Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:05, 21 June 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nor does it end there:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(od) I hear the "fair and balanced" mantra on radio ads all the way driving home from work every evening. Just sticking to this one source and not getting into comparisons, their slogan is, quite frankly, a euphemism for "opinionated and one-sided." Any New Yorker will tell you the difference between the NY Times and Fox "News". "History serves politics" meet "History serves commentators and ratings." PetersV       TALK 17:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

ICRC Report

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

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

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

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

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

Here's a bigger excerpt from the original document:

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

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

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

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

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

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

A bit late to this, but if we have sources which conflict on interpretation and our own opinions are changeable, the proper course is to have the original report and not put in either interpretation. Our debating here over interpretations is WP:OR. Best case is to add a note that there are conflicting interpretations of how many individual instances (total cycles) of waterboarding application this constitutes. PetersV       TALK 17:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Other issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is counterproductive. If you have an issue or accusation, be direct and make it. Leave "interesting, no?" innuendo at the door. PetersV       TALK 21:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. LBJ was the single person responsible for passage of the Civil Rights act through his ability to manage the political process—it would have gone nowhere without him. (Were you even alive then? I was.) Study events in more detail before making sweeping denouncements about "silliness." PetersV       TALK 21:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Put up or shut up. Provide a single reliable source that supports your POV in relation to human rights. Benezet started the first U.S. human rights organization and Mosedschurte removed it without any explanation, even after repeated queries. And nothing Mosedschurte has added to this article is related to the human rights literature. It looks like he's engaged in some serious backchannel canvassing to get you and the other meatpuppets to show up here and make nonsensical comments, but it's transparent. The history of human rights in the U.S. does not begin with LBJ, and trying to tell me that it does is absurd. Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Look, stop with the insults, you can't even bother looking up a title, preferring to dispute it on the basis of being a "vestigial" edit of some enemy editor instead of spending the all of ten seconds it took me to verify the actual title. Leave your antagonism at the door. I simply stated LBJ's crucial role and that it wasn't "silly" to have a picture of him. Did I say civil rights "started with LBJ?" You know, I'm rather tired of antagonistic editors sticking their words in my mouth and then attacking me for them. Chill already. And you're definitely overusing "put up or shut up" on this page. PetersV       TALK 02:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

   As long as I'm at it, I'm also tired of anyone calling more than one editor perceived as being their editorial enemy part of a meat puppet conspiracy. I just came by to look at what else people have been working on looking to get away from some of the WP:BATTLEGROUND elsewhere and I run into you, apparently loaded for bear. If you rushed any faster to accuse editors of bad faith the sonic boom would be deafening—perhaps that's why you're not hearing me? I don't give a damn about your prior wars, don't make me part of them. PetersV       TALK 02:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Article scope

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: Society, sports, and culture Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

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

Comments

(no threaded discussion in this section, please)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I disagree that the article must tell only about the events inside the USA. The sole reason for creation of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp (I mean, creation of the camp in that concrete place, outside the US territory) was to remove its inmates from protection of the American laws. Therefore, a story about Guantanamo is a story about the (successful) attempt of the US authorities to circumvent restriction domestic legislation applies on treatment of ordinary criminals or POWs. Consequently, the story about Guantanamo camp has a direct relation to the situation with human rights in the USA.
  My conclusion is that some events outside the US may have a direct relevance to that article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope you agree that "under (direct) U.S. jurisdiction" precisely and clearly addresses Guantanamo and similar to be in scope while not opening the article to the entire planet. PetersV       TALK 02:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Limit scope of this article to "Human rights in the US". All international US-related human rights issues (Iraq, Europe, Cuba, etc.) should be included in separate article(s) and only briefly mentioned here. This is needed: (a) to make this article more readable per WP:MOS (it is already too big), and (b) to be logical and consistent with the practice for other countries. For example Soviet war crimes (outside the Soviet Union) are undeniably human rights issues. But we are not going to paste these materials into Human rights in the Soviet Union, and rightly so. I consider myself almost uninvolved editor, since I only made two edits in this article.Biophys (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• (comment by RfC originator) I think everybody is agreed that events of 65 or 165 years ago should not receive detailed coverage in this article. We only have one single-word mention of slavery and native Americans, for example. The main scope of this article is the present day. JN466 23:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

• Limit scope of this article to "Human rights in the US". This article should be confined to domestic human rights issues within the USA, which is already a huge topic on its own when one thinks of slavery of the 19th Century and the civil rights movement today. Some think issues like Guantanamo Bay needs to be included, but if we do that, what about these CIA detentions in Europe? If those CIA detentions are included what about those civilians killed in Afghanistan and US backing of Israel and the Palestinian issue and the CIA's assasination attempt on Castro, etc, etc, etc. The scope will just continue to creep. Create new articles to cover international issues if required. Some contend that CIA detentions in Europe should be included, because the reason for their creation is the same as that of the Guantanamo camp: to put some persons under the US jurisdiction and, at the same time, to deprive them of basic right warranted by the US laws. However many European countries have agreed to suspend their own human rights laws to allow the CIA to hold prisoners on their territory, so the CIA detentions could also be a subject of Human rights in (insert your European country here). There is a stronger case to include the Guantanamo camp and CIA renditions in the article War on Terrorism rather than this article. This war isn't being fought by the USA alone, but many European countries are involved too. The bottom line is that this article should not become a WP:COATRACK of grievances against the USA. --Martintg (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• Opposed to Expansion: I have been heavily involved in this article and the talk page. The article involves human rights within the United States. As such, it should be limited to the subject of human rights within its own borders. Articles on the human rights policies of the United States, an enormous undertaking, deserves its own article, or bettwe yet several sub-articles, most of which in fact already exist. I would suggest that this policy be used on the matter of human rights by country in the future. The matter of human rights within the borders of the country should be covered, and a separate article on policies outside of that country and generally provided for each country. I think this provides good order for the subject. I would also suggest that many areas within the article itself stray off topic, including gay marriage, for instance, and/or are written by people with no background in American law and forms of government in America's uniquely federal system, where power is shared by local, state and federal governments such as the section on Hurricane Katrina. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose to inclusion of extra topics - propose moving things like Guantanamo to another article, say Human Rights and US Foreign Policy (I can see that one becoming a mess quickly too, but at least the issues will be easier to navigate).radek (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Include discussion of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo as a matter of course This is the article on the Human rights record of the United States. It is not credible without a discussion of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay. These topics have been covered in the article for years, and I see no good reason to remove them now. Country reports by the UN human rights council cover a nation's conduct in military operations as a matter of course, as do the country reports on human rights published by the US State Department (example: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/eur/119101.htm). Editors should focus on improving the content of the existing sections, so the article cites the best scholarly and media sources available, and do so collaboratively, rather than by edit-warring. Given the number of human rights-related issues discussed, most of which are the subject of a dedicated article and need not be duplicated here in the same depth, the present article should give a brief summary of each issue, with a link to the main article. Reductions in overall article length should not be achieved by excluding issues, but by adjusting the length of the various summaries. JN466 08:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Don't exclude US human rights issues outside US borders The article wouldn't be credible without mentioning (Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, renditions, and the application of international law, among other issues. Larkusix (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Include US rights issues outside US borders if and only if the incident in question originated with a person being arrested, captured, detained, or otherwise taken while within US borders. The articles should say what can happen within US borders, and then link to the articles about American-operated detainment facilities on foreign soil, but the rights for persons put into those places are so different that they have no relationship to typical US rights. The article would be amiss to neglect to say that a person in America can be taken from America and put into a foreign prison, but after leaving America the other rights on this page no longer apply and belong in a separate article. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• Do not include US Human Rights issues outside of US borders. It says IN the United States. Also, many abuses that occurred outside of the USA were not sanctioned by the government. --Rockstone35 (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. While technically, the article title could taken as meaning "Human rights inside the United States," common sense says the article scope should include human rights violations commited by people acting under US laws (e.g. soldiers) in foreign countries and also violations commited in territory under US rule (Guantanamo.) I cannot see any problems with the inclusion other than the possible technical violation of scope defined by article title. Offliner (talk) 09:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose expansion. Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo can still be included as those are U.S. controlled installations—so, that is, embassy grounds and military installations included, but not outside the gates. PetersV       TALK 14:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I take it this means support inclusion of territory under direct US control military or diplomatic control, but oppose expansion beyond that? i.e. any location included within the US legal framework, but not beyond that? This would include bases controlled by US personal under military authority from the USA, but not operations undertaken outside US jurisdiction. That sounds like quite a sensible compromise, and would be a way of diffusing the disagreement. Mish (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Correct. U.S. jurisdiction (thank you) only. PetersV       TALK 19:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that people want to include everything including the bombing of Dresden (I lost my uncle), but if we include every possible alleged action everywhere this article will never achieve any focus of scope. PetersV       TALK 02:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose expansion -- not that it'll help much. This article will remain a natural magnet for this kind of stuff anyway. -- Randy2063 (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support as per Offliner above. Iraq has been effectively under US control until recently, as is Guantanamo. If there is too much material, that just indicates the amount of interest the topic attracts - so create two specalized articles where all the detailed stuff can go, one called "Human rights issues within US borders" and one called "Human rights and US foreign policy", or something similar. Then let this article contain summaries of the two others. Let people use their energy constructively, in stead of fighting them off! --Anderssl (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• Don't exclude US human rights issues outside US borders A person who seeks out this article is likely to be interested in how the U.S. exercises legal power anywhere that it holds sway. Plus, I think it is the case that U.S. human rights policies that are applied in extraterritorial areas are sooner or later going to affect U.S. residents. Excluding these cases seems like legalistic apologism. --Coleacanth (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo we could also start a new article on US Foreign Policy and Human Rights. Pexise (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support inclusion of Abu Ghraib, Gunatanamo, Bagram Air Base and other US controlled facilities. Most of these problably deserve separate articles, which would mean executive summaries could be left here. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. "Human rights in the United States" should logically include all areas directly controlled by the United States, including foreign embassies and military zones. This isn't a geographical scope, it's a political scope, so political reality should be considered. – Quadell 21:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

General discussion

Please post any threaded discussion here:

This article has always covered Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay

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

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

Opinions

After heavy edit warring, I believe that we should keep information on Abu Gharib and Guantanamo bay, just decrease the amount of information on the page. There is way to much junk about it- that could be split into main articles instead. Also, things that are not considered US Territory (War crimes that occurred outside of US. Controlled areas) Should not be described. The picture for Abu Gharib should most certainly be removed as it has no redeeming values. Sources stating that Health Care is a vital right by the UN should be removed because it is an opinion. Interpretation of documents should be kept to a minimal if possible, and sources by "Amnesty International" should be somewhat restricted. All sides of the story need to be presented. We need to make the abuses at Abu Gharib more neutral and factual. What do I mean? Well if you read that section of the article- it sounds like the US specifically approved people and ordered them to be abusive. --Rockstone35 (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Break up the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I strongly support this proposal. --Anderssl (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Not the biggest fan of this proposal. The biggest problem in my opinion is that the bulk of the positive comments of the USA in this article are historical in nature, while the bulk of negative comments revolve around hotbed current issues like treaties, death penalty, Guatanemo, Katrina, etc. I can the recent sections having arguably greater POV while the historical one too much in the other direction. But assuming the POV is fixed soon, it's a pretty good proposal. Joker1189 (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Federal

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

Jurisdiction

While Guantanamo is not domestic territory, I think there are too many editors who feel strongly it should be included with domestic issues if we continue to distinguish (for separate articles) domestic versus international. To my mind, it makes sense to define domestic as "U.S. jurisdiction". Thus, any place foreign jurisdiction is in effect is explicitly not part of this article, any place under formal U.S. jurisdiction is.

To the point above (section Federal), the answer is to expand content discussing exactly how international treaties affect domestic law. There was no mention even of self-executing versus non-self-executing treaties, so plenty of room for growth. I would not make separate article for the states. PetersV       TALK 22:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing Katrina discussion

Please seeTalk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States#Katrina for full discussion.

Manipulation with the editors' opinions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DOES ANYONE OBJECT TO ARCHIVING THREADS WHICH HAVE CLOSED AND DO NOT DISCUSS ARTICLE CONTENT? PetersV       TALK 03:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is important to show that certain editors here have not been honest, and this thread demonstrates that fact. For example, Yachtsman1 continued to make false claims even when the person he was supposedly referring to corrected his error. If editors cannot be honest, they have no business editing this page. So yes, I think this thread should remain on this talk page as a beacon of light to those who think they can get away with making false statements. Viriditas (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully we'll be at a place a month or two from now where we've made progress and can revisit filing this away. PetersV       TALK 22:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Basic misunderstanding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conspiracy-mongering and your own POV duly noted. And why do you want this included from specific pages? Because it supports your own POV. It asks for an increase in assistance (which is akin to saying "puppies are nice", it's standard), it does not suppport your theory of a human rights violation as this is not even alleged in the report. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 06:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Basic misunderstanding (continued)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is a scale of rights from the most fundamental rights (the right to life) to rights related to quality of and opportunity in life. I was looking for a way to focus on fundamental rights. Just using the UDHR as an item list is quite voluminous—we should then consider a means to summarize it into categories to make the resulting narrative more readable. PetersV       TALK 03:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Which human rights-related sources are you proposing to use as a basis for these categories? Viriditas (talk) 06:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, I think you are betraying a fundamental mis-understanding of human rights and those rights set out in the UDHR. Human rights are universal, indivisible and inter-related. I would refer you to the 1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. See part I article 5: Pexise (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

5. All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis. While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.

List

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deleting sourced material in the lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continuing problems with sources

Bernard Schwartz. 1968. Rights of the Person. page 44

This appears to be a vestigial "Raggz" edit, left over from his last round of edits. I can find no source by this name. This reference was added to support the idea that "The Constitution and treaties are generally interpreted by the judicial branch, making it the key body in determining national human rights." Please provide another source for this statement. Viriditas (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Full title is "A Commentary on the Constitution of the United States: Part III: Rights of the Person" published by McMillan in 1968. Easily found. PetersV       TALK 01:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. You responded to my query demonstrating that the source is cited erroneously and lacks the correct title, yet you cannot edit the article to correct this information? Instead, I see you have spent your time on this talk page arguing over old threads and reopening debates that serve no purpose. Are you here to help improve this article or not? Viriditas (talk) 05:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The source has been provided, might I suggest you take your own advice and "improve the article" by making this simple change and expanding the cite? You obviously know where this is located in the article. You can do it.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to remove the material unless someone can provide a quote from this so-called source, which I suspect has nothing to do with human rights. It's nice that someone finally provided the title, but the burden is on the editor supporting inclusion to show that it reflects the source. Now please provide a quote from p. 44. Viriditas (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Do you have a copy of the book handy? Perhaps you can send this to me, and I can then provide you with a prevcise quote? Can you provide me with specific proof that this source "has nothing to do with human rights"? Let's start with that. The burden lies with you. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop disruptively trolling this page. Your bad faith and rampant dishonesty was demonstrated for everyone to see in this thread. As I previously stated, the burden of proof rests on those who argue for inclusion. It is standard procedure for those who wish to use a challenged source to provide a sample of the requested passage. Please do so. If you do not understand this simple statement of fact, then please request help by typing {{helpme}} on your talk page. Thanks in advance. Viriditas (talk) 06:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the burden lies with those who wish to make the change, to exclude, to edit. You are essentially claiming that an editor is acting in bad faith, that the cited source does not support the material, and then demanding we all believe you. Sorry, no help needed with this one, so save the lecture. If you have any actual facts to support this outrageous claim aside from the speculation I see here, provide it ... now. Thank you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You are seriously misinformed about the core policy of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. The burden of proof is spelled out in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books...When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference.

I hope you understand now, and you will not continue to violate Misplaced Pages's core content policy. If you do, I will report you. I will remove the material from this article in 48 hours if a quote cannot be provided or if another reliable source related to human rights cannot be found. Thanks for your attention. Viriditas (talk) 06:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You're cherry picking: "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed..." How is this source "unreliable"? You have not answered my question.Yachtsman1 (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read the quote from WP:V above. I feel that you are not editing in good faith, as we have been over this specific point several times before and you continue to return to it, again and again. Are you having trouble understanding what you read? If you do not understand what I wrote, please ask someone to help you. All of the answers to your questions can be found at Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence. Failing that, I will file a report on the administrator's noticeboard providing diffs where this particular point has been repeatedly explained to you, and yet you continually pretend that it hasn't been addressed. Viriditas (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

(od) Dear Viriditas. Perhaps English is not your first language of expression? Oh, wait, perhaps it's because it's technically not my "first" (though still native) lanuage of expression. Did I misunderstand? You said you could not locate any source by that name (title). I provided you with the title. And you tear off into another litany of insults. You said nothing about the "quality" of the source. Once again, you ascribe actions and motives which are not mine and use them as an excuse to create another belligerent exchange. Are you here to improve the article or to simply berate every editor you interact with? PetersV       TALK 14:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I note that the content of that book is searchable in google books (snippet view). Apparently, the word "treaties" does not occur on page 44, nor is there a reference to "human rights" on page 44. While this type of search is not conclusive, the results are not reassuring either. JN466 00:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The content for which Schwartz is used as a reference is factually correct per the additional content I started working on and the source I used (and read others). It's just as likely the page number is a typo since the reference was not done very carefully. Until someone actually gets the text to look through it, we won't know. As I said, the contention itself is correct. PetersV       TALK 02:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say. The content for Schwartz has neither been verified, nor shown to be supported by the source. Viriditas (talk) 09:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, I've uncovered part III (1968 edition) comes in two volumes. I only see google books returning one volume (?). PetersV       TALK 02:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

And that doesn't address the underlying problem. Viriditas (talk) 09:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have readded the deleted materials as no consensus has been reached on this topic. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Consensus does not apply to core policies, nor can it override them. This has been explained to you in detail in at least one prior instance. Continuing to ignore it and pretend that you didn't know it is the primary strategy of civil POV pushing. 09:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have added two additional sources to the lede, providing the actual constitution cite and a work that explains Federal Jurisdiction over matters involving international law, which includes human rights and the treaties associated therewith. As a basic matter, please understand that human rights exists as a creature of law, it is enshrined in treaties (whether self executing or not is another matter) that is specifically within the jurisdiction of the courts to interpret acccording to the US Constitution when treaties become law. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, you did nothing of the kind. Instead, you restored a source that could not be verified per WP:V (see discussion above), and you added a link to a primary source as an interpretation sourced solely to your POV. This violates the core policies of Misplaced Pages and is not acceptable. Finally, the lead section is not used to introduce new ideas. Per WP:LEAD is a summary of the most important points in the article. Per WP:V please provide a statement from Schneebaum 1998 that supports the statement, "Federal courts in the United States have jurisdiction over international human rights laws as a federal question, arising under international law, which is part of the law of the United States" and explain why it appears in the lead section. As I have explained to you before, consensus does not override policy. Challenged, unsourced and unverified material may be removed at any time. Viriditas (talk) 09:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have readded the deleted materials removed by the above-editor who has decided to reach his or her own cosnensus. The source has been verified above, notwithstanding the arguments to the contrary on this point. It appears these materials are being removed per the POV of the editor, without gaining any consensus, and who merely reiterates insults to anyone who disagrees. This violates the core policies of Misplaced Pages regarding "collaberation" and "civlity", and is unacceptable. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Consensus does not override the core policies. The material has not been verified, and considerable time was allowed for you to support the material. As the editor adding the material, you need to meet the burden of proof described in WP:V. The material will be removed from this article until you do. Viriditas (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus still is a core policy. There is a lot of proof that the Statue of Liberty is important when it comes to Human rights- and I will revert any edits that change this back to the Declaration until consensus to change it is made. The Declaration of independence is not truly a symbol of human rights anyway- I would argue the bill of rights is even larger. --Rockstone35 (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You say there is a lot of proof. Can you provide some please, as I have requested many time now? There is ample of evidence of the importance of the Declaration to human rights in the U.S. - it is one of the most important documents in that regard according to sources. So, why would you remove one of the most important symbols of human rights in the U.S. and replace it with one that doesn't have good sources? But now, you are arguing that isn't a symbol? Why does the lead section have to have a symbol in the first place? Can you answer these questions please? Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources still needed

• Legally, human rights within the United States are those rights recognized by the Constitution of the United States, Bill of Rights, and those recognized by treaties ratified by the United States Senate.

This has been tagged as unsourced for some time now. Please provide a human rights-related reliable source that supports this statement. Viriditas (talk) 06:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There were obvious omissions which I corrected but still left fact-tagged. The proper means of addressing is not to fill the lede with citations but for it to be a true summary of article narrative. Right now that narrative is woefully lacking in terms of a cogent overview of how human rights function legally either under domestic law or international treaty, launching immediately into individual rights and a long litany of individual incidents and personal quotes. I divided the current Overview at a good breaking point for a section on "Domestic law" and added an "International treaty" overview as a start. PetersV       TALK 16:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Labor Rights?

This article claims that in the U.S., "strict laws mandate safe working environments, prohibit child labor, and guarantee a livable minimum wage." What planet is the author living on? "Livable minimum wage," my ass. The U.S. minimum wage is a sick joke and nobody could possibly live on it. (That's why you see so many people working two and even three jobs, just to survive these days). As far as "strict laws (that) mandate safe working environments," you might want to ask the nation's coal miners about this. They work in an industry that is increasingly deadly, plagued by horrific accidents, resulting from lax safety standards. Much of the nation's labor laws and workers' safety laws have been gutted or abolished in the past three decades. As always, Misplaced Pages gives us the Fox News version of history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.120.41 (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The entire section is based on poor sources and needs to be rewritten using human rights-related references. Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

When full sources are not available online

If there's been recent discussion of a source not available online, it would be beneficial if at least several weeks passed by before deleting "unsourced" material. There is a difference between "unsourced" and a printed non-online source requiring verification. Deleting "per talk", that is, "per what I said on talk I would do" is not deleting "per talk", that is, "per an agreed to consensus among multiple editors." I did not agree to the materials in question being removed "per talk." I see little point in introducing article churn especially where what a source is said to contend does not contradict widely held understanding on the topic. Thank you. PetersV       TALK 05:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This has absolutely nothing to do with a source being available "online", nor do I know where you got that idea. This has everything to do, however, with WP:V and the burden of proof. You know this as it was previously discussed above, so either you are ignoring what was said in that discussion or you didn't understand it. Sources do not have to be online, and in fact, the best sources are usually offline. But, that doesn't mean inclusion is automatic. It means, that whenever requested, the editor supporting those sources (or adding them) needs to provide a quote or a passage from the source that supports the material in the article. We discussed this already, and your participation in that discussion assumes you understood it. The restoration of unsourced content that was previously removed because it could not be verified was a good example of the kind of disruptive, POV pushing going on in this article. What you agree or disagree with has nothing to do with core policies, and consensus cannot override them. If material cannot be verified, it is removed. Furthermore, the lead section is a summary of the article, it is not used to introduce new ideas. Viriditas (talk) 10:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Roger Daniels (not Daniels Rogers)

Daniels Rogers. Coming to America

Moving on with the cleanup operation, we see another problem with the source, "Daniels Rogers. Coming to America" in the lead. First there is no such author. His name is Roger Daniels, and this type of partial reference is not acceptable. Although it doesn't matter, the book is on GBooks, and we need to know why this statement appears in the lead without appearing the body of the article and how it relates directly to the topic. It appears to be a form of synthesis, attempting to argue from emotions rather than from the arguments made in the body of the article. Page number, please. (look here). Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States#Verification_of_Daniels.2C_D.27Innocenzo.3B_Lead. It was another bogus citation and will be removed. It has nothing to do with human rights. Viriditas (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Immigration and ethnicity

Immigration and ethnicity . Michael D'Innocenzo, Josef P. Sirefman. Immigration and ethnicity, Hofstra University

Same issues as above. Viriditas (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead image

The Statue of Liberty. Given to mark the friendship established during the American Revolution between France and the United States, the symbolism has grown to include freedom and democracy.

This does not directly illustrate the topic, nor is it appropriately sourced. We are not talking about "symbols" of human rights. We are talking about actual human rights. A photograph of people is appropriate. What those people are actually doing in the photo is a matter of discussion, although my preference would be to illustrate human rights related to the freedom of thought. Viriditas (talk) 10:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No, we're talking about the United States, and it is a symbol of the United States. My vote, and an expression of my freedom of thought - It stays for that purpose. You can show pictures of "people" somewhere else in the article if you like.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No, we're talking about human rights in the United States, and the source used to support the image says nothing about human rights. Viriditas (talk) 05:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. The Statue of Liberty is the most visible symbol of human freedom in the United States.Mosedschurte (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You are on the wrong article. This is an article about human rights in the United States, and the Four Freedoms is one of the most important symbols of human rights in the modern era. The statue of liberty has nothing to do with the history of human rights, and if you think it does, please find a source that supports your addition per WP:V. I've reverted the rest of your additions because 1) We don't use maintenance tags to hold an article hostage, and the tags there now currently address the problem, and your incorrect use of these tags has been reverted by multiple editors, including at least one admin 2) You are duplicating dab links against best practices when the link already appears just below it, and 3) The image of the Four Freedoms is directly related to human rights in the United States. If you want to add an image of the Statue of Liberty and connect it to human rights, please find a source that supports you. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no way that the the "Four Freedoms" is a more important symbol of freedom in the United States than the Statue of Liberty. Please find a majority of sources to support such a claim before unilaterally changing images.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, as the editor who keeps adding the statue of liberty into the article, you are required by the burden of proof clause in WP:V to support your claim that the statue is relevant to this article and appropriate to the lead section. You, not me, are required to provide sources. The image and concept of the Four Freedoms is directly relevant to this topic and is supported in the literature and is not in dispute. Now, why is the statue of liberty in the lead section of this article, what does it have to do with human rights, and what human rights-related citation are you referring to for support? These simple questions require simple answers, otherwise the image gets removed. And this is not the first time I have asked these questions. Please start following basic Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Viriditas (talk) 02:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to change the picture back to the statue of Liberty. This is insane- no consesus to change it was given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstone35 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see the current discussion below at Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States#Statue_of_Liberty_image. Consensus does not override the core policy of WP:V and there doesn't appear to be consensus on this issue. If you can't provide a reliable source supporting the connection between the Statue of Liberty and Human rights, we can't use it. It is that simple. No amount of consensus can change that fact. If you want to change the verification policy, then you need to go to Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I really don't care which picture is on the lead at the moment. Perhaps we can direct our energies to the discussion in progress and engage some more editors in discourse. PetersV       TALK 23:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I would also add that as the protesters in Tiananmen Square created a makeshift Statue of Liberty as their symbol of freedom and human rights, the request for "verifiability" regarding the symbolism of the Statue of Liberty vis a vis such rights is observing (IMO) the letter of the WP:law but not spirit of the WP:law. My opinion only, of course.PetersV       TALK 00:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see and read Goddess of Democracy. It's got nothing to do with the Statue of Liberty nor with human rights in the United States. Viriditas (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did find scholarly sources or two that makes the connection, but not right now. PetersV       TALK 00:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The statue = SoL is from a business journal article, need to find that again. In the meantime, read here for "We all remember the tragedy of Tiananmen Square. My most poignant recollection is of one young man holding a cardboard cut-out of our Statue of Liberty." (author's emphasis) From Human Rights journal. PetersV       TALK 00:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear PetersV, firstly, the link you provided is a link to some very odd image (you probably inserted it by mistake). Secondly, you, as well as some other editors mix two things, liberty and human rights. The connection between them is not so direct as many peoples think. Therefore, although I concede that the photo of a document is not the best lede's image, the arguments like "The Statue of Liberty is the most visible symbol of human freedom in the United States" (or simlar statements) have no direct relations to human rights.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a link to a blog and perfectly illustrates why they aren't reliable as sources. The information you quoted is incorrect. If you would please go and read the link to the Goddess of Democracy article I gave you above, you would quickly learn that the creator of the Chinese statue did not base it on the Statue of Liberty and there is no connection between the two. If this isn't making sense, ask questions and I will try to explain it another way. Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

US participation in human rights treaties

In the latter part of the 20th century, however, the US has participated in few of the international human rights treaties, covenants and declarations adopted by the UN member states.

Please explain how this link supports the above statement in the lead. While it may appear self-evident, this statement is an interpretation of the data. We need something explicit to go in the article, and then the lead section. Also, this isn't an ideal reliable source. Viriditas (talk) 10:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• How about this source ? Pexise (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Does it meet WP:RS? The author of that website is the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute. You might be able to get away with attributing the statement to them in the body of the article, but without secondary sources covering the issue directly, such as The New York Times reporting on the institute, one might question their proximity to the information. If you can show that the institute is widely quoted on HR issues in the secondary sources, then you might have a case. I don't cite think tanks directly unless the material in question appears one step removed, i.e. in a secondary source, first. But, it also depends on the topic. You are much better off using a reliable secondary source that quotes the institute, rather than the institute itself, however, you might be able to use this and another source that covers the same ground. Can you find a newspaper, academic journal, or book that discusses this topic? Viriditas (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Further assessments

This listy section could be converted to a sidebar rather than a section, making the data more accessible the reader. Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Health care section

Far too long, as we already have primary articles that cover the topic. Main points can be condensed down into 2-4 large paragraphs. Viriditas (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Mass Revert of all typos, etc.

Simply amazing mass revert by editor Viriditas, here, including reverting fixing typos, etc. In addition, there is no WP:Ownership of this article to revert every single user change, there was also ZERO consensus to remove the tags unilaterally removed by that editor earlier, which are all explained at length above (but he simply deleted them anyway), the replacement of national scope see also tags for inernational scope (article on the U.S.), and there were actually two editors against the change of this editor's image in the WP:Lede.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, you are engaging in disruptive civil POV pushing again, which began with your revert of my changes. In the above discussion, you failed to provide a single reliable source supporting the use of the statue of liberty in this article. And, when asked to supply a source, you ignored the request. The image and concept of the Four Freedoms is directly relevant to the topic and appears in every reliable source on the topic of human rights in the U.S. Your attempts to hold this article hostage through tag warring does not go unnnoticed. The summary style tag that I added solves the problem discussed on this page, which is exactly why you keep removing it. Attempts to improve this article are blocked by you and a tag team of civil POV pushers. Your edits and contributions contiue to be problematic. You do not get to permanently place tags on this article that can only be removed when you say so. And you do not get to add images to this article because you think they are relevant. Your tagging has been reverted by multiple editors and you have been asked to stop. Your image has been removed because it is not relevant to the topic and you have failed to support its inclusion with sources. The next step is to remove the sources you recently added, because again, they have nothing to do with human rights. Lastly, the unverified and unsourced material that keeps getting added back into the article will be removed again. I suggest you stop your disruptive behavior sooner rather than later, or you are going to find yourself on AN again. Viriditas (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup and article status

I am in the process of cleaning up this article and expanding and improving its coverage of human rights in the U.S. To complete this task, I need to know the answer to several questions. Unlike most comments, users are free to respond directly to these questions. Please note, this does not concern a content dispute of any kind but rather the need to verify sources and content. Please note that per WP:V, "material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source" and "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." This policy cannot be overridden on an article talk page by consensus. Please also note that per WP:RS, "sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made."

POV tag

1. Why does the {{POV}} tag appear in the header? If an editor has a problem with a particular section, please add {{POV-section}} so that the problem can be addressed and the tag can be removed. Maintenance tags are not used to hold an article hostage. They are used to alert editors to a specific problem and allow those editors to fix the problem and remove the tag. It is unclear why the POV tag continues to be added to the header. Viriditas (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Because multiple editors have maintained that this article is biased, and violates POV policy. See above. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • That's not an answer to my question in any way. If you can't answer the question, please do not reply here. This section is for identifying problems and implementing solutions. We don't use maintenance tags to hold articles hostage "because" someone thinks an article is biased. We use maintenance tags to identyf problems so that we can fix them. If you can't identify the problem, then you have no business using a maintenance tag. So, either answer the question, or remove the tag, or I will remove it. Since this very simple question could not be answered by a primary proponent of the tag, I have removed it here. Please do not add the tag back in unless you are able to identify the problem and allow other editors to fix it. The problem cannot exist in your head or be fixed when you think it is fixed. You need to show that the problem exists, explicitly, and then explain the steps needed to fix it. That's how we use maintenance tags. Viriditas (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• What changes to the article would satisfy POV concerns about the article? Please be specific. – Quadell 23:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Finally, a direct question: That is be balanced, and due weight be provided for not only breaches of human rights, but also areas wherein the United States is compliant in these areas and/or world leaders. The article is overly critical, it pushes a POV that looks to the exception as the general rule. Every attempt to bring this article to standards in terms of neutrality has met with instantaeous reverts by one particular editor. Work towards this, and we can reach an acceptable consensus.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• In addition, the article remains so POV-oriented throughout, that the examples aren't just minor -- they're almost comedically ridiculous. As just one example in one part (many more are discussed below), the article devotes large sections to alleged international human rights violations without devoting a single paragraph to the gargantuan human rights improvements by the U.S. in Afghanistan after removal of one of the worst modern human rights abusers in the world in the Taliban and their brutal oppression of the 20+ million of that country, in Iraq after the removal of Sadam Hussein, who again was one of the worst human rights abusers in the wrold in another country of 20+ million or that the United States serves as the primary foreign military force along the Korean DMZ helping to protect 50+ million in South Korea from the single most oppressive current country on earth, North Korea, and its attempts to "reunify" (i.e., conquer) South Korea with its nearly 5 million man army. To mention just three massive examples (not to mention the probably 50+ less ones). It also delves into historical events such as the 2003 Abu Ghraib prison photo event while not devoting a single paragraph to the even more recent actions taken in an attempt to stop the slaugter of thousands in Darfur, the stopping of ethnic cleansing of nearly 1 million Albanian Kosovars by forcing Serb withdrawal. Not to mention the magnitude of the latter two grossly outweighs that of the former, perhaps by over 100,000 times. Or the other huge international historical human rights advances. In short, it standa out in Misplaced Pages as one of the more humorously glaring POV-oriented articles, and you are also correct that "Every attempt to bring this article to standards in terms of neutrality has met with instantaeous reverts by one particular editor."Mosedschurte (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• None of the above examples fits into the scope of this article. Does that make sense to you or you going to keep talking about Darfur and Albanian Kosovars? Seriously, if that is your best argument for tagging this article as POV, it should be removed immediately. Do you understand what I am saying? Your criteria for POV has nothing to do with this article. Viriditas (talk) 07:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Tag removed from header and moved to overview section since no specific POV statement can be shown by the editor adding the tag. The editor in question has only spammed an old comment from May 23 which does not have any bearing on the current article or past discussions which addressed the issues. If specific issues cannot be addressed with solutions, I will remove the tag from the article. Viriditas (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Simply unreal. Not only have several editors provided SPECIFIC POV problems -- numerous, in fact this article is practical shining example of such -- but you then unilaterally removed even all such dispute tags from the article, as if no dispute existed. It is difficult to imagine a more clear cut case of WP:Ownership.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

What is unreal, is your reposting of "sepcific POV problems" from May 23 in a talk page discussion dated from the second week of June. When asked to address this outdated criticism, and the discussion that has taken place in regards to it, all we get is silence from you, but continued tag and edit warring. Your criticism (below) isn't accurate and is from a month ago. Either update your criticism or be prepared for me to dismiss it over and over. For example, you claim the Katrina section is 4.8KB is 7.3KB, but they aren't since those sections have been shortened since you last spammed the same criticism from a month ago. Get it? Furthermore, there has been extensive discussion about your so-called "criticism" and you have ignored all of it. Civil POV pushing is only going to get you so far. Viriditas (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Resorting to flat out lying doesn't particularly help the WP:Ownership issues several editors have discussed with you regarding this article. Here are just a few updated examples re the article:

• Much of the article is written as if the title were "Human rights violations in the United States", not Human rights in the United Sttaes, with very little context of the actual rights provided, and merely a listing of various violations and controversies. It also is not just littered with WP:Undue Weighted sections, but almost comically so. It employs Unbalanced discussion, and its international focus is almost entirely on negative historical vioaltions that are absolutely dwarfed by other international historical and current activities to attempt to stop/contain human rights abusers.
• Hurricane Katrina - as discussed by many above, this section is Off Topic in that it is an entire section (rather than one sentence in an article of this magnitude, if even that) is improperly devoted to a historical event, while other far larger historical events not only have no section themselves but receive no mention at all. It also grossly exhibits Undue Weight in a "human rights" article on the United States in an entire section that is 2.1 KB devoted to the rescue efforts for one storm that hit in 2005 in an article on "Human Rights inside/in the United States."
• Justice System - this section is particularly Unbalanced with virtually no mention of the United States huge leadership in criminal justice protections and the various protections therein. Instead, it essentially contains a panoply of WP:Undue Weight complaints that are not put in their structural Context of the overall system.
• Death Penalty - this section is written like an Editorial piece, almost entirely containing the arguments of just those opposing the death penalty. In addition, this one subsection alone on one form of sentencing used in some states is a massive 8.1 KB and badly needs to be put in Misplaced Pages summary form. Furthermore, whole paragraphs are literally devoted to state execution rates, individual cases are nameed (with fed cite form?), etc.
• Police Brutality - this section is written like an Editorial, conveying only negative sources on the issue, put together to form a negative POV in Sythesis form.
• Overal Discussions of International events - setting aside the fact that international events are not "in the United States" and Off Topic, virtually no Context is given as it includes virtually none of the international human rights leadership of the United States, and in fact part of which has recently been changed by one editor to War on Terrorism -- a ridiculously massive WP:Undue Weight 21 KB section on this event alone, and needs to be put in Misplaced Pages summary form, and actually contains several subsections. The article devotes large sections to alleged international human rights violations without devoting a single paragraph to the gargantuan human rights improvements by the U.S. in Afghanistan after removal of one of the worst modern human rights abusers in the world in the Taliban and their brutal oppression of the 20+ million of that country -- including the replacement of that regime with a democracy and one with a constitution protecting far more human rights than the latter, and which also has freed thousands of political prisoners and aggressively pursued former human rights violating leaders --, in Iraq after the removal of Sadam Hussein, who again was one of the worst human rights abusers in the wrold in another country of 20+ million -- including the leadership in freeing thousands of oppressed political prisoners, uncovering seveal mass graves and helping with the prosecution of former brutal regime human rights violators -- or that the United States has taken leadership in opposing maybe the worst human rigtht abusing regime on earth in North Korea while the U.S. military serves serves as the primary foreign military force along the Korean DMZ helping to protect 50+ million in South Korea from North Korea's attempts to "reunify" (i.e., conquer) South Korea with its nearly 5 million man army. To mention just three massive examples (not to mention the probably 50+ less ones).
• Abu Ghraib prison abuse - in addition to being Off Topic in an article on Human Rights inside/in the United States, an entire section is deveted to his one historical event, and it is a large 2.2KB section, exhibiting WP:Undue Weight and even includes a huge block quote from HRW. In addition, this is one of several historical events (occurred in 2003) now several years done -- in fact, it devotes entire sections to such -- while not devoting a single paragraph to the even more recent actions taken in an attempt to stop the slaugter of thousands in Darfur, the stopping of ethnic cleansing of nearly 1 million Albanian Kosovars by forcing Serb withdrawal. Or other major historical events that dwarf thousands of times over these events, such as 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, the leadership in the Rwanda genocide trials, the Bosnian genocide trials, Korean War, Vietnam War, leading efforts to oppose the two of the three most ghastly human rights abusers of this century (Hitler and Stalin), leading the efforts to attempt to contain the largest current police state/abuser (Kim Jong-Il's North Korea), and Pol Pot's Cambodia Killing Fields, leading the efforts to stop the mass killings in Darfur, etc. 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.
• The U.S. and the International Criminal Court - this section is far too long, taking up 4.3KB, needs to be put in Misplaced Pages summary form and is severely Unbalanced as it almost entirely takes one side of the debate about the ICC.
• Guantánamo Bay - in addition to this section being Off Topic in an article on Human Rights inside/in the United States, as Guantanamo Bay was chosen for the facility specifically because it was OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES (Cuban land on which the U.S. has a perpetual lease), it exhibits gross Undue Weight with an entire section on events on one prison alone that is also a whopping 5.0KB, actually including a long block quote from Amnesty International, and badly needs to be put in Misplaced Pages summary form.
• "Enhanced interrogation" and waterboarding - this section mostly covers actions done outside the United States (Off Topic), is grossly overlength exhibiting Undue Weight at a whopping 7.0KB badly needing to be put in Misplaced Pages summary form, includes long block quotes from one consultant, and is written in an Unbalanced regard, taking the side that the enhanced interrogation techniques were human rights violations.
• Extraordinary Rendition - This massive 5.5KB section is almost entirely devoted to two historical cases occurring in 2001 and 2004 -- almost comically Undue Weight, and is completely lacking in Context.
• Health Care - this is a 2.9KB section that currently is given WP:Undue Weight, that badly needs to be put in Misplaced Pages summary form. It is also written like an editorial section and conflates no health insurance/coverage with no health care at all.
• United Nations Human Rights Council - another massive section given WP:Undue Weight in a Human Rights in the United States article at 5.0KB. In addition to the Undue Weight, this section is also particularly humorous in that it makes it appear as if the U.S. is is the only country to criticize the UNHRC, which of course is famous for its almost singular anti-Israeli-bent and the inclusion of several of largest human rights violators on the planet among its membership. It also includes allegations by the even more international derided "U.N. Commission on Human Rights" predecessor and includes "critcism" of areas discussed elsewhere in the article. Mosedschurte (talk) 05:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Falsely accusing me of "lying" noted, and diff saved for future reference. Screen scrolling and screed dumping and continued spamming of the same debunked nonsense noted, and it's an amateurish way of using the discussion page. Perhaps you would do best to read WP:TALK and learn how we discuss topics, because addding long screeds and preventing editors from directly addressing them isn't working for you. I find your comments extremely problematic, erronous, and assertions of opinions, not observations of the actual state of the article. I asked you to highlight specific problems that can be fixed, and you continue to speak in generalities and avoid the topic. For example, you avoid the topic of the history of human rights in the U.S. and your past edits have actually removed such history from this article. Your failure to actually address this topic and insistence on talking about writing about Darfur, Albanian Kosovars, Nuremberg, Horoshima, Dresden and other topics unrelated to this article tell me that you cannot be taken seriously. For the very first time in your life, please consult the human rights literature and use the sources to make your points. Without them, your opinion is just that, and holds no weight. Most of your points above are directly contradicted by the human rights literature, and shows that you aren't familiar with the material. I suggest you start doing some research with actual sources that discuss human rights, and I will ask you once again to stop spamming this talk page. Viriditas (talk) 09:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

(od)Re: "Perhaps you would do best to read WP:TALK and learn how we discuss topics, because addding long screeds and preventing editors from directly addressing them isn't working for you. " (Viriditas)

• You have seriously got to be kidding. You earlier rather ridiculously demanded directly above my points above "Either update your criticism or be prepared for me to dismiss it over and over." (Viriditas) You asked for a current detailed list of issues, and I could not have been more specific with the above long very specific list of issues in this article right now as it currently stands. Note that if you want your questions and demands answered -- and there is ZERO such obligation on Misplaced Pages to do so by the way -- such after-the-fact attacks aren't the way to go.

Re:"Your failure to actually address this topic and insistence on talking about writing about Darfur, Albanian Kosovars . . . ."

• This is so laughable now, it's difficult to seriously address. The only mention of these is with regard to the current entire 2003 Abu Ghraib historical section and how, as of right now in the article, NONE of the other history regarding human rights issues -- some even after this is mentioned.
• As mentioned, an even a bigger problem -- and this is merely one problem with that section -- with the international issues overall is that CURRENT (not even historical) and more masssive human rights issues are not addressed at all, such as human rights improvements by the U.S. now in Afghanistan after removal of one of the worst modern human rights abusers in the world in the Taliban and their brutal oppression of the 20+ million of that country -- including the replacement of that regime with a democracy and one with a constitution protecting far more human rights than the latter, and which also has freed thousands of political prisoners and aggressively pursued former human rights violating leaders --, in Iraq after the removal of Sadam Hussein, who again was one of the worst human rights abusers in the wrold in another country of 20+ million -- including the leadership in freeing thousands of oppressed political prisoners, uncovering several mass graves and helping with the prosecution of former brutal regime human rights violators -- or that the United States has taken leadership in opposing maybe the worst human rights abusing regime on earth in North Korea while the U.S. military serves serves as the primary foreign military force along the Korean DMZ helping to protect 50+ million in South Korea from North Korea's attempts to "reunify" (i.e., conquer) South Korea with its nearly 5 million man army. To mention just three massive examples (not to mention the probably 50+ less ones).

Re: "Most of your points above are directly contradicted by the human rights literature, and shows that you aren't familiar with the material."

• Riiiigghht. The "Human Rights literature" denies the improvements in constitutional democracies over Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, etc. Another simply ridiculous assertion. Mosedschurte (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Spamming the same points over and over and over again is not discussion, and will get you sanctioned. Look at what you have done to this talk page. You haven't addressed any points, engaged in any discussion, or answered any questions about your comments. This talk page is full of your spam. Do you think this is a form of discussion? You aren't discussing the topic. You are spamming your twisted opinion and again, and your opinion has already been addressed. You are ignoring the discussion and misusing the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

--That characterization is so bizarre that it is difficult to even address. You asked for an updated list of issues, and I provided precisely that. In great detail here. Simply hilariously shrieking "Spam" to every comment you don't like is not only not productive, but it is the mark of WP:Disruptive Editing.

--In addition, you're continued WP:Edit War tactics deleting everything, including even tags that merely indicate the existence of a dispute, is the pinnacle of WP:Ownership. In addition, no serious questions have been posed about any of the issues above that I can see in this section.

--In fact, you've made absolutely zero attempt to discuss any issues. Every time one is posted, you merely shriek "spam" and move on. Including even harrassment on user's talk pages as some sort of warning not to post their issues with the article -- the most horribly veiled threat imaginable.Mosedschurte (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

We've been discussing issues on this talk page without you for a long time. Spamming the same points over and over again that have already been addressed is not a discussion. Do you understand or do you need an administrator to explain it to you? Discussion involves listening to other editors, addressing their concerns, and working towards resolution. The fact is, everything you have mentioned has already been discussed and most of your points are absurd. You want to discuss Dresden, North Korea, and Hiroshima in this article? Based on what human rights source? Oh, that's right, you don't actually use human rights sources, you just edit war over maintenance tags. Gotcha. Your criteria for removing the POV tag is so bizarre, so absurd, and so trollish, that it cannot be taken seriously by anyone. We are not going to discuss Bosnia, Dresden, Hitler, and Hiroshima here. Your rationale for keeping the POV tag in this article is not based on any evidence attributable to a single article in the human rights-related literature, but on what I initially speculated upon before - your attempt to hold this article hostage until everyone does what you say, in true terrorist form. Viriditas (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: "We've been discussing issues on this talk page without you for a long time." (Viriditas}

• Wow. Not only is this irrelevant and counter-productive, but it';s largely not even true.

Re: "The fact is, everything you have mentioned has already been discussed and most of your points are absurd. " (Viriditas}

• Yet another highly unproductive attack, and not even correct -- no consensus was reached on a single full bulletpoint of issues addressed above in this long list(and not even comprehensive) of highly problematic areas in the article). In fact, even attempting to discuss them draws the hysterical screeching of "Spam!!!" by you.

Re: "You want to discuss Dresden, North Korea, and Hiroshima in this article? Based on what human rights source? Oh, that's right, you don't actually use human rights sources"

• Oh good god, you can't be serious. No sources on the human rights implications of North Korea, the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Dresden and the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs? If this were permitted in the article, the number of books on the topics fill entire library shelves.Mosedschurte (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• And by the way, I don't think any international events should be discussed in an article "Human rights in the United States", but that's yet another issue. And certainly not historical events, such as the 2003 Abu Ghraib incident, but if international history regarding U.S. action is to be delved into with such indidents, then that would be dwarfed by others of hundreds of thousands of times the magnitude.Mosedschurte (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is not a discussion. You are editing unilaterally, removing material without discussion, and making absurd, crazy arguments that "human rights implications " of other nations should be discussed here. You appear to be reduced to blatant trolling. When you are ready to address facts and evidence, I'll be here. Viriditas (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition to issues discussed here, another editor here, other editor comments here and here, there are other issues on specific sections:

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

(Finally, regarding response to the above, please stay within Misplaced Pages policy and do not edit the above comments by placing comments between the above paragraphs -- I've noticed one editor doing this repeatedly on this talk page).Mosedschurte (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Spamming of the talk page noted. I have left a warning on your talk page. The above comment was made on May 23 and the issues have been thoroughly discussed and addressed since that time, and the observations aren't even accurate when compared with the current version of the page. In the future, please do not spam this talk page. Viriditas (talk) 11:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely incorrect -- all issues remain except for "too long", so this text was specifically deleted from the comments. It was not an exact copy, but a copy of the remaining issues. In the future on Misplaced Pages, please stop adding false statements on other user's talk pages.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely incorrect? You copy and pasted an exact duplicate comment on June 15 - a comment you originally made on May 23. How is this "absolutely incorrect"? Still with me so far, Mosedchurte? In addition to this being classifed as spam, the criticisms are completely out of date. For example you claim the Hurricane Katrina section is 4.8 KB, and that the Universal Health Care Debate section is 7.3KB, but the edit history shows they haven't been that large since June 11. Mosedchurte, do you see how the spam you posted does not have any bearing on the current article, and do you understand why you should try to address the problems here and now rather than the state of the article on May 23? If this isn't making sense to you, let me know. That's only a sample of your inaccurate comments. I can provide many more. Viriditas (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree. You Mosedschurte have a tendency to repeat almost the same arguments again and again. Your comments are very wordily so only very patient editors are able to conduct a discussion with you. Although your posts formally are not a spam, a "spam" definition sometimes can be applied to what you post here and on other talk pages.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

PS. Let's look at two last items, Guantanamo and waterboarding. The discussion on this talk place demonstrated that according to several editors they are not off topic. However, you repeat your old arguments as if no discussion took place. This is definitely a spam.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to address your "tendency to" personal quotes about me (or re-dredge up and link the humorous quotes from you I have -- I can if you like), but without doubt zero consensus was reached that the Guantanamo Bay and enhanced interrogation sections are remotely not Off Topic or in any way even attempt to incorporate Misplaced Pages summary form -- in fact, they've remained largely unedited in the last three weeks. In addition, as an off-topic sidenote, one beneficial thing about you weighing in here about POV, size and article scope on alleged human rights abuses of a few dozen men in this article will be these comments referenced in the future in other articles involving MANY, MANY, MANY times larger such abuses with other countries. But that's for other articles and other topics, not here.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I (as well as some other editors) see a direct connection between high domestic human right standards in the US and the US government's attempt to move all questionable activity out of the US territory. However, I see absolutely no problem if you try to shorten these two sections. I believe it would be much more productive to do that instead of spamming the talk page. Note, I not always oppose to what do you write.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I just re-read this section and do not see a valid argument for keeping a POV tag on this article. If someone can point to specific statements or passages that are POV, I will be happy to remove them. Otherwise, Mosedchute's entire argument for keeping this article tagged is not reasonable or justfified. If actual, specific examples of POV cannot be demonstrated. I will remove the tag. Viriditas (talk) 07:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: "I just re-read this section and do not see a valid argument for keeping a POV tag on this article. If someone can point to specific statements or passages that are POV, I will be happy to remove them." (Viriditas)

Except for the probably 10+ specific and several other general issues discussed by numerous editors above? So far, this is a humorous circle -- you keep saying what are the issues, editors tell them to you in mass detail, and you ignore them.Mosedschurte (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting the distinct sense that you do not understand how {{POV}} is used. You have not provided any examples of POV. You have, on the other hand, continued to handwave "POV! POV!" without showing examples. Now, if you will be so kind: Pick one section as an example, and show me the POV. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Very long and summary style tags

2. Why are both the {{Very long}} and {{summary style}} tags being used in the header? They are the exact same tags with the same message. The "very long" tag is used to alert editors to the problem and to encourage discussion on the talk page. This discussion has already occurred, and while there was no agreement that the article was "too long", most editors agree that summary style should be made use of, hence the addition of the {{summary style}} tag. There is no longer any need for the "very long" tag, as the outcome is the same. Viriditas (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Because both points have been made, and the positions on this topic addressed ad nauseum. above.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but that's not an answer to my question. If you can't answer questions about the article on the talk page, please don't reply. Discussions on this page show that editors do not think the page is too long, but support using summary style to shorten it. Therefore, there is no reason to use two tags, both of which recommend summary style. We only need one tag, and that's the summary style maintenance template. Viriditas (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• I agree that {{summary style}} should stay, but {{Very long}} is no longer needed. – Quadell 23:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• I removed this tag from the Katrina section as it doesn't belong there. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty image

3. Why does an image of the Statue of Liberty appear in the lead section? The article on the statue makes no mention of "human rights" and both the national park site and official books on the statue do not discuss human rights. Even the caption says nothing about human rights. Those wishing to add material-any material-need to show sources support it when challenged. I request sources for the inclusion of the statue in this article. We already have an article on liberty, and this isn't it. Viriditas (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Because the article is about the United States, and the Statue of Liberty is a symbol of the United States. It is also considered a human rights symbol, with its words "Bring me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..." inscribed on the book in her arm. It is a central symbol of human rights in this country. The satue was named as a world heritage site in 1984, and part of that basis was "She endures as a highly potent symbol – inspiring contemplation, debate and protest – of ideals such as liberty, peace, human rights, abolition of slavery, democracy and opportunity." ].--Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry that's a link to a blog, which is not a reliable source for use on Misplaced Pages. Furthermore, that information concerns Criterion VI of World Heritage Site status, and is not a specific reference to human rights and the statue at all. Contrary to what you claim, this article is not about the United States. It is about human rights in the United States. There are no reliable sources that discuss the relationship of human rights in the United States and the Statue of Liberty. Without them, we can't use the image. All material must be supported by reliable sources relevant to the topic. The image will be removed from the article unless these sources are produced. There's a reason the Statue of Liberty isn't discussed in the article; It has nothing to do with the topic. Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your "point of view". Here's the link from the actual World Heritage site: ]. Shocking as this may seem to you, and obviously contrary to your "point of view", this article is actually about human rights in the United States. You do not own this article. Whether you like it or not, the Statute of Liberty symbolizes human rights and freedom, and has been deemed a world heritage site on that basis. If we were to utilize your logic, we could not include an actual painting in an article on art, because the painting is entitled The Scream, and the article is not about a scream, but about art. I find your argument, in other words, less than stellar.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
      • It's not my POV nor is my POV the topic of this discussion. No matter how hard you try and make this a content dispute, it remains a dispute about sources, how we use sources, and how we best represent information contained within sources. No POV or content is at stake here. Blogs can't be used as reliable sources in this context and the World Heritage Site has no bearing on whether the Statue of Liberty is a symbol of human rights or not. The National Park Service does not discuss human rights and the statue. No published book about the statue discusses human rights. And no other source ties the two together. As a tertiary source, we only write articles based on what others say. What source discusses the Statue of Liberty as a symbol of human rights? Please provide it. Viriditas (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's clear that the Statue of Liberty has come to symbolize human rights (liberty) in the public consciousness. This is why the students at Tienenman Square built a replica -- it wasn't their support of U.S.-French relations. Political cartoons often show the state of civil rights or human rights in the U.S. by visually showing the Statue of Liberty in distress or whatnot. "human+rights"+"statue+of+liberty"&btnG=Search+Books This search shows it to be a commonly discussed relationship. – Quadell 00:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't agree. The Google search result you provide above doesn't show anything related to this article. Could you give me the name of an author, article, or work to go on? We don't assume anything here. All of the sources so far offered on this topic discuss immigration, not human rights. Why is this image in the lead section when 1) no sources support the relationship and 2) the article doesn't discuss the statue? If this statue is a symbol of human rights, it should be easy to source. The fact is, the greatest symbol for human rights in the U.S. is the Bill of Rights, but I think the Four Freedoms is essential, which is why I added it instead. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You Quadell should analyse the google search results before presenting them. By searching for "human+rights"+"statue+of+liberty" you get all books where both words "human rights" and "statue of liberty" are present together. However that does not mean that "statue of liberty" is mentioned in the context of "human rights". For instance, in the first book retrieved (American methods: torture and the logic of domination By Kristian Williams Published by South End Press, 2006 ISBN 0896087530, 9780896087538) the words "human rights" and "statue of liberty" cannot be found on the same page. In the second book (A People's History of the European Court of Human Rights By Michael D. Goldhaber Published by Rutgers University Press, 2009 ISBN 0813544610, 9780813544618) these words do present in the same paragraph (page 104) however, the statue of liberty is mentioned in ironical context, in other words, the terms "human rights" and "statue of liberty" are contraposed here! I would say the search results refute your point rather than support it. The very fact that books.google.com gives only 654 books where these two terms are mentioned together but not necessarily in each other's context means that these two terms do not correlate at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

PS. In my opinion, the Statue of Liberty is much better aesthetically although it carries almost no information. By contrast the Viriditas's picture doesn't look so nicely, however, it carries concrete, useful and relevant information.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest a montage of key human rights activists in U.S. history as an alternative. I agree with Paul that the Statue of Liberty, while evocative, is not quite the best fit, but the Declaration of Independence is a bit dry. A montage would, IMO, "humanize" the "human" aspect of the article, no? (per Viriditas' mention below, thank you!) PetersV       TALK 18:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear PetersV, I appreciate your attempt to reconcile the opposing parties, however, the depiction of historical document having a direct relation to the subject is much more informative. I propose to compare the present lede image with the montage (if someone will present some) and make a decision based on that comparison. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for consideration of an example. (That of course may take a while to identify images released for public use.) I completely agree that the Declaration of Independence is a historical document having a direct relationship to the subject. And it's also totally predictable as such. I would hope that we are here to build a narrative to draw in and engage the reader, being "informative" is only one half of it. Perhaps I can use photography (a passion) as an analogy. The Declaration of Independence is the "negative". Its impact on people is the positive, that is the "print"—it is that "print" which we either see or experience personally. No one will question the appearance of the DoI as a lead picture—but what is it telling the average reader that they don't already know? By contrast, any montage of key players in the history of human rights in the U.S. will, I hazard, and not with sadness but with a view to opportunity, contain individuals whose countenance is completely unfamiliar to most readers. I would ask we take a step back and consider our purpose and function. We are not writing a PhD dissertation. We are writing an article for the general public. PetersV       TALK 20:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. And I have to ask everyone, exactly what is the publishing deadline we are hurtling toward that every bit of content here is discussed as an urgent matter of life and death? At least half of the dialog on this page is, I'm sorry to say and it likely includes myself, the autonomic reaction of feeling the immediate need to respond, like picking up the phone. The phone is not ringing. And when it rings, consider letting someone else answer it instead. Madison (was it?) observed in the Federalist papers that the two party system was the worst thing that could happen to American democracy. Experience here has shown that two party editing is not an inherent formula for success either. PetersV       TALK 20:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• So far consensus appears to be against you on this point Viriditas. Might I suggest you actually take note of that fact? Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me you Yachtsman1 misunderstand the word "consensus": the word is not applicable to a situation when someone strongly disagrees with the majority's opinion. In that sense, the phrase "consensus appears to be against someone" is an oxymoron. In addition, my last comment in actuality supports the Viriditas's proposal: the major WP's purpose is to provide information, not to please the reader's eye. Therefore the Viriditas's picture is preferable (for quite obvious reasons).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI.. Both Blueboar and PetersV have made reasonable proposals concerning this topic on my talk page. See this thread for more information. Viriditas (talk) 09:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to know who gave them the right to change the image without consensus on a topic that already attracts trolls? I'm about to revert it back if I dont get a response within 24 hours that is satisfactory. --Rockstone35 (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not how Misplaced Pages works. Consensus does not override WP:V. If you have good sources that describe the direct relationship between the statue and this topic, please provide them. No consensus on any talk page can override policy. This has been discussed with you and explained to you in a satisfactory manner several times before as well as on your talk page, and I am not the only editor who has addressed you on this topic. If by trolls, you mean editors who come here pushing a POV and edit warring over maintenance tags and images when asked to provide sources, you may want to have a look in a mirror. Viriditas (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Verification of Daniels, D'Innocenzo; Lead

4. Why does the lead section start off with "Historically, the United States has been committed to the principle of liberty and has sheltered many political, religious and economic refugees in times of international strife", and why is this allegedly sourced to two sources unrelated to human rights? Per WP:LEAD, the lead section summarizes the article. And per WP:V, the material must be verifiable. Nobody has been able to track down these two sources and show why they appear in the lead section. Viriditas (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Because a consensus on the inclusion of this section already exists, yet you have chosen to ignore that consensus. Every time anyone tries to add a cite, you remove the cite to maintain your position. The cite provided and which you continue to attack has been found to exist, contrary to your original assertion.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Please read and understand WP:V. That a cite "exists" is not a good reason to use it. All material must be verified. Have you looked at the reference and verified that it says what is claimed? No, you haven't, and neither has anyone else, and the cite was not accurate when it was added by the original editor, so why should we trust the information? Books exist, magazines exist, journals exist, but this has no bearing on our verification policy. To add this source into the article and use the material, you actually have to do the research. Now, per the burden of proof in WP:V, please quote me the passage and page number where this material appears. If you can't do that, then we can't use it. At least two editors question whether the material is accurate and whether it is relevant to human rights. We do not use sources simply because they "exist". Neither you nor anyone else has accessed this particular source and checked it. That is a fact. This is material that was added by an editor on this article some time ago, and is only now being challenged. There is no such thing as a consensus to use material which cannot be verified. That's not how Misplaced Pages works. Either verify on the talk page that the information is accurate, or stop adding it back into the article. It's that simple. We don't add unverified information to any Misplaced Pages article. Furthermore we see that the reference is inaccurate. Fact-checking reveals that there is no such author as Daniels Rogers; His name is Roger Daniels, and his book is called, Coming to America: A History of Immigration and Ethnicity in American Life The book is not about human rights, and the statement sourced to Daniels does not appear in the book, nor is there a page number. The words "human rights" appear once in the book, and they are found in a quote from Thomas Jefferson about the slave trade. So Rogers as a source cannot be used. And D'Innocenzo has not been checked either. Also, unless this information is relevant to the topic and sourced in the body, it doesn't belong in the lead section. The lead is a summary of the article, not for the introduction of new material that may or may not be accurate. If this information cannot be verified, it will be removed. Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Verification of Schwartz; Lead

5. Why does the lead section say that " Legally, human rights within the United States are those rights defined by the Constitution of the United States and amendments, conferred by treaty, and enacted legislatively through Congress, state legislatures, and plebiscites (state referenda)." Does this appear sourced in the body of the article to a human rights-related reference? Where is the source for this statement? Viriditas (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Because human rights are creatures of law, and this explains their foundation as such. Your attempt to subjectively utilize sources that you deem "human-rights related" is duly noted, and rejected. A source on this subject needs merely be based on law. I also note that while in Par. 4 you state cites are not appropriate in the lead, you now demand a source. Please clarify your position in this regard.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Nobody has been able to verify the Schwartz reference, and the citation was inaccurate when it was added. If you can't verify the material here on talk, we can't use it. Also, you added the U.S. Constitution as a primary source, and that isn't how we cite sources here, and it doesn't belong in the lead section. You keep trying to make this look like a content dispute, when my objections have nothing to do with content and everything to do with verification and reliable sources. Please find the sources that support this material and verify it on the talk page, or we can't use it. Also, if this material isn't discussed in the body, then we aren't going to use it in the lead section, which is supposed to be a summary of the article. So, either verify the information per WP:V, or it will be removed. Viriditas (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry I haven't made it out to the library to verify Schwartz, but what is contended based on Schwartz is correct. PetersV       TALK 18:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
      • The editor who added this material used sources that had nothing to do with human rights. I very much doubt the Schwartz reference will turn out to be relevant. As for what is correct or not, you would have to be more specific so that I can address it directly. What is correct? Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
        • The statement that "The Constitution and treaties are generally interpreted by the judicial branch, making it the key body in determining national human rights." I would agree that if the source only states the first part of the sentence (The Constitution and treaties are generally interpreted by the judicial branch), then we do need a more appropriate source which makes the connection to human rights (as in the one I cited for international law). The contention as a whole is, nevertheless, correct. So I would not delete that content but focus on verifying/improving the source (or insure that's explicitly supported for domestic Constitutional law later in the article). I think we're good on treaties and the court. I would consider "interpreting" in place of "determining" (although the interpretation does make the determination), but another conversation. PetersV       TALK 23:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Look, this problem is not unique to this article. Whenever I run into this type of thing (and it happens all the time), the first thing I do is look for two sources. If I can find at least two sources supporting the same material, then I know I'm on the right path. So, can you find other sources (human rights related or discussing human rights) besides Schwartz that make the same claims? If so, simply replace the reference. Viriditas (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Use of U.S. Constitution as a primary source

6. Why does the lead section say that "The Constitution and treaties are generally interpreted by the judicial branch, making it the key body in determining national human rights." This material allegedly appears in two sources that nobody has been able to verify. Per WP:V, why is this material in the lead section, let alone this article? Viriditas (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• The sources have been verified, and the judiciary's powers are specifically stated within the United States Constitution. National human rights are those rights specifically set forth by law. Courts interpret and apply law. International human rights are those entered into via treaty, and have the force of law domestically. Courts interpret and apply law. That's why it's called "The Rule of Law". Human rights on any level do not exist in a vacuum, nor are they created because Joe at a human rights group argues they exist. They require a legal foundation to gain status as a "right". Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Your primary source citation (U.S. Constitution) does not support this information in relation to the topic of human rights. This requirement is necessary for using any source on Misplaced Pages. You are welcome to find a secondary source that supports your idea, as long as it discusses the topic of human rights. Until that time, we can't use it. And, if it isn't discussed in the body of the article with sources, it should not be in the lead. You do not get to personally pick and choose information from primary sources and add it to this or any other article. Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source that relies on secondary sources for its information. Primary sources may be used if they supplement the topic already covered by secondary sources, or if the information does not require interpretation. Viriditas (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the problem is not in reliability or non-reliability of the sources in the lede. According to WP:LEADCITE, lede's statements don't have to be supported by the citations. However, since the lead section should neutrally summarise information in the body, all the lede's statements must reflect major article's points. In other words, I understand the problem as follows: (i) do the debatable statements reflect the major article's point? (ii) do the sources in the main article support the debatable lede's statements?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to reiterate in case someone misinterprets LEADCITE (and I know they will), the sole reason citations in the lead are not required, is because it is assumed that the lead summarizes reliably sourced content in the body of the article. Considering how much misinterpretation has occurred on just this talk page, new editors or people unfamiliar with how the lead works, won't get this. Remember, all content that is challenged or likely to be challenged need a reference. WP:V still applies. In any case, sources have to be relevant to the topic. These sources that keep getting added aren't directly related to the topic of human rights. And we don't get to interpret primary sources. Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Off-topic tag

Mosedschurte, please explain why you keep adding {{Off-topic}} to the Katrina section, when the material is devoted to and about human rights in the United States? Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Tag removal

Viriditas, just because you put up a section inquiring about the tags, does not give you a mandate to proceed to remove all the tags not to your liking, mere minutes after you've put your questions up. Even a cursory look at this talk page makes it obvious that a lot of editors do not consider the present version to be NPOV. A good many editors consider the article to be too long. The fact that you are completely unwilling to accept any kind of answer suggests that the problem is not with the editors who are trying, in good faith, to answer your questions, but rather with yourself. You don't get to just off highhandedly dismiss other's concerns. Please do not remove tags unilaterally until there is a consensus on the talk page to do so.radek (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This was explained on your talk page, yet you ignored the explanation and continued to say the same thing as before, even after it was explained. That's a nice civil POV pushing strategy, but the person adding the tag (you) has to support it with a reason. Why did you add the tag into the article? How can I fix the problem it addresses? Previous discussion do not show support for the tag. By support, I mean reasoned discussion, not the loud back-slapping of tag teaming civil POV pushers who can't address the topic and continue to add maintenance tags in a disruptive manner and without justification. Why did you add the tag and how can I remove it? Please answer this question directly. Otherwise, the tag gets removed. Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This was NOT "explained on (my) talk page". All you did was repeat your spurious reasons, claimed a consensus with "other editors" that does not exist (including a link to a discussion which actually shows that "other editors" disagree with you), and made insulting insinuations about how placing a POV tag in this article "speaks volumes" about me. The reasons for the tag are discussed a plenty above and it is unreasonable to ask for these reasons to be repeated. The fact that you call those who disagree with you "loud back-slapping of tag teaming civil pushers who can't address the topic" displays a pretty profound problem with civility on your part, never mind assuming good faith.

how can I remove it? Please answer this question directly. Otherwise, the tag gets removed. Sure. Get consensus. Don't blindly revert other editors. See comments by Yachtsman1 and Mosedschurte above. Have a little patience.radek (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This WAS explained on your talk page, and I never used the word consensus or any of the other nonsense you repeat above. I can only surmise that you didn't understand what you read. You blindly reverted me and asked me not to blindly revert others? I'm sorry, I can't take you seriously at all. Either address the problem I raised or don't edit here. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You did not use the word "consensus" but you did claim the support of other editors. Reading this talk page shows that there is at best only partial support from some, and much opposition from others. I find your statements like "I can only surmise that you didn't understand what you read" insulting and uncivil (this goes for the one you've left on my talk page). Please cut that crap out. Also, please try to be a little less combative. Also, what I did is restore a tag which you unilaterally removed - do you really consider this "blind reverting"? How would one go about restoring a tag but not doing it "blindly"? This is quite different than reverting other editors' edits wholesale as you have done previously. So, in addition to watching civility, please don't misrepresent other editors' edits.

Finally, your comment ending with "don't edit here" pretty much captures most of the problem with your attidute here. You do not own this article. This is Misplaced Pages, which anyone can edit. Don't make statements like that to others without a good reason.radek (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You aren't understanding what you are reading. I never claimed the support of any other editors. I said on your talk page, "I and other editors have been asking this question on the talk page for weeks now with no reasonable reply." Please stop reading things into my comments. This conversation is over because it is only one way and likely headed towards a dead end. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You're obviously splitting hairs here and if I fail to understand what you are saying it is because you're not being clear. So apparently "I and other editors" is not meant to invoke the support of others. Fine. Why'd you bother putting "and other editors" in there? Based on my previous discussion with you and what's found on this talk page it appears that your standard response to anyone who disagrees with you is some form of a very rude "you're just not getting it".radek (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That pretty much sums it up, Radeksz. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I said "either address the problem I raised or don't edit here." I didn't say "don't edit here". Again, deliberate misinterpreation and distraction from the topic. Typical civil POV pushing. Discuss the topic, not what you think I'm saying or not saying, meaning or not meaning, doing or not doing, arguing or not arguing. If you have questions ask, if you have issues discuss them, but stop creating straw men and arguing with yourself. If you can't help improve this article, you don't belong here. It is that simple. Viriditas (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Some critics ... criticized

I am not a native English speaker, so I apologise in advance if I am wrong, but the sentence looks awkward.

Some critics (in both friendly and hostile countries) have criticized the U.S. Government for supporting alleged serious human rights abuses, including torture, rendition and Cold War assassination.

The first part seems to be an obvious tautology, whereas the second part is ambiguous. "supporting alleged serious human rights abuses", what does it means? That assassinations or tortures US govt is being accused in never took place or that the US govt's participation in these actions hasn't been reliably proved?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point. It's best to attribute the claims to the most reliable organizations and use more direct language. I've added a {{who}} tag as a first step. The entire lead needs to be rewritten. Viriditas (talk) 09:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Of the 8 sources cited in the lead, only one is used in the article proper; that is not in line with WP:LEAD. The first paragraph has a worrying tendency to have the US themselves define what human rights are. JN466 16:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It would be best if we just replaced it. Any ideas of how to start? Viriditas (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

On "The first paragraph has a worrying tendency to have the US themselves define what human rights are." I don't read it quite the same way, the U.S. does define how/what human rights are provided for and/or protected within legal and social support frameworks. The article is how that definition, enforcement and protection/provision stack up against contemporary human rights norms. PetersV       TALK 05:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It would make sense to see first if we can profitably integrate any well-sourced material we currently have in the lead in the main body of the article. Once we have figured out what of it to put where, we need to start from scratch and summarise the article. I'll check in again tomorrow. JN466 05:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Lede image again

I restored the previous image for two reason. Firstly, the Radek's rationale is unclear: there is no consensus about the SoL, and a number of editors do not support this image. Secondly, let's compare Radek's caption with that of Viriditas.

Radek:

"The Statue of Liberty. Given to mark the friendship established during the American Revolution between France and the United States, the symbolism has grown to include freedom and democracy."

Viriditas:

"In 1776, Thomas Jefferson proposed a philosophy of human rights inherent to all people in the Declaration of Independence, asserting that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Historian Joseph J. Ellis calls the Declaration "the most quoted statement of human rights in recorded history""

The first one carries no information about human rights in America, whereas the second one provides important information about the article's subject. I agree that the image I re-inserted may be replaced with something equally informative (the idea of a montage seems reasonable), however the new image must symbolize human rights in the US, not the US themselves, or the ideals of freedom, etc.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

While the Statue of Liberty looks pretty and is an iconic image, I would agree that the Declaration of Independence with its reference to inalienable rights is more topical; so I support the revert. JN466 16:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are some sources connecting the Statue of Liberty with Human Rights:

• "The Status of Liberty embodies the idea of freedom, which is a key idea in understanding rights"; good, strong reference, at the beginning of a chapter on Human Rights, from a UK (not US) law textbook
• (more tangential)
• (ditto)

I also found a source that distinguishes the freedom and immigration the SOL symbolises from human rights: , but on the whole, the symbolism does seem to have transferred itself to human rights to some extent. So I am not sure that it should be the lead image, but I am satisfied that there are enough good sources connecting the Statue of Liberty to the concept of Human Rights for us to have a picture of it somewhere in this article. JN466 20:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious how you would write the caption. I understand your position, but I'm not satisfied by those sources. According to those sources, the Statue of Liberty has been used in editorial cartoons, and one or two writers have connected it to human rights in some abstract, tangential way. But what do historians say on the matter? Why don't any books on the subject discuss it? What about the human rights literature? How about the National Park Service, or even New York City historical societies? We are told it is a symbol of freedom, of liberty, and an important symobl of the rights of immigrants. But we don't see any detailed discussion of human rights. One of the problems with trying to interpret works of art is that we don't even know the true intention of the artist, nor does this intention have any bearing on how the work is received by the public. Often times, symbols take on a life of their own. Picasso's Guernica is a good example of this transitional process. The work explicitly depicts the bombing of Guernica, but has grown far beyond the confines of Spain to represent the horrors of all war, everywhere and for all time. Essentially, the work exists outside of time and space, and sits firmly in our imagination, wherever we may be on the planet. When we think of Guernica, we think of war, we don't think of Spain or the German and Italian bombers. We think of the plight of civilians throughout the world struggling to live free under the terror of falling bombs, and this plight is still relevant today in our time, in every place, and resonates throughout history, forever, without end, as all good art does. So, we can expect to see the same thing with the Statue of Liberty if it truly is an international symbol of human rights. Except, we don't. Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Something modeled on the second of the above refs, by Ron Geaves, could do, about the US widely being seen as a champion of human rights, and that being symbolised by the statue of liberty – because even though there have been horrible abuses, this is still true as well. The sentence in the first publication, Human Rights in the UK, about the link between freedom and rights, could also serve as a blueprint. Like I say, I wouldn't use the Statue of Liberty as the lede image, but it would add value somewhere further down. Cheers, JN466 02:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here is humanrights.cn, a Chinese human rights site critical of the US, calling on the symbolic cachet of the Statue of Liberty: "Behind the Statue of Liberty – Human Rights Record of the United States in 2001" --JN466 02:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll put that Chinese site aside for a moment. In the context of religious discrimination against Muslims, Geaves makes a passing comment about the U.S. being "the champion of human rights and civil liberties in the world as symbolized by the Statue of Liberty". Based on the published history and meaning of the statue in the literature, I see things differently. The statue is not intended to represent the U.S. as a leader in human rights and civil liberties. The statue shows that the light of liberty (the torch) shines on everyone, everywhere, (the seven spiked rays of her crown representing the seven oceans and continents) beyond the political borders of nation states that exist for this moment in time. No matter where we are, in this century or the next, we cannot escape the birthright of freedom. She is not standing still, but rather breaking free from the shackles of tyranny. The statue holds a tablet of law, commemorating the signing of the U.S. Declaration of Independence. Although she sits in New York, her gaze and torch is fixed on enlightening the world. This is a symbol of freedom and independence, but also friendship between nations and world peace. Further, there are specific remarks about the symbolism of the statue from Chauncey Depew that were made at the Inauguration that I think would be appropriate for this article. Unfortunately, I do not have time to repost them here, but I will do so later. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, sounds interesting. JN466 05:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It starts on p.37, but take a close look at the last paragraph on p.56 through p.59. It's hard to just isolate a few words out of context as it wouldn't do justice to the full text, but if I had to pick and choose:

In all ages the achievements of man and his aspirations have been represented in symbols...this statue of Liberty rises toward the heavens to illustrate an idea which nerved the three hundred at Thermopylae and armed the ten thousand at Marathon, which drove Tarquin from Rome and aimed the arrow of Tell, which charged with Cromwell and his Ironsides and accompanied Sidney to the block, which fired the farmer's gun at Lexington and razed the Bastile in Paris, which inspired the charter in the cabin of the Mayflower and the Declaration of Independence from the Continental Congress.

It means that with the abolition of privileges to the few and the enfranchisement of the individual, the equality of all men before the law, and universal suffrage, the ballot secure from fraud and the voter from intimidation, the press free and education furnished by the state for all, liberty of worship and free speech, the right to rise, and an equal opportunity for honor and fortune, the problems of labor and capital, of social regeneration and moral growth, of property and poverty, will work themselves out under the benign influence of enlightened law-making and law-abiding liberty, without the aid of kings and armies, or of anarchists and bombs.

...But for unnumbered centuries to come, as Liberty levels up the people to higher standards and a broader life, this statue will grow in the admiration and affection of mankind. When Franklin drew the lightning from the clouds, he little dreamed that in the evolution of science his discovery would illuminate the torch of Liberty for France and America. The rays from this beacon, lighting this gateway to the continent, will welcome the poor and the persecuted with the hope and promise of homes and citizenship. It will teach them that there are room and brotherhood for all who will support our institutions and aid in our development; but that those who come to disturb our peace and dethrone our laws are aliens and enemies forever... -Chauncey Depew, Inauguration of the Statue of Liberty, October 28, 1886

As a Goddess of freedom, she has many names: Libertas, Britannia, Marianne, and yes, even the Goddess of Democracy. The Statue of Liberty is a symbol of freedom, democracy, and American values. She also symbolizes freedom from slavery, freedom from coercion, and freedom from tyranny. The U.S. Declaration of Independence and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights both emphasize the right to liberty. And, the statue celebrates the 100th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence which argued for the right to liberty. So, one must conclude that the notion of liberty as a fundamental human right is implicit in the work. Viriditas (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, then let's pop the old girl in again somewhere. Would you like to compose a suitable caption, based on what we've found? JN466 18:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought about this and it is not explicit enough for me. I generally try to follow Misplaced Pages:Captions. Explicitly, we know the Statue of Liberty commemorates the Declaration, but anything more than that we don't really know. Depew clears up some things but I still want to find better material. As you have pointed out above, some commentators have stated that it is a symbol of human rights. The problem I have with the Geaves quote is that he isn't really talking about the Statue, but rather making a passing comment about it. I would feel much more comfortable quoting someone who is focused only on discussing it, but I have nothing against Geaves. In fact, it might be worthwhile to find out if Geaves talks about human rights in the United States in any depth and use him in the current article. As for the Chinese site, it reads like propaganda, and is far from neutral, so I can't consider it a RS, although it does discuss some factual information that we may want to touch upon using other sources in its place. I don't want to stop you from adding the image to the article and using whatever you think is best, but I'm not comfortable with what we have just yet. Viriditas (talk) 06:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and add the statue image to the "freedoms" section, as it fits there nicely. Viriditas (talk) 07:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

War on Terrorism

I think Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and the other related subjects (Inhumane treatment and torture of captured non-citizens, Abu Ghraib prison abuse, "Enhanced interrogation" and waterboarding, Guantánamo Bay, Extraordinary rendition) should be grouped into a section devoted to the "War on Terrorism", and these concerns should be represented in the lead section. Criticism of the War on Terrorism touches on most of the major human rights violations and we may want to just use it in summary style. We should also have a section on the "War on Drugs". Viriditas (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Hurricane Katrina

In the aftermath of the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina, the UN Human Rights Committee issued a 2006 report recommending that the U.S. endeavor to make certain the rights of poor and black Americans "are fully taken into consideration in the reconstruction plans with regard to access to housing, education and health care". The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Prison Project also documented mistreatment of the prison population during the flooding. In 2008, the Institute for Southern Studies, a nonpartisan research center, published a report on "Hurricane Katrina and the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement". The study was one of five published by the ISS on the consequences of Hurricane Katrina, and was a collaborative work produced along with the Brookings-Bern Project on Internal Displacement, co-directed by Walter Kälin, the Representative of the UN Secretary-General on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons. The report found that the U.S. government neglected to adhere to "internationally recognized human rights principles the Bush administration has promoted in other countries." From May to June 2008, United Nations Special Rapporteur Doudou Diène was invited by the U.S. government to visit and study racial discrimination in the U.S. Diène's 2008 report was delivered to the United Nations Human Rights Council and was published in 2009.

Mosedchute once again removed this material with a false edit summary claiming "undue weight", and previous edit summaries of "off topic". For the last four days I have asked Mosedchute to explain why the material is off-topic, and he has still not answered the question. Previous discussions on the matter (1, 2) show that there is support to keep the material in the article and it is covered by many sources on the topic of human rights in the United States. I've asked Mosedchute several times to explain how this is "undue weight" but he has been unable to explain what that means other than saying, "Justification was plainly given in the Edit summary for WP:Undue Weight and Misplaced Pages Summary Style." I fail to see how restating my question as an answer is acceptable. What is the justifcation for undue weight and off-topic? Mosedchute cannot give an answer no matter how many times I ask. So, before I restore the material again, I will ask him to answer three questions: 1) why did he remove the material 2) why did he say it was off-topic, and 3) why he claims it is undue weight. I look forward to reading Mosedchute's direct answers to these three questions before I restore the material. Viriditas (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

(1) This is again, false. It was not removed, though I think it should be, as explained at length above.

(2) It was moved to the "Other Issues" section

(3) Other editors and I have explained AT LENGTH how having an entire section in a subject as broad as "Human Rights in the United States" was WP:Undue Weight

(4) This is the text that has been put in Misplaced Pages summary form:

---

Current text in the Other Issues section:
In the aftermath of the devastation caused by ], criticism by some groups commenting on human rights issues was made regarding the recovery and reconstruction issues<ref>{{cite news | last = Klapper | first = Bradley | title = U.N. Panel Takes U.S. to Task Over Katrina | work = AP Online | publisher = ''The America's Intelligence Wire'' | date = 2006-07-28 | accessdate = 2009-05-18}}</ref><ref>26. The Committee, while taking note of the various rules and regulations prohibiting discrimination in the provision of disaster relief and emergency assistance, remains concerned about information that poor people and in particular African-Americans, were disadvantaged by the rescue and evacuation plans implemented when Hurricane Katrina hit the United States of America, and continue to be disadvantaged under the reconstruction plans. (articles 6 and 26) The State party should review its practices and policies to ensure the full implementation of its obligation to protect life and of the prohibition of discrimination, whether direct or indirect, as well as of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, in the areas of disaster prevention and preparedness, emergency assistance and relief measures. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, it should increase its efforts to ensure that the rights of poor people and in particular African-Americans, are fully taken into consideration in the reconstruction plans with regard to access to housing, education and healthcare. The Committee wishes to be informed about the results of the inquiries into the alleged failure to evacuate prisoners at the Parish prison, as well as the allegations that New Orleans residents were not permitted by law enforcement officials to cross the Greater New Orleans Bridge to Gretna, Louisiana. See: {{cite web | title = Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee on the Second and Third U.S. Reports to the Committee (2006). | work = Human Rights Committee | publisher = University of Minnesota Human Rights Library | date = 2006-07-28 | url = http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/usdocs/hruscomments2.html | accessdate = }}</ref> The ] and the National Prison Project also documented mistreatment of the prison population during the flooding.<ref>{{cite web | title = Hurricane Katrina and the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement | publisher = ] | date = January 2008 | page = 18-19 | url = http://www.southernstudies.org/ISSKatrinaHumanRightsJan08.pdf | accessdate = 2009-05-18 }} See also: {{cite news | last = Sothern | first = Billy | title = Left to Die | pages = 19-22 | publisher = ] | date = 2006-01-02}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | title = Report says U.S. Katrina response fails to meet its own human rights principles. | publisher = ] | date = 2008-01-16 | accessdate = 2009-05-18}} See also: {{cite web | title = Hurricane Katrina and the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement | publisher = ] | date = January 2008 | url = http://www.southernstudies.org/ISSKatrinaHumanRightsJan08.pdf | accessdate = 2009-05-18 }}</ref>, while ] ] delivered a 2008 report on such issues.<ref name="UN-209">{{cite web|url=http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain?page=search&docid=4a093b1e2&skip=0&query=Hurricane%20Katrina|title=Report of the Special Rapporteur|date=28 April 2009|publisher=United Nations Human Rights Council|pages=Thirty|language=English|accessdate=2009-05-24}}</ref>

---

Note that I still think that the above should be removed.Mosedschurte (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it remotely possible for you to participate in just one talk page discussion that does not involve scrolling the discussion off the screen with incoherent text and content? Please read WP:TALK and learn how to use the talk page. Reply to queries and comments with short indented text. Your above reply does not consist of any type of discussion nor does it allow me to subsequently reply to all four points, and hence is disruptive like all of your other talk page posts. If you want to provide evidence of a "Current text in the Other Issues section", you use a simple diff. Please replace the above useless text with this link. Please learn how to use the talk page. Now, when asked to reply to my three questions above, you have still not replied. Instead, we get the same spam from you, consisting of the usual, "Other editors and I have explained AT LENGTH how having an entire section in a subject as broad as "Human Rights in the United States" was WP:Undue Weight." Do you understand that that is not an answer to why you think the material is "undue weight" and "off-topic"? All you keep doing is taking my discussion questions and rephrasing the question as an answer. How does this answer the question in any way? If this continues, I'm going to report you to ANI. You have not addressed a single question asked of you, and I'm going to ask them again here so you can't claim to have missed it again. Mosedschurte, I want your reply to these three questions. I do not want a reply from anyone else. Viriditas (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Why is the Katrina material undue weight?

2.Why is the Katrina material off-topic?

3.Why should the Katrina material be removed?

Three simple questions. Please answer them. Do not reply with anything remotely resembling ""Other editors and I have explained AT LENGTH..." That is not an answer. Viriditas (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It exhibited WP:Undue Weight because an entire section was devoted to a single storm that occurred in 2005 in an article on "Human Rights in the United States", a country of 300 million people with a 200+ year history -- a grossly disproportionate amount. As merely one indication of grossly undue weight, by giving it its own section, it was literally accorded the same weight as, for example, the entire section on Domestic Law, International Treaty law or Gender Equality for the entire United States.

It is off-topic because it is a section devoted to historical events while we have steered clear of a focus on historical events of FAR FAR greater magnitude. For this reason, it should be removed.Mosedschurte (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, none of that makes any sense. You do not get to personally judge the significance of the incident. According to the featured article, Hurricane Katrina, the storm was "the costliest hurricane, as well as one of the five deadliest, in the history of the United States...the deadliest U.S. hurricane since the 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane... is estimated to have been the costliest tropical cyclone in U.S. history." Your interpretation of how we use the term "undue weight" is completely at odds with the way Misplaced Pages uses it. Please actually read the policy and understand what it means. There is nothing "undue weight" about Katrina in this article. As for off-topic, your comments again make no sense. You say, "we have steered clear of a focus on historical events of FAR FAR greater magnitude," and this means what exactly? I have previously asked you to explain this on your talk page, and you refuse. Now, what the heck is it supposed to mean? If you can't justify your reasons for removing the material, then you need to add it back. Viriditas (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Sorry, none of that makes any sense"

• Nice discussion. This seems to happen every time someone answers one of your questions.

Re: '" Your interpretation of how we use the term "undue weight" is completely at odds with the way Misplaced Pages uses it. Please actually read the policy and understand what it means."

• Misplaced Pages policy: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. . . . Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.
• My statement above: "It exhibited WP:Undue Weight because an entire section was devoted to a single storm that occurred in 2005 in an article on "Human Rights in the United States", a country of 300 million people with a 200+ year history -- a grossly disproportionate amount. As merely one indication of grossly undue weight, by giving it its own section, it was literally accorded the same weight as, for example, the entire section on Domestic Law, International Treaty law or Gender Equality for the entire United States."
• And of course it in the top five deadliest storms. This, of course, does not mean that it should receive an entire section in "Human Rights in the United States."Mosedschurte (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you make an effort to use standard text and formatting? I don't need the "re", I know you are referring to my comments. And I don't need the bold, italics, and bullets, I'm perfectly comfortable reading plain text in a small paragraph. Your non-standard use of indents and asterisks defeats the use of standard indents. Now, looking at your reply (squinting actually, as it is mostly unreadable in its current form) I see that you are quoting policy at me. Let's take a look, shall we? First, you quote the NPOV policy in regards to undue weight from viewpoints, which doesn't apply to the material in question, and if you think it does, you need to describe how it does because you haven't done that. Second, you quote the part about giving undue weight any aspect of the subject. In both cases, you ignore the subtle distinctions between viewpoints and aspects. So, there we are. But now, you argue that the storm itself is insignificant and the amount of material in the article given to it was out of proportion to other sections. I'm curious how you have reached these conclusions about significance and proportion without actually analyzing or discussing the human rights issues related to Katrina. Most sources list Katrina as one of the worst natural disasters in U.S. history. If true, would it also follow that it is also one of the worst human rights disasters as well, and considering its coverage in the human rights literature, would this not merit one large paragraph (212 out of 8400 words)? Viriditas (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced claims

Legally, human rights within the United States are provided by the Constitution of the United States and amendments.

I'm unclear why this keeps getting added back into the article if no single source actually says it. Per WP:V, please provide a quote from a reliable source that says this on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

First, you took out a sentence fragment. These are just two sources of human rights in the U.S. Second, this is simply unbelievable on a point so simple. Here are to examples:

1. SooHoo: "The definition of 'human rights' would be one that evolved through time and circumstance. The Constitution of 1787 began this process by establishing a federal government with a separate of powers and checks and balances and by enshrining the political rights of voting and of holding office. . . . the first ten amendments, collectively known as the Bill of Rights, were added to the Constitution in 1791. They established the legal foundation for the protection of human rights in teh United States."
2. Supreme Court Justice Williams Brennan in Schwartz, Bernard, The Burger Court: counter-revolution or confirmation?, Oxford University Press US, 1998,ISBN 0195122593 "As I have said many time and in many ways, our Constitution is a charter of human rights and human dignity.

I'm quite familiar with the source. I originally added it to the further reading section, if you recall, so I'm glad to see that you are finally listening to me and using human rights-related sources. But nevermind that. One problem at a time: You have this statement sourced to Poole 1999. Why? Viriditas (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: "I originally added it to the further reading section, if you recall, so I'm glad to see that you are finally listening to me and using human rights-related sources. "

Oh good god. I'll just let that one stand on its own.

It's just Soohoo and Brennan now.Mosedschurte (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you please format your indented replies like everybody else? You are making it extremely difficult to use the talk page to communicate. We don't need the "Re" and the asterisks, and the offset sig and all the rest of that junk. Just compose a reply, a short one if you can. Now, if I can read you correctly, are you saying you removed Poole (and the failed verification tag, which was your fourth revert)? So, if you removed Poole that means I can move on to the next point. If you are quoting a statement made by Williams Brennan, you need to attribute it correctly. You also need to write the lead in accordance with how we summarize articles. This material should be summarizing not introducing new ideas. Now as far as the Soohoo quote goes, you still aren't quoting it correctly. The word you want is protected not provided, which was the bone of contention. Please pay very close attention to the sources you are using and the material in the article. They should match as close as possible, although you need to rewrite it in your own words if you aren't quoting. So, your fourth revert removing my failed verification tag was not appropriate, as the material still does not reflect Soohoo. Please fix it so that it does. What this means is, that "legally, human rights within the United States are protected by the Constitution of the United States" not provided. Viriditas (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• This has got to be a joke. Is Allen Funt watching with a camera? If you disagree with the word, are you seriously considering re-adding a "verification" tag instead of just changing the word yourself? Would be hilarious if so, but I'm not sure if that's what you're intimating. Second, Soohoo just used the word "protection" with regard to the BOR.
• Also, I didn't revert, I added a source because it was before deleted because of a no source tag that had gone unanswered and re-inserted the text unilaterally deleted by another editor. By another editor, I mean you.
• And I only use the Re and quote lines when I responding to a specific quote. It is difficult to do so when editors use long unnumbered paragraphs, so simply quoting the text to which a reply is made is most efficient.Mosedschurte (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The joke is that you are actually asking me to fix your errors, both in terms of the wrong source you added and in the context of the wrong words which don't reflect the actual sources used - words that drastically change the meaning. Are you this careless or just fast and loose with the facts? Viriditas (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Again, like so many of these crazy charges, it's difficult to tell if you're being serious. You mean, fix the one word protect/provide "error" (good god, even typing that was silly) rather than adding a tag to the same sentence? I'm not sure if you're trying to get some sort of a response by typing such things. Also, Soohoo uses the word "protect" ONE TIME with regard to the BOR,and states tthat the beginning of human rights were enshrined by the Constitution, while Brennan says the Constitution is a charter of human rights and human dignity. How in the hell is that playing fast and losse with the facts? How would even using the word "protect" be more accurate overall.
• In any event, another highly constructive and productive discussion.Mosedschurte (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You're not making sense again. To recap: 1) You added the wrong source (Poole) which you refused to correct until you actually came to the discussion page 2) You removed a verification failed tag when the material still did not reflect the source, and 3) The material sourced to Soohoo did not (does not) reflect the source accurately, and was originally written based on another, now deleted source. At what point are you going to start taking responsibility for your extremely poor editing skills and step up to the plate? Do I need to constantly clean up after you? Your errors have been pointed out, yet you refuse to fix your edits! Why does the article still say "provided by the Constitution of the United States" when the source used does not say that? Provided and protected do not mean the same thing, and the word provided was added by another editor who was using a poor source. So, why are you using the same wording as a previous editor for a different source? Are you going to fix your errors or should I assume that every edit you make should be reverted on sight because there is a high probability it is factually incorrect? Viriditas (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

International ?

I know this is technically only about human rights IN America, but I think it's misleading to talk about America's human rights record without at least mentioning the numerous violations abroad. I mean, even one example (such as the deposition of Salvador Allende and installation of Pinochet) completely changes the nature of the discussion. And I know what you're going to say "AHHH he's a communist apologist leftie crazy!" I'm not a communist or a socialist. I understand that, say, Russia's HR record makes America look like paradise. But that's relative. And despite the fact that the US's human rights record is relatively good, it would be lying to ignore their violations abroad. The Philippines, Hawaii, killing of civilians in the Vietnam War, the debate over the atomic bomb, and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.151.34.13 (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Those are all debates, and not genuine violations of human rights.

It presumes, for example, that the U.S. deposed Allende, and it diminishes the role of the people in Chile. It also presumes that keeping Allende in power would have been beneficial to human rights, which is clearly not true. Say what you like about Pinochet, but the ultimate death toll would have been much higher under a communist dictatorship.

Vietnam is another example. The U.S. left Vietnam with a so-called "peace treaty" in 1973. Don't forget how many innocent Vietnamese died after that. We could more easily say that abandonment of the Vietnamese people was the bigger human rights violation.

You don't need to agree with that, of course. After all, we live in a world where fascism is defended by people who claim to care about human rights. But the point is that what you're suggesting is a major can of worms at best.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the scope is already complex enough. I've suggested MINIMAL expansion outside U.S. borders to include territory under direct U.S.jurisdiction (so, military bases, embassy/embassy grounds). What happens outside the fence or gate is another article. Vecrumba       TALK 04:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say, "to include the persons under US jurisdiction". More concretely, those persons that were artificially moved from the American soil to make violations of their rights (by the US authorities) possible. In that sense, Guantanamo or CIA prisons abroad fit that definition, Abu-Graib partially fit (or doesn't fit), whereas Afganistan doesn't.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Don't forget how many innocent Vietnamese died after that." I don't think this number to be even comparable with the number of innocent Vietnamese died before that, e.g. during the US bombing campaign, "agent orange" treatment etc. I did no systematic comparison, but the answer seems obvious. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Re: "the ultimate death toll would have been much higher under a communist dictatorship." Please, correct me if I am wrong but Salvador Allende was a democratically elected president and Marxist socialist. He was neither dictator nor communist. --Paul Siebert (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

None of the GTMO detainees were moved from American soil to GTMO. There were a few jihadis arrested in the U.S. but they remained there. If they were given fewer rights than what an ordinary criminal gets does not mean they were intentionally deprived of rights they were due under the laws of war.

The numbers of innocent Vietnamese intentionally targetted by U.S. forces is highly exaggerated. Keep in mind that refugee traffic generally moved from communist-held areas into American-friendly areas. (This was the pattern throughout the cold war.)

Agent Orange was a defoliant, and not a weapon. It was considered safe enough that American troops were also exposed to it. It probably saved many thousands of lives at the time that it was used. That it was later determined to cause health problems doesn't change its intent.

Allende was elected with a minority. That's still a legitimate victory, but he abused his power (according to the Chilean high court) and was leading his country to economic ruin. Pinochet took over when the country was falling apart. I don't think there's any doubt that Chile was on track to becoming a Soviet client.

Unlike Castro, Pinochet ultimately allowed elections, and he left when the people voted him out.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: "None of the GTMO detainees were moved from American soil to GTMO, etc." They weren't moved, but they are under the US jurisdiction. Therefore, they had to be considered as either regular criminals or POWs. The US authorities had chosen a third (unlawful) variant, therefore GTMO must be seen as an example of domestic human rights issue.

Re: "The numbers of innocent Vietnamese intentionally targetted by U.S. forces is highly exaggerated." Many criminal regimes (e.g. Stalin's regime) caused million deaths due to a criminal neglect. Although these victims were not intentionally targeted, it was not an excuse from our point of view. Since such an approach is universal it is not correct to separate intentionally and uninentionally targeted victims in the case of Vietnam war.

Re: "Agent Orange was a defoliant, and not a weapon." See above.

Re: "Allende was elected with a minority etc." Many democratically elected leaders (e.g. Bush) were elected with a minority eventually lead their countries to economic ruin. However, that didn't mean that they were communist dictators. Allende (i) was not a dictator; (ii) was not a Communist; (iii) didn't kill peoples (in contrast to Pinochet). This is an article about human rights, remember.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well said. Pexise (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Ignatieff in the lead

Throughout the Cold War and since that time, few nations placed more emphasis in their foreign policy on the promotion of human rights, including tying foreign aid to human rights progress and annually assessing the human rights records of government around the world.

Mosedschute cherry picked this material from the first page of Ignatieff's chapter, "Introduction: American Exceptionalism and Human Rights" and placed it in the lead section without proper attribution. According to Turabian and other style guides, this would be considered plagiarism, so I added the attribution "According to Canadian historian Michael Ignatieff". Mosedchute removed this attribution without a proper edit summary and changed it back to the original content.

Giving Mosedchute one last chance, I added the attribution back in, but I fail to see how this summarizes the aritcle in any way and I question why it is in the lead section. It's an opinion from Ignatieff, and Mosedchute attempted to state it as fact rather than attribute Ignatieff's ideas accurately and appropriately to avoid plagiarism. I'm seeing a disturbing pattern with every edit Mosedchute makes to this article, and it's getting to the point where every edit he makes needs to be checked and double-checked for errors. The lead section is supposed to summarize the main points of the article, not make unattributed claims cherry picked from the first page summaries of introductory chapters to a topic because the editor aligns themselves with a certain POV. Unless this point is discussed in the main body of the article, it doesn't belong in the lead, and furthermore, it needs to be attributed to Ignatieff directly to avoid plagiarism. Looking at this again and at my style guides, for all intents and purposes, this is classifed as plagiarism due to the same words being used without direct quotes. Here is the source to compare:

Throughout the Cold War and afterward, few nations placed more emphasis in their foreign policy on the promotion of human rights, market freedom, and political democracy. Since the 1970s, U.S. legislation has tied foreign aid to progress in human rights; the State Department annually assesses the human rights records of governments around the world. Outside government, the United States can boast some of the most effective and influential human rights organizations in the world.

Therefore, I am removing it until it is 1) rewritten into the body of the article 2) paraphrased or quoted and attributed correctly. Any other reinsertion of this duplicate material may result in serious sanctions, so think twice about reverting this removal. Viriditas (talk) 11:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That must make your 5th or 6th threat which violates Misplaced Pages policy on a number of levels, and several editors have asked you to stop, but you continue to make such threats. Another editor (rightfully) added the source and sentence back anyway. It was NOT a direct quote, though a full phrase was used in one part of the sentence. I paraphrased it to fix the quoting issue (not all of it was a direct quote anyway).Mosedschurte (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you are wrong on this one. Biophys, your tag-teaming, edit warring partner restored plagiarzied material which used the same words and concepts belonging to Michael Ignatieff. As you can see with your own eyes above, the words, "few nations placed more emphasis" is stolen directly from Ignatieff's book without attribution. These ideas belong to Ignatieff, not to you or Biophys, and they are not your words or ideas. These ideas must appear attributed to Ignatieff, must use quotes if they are to use the same words, and they must appear in the body of the article in order to be summarized in the lead in a section about foreign policy. You will be reported and I will pursue sanctions if you continue to plagiarize his ideas. This is your second warning. Viriditas (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Overview section

The lead section is an overview (see WP:LEAD and we don't need two lead sections. We need one lead section, and additional sections describing the history of human rights in the U.S. Viriditas (talk) 10:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the lead section is an overview, and it should be neutral to adhere to WP:NPOV policy. I fixed this.Biophys (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You didn't fix anything. You restored unattributed, unquoted, plagiarized material whose words ideas belong to an author, and you did so in a way that made it seem like it was written in your own words rather than that of the author. I've removed the plagiarized material for the second time. Ideas and concepts from an author belong to that author, and need to be attributed directly to that author unless we are dealing with historical facts. Furthermore, none of this appears in the body of the article, and therefore does not get to belong in the lead. You are therefore being added to the ANI report I am writing. Viriditas (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Was it a precise quote? If not, this is not plagiarizm, but describing author's ideas with proper attribution. If it was direct quotation, why did not you simply insert a couple of " "?Biophys (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The "Overview" section appears to be a legal Overview, explaining the basic contitutional and legal structural protections. I added the word "Legal" to it, and note that I clicked save before adding the link to this Talk page section in the edit summary, so I'm describing it here.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Overviews are lead sections, and there is much more to the history of human rights in the United States than a "legal overview". The scope of this article covers a lot of ground, from history, people, incidents, and ideas. Please stop trying to fit the entire, round topic into one small square hole and use the talk page to propose your ideas rather than forcing them on everyone else. Viriditas (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Racial section

Mosedchute once again removed the chronology of this section, and made slavery come after LBJ signed his legislation in the 20th century. I would like to know why Mosedchute feels it necessary to describe history backwards or what sources he is using to show that LBJ is more significant and notable in the human rights literature. Viriditas (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss subject of the article. Do not criticize a contributor.Biophys (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Human Rights Watch - The US and the International Criminal Court
2. "Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture" (PDF). The United Nations Committee against Torture. 2006-05-19. Retrieved 2007-06-02.
3. BBC bio on Castro, mentions CIA assassination attempts
4. Klapper, Bradley (2006-07-28). "U.N. Panel Takes U.S. to Task Over Katrina". AP Online. The America's Intelligence Wire. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
5. 26. The Committee, while taking note of the various rules and regulations prohibiting discrimination in the provision of disaster relief and emergency assistance, remains concerned about information that poor people and in particular African-Americans, were disadvantaged by the rescue and evacuation plans implemented when Hurricane Katrina hit the United States of America, and continue to be disadvantaged under the reconstruction plans. (articles 6 and 26) The State party should review its practices and policies to ensure the full implementation of its obligation to protect life and of the prohibition of discrimination, whether direct or indirect, as well as of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, in the areas of disaster prevention and preparedness, emergency assistance and relief measures. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, it should increase its efforts to ensure that the rights of poor people and in particular African-Americans, are fully taken into consideration in the reconstruction plans with regard to access to housing, education and healthcare. The Committee wishes to be informed about the results of the inquiries into the alleged failure to evacuate prisoners at the Parish prison, as well as the allegations that New Orleans residents were not permitted by law enforcement officials to cross the Greater New Orleans Bridge to Gretna, Louisiana. See: "Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee on the Second and Third U.S. Reports to the Committee (2006)". Human Rights Committee. University of Minnesota Human Rights Library. 2006-07-28.
6. "Hurricane Katrina and the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement" (PDF). Institute for Southern Studies. January 2008. p. 18-19. Retrieved 2009-05-18. See also: Sothern, Billy (2006-01-02). "Left to Die". The Nation. pp. 19–22.
7. "Report says U.S. Katrina response fails to meet its own human rights principles". New Orleans CityBusiness. 2008-01-16. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) See also: "Hurricane Katrina and the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement" (PDF). Institute for Southern Studies. January 2008. Retrieved 2009-05-18.
8. "Report of the Special Rapporteur". United Nations Human Rights Council. 28 April 2009. pp. Thirty. Retrieved 2009-05-24.

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of High-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class Human rights articles
• High-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment