Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:17, 23 May 2009

Welcome

Hello, Mosedschurte! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Misplaced Pages you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Getting Started Misplaced Pages Tutorial • The five pillars of Misplaced Pages How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Eastern bloc map

Human Rights

Can I just put a link to your previous comment? I don't think repeating it verbatim is necessary. Soxwon (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes.Mosedschurte (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• This should be debated at article talk page, and it is debated right now. Biophys (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I would, but I can't until tomorrow (and some probably ANI complaints are coming for another editor). But your stance is clearly correct from any rational point of view given the article's scope. First, the article would have to be changed from the obvious title text "in the United States." Second, as explained up the Talk page (read up for my explanations), the topic would dwarf everything in the page right now with just 2 years alone -- the Nuremberg Trials, the Hiroshima Bomb, the Fire Bombing of Dresden in World War II, the controverial Rheinwiesenlager camps holding German prisoners the Fire Bombing of Tokyo, the Bombing of Kobe in World War II, Nagasaki_bomb, etc. All of these are from 10 to 100,000 times the magnitude of issues as Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse and the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. And that's from just two years, setting aside the leadership in the Rwanda genocide trials, the Bosnian genocide trials, leading efforst to oppose the two of the three most ghastly human rights abusers of this century (Hitler and Stalin), leading the efforts to attempt to contain the largest current police state/abuser (Kim Jong-Il's North Korea), and Pol Pot's Cambodia Killing Fields, etc.

Keep in mind that that article is already RIGHT NOW sitting on the precipice of the WP:Article Size 6 to 10KB prose text guidelines. Part of that are some of the obvious (actually, pretty humorous -- like a bad college protest pamphlet) sections, many of which have obvious (as a long list of editors have pointed out) WP:POV and WP:Undue Weight concerns.

A small number of editors clearly have serious POV issues. But keep in mind that others just may not be aware of the huge U.S. international human rights issues that would therafter have to be addressed following an article scope expansion, utterly dwarfing (thousands of times over in magnitude) issues regarding the two prisons currently discussed. They honestly haven't thought throoug how large the change would have to be if the scope of the article were changed and that incidents such as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay would then barely merit a sentence in any such articles given their magnitude.Mosedschurte (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is now protected for a month. Yes, I agree with you. The human rights efforts and alleged human rights violations by the US at the international arena (this part) deserves a separate article you might be well prepared to create and improve.Biophys (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)