Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:34, 24 January 2008

A request has been made of the Mediation Cabal for mediation on this article.

Please do not remove this notice until the issue is resolved.

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.

United States B‑class 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights B‑class 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3.

Human Rights issues or Liberal Talking points?

This article has an extremely liberal definition of what a "human right" is. There are a lot of good parts of the article. But I'd say a third to half of the issues listed are not related to human rights. The following sections should be removed:

1) Health and the family

2) Prison

3) Death penalty

4) Freedom of expression (the parts about reporters being prosecuted for ignoring subpoenas)

Human rights should be limited to things that are near universally accepted as rights. For instance just because western Europe has outlawed capitol punishment doesn't make it a human rights issue.The Goat 14:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

you have a point in that the article may be too chatty (or whiny), but that doesn't mean you can just strike entire sections. Health care and death penalty fall well within the topic of "human rights", and to what extent such rights are violated in the US is, as the article states, controversial. As long as the controversy can be attributed to notable sources, it has a place here. Any criticism voiced by AI automatically qualifies as notable to the human rights situation in the country criticized, even if there may still be opinions conflicting with that of AI. dab (��) 17:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, "Human rights-The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law." This covers a wide-range of topics. The 'Health and family' section relates with "equality before the law". The 'Prison' and 'Death penalty' sections relate with "the right to life and liberty". The 'Freedom of expression' section re: subpoenas relates with "freedom of thought and expression". —Christopher Mann McKay 17:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Rewording gay rights and human rights

"The debate over gay rights to marriage (as opposed to civil union or other alternatives) is also often framed as a human rights issue"

-Why is this worded as "framed as a human rights issue" and not "Not allowing homosexuals the right to marriage is a violation of human rights"? Why is it necessary to have the word "framed"? Not allowing one group rights that another group has is considered a human right violation.

-I do not understand why "(as opposed to civil union or other alternatives)" is in this sentence. Aren't civil unions still a violation of human rights, as they advocate separate but equal?

Also, why are there no references to how sodomy laws violate human rights, like how in Kansas: "Convicted of sodomy for having sex in 2000 at age 18 with a 14-year-old boy, Matthew R. Limon was sentenced to more than 17 years in prison. Had Limon’s partner been an underage girl, he could have been sentenced at most to one year and three months in prison." Is this not a human right issue?

Please offer your input on my questions. If there are not objections in a week or so, I will re-write part of the article to better explain gay rights and human rights.

—Christopher Mann McKay 17:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Original Research - Most of this Article

Most paragraphs in this article are without supporting citations and will be deleted as original research. Once they are properly supported, please revert them. Raggz 09:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think removing large parts of text while citing OR is good action seeing this is a controversial subject. You also have mutilated the article by deleting the introduction. I have reverted your edits. Please use {{fact}} or {{OR}} to ask for citations or raise the issues you have here so we can discuss them in detail. C mon 12:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The decision to delete some of your original research was made because the article seemed an essay formatted for an encyclopedia. Most of the references are not going to meet the standards. Flagging the uncited material will still leave an article that does not meet policy standards. Please read original research. The fact that the article is controversial had nothing to do with my edits, but from my view makes your lack of citations more important, not less. I did not mutilate anything, you wrote an introduction that violates policy and I removed that part. Just fix it, don't revert it unfixed? Raggz 17:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I would kindly direct your attention to wikipedia policy, especially Misplaced Pages:Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point (you are mutilating article to make a point), wikipedia:no personal attacks (you claim that I wrote the article while I did no such thing) and Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes (you are not following dispute settlement). By adding the {{OR}} to the beginning of the page I have already come closer to your position, please be reasonable and follow wikipedia policy. C mon 19:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Flagging the uncited material will still leave an article that does not meet policy standards" The point of flagging uncited material is so people will find sources for it, so it will not be considered original reserach. I will be able to improve this article and find more sources in about a week when finals are over. While I believe some parts of what Raggz deleted needs to be rewritten to some extent, I believe deleting the information is not constructive. The reasons there are Origional Reserach and Unrefernced tags is to notify editors to improve the article; simply removing large parts of the article is a bad practice. I do agree parts of this article seem like an essay formatted for an encylopedia, but not to the extent it should be removed, at least in my opinion. It seems to me this article just needs to be cleaned up and have more references added, like many many other articles on Misplaced Pages. Rather than removing parts of the article, why not try to contribute to this article to make it more acceptable? —Christopher Mann McKay 20:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I will refrain from major OR deletions long enough for the OR to be transformed into an article. The policy on OR is that it gets deleted, not tagged or labelled, is there a dispute as to this? I cannot help improve it, because it is an essay. Essays are usually intended to make a central point, essentially to project a pov. The first thing I do is review the cites, which usually teach me a lot. Here I cannot do this, there are almost no citations.

Final exams should take precedence for your priorities.

Deleting original research is constructive. A blank page fits better here than OR?

We are all entitled to our own opinions, and even our own facts. At Misplaced Pages, we don't all get to have our own facts - unless we support these. This article does not offer very many facts, just opinion. No one can debate mere opinion, and merely balancing it makes the article twice as useless. OR does not help an encyclopedia and it doesn't help this article. Raggz 21:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

C mon, I understand your points, but it is unfair to say Raggz is "disrupting Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. The article is better with the nonsense removed than the nonsense present with a bunch of "fact" labels. Secondly, the material is not gone, it is still available via "history," so if someone wishes to find references for it, s/he can. This article is simply absurd as it stands. We also need to add the "unencyclopedic" tag. (Oops -- I see that's already been done. Good.) --BrianMDelaney 23:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's unfair at all. Raggz' edits are the very definition of WP:DISRUPT. —Viriditas | Talk 23:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-compliant

I've added the non-compliant tag.

We need to avoid (among other things...) trans-article POV by making all human rights articles connected to a country have a parallel structure.

Solution #1.

We can avoid trans-article POV by making all articles of the form "Human Rights in (or 'and') X" (where X is a country) be, instead:

"Current Human Rights Situation in X" (or perhaps a better name can be chosen). Currently, it's not obvious that Germans killed 6 million Jews (a significant human rights abuse, me thinks), unless you click on a link from Human rights in Germany. The U.S. article blathers on about everything the U.S. has done wrong (and is thought, incorrectly, to have done wrong) in its entire history. That's an instance of "trans-article POV."

Solution #2.

Have all articles contain both the current situation, and the historical situation.

Whichever solution is chosen, it should apply to all countries. Germans who say -- and some will -- "Oh, but the past is the past (the "Nazi Period") should be ignored. "Human rights in Germany" would, under solution 2, include the intellectual progress made by Kant and Hegel, the descent into the slaughter of millions, and the reaction to that slaughter.

--BrianMDelaney 00:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm for solution one and two. I will start contributing to this article to try to make it more acceptable. —Christopher Mann McKay 05:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Christopher. Thanks for helping. But I don't understand your response. My two suggested solutions are mutually exclusive. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. In other words, we have articles for all countries that discuss the current human rights situation in that country (and put the history elsewhere), or we have articles that discuss the current situation and the history together. Each country's article should have the same approach, otherwise we have "trans-article POV." --BrianMDelaney 15:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I want to get too involved in this whole issue and in the editing process, but I would just make the point that currently this article sits between the two options - ie it includes and emphasises all the positive historical stuff, such as the rights which were set out when the constitution was adopted, and a reference to the US "historically" being committed to "freedom of religion" etc. However most of the references to slavery, the civil rights movement etc have all been deleted by recent editors. If you want to keep all those positive references, then you've implicitly gone for solution 2, and the article will have to include the other side of the history as well if it's going to be accurate and balanced --Nickhh 16:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I was a little confused when I wrote my first comment.. I'm don't think we should change the name of other human right articles (solution 1) because 'and the United States' allows this article to reference human right violation outside the U.S.; for example, Extraordinary rendition and Guantanamo Bay detention camp are human right violations outside the United States, but most other countries do not engage in human right violations outside their own country, so they do not need to change their article names to include 'and'. I agree this article focuses way too much on the negative and not the positive. I hope to cleanup this article and remove all the unrelated and POV information and replace it, then after that, I want to improve the article my adding more positive and balanced information, but we also have to remember compared to other industrialized countries, the U.S. has more human right violations, so there may be more negative information than other countires, like Germany. Regarding history, I have reviewed other countries 'Human rights in' articles and I see they make little reference to the history of human rights. I believe this article should be split into two articles, 'Human rights and the United States' and 'History of human rights and the United States'. Any ideas? —Christopher Mann McKay 19:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Christopher, thanks for all your hard work. I believe using "and" instead of "in" makes sense for the U.S., but not just for the U.S. -- also, at a minimum, China, the U.K., France and many African countries. And having, for each country, separate articles about the history of humans might work, as long as the people working on the other articles agreed with this solution. --BrianMDelaney 16:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Human Rights and the United States is my suggestion. You pick the title, you do good work and you are working hard. The US Government is responsible for it's policy and personnel worldwide.

I want to include a section on torture, documenting that the US law and law enforcement in regard to torture is the most advanced in the world. Where will you integrate this, and how? Raggz 19:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is America so great?

America is nation number one - everyone knows this.84.56.70.126 17:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Facts & Allegations

The US actually has a fine Human Rights record, and this article fails to describe this. There are dark chapters that deserve attention as well. We need to be clear when claiming a human rights violation. When we claim this we need to include (1) the law violated and (2) the court that made this finding. Otherwise llegations should be identified as allegations. Allegations of human rights abuses belong here, but require proper description as allegations. Raggz 20:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a major deviation from WP:RS, of course, and poses inherent problems for human rights, as most human rights are allegedly carried out by governments. There are plenty of WP:RS that are not convictions, including Congressional investigations, organizational reports, truth commissions, foreign parliamentary investigations, etc. Adopting a conviction makes for a surreal wikipedia ("the alleged assassination of RFK", denial of women's and blacks' suffrage "allegedly violated their civil rights", etc.).--Carwil 19:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The reliable sources may of course be quite broad, in regard to allegations. Violations of human rights are crimes. A reliable source for convictions for crimes is quite different from a reliable source that alleges that a crime may have occured. The article needs to cover allegations - but also needs to address if actual crimes were proven. What defines human rights, if not constitutions, laws, and treaties? George Washington argued that one of the most important of all human rights is the right to bear arms, do we let editors who agree with him claim that Europe's gun laws violate human rights? The right to bear arms is a human right in the US. Many believe that to execute a criminal is to deny a human right, do we also have a pro and con section? Does the US deny human rights when criminals are executed? Everyone has an opinion, but what we would need to address this is an actual human rights law that the execution violated.

While taking your point that reliable sources is quite a bit broader than what we are discussing here, and I agree that this broader definition applies to allegations, convictions need to meet a higher standard. Already we have one editor inserting the US is alleged to have done X, Y, & Z and another editor inserting; but these allegations are unsubstantiated. So it comes down to an article entirely about allegations with never proven following? I don't like this format.

A violation of a human right allegation reported by a reliable source needs to (1) allege what human right, and (2) what law it is alleged was violated. If it doesn't do these two things, in the context of what we need report, it is unrelaible (or perhaps better described as incomplete).

"Violations of human rights are crimes" - not all human right violations are crimes; for example not allowing homosexuals equal rights is a human right violation, but it is not crime to deny same-sex marriage; this is not an allegation of a human right violation, but a fact.

"What defines human rights, if not constitutions, laws, and treaties? ... Everyone has an opinion, but what we would need to address this is an actual human rights law that the execution violated" - Please read the dictionary definition of human rights here.

"A violation of a human right allegation reported by a reliable source needs to (1) allege what human right, and (2) what law it is alleged was violated" Laws don't have to be violated to be a human right issue. Again, what about denying equal rights to homosexuals? there is no law violated there...

"Many believe that to execute a criminal is to deny a human right, do we also have a pro and con section?" - No we don't have to.

—Christopher Mann McKay 18:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"A fine human rights record?" Slavery? Witch burning? Pushing the indigenous people off their land? Segregation/Apartheid? Lynch mobs? Using unsuspecting civilians for medical experiments? Imprisoning Japanese Americans during World War II? Dropping atomic weapons on civilians? Using napalm on villagers in Vietnam? Massacring civilians in Vietnam? Funding, equipping and training death squads around the world? Assassinations and attempted assassinations of foreign leaders and politicians? Supporting the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government of Cambodia in the United Nations? Secret CIA prisons? Deceiving the International Committee of the Red Cross by hiding prisoners from them? Torturing prisoners to obtain information? No records of how many citizens have been killed or beaten by the police? I think the historical record will show that human rights violations abound in U.S. history.122.31.178.226 (talk) 05:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Human Rights Record

This edit was deleted. "Few, if any actual violations have been proven." Do you know of any actual proven violations? How about a table of these: Law Violated Court Date of Finding Case Name  ?Raggz 22:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I added "however, the only confirmed violated international law was the intervention in Nicaragua" in replace of "Few, if any actual violations have been proven," which I removed in a previous edit. See Nicaragua v. United States for more information. —Christopher Mann McKay 22:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking a rhetorical position on these issues. I assume that since I don't know of any actual finding of international law violations that there are none. Obviouslly if there are some, they will get added to the article and cited. What law was violated in Nicaragua? For the old stuff, I will accept the "conclusion(s) of history", so we don't need an actual court case. For claims after the Church Comission reforms (1981) I will ask for the law - and the case name. Raggz 23:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "What law was violated in Nicaragua?", read the following copied from Nicaragua v. United States: The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America was a case heard in 1986 by the International Court of Justice that found that the United States had violated international law by supporting Contra guerrillas in their war against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The Court ruled in Nicaragua's favor, but the United States refused to abide by the Court's decision, on the basis that the court erred in finding that it had jurisdiction to hear the case, The court stated that the United States had been involved in the "unlawful use of force". —Christopher Mann McKay 03:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to worry, you found my post from before our discussion of Nicaragua. I will look up the case because I'm interested, not because I doubt you. Raggz 03:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Third Reich

"The United States has worked throughout it's history to help advance human rights throughout the world. A notable example would be the use of military force to free Europe from the Third Reich, which likely would still be ruling most of Europe otherwise." Why was this deleted, it is commonly accepted as fact. Do you want a cite, and will then be happy? Why not address my earlier question on this topic BEFORE editing it out? Raggz 22:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I removed this statement by mistake. I was editing the article and then when I was saving it another edit has taken place, so I had to merge my last edit into the new edit and I think I messed up; sorry about that. I think a source would be proper, as the U.S. did not join the war for the purpose preventing Germany from dominating Europe; although, the U.S. did give money and supplies to countries opposing Germany before joining the war, the U.S. only joined WWII because U.S. ships were attacked by German U-boats when bringing supplies to Europe and because of Pearl Harbor—At least that is what I learned in History class.—Christopher Mann McKay 23:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I can only assume that this was deleted because it was an insane observation. Or more accurately, because it is not a "fact". Please read more about the history of the Philippines, Mexico, and Vietnam. Or about the second world war, where thousands of Russians made a difference too.--Nickhh 23:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Nickhh. I invite you to help. We need someone like yourself to help document all of this. All I ask is that you always cite the human rights law violated and how the violation was determined. You will note that I credited the USSR above, feel free to add it. Raggz 23:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"All I ask is that you always cite the always cite the human rights law violated and how the violation was determined" - A human right violation does not need to violaate a law to be a human right violation. For example, not allowing same-sex marriage is a human right violation; however, denying homosexuals equal treatment is not against U.S. or international law. —Christopher Mann McKay 21:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that there may be other ways to prove that a human right was violated than the two we agree do this (a conviction in a court or by historical consensus). What is it? Does one person's opinion that a violation of a human right has occured make it true? For that person it does, but when a community or a nation find that a human right is denied by denying same-sex marriage, isn't that more significant? Raggz 05:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Multiple countires have found denying same-sex marriage is a violation of human rights and they have made it legal to have same-sex marriage. It is not opinion if banning homosexuals from having equal rights is a human right violation, it is a fact. —Christopher Mann McKay 07:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Proof vs Allegations

"Some critics (in both friendly and hostile countries) have criticized the U.S. Government for unproven complicity in supporting serious human rights abuses (including torture, abduction, assassination, and imprisonment without trial), and again none of these have been proven. At times the U.S. government has also been criticized for covert destabilization activity aimed at the overthrow or subversion of foreign democratic governments, individuals or parties, and it is generally accepted that this did occur decades back. No such events have been proven in recent decades as US policy has changed."

• Is there any reason to describe any of these as other than allegations? There was a reform 30 years ago, Senator Church as I recall sponsored it. Raggz 22:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The Church Committee proves a rich source of evidence (and measured "findings and conclusions"); if it's report is not a WP:RS, I don't know what is. The reform as finally passed did not ban the above activities, but required congressional oversight.--Carwil 19:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Church Committee is important to this article. One reason it was important was documentation of actual human rights abuses. Another reason is that US law was then reformed significantly. It was a dramatic change, after this point, there seem to be no confirmed cases of substantial unaddressed humans rights violations in the US? I may be unaware of some, please share any post-Church confirmed violations? Raggz 05:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Iran

I believe that much of what the US is accused of in Iran (and elsewhere of that era) is true. There are substantial historical works now that support this. In this case we should be careful not to suggest that the US in the modern era would use such a policy - unless there is proof and not mere allegations.

"There has however, never been any finding of any violation of international law" was deleted. Please document your edit, I do not believe that there every was an actual finding in this case, but a historical consensus. If you re-edit it, I don't mind this sentence leaving too. Just don't suggest that anything that happened in Iran was illegal under international law - without support. Raggz 22:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Under Iran, "There has however, never been any finding of any violation of international law" has not been deleted. It just has a citation needed tag on it. —Christopher Mann McKay 23:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfair, I cannot prove a negative? How do I prove this, cite the case that never happened? :) Raggz 23:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You can not prove it is against the law. However, I believe Operation Ajax was illegal. I did a quick search to see what news media say about the operation. I found an article on the The Guardian, a very reliable source, which says the operation was illegal. Stephen Kinzer have also said Op. Ajax was illegal and has even written a book on it. So, it seems to me some people have been documented in saying Operation Ajax was has violated international law; however, you claim it hasn't violated international law and can't back up your claim with a source. Until you find a source, which you claim is "unfair", I think "There has however, never been any finding of any violation of international law" should be removed. —Christopher Mann McKay 04:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If the Guardian cites the law violated - and the case, fine. If not, let's take the Guardian off the "reliable list", if it doesn't check facts?

When was Operation Ajax, if 30+ years back, then historians count. It takes History about that long to work. Still, we need to identify what illegal means, what law? In this case, you need to support the claim for a violation, you are making the claim in the first place. Drop your allegation and I won't need to clarify it. I believe that the law was likely violated, the whole Iran chapter was bad, but even if we both believe it, it isn't fact. Raggz 04:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Survellience Internationally

This edit was deleted: "In all cases under dispute within the United States involving survelliance, the same practice would be legal anywhere else in the world. The US has strict privacy laws in this regard." Why? It is true and comonly known that US privacy laws are FAR more restrictive. Please offer an example of a nation where terrorist suspects don't get wiretapped? Raggz 23:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This is about the human rights in the United States, it does not matter what is legal elsewhere. Having that sentence sounds like a rebuttal, which sounds like you are not following NPOV. Not only that, but the statement is unsourced. —Christopher Mann McKay 07:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Prisons

Death Penalty by Race

"Additionally, a racial tilt to its application is suspected by some, since although blacks form only 13% of the total American population, 42% of those on death row are black." First, "suspected by some" violates the wiki policy on weasel words. The sentence implies bias, however, more proof is required. What if 42% of 1st degree murders were committed by blacks? Then there would be no bias and nothing to do with human rights. Fortunately for me, the burden of proof is on those that wish to include the statement. Barneygumble 19:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Re. suspected by some. Read the next sentence in the article "These concerns recently prompted the governor of Illinois to place a moratorium on all executions in his state." --Lee Hunter 19:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The moratorium was put in place (in 2000) by the then-governor George Ryan (he has a name) because there were 13 people on death row in Illinois freed since the death penalty was reinstated in 1978. The concern wasn't because there was a higher amount of black people. It had to do with the possibility of putting to death an innocent person. The quote, as is, is misleading. Barneygumble 20:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Folks, we're way beyond suspicion at this point. See McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987) - a U.S. Supreme Court case challenging the constitutionality of the death penalty on equal protection grounds. The defendants in that case introduced the Baldus study, which found that prosecutors were significantly more likely to seek the death sentence against blacks accused of murder than against whites accused of murder under equivalent circumstances; and that blacks tried on roughly equivalent evidence were more likely to be sentenced to death than whites who had been convicted of equivalent crimes. As the Court itself states, Baldus found:

"that the death penalty was assessed in 22% of the cases involving black defendants and white victims; 8% of the cases involving white defendants and white victims; 1% of the cases involving black defendants and black victims; and 3% of the cases involving white defendants and black victims. Similarly, Baldus found that prosecutors sought the death penalty in 70% of the cases involving black defendants and white victims; 32% of the cases involving white defendants and white victims; 15% of the cases involving black defendants and black victims; and 19% of the cases involving white defendants and black victims."

The Court acknowledged that the disparity exists, but nevertheless found by a 5-4 vote that there was no equal protection violation because prosecutors have the discretion to seek the death penalty as they see fit, and jurors have the discretion to impose it as they see fit. -- BD2412 20:14, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Felons can't Vote

Felons can't vote. Neither can 16 year olds. Does society have a right to restrict liberty of justly convicted criminals without it being a human rights issue? Barneygumble 20:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

When the criminal justice system disenfranchises a huge slice of a specific ethnic group (up to 10% of black males in at least one state) it's likely that the question of human rights will arise. And it has. That's the reality. You don't like it. You don't think the criticism is justified. That's fine. But the fact remains that groups like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and various academics do talk about it. It is a notable controversy about human rights in the United States and therefore must be addressed in the article. --Lee Hunter 20:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Note: there's a nifty article on this topic under felony disenfranchisement. Cheers. -- BD2412 21:00, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Of course, that ignores that under the common law, all felonies ended in an execution. The rule preventing felons from voting most likely comes from the fact that the new lesser punishments given today, do not negate the fact that they are somewhat dead to society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.213.7 (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be perfectly proper to note the age at which someone may cast a vote in the article, jguk 21:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The two issues regarding felon voting and children voting are very simple and reasonable. Felons should not vote. They have been convicted of committing crimes which are terrible, this puts them in a category of unreasonable people, and their votes can be considered invalid because of this. This also serves as an incentive not to commit a felony. Children cannot vote because they for the most part are not well-read and their brains are not fully-developed. They cannot think for themselves under U.S. law, and therefore cannot vote. If children were given the right to vote, they would have to be allowed to act as 21-year-olds in every aspect of life, as well, and at that point, this issue becomes unreasonable and impractical. I also must say that although everyone should have human rights and personal freedoms, society has a responsibility to manage those rights to make society safe and run smoothly. To simply allow everyone to do cocaine in the streets, rape children, and have twenty wives is unreasonable and not deemed moral by most people and should be legally treated as such. I must add also that we should not reference groups such as the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, and Greenpeace because they are about as far left as one can go and they may distort data and analysis to attack the United States and dismiss it as an authoritarian dictatorship with little regard for the dignity of its citizens and with a corrupt, evil government of warmongers, which it is clearly not to anyone with a sense of morality and reasonable thinking. The law is the law, but in the interpretation of a law comes responsibility to look out for the best interests of the citizens.

I object to the statistic about the prison population because it is unrelated to human rights. US prison sentences are very long, true, but this is a decision BALANCING the human rights of criminals against the human rights of non-criminals. The balance point of the US may or may not be a human rights issue overall. China just kills criminals (and sells their kidneys). We have enterered into a discussion of opinion? What human rights law do US prisons violate that the prisons of Bulgaria, China, or Australia don't? Before US prisons are described as a human rights issue, we need articulate what human rights law is being violated by what policy? Raggz 06:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Merriam-Webster, human rights is "rights (as freedom from unlawful imprisonment, torture, and execution) regarded as belonging fundamentally to all persons.” Some people, like libertarians, may argue "unlawful imprisonment" includes the large amount of persons imprisoned because they committed victimless crimes, like using drugs. Using a statistic about the large amount of people in jail for victimless crimes is the only reason why I can see any type of prison population statistic should be used; having a statistic about the large prison population in general is unrelated. I agree the statistic should be removed.

However, I do not think it is relevant to mention the conditions or laws of U.S. prisons versus other prisons in other nations, as human right issue are human right issues regardless of their legal status elsewhere in the world. Prison abuse is considered by some as torture and that is why it is a human rights issues; it does not have anything to do with violating a policy, just because something is not a policy does not mean it is not a human right violation. At least in my opinion.

—Christopher Mann McKay 17:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it a violation of human rights to put criminals into prison for long terms? If so, what right? Is it in the US Constitution? Where? The Eighth Amendment? We have a LOT of work to do if we want to claim that long prison sentences are a human rights issue. We have the human rights of convicted criminals on one hand, and the human rights of everyone else on the other. Do we want to get into the question of prison sentences as human rights violations?

The article was edited to say "Some have criticized the United States for having an extremely large prison population, where like many prisons worldwide, there have been some reported abuses. I don't think that I need citations to say that there are prisons all over the world, and that abuses occur at times in all of them. This paragraph cites an article critical of actual abuses that occured at Pelican Bay and suggests that these represent every prison in the US. Yes, "rogue officers" do abuse human rights, and as the article documents, they don't get away with it forever, the checks and balances eventually correct these. Same with Abu Ghrab, a US soldier reported the abuses and the US Army investigated and convicted the "rogue officers". The same with people dying in prison, people die in risons all over the world. The fact that people die in prison is by itself not a human rights issue. My sentence was reverted to remove the "like many prisons worldwide". If you believe otherwise, that there are not occasional problems at every prison, please support that. All the worldwide does is balance an otherwise misleading sentence. I would prefer to just delete that sentence.

The big issue is calling prison conditions in the US a human rights problem. There is support for the claim that there have been human rights issues discovered and remidied. As it stands now, this section is OR. If you want to keep this section, you need serious references that there are systematic widespread human rights issues in prisons - and you need to define exactly what human right is being abused. Raggz 19:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"where like many prisons worldwide" sounds like a justification and not like NPOV, especially since this fails to reference how many countries in Western Europe have low jail violence and abuse rates. It is really not necessary to compare the United States to other nations world-wide, it adds nothing to the article.

"The big issue is calling prison conditions in the US a human rights problem." If your right to liberty is violated, then it is a human right issue. Are you saying excessively long jail sentences for victim-less crimes is not a violation of one's liberty? I think this section is poorly written, I have no strong feelings towards it, but I don't think it should be deleted. I'll improve this section some this weekend. —Christopher Mann McKay 20:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem IF you support your claim that putting people into prison is a human rights violation. There is a large body of law on this, and the USSC says that present law protects all human rights. I can support this with their opinion. I don't think you have a USSC or UNSC citation otherwise, just your personal opinion. That is why I think this is OR. Raggz 01:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There are criminal predators who kill, rape, and steal. If not executed or imprisoned, they will criminally violate the human rights of others daily. So would we improve human rights in the US by releasing them sooner? Raggz 19:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Scrutiny?

What does scrutiny mean? By whom, the UN? The ICC? The Red Cross? For what? What law? The Reader deserves to know these answers.

An example of this is how the status of human rights in the United States recently have come under scrutiny for the government's positions on capital punishment, police brutality, the War on Drugs, and gay rights

I didn't write that, so I don't know what scretiny means. I changed it from An example of this is how the status of human rights in the United States recently have come under scrutiny.. → A substantial amount of Americas have been surveyed as being opposed to the.. as the refernces are opinion polls. —Christopher Mann McKay 07:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Take as much time as you need. I am impressed with your intellect and integrity. I trust you. ou do belong at UCB. The word is spelled scrutiny. It means review. Who is reviewing the human rights record of the US? What law is used for review. This article belongs to you. I will support what you decide, even if I disagree. Raggz 08:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What I meant is that I do not know what the original author who wrote that sentence meant by scrutiny, like which groups have scrutinized the government’s positions; I know the definition of scrutiny. Thank you for your kind words, I hope to get into UCB by next year; however, the major I am applying for has a very low acceptance rate, so I’m hoping for the best. Also, just because I am an active contributor, does not mean the article belongs to me (see WP:OWN). I encourage you to disagree with me, so I can see your side of the issue and make the article less POV.—Christopher Mann McKay 17:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete Mass surveillance section?

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, "Human rights-The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law

According to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary “Human rights-fundamental rights, esp. those believed to belong to an individual and in whose exercise a government may not interfere, as the rights to speak, associate, work, etc.”

Both of these definitions do not mention anything about privacy concerns being human right issues because privacy issues are not a human right issues. Does anyone disagree with me or have a problem with me deleting the whole mass surveillance section? —Christopher Mann McKay 01:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. I like the definition, good work. Raggz 01:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of sections (like prisons) that allege human rights violations, but are not specific which human rights law they allege is violated. Prisons are a complex issue where various rights need be judicially balanced. When human rights are violated (and this does occur) people can and do go to jail. The citations involve a single incidence of alleged or confirmed abuse, or events at a single prison. These citations do not prove a pattern of human rights abuses. Therefore I plan to delete those that confirm isolated incidents. Indymedia doesn't qualify as reliable either. Raggz 01:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Iraq war not illegal?

Text from article: There has however, never been any finding of any violation of international law in regard to this invasion by the UN Security Council, the only international body with judicial authority to find a "crime of aggression".<ref>United Nations Charter, Article 39. "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security."</ref>

This reference tag has nothing to do with supporting this claim. Most of the Security Council (besides the U.K.) were against the War in Iraq; see The UN Security Council and the Iraq war for more information.

Another problem with this statement is that Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary-General during the Iraq invasion, has contridicted this statement, as he has been qouted as saying " was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal".

—Christopher Mann McKay 03:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The actions of the UNSC (or lack of them) are the sole international legal authority for determining legality. The UNSC "dismissed" the case, end of story. It doesn't matter what the members thought, it only matters what actions were taken - or not. For the war to be illegal, you need a law (aggression) and a court (UNSC has sole jurisdiction). The Secretary General's opinion is influential, but irrelevant.

If the General Asembly thinks that the UNSC is deadlocked, they too could find a violation against the war. They did not either. The real issue is that the 1990 war never ended, and no new SC resolution was required, legally.

There is no remaining legal debate. The issue was settled four years ago. We need to write the facts, even if few know them. Raggz 03:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What about then rewording the sentence to something like: Neither the International Court of Justice, nor the United Nations Security Council have not determined the Invasion of Iraq was illegal; however, Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary-General during the Iraq invasion, has been qouted as saying " was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal"? Is this acceptable? —Christopher Mann McKay 17:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The UNSG has no authority whatever on this topic (UN Article 39) so his opinion is only as relevant legally as is the assistant comptroller for personnel. His opinion should be in the article, it is far more significant than is the opinion of the assistant comptroller for personnel, but the context is important. If the US President challenges a US Supreme Court decision, is his statement of opposition relevant to this decision - since he has no power and it is mere opinion? The UNSG is not the UN President, his job is somewhat equivalent to the executive that runs Congress (but never speaks for Congress). If the UNSG's statement is moved I can live with the first half of the sentence.

Consider carefully if you really want to make this change. I trust your judgement on this. Consider that the UNSC failed the people. My pov is that we should focus attention upon this failure, not wash it away. People who read this deserve to know (in my opinion) that the UNSC did find the war to be legal (because it did by default). They need to know that the legal arguments ended years ago. I believe that focusing on what actually happened (with a NPOV) advances the interests of those who are angry about the war. They don't understand that the legal issue is long setled and they should focus upon reform, using their concerns for actual change rather than useless debate. But all of the preceeding is my pov, edit away as you wish, just put the UNSG's quote into proper context.

European law and torture

For example: European law defines "torture" so that the practices Europeans condemn in US interrogations as torture are not torture under European Human Rights law. The beating of terrorism suspects would be torture in the US, but not in European Law.

I'm trying to avoid getting involved in this topic again, but I cannot let blatant falsehoods, allegedly based on a cited court case, remain in this article, so I removed the above text. The 1978 Ireland v UK court case referred to is NOT about the "beating" of terror suspects. I have seen people accuse Raggz of making unwarranted POV & OR assertions in several articles via misinterpretation of his cited sources, and now I have seen an example myself. Continually placing personal views into articles is bad enough, but hiding what you are doing behind a facade of sourcing is pretty shameful. Assuming good faith I suppose I have to assume that you just don't understand a lot of what you are reading in those sources, rather than that you are doing it maliciously. Talking as well about "the practices Europeans condemn in US interrogations" is a meaninglessly vague generalisation. Some Europeans for example would describe the use of stress postions as constituting torture - and the fact that the ECHR 30 years ago may have ruled it was not, does not disbar those people from holding that opinion. I don't understand what relevance this point has to this article. --Nickhh 20:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The current law of the European Court of Human Rights in regard to torture is Ireland v UK 1978. My source is the European Court of Human Rights article alone. I recommend working on that article if it is incorrect, I am not involved ith it but only rely upon it. Is this the current definition of torture in the EU? If not, we need to state the current law.

The context is a comparison of human rights, this is what the point of the article is. If a terrorisim suspect is beaten repeatedly in the UK, this under European law is illegal, a violation of their convention rights? It is not within the definition of torture used by the European Court of Human Rights? If the French Foreign Legion utilizes the five techniques, these are defined by the EU to be illegal - but not torture? What part do I have wrong? Raggz 23:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"Some Europeans for example would describe the use of stress postions as constituting torture - and the fact that the ECHR 30 years ago may have ruled it was not, does not disbar those people from holding that opinion." I agree with you. Are their opinions relevant to Human Rights in the US? If so, in what context? My focus is addressing the totally unproven allegations of US torture. These accusations use the word torture, and imply a violation of international law. As editors, we are trying to define what torture means and does not mean in a European context vs what it means in a US context (since much of the criticism is from Europe and not China). It is very important to define what exactly the US is be accused of, if we are to include these unproven allegations. If you will improve the text, balance the percieved pov, please do so? If you can help clarify what the allegations of torture mean (what law - what court) or know of one case where there was a finding of torture by the US, we need your help.

The working standard we presently use is (1) what specific human rights law or laws are being discussed and (2) are they mere allegations - or findings of fact by a court. In the cases where historians have had thirty years to work on an issue, we don't require a court decision to find the US guilty, if a historical consensus exists. These are only rules of convenience, they might change if the consensus changes, but so far they work well.

So far the editors are working well together, with minimal friction. We all agree that actual denial of human rights has occured and may be occuring now. It is in the interest of the United States and her critics to properly sort the allegations into one pile and the proven violations into another. If the United States currently is violating human rights at home - or abroad, we all agree that this should appear in the article, as fact. It is not in the interest of anyone, nor the US to hide proven abuses - nor to claim that unproven allegations are proven. Please help. Raggz 00:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"These accusations use the word torture, and imply a violation of international law" - Using the word torture does not imply a violation of international law. I think you are misunderstood to the actual meaning of torture. Please read the following:

In December 2004, The Justice Department published a revised and expansive of acts that constitute torture under domestic and international law, they concluded torture may consist of acts that fall short of provoking excruciating and agonizing pain and thus may include mere physical suffering or lasting mental anguish."

"According to The American Heritage® Dictionary, "tor·ture (tôrchr) n. 1. a. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion. b. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain. 2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense. 3. Something causing severe pain or anguish."

I agree with Nickhh. Also note, just because a human right violation may not have violated international or U.S. law, or may not have been found in a court of law as a human right violation, does not change the fact that it is a human right violation.

—Christopher Mann McKay 02:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to deal with issues around the article as a whole, but I can only repeat that it does not matter what the ECHR (a body unconnected to the EU by the way) ruled was or was not torture, as opposed to inhuman or degrading treatment, in respect of the words I removed. These were written to imply that the Court condoned stress positions and sleep deprivation etc, which it did not; and that it ruled beating suspects is not and cannot be torture, which it did not (as I understand the ruling, it did consider some instances of direct physical assault, but ruled that they were not of the sort that would constitute torture in this case). Equally the words implied that the ruling somehow means European people and organisations that have criticised US practices are not entitled to, or are at least being hypocritical, which is wrong as well as irrelevant. And all this was based on your citing a source which - by your own admission - you had not read. Legal verdicts are complex things and cannot be reduced to simple soundbites. This one is important and deserves highlighting in any encyclopedia, but it has to be cited correctly and in the relevant place (I may go and check what is said eslewhere about it .. and as I've said elsewhere it's a pretty astonishing verdict in my view, but that's another matter). To be honest I don't even know whether it remains current law or the current standard precedent. Finally of course, this article isn't even about torture per se, but about human rights - those can be abused without torture. Anyway after all that, surely all the introduction needs is a broad definition of the issue, followed by an effective summary of the main body of the article, without inaccurate citations which seem to amount to little more than cheap points about where some allegations come from? --Nickhh 08:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents to the general discussion - Ireland v UK was a seminal case on the definition of torture within the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, however, I think it is important to recognise the historical background to the case. The IRA issue in the courts (particularly domestically in the UK: see how different the defence of duress is in comparison to other jurisdictions) is a sensitive and political issue, which may have influenced the outcome. Furthermore, by adopting a wide understanding of what inhuman and degrading treatment is, the court reserves the ability to correctly label extreme violations with the appropriate name: torture. In addition, there have been a fair few interesting cases under Article 3, including social services claims regarding abuse suffered by children at the hands of a third party. I'm no expert on the law of torture under the ECHR, but I would be extremely careful in using a fairly old case as anything more than a starting point, because otherwise it may give the illusion to unwary readers that the case is all there is to the definition of Article 3.

Also would like to add to Nickhh's reminder that European Law and European Human Rights Law are two very different things. Fundamental Rights under European Law are mostly court-based - and arguably are a better comparison to the United States than say, the ECHR whose sister-court is the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. That said, EU law is complex and the protection of fundamental rights is not expressly part of the EU objective, with the added complexity of protection of human rights under each member states' jurisdiction which differs from country to country, nevermind the civil/common law distinction. Sephui 14:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent points, all. Thank you. This is an article about Human Rights in the US. One major category of allegations is that the US engages in torture. Thus we need to describe what specifically is alleged. I hope we don't focus on torture in the EU, this isn't our focus. The fact that Europe specificallyand legally defines practices much like those that are called torture to not be torture is valuable to the Reader, it offers an actual factual context, and refers the Reader to other articles. The US military interrogation techniques that are widely alleged to be torture may not be legally classified as torture anywhere in the world. This offers the Reader factual insight into the question of human rights in the US. If Ireland v. UK is now obsolete, then it shouldn't be in the article. I take your comments to mean that you think the law may soon change, not that the law has changed. Raggz 05:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"The fact that Europe specificallyand legally defines practices much like those that are called torture to not be torture is valuable to the Reader, it offers an actual factual context, and refers the Reader to other articles" Why not list what it is considered human rights in African or Asian countries? Why only Europe? Why not compare the United States to the whole world? This makes no sense to me... There is no need to link this article to other articles; this article is about the United States. Citing European law is not relevent, nor necessary to explain human rights in the United States. At least in my opinion. —Christopher Mann McKay 07:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete the Section on Torture as OR?

Then the US is an island in regard to international law and human rights? If I accept your preceding claim for this, that there is no need to contrast with other nations, then I have a lot of deletions to do. Do you agree to the approach that human rights in other nations is irrelevant?

If not, you can help with insertion of a supported statement contrasting the level of human rights in SE Asia, China, Japan, Korea, or wherever you wish.

Europe has made a legal determination that the practices of the US interrogators are not torture. What we really need is any reliable source that suggests that these practices are legally torture anywhere in the world. Otherwise the whole torture argument is OR. It can and will be deleted as OR, if not supported, to be reverted only when supported. To be clear on this important point: We have no reliable source for proof of human rights violations being tolerated in the US in the past 25 years?. We have reliable sources that make allegations, and these need to be written accurately as allegations that remain unproven.

If no reliable source can be found that supports the hypothesis that proves that the US tolerates or practices torture, then this section will be deleted as OR. Proof will require (1) naming the law violated and (2) explaining the court ecision or other means of proving the allegation.

I oppose deletion of the torture section, and prefer that we find a way to adress this issue without claiming that the US supports or tolerates torture - unless this is proven. The allegations of torture should be covered, but as allegations and other material to sustain a NPOV. Raggz 21:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How about this: ? or this: ? Pexise 12:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Quote: "The interrogation techniques authorized by the Department of Defense, particularly if used simultaneously, amount to degrading treatment in violation of article 7 of ICCPR and article 16 of the Convention against Torture." The document can also be found by linking to the report at the bottom of the page here: Pexise 15:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. In terms of the UN, there is a credible allegation that the US has violated the ICCPR. This should stay. The article should note that a concern has been addressed and that it may ultimately be determined if the UNSC determines that such has occurred. The rest needs to go, as the rest is without a reliable source. Raggz (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable and unreliable sources

Human Rights First

Human Rights First does not qualify as a reliable source. It is an advocacy group. As such, if used, all quotes and claims should include the phrase unproven allegations by Human Rights First ...

From it's Mission Statement: Human Rights First is practical and effective. We advocate for change at the highest levels of national and international policymaking. We seek justice through the courts. We raise awareness and understanding through the media. We build coalitions among those with divergent views. And we mobilize people to act. Pretty clearly an advocacy group. Raggz 06:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

An organization does not have to be neutral and can be advocacy group while still being considered as a reliable source per WP:VER policy. —Christopher Mann McKay 03:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This is what comes after your quote on the Human Rights First website, conveniently omitted here: "Human Rights First is a non-profit, nonpartisan international human rights organization based in New York and Washington D.C. To maintain our independence, we accept no government funding." Also, the UN, UNOHCHR and the UN human rights committees advocate for the protection and promotion of human rights - are you going to suggest that they are not reliable sources? Pexise 14:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course I continue to view Human Rights First as an advocacy site. It claims that it is (see mission statement above). I accept the language you cite as accurate and also irrelevant to the question of advocacy. Raggz (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch

Human Rights Watch is something of an advocacy group, but it does high quality research and has consistently been factual in it's reporting. I'm OK with this group as a "reliable source".

We appear to have reached a tacit Consensus on this section?

No. The discussion is ongoing below. Silly rabbit (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

New York Times

Reading two papers that criticised the NY Times for it's lack f objectivity in regard to human rights issues, I wonder f it should qualify?

I changed the text from US media to NY Times, because this was the focus of both papers cited.

EXAMPLE: "Studies have found that New York Times coverage of worldwide human rights violations is biased, predominantly focusing on the human rights violations in nations where there is clear U.S. involvement, while having relatively little coverage of the human rights violations in other nations."

Just because the New York Times focuses on the U.S. does not mean it is not a reliable source per WP:VER. —Christopher Mann McKay 03:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Boston Globe

Satter, Raphael. "Report hits US on human rights", Associated Press (published on The Boston Globe), 2007-05-24. Retrieved on 2007-05-29. The Human Rights Watch Annual Report should be the citation, not a second hand discussion.

Both can be referenced. —Christopher Mann McKay 03:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Commentary

"The Heritage Foundation citing the massive damage done to communities by violent crime says that "any lesser punishment is tougher on innocent people" -Raggz

Citing commentary of authors who do work for the Heritage Foundation is not necessary. We could fill a whole article with opinions of people regarding human rights, lets keep only professional organization's official reports and statements, individual authors commentary, unless someone very significant, is not important. Read WP:NOT. —Christopher Mann McKay 07:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Here one opinion balances the other. If it were a cited fact, another fact (not an opinion) would be necessary. I would prefer to delete both opinions. Are we agreed to drop the opinions and clean it up?Raggz 21:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not in disagreement to not reference any opinions, unless they are from influential or important persons of revalence, or persons who are experts and have published reports in journals and such. —Christopher Mann McKay 03:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The Heritage Foundation and Human Rights Watch are similar, and I believe that both qualify under your criteria. Raggz (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

We appear to have reached a tacit Consensus on this section? Raggz (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

OR Sections

Please stop inserting OR. For each section added we need to establish that (1) what human right is involved (what law, constitutional provision, or treaty) (2) if there is no proof, but only allegations, make this clear. (3) If it was proven, we need to describe how it was proven.

National security exceptions as OR

This is unsupported OR, and I believe partially unfactual. I expect to delete it soon.

We have consensus. Raggz (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Affirmative action and other sections as OR

This is unsupported OR, and I believe partially unfactual. I expect to delete it soon. All of the sections that are OR will soon be pruned. They may of course be reverted WHEN SOURCED. Raggz 21:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you joking? This is far from OR. There is nothing to be sourced, because I did not think anyone would contest this, as everything that is written is sourced on Affirmative action in the United States, which is linked to in the section. However, since you are challenging it, I will reinforce it with references. Trying reading up on subjects before claiming they are unfactual or OR. What part exactly do you find unfactual? —Christopher Mann McKay 00:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

To be more clear, why are affirmative action programs in the US violating human rights? If your dictionary says this under "affirmative action", just cite that. Otherwise - what human rights law - and how was a violation established. Raggz 00:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Dictionaries? They give brief definitions of words and is not an appropriate source for more complex issuess.Ultramarine 01:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine, what do you recomend as a more appropriate source? I was referencing the dictionary defination because Raggz was claiming human right violations are only violations if they are against U.S. law and was claiming large parts of this article should be deleted. I understand there is Internationial law and U.S. law regarding human rights, but this article is not titled "Human rights law and the United States", it should deal with human rights in general. For example, according to Raggz's logic, if it was legal to restrict women's right to own property or vote (like in the past), because this is not against U.S. law (hypothecially) and is not against International law, then it is not a human right violation. I am in disagreement with this because the dictionary says this would be human right violation, even if it were legal to not allow women to have equal rights. —Christopher Mann McKay 01:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

We only need to show that there exist an significant opinion that thinks affirmative action is related somehow to human rights, we in Misplaced Pages need not prove the truth of the relation. I think the Affirmative action in the United States proves that such an opinion exits since it is claimed to violate the Comstitution. But more generally, there need not even by a violation of a law. If a significant opinion thinks a human right is violated philosophically, even if no national or international law is violated, then this is enough for this to be included.Ultramarine 01:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, show that significant opinion exists and you can say that undefined and unproven allegations exist that ________. You may not make other claims unless you can support them. I am working on this because valid criticisms should be fairly presented here. I am concerned about proven human rights violations, and that these be accurately described. You want an article where every sentence begins with "unproven and undefined allegations"? I don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 20:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you say that "A significant opinion thinks". Hardly undefined, see Affirmative action in the United States.Ultramarine 12:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Human Rights and the US. Can someone summarize the reliable sources that state that presently affirmative action denies anyone human rights? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 21:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

We appear to have reached a tacit Consensus on this section? This is: that affirmative action has been documented by judicial decisions that when cited make it important to include. Raggz (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Freedom of Expression as OR

The inclusion of this section suggests that there is some serious alleged or actual violation of freedom of expression in the US, when there is neither. What is needed to revert this section after deletion as OR is one reliable source that states that freedom of expression is a serious human rights issue in the US. A citation that suggest we need rebalance freedom of expression between groups (such as campaign reform) is not support for the hypothesis that significant denial of freedom of expression is occuring.

Presently there are discussions of minor freedom of expression issues, such are always ongoing in all liberal democracies. This material belongs in other articles unless there is a citation to support the implication that these amount to a major issue in the US in regard to human rights. All of the debates included now are about how to balance human rights, not about denial of human rights.

"The inclusion of this section suggests that there is some serious alleged or actual violation of freedom of expression in the US, when there is neither" Are you seriously saying there is not violation of freedom of expression in the United States? I think you need to read up on topics before dicussing them, because if you did, you would know this statement is untrue. —Christopher Mann McKay 00:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Christopher, I read a lot of discussion that seems to be without merit. I am challenging this because I doubt your claims veracity, and am not disputing that unsubstantiated allegations are often made. I really disagree with this section - as fact rather than allegation. Raggz 00:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There are sources in this article and in the subarticles. Reporters without borders ranks the US pretty badly for a developed nation.Ultramarine 01:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Some examples of freedom of expression/speech violations (regardless of legality, these are violations):

• Censorship of pornography
• Censorship of web sites with "obscene" sexual stories.
• The Federal Communications Commission censoring television and radio
• United States military censoring blogs written by military personnel.
• Indecent exposure laws
• The use of free speech zones and protest free zones
• Banning fighting words

Raggz- do you contest one of the following violations as not being true? —Christopher Mann McKay 01:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't really have an opinion, I am skeptical, but can be persuaded. So persuade me? All rights have limits, and these are determined by Congress and the courts, they change and evolve. All you have listed so far are issues related to the balancing of rights and none where human rights are being denied. Raggz 02:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"All you have listed so far are issues related to the balancing of rights and none where human rights are being denied" Why do you phrase things in such a way that suggests some kind of justification? Denying freedom of expression/speech is not "balancing" rights, it is limiting your human rights, as freedom of expression/speech are human rights. —Christopher Mann McKay 04:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

ALL human rights come into conflict. The right to free speech has many such limitations. If you definition of a human right is a right without limits then we could make the article shorter, there are no unlimitedhuman rights whatever in the US (or anywhere else).

The classic case is do you have a right to yell FIRE in a crowded theatre knowing many will be trampled? The Supreme Court found that you do not. EVERY right has a limit.

This article is largely original research because you take an example like that above to prove that there is no freedom of speech. The other way that you deny the WP NPOV policy is to find an example of police brutality, or a reliable source suggesting that such reforms are needed to suggest that police brutality is a significant human rights issue in the US. Police brutality exists, and is illegal everywhere that it occurs. Significant resources and efforts go into reducing it. Raggz (talk) 08:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

We appear to have reached consensus. Raggz (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sexual orientation as OR

The United States Supreme Court (or the Congress with the 14th) have the authority to interpret the US Constitution in regard to the allegations that sexual orientation is a human right recognized by the Constitution. There exists a controversy on this issue that may be covered (with a balanced POV), but we may not suggest that any person in the US has any constitutional right that they presently do not have - even if we wish that they did and believe that they do.

There is no sexual orientation human right in federal law (that I know of). There likely are state recognized rights which should be mentioned when properly supported. There is no human right in international law aplicable to the US either. This means that there is no support to claim that US law presently denies anyone any human right. Unless some actual laws are cited that suggest otherwise (and I believe some lower court decisions exist to be cited) this section needs to be deleted as OR. Please do not revert without proper citation for the specific human rights laws and the court that found sexual orientation violations.

"Unless some actual laws are cited that suggest otherwise (and I believe some lower court decisions exist to be cited) this section needs to be deleted as OR." - There is no need to delete this section just because there is no law being violated. Human rights, as defined by the dictionary, have nothing to do with if human right violations are legal or illegal, or how they are interpreted by the Supreme Court. For example, according to your logic, enslaving African-Americans was only a human right violation after it was made illegal and was not a human right violation when it was legal, which of course, makes no logical sense and goes against the dictionary's definition. —Christopher Mann McKay 00:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

OK Christopher, how does the dictionary change what is and what is not a human rights law? How are violations of human ights proven, if not in court? I might agree to a different or expanded standard of what is and is not a human rights denial, but you will need to clearly articulate a standard of review that we could use instead. Raggz 00:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Since when did dictionary definitions have to been proven by courts? Why do you have this idea that human right violations are only human right violations if they violate U.S. law? Is there a dictionary, or some other source you have, that defines human right violation as only being violations if they are proven in court as being human right violations? If so, please share this source beacuse that would idea makes no sense to me, as the media does not classify human rights as only being human rights if they are illegal, nor does the dictionary. —Christopher Mann McKay 00:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What dictionary defines death penalty as a human rights violation? Just source it. I will accept that. Raggz 00:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As stated before, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, "Human rights-The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law" - The "right to life" is talking about abortion, this is literal, meaning you have the right to live; the death penalty violates this, as you are ending someone's right to life. Of course capital punishment is not listed under the 'Human rights' in the dictionary, beacuse there are no exact examples of human right violations in the dictionary. —Christopher Mann McKay 01:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the definition, it is a reliable source. You will notice that it does not say that the death penalty denies any human right? The reason for this is that rights conflict with each other, like the policies at WP, they are blended together and balanced. Your right to free speech has limits, these are determined by the courts and not by you or I. All rights have limits, judges do the work of balancing these. Raggz 02:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"You will notice that it does not say that the death penalty denies any human right?" Of course it does not, the dictionary does not list examples of any human right violation, but rather gives a general description, which includes the right to life, which capital punishment violates.

"Our right to free speech has limits, these are determined by the courts and not by you or I. All rights have limits, judges do the work of balancing these." Those limits are human right violations, as defined by the dictionary.—Christopher Mann McKay 04:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You may of course quote the dictionary. I use the same one. Raggz 04:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

We appear to have reached consensus. Raggz (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Death Penalty as OR

The article is about human rights in the US. Why are we discussing the death penalty in it? If you want to nclude this topic, we need to begin by explaining what human rights law that the death penalty (as practised in the US) violates. Please offer a reliable source that explains (1) what applicble human rights law is violated in the US (2) how it was determined that this human rights law was violated. Presently these are not covered, just opinions, so it is all OR without this. Raggz 00:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The right to life, which is a human right, is being violated; is this not obvious? There needs to be no human rights law to be violated to be a human rights violations, as defined by the dictionary. Read WP:OR, I think you are misunderstood to what OR is. —Christopher Mann McKay 00:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No Christopher it is not at all obvious. That is why there is a debate, and why neither of us would manage a NPOV alone. We disagree about what OR is.

Almost all of the citations presently allege human rights violations, but don't define what they mean by a human rights violation - a violation of WHAT? We can say: Undefined and unproven human rights allegations have been made by many people about the death penalty is the US. Is this what you want to say? Fine, this can be supported. If you don't want to start every sentence with "Undefined and unproven human rights allegations" you need a citation that (1) defines what violation is being discussed and (2) proves that human rights violations have occured.

Your opinion about what a violation is or is not is actually OR. If you have a reliable source, it is not. Presently almost all of your support is about allegations without specificity or proof. That is why much of it is OR. Raggz 00:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"Almost all of the citations presently allege human rights violations, but don't define what they mean by a human rights violation - a violation of WHAT? " A violation of human rights, the right to life, I have explained this before, what don't you understand?

"you need a citation that (1) defines what violation is being discussed and (2) proves that human rights violations have occured" - (1) The violation if the right to life, or right to live, whatever way you put it. (2) What proof? Should I cite the dictionary? Do you think there is some kind of government counsel that proves if certain practices by the U.S. are human right violations? There is no such thing. There are legal cases and laws of the states that have banned capital punishment, but that is it. —Christopher Mann McKay 01:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

See the Death penalty article. It may or may not he a HR violation, but there is certainly an ongoing discussion if it is. We should not decide who is right.Ultramarine 01:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I just don't understand why the death penalty would not be defined as a human right violation when the dictionary defines it is that. Are you saying the dictionary is incowrrect? Words have meanings, we can't dissregard the meanings of words to define them to what we think they should be defined as, that is a blatant POV violation. —Christopher Mann McKay 01:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously there is disagreement on this, with proponents and opponents having opposing views. But we need (and should) not decide who is right, only present the contoversy as per W:NPOV. That there is a conroversy related to if it is a HR violation is obvious as per the link above.Ultramarine 01:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine, what we have here is a discussion that is seeking consensus. Your views on Policy and consensus have been before wiki-court before, that is why your name is on the list of rogue wikipedians that work deliberately to destroy consensus. You need to read above, on why your suggestion would work against the article. There is option A: We label every unproven and undefined allegation to be an unproven and undefined allegation. This will result in a pointless article, since all of the references so far involve unproven and undefined allegations. There is option B: to begin to work on a consensus approach where we discuss the unproven and undefined allegations - and work to determine what actual violations of human rights have occured. You vote for option A? Or is it really Option C, where you continue the type of useless POV battle that got you disciplined by wWikipedia's community? Raggz 02:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Read Misplaced Pages:No Personal Attacks and Misplaced Pages:Civility. If you make another one, I will report you. Spare me the ad hominem argumentation.Ultramarine 12:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If there is a dictionary where it says that the death penalty is a human rights violation, I accept that as a reliable source. Raggz 02:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As I've stated before, the dictionary does not list any human right violation examples, but just explains human rights in general. For exampe. instead of saying captial punishment is a human right violation, it says the right to life is a human right.—Christopher Mann McKay 04:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of the US Judical Branch is to protect human rights. There are buildings filled with judicial decisions that you may quote. Any court decision that a human right was denied is eligible to serve as a reliable source that a violation actually occured (as opposed to alleged). Findlaw.com is a good place to start (on the lawyers page). Raggz 02:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

We appear to have reached consensus. Raggz (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Euthanasia as OR

What human rights law is at issue here? Without this, OR. Raggz 00:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Euthanasia is only legal is Oregon, I don't think there any laws elsewhere; although California was dicussing it. I don't think this section is revelent to human rights even if there was laws regarding euthanasia; seems to me this section should be removed as not being relevant. —Christopher Mann McKay 01:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

We appear to have reached consensus. Raggz (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding sources

Please do not change direct quotations. Regarding tags stating that a source is missing, do not claim this immediately after a source. Also, statements in the intro that summarize sourced statements later in the body need no repeat these sources.Ultramarine 02:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that I should not have edited a quotation, it was an unintended error. The source was challenged, but Christopher prefers to remove these himself, and I honor his request. We don't have a summary, not yet.Raggz 02:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Democide section

I was wondering whether you think the line in the "Democide" section: "However, the total number of deaths is only a very small fraction of the democide done by many non-democracitic states." is relevant here? It seems like it belongs in an article which compares democratic and non-democratic states and human rights records - this page is not such a discussion, it is simply stating the US Human Rights record. Pexise 08:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not a simple list article, also includes criticisms and arguments for.Ultramarine 09:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Your right, it is not a simple list article, it is a discussion of the US Human Rights record. However - I would still query the wording of this sentence - is this the space for a broad comparison of 'democide' between democratic and non-democratic regimes? Pexise 10:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That can be discussed. But that is not what the sentence states, it comparing the US democide to the democide of many dictatorships.Ultramarine 10:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, this seems like a fairly moot point - obviously the US democide is far less than those of dictatorships. We could mention at the end of every section that terrible human rights abuses have been committed in Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia, and that US human rights abuses are on a much smaller scale, but this should be taken as a given - it does not add anything. Pexise 10:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In some circles the US is seen as the most evil nations in the world, so pointing out this is wrong in one section certainly adds to the article.Ultramarine 10:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Try not to use weasel words: "in some circles". Once again you are setting up a straw man here - where in the article does it suggest that "the US is seen as the most evil nations in the world"? Pexise 10:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I was just making a general point. It is easy to say that the murder of one person is no different from the murder of a thousand. In the real world, there is a difference. Therefore the article on the atomic bombings discuss the alternative, probably much higher, number of deaths caused by not bombing Japan using the atomic bombs. Relative evils matter.Ultramarine 10:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's fine - as you say, the reader can easily refer to the relevant sections on the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings, Vietnam war etc, and to the democide section itself. I don't think the sentence belongs here. If you want to provide more detail, make more specific comparisons (a ranking would be great e.g US is no. 40 of 190 or whatever), or relevant comparisons that don't seem to have a political agenda behind them. Pexise 12:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You have not given any reason. Again, Misplaced Pages allows criticisms and arguments for.Ultramarine 12:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Pexise. I don't think this is a place for a broad comparison of 'democide' between democratic and non-democratic regime. It seems like this is worded like some kind of justification. I don’t believe it provides any meaningful information to the reader. At least in my opinion. —Christopher Mann McKay 17:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no broad comparison, the text compares only the US to other nations. But if wanting a ranking, we can state the US is on place 13.Ultramarine 17:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, so an edit would change the text of the section to: "R.J. Rummel in his estimate of 20th century democide counts many of the civilian causalties during the Philippine-American War, the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Vietnam War, and other conflicts, as democide. This places the US as the 13th most prolific perpetrator of democide of xxx countries for which data is available.ref" Pexise 18:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh, some NPOV please. "R.J. Rummel in his estimate of 20th century democide counts many of the civilian causalties during the Philippine-American War, the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Vietnam War, and other conflicts, as democide. The US is on the 13th place (583,000 deaths) of the nations causing democide (China, the number one nation, has caused 77,000,000 deaths)."Ultramarine 18:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• "R.J. Rummel in his estimate of 20th century democide counts many of the civilian causalties during the Philippine-American War, the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Vietnam War, and other conflicts, as democide. The US is ranked 13th among the nations causing democide (583,000 estimated deaths) (China, the number one nation, is estimated to have caused 77,000,000 deaths)." also needs a reference Pexise 18:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Here .Ultramarine 18:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• "R.J. Rummel in his estimate of 20th century democide counts many of the civilian causalties during the Philippine-American War, the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Vietnam War, and other conflicts, as democide. The US is ranked 13th among the nations causing democide (583,000 estimated deaths) (Mao's China, the number one nation, is estimated to have caused 77,000,000 deaths)." I think it's better to be specific about the fact that it was Mao's China that caused 77 million deaths, although this is a controversial figure as it is apparently based on reports from one book - Mao: the untold story. Interesting theory - although I'm not sure that these sort of comparisons are really appropriate, I think the idea is that it's a very bad thing and that any case of democide is morally repugnant. I noticed that his figure for colonialism is 50,000,000 deaths.... Pexise 19:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

All figures of mass murder are controversial. You will get imprisoned in Turkey if you write anything about the Armenian genocide. Mao's China is mostly fine, although there are still labor camps in China having hundreds of thousands of people and various reports of murders of opponents in order harvest their organs for transplantations, so democide is still continuing there, although on a much smaller scale.Ultramarine 19:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to remove democide section as democide is a clear neologism, therefore contravening WP:NEO Pexise 16:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Since 400 academic works have cited it, it is no longer a neologosm. 200,000 goggle hits. If you want to dispute academic research, publish in acadmic journals or books, not in Misplaced Pages.Ultramarine 16:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Ultramarine: "According to Webster's dictionary , the American Heritage dictionary , and dictionary.com , democide is not an established word in the english language. Its use in this article must be altered to an accepted word from the English lexicon. Using Neologisms certainly violates Misplaced Pages's Avoid Neologisms guideline. I have included the relevant sections of the guideline:

Neologism as defined from Misplaced Pages's Avoid Neologisms

Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities.

Why Misplaced Pages prohibits using neologisms

Generally speaking, neologisms should be avoided in articles because they may not be well understood, may not be clearly definable, and may even have different meanings to different people. Determining which meaning is the true meaning is original research—we don't do that here at Misplaced Pages. "

Neologisms can be widely used, they are nonetheless neologisms. Pexise 16:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"State terrorism" is not mentioned either. Should it be removed? Since 400 academic works have cited it, it is no longer a neologosm. 200,000 goggle hits. If you want to dispute academic research, publish in acadmic journals or books, not in Misplaced Pages.Ultramarine 16:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

State terrorism is an undefined concept. Read the article. How may we discuss a phrase that has no meaning established? When it can be defined, then we could use it. Raggz (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Important sections which are currently missing - can anyone help write them?

I think two sections are definitely needed which are not yet included in this article:

• The US and the International Criminal Court - how the US has opposed the ICC, the bi-lateral agreements that the US has been imposing on small nations granting immunity to US personnel , and the anti-ICC "Invasion of the Hague Act"
• The US and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - how the US has not ratified one of the two core treatise of the International Bill of Rights (along with ICCPR) .

I think it is important to include these two important aspects of the US relation with the international standards and mechanisms for human rights protection. Let me know if you can contribute. Pexise 19:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It would really be helpful if there was a source explaining why the US has objected to these.Ultramarine 21:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Two more additions that could be mentioned:

• The School of the Americas
• Involvement in the 2002 attempted coup d'etat in Venezuela (in the section on violations of national sovereignty)

Pexise 19:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The United States has been rumoured to have contribued to almost every coup is in the world so I see no reason to mention this particular unproved allegation. What is the relation to human rights?Ultramarine 16:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a whole article on the Venezuelan Coup attempt which deals with alleged US involvement, so I have linked to that article. Many human rights violations resulted from the attempted coup, including several assasinations, curbs on freedom of speech, desolution of democratic institutions etc. Pexise 16:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

POV?

"Historically, the United States has been committed to liberty"

I'm sorry, but isn't that POV? I don't mean to say that the US never comitted itself to liberty (American Independence was an example followed by European Colonies everywhere) My point is, it's widely documented historically that the US hasn't been committed to liberty all the time (to take an example from this article, US support to Latin American dictatorships). --200.222.30.9 16:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so I'll at least add a "citation needed" thing to it, since it's not an easily verifiable fact. I'm sure it won't be hard to find a white house report on the issue. --200.222.30.9 20:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is POV and should be removed. —Christopher Mann McKay 21:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I will not revert the revert made by BrianMDelaney but I thoroughly disagree with it. The citation used to show the commitment to liberty of the US was the United States Constitution (an impressive document indeed, but hardly proof that everything that came after it is good and right), I disagree that a single document written before the United States even started de facto is valid as proof of historical support for democracy (unless my definition of historical support as continuous is mistaken), but I conceded that point and added exceptions to the rule:

"though, mainly when economical and diplomatic interests are at stake, the country has occasionally engaged in policies that directly supported or otherwise benefited dictatorships, and/or opposed the democratic process."

My edit was classified as redundant, but I don't see any references to opposing democracy, and the rare references to dictatorship supporting are linked to human rights violations, not as examples of exceptions to the "Democracy is Good" doctrine, which is my point here, "that the US hasn't been committed to liberty all the time," like I stated earlier. --200.222.30.9 20:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Then put it in later. The intro has the right structure without your edit: Para #1: The matter is complicated; #2: on the one hand, good intentions and other good stuff #3: bad stuff. --BrianMDelaney 23:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

But the reason I wrote that is to clarify that the intentions aren't always good. If I was to write that on the third paragraph, it would contradict, instead of qualify, for instance:

"Historically, as expressed in United States Constitution, the United States has been committed to liberty...

The country has occasionally engaged in policies that directly supported or otherwise benefited dictatorships..." --200.222.30.9 00:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

By "later" I don't mean in the third paragraph, I mean after the intro, in the body of the text. I think it would be fine there. --BrianMDelaney 07:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The statement is the official policy statement of the United States Government, and so is highly relevant. The article is without a single reliable source that establishes that the US has engaged in any policy anywhere in the past decade that violates human rights. There are no sdhortage of allegations for this, but in not one case has any judicial tribunal confirmed these allegations (since 1953 I believe).

Until someone offers a reliable source that the US has actually violated human rights, please do not revert the official position of the United States Government Raggz (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Overview

The overview section reads very amateurish, not least of all for its factual errors. Problems, in no particular order:

1. The writer speaks of "inalienable" human rights. In the context of the paragraph, I believe he is referring to the Declaration of Independence. The text of that document refers to "UNalienable" human rights. I know that it is a common error, but that doesn't make it acceptable.

2. It alleges that human rights are guaranteed by the "Consitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence." Wow. Where to begin?

2a. The Bill of Rights is PART of the Constitution, not a separate document. 2b. The Declaration of Independence can guarantee nothing. It is not a legal document; it carries no legal weight. 2c. I don't see that the Constitution grants or guarantees human rights. It establishes our government. Describes the three branches. Discusses patents, copyrights, ways to amend itself. Either the original author (or I) need to do more research.

3. The author continual confuses "rights" and "liberties." In fact, this problem crops up throughout the page. A right is something that is unalienably ours, and can be neither given nor taken by the government (at least not without some kind of legal process). A liberty is something that can be granted by or taken away by the government. I have the right to bear children. I am at liberty to open a business, as long as I comply with zoning laws, tax laws, labor laws, et al. I have the right to freely assemble. Upon reaching age 18, my daughter will gain the liberty to vote.

4. The Constitution does not guarantee freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to bear arms, freedom of religion, individual property rights or the right to a fair trial. Sorry. 4a. The Constitution prohibits CONGRESS (not the states!) from passing laws that infringe upon freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to bear arms. This does not guarantee your right to tell off your boss without consequence. It doesn't prevent the Catholic church from refusing to let you marry in the church unless you agree to raise your children catholic. This doesn't prevent a business from disallowing guns on the premises. All it does is say that the government can't make those infringements. 4b. I can't find the property rights section of the Constitution. Anybody seen it? 4c. Right to a fair trial? No. Right to a trial? Under some circumstances. I suggest a reading of the source material.

5. "A substantial amount of Americans ..." An "amount" of Americans? The word amount should be used for something that can't be counted. A large amount of rain. A small amount of drugs. A large amount of blood. A small amount of care. How about "A substantial NUMBER" of Americans?

6. "A substantial amount of Americans have been surveyed as being opposed ..." ??? How substantial was the number of Americans surveyed? I think what the author meant is something like, "A substantial number of Americans oppose..."

7. In the context of a discussion of rights and liberties, how does the "war on drugs" and the government's position on capital punishment fit in? It seems out of place.

I'd appreciate some input on these points before I engage in a major rewrite, one that would, because of being based on fact, will probably completely change the nature and character of the overview. Thanks. Kjdamrau 20:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)kjdamrau

Go ahead rewrite the overview section. Everything you want to change sounds good to me. —Christopher Mann McKay 23:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you say that the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution (in the form of a series of amendements)? If so, the Constitution does guarantee several human rights, among them: the right to due process of law; the right not to be arbitrarily searched or have personal property or correspondence interfered with; freedom to practice religion; and right not to be subjected to cruel and inhuman punishment. The Constitution also prohibits slavery, establishing the human right not to be enslaved.

More directly, the Constitution guarantees the right to due process of law with an impartial jury in Amendment 6, and property rights are guaranteed in Amendment 14 (1): 'nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law'.

Furthermore, the right to vote is a Human Right, whether it is a liberty or not. Pexise 21:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding your final point, the 'War on Drugs' is a policy that leads to many human rights violations, and capital punishment is a human rights violation, violating the right to life. Pexise 21:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The US Supreme Court has understood and interpreted the Constitution to require STATES (not just the federal gov't) to provide under the 14th Amendment certain rights, such as those relating to search and seizure, double jeapordy, first amendment, etc. Sorry, I don't have the case citations here. Also, the Sup. Ct has held that under the Constitution PRIVATE BUSINESSES cannot violate certain rights, e.g. racially discriminate, etc. In fact, parents cannot deprive children of health care, for example (there is a famous Jehova's Witnesses case), so Constitutional protections govern not just federal, state, and private business activity, but also private persons' activity. So, it is quite fair to state that the Constitution GUARANTEES certain human rights.--NYCJosh 22:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The 14th Amendment and the body of constitutional law makes it clear that the constitution RECOGNIZES human rights but does not create them. That said, yes, the constitution guarantees the rights enumerated by the constitution. Raggz (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Pessimistic POV

I feel this entire article is biased towards pessimism. It reads like a hardcore liberal's playground--almost every subtopic ends up being filled with "XXX is claimed to be a violation of human rights because..." or "Human Rights Watch claims..." For example, the death penalty section seems to be entirely antagonist, particularly with the introduction of how the European Union finds the US in violation of human rights due to capital punishment. Is it really fair to include claims from organizations that are not even operating in the United States? Additionally, is it really fair to include any "claims"? The Human Rights Watch claims a lot, but how much of their research is unbiased and factual? They "claim" there is racism sprouting from capital punishment. But is this factual or neutral by any means since each and every crime is evaluated on a case-by-case basis? Just because a white person gets off less than a black person doesn't mean racism--perhaps the circumstances are different. Yet this article certainly doesn't tell you that--it basically says that The Human Rights Watch says its racist and thats all that matters.

Basically, to sum up what I am trying to say, I find this article entirely full of criticism and lacking any kind of equality in response to the criticism. Everything done by everyone, from the smallest of things to the biggest, is subject to criticism from at least someone, but that doesn't mean that criticism is the ONLY way to respond. This article, however, only tells me the criticism of the topics discussed, yet I don't see the other side of the story, despite the fact that there is one. There IS a counter-argument to why the prison system is packed, which the article doesn't tell me, for example. --Lan56 11:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it really fair to include claims from organizations that are not even operating in the United States — on these grounds, we would be forced to scratch all of human rights in the People's Republic of China and Human rights in North Korea. Obviously, all sources cited here should be respectable, but it is little surprising that the sources we do cite are organizations that actually focus on the topic of this article (such as HRW). I daresay official statements by the European Union are notable, although here this only concerns the death penalty in general, and not the human rights situation specifically, and thus may not really be all that relevant. The EU generally tends to turn a blind eye to human rights issues in the US, as denounced by Dick Marty (who for some reason is not linked from this article??) dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 11:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Why is this tag still here - the article seems to be well balanced and well sourced. Is there a specific issue that is being disputed? If not I suggest that the tag be removed. Pexise 13:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any specific issue that needs to be addressed. I also think the tag should be removed. —Christopher Mann McKay 17:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The NPOV tag is still appropriate. If the article was about Islam, would most of it be about Islam's critics?

Consider the many allegations of human rights violations - and the lack of one reliable source that establishes that any of these exist to any significant degree. When the allegations are removed - or when they are supported by reliable sources, then this tag will no longer be necessary. Raggz (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't get to make that determination. Our job is to verify information, not assess their status as an "allegation". I don't know where you get this line of reasoning from, but it's incorrect. If the sources and human rights abuses are notable, that's all that matters. —Viriditas | Talk 05:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Alleged Human Rights violators residing in the US

This is a notworthy subject, worthy of a new section: ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pexise (talk • contribs) 15:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If there are convicted human rights violators, then I would consider this. Raggz (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Their conviction isn't required. If the sources are reliable, and the people are notable for their crimes, that's all we need. —Viriditas | Talk 05:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Are they "convicted"? By whom? May we have your citation? Which specific criminal offenses are human rights violations? Have they been convicted of crimes against humanity or war crimes? If so, then your point is quite solid. Raggz (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that we have tacit consensus for removal. Raggz (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Silly rabbit (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Are they "convicted"? By whom? May we have your citation? Which specific criminal offenses are human rights violations? Have they been convicted of crimes against humanity or war crimes? Raggz (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"Native Americans"?

Why doesn't this page note Human Rights Violations in regards to "Native Americans"?--Keerllston 05:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Good question. I suppose it has something to do with the focus of this article on current, rather than historical, human rights abuses. I don't mean to say that there aren't modern-day human rights abuses involving Indian people, but they are a lot more complicated, harder to describe, and less well known.—Nat Krause 19:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If someone has a reliable source for this allegation, please add this section. Not just a speculative allegation, but a serious source. Raggz (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Which allegation?—Nat Krause 05:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Human Rights Violations in regards to "Native Americans"? Which specific human rights are we discussing? Raggz (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There have been any number - take your pick and we can start from there.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly there have been many. It will be necessary to list these. It will be necessary to deal with when the native nations were integrated within the US, and to what degree, because there is the question of when the US Constitution applied to them. The US Supreme Court held in Dred Scott that slaves were without legal standing, in effect that they had the same standing as did farm animals. The legal human rights of native Americans likely did not exist then, it is questionable when they became Native Americans and their prior nations ceased. It is presently argued that they still are sovereign in all ways and are not subject to the US Constitutional protections or jurisdiction. I am totally fine with this section, but suggest that it will turn into its own article. I agree that SERIOUS human rights violations occured and likely still occur. This is a complex subject. So, "If someone has a reliable source for this allegation, please add this section. Not just a speculative allegation, but a serious source." Raggz (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Police brutality

I tried to add a section on police brutality, but it was deleted. Apparently someone feels there is no police brutality in the U.S.! Many people are killed, by gunshot, beating, tasering and chemical sprays. Many suspects are excessively beaten, tasered and pepper sprayed. Some prisoners report being tasered, punched or kicked in the genitals by police officers. Some suspects are run over with vehicles. Cities pay out large sums of money in legal settlements after losing court cases over police brutality charges.122.31.178.226 (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No...the way it works is that you need to provide sources for your additions--Looper5920 (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Very convenient - the government publishes no statistics!122.31.178.226 (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Read a book--Looper5920 (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link to a New York Times article that explains the lack of statistics. Suspicious, isn't it? http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9505E6DD1139F93AA15757C0A9679C8B63 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.31.178.226 (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess we could say, "Police brutality exists in the U.S. according to news reports and the testimony of victims, and its existence is proven by the fact that U.S. cities pay out large sums to victims to settle court cases, but the full extent of the problem is unknown because no accurate statistics are kept of law enforcement related deaths of citizens or on the use of excess force by police." That has a nice, Orwellian ring to it.122.31.178.226 (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) : "Existence is proven" is an original research conclusion at this point. Settlements are paid for a variety of reasons, not always due to culpability. "No accurate statistic are kept" is, again a original research conclusion. Unfortunately, it is difficult to prove the lack of something. Misplaced Pages policy requires reliable sources. I suggest that you work continue to work on wording, with references, on this talk page; and reach consensus before adding the material. I believe this is doable, as there are cases and verifying sources that can be pointed to. However, a cautionary note — avoid making a general conclusion based on specific cases. — ERcheck (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is more documentation from Amnesty International's web site: http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=133746465C2D34CA8025690000692D98 Is this sufficient documentation to add a section on police brutality?122.31.178.226 (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is more on police brutality in the U.S. from Human Rights Watch: http://hrw.org/english/docs/1998/07/07/usdom1224.htm It's a little dated though.122.31.178.226 (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

All three of the links I've provided point out that police brutality is a widespread problem and that no accurate statistics are kept.122.31.178.226 (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

In order to maintain NPOV, rather than generalizing or invoking Amnesty International (AI) or Human Rights Watch as the definitive/authoritative, sole sources, I make the following suggestions: (1) If citing AI, in the text attribute the finding s to AI ("According to Amnesty International, ...."); and (2) give equal time to "both sides" of the issue. As this is a "controversial topic", undoubtably the are publications (that meet Misplaced Pages standards) for those who say it is a big issue and those who say otherwise. (BTW, "widespread" would be considered a "weasel word". Better to provide hard numbers, such as rate per 100,000 population, etc.) — ERcheck (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

As I've pointed out repeatedly, there are no hard numbers, because the police and the government refuse to provide them. I've given three citations. Are you suggesting that the New York Times, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch are fabricating or exaggerating human rights violations? Can you name some groups or cite some sources that say police brutality is not a major problem in the United States?122.31.178.226 (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is yet another article, this time from USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-17-Copmisconduct_N.htm

I don't know how much documentation is needed to prove that police brutality is a serious human rights problem in the United States.122.31.178.226 (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Within those sources, for example, the AI report, there are details that can be used as examples. I'm making no suggestion that the sources are fabricating their information. "Widespread" is a word that is open to interpretation. — ERcheck (talk 18:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC) "Police brutality" is certainly a serious problem. As per the NYT piece, the actual extent is not available via a comprehensive database. Neutral, documented phrasing is what is required. As I suggested, present a proposed phrasing here, with citations. — ERcheck (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

IP 122.31.178.226, traces to Japan....We do not object to a police brutality section, but it must meet wiki guidelines, ie, WP: NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:VERIFY. I also get the impression that you may feel that problem only exists in America, I assure you it exists in every country, I've been in over 40 countries, including 8 years I lived in Japan, and yes, it exists there to. You need to source your claims with valid references, words like "Widespread" are POV and OR and unless part of referenced direct quote, are Weasel words, which need to be avoided. Would like it if I make similar edits to an article on on Japan about the racism I experienced in Japan simply because I wasn't Japanese? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've re-added the section on Police Brutality. Each statement is cited with a reference. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide accurate information, not to make people feel good or bad. If you can quote sources on racism in Japan, please feel free to do so, but this is not the appropriate place to discuss that issue.122.31.178.226 (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You may find it easier to reach consensus then add stuff. What you have now is better, but it reads like a list of refs (X reported..., Y reported...), etc. It also mentions nothing of efforts made at decreasing brutality, the cases where the police are disciplined for it, etc...in other words, it only presents one side of the story. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is a much better, accurate statement of the information in the sources cited. Please see the section below to continue the discussion on neutrality. — ERcheck (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Police brutality section neutrality discussion

The section on Police brutality needs to be balanced by viewpoints from police agencies and to indicate what is being done to curb the problem. As it stands, it currently provides comments on the issue and statistics on cases accepted. — ERcheck (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a newspaper article where you, by default, seek a quote from "the other side," who of course will say the problems are minimal and everything is being done to correct the problem. The goal here is for accuracy and a neutral point of view, by using relevant references. *IF* the problem remains unchecked, an attempt to "balance" the article, to someone's notion of balance, will just make it misleading, since balance is quite subjective.--Lostart (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Police brutality does not belong in this section, but should be moved to the human rights article. Do you have any evidence that police brutality is greater or less than say in Scotland, China, or Mexico? You need this evidence from a reliable source to keep police brutality in this article.

I believe that police brutality is an international issue that impede human rights everywhere. Please move this discussion from this article to the general article. If you revert my deletion of this section, I will not object IF you offer a reliable source that shows that police brutality is a particular problem in the US - NOT that it exists, but that it exists in some different form or to some different degree within the US. Raggz (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Police brutality is a serious problem in some countries. When citizens are attacked or killed by the police, it is a human rights issue. People have a right not to be extrajudicially punished or executed by the police. In some countries this is not a big problem. According to the extensive sources I provided, from a variety of sources, police brutality is a serious problem in the U.S. The sources were all referring to police brutality issues in the U.S. and many of the sources quoted were human rights organizations.122.31.178.226 (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Good points. We still need a citation that police brutality is confirmed as a serious problem in the U.S. Raggz (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Police brutality redux

For purposes of discussion, here is the original police brutality section. The references are fairly strong. The writing leaves something to be desired, but that can be fixed. Why was this deleted? Silly rabbit (talk) 05:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It was written that way because the first time it was deleted, I was accused of making undocumented allegations, so I documented every single line with a reference to a source. I thought that would solve the problem. How naive of me.122.31.178.226 (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see my note below under "OR Deletions" as to why I have undone Raggz deletion of this section.122.31.178.226 (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The HRW article is a good one, and it supports the point well. The problem is that it discusses issues 12-13 years back. Do these problems persist today? If so, may we have an equivalent quality citation in say, perhaps the last three years? It would be good to have a source for "In some countries this is not a big problem" because then we could add this statement as well. Ideally we could contrast US and elsewhere somehow.

Report Charges Police Abuse in U.S. Goes Unchecked. Human Rights Watch. Retrieved on 2007-12-22. Raggz (talk) 06:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"This lack of accurate statistics makes it virtually impossible, experts say, to draw meaningful, big-picture conclusions about deadly encounters between the police and the civilian population, including the fatal shooting earlier this month of an unarmed black man in Cincinnati, an incident that incited days of violent protests and vandalism. Without a national barometer, there is no conclusive way to determine whether this or other incidents around the country -- like those involving Amadou Diallo in New York and Rodney King in Los Angeles -- represent racially based police misconduct, or any kind of trend at all."

The NY Times citation says the above. The prior citation does not suggest that police misconduct is increasing but that the prosecution of it is increasing. Since we are not discussing the prosecution rate where it is cited, do we have consensus for deletion of this.

Do we have consensus for the retention of the NY Times citation with the text above cited within the article, but its deletion as support for a police brutality claim? Raggz (talk) 06:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the NY Times article is saying "no one knows if police brutality is a human rights issue in the U.S." I think what it is saying is "we have a police brutality problem, but we don't know exactly what the extent of it is, because the statistics are not being supplied by the authorities." But AI, HRW and the ACLU all agree this is a serious and ongoing problem, not a historical issue. I posted this below in the "OR Deletions" discussion too. Let's keep the police brutality discussion in this section.122.31.178.226 (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The NY Times didn't say the above - you did. Raggz (talk) 06:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to a story about an incident that took place in 2006. So obviously, this is not a historical issue. http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/32186prs20070613.html The left sidebar makes this point as well122.31.178.226 (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Police brutality exists in the US. This is not a point being debated. Every incident of this denies human rights, this is not being debated. You now have a reliable report of a single incident, but I'm convinced that at minimum there are hundred of incidents. So, where does this take us? Do we have a human rights issue with police brutality numbering in the hundreds - or a human rights sucess keeping it this low? Is the glass half empty, or is it half full?

What do you suggest that we do with your reliable source that a single incident occured? Raggz (talk) 06:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a gander at this. A former police officer details why police brutality occurs, and admits that it is widespread and routine. http://www.commondreams.org/views/072100-105.htm In the absence of statistics, which the U.S. government is apparently powerless to collect, I think these kinds of first person accounts have to be taken very seriously.122.31.178.226 (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to the actual video, to back this up. http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/07/14/police.beating.02/police.beating.400.4.0.mov122.31.178.226 (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please review An Inconvenient Truth, an excellent controversial article in my view. Are there a number of scientists and activists who dispute the thesis advanced by this book? Of course there are, but the editors have not let one person's issues into the encyclopedia article. Where in this article did the editors include the opinions of just two or three people? (Btw I lack software to watch videos, so please summarize it?) Raggz (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Police brutality

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Amnesty International says it has "documented patterns of ill-treatment across the U.S., including police beatings, unjustified shootings and the use of dangerous restraint techniques." According to Human Rights watch, incidents of police use of excessive force have occurred in cities throughout the U.S., and this behavior goes largely unchecked. An article in USA Today reports that in 2006, 96% of cases referred to the U.S. Justice Department for prosecution by investigative agencies were declined. In 2005, 98% were declined. According to the New York Times, the U.S. government is unable or unwilling to collect statistics showing the precise number of people killed by the police or the prevalence of the use of excessive force. Since 1999, at least 148 people have died in the United States and Canada after being shocked with Tasers by police officers, according to the ACLU.

I agree the dated reports is an issue. As the section above reads, it implies that all of the reports are about the current state of HR in the US. In the main article, I've added the dates to the citations and included the dates in the text. This more accurately describes the sources. However, in order to make the section NPOV, it needs:

• More recent references.
• Reports on activities to address this issue.

— ERcheck (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Commondreams.org is an advocacy site, it states on its homepage "Common Dreams: A Website That Could 'Shake the World'". As such, it is not a reliable source. The old HRW report is an example of a reliable source, they are a credible voice that pays close attention to fact checking (to protect their credibility as a voice). What you need is a reliable source that states that human rights are compromised significantly by police brutality. Raggz (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

We appear to have reached tacit consensus. Raggz (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of the material on commondreams is originally published by some other source. So I would say that commondreams is fine. Attribution should be given carefully, and particular sources can be handled on a case-by-case basis. By the way, care to explain how this is relevant to this thread? Silly rabbit (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

OR Deletions

This article has lost focus. It is not about human rights - but about human rights in the US. Most of it is pure OR, allegations without proof. Some of it is important to the topic and should stay and be expanded. Much of it is pure OR and requires aggressive deletion per WPs OR policy.

There are only three primary reliable sources about what is an actual US human rights violation. In regard to the US Constitution these are the (1) Judiciary and the (2) Congress. In regard to international law (3) this is only the UN Security Council (not the ICJ or any commission). Allegations by any state or UN commission, or by the ICC (or similar sources) are certainly allegations worth mentioning.

Any reliable source that references an actual investigation, claim, charge, or trial by a primary source (above) deserves coverage.

If an actual charge is filed, an actual trial is held, or some similar action is initiated, these may deserve coverage. Editorials and other opinion written without these do not. Speculation is not a WP mission.

I suggest these guidelines and welcome the necessary input to develop guidelines for what is and what is not pointless speculation.

EXAMPLE: Someone points out that police brutality exists in the US, and this is true. This information likely belongs in a police brutality article or one on human rights and police brutality. It does not belong in THIS article unless there is some specific reliable source proving that police brutality in the US is somehow different than everywhere else. I have no problem with restoring this - or any section if some reliable source is cited that establishes a specific US human rights link. If you want a section back, don't despair and revert, just offer a reliable source for the specific US linkage. For this example that might be that police brutality is legal in the US, that it is a larger problem in the US, that it is growing faster than elsewhere ... etc.

Raggz (talk) 09:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The sources I provided in the police brutality section were all concerned with police brutality in the U.S. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were two of the sources quoted. Both of these organizations agree that police brutality is a serious problem in the U.S., and the sourced articles were about police brutality in the U.S. The New York Times article, the USA Today article and the ACLU article were all about police brutality IN THE U.S. Please restore the deleted material.122.31.178.226 (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If this were an article about race relations in the U.S., for example, would your position be that racism could only be discussed if it could be proven that racism is unique to the United States, or worse in the U.S. than in other countries? That seems pretty ridiculous. If there is evidence of widespread racism (more serious charges and harsher sentencing for non-white offenders, or more deaths and injuries to non-white suspects during arrests) then racism should be mentioned in the article. In the same way, the numerous sources I've quoted indicate that police brutality not only exists in the U.S., but that it is a serious problem. Since Raggz has not replied here or to the message I left on his talk page, I'm going to undo his deletion.122.31.178.226 (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"If this were an article about race relations in the U.S., for example, would your position be that racism could only be discussed if it could be proven that racism is unique to the United States, or worse in the U.S. than in other countries?" Good point. Raggz (talk) 07:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with your not waiting to revert, as long as you are willing to talk. I just read your messages and have been away. Read what you cited from the NY Times (above). It says no one knows if police brutality is a human rights issue in the US. We have a citation from HRW that is was 13 years ago. What else do we have? Raggz (talk) 07:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the NY Times article is saying "no one know if police brutality is a human rights issue in the U.S." I think what it is saying is "we have a police brutality problem, but we don't know exactly what the extent of it is, because the statistics are not being supplied by the authorities." But AI, HRW and the ACLU all agree this is a serious and ongoing problem, not a historical issue.122.31.178.226 (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The NY Times did not say "because the statistics are not being supplied by the authorities", that implies a conspiracy theory which would need support to be alleged. Raggz (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think what it is saying is "we have a police brutality problem, but we don't know exactly what the extent of it is, because the statistics are not being supplied by the authorities." But AI, HRW and the ACLU all agree this is a serious and ongoing problem, not a historical issue. Fine, if you have a reliable source that says that AI, HRW and the ACLU are claiming that actual police brutality presently is a significant human rights issue, you have what we need. If your source only articulates this suspicion, then I am uncertain, I suppose we will need to read the citation. Raggz (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Gender Rights section neutrality discussion

See above. Are gender human rights being violated in the US to a greater or lesser degree than in Scotland, China, or Mexico? The only gender human rights offered by the US Constitution are within the 19th Amendment, but you imply that others exist and project your POV on this issue. PROVE that gender rights exist and I will ceede this issue. I agree (1) that gender human rights are recognized in some nations and not others (and often very differently) and (2) that some day they may be recognized within the US. Apart from these two points, you have yet to prove any of your fundamental gender claims with a relaible source. OR deletion.

I do not believe that you have established any reason to include these in an article about the US. Please consider a section within human rights? This is a global issue and is not really a US issue. This is OR

I am deleting most of it as OR. Please do not revert this section unless you can show that the US Constitutions human rights guarantees are being violated within the US in regard to gender. I know that you believe that they are, I mean prove this, (with a federal court decision).

You could edit gender rights into this article by using them as an example of a possible actual human right endowed by the Creator to every American, but not yet enumerated in law. This is what happened with civil rights and disability rights, and if you like this approach it would be relevant and I will help. Presently the article suggests that the US Constitution recognizes actual gender rights when it does not. Your OR needs to go. Raggz (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You are setting unreasonable standards. Why is something not a human right if it is not guaranteed by the U.S. constitution? The fact that there have been abortive moves to have gender equality written into the constitution, and that there remains a substantial movement to do so, makes them materially relevant to the subject of the article. As long as the article doesn't baldly assert that "Gender equality is a fundamental human right," I feel it should stand. This is an encyclopedia article, not a legal document. If we choose to represent the views of a significant minority who believe gender equality to be a fundamental human right, then the threshhold for inclusion are WP:Undue weight and WP:NPOV. We can still be NPOV while talking about gender equality, and this can be done without WP:OR. Silly rabbit (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"The fact that there have been abortive moves to have gender equality written into the constitution, and that there remains a substantial movement to do so, makes them materially relevant to the subject of the article." Agreed, within this context. The Equal Rights Amendment is still in progress (technicall) if politically inactive and somewhat forgotten. This is an encyclopedia about a legal issue, and it need keep a legal context. Perhaps it can diverge from legalities, but it should not deny or misrepresent legalities. "If we choose to represent the views of a significant minority who believe gender equality to be a fundamental human right" we become advocates producing material that violates the NPOV policy, is likely original research, and are not writing an encyclopedia article. Do we agree on this important point? Raggz (talk) 07:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The entire article is focused upon the federal government as though human rights were primarily a federal responsibility when the 50 states have more actual responsibility for these than does the federal government. Does everyone know this? Does anyone dispute this?

Racisim for example is primarily a state issue. When it was proven that states were not protecting federal human rights, federal troops and officers were called in. The primary responsibility was - and still is the states. Only if a state fails does it become a federal issue. (There of course are exceptions).

Will the reader know this? Americans don't all know this, but most do. The US is like the EU might be in 200 years, Italian law will still be different than Polish law, and as long as Italy ensures compliance with the EU minimum human rights, Italian law can be different. US gender equality is a state-by-state issue within the US. The US Constitution and the UN law are silent on this issue (except the 19th Amendment requires female voting). This means every state may pass any gender equality law they wish - or need not pass any. Should we have a section or focus upon human rights and state law? Almost all US gender equality law (and there is a lot)is state rather than federal. Raggz (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Death Penalty

There is no evidence offered that the death penalty within the US violates any human rights whatever. What is in this section is OR without proof. What human right might be violated? What federal court made this finding? We could make a long list of these, but that should go into another article.

I will delete this section because there is no proof of any human rights violation offered from any reliable source. Raggz (talk) 08:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No necessary human rights violation is asserted nor implied. The information is relevant to the topic and encyclopedic, given the hotbutton nature of the topic. The only thing that needs to be addressed is whether the information is verifiable. Silly rabbit (talk) 08:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is the information relevant to the topic? I see no relevance. WP policies extend well beyond verifiable. Raggz (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

We appear to have reached tacit consensus on this issue. Raggz (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Extraordinary rendition

This section is being deleted as OR. There is no evidence offered that any human right was denied. Evidence would be a finding by any US court or international court with jurisdiction that (1)Extraordinary rendition occurs and if it occurs (2) that it violates any law. All that is included are suspicions and allegations of illegal conduct, proof would be a conviction or at least a formal charge. Raggz (talk) 08:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

We appear to have reached tacit Consensus. Raggz (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Legality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq

This section is all OR. First you need to show that some violation of an international law occured - or that some human rights abuse occured. You cannot, not if the standard is a finding by any international tribunal. A war or invasion is not a human rights abuse.

The ICC prosecutor investigated your charges and released a report last year that refutes your charges.

Legality of Iraq War Raggz (talk) 09:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

We appear to have reached tacit consensus on this issue. Raggz (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Health care

There was no reliable source for any human rights violation relating to health care policy. The UN material would fit into the UN section. The UN Commission cannot and does not find human rights abuses, only the Security Council has this authority. The UN Security Council considered the Commission's report and evidence and did not act on these. If it had, this would be a reliable source for actual human rights abuse. It is an allegation that you might want to move to the UN section, the claim would be supportable there. Raggz (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to delete the following text as irrelevant to this topic. Why should it remain? "In addition, the Principles of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association require medical doctors to respect the human rights of the patient, including that of providing medical treatment when it is needed." Is there a question of physicians not treating patients, or of any violations of this? Waht is this about? Raggz (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Affirmative action

There was no reliable source for any human rights violation relating to affirmative action policy. Raggz (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think relationship between affirmative action and historical racial discrimination (a human rights violation) is well documented. See Supreme Court rulings in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke(438 U.S. 265 (1978)), Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña (515 U.S. 200 (1995)) and Hopwood v. Texas (78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996)). Though I don't know it can be inserted as progress in human rights development or a new form of racial discrimination. --Skyfiler (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent points! I accept your assertions, and withdraw my claim for affirmative action being original research, as long as you edit this section and add the reliable sources that were lacking. I may debate you on the edits, but I accept that these are reliable sources and that this section will not be original research when you edit this in. Raggz (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

We appear to have reached tacit Consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 01:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Prison System

Here is an example of a section that should be retained, yet it is nearly all OR presently. US Courts have found violations of human rights that have occured almost daily. Why should our article focus on listing these? We could if we want to.

"Some have criticized the United States for having an extremely large prison population, where there have been reported abuses." This is irrelevant. It does not prove that any human rights violation has occured. Violations have occured, cases could be made, but our article has neither.

As of 2004 the United States had the highest percentage of people in prison of any nation. There were more than 2.2 million in prisons or jails, or 737 per 100,000 population, or roughly 1 out of every 136 Americans. "Human Rights Watch believes the extraordinary rate of incarceration in the United States wreaks havoc on individuals, families and communities, and saps the strength of the nation as a whole." Again, no SPECIFIC human rights abuse is proven or even alleged. Incarceration alone is not a human rights abuse.

Examples of mistreatment claimed include prisoners left naked and exposed in harsh weather or cold air; "routine" use of rubber bullets and pepper spray; forced immersion in scalding water causing second and third degree burns (one documented case); solitary confinement of violent prisoners in soundproofed cells for 23 or 24 hours a day; and a range of injuries from serious injury to fatal gunshot wounds, with force at one California prison "often vastly disproportionate to the actual need or risk that prison staff faced." Such behaviors are illegal, and "professional standards clearly limit staff use of force to that which is necessary to control prisoner disorder." It is against WP policy to invoke an isolated incident or incidents that are unrepresentative. I have no doubt that these and worse events have ocurred and that they seriously violated human rights. The question we have as editors if these are so widespread as to deserve mention? We need not agree, but the rule is that some reliable source need be quoted and this one does NOT suggest that these abuses are widespread.

Human Rights Watch raised concerns with prisoner rape and medical care for inmates. In a survey of 1,788 male inmates in Midwestern prisons by Prison Journal, about 21% claimed they had been coerced or pressured into sexual activity during their incarceration and 7% claimed that they had been raped in their current facility. Tolerance of serious sexual abuse and rape in United States prisons are consistently reported as widespread. It has been fought against by organizations such as Stop Prisoner Rape. Here is an example where I deleted test that I should have retained, so I will revert it. This is a good example: it makes the point that human rights are widespread and so deserves mention.

The United States has been criticized for having a high amount of non-violent and victim-less offenders incarcerated, as half of all persons incarcerated under State jurisdiction are for non-violent offences and 20 percent are incarcerated for drug offences. This text is OR, even though it has relaible sources cited. The sources are not challenged, but the failure to prove RELEVANCE to the article itself is. We not only need cite reliable sources, these sources need to be making points relevant to the article. These sources do not establish that any human rights abuses are occuring in the US. IF this had been established the sources should then be cited, if relevant.

The United States is the only country in the world allowing sentencing of young adolescents to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. There are currently 73 Americans serving such sentences for crimes they committed at the age of 13 or 14. In December 2006 the United Nations took up a resolution calling for the abolition of this kind of punishment for children and young teenagers. 185 countries voted for the resolution and only the United States against. Here is an example of text that should be moved. In this case to the UN Section. The UN action had no legal force, nothing in the General Assembly does, but it has moral force and deserves inclusion. I will move it.

I hope someone has the time to restore this section after taking the time to find reliable sources that suggest that the US prison system is worse or better than those in Italy, the Congo, or Mexico. Unless such a US-specific link is established from a reliable source, this section needs to be an OR deletion. Raggz (talk) 10:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

We appear to have now reached a tacit Consensus on this section? There is a huge body of US judicial decisions on the denial of human rights in prisons. These any UN judicial decisions are relevant, but other authorities require discussion here? Raggz (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Democide

The Philippine-American War, the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Vietnam War, and other conflicts, are cited as democide. This may or may not be true, but this section does not even allege any human rights abuse. Wars are not human rights abuses and cannot be included in this article unless an actual reliable source establishes a human rights abuse. This is OR unless a reliable source for human rights abuse is established. Raggz (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

We appear to have reached a tacit Consensus on this section? Raggz (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The section was removed (by you), and no one has revived it. Silly rabbit (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Treatment of captured non-citizens

Certain practices of the United States military and Central Intelligence Agency have been condemned domestically and internationally as torture. This source does NOT support the claim for torture.

Abuse of prisoners is considered a crime in the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice. According to a January 2006 Human Rights First report, there were 45 suspected or confirmed homicides while in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan; "Certainly 8, as many as 12, people were tortured to death." If this were true, why hasn't Human Rights First brought their evidence to the attention of a US judge or US congressman? If they actually had this evidence and brought it to court, abuse would be ordered to stop and the perpetrators arrested and tried. The only reasonable answer is that they do not have evidence that would be accepted by a court. If they actually have evidence of a war crime and they have withheld it, they are an accessory to the crime themselves. They too would be war criminals. So as editors do we accept a report from a group that is either: (1) lying about their evidence or (2) are war criminals who are withholding this evidence? In either case they are not reliable.

The United States maintains a detention center at its military base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba and its executive branch controversially asserts that prisoners held there are not subject to constitutional protections. Prisoners there generally do not receive trials and detention is indefinite. The US argues that even if detainees were entitled to POW status, they would not have the right to lawyers, access to the courts to challenge their detention, or the opportunity to be released prior to the end of hostilities and that nothing in the Third Geneva Convention provides POWs such rights, and POWs in past wars have generally not been given these rights. However, no-one has ever previously declared war on an abstract concept (terror), and it is questionable whether the Geneva Conventions apply in this case. The legal and political status of this policy is evolving. Part of this is factually in error, but all of it is irrelevant unless some reliable source establishes that some actual human rights abuse has occured. This article is not about Guantánamo Bay and we should refer the reader to that article and not try to debate this issue here.

A delegation of UN Special Rapporteurs to Guantanamo Bay reported that interrogation techniques used in the detention center amount to degrading treatment in violation of the ICCPR and the Convention Against Torture. This is a reliable source making a very solid point. By Ireland v. UK (1978) European human rights law would classify Guantánamo Bay interrogations as degrading treatment (but not torture) See: five techniques.

The point is irrelevant because the article is not about European law, nor does the charge of "degrading treatment" exist in US law, nor do the ICCPR and the Convention Against Torture apply to the US. To be relevant the authority need be binding upon the US, the Security Council, the Congress, or the Judiciary need act, all of whom are aware of these claims and have not acted. If the US were charged with any violation of law, this would be relevant. It is irrelevant to drag EU law into this article because the relevant law offers no support. Raggz (talk) 10:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Every heard of International Customary Law? The European precedents mentioned are relevant because of customary law. Regarding your second statement - what a load of nonsense!! The ICCPR and CAT both apply to the US which has signed and ratified both, and the treaties are legally binding on states. Though it's a fairly typical response to suggest that international law doesn't apply to the US. Pexise (talk) 11:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course International Customary Law is considered by the US judiciary and the UNSC when making judicial decisions. European precedents are irrelevant unless recognized by a US or UN judicial authority, (as is US Customary Law irrelevant in Europe unless judicially recognized.)

If you say that the ICCPR and CAT are binding treaties by US law AND that the US Senate designated them as self-executing, I accept your point. I cannot answer if BOTH of these conditions are true, can you? If you claim that these have both been met I accept your claim.

In the end, the only international law binding upon the United States is what the US Judiciary determine and what the UNSC determine. This is what the UN Charter states, do we agree? Raggz (talk) 06:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about US law it is about the US and Human Rights. The torture which is carried out at Guantanamo Bay is a Human Rights violation. In fact, even if the US hadn't ratified the CAT or ICCPR, the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo would still be a human rights violation. If you suggest otherwise, would you also suggest that political prisoners in Cuba are not denied their human rights because Cuba has not ratified the ICCPR? Pexise (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice that you make an unsupported statement of fact when you are actually expressing your strongly held opinion: "The torture which is carried out at Guantanamo Bay is a Human Rights violation. To make this claim within the article you need to offer a reliable source that supports you. You can find many that share your opinion, but you cannot find one that can support your claim that (1) torture has occured or (2) that any human right has been violated at Guantanamo. If you want a section that mentions the allegations, fine. It just also need state that there is no verification of any allegation (unless you actually can verify this). Raggz (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

See source: UN Special Rapporteur report on Guantanamo, referenced below. Pexise (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

I notice that User:Raggz has made a large number of edits over the past few days, without much input from other editors of this page. The article, as it now stands, is about half of its original size. Some of Raggz's edits no doubt have merit, but I for one cannot say I agree with all of them. Is there any feeling that perhaps we should roll this page back to an earlier version so that the edits can be introduced in a more incremental and inclusive fashion? Silly rabbit (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have restored those portions of the text that I feel should be included. One issue I have with Raggz is that he/she seems to have an extremely narrow view of what constitutes a human right: a human right can only be guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or treaty to which the U.S. is signatory. This all-or-nothing criterion is totally self-serving for someone who would like to see a whitewash of this and other related articles. For one thing, it completely rules out any attempt to bring in the opinions of human rights groups such as Amnesty Interational, which have been critical of the U.S. human rights record (particularly in the recently deleted, and now restored, extraordinary rendition seciton). These sections are going to have to be edited the old-fashioned way: through careful dialog, in which the opinions of various editors are taken under consideration. There is clearly room for improvement, especially in the references, but massive deletions, vaguely citing Misplaced Pages policy, are simply unacceptable. Silly rabbit (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Roll back as you wish. Collaberation is important. My edits need not stand, the article is the focus here.

The article is ONLY about the United States. Human rights in the United States. Yes, I have this "narrow" view. What broader view is appropriate? Please be specific? Whitewash? Of what? All I'm trying to do is bring focus. Yes, I have a pov. No, my edits are not pov directed (intentionally at least, we all have our own views). Original research is to be dealt with aggressively and deleted, do I need look up this WP policy? OR is not subject to collaberative debate. Many of my edits were OR deletions, but not all.

The extraordinary rendition section was (in my opinion) OR. This article is limited to the US, so a violation of the US Constitution or statutes needs be demonstrated, and this has not been done. I suspect that there is coverage of this elsewhere? In addition to US law, the UNSC has authority (by treaty) and may declare extraordinary rendition illegal. The definition of OR is that you have a reliable source, and there is no reliable source that supports the notion that extraordinary rendition violates human rights in the US. Please offer your source? (It need cite the US law or UNSC international law to apply for this article.)

I continue to state that there is no problem including mere unproven and speculative allegations in this article. All that I ask I that they be accurately decribed as mere unproven and speculative allegations.

WP requires aggressive deletion of OR. I am merely implementing WP policy. if you believe that a section is not OR, just revert, and we will talk. IF the section is OR, there is no discussion required. Raggz (talk) 06:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No. What I see is that you are citing Misplaced Pages policy to delete anything you don't agree with. You have set unreasonable standards for inclusion, and then anything which doesn't meet those standards, you have deleted as OR. Inexplicably, the fact that Amnesty International, a well-known Human Rights organization, has expressed concern over the US policy of extraordinary rendition, was also deleted as OR. And so forth. I call foul on pretty much the entire endeavor: nearly half of the article was deleted in this manner, and that is simply unacceptable. It was not original research, and the grounds for deletion complete and utter bunkum. Silly rabbit (talk) 06:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I have already said that this is not a legal document. If a well-known scholar, organization, or media organization, raises some question as to potential human rights abuses, then it is fair game for inclusion in the article. We are not limited, as you seem to think, only to those charges which have been adjudicated in an international body such as the UN, or in SCOTUS. Silly rabbit (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Finally, please see WP:OR. Nowhere does it say that application of OR policy trumps any need for discussion. That is another convenient fiction. Silly rabbit (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, read this again, and you are correct. I read something else by Jimmy Wales, but I cannot find it. Point taken, if I find that policy again, we can discuss this again. Sorry.

This is an encyclopedia about a legal subject. It is not a legal document, do we agree?

Do we agree that this article is only about allegations regarding human rights abuses and the United States?

Do we agree that speculative unsupported opinions on this subject need to be identified as such?

Do we agree that an informed and reliable opinion that is a speculative unsupported opinion remains a speculative unsupported opinion? A reliable source may offer a speculative opinion?

Do we agree that a formal charge by a court with jurisdiction would remove the "speculative" issue? If OJ Simpson is expected to be charged but has never been charged, how would we handle this?

Do we agree that reliable sources are necessary, and without them they need be deleted? Raggz (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources are necessary, but much of the deleted material was sourced. As a courtesy The article is not about a legal subject per se. It is about "Human Rights" which is a topic with legal, social, political, philosophical, and even religious dimensions. Speculative opinions can be included, assuming that they are attributed to notable, reliable sources (i.e., they need to be appropriately identified as such). None of this means that half the article has to be deleted without discussion. Much of the material deleted was sourced. Perhaps there were problems with how the statements were phrased? I don't know. Please, if you want to improve the article rather than creating the appearance of simply deleting entire sections you don't agree with, then improve it. Edit the thing. Don't delete.

Also (note to any observers) I am puzzled at the silence around here. One reason that I restored all of that material was so that other editors could participate. The edits you made were simply too sweeping to make all at once. And they were about to get buried in the edit history. Please join in and put a stop to this bickering! Silly rabbit (talk) 07:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, thank you User:Silly rabbit for undoing the deletions carried out by User:Raggz - he certainly deleted a lot of completely valid material and other editors hard work with no prior discussion, very annoying, so thanks for putting a lot of it right.

It seems quite clear to me that User:Raggz has got the wrong end of the stick and doesn't actually understand what this article is about. The article is about Human Rights and the United States (not Human Rights in the United States as misquoted earlier in this discussion). It is not an article about human rights violations that have taken place in the US, although these can and should also be included. The article is primarily about the US in relation to human rights, this means that while the narrow definition of what the US considers its human rights obligations to be should certainly be included, the article must also include the broader international definition of human rights. This means that all of the human rights bodies and instruments of the UN, international human rights organsations, and other research about the US and human rights should be included. To say that we should exclude all material unless it has passed through a US court is ridiculous and also bears no relation to Misplaced Pages policy.

For example, I included a well sourced passage about the International Bill of Rights and the US's non-participation in this fundamental human rights pact. User:Raggz deleted facts, sourced to the UN and UNOHCHR websites as OR. That was completely unjustified and done with no discussion that I'm aware of.

Also, regarding the universal health care issue, I would suggest looking at the UN Factsheets and the General Comments of the UN ESCR Committee for some sources defining what the right to health consists of as contained in the UDHR and ICESCR.

Finally, there's a report by the UN Special Rapporteur on torture into the treatment at Guantanamo that should definitely be included, I'll have a look for it, but if anyone else wants to include it in the meantime... Pexise (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"The article is primarily about the US in relation to human rights, this means that while the narrow definition of what the US considers its human rights obligations to be should certainly be included, the article must also include the broader international definition of human rights." Agreed. No problem with this.

There are only two sources for applicability of international law to the United States. The first is the US Supreme Court which determines how the treaties that the US signs are to be interpreted. The second is the United Nations. Article 39 of the United Nations Charter reserves the role of ALL determinations of ALL UN policies to the UN Security Council. In any practical sense then, international law citations need to show that either the US Judiciary or the UNSC made a human rights policy determination. International law does bind the US, but only by one of these two authorities.

If anyone has a different idea of how any international law might bind the United States, please share it now. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights IS binding upon the US, but the European Court of Human Rights may not adjudicate this treaty for the US. This role is solely for the UNSC. Likewise, the US Supreme Court may not adjudicate European Human Rights either.

Why is the International Bill of Rights relevant? Why is the US non-participation in a number of European treaties relevant? Is there some law or treaty that requires that the US agree to every treaty that comes along? Is Europe also required to sign every treaty that the US presents, or may Europe sometimes decline? Raggz (talk) 07:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I think you have got the wrong idea about the subject of this article. This article is not called 'International Law as interpreted by the US' - it is about the US and Human Rights. It is not a legal document. Neither is it specifically about the US's transgressions within international law. International human rights refers to the body of human rights treaties, research and pronouncements made by human rights bodies, the UN, international human rights organisations etc. The International Bill of Rights is the foundation of these and as such it is extremely relevant that the US is not a full party.

Regarding European treaties - who has suggested that the US should be party to European treaties?

Regarding the US's obligations to adhere to international treaties, there is indeed a moral obligation as international human rights treaties gain their legitimacy from the participation of states that are parties to the treaties. Hence article 28 of the UDHR: 'Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.' The fact that human rights, as set out in the numerous UN treaties, are considered to be universal (applying to EVERYONE) means that the US undermines human rights when it does not participate in the international human rights project.

By not ratifying, for example the ICESCR of the Rome Statute of the ICC, the US is not adhering to this principle.

This is regardless of what you, or the US constitution percieves the US's obligations to be. Please don't argue that the US does not believe that it is subject to these international agreements - that is a tautalogical argument and you have already used it countless times here. Regardless of whether these are legal obligations, they are certainly MORAL obligations, and this article deals with MORAL oligations as well as legal obligations. Pexise (talk) 11:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Just looking at the article again, I think the first, opening paragraph also needs some work to incorporate the international dimension of Human Rights.

By the way, here's the report into Guantanamo: ], the general comment on the right to adequate health is here: ]. Pexise (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

international human rights law vs us human rights law

"Once again, I think you have got the wrong idea about the subject of this article.

I think not.Raggz (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is not called 'International Law as interpreted by the US' - it is about the US and Human Rights.

Agreed. Is there however any form of international law applicable to the US except for the UN? The suggestion that there might be is implied but is not stated. Is this the issue? Raggz (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is about the US and Human Rights, not the US and international law - as I have stated several times already. Pexise (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no rule that laws other than UN and US law are excluded, but the burden is upon you to establish relevancy with some reliable source. "...as I have stated several times already", yes, but we have no idea what you mean. Might you elucidate? Raggz (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not a legal document.

No, it is an encyclopedia article entirely about law however. Raggz (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It is about law and also all the other dimensions of human rights - philosphical, moral and sociological. This is an encyclopedia so should include all aspects of the subject, not just be limited to the legal aspects. Pexise (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Within the legal portion, is there any relevant law except for US/UN law? If so, what? Raggz (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Neither is it specifically about the US's transgressions within international law."

Are there any? It would be good to add these, with the law, the case name, and the court. Raggz (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes there are - Nicaragua vs the US, International Court of Justice. Please include this in a new section, let me know if you need any references. Pexise (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I would have added this if it remained neglected. I have no issue with inclusion and believe that it is important. Have there been any in the past two decades? Raggz (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"International human rights refers to the body of human rights treaties, research and pronouncements made by human rights bodies, the UN, international human rights organisations etc."

True enough for the US Judiciary and the UNSC. International human rights organisations etc are not part of international law, are they? Raggz (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It is about law and also all the other dimensions of human rights - philosphical, moral and sociological. This is an encyclopedia so should include all aspects of the subject, not just be limited to the legal aspects. Pexise (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There are other dimensions. In regard to the legal dimension, are International human rights organisations part of international law? Raggz (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The International Bill of Rights is the foundation of these and as such it is extremely relevant that the US is not a full party.

There is the question of jurisdiction. One nation may not impose any treaty upon another, this is what international law assures all. Why is this exremely relevant? Is it to advance a pov? Extremely relevant to whom? Raggz (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not mentioning the imposition of a treaty, of course that would violate principles of national soverignty (though funny you should mention that looking at the US bilateral agreements with small nations regarding the ICC). It is relevant because the article about the US and Human Rights - the fact that the US has not ratified one of the fundamental human rights texts is certainly relevant and of interest. What POV are you talking about - please don't make accusations without substantiating them. Pexise (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you are correct. Would this discussion fully include the reasons for declining this treaty, or only attacks? Raggz (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What attacks? All that is stated are the facts - the US has not ratified the treaty. Pexise (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the US's obligations to adhere to international treaties, there is indeed a moral obligation as international human rights treaties gain their legitimacy from the participation of states that are parties to the treaties.

Of course. If the US has violated such, just cite the decision. No problem there. Raggz (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The US is not party to the Rome Statute of the ICC or the ICESCR - two international treaties. By not participating the US undermines these agreements, this is morally questionable. Pexise (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The Statute of Rome was written so that the US could not ratify it, the constitution denies the Congress the authority to remove the fundamental human rights of Americans by any means except an amendment (which usually takes 10-20 years). There are many reliable sources on this. I would like to put all of this in, but is this a wise editorial decision to get into all of that here? The human rights of Americans are greater than elsewhere, so the ICC works elsewhere quite well where human rights standards are at the lower ICC level. Raggz (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point. The problem is is that we now live in a globalised world and the ICC is designed to respond to the challenges that this presents. By pressuring smaller states not to ratify the statute, the US is weakening the rule of international criminal law and undermining human rights and justice in states that are institutionally weaker than the US. This has potentially devastating consequences in terms of human rights violations, impunity etc.

Also, the undermining of the statute and the "hague invasion act" mean that US citizens can commit war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in other countries with impunity (even more problematic because of globalisation). Pexise (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Hence article 28 of the UDHR: 'Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.' The fact that human rights, as set out in the numerous UN treaties, are considered to be universal (applying to EVERYONE) means that the US undermines human rights when it does not participate in the international human rights project."

The US is protecting Human Rights by not agreeing to this treaty, Would you like the link to the US Department of State on this? Raggz (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The US does agree to the UDHR, in fact it was one of the main authors of the text (Eleanor Roosevelt). Please provide the State Department source you refer to. Pexise (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

By not ratifying, for example the ICESCR or the Rome Statute of the ICC, the US is not adhering to this principle.

Those who believe that human rights guaranteed by the UDHR or ICESCR may approach the US judiciary or the UNSC, correct? Opinions not supported by a decision by either are irrelvant until supported? Decisions by UN organs below the UNSC are a gray area, but I favor noting and citing these. Raggz (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The Government of the United States lacks the authority to ratify any treaty that would remove fundamental human rights of Americans. The US Constitution prohibits this. By what authority should the greater human rights of Americans be reduced to the lower standards required by the ICC treaty? Raggz (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a space to debate these issues, the facts have been set out, there is not further debate. Pexise (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken about the "facts" and this need be debated here if you are to establish your "facts" here. A reliable source for support would help a lot. Raggz (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

jurisdiction

"If a well-known scholar, organization, or media organization, raises some question as to potential human rights abuses, then it is fair game for inclusion in the article. We are not limited, as you seem to think, only to those charges which have been adjudicated in an international body such as the UN, or in SCOTUS. Silly rabbit (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC) " I believe that this article is constrained by its title to human rights and the US. The law applicable to the US in regard to human rights is the ONLY law relevant to this topic? jurisdiction.

There is a great deal of international law. Some of it is relevant to no nation, some to all. Most of it is relevant only to a few, or some nations.

If we were writing about Human Rights and the European Union, how much US law would we include in that article? The right to bear arms is a human right in the US, but it is not in Europe. In regard to this fundamental human right, how much weight would the EU allow for the US constitution in regard to the exercise of this human right within Europe? Raggz (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, this is not necessarily a law article. Human rights have other dimensions beyond merely the legal ones. Second, although the article is about the human rights of the US and its policies, it need not be limited to US or international legal points of view. Indeed, if Amnesty International raises concerns about the behavior of the US, then it is directly relevant to the topic. If there is a debate about the death penalty, and whether it violates basic human rights, then that deserves mention (with appropriate references and NPOV voice). None of this requires any hearing in a legal body: merely the attention of some human rights group, noted expert, etc. I don't see what relevance your EU example has to the point I am making. Silly rabbit (talk) 07:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent points, human rights do have greater dimensions than just legal issues. The first task will be to clearly articulate what extra-legal human rights we are discussing? I'm open, so please explain, specifically?

As for your concerns would a section on speculative allegations work for you? If not, would individually labelling these as speculative allegations work for you? What do you propose? Raggz (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

reversions

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." Raggz (talk) 07:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You need to be more selective in removing the material. Nearly all the material I restored had citations. I haven't checked any of them, but you didn't enumerate any specific issue with it other than vague concerns about OR. If you like, I can make a request for comment. Perhaps I have violated a Misplaced Pages policy without being aware of it. Silly rabbit (talk) 07:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Most were deleted because they have no relationship to the topic. The citations had no relationship to the topic. The topic is Human Rights and the United States. A human right within the United States is one of two things: (1) a human right articulated by the US Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court or (2) a human right articulated by the United Nations Charter as interpreted by the UNSC (Art. 39).

It is original research to assert that any human right exists in regard to the United States, except as above. The remedy if you disagree is to simply submit the reliable source that claims otherwise. I will be happy to give you some ideas of where to look. Germany (for example) claims universal jurisdiction over the entire world, (much as it did in 1935). You can find and submit reliable sources that say this. When you submit a reliable source (not a speculative opinion by a reliable source) that a human right and the United States is denied by rendition, THEN we move beyond OR. Unless someone does this, I will delete the OR material.

The deletion issue is the lack of ANY reliable supporting source. Many of these deletions had supporting sources that (1) were not reliable (and this was discussed above) or (2) absent or (3) did not have any text that supported the claim, or (4) were not preceeded by a reliable source that established that the human right discussed was relevant to the United States. The most common failing was (4). Almost all appear in talk, please read, if you have not, before reverting. Raggz (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

From reading the talk page (yes I did before restoring) it doesn't look like you have consensus for most of the deletions you made. Incidentally, I don't agree with the stated reason for deleting the death penalty section, which did not have anything to do with sourcing issues. I have replied above. I think progress will gradually occur with regard to the proposed revisions, but they need to be seen by more editors. The discussions above are far from a consensus. Silly rabbit (talk) 08:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you agree that the death penalty section was without a single reliable source that confirms that the death penalty as presently permitted by US law denies anyone a human right (in regard to US or UN law)? If you agree, then it is OR. If there is such a source, please offer it here. Raggz (talk) 08:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that the issue is relevant, as you have presented it. Silly rabbit (talk) 08:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I for one would be more comfortable if a third party would get involved in the editorial decisions. I do not agree with some of your assessments about what can and cannot be included here. Silly rabbit (talk) 08:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

We could move to a third party, but do we agree that US and UN law are the only laws that are relevant to what is and what is not a human right within the US? (Treaties ratified are US law.) What other authority determines what a human right is within the US? IF you accept this premise, the rest of my arguments follow. If you reject it, then they do not. There may be no need to involve a third party. If there is, what is the core issue? Is this it? Raggz (talk) 08:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Human rights organizations. Outside observers, writers. There are plenty of other authorities one can turn to. As I have said repeatedly, Human Rights are not strictly a legal issue, so please stop presenting them as such. The Amnesty International issue which I keep bringing up is a case in point. Silly rabbit (talk) 08:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with any of these proposed sources. Just select a source that cites the legal source for the claimed human right. In the case of universal health care, that would be a US court decision, a US law, a UNSC determination that some international law or treaty was denied, or some equivalent legal authority. I am open to any credible source, all you need to do is to establish that the human right in question actually exists. Any reliable source that you may prefer will do.

Part of the democratic process in the US is to debate potential human rights that might someday be recognized. Reliable sources that assert or deny these potential human rights within the US may be included, but only if accurately characterized. Raggz (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

US constitution

• "It has a powerful and often independent judiciary and a constitution that attempts in many areas to enforce separation of powers to prevent tyranny." This text uses "attempts" but does not support the implication that the judiciary only "attempts" to enforce separation of powers to prevent tyranny. This is thus original research.

• The United States has a powerful independent judiciary ensuring that the constitution enforces the separation of powers and all other constitutional measures designed to prevent tyranny and to protect human rights. Raggz (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Good example. Rather than delete the entire section containing the sentence you object to, remove the single word attempts. I'm not sure I agree with the characterization of this as OR. Poor wording is probably nearer the mark. Silly rabbit (talk) 07:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Your writing skills exceed my own. See above however for why so much was deleted as OR. There needs to be a US nexus, a connection to a US human right, and the article lacks these almost entirely. One would think it was entirely written by Europeans... Raggz (talk) 07:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel strongly that the edit above removes OR. Attempts is not the same as does. The former requires a reliable source and the latter does not absent a challenge. Raggz (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

International Criticism

"The United States government has been criticized for human rights violations, particularly in the criminal justice system and where national security is a concern. Some critics (in both friendly and hostile countries) have criticized the U.S. Government for supporting serious human rights abuses, including torture, legal rendition, assassination, imprisonment without trial and for supporting dictatorships."

What human rights are being violated? Please cite the human right violated and the court that found this violation (or at least is considering it). None of the citations do this, making these claims OR.

What does supporting dictatorships mean? Is there a nation on earth without diplomatic and treaty relationships with dictatorships? What is a dictatorship? Is Cuba one - or not? NATO is in Afghanistan, is this supporting a dictatorship - or not? Are all NATO members guilty? Whatever does this mean, will someone please make it specific so that I need not delete it?

When I go to the citation it says: "In the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, the United Kingdom and the United States orchestrated the overthrow of the democratically-elected administration of Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq and his cabinet from power. The support of the coup was carried out, using widespread bribery in a covert operation by Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). According to a report on the BBC, Britain, motivated by its desire to control Iranian oil fields, contributed to funding for the widespread bribery of Iranian officials, news media and others. The project to overthrow Iran's government was codenamed Operation Ajax (officially TP-AJAX). The coup re-installed Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in the primary position of power. In 2000, former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, during the administration of President Bill Clinton, called it a "setback for democratic government" in Iran." US law changed in the 80's, and such action has bneen illegal since. If we want to go back 54 years, why not update the reader on what happened since 1953? Much has changed, who reads a 1953 encyclopedia?

There is a policy for the opening summary, something about summarizing the rest of the article. Where in the article do these claims get discussed or supported?

What SPECIFIC human rights are being violated? May we edit these in - and what definition or source we are using to define these human rights? This is presently garbage, no one knows what it specifically means. Any objections to deletion? Does anyone want to edit the specifis in? I prefer deletion. Raggz (talk) 09:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: This is an important human rights document. The application of it within the US is by the US Judiciary or by the UN Security Council (article 39 of the UN Charter). This may be applied to the US, and no reliable source is required to suggest that it MAY be applied. What I am asking for is a reliable source that the UNSC has ACTUALLY applied it to the United States. Raggz (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Health Care

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, states that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care.” Unlike most other industrialized nations, the United States does not offer its citizens universal health care. The United States provides limited coverage to individuals and families with low incomes and resources through Medicaid, provides coverage to persons age 65 and over, or who meet other special criteria through Medicare, and federal law ensures public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay; however, hospitals can still attempt to collect the unpaid bills, often damaging the uninsured patient's credit.

Male circumcision is widely practiced in the US. There is an ongoing controversy regarding advantages and disadvantages. Some see non-therapeutic circumcision of children as a human rights violation. "

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948 is not binding on any nation as law except by treaty, although it is a respected resolution. If the health care system within the US violates this, then a federal judge would make this determination. If a US judge did not make this finding then the UNSC could. Neither have. What human right is denied? The US and the UN are both presently satisfied with US health care, are they not? If the US and the UN are satisfied, then what authority is not?

Universal health care as a human right? Where in the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Charter or US law does universal health care appear? Is there any reliable source that states that universal health care IS a human right within the US? There are different human rights in different countries. This article is about the US.

Male circumcision? Where does this phrase appear in the laws above? Which human right are we discussing specifically?

Why are we talking about credit ratings? We are claiming that international or US law protects credit ratings? Can anyone be more specific? It is true that within the US unpaid bills will damage ones credit rating - but what human right is involved?

This text got restored, but no one bothered to explain the nexus between a human right and universal health care. Why? Raggz (talk) 09:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I am willing to be overruled, especially with the Heath Care section, as I'm on the fence about that as well. But the fact is that you did not adequately state the case for its removal before, and apparently lacked the consensus of other editors to delete it. The issue had been discussed before, and the section stayed. Your own opinion does not justify the removal of the section.

I am still puzzled why you continue to insist that all human rights must have a basis in US law. This is a point of view which I have already told you I don't agree with. Do we judge, say, Iran by saying that Iran's human rights record must be determined by looking at Iranian law? That's an outrageous assertion. If you continue to state this as your rationale for deletion, I am not going to be convinced. Now I know the US is not Iran, but the article still must be open to outside opinions. The criterion for deletion that you continue to present is absurd.

This article makes reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: a right to medical care. Pope John Paul II also called access to health care a basic human right. Barring the strange — but fixable — anomalies with it such as the circumcision passage, the section makes a fairly good case for its own inclusion.

Now, you may be right that the section could use some further work. It should not be difficult to find more authorities who have written that lack of health care in the US is denying a basic human right, if you are unsatisfied at present with the number of references section. However, there are standard templates for requesting this, and the talk page is also here for a reason. Silly rabbit (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

One possibility from google. No doubt others can do better:

• Center for Economic and Social Rights (2004). "The right to health in the United States: What does it mean?".

Silly rabbit (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"I am still puzzled why you continue to insist that all human rights must have a basis in US law."

Because the article is about Human Rights and the United States. US Human Rights are determined by the US Congress, the US Supreme Court, and the UN Security Council. Is there another means to determine what is - and what is not a human right within the United States? If so, what is that? Raggz (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a point of view which I have already told you I don't agree with. Do we judge, say, Iran by saying that Iran's human rights record must be determined by looking at Iranian law?

Yes, we do. What other law is Iran to be judged by? Iran has signed a treaty to abide by UN law as directed by the UNSC, so UN law is relevant as well as Iranian law. Should EU law govern Iran?

This is not about a pov, it is about the lack of any reliable source that indicates the actual existance of the human rights under discussion within the US. If the human right cannot be established to exist from a reliable source, why would we want to include it? This is not a pov issue, you need a reliable source that the human rights that you claim exist within the US actually exist.

That's an outrageous assertion. If you continue to state this as your rationale for deletion, I am not going to be convinced. Now I know the US is not Iran, but the article still must be open to outside opinions. The criterion for deletion that you continue to present is absurd."

It is not outrageous to assert that we should not discuss a human right that does not exist? There are human rights that exist in Europe that do not exist in the US. There are human rights within the US that do not exist in Europe. My objection is that our article is about Human Rights and the United States. I claim that it should focus upon Human Rights and the United States. The only international law relevant to human rights within the US is the UN Charter (as interpreted by Article 39 by the Security Council). Raggz (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you assert that there are human rights from any other source? All you need to do is articulate this source and offer a reliable source that this source exists. This is simple enough? Why is this request "outrageous"?

You reverted universal health care without offering any reliable source that health care is a human right within the United States. There presently is a debate within the US that universal health care might be articulated as a human right. I have no problem with an accurate discussion of this fact, but I do have a problem with your unsupported claim that universal health care IS a human right within the US. Why don't we offer an accurate discussion supported by reliable sources? Raggz (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, so I gather you no longer dismiss the section as complete OR? You are welcome to change the way the section is phrased if you feel that it incorrectly represents the issue. Don't delete it. Misplaced Pages has an official policy regarding this: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Preserve_information Silly rabbit (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The health care section (and many others) remains entirely OR. It suggests that universal health care IS presently a human right within the US. There is no support from a reliable source and I do not believe that one will be offered. We cannot have a section asserting that any human right exists if that human right does not actually exist? A single reliable source will remove this objection, and ten pages of debate cannot. Raggz (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• One possibility from google. No doubt others can do better: * Center for Economic and Social Rights (2004). "The right to health in the United States: What does it mean?".

In October 2004, CESR published The Right to Health in the United States of America: What Does it Mean?, a report on how the U.S. health care system falls short of international standards for the right to health. The report demonstrates that the U.S. health care delivery system is structurally flawed in ways that compromise the quality, adequacy, availability, and accessibility of people’s health in the United States. The report argues for a rights-based system of healthcare in the U.S.: instead of reducing medical services to their profitability, a rights-based approach calculates success by the care provided to patients.

This is an excellent reliable source advocating that the UN Security Council should recognize that universal health care is a human right within the United States. By analogy: it is a letter demanding that OJ Simpson be indicted for the double murder, and listing the evidence that should be considered. It is not a reliable source that the UNSC (or any authority) has actually ruled that this right actually exists. It is fine for establishing the existance of this debate, but not a reliable source for establishing that the UNSC (or any other authority) has made this determination. By analogy: a letter demanding that OJ Simpson be indicted does not prove that OJ Simpson WAS indicted, nor would it establish his guilt. It would establish a controversy as yet unresolved. Raggz (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the report is not a court ruling, and the article should not present it as such. Once again I ask, why can there be no mention of a debate? The title of the article is not "Court cases that have ruled on human rights violations in the United States." If there is a debate, then the article can and should present it. If there is a substantial history, going all the way back to Roosevelt, then clearly it should be here, no? Silly rabbit (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with discussion of this and other debates. The history of human rights and the US has seen a number of human rights emerge. I suggest a section on this evolving process, with a list of new human rights under debate. I support such a section, but will likely accept any other format that provides clarity for the reader.

I still oppose all claims that any human right exists - unless a reliable source is offered the claimed right actually exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 04:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Raggz (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

We appear to have reached tacit agreement that there are no reliable sources that health care in the US violates any human rights, but all we have are allegations for this? Raggz (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that consensus exists. Please stop saying that to justify your edits. —Viriditas | Talk 02:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Your present comment does not change the consensus that may or may not exist here, because you are not here to work toward consensus - but to disrupt the consensus process. Feel free to comment on the question here, THAT would shift the consensus, but would obligate you to engage in discussion. Raggz (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus for removal. Tacit or otherwise. Period. Silly rabbit (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The medicaid system provides health care to everyone who cannot afford health care. If the medicaid system were not in place, then we have consensus that a human right would be denied. It does however exist. Everyone else by definition can afford to pay for health care. (They may prefer not to, but when they cannot they get medicaid.) The medicaid system is roughly the equivalent of universal health care elsewhere with the exception that it is not offered to the affluent. Now we can debate health care here, and the issue is oversimplified and could be debated in great detail, but our topic here is human rights. Do we agree on this oversimplified summary for the limited purpose here? Raggz (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

We appear to have reached consensus for significant deletions and edits with all, except for Silly rabbit (love that name). Editors have responded {above} to points that may require further debate. Is there anyone with objections not yet articulated?

• SILLY RABBIT: Do you concur that when a claimed human right within the US does not have a single reliable source that establishes that the claimed right exists, that that this claim is OR until supported? Raggz (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a consensus for deletion? I certainly didn't sign up. Silly rabbit (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you did not agree (see above). Will you reply to my question? It was: Do you concur that when a claimed human right within the US does not have a single reliable source that establishes that the claimed right exists, that that this claim is OR until supported?

I'm only asking for a single reliable source that confirms the existance of the human rights that you suggest exist within the United States. All you need do is offer these. If you need time, no problem. I do not believe that these exist - or that you will ever be able to offer a reliable source for the Original Research. I've written at length. Is my request or my question unreasonable? Why don't you answer? Raggz (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is the consensus you speak of? I can't find it in all the above chatter. I don't need to establish the existence of anything: The article doesn't (and shouldn't) make any such ontological claims. I don't understand what you are objecting to as original research. It is surely verifiable that (1) There are groups advocating for the legal protection of a certain purported right (e.g., universal health care), (2) That groups and recognized authorities have sharply criticized some of its practices from the point of view of human rights (e.g., Amnesty International and the extraordinary rendition controversy). This is highly relevant to the topic of the article. Including this material, provided it is discussed in an NPOV way, is not OR. Saying that "It is a fundamental Human Right that all people should have the best of medical care for free" is OR, but the article doesn't assert that. Silly rabbit (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There is presently no reliable source that establishes (1) where most of the human rights being discussed derive from. The 1st Amendment to the US Constitution ensures freedom of religion. There is no debate that this right exists, and if there were, you could easily support this claim.

If you want to retain a claimed human right within this article, then you only need a reliable source that establishes that it exists. If we have a section for rights that do not exist but are being debated, then a source that proves the debate will work, but this will not and should not prove that the claimed right actually exists. In fact, the existance of a debate to recognize a human right proves that the right is not recognized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 06:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There is presently no reliable source that establishes (1) where most of the human rights being discussed derive from. The 1st Amendment to the US Constitution ensures freedom of religion. There is no debate that this right exists, and if there were, you could easily support this claim.

If you want to retain a claimed human right within this article, then you only need a reliable source that establishes that it exists. If we have a section for rights that do not exist but are being debated, then a source that proves the debate will work, but this will not and should not prove that the claimed right actually exists. In fact, the existance of a debate to recognize a human right proves that the right is not recognized.

I have commented above. Some comments have drawn attention, some not. Those not commented upon have tacit consensus. If someone has an issue they will revert.

You have reliable sources to support the claimed rights? Fine, just edit one or more in. You want a section for human rights that do not exist? Fine, edit it in, just make it clear that they do not exist within the US. Raggz (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No. It is not true that those commented upon have tacit consent. I also note that things are fairly quite around here lately. If you *really* had consensus for these deletion, then the other involved editors would be participating in this discussion. At the moment, it is just you and me. Silly rabbit (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Those NOT commented upon have tacit consent.

How many editors do you speak for? I cannot speak for others, but I assure you that reverts are possible if they do not agree. Why not focus upon YOUR objections and not theirs? I ask you (again) will you please sahre the reliable sources that establish the existance of the rights that you claim exist within the US? Raggz (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Double negatives are tricky: Those not commented upon do not have tacit consensus. Until we can find some common ground, this conversation is fairly pointless. I have already told you that I am not interested in establishing the existence of rights. Silly rabbit (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You are not "interested in establishing the existence of rights"? Does this mean that you are exempting yourself from the requirement to offer a reliable source for your claims? Is it because you cannot establish the existence of rights? This article is about human rights that actually exist? I'm fine with your editing in a section about human rights that do not exist, if there is relevance, and I believe that a discussion of these might be worthwhile.

May I now edit this article so that it no longer misleads the reader in regard to human rights that may or may not exist, but for which no one has one reliable source? Raggz (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You continue to misrepresent what I have been saying all along. Silly rabbit (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No, but perhaps I misunderstand. Could you explain in more detail? Raggz (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Third Time

Will you reply to my question? It was: Do you concur that when a claimed human right within the US does not have a single reliable source that establishes that the claimed right exists, that that this claim is OR until supported? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 06:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "exist"? Silly rabbit (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You want me to define what it means to exist? You might mean that human rights do not exist on paper, but they exist in nature, within the hearts of men, or are conferred by God? You could choose any of these well worked origins. Few in modern times invoke these. You needn't define existence, Aristotle could not.

I expect you to offer a citation that proves that the claimed human rights actually exist (by your preferred definition) within the USA. Take an example: I can offer a citation that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental human right within the USA and another citation that it does not exist within Europe (except for the Swiss). You just need a reliable source that states that the right to not be circumcised is a human right within the USA. Raggz (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The circumcision issue is a red herring. That was removed several days ago. Silly rabbit (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? I have stopped reading the article until we have consensus - or do not. Raggz (talk) 07:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I had meant to mention it here. A sort of "peace offering," but I overlooked it. Silly rabbit (talk) 07:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the only answer I can give: If the article makes a specific claim, then the claim should be attributed to a reliable source. So, if the article claims that "Universal Health Care is a fundamental Human Right", then that will certainly require attribution. If, on the other hand, you feel that somehow just by a section or topic being included in the article that it is implicitly suggested as being a "Right," then no, I don't think a source needs to be provided to establish that the right "exists" in the legal sense. The section must establish the relevance of its subject, which is somewhat subtler. Silly rabbit (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that in an encyclopedia we need to define which rights actually exist. No, this definition need not be legal. You may offer your preferred means for defining which rights actually exist and whicy do not. This question is of course EXACTLY what courts do every day - but I'm open to your analagous process. What is it? Raggz (talk) 07:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this, and the section below, starts to give some shape to our hopeless debate. Let me think about it. Silly rabbit (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have not been hopeless. I am not now. I have confidence.

Think about Europeans, you would agree that they have had human rights even before the EU was formed or before governments recognized them? It would have been improper to list the human rights presently recognized in a 1922 encyclopedia as existing? Human rights are evolving everywhere, in different ways, at different rates. In this article we need focus on one nation - and in the present. Raggz (talk) 07:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

We appear to have reached consensus for significant deletions and edits with all, except for Silly rabbit (love that name). Editors have responded {above} to points that may require further debate. Is there anyone with objections not yet articulated? Raggz (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that consensus exists. Please stop saying that to justify your edits. —Viriditas | Talk 01:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Emerging human rights

Human rights have emerged within the US since the beginning. We have some discussion of this. I feel strongly that the material you are describing would enhance discussion of this process. If emerging human rights are scattered about, they confuse. That would not be good. Raggz (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Emerging Human Rights

• The Historical Emergance of Human Rights

• Present Controversies for Potential Emerging Human Rights

I am open to ideas in this direction. Let me think about it. Silly rabbit (talk) 07:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz's point of view

• The article claims that the circumcision of infants denies a human right within the US. It does not cite a reliable source. This claim was deleted as Original Research - and reverted without a reliable source being added with the revert.

Note: This statement was then deleted as part of the editorial process: through discussion and consensus-building. Silly rabbit (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Is universal health care a human right within the US? If this is a fact, then all that is required to revert this section is a single reliable source that establishes where this human right derives from. Because there was no reliable source, the claim was deleted as original research. There was nothing to debate, because no reliable source existed to debate about. The text deleted was reverted without comment and without adding the necessary reliable source.

What was eventually offered was a reliable source that claims that the UN Security Council should apply UN law to the US, and that the UNSC should find and enforce the human right of universal health care within the US. While this source confirms that this is a subject for debate - it actually confirms that presently the UNSC has not acted as advocated.

The question is if a reliable source that confirms that an issue is being debated may be used to claim that an issue has been settled. Raggz (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No, this is not the issue. No one is claiming that any issue is settled. Silly rabbit (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, as far as I can understand it, the basic idea of the concept of "human rights" is that these rights are inherent and universal. The wording of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights implies this ("All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights"; "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration ..." and almost every succeeding clause begins with "everyone" or "no one"), even if some of its claims might not be philosophically compatible in your or my opinion. Since "human rights" are inherent and universal, it doesn't seem meaningful to discuss whether these rights exist in the United States—different people have various ideas about which rights exist, but the ones that do exist exist everywhere. The question is only whether a particular government implements (or fails to obstruct) a particular right. You yourself make the point in the following section that Americans in particular hold the idea that rights "exist with or without governmental recognition".—Nat Krause 01:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your pov (and that of Silly rabbit) is that national human rights laws are irrelevant, that human rights law is universal worldwide? All you need is a reliable source and we can state that national human rights law is the same everywhere in the world because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights made it so? What about the many nations that have not agreed by treaty with this otherwise non-binding resolution? Are they bound by it even without the consent of the governed?

"You yourself make the point in the following section that Americans in particular hold the idea that rights "exist with or without governmental recognition" God (or the Creator) is the source of US and worldwide human rights by US constitutional law. This is quite clear and is an easily supported fact. Do we have consensus for adding a section that elucidates the role of God and human rights and the United States? Modern discussion rarely get into this, and I had not anticipated a consensus for inclusion, although this is an important element for human rights and the US. There are tens of thousands of reliable sources for the role of God in US human rights.

From a secular view, what reliable source should we cite to explain where universal human rights derive from? I believe there should be a secular element to our new section, but I cannot think of where to find the reliable source to support this. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 03:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is not so much my POV but my attempts to understand what people usually mean when they say "human rights". As far as I can tell, this is typically some sort of moral claim, rather than a claim that a specific right or immunity is specified in or protected by the legal system of a particular country. As with any moral claim, then, what exactly is a right and what isn't is a matter of opinion, rather than being decided by judges or legislators. These claims, I suppose, arise from wherever people think morality arises from, and people obviously have different ideas about that—some trace it to one of various religious beliefes, other from different sorts of secular philosophies. The more relevant thing for this article is a case where some people have reached similar conclusions about morality and human rights, even if they have different basic understandings of why they exist in the first place.

People mean a great many things when they say human rights. I'm fine with a broader discussion, with broader definitions, but no one has taken on this challenge yet. Perhaps you will? The key would be having a solidly sourced authoratative staememt about what other form you are inserting.

One thing that people mean by human rights are legally enforced human rights and I insist that we adequately cover these. When we are discussing legally enforced human rights I suggest that we be specific and accurate about what legal right.

Like yourself, I believe that all people are endowed with human rights that no government may deny, but this is a uniquely American philosphy (at least in modern times) and I am an American. Do you also share this view? Should it be in the Article? Raggz (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say that "God (or the Creator) is the source of US and worldwide human rights by US constitutional law." I'm fairly certain that neither God nor a creator is mentioned explicitly in the Constitution.—Nat Krause 22:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Care to wager? It is actually the Declaration of Independence. The entire (European/US) human rights movement began as Christian theology. Raggz (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly feel confident wagering on the question of whether the Declaration of Independence is part of the U.S. Constitution. It is not.—Nat Krause 00:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And I will take your wager. It is not within the document but it is central to constitutional law, and it is for practical purposes, the constitution. God is everywhere within older US Constitutional law and history, even our money says "In God We Trust". It also has a Masonic icon. Raggz (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please review In God We Trust. —Viriditas | Talk 23:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Universal Human Rights - proposed 1st draft

The wording of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights"; "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration ..." Although this declaration is not legally binding upon any nation, most have adopted it by treaty.

Since "human rights" are inherent and universal, it is not meaningful to discuss whether these rights exist in the United States, because national human rights laws are irrelevant and do not apply anywhere. People have various ideas about which rights exist, but the ones that do exist - exist everywhere. The question is only whether a particular government implements (or fails to obstruct) a particular right. Americans in particular hold the idea that rights "exist with or without governmental recognition" because they come from God (or "the Creator").

The part that I am unclear upon is how are universal human rights determined? Everyone in the US has access to health care, but not to universal health care. Does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights specify universal health care - or just to health care? How is this decided without laws and judges? Raggz (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus appears to tacitly exist.Raggz (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that consensus exists. Please stop saying that to justify your edits. —Viriditas | Talk 01:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Health care revisited

I have considered the question of moving the "Health care" section out to a possible Emerging rights section. However, I cannot say I support this idea. For one thing, there are health care rights guaranteed by US law as well as treaties to which the US is signatory: see the article for details. These rights may or may not be adequately enforced, but they are certainly there. For instance, if I need emergency health care, then I have the right to it regardless of my ability to pay. That said, there is also an ongoing controversy about whether and how to strengthen these rights. It is POV to farm off discussions of the controversy out to other sections when they most naturally belong in the Health care section, which in turn belongs alongside the other mainline human rights.

To make sure that all sides are represented fairly, perhaps the language used in the article could use some adjustment: in particular to provide a clear "disclaimer" of sorts in NPOV language that the views represented are part of an ongoing controversy about the role of government in establishing and defending health care rights. Thoughts? Silly rabbit (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent points. You will easily find reliable sources from the US Judiciary that confirm that the poor have a right to health care. This is a human right within the USA. The debate regarding Universal Health Care has nothing to do with the poor. Universal health care is not a human right within the USA. (I might be in error, you only need a reliable source to correct me.) Thus one topic would go in as an actual human right WITH the necessary reliable source and the other would be an emerging proposed human right that does not presently exist. In fact, this would be good in the article, the right of the poor to free medical care is a human right that has emerged, universal health care is an example of a potential right that may emerge. You offer a great example.

As far as I know, there are no treaties that the US has signed in regard to human rights where there is an authority other than the US Supreme Court or the UNSC that determines and interprets them. (I might be in error, you only need a reliable source to correct me.) As a practical matter, I believe that US law alone governs human rights within the US, and that is why Americans have richer, deeper, and broader human rights than people anywhere else have. Raggz (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we concur that when a claimed human right within the US does not have a single reliable source that establishes that the claimed right exists, that that this claim is OR until supported?". We have achieved consensus that: Unless a claimed right exists, and this existence is supported by a reliable source, that any unsupported human right other is OR until supported? This remains the primary question. We can debate national human rights and universal human rights as a secondary question. The primary question is if we will require reliable sources, not if we will not discuss national human rights law or if the US Constitution lacks relevance in regard to human rights and the United States (as the most recent editor suggested). May I now begin to delete the text where it is OR for lack of any supporting reliable source? Raggz (talk) 07:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus appears to tacitly exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 21:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that consensus exists. Please stop saying that to justify your edits. —Viriditas | Talk 01:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Tacit consensus does exist. If you want to become productively engaged in this question, it is: "Do we concur that when a claimed human right within the US does not have a single reliable source that establishes that the claimed right exists, that that this claim is OR until supported?" You have not offered any opinion about this question, so have tacitly agreed to the consesus. If you want to address this question, only THEN consensus will shift. It has not yet done so. Raggz (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This is pointless and disruptive. If there is such a thing as tacit consensus, then go and argue for its inclusion in Misplaced Pages policy. Otherwise, stop claiming that you have consensus when you don't. The way you seem to use it is something along the following lines: "If I write something on the talk page, and no one responds to it, then I get carte blanche to do whatever I want. If an editor can't answer a question that I think needs answering, then I can do whatever I want." But I really disagree with this approach to editing: Other editors have given their opinions on many points, and some have already gone round and round trying to answer your leading questions. The bottom line is that consensus is not owned by the person who gets the last word in. Silly rabbit (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You fairly characterize my claim as ""If I write something on the talk page, and no one responds to it, then I get carte blanche to do whatever I want." I'm not creating policy (in my opinion) so long as I adhere to the actual WP Consensus policy. The key issue not addressed is that some reasonable amount of time needs to pass first for tacit consensus to exist. We agree on: "The bottom line is that consensus is not owned by the person who gets the last word in." As long as people are engaged in the good-faith consensus building process, no one may claim tacit consensus. I couldn't and I wouldn't. Even if I did, WP policy would specifically deny such a claim.

I do not understand why my efforts to build consensus are viewed as disruptive. This is a serious issue. Could you address this more clearly? Raggz (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Permenent Lack of Consensus: A "Permenent Lack of Consensus" might be claimed, but in my opinion it does not comply with WP Policy. An editor might enter on the discussion page: I declare a "Permenent Lack of Consensus" on this topic and will not be offering further edits, nor will I participate in consensus building. Instead I declare a "Permenent Lack of Consensus" so that future consensus building efforts may no longer be undertaken without my consent. Now this is not a claim that you have made, nor is it likely that you ever would make this claim directly. You are however seem to be making an implied claim for "Permenent Lack of Consensus"? Although I have exaggerated your actual claim to illustrate its weakness, is the characterization of your claim unfair? I claim that when editors abandon any effort at consensus building that their opinions become irrelevant to the good faith consensus process that WP requires. How might your view of the WP consensus building process differ? Raggz (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, I think it is safe to say that the consensus will not be whatever you mandate. Consensus, by definition, must emerge as a result of multiple parties participating. If you continue to take eccentric editorial positions (evidence by the ample disagreement with you on this and other pages), then you will find that, yes, there is a permanent lack of consensus with things as you frame them. If, on the other hand, you are willing to participate in the editorial process in a more normal and cooperative manner, then I think you will find others willing to work with you. However, I find it unacceptable the way that you "claim consensus" for something when either: (a) it was on the outcome of a leading question, (b) the result of a misrepresentation (see straw man), or (c) having nothing obvious to do with the text. Consensus is based on edits, not on nebulous and vague arguments. Please read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. Go ahead and make edits, propose alternatives, etc. Try to make good-faith efforts at improving the references (rather than deleting the text), and so on. That is how consensus comes about: by editing and by discussing possible edits. Out-arguing everyone else on the talk page is, in fact, counterproductive. Claiming consensus because you have made the final word on some question or another, is counterproductive. Silly rabbit (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Raggz, I think it is safe to say that the consensus will not be whatever you mandate. Consensus, by definition, must emerge as a result of multiple parties participating." Agreed.

• "If you continue to take eccentric editorial positions (evidence by the ample disagreement with you on this and other pages), then you will find that, yes, there is a permanent lack of consensus with things as you frame them." Please offer one example, so that I know precisely what you mean? What do you mean by "normal"? Raggz (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Normal. I think I have already defined this. Usually editors make an edit. If that edit is reverted, then they go to the talk page and make their case. If they are overruled, or there is a significant opinion that the edit should not be included, then the editor who made the original edit does not have consensus to make the edit. Sometimes, compromises are acceptable. Usually, multiple editors will get on board with various different ideas. Some of them then propose various ways to address the issue (either on the talk page, or through various edits of the article). Usually no one gets there own way entirely, and the process involves a certain degree of flexibility from all parties concerned. If everyone is flexible enough, then consensus emerges naturally from a "soup of ideas." See what Pexise is doing below: trying to solicit comment on some sections. This is the right way to go about doing things. Being pushy, and claiming a false consensus when there is none, is not part of the process I have just described. I'm sorry if that does not agree with your own peculiar interpretation of Misplaced Pages policy, but it just is the way things are done around here. Silly rabbit (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Not normal. Asking leading questions. Using straw man arguments, and actively misrepresenting what other editors would have. Repeatedly asking other editors to explain Misplaced Pages policy to you, or by repeated misapplying those policies to compell editors to do so. Questions such as the one which started this whole discussion are not normal: "Do we concur that when a claimed human right within the US does not have a single reliable source that establishes that the claimed right exists, that that this claim is OR until supported?" This has nothing to do with the text, and is a sneaky attempt to trick the answerer into implicitly sanctioning some controversial edit or another. If you say plainly what it is you want to do, and why you think it should be done, then that is how the editing process usually goes. Silly rabbit (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

WP has a policy on this. It is to SUMMARIZE, and is not for debate.

We need to delete all of the unsupported speculative opinions from this summar. I suggest that we not include these claims in the opening summary if they have not FIRST been discussed and consensus reached within TALK.

I will be editing the speculative claims without reliable sources out. PLEASE go through the WP process, don't revert because you BELIEVE speculative claims, offer a reliable source that PROVES the claim, and do it in the appropriate section before the summary. Please review the summary, and if I missed any speculative claims, please edit these out until we have consensus in the appropriate section. Raggz (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your changes. Please review WP:NPOV. —Viriditas | Talk 23:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I will be reverting your revert. The edit I made was in part to comply with the WP:NPOV. The issue is that there are many allegations for human rights violations, but no reliable sources that establish a single one. Please add reliable sources rather than reverting. Your revert violated (in my opinion)WP:NPOV. There needs to be a section that summarizes these speculative claims (that has consensus within Talk) before it can go into the opening summary. If you disagree about what WP policy is for opening summaries, please share that here? Raggz (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please be aware of the WP:3RR. I'm going to leave you a warning for the 3RR on your talk page, so that when you break the rule and I report you, you will have been previously warned. All of these claims are sourced and have consensus. Your behavior on this page is the very definition of WP:DISRUPT. I suggest you familiarize yourself with it. —Viriditas | Talk 23:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss your removal of NPOV. This is core policy and is non-negotiable. Please present a particular aspect of the lead section that you find troublesome and I will help you improve it. Removing NPOV is not acceptable. —Viriditas | Talk 23:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not recall removing NPOV. Are we discussing a tag? I invite you to participate in the many sections above that are of interest, or to create new ones. Raggz (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edit removed WP:NPOV. Have you read that policy? I invite you to participate in this discussion. Why did you remove the material from the lead? —Viriditas | Talk 01:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Do we have consensus that the Article's opening summary should be a summary of material developed via TALK in the supporting sections?

  Doe we have consensus that the Article's opening summary should not include speculative allegations that have not been supported to exist by a reliable source within the body of the Article? Raggz (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop appealing to a false consensus and address the issue. I am willing to help you. First, please read and understand WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. —Viriditas | Talk 01:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I had spent an hour trying to find WP:LEAD. So, is the Article in compliance in your opinion? Raggz (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, as I explained on your talk page, you made the changes and I reverted asking for why you removed NPOV. You are required to discuss and explain your changes. My opinion about whether I think the article complies with the lead section guideline may be helpful, but I would first like to understand your edits. That's the point of discussion. —Viriditas | Talk 02:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The question is whether or not the lead section conforms to the guideline. It is not whether we should remove NPOV, as that is non-negotiable. —Viriditas | Talk 01:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead Section rather than Opening Summary? Fine. Raggz (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Did I remove an NPOV tag in error? Sorry, if I did. I support retaining it. Raggz (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall saying you removed any tag. I said you removed WP:NPOV from the lead section. —Viriditas | Talk 01:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing or deleting this. Why is it in the lead? Raggz (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. NPOV refers to the fair representation of significant POV's regarding the topic. —Viriditas | Talk 02:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My edits were intended to enhance compliance with WP NPOV, and in my opinion did so. You may of course have a different opinion. Raggz (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Great; show me how your edits did that. Use diffs to demonstrate your point. —Viriditas | Talk 02:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I will read about diffs later. (1) We reached consensus that sections (such as health care) only included speculative allegations. (2) No one had an interest in offering a single reliable source that any human rights violation had occured in the past decade. (3) This made claims that such violations had actually occured OR. There is at least one example of an actual human rights violation that I eventually intend to edit in.

The lead had a number of serious NPOV violations, and the supporting sections no longer had consensus for retaining these claims (consensus had shifted). Then you read the changes, skipped reading the Talk, and jumped in. As this happened, consensus shifted again. Now, will you discuss the Lead? Raggz (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's get specific. In the current version of the article, do you see NPOV violations? If so, what are they? As for discussing my opinion of the lead, we will get there after I understand your edits. I still don't. —Viriditas | Talk 02:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

May we now shift back to the Lead? We agree that NPOV is non-negotiable. Here are the questions:

• Do we have consensus that the Article's opening summary should be a summary of material developed via TALK in the supporting sections?
• Do we have consensus that the Article's opening summary should not include speculative allegations that have not been supported to exist by a reliable source within the body of the Article? Raggz (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, please stop asking if we have consensus, as we need to discuss first. Also, please do not ask leading question. There is no need for you to keep repeating the same questions that do not help the discussion. I have asked for diffs above in order for you to justify your statement. You have not yet provided evidence to support your claim regarding NPOV. Now, regarding the lead section itself, please provide evidence of what you consider "speculative allegations". —Viriditas | Talk 02:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've already challenged and removed most (but not all) citations that I did not believe meet WP:RS. The primary issues issue (on this subject) is that none of the reliable sources move beyond speculative allegations. There are numerous reliable sources for speculative allegations, but none at all that move beyond this. Read a bit of talk above, Police Brutality might be a good example (and is one of few sections where consensus did not briefly not exist). Do you think we have a reliable source beyond speculative allegations that any human rights issue of note exists? Raggz (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you consider engaging in the discussions above and articulating your concerns in the proper sections? 03:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This section is just fine. We want to have a centralized discussion. —Viriditas | Talk 03:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Allegation: "An allegation is a statement of a fact by a party in a pleading, which the party claims it will prove. Allegations remain assertions without proof, only claims until they are proved." Raggz (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me be specific: which speculative allegations do you find in the article (lead/body/etc) that are not supported by a WP:RS? —Viriditas | Talk 02:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"It has a powerful and often independent judiciary and a constitution that attempts in many areas to enforce separation of powers to prevent tyranny." Raggz (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. In the future, please provide an example with a brief explanation. Looking at the diff,, your edit to this section shows that you removed the words attempts in many areas to enforce and replaced it with simply enforces. Is that a correct appraisal? See also: Checks_and_balances#United_States:_three_branches. —Viriditas | Talk 03:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds about right. ... attempts in many areas to enforce violates NPOV and OR (in my opinion. It implies that it does not enforce but "attempts to enforce", which violates these policies. Theere is nothing in the Article that supports these claims, it just got tossed into the Lead without discussion. The WP WEASLE WORD policy applies here, direct language is to be preferred. Vague allegations not even mentioned anywhere are a serious NPOV violation. You reverted this without offering a reliable source, what do you think? Raggz (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your changes wholesale because you didn't explain them. We are now discussing your changes, finally. Now, you call this particular passage a "speculative" and "vague allegation", is that correct? Strangely, you neglect to point out the problems with the wording of "powerful and often independent judiciary". You say that the article doesn't support these claims, and yet at the same time, you infer that the article supports your claims. You can't have it both ways. Either you argue for the removal of the entire passage or for your preferred wording, but making a blanket statement that applies to both contradicts your position. —Viriditas | Talk 04:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - there is a definite double standard at play here. Most of the unsubstantiated claims remain in Raggz's version, while he deletes well sourced material. What is going on? Pexise (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's basically wikilawyering and gaming the system. —Viriditas | Talk 09:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You might refer to Talk (above) for an explanation. If you are a bit more specific, a more specific answer would be possible. Raggz (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead Improvement Edits

"I reverted your changes wholesale because you didn't explain them. We are now discussing your changes, finally." I suggest that we now not debate the past unless it matters for Article improvement? I can defend my edits, you can respond ... endlessly, but to what point? My agenda has been to persuade you to engage in concensus building and it now seems possible?

The current topic of discussion is not the "past". —Viriditas | Talk 09:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Does the Lead comply with Lead?

Does the Lead comply with Lead? I suggest starting over. Raggz (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest An Inconvenient Truth as a model for a successful Lead for a controversial article. Does anyone else suggest another successful lead? This is an article that strikes the right balance, it focuses on what the article is about and not what the millions of critics might prefer. Global Warming is another successful article, it offers greater debate, but only with significant issues that have strong support from reliable sources. Raggz (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to describe exactly what specific aspects of those two articles you find helpful in relation to this article. Please always try to talk in terms of particulars rather than generalities. —Viriditas | Talk 09:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There are seven sentences in the Lead. Six explain the subject, one is for critics. Does this ratio seem about right? Raggz (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No. The size and focus of the lead section is directly proportional to the size and focus of the article. —Viriditas | Talk 09:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What ratio of discussion of the topic vs critics of the topic seems appropriate? Raggz (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Claims of consensus

Raggz, you have claimed in every discussion on this page to have reached consensus when that does not appear to be the case. Please stop making this claim. —Viriditas | Talk 00:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No Viriditas, I will not comply with your unreasonable demand. Asking about consensus is a necessary part of the process. Tacit consensus may be reached when the discussion settles out, and (in my opinion) statements for tacit consensus should go into the appropriate section, and if no one objects, such consensus exists. I am committed to consensus building and invite you to commit as well. Raggz (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read Misplaced Pages:Consensus. You are not following this guideline. —Viriditas | Talk 01:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I read Misplaced Pages:Consensus, thank you. The only part that applies (in my opinion) is that consensus has changed. You were not participating, and after a series of reverts (that you did not discuss until challenged), consensus has changed. Raggz (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That is partly true, however, your claim that consensus has been previously reached is debatable, IMO. —Viriditas | Talk 02:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

And we have debated it. Next? Raggz (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus will emerge on its own. There is no need for you to claim it. —Viriditas | Talk 09:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read Consensus. You and I are obligated to work together to reach consensus. Asking if we have consensus is an effective way (in my opinion) to reach consensus - or to determine the lack of it. Raggz (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

opening section

I think the opening section needs some work. In order to summarise the rest of the article mention should also be made of the US and international human rights. A balanced passage could mention the US's role in drafting the UDHR, and then some of the criticisms that have been made. Pexise (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my issues are NOT about balancing pro and anti arguments, but producing a good encyclopedia artice. There is no need to balance between these, it could be entirely anti-US if warranted, and if we reach consensus.

Although the modern roots of liberal democracy is from Europe, the United States was the first modern liberal democracy. The first independent judiciary was from the US. The US was strongly committed to the creation of the League of Nations and the United Nations. If not for the US, all classrooms in Western Europe would likely have swastikas today, and there would now likely be no democracy. Even the European Union in large part was only possible due to the post-war role of the US (it was originally the United States of Europe. When all of these assertions are supported by reliable sources (and debated fully here) would anyone object to inclusion? Raggz (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's part of the problem with your edits. Balance is part of WP:NPOV. And please recognize that consensus does not override policy. —Viriditas | Talk 09:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not possible to work toward Consensus when your reply does not discuss which part of the above is an NPOV issue? Could you please be a bit more specific? Raggz (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much all of it. You seem to be starting with a set of suppositions and working towards finding references to support your claims. It's not a matter of "if", but "when" these assertions are supported. Pairadox (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, strongly. This is just history? There are thousands of history books for references. So, we leave the swastikas out, no problem. Let us start here:

• "Although the modern roots of liberal democracy is from Europe, the United States was the first modern liberal democracy." Is there any objection here?

• The first independent judiciary was from the US. Is there any objection here?

• The US was strongly committed to the creation of the League of Nations and the United Nations. Is there any objection here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 10:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) Yes. Show the references. I'll object to anything that doesn't have a solid, diverse range of sources for such sweeping statements. Not all have to be in the article, but it would be all to easy to start from a set of ideas and then cherrypick refs to support your views, which is why I would like to see a range of sources. (I happen to agree with some of the above, but without refs...) Pairadox (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, keep in mind that the material would have to be found in reliable sources about human rights, otherwise it is WP:OR. Considering the plethora of human rights material, this should be easy, but choosing neutral sources is difficult. That's where the NPOV policy comes in. —Viriditas | Talk 10:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't place that restriction on them. The statements are rather general in regards to human rights, so I don't think limiting the sources to ones about human rights is correct. "The first independent judiciary was from the US" doesn't have a human rights clause, so the source shouldn't require one. Pairadox (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we are talking about two different things. If Raggz wanted to add this information to the article, it would have to be in the context of human rights, otherwise it's OR. You may want to take a look at Raggz' talk page to see that this has been an ongoing problem for some time. —Viriditas | Talk 11:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It would need to be in a human rights context in the article, yes, but the source would not necessarily have to be about human rights. To continue with the independent judiciary example, I could easily see that source being a history of jurisprudence rather than a history of human rights. Pairadox (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Then the problem becomes one of WP:SYN. To avoid it, we use sources devoted to the topic. If you could find an example that proves your point, that would help. —Viriditas | Talk 11:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, synthesis would only come into play if a conclusion were being drawn from the original statement. A simple statement of "The first independent judiciary was from the US" doesn't imply anything more than that and only needs a source that documents that assertion. An implication that it makes the US a leader in human rights, or a trailblazer in human rights, or anything beyond "the first independent judiciary" would require a source stating that. Pairadox (talk) 11:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz is advancing a position implying the conclusion. That these statements are in any way connected to this topic would require a source related to human rights. It's not even debatable. —Viriditas | Talk 11:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know how to respond to that. If you won't discuss the value of sources, what's the point of continuing this? I might as well leave you and Raggz to your ongoing, pointless arguing. I just wish it were confined here and not clogging up AN/I. Pairadox (talk) 12:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you haven't been following the discussion. Raggz claimed that WP:NPOV doesn't matter and could be discarded with consensus; neither is of course true. He also asked if anyone would object to adding assertions supported by RS and gave examples advancing his position. WP:SYN covers this in detail. I don't understand what the "value of sources" has to do with this. The reason we have policies and guidelines is so that we don't have to reinvent the wheel every time an editor like Raggz comes along. If you want to argue that ignoring NPOV and using SYN is ok, feel free to do so...on those policy pages. —Viriditas | Talk 13:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

i dont see how raggz is ignoring NPOV. he has sources for this claism and hie is making a wellreasoned and well-rational argument Smith Jones (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I like this discussion. I speak for my own thoughts and have not provided Viriditas with any form of power of attorney. I support WP policies and believe that they work well. Raggz (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome, Mr. Jones. Raggz has removed NPOV from the lead and argued that "there is no need to balance between these, it could be entirely anti-US if warranted, and if we reach consensus," which is entirely untrue. Consensus does not trump NPOV. Now, if you would be so kind, could you explain what Raggz is trying to "reason", and inform me how it is relevant to this topic? Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 03:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

May we get back to the topic now? I'm not concerned about anti-US or pro-US, although I do have a pov. The article is about Human rights and the United States. It is not supposed to be pro or anti, just an article. If someone misunderstood me, no I do not advocate the violation of any policy. I thought the discussion was most productive until it diverted into whatever it diverted into. Where are we? Raggz (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

On tacit consensus

Some of the editors on this and related pages have invented the notion of tacit consensus. Please note that there is nothing at WP:CONSENSUS about tacit consensus, and invoking this as a rationale for anything is a flawed and disingenuous misrepresentation of official Misplaced Pages policy, and should not be tolerated. If this were a legitimate reason for making a controversial edit, then it would be spelled out clearly in the official policy. It is not. Thus if editors here and elsewhere insist upon using the notion of "tacit consensus" as a justification for their removals of information or other edits likely to be controversial, then I must insist that they go to Wikipedia_talk:Consensus and obtain community acceptance and approval of "tacit consensus" first. Thank you, Silly rabbit (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"In essence silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community." Consensus Does anyone dispute that this is about tacit consensus? If so, how is this different? Raggz (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you need to read the rest of the surrounding paragraph. Here is the full passage:

generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. In essence silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community.

In other words, if someone reverts, that means there isn't consensus for the edit. Period. So claim "tacit" consensus on the talk page all you want, but the bottom line is that you don't have it. Silly rabbit (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

When I claim tacit consensus, the intent is to stimulate discussion before I edit the change discussed. Reverting without discussion is not the preferred means to advance Consensus. Raggz (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:BRD. Silly rabbit (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Raggz (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Just wondering why the NPOV tag is there - generally the article seems OK and balanced to me. Is there any particular section or passage which is causing the problem? Pexise (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of any response, I will now be removing the tag. Please discuss here if you think there is a reason that it should be replaced. Thanks. Pexise (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the article is without adequate pov balance in that it is sometimes focused upon human rights that are only recognized by the European Court of Human Rights and nowhere else. There probably should be a european section, because many human rights in Europe are nearly unique in recognition. This gives it an inappropriate eurocentric perspective. I believe that this article should focus upon those human rights that are globally accepted, and should not have this existing regional focus. While this lack of NPOV compliance is serious, I do not object to the removal of the tag. Raggz (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Example? The only reference I could find to EU was in the death penalty section - abolition of the death penalty is a global human right issue - there is an international treaty on this and it also violates the right to life as designated in the UDHR. Pexise (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

We have an article about Human rights and the United States. Many of these human rights are not recognized by the UN, the US, or almost any body, save the European Court of Human Rights. I assume that there is an inadvertant euro-bias, because few others would presume human rights only recognized by the European Court of Human Rights. I am assuming good faith, that the presumption is unconcious. Raggz (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please give at least one example of what you are talking about. Pexise (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

See health care (below) Raggz (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Health care as a human right

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, states that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care.” In addition, the Principles of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association require medical doctors to respect the human rights of the patient, including that of providing medical treatment when it is needed. Unlike most other industrialized nations, the United States does not offer its citizens universal health care. The United States provides limited coverage to individuals and families with low incomes and resources through Medicaid, provides coverage to persons age 65 and over, or who meet other special criteria through Medicare, and federal law ensures public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986 ensures patients the right to emergency medical care regardless of citizenship or immigration status. "

There is not one reliable source offered that there is an international or US right to universal health care. Everyone in the US has a right to health care, just not to universal health care. In Europe (I believe) there exists a right to universal health care, and I believe that it is due to the normal bias we all have to percieve other cultures differences, the difference here is presented as a human rights issue rather than as a political issue.

The US has a system where many only have access to the basic system (access to the same basic care that people are assured in Canada and Europe) which we call medicaid or medicare. There properly is great and continuing debate about what is "necessary" and what is not necessary. Where the US differs from Canada and Europe is that many Americans opt to pay for enhanced medical services that are rare or unavailable in Canada and Europe. Breast enhancement surgery for example is largely limited to the affluent, does this deny any human right?

There is no debate within the US if every American has a human right to necessary medical services, now is there? This was settled, what, thirty or forty years back? medicaid The universal health care debate has nothing to do with human rights, now does it? Raggz (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

:If Americans "ha the right to a standard of living adequate for the health ..." under the UN human rights charter, and the 'adequate' access to health services is 'settled' by medicaid, then, yes it does have to do with human rights. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Either Raggz altered his message or I got lost in his logic circles and mis-read it. But whatever happened, I redact my previous comment based on the current reading of Raggz post my and 'understanding' (such as it is) of his question.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand Red.

• If someone wants to challenge the adequacy of medicaid in regard to human rights law, I am fine with this. This can be done, and with enumerable reliable sources. It is, and should remain, a perpetual subject of debate.
• If someone wants to suggest that the US does not have medicaid, that the US does not recognize a human right to basic health care, I dispute this.
• If someone wants to claim that allowing the affluent to buy enhanced medical care and to have elective proceedures denied to the poor is a human rights issue, this argument may be made as well. Just make it clearly. Raggz (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm planning some significant deletions of original research in regard to universal health care. In addition I'm planning to delete some seeming irrelevant statements. (listed below):

• Influential figures, such as Pope John Paul II, have stated denying access to afforable health care is a violation of the right to life. Was the Pope stating this in regard to the US? Was he speaking of malaria in Rwanda? If not about the US please do not revert this quote, if so please be more clear.

• According to a March 2007 poll by CBS News and the New York Times, 81 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with the cost of health care. 46.6 million Americans, or 15.9 percent, were without health insurance coverage in 2005. Americans are also disatisfied with the price of many things. Relevance to human rights, please?

• The Center for Economic and Social Rights, an international human rights advocacy group, calls for health care reforms in the US to reflect the "right to health." I'm leaving this for now. All I ask is that context be offered, what "right to health" is being denied, and who is denying it. If the context is not offered, then I may eventually edit this quote out as well, or add these myself Raggz (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The next two statements are factual, but no context to the US is offered.

• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, states that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care.”

• In addition, the Principles of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association require medical doctors to respect the human rights of the patient, including that of providing medical treatment when it is needed.

There is no linkage of these to the denial of any human right. Medicaid covers everyone who cannot afford care. Those ineligible have the ability to obtain medical services at their own expense. The language strongly implies that these are human rights denied, but no reliable source is offered for this implied claim. Does anyone have reliable sources that basic medical services are unavailable to anyone in the US? That linkage is necessary here. Raggz (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think more discussion is necessary. I have already weighed in on this topic elsewhere in the page. Raggz was trying to find references on whether Health care is a human right. We now have various opinions (including that of the former Pope), which attest that Health care is such a right. At some point in the edit history, I separated out part of this as a "Universal health care" debate, as a nod to one of Raggz's suggestions before. Now I see that Raggz has (disappointingly) decided that he/she no longer accepts this compromise, and has gone back to deleting things which I had previously undeleted and discussed. I suggest, as I have before, that we wait for other editorial opinions to weigh in on the healthcare section. Silly rabbit (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I recently reverted Raggz's edit. First of all, I do not accept the stated reason for the removal of Pope John Paul's quote. As part of an earlier debate between Raggz and myself on this very issue, Raggz wanted additional sources alleging that health care is a human right. Removing this quote is detrimental to that purpose, although perhaps it could be placed differently. May I suggest instead of deleting entire sections to move text up into the parent Health care section? I agree that the Pope quote is in the wrong place with the current article structure. Things like this happen when a large number of controversial edits happen over a short period of time. Silly rabbit (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, the first line of the section Raggz would like to delete makes a fairly clear case for inclusion: "The level of government involvement in providing, ensuring, and enforcing the right to adequate health care is a topic of longstanding political debate." If (a) health care is a right, and some level of health care should be ensured by the government, and (b) there is a debate about the extent of government involvement, then universal health care clearly has a place in this article. Perhaps the format could be changed, some of the bits moved around since this is a relatively new part of the article structure, but I recommend against deleting it. Raggz seems to prefer deleting things instead of working on issues with them. I am of the opposite kind. May I ask: what sort of constructive edits can we apply to this section to bring it into shape. Silly rabbit (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am just fine with inclusion of human rights debates, so long as the Reader knows these are debates about potential rights - not about existing rights. Health care is a human right, there is a huge body of US law on this topic. I recommend citing these sources that declare this right. Silly rabbit is correct, I believe that the article should cite the reliable source. Findlaw.com is where I would first look.

Medicaid is usually the means for compliance. Litigation regarding medical care as a right is always ongoing, and should always be so, to ensure that the human right to medical care evolves as is necessary. Universal health care has nothing to do with any human right because those who cannot afford medical care are assured subsidized coverage. I have been guilty of making statements about "health care" when I meant "universal health care". Others have as well. I will be more clear.

• There is no debate in the US if health care is a right. Everyone in the US either has the ability to pay for health care - and if not, has the right to subsidized health care.
• There is a debate if universal health care is a human right. We may cover this debate if we wish (I don't), but we need to be clear that there presently is no such debate.

The Pope's statement is irrelevant to the US, and was not made in regard to the US. Applying it this way is a SYN error. To use this quote it is first necessary to link it to this topic. Health care in the US has been a recognized human right for many decades. Medicaid may or may not be effective in meeting this right, was this the subject he was addressing, medicaid in the US? Raggz (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

So... human rights that apply to everyone, don't apply to the US? I don't understand your rationale that the Pope's comments are not relevant. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Pope's statement doesn't belong.

If this article doesn't restrict its concept of "rights" to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which is seedy enough to begin with) then it'll continue to be another Misplaced Pages POV magnet.

Like it or not, the U.S. is in compliance with the Universal Declaration as far as health care goes. If you read carefully, it also talks about food, clothing and housing in the same sentence. No one seriously believes that means some government agency should be dressing us up. At least not yet.

BTW: Be careful about that number of "uninsured Americans." It includes non-citizens.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Pederasty human Rights & marriage human rights?

Someone deleted a lot of text stating that it was about marriage and not pederasty. Would it be possible to elaborate? I looked this word up. Is pederasty a human right somewhere? What is the issue? Raggz (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

74.93.22.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) deleted the Sexual orientation section claiming that it was about pederasty. I then restored the section, because there is nothing about pederasty even in the section. No one claimed that pederasty is a right, but 74.93.22.214 seemed to think there was a parallel between the right to marry and the "right" to molest young boys. Go figure. Silly rabbit (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

So, just to be reiterate, no sane editor here believes that pederasty is a human right. Just some anon IP who has an axe to grind. Silly rabbit (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing this up, and for handling the vandalism. Raggz (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sections to be improved before inclusion

The following sections are quite poorly written, un-referenced and unbalanced. Please improve them here (see comments below) and then include them in the main article:

The UN Security Council has the authority to enforce the UN Charter and international human rights in regard to the United States, however the US veto could be utilized to preclude (what does this mean - how could the veto "preclude" the Security Council?) the use of the Security Council for this purpose (also, what about all of the other human rights mechanisms, for example, the UN Human Rights Committees?). Human rights treaties ratified by the United States become enforceable by the US Judiciary. In practice however the US has only ratified human rights treaties that include a “package of reservations, understandings, and declarations” (this is misleading, the reservations are added by the US, it is unclear what the quote means) that limit the enforceability of human rights treaties.

US sovereignty and human rights

(This whole section presents contentious arguments as facts, oversimplifies, and fails completely to mention any of the aspects of human rights that override sovereignty or the tensions and conflicts between international law and sovereignty. This is a massive and complex issue and I suggest a new article discussing sovereignty and human rights including some of this information) The United States is a sovereign nation. Sovereignty by definition means that national human rights law and policies need not comply with any international law, except with its consent. The US Judiciary however may consider the weight of international opinion in regard to human rights decisions.

• Is there such a thing as a human right that overrides US sovereignty? I have never heard of this. May I have an example? Treaties voluntarily agreed to by the US Senate voluntarily override US sovereignty, the US Constitution states this. The word for an international law imposed upon a nation without the consent of the governed is tyranny. Any international law imposed is tyrannical.

• What are "the tensions and conflicts between international law and sovereignty"? There are no international laws (that I am aware of) that impair national sovereignty. Please offer just ONE example? Treaties of course are voluntary waivers of sovereignty. The UN Charter for example, is a voluntary waiver of national sovereignty by UN members. These are the basic relevant facts and (in my opinion) are not arguments. There are arguments that international law SHOULD override national sovereignty, but none that I know of that international law DOES override national sovereignty. I suggest that this is a debate somewhat irrelevant to this topic because presently, international law never overrides national sovereignty. If and when this might change, only then would this become relevant to this topic? Raggz (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

US federalism and human rights

The ratification and implementation of international human rights treaties within the US face special challenges due to the US federal system of government. Human rights within the US are often primarily enumerated (are you sure "enumerated" is the right word to use here?) by state law rather than by federal law. Federalism means that the federal government has limitations upon its authority to take actions in important areas. In regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the federal government would need to ratify a treaty regarding the human rights of US children, and there is serious debate if the federal government even has the authority to usurp the authority of the individual states for this subject since it does not have any authority to pass a law that would accomplish the same action by legislation (this does not seem to make sense - it at least needs to be worded differently as it is very difficult to understand).

The word "enumerate" was carefully selected. It comes from a key body of constitutional law relating to the use of this word in the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment recognizes for the first time that civil rights may exist that have yet to be enumerated. For example: the Americans with Disabilities Act enumerates a fundamental civil right that always existed but had never been enumerated.

I will of course work on this language to make it more clear. Federalism is especially difficult to understand if you grow up in a different system. This fact makes it important that the article explain why federalism is important to this topic. The federal government is prohibited from legislation regarding marriage, it simply lacks the authority to do this. Only state governments may do this. People who live in non-federalized systems view state governments as administrators of national laws. The legal requirements to get married or to get a teaching license will not vary quite widely depending on where you live. Human rights are then homogenous nationally, but within the US the human rights must meet the minimum federal standards, but in some states are quite a bit greater than in others. For example: There are no national assurances of sexual-orientation rights, but where I live in California there is such a human right recognized, but a mile away in Nevada there is no such right recognized.

Most human rights within the US are primarily within the jurisdiction of state governments. When state governments fail to protect federally guaranteed human rights, only THEN may the federal government act. This happened in the South when states denied racial groups the equality guaranteed by the US Constitution.

• Will the Reader: (1) get these facts from our article and (2) are these facts relevant to the topic?

If the answer to these two key questions is no, the section might be dropped. If "yes", then it will need improvement. Raggz (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

References

1. Ireland vs. United Kingdom 1978.
2. Ireland v. United Kingdom, 1978.(Case No. 5310/71)
3. "Race, Rights and Police Brutality". . Retrieved 2007-12-22. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
4. "Report Charges Police Abuse in U.S. Goes Unchecked". Human Rights Watch. July 7, 1998. Retrieved 2007-12-22. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |publisher= (help)
5. "Police brutality cases on rise since 9/11". USA Today. 2007-12-17. Retrieved 2007-12-22.
6. "When the Police Shoot, Who's Counting?". The New York Times. 2001-04-29. Retrieved 2007-12-22.
7. "Unregulated Use of Taser Stun Guns Threatens Lives, ACLU of Northern California Study Finds". ACLU. October 6, 2005. Retrieved 2007-12-22. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
8. National Health Care for the Homeless Council. "Human Rights, Homelessness and Health Care".
9. American Medial Association. "Principles of medical ethics".
10. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services: Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act
11. Suffer the Children?: A Call for United States Ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Lainie Rutkow and Joshua T. Lozman. Harvard Human Rights Journal. Vol. 19. Spring 2006. ISSN 1057-5057. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/rutkow.shtml#Heading25
12. Definition of Sovereigny from: Brad R. Roth, The Enduring Significance of State Sovereignty, 56 Fla. L. Rev. 1017, 1019 (2004); see John H. Jackson, Sovereignty-Modern: A New Approach to an Outdated Concept, 97 Am. J. Int’l L. 782, 782 (2003)
13. Bob Barr, Protecting National Sovereignty in an Era of International Meddling: An Increasingly Difficult Task, 39 Harv. J. on Legis. 299, 301 (2002).
14. Suffer the Children?: A Call for United States Ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Lainie Rutkow and Joshua T. Lozman. Harvard Human Rights Journal. Vol. 19. Spring 2006. ISSN 1057-5057. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/rutkow.shtml#Heading25
15. Suffer the Children?: A Call for United States Ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Lainie Rutkow and Joshua T. Lozman. Harvard Human Rights Journal. Vol. 19. Spring 2006. ISSN 1057-5057. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/rutkow.shtml#Heading25
16. Erwin Chemerinsky, Empowering States When It Matters: A Different Approach to Preemption, 69 Brook. L. Rev. 1313, 1328 (2004)
17. Suffer the Children?: A Call for United States Ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Lainie Rutkow and Joshua T. Lozman. Harvard Human Rights Journal. Vol. 19. Spring 2006. ISSN 1057-5057. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/rutkow.shtml#Heading25

Remove section on Universal Health Care?

As I have been accused of restoring this section from Raggz's most recent deletion without consensus, other editors are welcome to express their opinions here as to whether the section should be removed, or what other editorial direction should take. I would ask that Raggz please abstain from filling up this section with debate, although he/she is also of course welcome to weigh in succinctly. Silly rabbit (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

When one editor(s) has an issue with the state/quality of a section for an article, one method of building concensus is to take the section to the talk page or a sandbox for people to work on it and bring it up to meet quality standards. (Perhaps leaving a minimal, non-controversial 'placeholder' peice of information in the main article with a hidden < comment > for editors about the work going on at another location). Since this talk page is already overly long, I would recommend a sandbox- and since Silly Rabbit seems interested in the subject, would you be willing to start the sandbox and post the link here? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Read the large volume of discussion on TALK regarding the health care original research. Silly rabbit and I have discussed this and decided to seek mediation, as the content dispute could not be resolved by discussion. Raggz (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have created a sandbox here for the section in question. I have also attempted to revise it according to some of the issues mentioned in this talk page. Please have a look at it. Silly rabbit (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The material in the sandbox lacks relevance to this topic because:

• It does not offer a single reliable source that health care is a human rights issue for the US. This would be a section about what the US Supreme Court (or UNSC) decisions require. (There is a LOT of material that could be cited).
• It does not offer a single reliable source that Universal Health Care actually is a human rights issue in the US.
• The article does offer ample reliable sources that there exists a debate internationally and within the US in regard to the question if the US health care system denies anyone any human right. This means that the article may state that some allege violations but may not imply that they occured (without a source). It may not build a case that implies non-compliance. To comply with NPOV both sides need to be quoted within a lengthy section on this debate. The section would need to state that the question is undecided and not make unsupported implications.

Do we agree? If not, we still need mediation. This topic is subject to mediation, might we address the issue on the proper page? If we now agree, we of course may move on and close the mediation process. Raggz (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on your mandate that a SCOTUS or UNSC case has to have been adjudicated before the material is relevant for inclusion in the article. Other editors, myself included, find the material topical and relevant. The issue is thus whether it asserts anything not supported by the references. You believe that by bare inclusion, it seems to assert that some violation of human rights has taken place. I have already disagreed with this interpretation, and so have other editors. The existence of a high profile debate is enough to warrant inclusion here. Hence, the remaining question is whether there any specific issues that you have with the section? Are there any individual sentences you would like to change, for example? Is there a passage that you feel should be removed? Silly rabbit (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You mistate my claim. I am only claiming that a reliable source is necessary for material to be included. (A SCOTUS or UNSC case would be examples of such a source, what source do you instead propose?) Without this it may be "topical and relevant", but Policy precludes its inclusion, particularly without consensus.

I ask again:

• What human right does the lack of Universal Health Care within the US deny? Isn't this a necessary fact for the Reader? Without a reliable source such claims require deletion as original research.

• What reliable source asserts that the right denied is actually being denied?

• Why not cite the USSC decisions on the right to health care? Why hide them?

We have agreed to take this issue to mediation. We can settle this there. No other editors have stated your opinions on this, and in any case, there is no consensus for retention. (If any editors wish to add their names to the mediation case, they are free to do so.) If there were consensus, policy still requires the deletion of original research like this. You may fix this issue quite simply by editing in one reliable source to support your orginal research. Raggz (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, clearly mediation is required. I note that User:Pexise has expressed conviction that the material should be kept, so it clearly doesn't seem that you have a majority on your side for the removal of the material. Also, please see WP:BRD. By default, consensus exists for material which has been longstanding in the article. You can boldly delete the material, but if it is reverted that then means you do not have consensus for removal. I ask you yet again to please read WP:CONSENSUS.

Now let me address your questions yet again:

• What reliable source asserts that the right denied is actually being denied?

Point me to the line in the text where the article alleges that a human right is being denied, please. Otherwise your position that the text "is original research" because it somehow implicitly tries to assert that a right is being denied is patently untenable. There are references there about human rights and health care, and there is a legitimate, documentable controversy about the extent to which the US is fullfilling its obligations to uphold those rights. Not documenting the controversy is a disservice to the article. A whitewash.

• Why not cite the USSC decisions on the right to health care? Why hide them?

You have a cite in mind? Again, Pexise and I have both expressed our frustration with your repeated insistence that everything in the article must have been adjudicated by SCOTUS. The criteria for inclusion is relevance to the topic of the article, not some legal standard you invented.

Since, by deleting the material, rather than engaging in productive discussion, you have revealed an unwillingness to identify any specific issues, I think mediation is necessary. Silly rabbit (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted to Silly rabbit, as Raggz has begun inserting propaganda (random, off-topic quotes from Reginald Wilson et al.) and removing sourced information again (prison system deletions caught my attention). I recommend that Raggz make small, incremental changes, and since this is a controversial page, I encourage him to raise them on talk first. —Viriditas | Talk 12:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Viriditas - some of my sections that are meticulously sourced and took many hours of work to write had either been deleted or defaced. Pexise (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"By default, consensus exists for material which has been longstanding in the article. You can boldly delete the material, but if it is reverted that then means you do not have consensus for removal. I ask you yet again to please read WP:CONSENSUS." Consensus is a good thing, something worth the effort that I have invested into it. Please review shifts in consensus again.

To this point: There is no reliable source that universal health care is a human right within the US. This absence makes the entire Universal Health Care section a SYN policy violation, and consensus is not required for removal. An effort for consensus was made, and considerable efforts expended, but in the end policy violations require deletion even without consensus.

It has been established that health care is a UN human right that the UDHR codifies this. Where is the reliable source that explains exactly what this right means in any practical sense? We cannot jump past this needed source to alleged violations of the right, that would be a synthesis error. Example: health care must presumably be affordable, but what exactly does affordable mean? We cannot just jump to claiming a lack affordability without a citation that explains affordability in regard to the UDHR. The information about consumer disatisfaction with costs is a SYN error. To claim that the UDHR requires universal health coverage is a SYN error if there is no reliable source for this.

I would prefer to use the many US judicial decisions on the right to health care. I don't understand why the UDHR is relevant since it is presently not enforced and is too vague for practical use in regard to the US. These outline in precise and evolving detail the right to health care in the US. Why not use these? I am not requiring US judicial opinions, I will accept any reasonable authority, but presume that there are no others. No one has identified another form of authority for the right to health care. 03:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists, unused
• 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