. Do you understand? Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

My comments have perfectly addressed your questions and points. Other editors have also answered your questions and points. We have spent days addressing your questions and points. You are the only person who has raised them, and they have been addressed repeatedly. You have responded instead with a stream of insults, personal attacks and requests for clarification that I am now going to ignore in the hopes of making actual progress to bring this article into compliance with neutrality requirements as they are actually written by Misplaced Pages with the other editors who have reached a consensus that this article is not only neutralk, but what steps are required to improve it. Do you understand? Thank you again.Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You have not addressed my questions or my points, and you continue to waste my time by adding unsourced content to the article, disrupting the talk page, and generally being a nuisance. If you had addressed my questions and points, we would not be talking about your refusal to do so, now, would we? Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

See supra. Thanks again.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I propose deleting the section on international human rights

The article's subject is about Human Rights in the United States. It might be better to simply link the reader with a blurb and links to the relevant articles on these subjects. Can we reach a consensus on this? Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please expand upon your argument with actual reasons. What exactly is it you are saying? Are you arguing for a section split, a more condensed version, removal of the entire section, or what? Please also give examples that do not pertain to human rights in the United States. In other words, why should the section be deleted? You've proposed deletion, but I don't see any reason. Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so very much for your thoughts. The "actual reasons" are stated above. The article's title is Human rights in the United States. The subject, therefore, is Human rights in the United States. It is not Human rights of the United States, nor is it Human rights outside of the United States. The materials proposed for deletion are matters that are outside of the stated topic of the article, they are irrelevant, immaterial and inapplicable to the topic at hand. They are a content fork, and should be removed, with links provided for each separate article on the subject. Thank you again for your thoughts.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not an adequate reason nor are you being clear. Are you arguing for a split or not? Do you even know what that means? I'm sure the section can use some work, but international human rights is part of U.S. foreign policy. Please visit Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor to get some idea of this topic. Human rights in U.S. policy is one aspect of this article. Viriditas (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a particularly adequate reason, and I am being perfectly clear. I am advocating deleting it, which is why the section is entitled "I propose deleting the section on international human rights". Can anything be more clear? If you contend keeping this material in this article when it addresses issues not germaine to it, kindly list your reasons. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not a reason, that's a proposal. Now prepare a reason. This isn't that hard, you know? Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me repeat: The article's title is Human rights in the United States. The subject, therefore, is Human rights in the United States. It is not Human rights of the United States, nor is it Human rights outside of the United States. The materials proposed for deletion are matters that are outside of the stated topic of the article, they are irrelevant, immaterial and inapplicable to the topic at hand. They are a content fork, and should be removed, with links provided for each separate article on the subject. If you contend that this material is germaine to the topic, please provide "reasons" for your position. If you contend that these items should not be removed, please provide "reasons" for your position. Thank you again for your thoughts.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Reasons require evidence. Please provide it. You made a claim without evidence. I gave you a link to the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. That's one organization that is in the U.S. and is focused on promoting U.S. human rights around the world. I can give you a reference to a book, American Exceptionalism and Human Rights (2005) that discusses the topic in relation to human rights policies at home and abroad. To put this another way, international human rights policy is part of this article, but it doesn't require the amount of material at present. This is where a "split" comes in. So on the one hand, you are arguing that the material in't relevant, but you haven't supported your claim other than to say it is a "content fork", which is somewhat circular since you already said that about the title. So, why doesn't this material have anything to do with human rights in the United States? That's the question you need to answer. Because it is a content fork, isn't a reason. It's your opinion. Now give a reason. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

In a civil matter in a Court of Law, the Plaintiff provides "evidence", something I know all about. This is not a Court of Law. Misplaced Pages has guidelines that must be followed, including the fact that an article's content relate to the article's subject. The section on international human rights ss inapplicable to the topic of the article, and should be deleted. One editor disagrees, and has provided a link to another Misplaced Pages article for support. Does anyone else want to chime in here? --Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Every policy and guideline on Misplaced Pages recommends presenting evidence to support claims. If you need further help understanding how Misplaced Pages works, please consult an administrator who will explain it to you. Viriditas (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• I completely oppose deletion of this section, the international human rights conventions mentioned are extemely important and central to the issue at hand. Pexise (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sections not "in the United States"

Some sections fairly clearly deal with actions not "in the United States" and are outside the scope of the article by its very title.

A few easy sections that are not within the scope of the article as their events do not occur "in the United States":

• Abu Ghraib prison abuse - obviously. It is in Baghdad Central Prison is in Abu Ghraib, an Iraqi city 32 km (20 mi) west of Baghdad.]] This is not located "in the United States"
• Guantánamo Bay - is in Cuba (only leased property), which is the reason for the choosing of its location. Again, clearly not "in the United States".Mosedschurte (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Do you think we should delete these sections?--Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely, and these are just the easy ones -- clearly outside the U.S., so there is not really any question. Way outside the article's scope.

The other issues you raised above on the entire "International" section raise issues that also deal with "in the United States" issues.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a novel suggestion

How about we just rename the article Human rights and the United States so there can be more wikilawyering. Soxwon (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not. Then we'd have to include every allegation re every war, war crimes tribunal, etc. The article would be huge.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No, that's the whole problem with this jumbled mess of an article, Sox. Too long, and too much information. I suggest we kick this part, and link to the pages where these stories are actually covered. This is a simple resolution to the problem.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No I think that the article isn't too long, what I think is the problem is that it goes into too much detail. I don't think these extreme cuts are really necessary or really productive. Discuss first, I propose this move as inclusive and really the cutting as unecessary. Soxwon (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Right now, the cuts are just the obvious ones outside the very scope of the article per its title re "in the United States". The same thing would be true of a section on the dropping of the bomb at Hiroshima -- outside the scope.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

They wouldn't be necessary if you would listen and actually take into consideration the change. Soxwon (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop WP:Edit Warring with continued insertion of 8,000+ bytes of material clearly not "in the United States". If you want to change the scope of the article to include all U.S. international actions in its history (which would, by the way, make it grossly WP:Too Long -- it's already over 9.5K prose text), then suggest that instead. Don't add huge swaths of material outside the scope.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved, and btw your suggestion is ridiculous as Human Rights and United States redirected here anyways. A seperate article would be more ridiculous than keeping it. Plz stop rmving material. Soxwon (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

BEYOND RIDICULOUS, your unilateral move. It has been moved back to the same concept as before.

I simply cannot believe that you unilaterally simply changed the article title to change its entire scope because you did not wish to discuss a potential scope change -- WITH TWO EDITORS ABOVE ALREADY TELLING YOU THE HORRIBLE IDEA OF SUCH A SCOPE CHANGE. Mosedschurte (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually beyond ridiculous would be your POV and editing style (other words apply but we don't use them in polite company. That is YOUR interpretation of the scope, and as such it is not automatically law, though I'm sure in your own little world it may be. And as for two editors, HEY THAT'S HOW MANY VIRITIDAS AND I ARE IMAGINE THAT, DON'T START MASS DELETING OK? Soxwon (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)It's not "my interpretation". The article's ACTUAL NAME was "Human Rights in the United States". All I did was delete material outside the United States (by the way just two clearly NOT "in the United States" subsections in an article that has roughly FORTY sections and subsections.

In addition, were we to change the scope of the article to actually cover International events regarding the United States in its history and human rights, the section on World War II alone would be huge, including the the leadership and activities at the Nuremberg Trials, the Hiroshima Bomb, the Fire Bombing of Dresden in World War II, the controverial Rheinwiesenlager camps holding German prisoners the Fire Bombing of Tokyo, the Bombing of Kobe in World War II, Nagasaki_bomb, etc. All of these absolutely dwarf in every regard tiny cases such as Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse and the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. And that's just one 2 year period (1944-45). Mosedschurte (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Repeating yourself verbatim doesn't help. If you'd looked Human Rights and the United States redirected here too. Guess that throws your interpretation out the window. And again, cutting out details does acutally happen and things can be cut to a manageable size. The article can be edited w/o mass deletions I swear (you probably think I'm crazy but it IS possible). Soxwon (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If it helps to cover the topics mentioned in the article, naming it "Human Rights and the United States" would be appropriate. In any case: Since when doesn't Guantanamo Bay belong to the United States? Additionally one could argue, that what happens in US bases around the world that are under the authority of the US counts as "in the US". Larkusix (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"Since when doesn't Guantanamo Bay belong to the United States?"

Since forever. It's in Cuba and the US has a perpetual lease. This is why the various regulatory bodies located the detention facility there -- it's not in the U.S. to attempt to avoid various statutes. This is why it is such an issue moving inmates now if they would be relocated to prisons inside the United States (see news articles today on the issue on the closing funding/alternative dispute).

And expanding this article to include the some 200+ years of international actions relevant to human rights would be a terrible idea. They would grossly dwarf everything in the article now, and the article now is already 9.6K prose text. Mosedschurte (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Mosedschurte, I've been reviewing your edits and the sources you have used. Do any of them actually discuss "human rights"? To set my mind at ease, could you point me to just one source that does? From what I can tell, your edits gloss over most of the history of the human rights in the U.S. What exactly is it that you think this article is supposed to be about? Viriditas (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

UNREAL -- Unilateral move of article

Soxwon engaged in an WP:Edit War, wanted to change the scope of the article to include international events and unliaterally moved the article to ""Human Rights and the United States" -- a grossly larger scoped article. He did so with no discussion of such a change in article scope. He had asked about a change in article scope, BOTH EDITORS that responded disagreed entirely with the idea (the scope of the article would be gargantuan including all historical international issues and it is already too long). He simply changed the title unilaterally anyway.

After this outrageous unilateral scope of article change, I actually had to move it back to "Human Rights inside the United States" to return it to its original scope (Human Rights in the United States).Mosedschurte (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all it was "Human Rights in the United States." Second the article I moved it to already redirected here. Instead of being a complete anal case, how about actually thinking and realizing that this article was meant to cover Human rights and the United States. By your definition this entire article should be deleted based upon the fact we are using international standards since they didn't originate in the United States. Soxwon (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Next time, when you suggest changing the entire scope of the article to something massive, and BOTH EDITORS that respond disagree, try not to go about the unilateral change of the article name anyway. That was beyond ridiculous.

If this article was to actually cover All International events regarding the United States in its history, the section on World War II alone would be huge, including the the leadership and activities at the Nuremberg Trials, the Hiroshima Bomb, the Fire Bombing of Dresden in World War II, the controverial Rheinwiesenlager camps holding German prisoners the Fire Bombing of Tokyo, the Bombing of Kobe in World War II, Nagasaki_bomb, etc. All of these absolutely dwarf in every regard tiny cases such as Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse and the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. And that's just one 2 year period (1944-45). Mosedschurte (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a tip, think before you type. It really helps, I swear. Mentioning all of that in a world war two section could be done fairly easily and painlessly. There's a lot of detail here that is unecessary. Instead of doing mass deletions and being anal about reading the title, use a little common sense. It really does help I swear. And I agree, they would, but they still deserve mention and deleting them is POV for an article covering Human Rights and the United States. Soxwon (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. That was just two years of World War II issues alone I raised that dwarfed issues like Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse and the Guantánamo Bay (which humorously had like EIGHT PARAGRAPHS of material -- re weight matching magnitude the Dresden bombings would have to have probabloy 800). I did so only to illustrate the ridiculousness of attempting to expand the article to include international human rights issues with which the United States has had in its history only to show how huge and different the article would become. If you add in the rest of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc. it would be even more gargantuan. It is already 9.5K prose, at the very upper limit of the guidelines, and too long as it is.

Re: "By your definition this entire article should be deleted based upon the fact we are using international standards since they didn't originate in the United States."

Absolutely not, and this is poorly manufactured straw man. The only two things deleted from the entire article were the obvious ones -- activities that occurred OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES. I did not delete the "International" section, nor any treaties with other countries (which might also cover activities in the United States) or international standards.Mosedschurte (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I would agree naming the article "Human rights and the United States" if it helps, but I oppose naming it "Human rights inside the United States". In any case, territories permanently or temporarily under the control of the United States count as "in the US" in my eyes. Larkusix (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus to move the article to any title at this time. The fact that Mosedschurte chose to move the article to his preferred version in order to exclude content from this article is a sign of someone who does not understand how Misplaced Pages operates. Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't see any consensus to move the page. I've moved it back. It is locked for a month, so you have time to (dis)agree. I'm off camping for a bit, so if you disagree enough and care, you'll have to find another admin William M. Connolley (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• I've been editing and keeping an eye on this article for a long while now, and this type of thing tends to happen periodically - some people take a personal objection to it and try to make sweeping changes, mainly involving deletions. This often smacks of attempts to censor the article.
• If I remember rightly, this article was at one point called "Human Rights and the United States", hence the re-direct from that title. I would have no objection to changing the name of the article back to "Human Rights and the United States".
• I would certainly object to changing the name to "Human rights inside the United States". There is no rationale for changing the title thus, in fact, it seems that the suggestion may even be an indirect attempt to carry out the type of censorship I mention above.
• Regardless, I agree that the scope of the article needs to be clearly defined. As I see it, in order to be encyclopaedic, the article takes, as its theoretical framework, human rights as defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the subsequent UN treaties, conventions and declarations etc. This is one of the reasons for objections to certain sections. Some people don't realise that the UDHR includes socio-economic rights as well as civil-political rights - the sections on hurrican Katrina, universal health care etc, refer to socio-economic rights - for example, Article 25, section 1 of the declaration says:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

• If anyone has an alternative theoretical framework for the article, I would be open to suggestions, although I believe that the UDHR is generally considered to be the accepted mainstream definition of what Human Rights are.

• I also agree that it is necessary to define the geographic scope of the article, as well as the way we deal with the issue of agency. At present, the article deals with human rights issues relating to agents of the US state (police, military, CIA etc) as and where they operate. As has been pointed out, the US has an expansive foreign policy, and as such, agents of the US operate in many foreign countries. I see no reason not to include US activities in other countries, and have heard no plausible reason to restrict the article in this way.
• At the moment, we are only dealing with direct actions of the US and US agents, and have not included indirect support for or sponsorship of human rights violations. While this subject matter is of relevance to the article, its inclusion could indeed lead to the article becoming too long, and as such, a separate article should probably be created. However, if others thought that the scope of the article should be broadened to include US support for human rights violations, perhaps a summary section could be created with a link to a longer article. Pexise (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Too Long

The article is currently over 120K, and over 9.5K prose text. This is already at the upper end of the 6K to 10K prose text article suggested top size.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

With Larkusix's additions, it is now up to nearly 9.7K prose text -- at the very upper end of the too large guideline.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Please walk away from this article. Your disruptive actions in the last 24 hours have violated just about every policy on guideline we have on Misplaced Pages. Further behavior will result in multiple reports on administrator noticeboards. Viriditas (talk) 04:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet another threat in violation of Misplaced Pages policy along with a demand to "Please walk away from this article".Mosedschurte (talk) 04:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a threat. You made five reverts today, including a page move against consensus and naming conventions, in addition to which, you added synthesized, non-neutral content based on sources that do not discuss human rights, while at the same time falsely tagging sourced sections and wikilawyering on the talk page. Here's your chance to redeem yourself: Please revert to the last version before you began editing and ask an administrator to move this article back to it's correct name. If you do not, I will file a total of six noticeboard reports against you. Thanks for your attention in this matter. Viriditas (talk) 05:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Other issues

In addition to issues discussed here, another editor here, issues regarding the article BEING TOO LONG (almost 9,700 KB prose text now) here, other editor comments here and here, there are other issues on specific sections:

• Hurricane Katrina - as discussed by many above, this section is Off Topic, and is grossly exhibits Undue Weight for an entire section that is 4.8 KB devoted to the rescue efforts for one storm that hit in 2005 in an article on "Human Rights inside/in the United States."
• Justice System - this section is particularly Unbalanced with virtually no mention of the United States huge leadership in criminal justice protections and the various protections therein. Instead, it essentially contains a panoply of WP:Undue Weight complaints that are not put in their structural Context of the overall system.
• Death Penalty - this section is written like an Editorial piece, almost entirely containing the arguments of just those opposing the death penalty. In addition, this one subsection alone is a massive 8.1 KB and badly needs to be put in Misplaced Pages summary form.
• Police Brutality - this section is written like an Editorial, conveying only negative sources on the issue, put together to form a negative POV in Sythesis form.
• Universal Health Care Debate - this is a huge 7.3KB section that currently is given WP:Undue Weight, includes a long block quotes from a Case Western textbook (and Michael J. Hurd) and badly needs to be put in Misplaced Pages summary form. It is also written like an editorial section.
• International Human Rights - this section badly needs Context as it includes virtually none of the international human rights leadership of the United States. Also the section is far too large, taking up a massive 45 KB itself, and needs to be put in Misplaced Pages summary form.
• The U.S. and the International Criminal Court - this section is far too long, taking up 4.3KB, needs to be put in Misplaced Pages summary form and is severely Unbalanced as it almost entirely takes one side of the debate about the ICC.
• Abu Ghraib prison abuse - this section is clearly well Off Topic in an article on Human Rights inside/in the United States. Moreover, even were this article to be expanded to include U.S. actions abroad, it would then likely have to be reduced to one sentence given its tiny magnitude when compared to the massive other U.S. actions abroad that would have to be covered of literally thousands of times the magnitude.
• Guantánamo Bay - this section is clearly well Off Topic in an article on Human Rights inside/in the United States, as Guantanamo Bay was chosen for the facility specifically because it was OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES (Cuban land on which the U.S. has a perpetual lease). Even were the article scope changed to include all U.S. historical actions abroad over the also 200+ years, this section on events on one prison in 2003 alone is also a whopping 5.4KB and badly needs to be put in Misplaced Pages summary form. Mosedschurte (talk) 04:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• "Enhanced interrogation" and waterboarding - this section mostly covers actions done outside the United States (Off Topic), is grossly overlength at a whopping 8.1KB badly needing to be put in Misplaced Pages summary form and is written in an Unbalanced regard, taking the side that the enhanced interrogation techniques were human rights violations.

(Finally, regarding response to the above, please stay within Misplaced Pages policy and do not edit the above comments by placing comments between the above paragraphs -- I've noticed one editor doing this repeatedly on this talk page).(Mosedschurte (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi MS, I've removed the tags as they're very disfiguring. It's better to improve the article, even if it takes time, than leaving it with so many tags on it. I've left the NPOV tag in place, as I don't know the status of that one. Cheers, SlimVirgin 05:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, went ahead and replaced a few of the more obvious tags and too long (see sections above). Agree with the improvement point. I actually improved three of the sections yesterday with some fairly extensive sourcing, repairing contextual issues, etc. Obviously, looking at all of the many issues raised by many editors on this article, it requires extensive work on many more sections that will take much longer than one day.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

As that was your sixth revert in less than six hours, I reported you at WP:AN3. Viriditas (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Mosedschurte, you are engaging in civil POV pushing again. Most of these bullet points have already been addressed, yet you continue to bring them up again as if they had not. This is disruptive. You also seem to be making things up and ignoring the sources in the article. Your use of tagging is not accurate, and the sources you've added to the article do not appear to have anything to do with human rights. Finally, your deletion of abolitionist Anthony Benezet, one of the people responsible for creating the first human rights organization in the U.S.and ignoring 188 years of human rights history is either blatant trolling or displays an incredible amount of ignorance of the topic. Replacing Benezet with a photograph of LBJ is quite possibly the silliest thing I've ever seen on Misplaced Pages. I'm going to have to ask you to either engage in discussion or stop editing here. You were asked to defend your edits here and you have completely ignored the discussion. Instead, you keep acting unilaterally as if nobody has questioned your edits. Except, looking up above this thread, I see four editors who disagree with you, and you have not addressed their points. There are currently two open ANI reports on your disruptive behavior, and I expect to open three more in the next 24 hours. Please do not continue to act disruptively in this article. Your edits have been questioned, your sources have been questioned, and your edit warring and page move warring against consensus has to stop. This is the exact same disruptive behavior that your predecessor User:Raggz engaged in, and I have to wonder if there is any connection between you and him and others. Your insistence on "Off Topic" and "Undue Weight" and "Unbalanced" is exactly how Raggz used to discuss here, until enough editors figured out he was disrupting the article and he was asked to leave. Isn't that an interesting coincidence? Furthermore, I find it interesting that your tag-team partner, User:Yachtsman1, created his user account just days before Raggz disappeared. What are the odds of three different editors engaging in the same exact disruptive tactics on the same article? Interesting, don't you think? Of course Raggz got off easy, since when he was confronted with these questions, he said he was suffering from brain damage (he actually said that) and disappeared, never to be heard from again. Viriditas (talk)

Inside/outside the United States

I saw the AN threads asking for outside editors' input. Looking at what seems to be the issue, I think this deletion rationale e.g. was inappropriate. The events in Guantánamo Bay are still reflective of how human rights are dealt with in the United States, as the decision-makers determining what happens in Guantánamo Bay clearly sit "inside" the United States. The United States controls far more territories abroad than a country like, say, Luxembourg. It is probably the most internationally active nation today. When prisoners are "rendered" from US custody to other countries with laxer views on human rights for questioning, these are decisions that are made in the United States. To claim that anything that happens outside the 50 States has nothing to do with "human rights in the United States" strikes me as ill-advised, and I would not be in favour of restricting the scope of this article in this manner. JN466 12:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I have to disagree. The way to go is to create two articles: (1) "Human rights in the United States", and (2) "Human rights violations by the United states". Everything outside the international borders of US (like Guantánamo Bay) belong to second article. Let me give you an example. Would you include everything from Soviet war crimes into Human rights in the Soviet Union? No.Biophys (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • If these war crimes were being committed as we speak, or within the last 2, 5 or 10 years, then yes, I would include them. JN466 18:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Soviet war crimes have been committed during the existence of the Soviet Union. Who said that timing is relevant? Would you include crimes by Russian Army in Georgia to article Human rights in Russia? Ask users who edit those articles.Biophys (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you will be able to change my mind. For example, present-day UN human rights reports on Israel comment on alleged human rights abuses in Gaza, the West Bank, and Syria. Our article Human rights in Israel includes a section on the 2006 Lebanon war. Our article on Human rights in Rwanda mentions that the Rwandan government supplies child soldiers to the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. And if this were the early 1940s, it is inconceivable that an article on "Human rights in Germany" would exclude reports of the mass murder of Jews taking place in occupied Poland, or the mass rape of Russian women by German troops, based on the reasoning that these crimes were not taking place on German soil. JN466 19:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Also please note that the "2008 Human Rights Report: Russia" by the US Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor includes a prominent mention of human rights abuses perpetrated by Russian troops in the course of the South Ossetian war, on Georgian soil. I think our readers would expect our series of articles covering the human rights situation in various countries to be scoped according to the same principles applied there. JN466 20:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It is fine to mention Soviet war crimes in article Human rights in the Soviet Union, but such things should be kept separately, at least for the reason of readability. Do not you see this article is too big? The best logical solution is to divide domestic and foreign issues.Biophys (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No. If the article is too big, you spin out articles and include a shorter summary here. You do not change the scope. JN466 21:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

And please do not take comfort from my use of the word "mention". The US human rights report on Russia goes into a fair amount of detail on Russian actions in Georgia. JN466 21:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• I would refer you to the article Human Rights in the People's Republic of China which features sections on Tibet and Darfur. I would also point out the fact that, as mentioned in earlier discussions, the USA is particularly expansive in its foreign policy at present, hence more mention of international issues. Pexise (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Tibet is fine, because that is an internationally recognized part of China, just like Chechnya (a part of Russia) belongs to "Human rights in Russia". Darfur is not. Perhaps we need a separate article about the US and human rights issues at the international arena.Biophys (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• I could be open to the idea of a separate article on US human rights issues internationally - that could also include US support and indirect involvement in human rights abuses (as in the Darfur example in the China article). However, whatever decisions are taken, the status of ratifications of international human rights documents should stay here as these documents relate to domestic policy as well as international policy. Pexise (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sexual orientation section

Sexual orientation section

Anyone want to tackle this at this point? It appears to be unreferenced POV with a touch of crystal balling. Are there any suggestions for improvement? Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

See the last of my earlier comments on this issue, in the appropriate section, which one or two people seemed to agree with. Mish (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You might want to stay with the section, didn't you start that?, above on this very topic where concensus is to add context and sourcing but not to remove anything. -- Banjeboi 10:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggested removing it above. I am requesting comment on how to improve it now as consensus was to keep it. Understand? --Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

And please discuss changes on this section before making changes to reach a consensus. Let me give you an example - The "Right to Marry" is not one linked to the "right to marry" but instead goes to "recognition" of marriage by the state. There exists no law barring gays from marrying each others by a religious figure (nor could there by constitutionally), instead the law goes to recognition by the state of that union as a "marriage". Marriage is limited in this respect because it is the preferred vehicle for the procreation and raising of children born as the natural result of the union of a man and a woman, and as only men and women can form a union that naturally produces offspring from that union, it is the only "recognized" union by the state. Now we have more problems as a result.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same page? Can't find the words 'Right to Marry' on the page. Recognition of marriage nationally appears under the section 'sexual orientation', and state recognition as a subsection. As this is not the extent of human rights for sexual & gender minorities, it might be better to have the section either carrying one general section which points elsewhere, or a set of subsections.

• LGBT human rights in USA
  • Position on international treaties & declarations
  • Same-sex sex, historical and present-day
  • Civil Unions and/or same-sex marriage
  • Equality and discrimination
  • Transgender and transsexual rights
  • State-specific sexual orientation issues
  • State-specific positions on civil unions and/or marriage
  • State-specific transgender and transsexual issues
  • Hate-crime legislation

And so on (I doubt I have exhausted this). Mish (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no "national recognition" of marriage, it goes by each state, and we would still need to see how you propose meshing this into a human rights article. The items you point to involve rights of the group, or laws created to protect them, but does not apply to human rights per se. It might be better to direct what US policies/laws infringe on LGBT righrs from an international human rights perspective.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Request: Please merge this duplicate thread into the current section on the topic, Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States#Sexual_orientation_section. Several editors continue to recreate duplicate topics again and again, and it is confusing the discussion, as their points keep getting answered, but they ignore the points and start new sections raising the same points again, and this has the effect of scrolling the current discussion off the screen and making it seem like it was never discussed. Please keep all related discussions in their appropriate threads. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. -- Banjeboi 01:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, there would need to be a discussion on recognition of civil unions as a human right. So, the one that says there is no national recognition of marriage, that will be quite short. Then the state one would go into more depth. Same-sex would cover how the situation moved from abuse to tolerance, apart from exceptions. Equality and discrimination are human rights issues - and I would think it important to include where these things are respected and protected, as well as where they are not. I don't have to mesh anything - I'm not editing this article, I have no interest in this article, I was making some suggestions. I do not have any wish to be any more involved with this article than I have been. Mish (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Outline

Several editors have been very outspoken about what this article should not include. However, I have made two previous requests for an explanation of what this article should cover, with no response to my queries. So, I will ask again: What is the scope of this article? Please keep replies brief and to the point so we can move quickly on this and come to an agreement. Viriditas (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be confusion with my simple question. Several editors have answered my question with, "The scope of the article is Human rights in the United States". That is not an appropriate response. For some insight on what a response would look like, please see comments by Jayen4666. We already know the name of the article, so please do not use that as a response. Please also briefly describe what this article will cover, such as an outline of topics and what types of sources are to be used. Recent edits by Mosedschurte indicate that he does not understand that sources have to be directly related to human rights in order to be included. Viriditas (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Jayen466

The scope should be that which is normal in international human rights reporting. As per examples given above, this includes both internal issues and external issues such as war crimes. Basically, everything that would be covered in a UN human rights country report, a human rights country report drawn up by the State Department, etc. JN466 17:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Mosedschurte

This repetition of this point for probably the 10th time is needless. Numerous editors have already responded that the article should cover what the title states - Human rights issues "IN THE UNITED STATES".Mosedschurte (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Yachtsman1

I will answer this again because I have already responded to it at least twice. The scope of the article is "Human rights in the United States". The article should be about "Human rights in the United States"., Anything about human rights outside of the United States should therefore not be covered, because it is not reflective of "Human rights in the United States". Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Objection to unilateral editing

Mosedschurte, you were recently blocked for edit warring in this article. Now that you have returned, you have stepped right back into the same disruptive behavior as before with your latest edits. Could you please explain these edits? Viriditas (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I too object to the wholesale removal of sections without consensus. As I have stated before, the scope of the article should be equivalent to that of any country-specific human rights report by the UN, or the US State Department, etc. I think the question that readers expect any "Human rights in ..." article to answer is this: What is the human rights record of this country? It seems rather inappropriate to exclude Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay on the basis of these locales not being "in" the United States. JN466 17:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

My basic problem is that Mosedschurte was aware that his edits were previously disputed by several editors and he went ahead and made them anyway. This kind of editing behavior does not contribute to a collegial or collaborative atmosphere. Viriditas (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. Note also that this present article is the target of numerous redirects, including Human rights and the United States. JN466 18:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• There has been consistent consensus that items concerning human rights outside of the United States be removed from this article. I will gladly refer you to the talk page items if you would like to review them. This is not "unilateral" by any stretch.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with this talk page and its archives. There is no such consensus. Viriditas (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I amy quite familiar with this talk page. The issue was raised numerous times, consensus exists. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
      • To be honest, it is readily apparent to anyone blundering in here that this talk page does not give the impression of consensus on much of anything. ;) JN466 18:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Now, when our readers go to an article called "Human rights in ..." they clearly expect to learn something about the country's human rights record. Human rights record of turkey redirects to Human rights in Turkey. Human rights in Morocco begins with the words, "Morocco’s human rights record is mixed." The article Human rights in Syria begins with the words, "The human rights record of the Syrian Arab Republic has been evaluated by a number of different sources." This is what these articles are about, countries' human rights records. As far as I am concerned, Human Rights Record of the United States should redirect here as well, or vice versa, rather than lead to an article about a document drawn up by the People's Republic of China. At any rate, it is impossible to have a credible discussion of the United States human rights record that excludes Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay, the rendering of political prisoners, and so forth, on the basis that the alleged human rights violations involved did not happen on US soil. JN466 18:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC

I think it is clear that editors are divided and are unlikely to come to an agreement soon. I propose we file an RfC on the scope this article should have. JN466 18:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. It might bring civility back to these discussions, which has been sorely missing for the past few days. Anyone else?--Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do and make sure you notify the primary WikiProject. Hopefully, such an RfC will demand a bit more honesty from some of the editors here. When asked to define this scope, some of them said, "the article should cover what the title states - Human rights issues "IN THE UNITED STATES" and "the article should be about "Human rights in the United States", yet when issues like Katrina are raised, they suddenly move the goalposts and declare it "off-topic". Viriditas (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• I've filed an RfC below. If I have failed to accurately represent editors' positions, please add a comment, or edit the statement describing your position. JN466 19:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid it isn't working. The RFC statement needs to be brief and to the point. And we do not need the same involved edtitors commenting. That is precisely what we want to avoid. We want a neutral statement that all sides can agree upon, so that uninvolved editors can make up their minds for themselves without involved editors attempting to change their mind. That defeats the entire purpose of a neutral statement. Viriditas (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Article scope

Template:Rfctag2

• Talk:Human rights in the United States (RfC: Article scope) — Should Human rights in the United States include issues such as Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay? 19:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This RfC has also been added to Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/History_and_geography and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Religion_and_philosophy. --JN466 22:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

(no threaded discussion in this section, please)

Why not? This helps to clarify positions during this discussion.Biophys (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Because, my self-admitted "uninvolved editor" (guffaw), it only serves to distract away from the RFC. Does the wikilawyering ever end? Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• OPPOSED TO EXPANSION OF THE ARTICLE TO INTERNATIONAL MATTERS - not only am I opposed to expanding the article beyond the "narrow scope", as you put it (interesting phrasing -- not unlike some of the phrasing in your edits of the Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) cult articles, I'm not even going there beyond that), but it makes little sense to do otherwise in an article titled "Human rights in the United States. Other editors coming across this article will continue to express similar suprise as those above when large sections of the article address issues outside the United States.

Moreover, as explained up the Talk page, the topic would dwarf everything in the page right now with just 2 years alone -- the Nuremberg Trials, the Hiroshima Bomb, the Fire Bombing of Dresden in World War II, the controverial Rheinwiesenlager camps holding German prisoners the Fire Bombing of Tokyo, the Bombing of Kobe in World War II, Nagasaki_bomb, etc. All of these are from 10 to 100,000 times the magnitude of issues as Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse and the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. And that's from just two years, setting aside the leadership in the Rwanda genocide trials, the Bosnian genocide trials, Korean War, Vietnam War, leading efforts to oppose the two of the three most ghastly human rights abusers of this century (Hitler and Stalin), leading the efforts to attempt to contain the largest current police state/abuser (Kim Jong-Il's North Korea), and Pol Pot's Cambodia Killing Fields, leading the efforts to stop the mass killings in Darfur, etc. These issues greatly outscale (thousands of times over in magnitude) issues regarding just two prisons (Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay) currently discussed. Were the article's scope to be so expanded, those two prisons would end up meriting maybe a sentence, or no mention at all, given their tiny magnitude in relation to the other issues.

Keep in mind that that article is already RIGHT NOW sitting on the precipice of the WP:Article Size 6 to 10KB prose text guidelines, at 9.7KB. Expanding it into the massive overseas fronts would mean a substantial decreasing in size (and probably elimination) of a lot of the smaller areas, and even then it would likely continue to violate WP:Article Size. Mosedschurte 19:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. First off RfC's are supposed to be clear and neutral, and ideally concise. This is already quite a mess. To answer the stated question though of course a good article would cover Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay, et al. as any countries human rights work is not confined to only what they do within their borders. The United States in particular is known for acting outside its own policies. Look to serving our readers and you'll likely find your answers. How does Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay, etc. impact human rights issues in the United States? There are entire books devoted to these subjects. -- Banjeboi 21:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Perhaps the title should be Human rights and the USA - because people outside the USA see these two issues as being about the United States human rights record, and often about the human rights of people who are not US citizens, people from countries such as the one I live in. If the USA has the power to extract people from other sovereign countries, and imprison them for months or years without trial in territory outside of the USA, then it has something to with the approach to human rights taken by the USA - and presumably the decision to do that was taken within the USA. So yes, it is about 'Human rights in the USA', because it is an approach taken from within the USA. Mish (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• complete outline of the Human rights record of the United States including international matters is my vote as somebody not involved in US issues, but who commented on the issue of sexual orientation Mish (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree that the article must tell only about the events inside the USA. The sole reason for creation of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp (I mean, creation of the camp in that concrete place, outside the US territory) was to remove its inmates from protection of the American laws. Therefore, a story about Guantanamo is a story about the (successful) attempt of the US authorities to circumvent restriction domestic legislation applies on treatment of ordinary criminals or POWs. Consequently, the story about Guantanamo camp has a direct relation to the situation with human rights in the USA.
  My conclusion is that some events outside the US may have a direct relevance to that article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• Limit scope of this article to "Human rights in the US". All international US-related human rights issues (Iraq, Europe, Cuba, etc.) should be included in separate article(s) and only briefly mentioned here. This is needed: (a) to make this article more readable per WP:MOS (it is already too big), and (b) to be logical and consistent with the practice for other countries. For example Soviet war crimes (outside the Soviet Union) are undeniably human rights issues. But we are not going to paste these materials into Human rights in the Soviet Union, and rightly so. I consider myself almost uninvolved editor, since I only made two edits in this article.Biophys (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• (comment by RfC originator) I think everybody is agreed that events of 65 or 165 years ago should not receive detailed coverage in this article. We only have one single-word mention of slavery and native Americans, for example. The main scope of this article is the present day. JN466 23:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. This article should begin from adoption of the United States Constitution, however it should describe only human rights issues in (within) the US. It does not matter if we are talking about modern day Iraq or WWII Europe.Biophys (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well that obviously makes the now historical "Abu Ghraib", "Alleged violations of national sovereignty" and "Extraordinary rendition" sections easy historical deletes. That's good to hear. But it would still have to be expanded to include the current pushes to stop Human rights abuses in Darfur, North Korea, etc.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Limit scope of this article to "Human rights in the US". This article should be confined to domestic human rights issues within the USA, which is already a huge topic on its own when one thinks of slavery of the 19th Century and the civil rights movement today. Some think issues like Guantanamo Bay needs to be included, but if we do that, what about these CIA detentions in Europe? If those CIA detentions are included what about those civilians killed in Afghanistan and US backing of Israel and the Palestinian issue and the CIA's assasination attempt on Castro, etc, etc, etc. The scope will just continue to creep. Create new articles to cover international issues if required. Some contend that CIA detentions in Europe should be included, because the reason for their creation is the same as that of the Guantanamo camp: to put some persons under the US jurisdiction and, at the same time, to deprive them of basic right warranted by the US laws. However many European countries have agreed to suspend their own human rights laws to allow the CIA to hold prisoners on their territory, so the CIA detentions could also be a subject of Human rights in (insert your European country here). There is a stronger case to include the Guantanamo camp and CIA renditions in the article War on Terrorism rather than this article. This war isn't being fought by the USA alone, but many European countries are involved too. The bottom line is that this article should not become a WP:COATRACK of grievances against the USA. --Martintg (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• Opposed to Expansion: I have been heavily involved in this article and the talk page. The article involves human rights within the United States. As such, it should be limited to the subject of human rights within its own borders. Articles on the human rights policies of the United States, an enormous undertaking, deserves its own article, or bettwe yet several sub-articles, most of which in fact already exist. I would suggest that this policy be used on the matter of human rights by country in the future. The matter of human rights within the borders of the country should be covered, and a separate article on policies outside of that country and generally provided for each country. I think this provides good order for the subject. I would also suggest that many areas within the article itself stray off topic, including gay marriage, for instance, and/or are written by people with no background in American law and forms of government in America's uniquely federal system, where power is shared by local, state and federal governments such as the section on Hurricane Katrina. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose to inclusion of extra topics - propose moving things like Guantanamo to another article, say Human Rights and US Foreign Policy (I can see that one becoming a mess quickly too, but at least the issues will be easier to navigate).radek (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Include discussion of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo as a matter of course This is the article on the Human rights record of the United States. It is not credible without a discussion of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay. These topics have been covered in the article for years, and I see no good reason to remove them now. Country reports by the UN human rights council cover a nation's conduct in military operations as a matter of course, as do the country reports on human rights published by the US State Department (example: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/eur/119101.htm). Editors should focus on improving the content of the existing sections, so the article cites the best scholarly and media sources available, and do so collaboratively, rather than by edit-warring. Given the number of human rights-related issues discussed, most of which are the subject of a dedicated article and need not be duplicated here in the same depth, the present article should give a brief summary of each issue, with a link to the main article. Reductions in overall article length should not be achieved by excluding issues, but by adjusting the length of the various summaries. JN466 08:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Don't exclude US human rights issues outside US borders The article wouldn't be credible without mentioning (Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, renditions, and the application of international law, among other issues. Larkusix (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Include US rights issues outside US borders if and only if the incident in question originated with a person being arrested, captured, detained, or otherwise taken while within US borders. The articles should say what can happen within US borders, and then link to the articles about American-operated detainment facilities on foreign soil, but the rights for persons put into those places are so different that they have no relationship to typical US rights. The article would be amiss to neglect to say that a person in America can be taken from America and put into a foreign prison, but after leaving America the other rights on this page no longer apply and belong in a separate article. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• Do not include US Human Rights issues outside of US borders. It says IN the United States. Also, many abuses that occurred outside of the USA were not sanctioned by the government. --Rockstone35 (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. While technically, the article title could taken as meaning "Human rights inside the United States," common sense says the article scope should include human rights violations commited by people acting under US laws (e.g. soldiers) in foreign countries and also violations commited in territory under US rule (Guantanamo.) I cannot see any problems with the inclusion other than the possible technical violation of scope defined by article title. Offliner (talk) 09:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose expansion. Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo can still be included as those are U.S. controlled installations—so, that is, embassy grounds and military installations included, but not outside the gates.

General discussion

Please post any threaded discussion here:

This article has always covered Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay

It is untrue to claim that there has been a recent effort to expand the scope of this article to include matters such as Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. These topics have always been covered, as they obviously should, until this present effort to have them removed from the article. Please see article status as of 4 April 2009: , 1 March 2009: , 2 February 2009: , 1 January 2009: 1 December 2008: , May 2008: January 2008: Each of these article versions covered Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay.

What these article versions document is actually a long period of stability in which this article quite naturally covered these issues, as of course it should. We simply cannot have a credible article on the United States human rights record which avoids these issues. JN466 07:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Break up the article

This article is too long, and has too many points of discord to allow for a coherent discussion of any one point. I suggest breaking this article down.

• 1. History of human rights of the USA (at home and abroad) before 1945 (or some other date)
• 2. Domestic human rights in the USA (post 1945 - or whatever)
• 3. Human rights issues USA us involved in (includes US human rights issues beyond its borders, and foreign affairs)

These can be linked to from within the main article. Then Katrina can be focused on in 2, and Guantanamo Bay etc. in 3.

Manipulating responses the way that has happened is a bit disconcerting, because it affects the flow of argument in a way that it appears differently from how it took place. Mish (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Good proposal. A history section would be a useful addition. I think this is the only way this article can work – as a summary article providing access to the more detailed articles. JN466 09:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Minor comment. Although majority of human right issues beyond the US border belong to 3, some of them, e.g. Guantanamo may be relevant to 2, because they are directly connected to the situation with domestic human rights (the US authority simply cannot keep anyone in detention for a long period of time without a trial, therefore they had to move the prisoners formally outside of the US land).--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the proposal to split this article into three is a good one. I'd don't see why Guantanamo camp and CIA renditions should be in 2 and not in 3. Apart from my argument that these parts really belong in the article War on Terrorism since other countries were also complicit in these renditions, the fact is that Guantanamo Bay isn't considered a part of the USA and thus cannot be considered domestic, regardless of the viewpoint that prisoners were held externally to circumvent domestic laws, (and that viewpoint can just as easily be presented in 3). If on the other hand the inmates of Guantanamo camp were all US citizens then I would agree with you, but they are foreign enemy combatants who are held for allegedly committing acts outside the USA, where US law has no jurisdiction anyway. --Martintg (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Federal

Yachtsman1 mentions this point above, briefly. I wonder whether the implications have been thought through. Some years ago, in a case about consular access, the Supreme Court confirmed the commonsense view that the federal authorities cannot, by signing treaties with foreign powers, grant themselves powers the constitution doesn't give them. They specifically ruled that the federal authorities couldn't enforce the consular access treaty against the states. Similarly, I presume they couldn't enforce narcotics treaties either. Anyway, the relevance to this discussion is that they can't enforce any international human rights treaties they may sign, except in so far as the constitution may grant them powers in specific types of case. So are there, or should there be, separate article sfor the states? Peter jackson (talk) 10:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing Katrina discussion

Please seeTalk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States#Katrina for full discussion.

Manipulation with the editors' opinions?

I am a little bit surprised with some recent changes that has been made during last couple of hours in the section "Comments by uninvolved editors" . I understood the section's name in such a way that uninvolved editors are invited to present their opinions and that the editors that have already been extensively involved in the discussion will refrain from any interference into that. However, a user Yachtsman1 started to supplement editor's opinion with comments that questioned the neutrality of them (I believe that the fact that these editors expressed the point of view not shared by Yachtsman1 was just a unfortunate coincidence :) ). However, after six uninvolved or minimally involved editors (Banjeboi, Mish, I, Biophys, Marting) presented their opinions (3 pro and 2 contra + radek's contra afterwards, so now we have 3 : 3 comments of uninvolved editors), I found that the whole section appeared to be completely rearranged. Some comments were removed, other posts were added from previous sections and the editors that have already been heavily involved in the discussion added their comments. Moreover, the name of the section have been changed from "Comments by uninvolved editors" to "Comments".
I have the strong feeling that:

1. Someone decided to regroup the posts of others (and partially delete them) to create an impression that RfC tipped the balance towards his POV.
2. Someone behaves as a moderator of this talk page.

I never faced such blatant manipulation with editors' opinions. I request the previous version of the section to be fully restored along with all comments made by all editors.
Best regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Jay, who filed the RfC, asked me to reword it, because people here were complaining about it not being neutral. So I did. I removed the threaded discussion, and the instructions in yellow, and so on, which were very confusing. I also removed the distinction between involved and uninvolved editors, because it was leading to arguments. There is therefore a neutrally worded RfC in the section above; a section for comments; and a section below it for threaded discussion. That way, people coming to this anew will be able to read it. SlimVirgin 05:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Second Paul here. The discussion was hard enough to follow and now I've got to re-read the whole page to find old comments. And all of this done with a purpose of making it look like one's POV has more support than it does. This isn't even to bring up the deletion of other editors' comments. This is going beyond simple violations of Wiki guidelines and starting to border on vandalism.radek (talk) 03:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, my comment above refers to Viriditas moving around users' comments without their approval and outright deleting some of them.radek (talk) 03:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

To further clarify, Paul is not referring to my edits. You are either confused, or in the wrong thread; Perhaps a combination of both. Viriditas (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

To further clarify, he actually is.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are seriously mistaken. I did not remove or modify the specific material Paul is referring to during this timeframe. I may have posted one or two comments, but I did not change anything regarding this particular issue. Please try to follow discussion a bit more closely. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Paul, please add a comment (or move this) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#RfC where a related discussion is already underway. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, yes you did, and you were admonished by an adminsitrator for doing so, promising not to do so in the future to avoid blocking. ]--Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Paul. I was surprised to see your response to my message removed by SlimVirgin, I attempted to re-incorporate it by expanding my comment. All this manipulation does is to muddy the waters and disrupts the flow of the discussion. I thought dealing with Eastern Europe content disputes was tough, but evidently I was wrong. --Martintg (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

A good suggestion. Let me explain: Originally, it was another editor's position that only "non-partipants" could comment, and therefore the fact that each commentator had already particpated under the "uninvolved" section was in direct odds with that position. I added the summaries underneath the first few comments to show that they had edited the talk page and article previously and were thus "involved", but would never edit the actual comments. These were later removed. Verititas has since moved an entire section of this RFC without a consensus to the Katrina portion of the talk page, and has edited comments from editors without permission. In short, if looking for the person acting as a "moderator", look no further than user:Virititas. Yes, it's completely outrageous. Check out the edit summary if you have any further questions, because the "changes" are coming from "left" field on this occassion.Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

More distractions. Nobody ever said "non-participants" could comment. They said that the RFC needs to reflect the position of involved editors, and that the RFC is designed to solicit opinions from non-involved editors. Please at least try to follow what is said. Paul Siebert's criticism of your continuing interference in this RFC is dead accurate. And SlimVirgin apparently tried to cleanup the mess, so she cannot be blamed here. The fact is, you and your "team" have not allowed this RFC to operate in good faith and it has been distorted at every level. Oh, and nice job trying to divert the criticism away from you and on to me. I do have further questions, such as where are the neutral editors, and why isn't this RFC designed to attract them? This is a show RFC, and cannot be considered legitimate. Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Then please explain this comment left on my talk page: ]. I think it amply speaks for itself, and your own words stand in stark contrast to what you have stated above.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Shrug. I thought I was a neutral non-involved editor... --Martintg (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You're a rare breed, then. :) Viriditas (talk) 03:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas, perhaps you should entertain the possibility that YOU are the non-neutral editor here and the fact that the RFC isn't going the way you wish it was does not mean that others are non neutral. And you REALLY REALLY REALLY you need to cut out the personal abuse.radek (talk) 03:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That's funny, because as a neutral editor, I haven't participated in the RFC, or have you been too involved to notice? Oh, and I challenge you to find a single discussion comment where I have opined on the topic of this RFC, other than to observe that several editors have not been following the consensus (or lack of it) on the talk page. Looking forward to your reply... Viriditas (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

<---I never said you participated in the RFC so don't jump to conclusions. But you are the one making accusations that those who commented are "non-neutral". Your own non-neutrality leads you to label anyone who disagrees with you in such a way. When you say "where are the neutral editors, and why isn't this RFC designed to attract them?" you're really seeing "why isn't this RFC designed to to attract editors who agree with me?".radek (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: "To clarify, my comment above refers to Viriditas moving around users' comments without their approval and outright deleting some of them" (radek)

--There is some interesting squirming going on the 3RR board about Viriditas's deletion of Talk Page comments here.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

To SlimVirgin. I assume your good faith but I don't think this your action was justified. As a rule, one cannot edit even his own comments on the talk page (I mean after someone had already commented on your post). The best way is to strikethrough your text.
In addition, the person who initiated RfC has no addition rights as compared to other editors, so he cannot authorise anybody to do anything others cannot do. If I were you, I at least made some reservation about the rearrangement of the text you did.
Nevertheless, again, I assume your good faith and I believe it was just an unfortunate incident.

To radek. Dear Radek, please correct me if I am wrong, but Viriditas seems to support the idea to include Guantanamo into the article. Therefore had he made the changes you accuse him in, that would be a proof of his extreme neutrality (because the modifications I pointed your attention at were aimed to tip the balance towards the POV not shared by Viriditas). One way or the another, I didn't mean Viriditas in my previous post.

To Yachtsman1. I don't think most your statements were true.

To Martintg. Thank you Martintg, it is a great pleasure to deal with Eastern European editors, because, although, as a rule, our points of view do not coincide, most of these editors are polite, intellecually honest and are prone to accept logical arguments.

To Viriditas. To avoid problems in future, please, try to follow formal WP rules as much as possible, because some editors tend to collect information about formal violations committed by their opponents, and used to start annoying wikilawyering campaign that may distract you from productive editing.

Finally, I agree with JN that the subject of the current discussion was not the expansion of the article but removal of the text that was there for a long period of time. Therefore, I think it would be correct to say that the RfC's result is: there is no consensus among the editors regarding exclusion of the human rights issues outside US borders from the article.
Am I right?
Regards,--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for showing support for those who agree with you, and casting adverse judgments on those who do not. We are all very surprised, we swear. As for "untrue statement", please share a few with me. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please let's be nice to each other ... :) JN466 17:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

To Yachtsman1. No problem. The first example of a false statement is your above post. My major purpose was not to show support for those who agree with me, but to explain what concretely did I mean in my previous post. I did not mean changes made by Viriditas, and, therefore, your statement "To further clarify, he actually is" was a second example of false statement made by you.
More important, the major person I showed support for was Martintg. As you probably noticed, he shared the oppsite point of view, however, he took every effort to reflect my POV in his post when my own post appeared to be removed. This is an admirable example of intellectual honesty and nobility. And this is a good example for you to follow.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet the greatest number of changes were made by Viriditas, which was the point being made. Your point was that someone had decided to regroup the posts, and to act as a monitor. Things like this: ] and this ]. Virititas's changes/reverts of talk page comments have also been well documented. Perhaps misread your points would be more accurate? Or perhaps you "meant" something else? You delve into dangerous territory when you accuse someone of a false statement, Paul.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The examples provided by you has no relation to the RfC section. My point was clear: someone was adding the comments to the posts of others and someone re-grouped and even deleted the posts of others to create an impression that majority of the editors support the idea to remove Guantanamo and Abu Graib. Obviously, this was done not by Viriditas, and your attempt to accuse him in that, as well as to use my words as a support for your accusations look funny. Two explanations of your behaviour are possible, you either (i) did it unintentionally (in other words, you just misunderstood something), or (ii) it was a deliberate lie. Although I prefer to believe in (i), in both cases you have at least to apologise.
If I missed or I didn't understand something, please, explain, however, I see no flaw in my arguments so far.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Try Number 1, then, Paul. The Rfc section was heavily edited by the user in question, thus the "flaw in your argument", by simply reverting other's comments, primarily those who were previously involved and supported eliminating "Guantanamo and Abu Graib" among other items from the article, thus acting as a "moderator" as you put it by censoring comments. Indeed, the editor in question was forced to apologize for doing just that on her talk page by an administrator. If you meant something else, I apologize for the confusion, taking your comments to mean "moderating" the Rfc in general, which was precisely what was happening in direct violation of talk page policy. However, and in any case, the explanation was provided by user:slimvirgin, which to my knowledge has been accepted. Are we clear then?--Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear that the incident was a result of your misunderstanding. In that situation some explanations may be sufficient. As I already wrote, my major concern were: (i) the comments made by you (you conceded it was incorrect, so forget about that), and (ii) changes that apparently were made by user:slimvirgin( and some others). Slimvirgin provided explanations for these actions, so, although I still think such an action wasn't justified, I at least can assume user:slimvirgin's good faith. However, I found no evidence of manipulation by neutral editors' opinions made by Viriditas (I mean, in the RfC section). Moreover I let you know clearly, that I didn't mean him, so you couldn't and you shouldn't use my words as a support for your allegations.
Consequently, you have two options: (i) either to provide an evidence that Viriditas edited the RfC section between 00:47 26 may and 02:16 26 may, when the unjustified modifications took place; or (ii) apologise.
I believe now we are clear.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Basic misunderstanding

Reading (most of) the above discussion it seems like Viriditas is failing to understand the basic argument that people are making. It's not a question of finding sources here - sure, a lot of reliable people have written on Hurricane Katrina or the difference between US labor market laws and that of, say, France. But those people's writings belong in those respective articles. Here, AT BEST they warrant a one sentence mention. So it's not an issue of whether or not SOME reliable source exists on these particular topic but to what extent they are reliable here. In other words, it's an issue of UNDUE WEIGHT (and in some cases FRINGE). A good chunks of this article should be simply removed and relevant sections, if any, rewritten from scratch.radek (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That isn't remotely accurate and I suggest you do some basic research on the subject. Katrina was one of the worst disasters in U.S. history and every source that discusses human rights in the U.S. expands upon it in detail, as it was and currently is a diaspora of incredible magnitude, of which the government at all levels failed to prevent, prepare for, and to protect during and after the event. No argument or evidence has been presented showing this is a footnote to history, rather the opposite can be shown. Katrina is quite possibly the greatest human rights issue in modern U.S. history, and there is ample evidence supporting this idea. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if Katrina was one of the worst disasters in US history, and even if the government preparation/reaction to it was a total mess that does not make it a Human Rights issue. The relevant information - aside from a possible one or two sentence mention here - belongs in the article Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina.radek (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The sources describe it as a human rights issue, and the core arguments concern access to housing, education and health care, and the status of so-called Katrina "refugees" or survivors as internally displaced persons (IDPs), and the international protection afforded them by the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, a key principle in human rights that, according to some critics, the United States refuses to recognize. Whether you consider it a HR issue or not is completely irrelevant. We don't write articles based on editorial POV. We go with the sources. To claim, as you have, that this not related to human rights, shows me that you haven't done the slightest bit of research on the topic. Viriditas (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There are some sources which deal with it as such but they represent a minority point of view. That's why they're UNDUE.radek (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

All modern human rights sources deal with it; this is not "undue weight" in any way. Please read the policy again. It is actually a violation of NPOV to exclude this material, and the treatment of IDP's is a core topic in human rights. If it was a minority POV, you would be able to show that only some human rights organizations have addressed it, or that the UN has not given attention to the issue (they have, in several reports), or that reliable secondary sources have not reported on the topic (dozens of sources can be found), or that academic books have not covered the topic (dozens), or that journals have not addressed the issue (many, and I'm going to continue adding the sources right now). So, this does not meet the criteria for "undue weight" at all, nor can you argue that it does. Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "All"? That's obviously not true. And one more time - UNDUE is not just a question of whether or not there are sources on the topic. It's whether the topic is receiving attention in the article that is appropriate to the more general topic in the literature. And currently it's way way over represented. radek (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

All human rights-related sources on the topic of Katrina deal with this issue as an issue of importance; they do not deal with it as a minority POV. I'm getting tired of your wikilawyering. Since you are not informed on this topic, there's no need for me to continue this discussion with you. You appear to be wasting my time with nonsensical comments and wikilawyering. I'm going to get back to adding sources to the Katrina/Reliable source section and continue to prepare for expansion of the topic in relation to the core topic of IDP's in the U.S. which concerns itself directly with human rights in the United States. Please stop wasting my time. Viriditas (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

And btw, neither the 'Criticisms' article not the Hurricane Katrina article itself contain the phrase "human rights".radek (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so please save the fallacies for someone a little more gullible. We are discussing human rights and Katrina in this article. What some other article includes or lacks has no bearing on this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No doubt there are many conspiracy theories about Hurricane Katrina, but Occam's razor tells us that given a choice between simple bureaucratic incompetence and systematic abuse of human rights in relation to the response to Katrina, simple bureaucratic incompetence is the cause. I think one needs to be mindful of WP:UNDUE. --Martintg (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This particular special case of Occam's has a name of its own; it's called Henlon's razor. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 06:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean, Hanlon's razor, the variation of which you are referring to is: "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence." But of course, that's not the central argument, and most sources actually say just that, i.e. chalk the poor response up to incompetence. But that isn't related to the human rights issues, which discuss the Guiding Principles and IDP. There are other issues related to human rights as well, such as the social needs of the survivors. Where are you getting the malice thing from in regards to this, anyway? Are you reading that into it? Viriditas (talk) 08:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Accusing your opponent of appealing to "conspiracy theories" when none have been mentioned or discussed is a nice tactical strategy used to shout down your opponent. On Misplaced Pages, we tend to go with the sources. And the sources (posted above in Katrina/Reliable sources) support these claims. If there is a specific claim you would like to challenge, by all means do so. But please do so without resorting to obvious fallacies. UNDUE deals with minority POV, and this is not a minority POV. The human rights issues related to Katrina have been covered by every reliable source imaginable including multiple UN reports covered by secondary sources. Books published by academic press have also discussed the topic in depth. Please address the topic directly without trying to distract away from it again. This has nothing to do with UNDUE and everything to do with one of the greatest human rights issues in modern U.S. history. Viriditas (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like minority POV to me. I live in Australia and I like to believe that I am fairly well read and up to date on most issues, and the Aussie press can be very critical of the USA, but I must say the idea that Hurricane Katrina being "one of the greatest human rights issues in modern U.S. history" is news to me. Are you sure you are not simply cherry picking various sources and creating a synthesis that leads you to believe Katrina is "one of the greatest human rights issues in modern U.S. history"? But if there are human rights issue in regard to Katrina, they correctly belong in Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina. --Martintg (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the human rights literature, these issues belong here, as this article covers human rights in the United States. I'll ask you what I asked all the other editors who said it should be excluded. What is your criteria for inclusion, and does it differ from normal Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines? Please answer this question directly so that I can address it. Please also show how your criteria for inclusion applies to other articles, so that we may see examples at work. I'm not going to deal with hypotheticals or what you think policy should be. I'm going to deal with facts and real-world application. There are enough reliable sources on the topic to merit inclusion. What is your criteria? Pleas also note, that those who argue against exclusion inevitably do so because the conclusions reached by the sources are critical of the United States. Per NPOV, this type of criticism is essential to the article, especially in relation to the status of Americans displaced by Katrina. Per NPOV, continued removal of such key criticism is against policy. The subsection could be called "Internally displaced persons (IDPs)" and discuss the role of American policy in this regard, with the Katrina issue highlighting the topic. It is not only relevant to this article, it is a core topic in human rights. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas, I'll let Martintg answer your demands if he's so inclined but I just can't help but juxtapose this quote of yours:

Please also show how your criteria for inclusion applies to other articles, so that we may see examples at work.

with this quote of yours from a response to me above:

What some other article includes or lacks has no bearing on this discussion..

The above demands just seem like you're trying to throw up roadblocks in the face of consensus.radek (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

And your comment shows that you are trying to wikilawyer and show contradictions where none apply. I asked for Marting's criteria for inclusion. And I asked him to show me an article where he could apply his criteria, i.e. a real example. You then took a separate discussion out of context (a discussion that had nothing to do with criteria for inclusion) and tried to bring it up here to show a contradiction. Pure wikilawyering, nothing more. I stand by my comment and await Marting to show me how his criteria for inclusion can be applied. This has nothing to do with whether this material already appears in another article. Completely different discussion. This is very simple, so if you can't follow it, then ask someone for help. I'm asking Marting to show me his criteria for including this information in the article. And if there are other articles where this type of criteria can be seen in action (such as an example illustrating his criteria), I would like to see it. Two different things. Viriditas (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

<--- No, it's not wikilayering, just merely pointing out that you're being inconsistent. When it suits your purpose and argument you say "what's in other articles doesn't matter" and when it suits your purpose and argument you say "show me where this is done in other articles". You can't have it both ways. And please don't make barely-hidden uncivil comments like This is very simple, so if you can't follow it, then ask someone for help.radek (talk) 01:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem able to follow the discussion or to tell the difference between a discussion about criteria for inclusion and a discussion about the lack of material in another article. I'm sorry, you haven't pointed out any inconsistency at all, but you have shown that you are intellectually dishonest. Viriditas (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas, calling somebody "intellectually dishonest" is a personal attack, your second one here towards me. It is also inconsistent with telling someone that they can't "tell the difference between a discussion about criteria for..." - if I can't tell the difference, how can I be dishonest about anything. Furthermore, please stop moving around and deleting other users comments. This is a talk page, not the article itself. It is also very very disruptive.radek (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a personal attack, please strike through your comment that radek is "intellectually dishonest", or provide me permission to to do so. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It is wikilawyering and intellectually dishonest to take points from two different discussions made to two different people and then claim there is a contradiction. That's my position and I'm sticking to it. Radeksz pretended to be interested in discussing the issue, but his only interest was to find some way to discredit my point, a point he never was able address. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet a personal attack it remains, so please strike through your comment that radek is "intellectually dishonest", or provide me permission to to do so. Thank you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it is a valid description of his argument. Now, either address the topic, or go away. Is that clear? Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Okay. I note that your entire theory of human rights violations for Hurricane Katrina survivors rests on the position that they are IDP's. Please provide me with a link where the UN or USA has designated Katrina Survivors as IDP's to fall under the protections of of the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. Thank you so much.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Huh? It's not my "theory" nor has anyone designated Katriana survivors as IDP's, which is the entire crux of the dispute in the sources. Of course, you already knew that, which is why you asked me a question that cannot be answered. Should this also be described as intellectual dishonesty? Considering that you have shown knowledge of the topic of IDPs in your past edits, I suggest it can be. So, to set the record straight, you posted a red herring. Is such a thing intellectually dishonest? I don't know. Viriditas (talk) 02:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Thank you for your admission, and you are correct, I know international law, and I know the mechanisms for designation of IDP's. It appears that the survivors of Katrina have not been designated as IDP's, and that as they have not been designated IDP's, they are not afforded the special protections of international law and do not fall under the protections of of the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. It would, indeed, be "intellectually dishonest" as you so eloquently state, to argue that these individuals fall under the protections of of the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement when they have not been classified by either the USA or UN as falling under this classification of protected individuals. In conclusion, your entire argument falls like a house of cards. Your point is not that these people have been denied protection as IDP's, but that they have not been classified as such, and that they "should" be classified as IDP's to gain the protections you point to. This is not a matter of a breach by the United States of international conventions on human rights, but an opinion shared by your sources that they should be afforded such protections. As you have failed to provide an example whereby the United States has breached human rights laws and conventions regarding the survivors of Hurricane Katrina, this section should be removed from the article as a violation of WP:NPOV, and as immaterial to the subject matter. Thank you. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • You have a basic misunderstanding of the NPOV policy and how we use sources. It is not our responsibility to "prove" that the U.S. has violated any human rights laws. It is our responsiblity, per NPOV, to represent all significant POV, and the issue of IDP's is a significant one, in that 1) It is an important topic in relation to the United States as there is significant discussion and debate about whether the U.S. recognizes the Guiding Principles or not; and 2) The issue in relation to Katrina and IDP's has been discussed extensively in such sources, and is relevant to the topic. As editors, we are not in the business of proving anything; in fact it is our responsiblity to represent arguments even if we think they are wrong or if we disagree with them. Combine this with your inability to cite sources correctly (Re:The Washington Post and Ray Nagin) and your misunderstanding of basic guidelines and policies (No offense, some of them are esoteric), and a pattern emerges. The pattern points to a general misunderstanding of how Misplaced Pages works. Regardless of what the position of the U.S. is in relation to IDP's, it is a significant topic in human rights that needs to be addressed in this article. Katrina is only one aspect of such coverage, and it is well-represented in the literature. My understanding is that you and others are against inclusion because doing so opens the U.S. up to criticism. Part of the NPOV policy is to represent such criticism in neutral terms. So, to follow your argument to its conclusion, the inclusion of such material is not only necessary, it is required for NPOV. I hope you understand. Viriditas (talk) 04:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• The NPOV policy you cite requires a "neutral point of view". Neutrality is not achieved by providing sources with which one agrees. As the actual policy states: Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be fixed. See WP:NPOV. Misplaced Pages "works" on this policy. The cites/sources you have provided are biased, they are not based upon fact, they are editorialized findings, they seek designation when none exists. My understanding is that you and others are for inclusion of this material because doing so opens the U.S. up to criticism. You are not asserting facts, but instead you are asserting opinions of facts. The "fact" is that these individuals are not IDP's, and are not due the protections alleged denied to them under international law. That they should be designated as IDP's is a matter of opinion, and the opinion is based on a criticism of the United States on this basis. It violates WP:NPOV on that basis. Once you review the actual NPOV policy, I can only hope you understand. It should be stricken from the article because that's the way Misplaced Pages "actually" works. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Please familiarize yourself with the NPOV policy a bit more and how we use sources to attribute opinions about facts. The sources meet and exceed the requirements for RS; each source needs to be evaluated on its own merit. Your wikilawyering and broad, sweeping claim of alleging that all the sources are biased on this topic is absurd and will not be taken seriously by anyone, especially when the issue is represented in reliable newspapers, journals, research reports, and serious books devoted to human rights. I know you've only been here since September 2008, so your "rookie" arguments are understandable. But, please, take the time to read the policies and guidelines, and when you become more familiar with how the place works, feel free to ask questions. You could even hang out on the NPOV and RS noticeboards and learn a thing or two. Good luck. Viriditas (talk) 05:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: "I understand you've only been here since September 2008, so your "rookie" arguments are understandable." (Viriditas)

Hilarious lecture given the source today. I would stick to the facts, try to remain WP:Civil and try to lay off attacking other editors knowledge thereof.

Is that an ad hominem or you are referring directly to the topic? Viriditas (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• This is not about "reliable source", this is about WP:NPOV. If we went by the use of "reliable source", your own edits removing the Washington Post was made in bad faith, as it is actually identified as such in WP:REL. Your continued attempt at "biting the newcomer" is noted, and simultaneously viewed as laughable, as well as uncivil. I have been here since September, 2008, well done. In that time, I have actually read the policies you consistently cite to incorrectly, and I've written a few articles as well. I can only wonder how someone who trumps their experience so loudly for their length of time on this site can so consistently violate every policy it has. The fact is that they are not IDP's. That's a fact, provide a source. The fact that they "should" be dsignated as IDP's is an "opinion", and should not be included in this article, which is also the entire argument for its conclusion. In other words, this is not about a violation of human rights laws and conventions, it is about how it "should" be considered as such because the survivors "should" be classified as IDP's and criticizes the United States accordingly. That's "opinion", no more reliable than your own on Misplaced Pages policy. Does anyone else agree that this should be eliminated on this basis? Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • You are wikilawyering again. Read the policies, or ask questions, as you still aren't "getting it". This is all about reliable sources. NPOV is achieved by representing significant viewpoints from reliable sources. I don't recall anyone here saying that Katrina survivors should be designated IDP's. If such a claim exists, that's a claim from the sources, not from anyone here on Misplaced Pages. You seem to be reduced to misinterpreting policies and guidelines and setting up straw man arguments. Whatever the Katrina survivors are or are not is not the issue. The issue is accurately representing the topic of IDP's in this article, and using good sources to do it. Again, you are falling back on your previous argument about "proving" something, and I already pointed out to you this is not what we do here. We represent significant viewpoints with the best sources we have. That's it. If you are still confused, please ask someone who has been here longer than eight months and has more than 1,826 article edits in main space. Your article creation history says you've only created 3 articles during your time here. Perhaps you could experiment by creating a few more? Viriditas (talk) 05:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Thank you for your uncivil comments, they are ignored as not meriting a response. On the basis of what I have stated above, does anyone else advocate eliminating the section on Hurricane Katrina from the article or not? This is about consensus. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Consensus cannot override NPOV. You would know this if you read the policies. And, you aren't the first civil POV pusher/wikilawer to try it, nor the last. Again, this is a classic rookie argument. Keep 'em coming. You are giving me good ideas on how to expand the civil POV pushing essay. Viriditas (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what is this POV you believe is being pushed by the deletion of this particular section? --Martintg (talk) 06:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you rephrase your question? I believe I have addressed this several times in this discussion alone. Viriditas (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Re the Katrina section, there is one paragraph that may apply to the scope of the article, pared down, and stated as allegation; most of the section is a synthesis improperly conflating economic and racial issues with human rights issues (not to mention the assumption that gross incompetence is intentional negligence). PetersV       TALK 06:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Can you expand a little bit about the "synthesis" bit. I think you are referring to material added by Yachtsman1, and I took him to task for it in Archive 8. Viriditas (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, you reverted them without an attempt at conensus, I remember it well. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I discussed the incident in depth, here. Your material is still in the article, however, it lacks a secondary source. In other words, you are quoting a primary source document to promote your POV, and in so doing, you cherry picked the final analysis and assessment section while ignoring two entire sections on the topic (p.12 and p.22) in the same report. Without a secondary source supporting the selection of this material, it becomes problematic. What is most telling about your cherry picked edits, however, is that you completely ignored the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur that appear at the end of the report, recommendations that address the IDP problem directly. This is the type of POV pushing that we avoid by always using secondary sources to support primary source documents. However, when we only have the primary source documents, we need to proceed carefully, You attempted to twist and distort the findings by only selecting one aspect of it, and this is not acceptable editing behavior. Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I checked out the current section on Katrina. While there might be something to say about Katrina, the current section does not have any of it. Obeying our sacred duty to WP:Dear Reader, I endorse deletion of this section. Neither the hurricane, the mismanagement of the levee budgets nor blaring incompetence in the evacuation and following homeless assistance are not, after all, human rights issues as the concept is commonly understood. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 07:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The sources in the current section discuss human rights and Katrina, (unlike every source added to this article by Mosedschurte) and Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States#Reliable_sources supports them in spades. Of course, that is only a partial list of sources, and the content meets and exceeds RS and all related guidelines. I appreciate the sentiment, though. The least you could do is try to attack the sources. Come on, I know you can do it. Put on your thinking cap. Viriditas (talk) 07:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

How could a UN report possibly be an inappropriate source in a human rights article? As documented above, numerous human rights organisations commented upon this and were covered in secondary sources: Greenwood Publishing Group, Amnesty International House Committee Hearing, Columbia University Press, Carolina Academic Press, and many many others. "Natural Disasters and the Rule of Law". Human Rights: Journal of the Section of Individual Rights & Responsibilities. 33 (4). ABA Publishing. Fall 2006. ISSN 0046-8185. I am sure the section can be improved, but then let us research and improve it, rather than argue about whether it should be deleted altogether. JN466 08:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting theory, but the latest UNHC Report that came out from the United States in April, 2009 examined Hurricane Katrina under the prism of race and economics, with the effect that poorer people who lived in low-lieing areas were especially vulnerable to the surge. It was never found to be a human rights violation by the UN. Naturally, because it did not criticize the United States, it was immediately reverted, and I was accused of "cherry-picking".--Yachtsman1 (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to this distortion here. Yachtsman did not use a secondary source to support his inclusion of a primary source quote (not needed in all cases, but very important when dealing with controversial or disputed content and where there is no consensus on the talk page before adding the material). Furthermore, Yachtsman1 ignored p.12, p.22, and p.29 of the report, focusing on a select quote he cherry picked to push his POV. Page 12 and 22 present useful information about Katrina that can be used in this article and page 29 is probably the most important, because it is here that the Special Rapporteur recommends:

The Federal Government and the States of Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi should increase its assistance to the persons displaced by Hurricane Katrina, particularly in the realm of housing. The principle that "competent authorities have the primary duty and responsibility to establish conditions, as well as provide the means, which allow internally displaced persons to return voluntarily, in safety and with dignity, to their homes or places of habitual residence" should be respected.

So why did Yachtsman1 ignore this? Because the internal quote in the above recommendation by the Special Rapporteur cites principle 28 of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. This is a clear example of cherry picking. This is the most important human rights-related quote about Katrina from the report, and Yachtsman1 chose not to use it. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Just to add to this discussion, I will re-iterate something I said in an earlier discussion, but that seemed to get lost in the massive proliferation of content on this talk page:
• As I see it, in order to be encyclopaedic, the article defines human rights as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the subsequent UN treaties, conventions and declarations etc. This is one of the reasons for objections to certain sections. Some people don't realise that the UDHR includes socio-economic rights as well as civil-political rights - the sections on hurrican Katrina, universal health care etc, refer to socio-economic rights - for example, Article 25, section 1 of the declaration says:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

• If anyone has an alternative theoretical framework for the article, I would be open to suggestions, although I believe that the UDHR is generally considered to be the accepted mainstream definition of what Human Rights are.
• There are obviously guidelines and norms for the way in which states should meet their obligations regarding socio-economic rights, and I'm sure the sources used in the Katrina section refer to these. Pexise (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Basic misunderstanding (continued)

Looking at the article lead, the lead is a mishmosh that is all over the place and is, itself, unclear as to scope, positives, and negatives. It would be better to focus the lead on the scope of the article. It can't just be editorial consensus—if we start including things like rights to "security" then in this economic downturn nearly every country on the planet would be lacking. Therefore, the article has to be limited to focus on:

• what is considered to encompass Human Rights (capital H, capital R)—that can't be editorial consensus as that would be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. It must be a definition of Human Rights (not nice to be entitled to), preferably a treaty/convention that signatories are beholden to, I would suggest the Geneva Conventions as opposed to the UDHR which pretty much includes the right to a kitchen sink; as long as society is based on money the UDHR is a utopian vision—not that we should not strive to attain it, but it's far too all-encompassing to be used as scope for an encyclopedia article
• the article then discusses U.S. and state law, policy, and implementation thereof relative to the (if suggestion taken) Geneva Conventions

Having thought about it more, screw-ups like Katrina are not applicable based on 20:20 (or not) hindsight, those make the article into a U.S. abuses minorities coat rack. The scope of this article is not Human Rights + civil rights + minority rights + universal medical care + universal schooling + rights to housing +....

• we can then have a section of "Allegations of policies supporting human rights abuse", where specific policy items such as waterboarding can be discussed
• we can discuss to what degree foreign policy is included, that should only be a mention of, say, support for country X alleged to do Y, see article ABC, no more

Otherwise the article will never be organized, be far to large to make any sense or contain any meaningful narrative, and just be an invitation for editors to coatrack and soapbox. Just my editorial two cents. PetersV       TALK 16:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. We have numerous sections which contain only criticism, and then WP:UNDUE discussing individual incidents in painfully long paragraphs while major policy issues are barely touched—indicating how unfocused the article is and how far it has strayed from the topic. I have to agree that the article as it stands is not balanced and inappropriately conflates (among other things) he-said/she-said on non-signings by the U.S. (seemingly always including some long critical opining by some official), incompetence, individual crimes, and genuine human rights abuses. PetersV       TALK 16:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no rationale to use the Geneva Conventions and not the UDHR. I would say we have to use both. What's more, we should be using mainstream human rights sources for this article and all of those would generally refer to the UDHR as the international standard on human rights. Pexise (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Alleged violations of national sovereignty

I am in favour of deleting this section, but if anyone can present compelling reasons why it should remain I'll listen. Views? JN466 09:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Absurd section and side show, I vote for delete. I would also kick the section on the International Court as well. The US is not a signator to this convention, and its inclusion is a mystery.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

JN: In the Labor Rights section, do you advocate eliminating the last sentence of "at will employment"? People have the right to organize into unions, but no source I am aware of has made it a human right to be employed on an entitlement system by the private sector. I also edited the intro. to achieve flow and eliminate some obvious POV. I think it's better, but please let me know if you disagree with it and we can collaborate to improve it. I left your religious change alone, by the way, as it's accurate. Thanks.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It has been deleted. I support the deletion per the reasons stated above.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from other editors about this. There is a discussion of at-will employment and its human rights implications in this book. For example, employees working on a pure at-will basis may be reluctant to complain about unsafe working conditions (because they can simply be fired). The sentence certainly needs a source though. JN466 17:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That may be true, but the issue is not their right to complain, which they have, but their right to work, which they do not have. Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure this is about the right to work. The discussion is on page 114, but at-will employment pops up a few more times throughout the book. At the moment I am inclined to think it is worth a (sourced) sentence in that section.

The deletion of the "Alleged violations of national sovereignty" section I am fine with, obviously. JN466 17:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm still having trouble with this. The fact that the vast majority of American workers are not part of a union, and that their jobs are therefore "at-will", is neither her nor there in my opinion. In any event, most states recognize at-will employment even IF you are a member of a union. The variable is the contract the union may or may not have with the employer. I am still having trouble how being "at will" affects collective action in the form of labor rights.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit to the lede by Yachtsman1

I think this is a reasonable edit and support it. We still have a strong mention of torture allegations at the end of the lede. JN466 17:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you much. See? Cooperation IS possible, folks. I am not really that unreasonable, I just like balance and the elimination of obvious POV.Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a couple of issues: It has a powerful and independent judiciary

Is this statement necessary if in the very same paragraph it goes on to say: The Constitution and treaties are generally interpreted by the judicial branch and particularly the Supreme Court?

Legally, human rights within the United States are those rights recognized by the Constitution of the United States and those recognized by treaties ratified by the United States Senate as well as certain rights articulated by the Congress of the United States.

I strongly disagree with this statements inclusion as based on the 9th and 10th amendments, and what of the bill of rights?

Also in general, a lot of states guarantee greater rights than laid out in the Consitution or granted by Congress, should a mention of this be made? Soxwon (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:BOLD Sox. Make the change and seek comments after you do it.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I usually put all edits on talk for a page with an RfC. Soxwon (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Edited. Changes had been made.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have viewed the changes by Sox, and they look reasonable to me. I support it. The opening is now contained, easy to read, and touches the subject matter of the article in an NPOV manner.Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

List

Alright, can we do something about the list of hodgepodge treaties and miscellaneous documents the US failed to sign? Without any background or information about the treaties it seems to be a vioulation of WP:WEIGHT to list every single thing the US didn't sign. Can we just pick a few of the more important ones and discuss them? Soxwon (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You have a point, Sox. Pretty irrelevant in my view as well.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Erm, so, you're saying that the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child are miscillaneous documents? Not to mention the Rome Statute and the optional protocols to the ICCPR and CAT. I'm sorry, but that comment is really laughable on a page about human rights.
• And the fact that the US has not ratified a single human rights treaty of the Organization of American States? That's an extremely important fact of definite relevance here. Pexise (talk) 11:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I suggest you do some reading about the "miscillaneous documents" and "hodgepodge treaties" you are referring to. CEDAW and CRC would be a good start.

• From the CEDAW Misplaced Pages lede: "The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) is an international convention adopted in 1979 by the United Nations General Assembly. Described as an international bill of rights for women, it came into force on 3 September 1981. The United States is the only developed nation that has not ratified the CEDAW."
• From the CRC page lede: "The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, often referred to as CRC or UNCRC, is an international convention setting out the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of children. As of December 2008, 193 countries have ratified it, including every member of the United Nations except the United States and Somalia." Pexise (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It would help to read what I actually said. Instead of just listing them and saying "Bad US Bad!" how about actually explaining a bit of context and reasoning behind the rejections? You say "read up on these documents," yet expect the reader to know all about them and why they were rejected? Soxwon (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps you could work on that? To be honest, I do not know what the US has against international human rights treaties, so I'll be interested to learn more about why they have not ratified them. At least Obama has said that the non-ratification of the CRC is an "embarrasment" and that he will review non-ratification of other treaties: see this. Pexise (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

In which case you have gone from the topic of Human rights in the United States to rejection of human rights treaties by the United States. Might I suggest a new article on this topic? It appears to be a content fork by what you have stated.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again, the lede

This paragraph in the lede is unsourced and poorly written:

The United States has a long and established tradition in the area of human rights. Historically, the United States has been committed to the principle of liberty and has sheltered many political, religious and economic refugees in times of international strife. Legally, human rights within the United States are those rights recognized by the Constitution of the United States, Bill of Rights, and those recognized by treaties ratified by the United States Senate. The Constitution and treaties are generally interpreted by the judicial branch, making it the key body in determining national human rights.

Please suggest ways it could be improved. Pexise (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The Overview

Isn't the overview meant to reflect the content of the article? As it stands, there is no mention at all of any of the many, many abuses and human rights violations mentioned later in the article: Pexise (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

On September 17, 1787 the United States Constitution was adopted, which created a democracy that guaranteed social and economic rights for all its citizenry. The American system seeks to ensure a free society where life, liberty and a host of inalienable human rights are guaranteed by its Constitution, including the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments of the Constitution), and as called for by the Declaration of Independence. Civil liberties in the United States are built on what has been described as a self-evident truth that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". This view of human liberty reflects the opinion that fundamental rights are not granted by the state but are inherent to each individual (hence these rights are "unalienable" and each human is "endowed" to them by their Creator). The Constitution recognizes a number of inalienable human rights, including freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, and the right to a fair trial by jury.

Constitutional amendments have been enacted as the needs of the society of the United States changed. The Ninth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment recognize that not all human rights have yet been enumerated. The Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act are examples of human rights that were enumerated by Congress well after its writing.

The scope of the legal protections of human rights afforded by the US government is defined by case law, particularly by the precedent of the Supreme Court of the United States. Within the government, the debate about what may or may not prove to be an emerging human right is held in two forums, the United States Congress which may enumerate these or the Supreme Court which may articulate rights not recognized.

Many, many rights abuses? Care to expand? These things mentioned here are parts of the founding of America, and detail some of America's most historic moments. Soxwon (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the U.S. has many critics is mentioned in the lede. He apparently wants a condemnation in every section whether it belongs there or not.

Frankly, I'm proud that the U.S. has so many critics around the world. I'd hate to live in a country that wasn't so fervently despised by the fascists and their friends.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Please keep your comments focused on improving the article and not on attacking editors. Pexise is drawing attention to WP:LEAD and requesting that the overview be merged into the lead per best practice. Viriditas (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Constitution created a democracy?! Come on now. The founding fathers didn't even believe in what they understood by the term. The classical sense of the word meant something like the old South Africa. In the modern sense, I'd guess USA became one in 1921. Peter jackson (talk) 09:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You're forgetting the influence of the democratic Iroquois Confederacy on the founding fathers. Viriditas (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly my point - this overview seems quite out of place here - what's the purpose of it? Pexise (talk) 11:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No idea. Human rights in the United States should start with the Quakers and Anthony Benezet and their focus on slavery. You remember, the material Mosed deleted? Per Paul Gordon Lauren's The Evolution of International Human Rights (2003):

Despite the remarkable provisions of the new U.S. Bill of rights...actual practices denied equal rights to the majority comprising women, slaves, the unpropertied, indigenous peoples, and children. The Constitution itself provided official sanction for the practice of slavery by prohibiting Congress from taking action to eliminate the slave trade for twenty years, making no clear distinction between property rights and human rights...women in America would not be guaranteed their right to vote for more than a century...every state...restricted voting on the basis of age, race, and property or wealth, and thus denied the political right to vote and effective representation to the majority of the population...For these disenfrancished and dispossessed groups, and despite the official rhetoric of rights, neither the Consitution nor its Bill of Rights provided any immediate protection whatsoever...the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights in the United States...reflected far more vision than reality.

The story we are being sold has only one side. See also Lauren's essay in Bringing Human Rights Home (2007); Chapter 1; A Human Rights Lens on U.S. History: Human Rights at Home and Human Rights Abroad". Viriditas (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Excellent quote - can we incorporate it into the overview? Best to do it here on the talk page first. Pexise (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't use that exact quote because it was only offered as an example and represents several different passages. The only reason I was offering it was to show that only one side is being represented in the article. The author is a published historian and expert on the topic of human rights. You can read more about him, here. The basic line of reasoning is easy to source, so if there is a particular point you want to see in the article, let me know and I can help write it/source it. Also, we need to start using human rights-related sources, as many of Mosed's additions shouldn't even be in the article as they rely on sources that have nothing to do with human rights. Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, basic individual liberties are important to human rights. I would support changing democracy to republic though. Soxwon (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are you disagreeing with? Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Forking needed of this page for technical reasons

I have a pretty beefy computer, that can handle large web sites, just about any game, and doing multiple high-level image edits--sometimes all at once. But this article actually is making my Firefox visibly chug on each reload. It's current 9356 words of readable prose, and 413kb in size. The printed version according to my Print Preview is THIRTY pages in length. This article needs to be forked to several sub-articles. I don't plan on editing the article, but I might suggest the biggest section as a fork, Human rights in the United States#International human rights with something like International human rights and the United States or something similar as the target. If my PC is having a technical fit on this page, I feel bad for everyone else. rootology/equality 22:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, I think the section should be reduced to match WP:WEIGHT. Soxwon (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Up to you guys based on consensus what to do; I just picked out that one as the "easy target" and suggestion purely as it's taking up the most real estate on my screen. I've got zero involvement or stake in this article. A fork, split, reduction, or something else does have to happen though, and soon, per policy. We're inconveniencing our readers with the sheer size of this page. rootology/equality 22:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• I would agree in principle with the suggestion of forking the article, keeping a short summary of the international section in this article. Pexise (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree - separate out the domestic and international human rights issues. It will allow for better focus, resolve the some conflict about what should or should not be included, and reduce the size of the article. For non-US persons, the international human rights aspects may be of more relevance than the domestic aspects. Mish (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I just sicced Miszabot on the page and told it to archive 3-week old threads. That should help keep it readable...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean the talk page. I meant the actual article. rootology/equality 01:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Coupla things. Forking is a taboo word on Misplaced Pages ala POV Fork, we try to avoid those. I think this concerns parent and sub articles like almost every country has. This article, for instance, is technically a sub to the United States article. I too support finding ways - likely a split with summary style as well. SarekOfVulcan, thank you for the archiving however that only addresses this talkpage volume not the article heft. All efforts appreciated however. -- Banjeboi 01:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I think it is safe to say we are all on the same page with this. The question is how do we proceed. I think splitting with summary style is acceptable, but the summary style must reflect the main points, and if it doesn't, this is where we run into problems. Viriditas (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Agree with Viriditas. Many of the international sections have their own dedicated articles; all we need here is a representative overview of these articles. Further details can be given there. Although please note – and I am sure you were all waiting for someone to say something like this – that the article isn't that big. The FA on Frank Zappa has over 10,000 words before you come to the references. So this is still in the ballpark. JN466 06:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems loading the page myself (using either 6 year old P4 PC or 3 year old celeron laptop running linux) - maybe the problem with the hight-spec PC taking time to load is ISP bandwidth? (accessing 10Mbit broadband ISP connection via hub). Tried the Zappa page - loads quick too. I can see accessing via a modem might be an issue, but what isn't these days? Still think it makes sense to break the page down. Mish (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleting sourced material in the lede

Please explain your rationale for deleting this line from the lede. I would appreciate it if you don't keep deleting it until a consensus for deletion is reached: Pexise (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

In the 21st century, the US has actively attempted to undermine the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

My question is why that particular statute is on the same level as say the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or on the international front the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ICCPR, or the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees? Soxwon (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph is about the US relation with international human rights treaties. In the early C20 the US supported the drafting of UDHR etc, later in the C20 the US stopped ratifying treaties and in C21, so far, the noticable change in the attitude of the US is not that is no longer ratifies human rights documents, but that it actively undermines them. This is a chronological summary, supported by relaible sources. Pexise (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There are two problems with that paragraph. One, it's subjective. It needs to say that this is/was the opinion of HRW. And two, it isn't important enough for the intro. The ICC may be a cause celebre but it hasn't proved itself of sufficiently great value in the actual field of human rights. It seems to be more notable for U.S. opposition than for its actual achievements.

The U.S. stopped ratifying treaties when those treaties were advanced only to serve the interests of its enemies. They're "human rights" treaties in name only.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• The lede is a summary of the rest of the article. The undermining of the ICC is elaborated on later in the article. The lede is not a reflection of your opinions about human rights treaties. Pexise (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If it's elaborated on later in the article then this is only about why you think the ICC is important enough to belong in the lede. You haven't explained that.

As to whether or not it's right to characterize my view as "uninformed," perhaps you'd better wait until President Obama gets it ratified by the Senate.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Soxwon and Randy. The ICC material does not stand out above other issues in the article to be in the WP:Lede. Nor should the 10+ areas of leadership the US has taken in human rights law (e.g., gender, racial, ADA, etc.). The Lede is a summary and no major topic should be stressed.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Bernard Schwartz. 1968. Rights of the Person. page 44
2. Declaration of Independence
3. Human Rights Watch - The US and the International Criminal Court

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of High-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class Human rights articles
• High-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles