Talk:Human rights in the United States/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 → Archive 15

Claim in waterboarding section

In the waterboarding section, the following sentence has been added but with no source: "However, the CIA and all documents state that Waterboarding has not been used since 2003." I suggest a speedy deletion of this sentence unless a source can be provided. Pexise (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

A speedy deletion? Yeah, we wouldn't want this article's readers to get the impression that the people who claim to oppose "torture" were hyperventilating over only three fascists. They might prematurely stop hating the U.S. and begin opposing real torture elsewhere.
I added the reference, but there are plenty of others, and we could probably find a better one.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've adjusted the content accordingly. Pexise (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


Conflict of Interest, Neutrality, and Factual Accuracy tags

I think it should be obvious that it deserves these tags, but I'll explain.

All of us who have engaged in bickering seems to have a conflict of interest. Pexise seems to be a bit liberal with his changes, while Randy and I both are somewhat conservative with our and trying our best to stop radical changes while fixing the anti-American streak.

This article is not Neutral. It is mostly Anti-American. This article might not be factually accurate, and it appears to be spinning facts for its own agenda. --Rockstone35 (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  • What is the specific content you think should be changed? Pexise (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Prison abuse photos to be released

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

It looks like these will be photos from criminal investigations. I wouldn't expect to see any activities that the U.S. military had sanctioned.
It will be worth watching more to study the people who claim to oppose torture. We'll have to see how they run with it. I don't see how it applies to this article but we'll definitely need to get more names. Sadly, that BBC link only names Amrit Singh, who we already know.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, like this quote:

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

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

And just what do you expect her to say? She's a lawyer for the other side. It's her job to spin things that way. This is what she gets paid to do.
Perhaps you don't realize, when it comes to Abu Ghraib (which I guess is where most of these pictures will be from), the descriptions of this material are already out there as part of the investigations that were made public (e.g. Fay Report). They've been public for years.
Pictures from other investigations may come more as a surprise, but only because nobody paid attention to those cases before.
With over one million troops having been in Iraq over the years, some criminal abuse is inevitable. That should be common sense. It was the same way in WWII. Louis Till (Emmett Till's father) was convicted and executed as a soldier for his crimes against civilians. There was no "specific policy" involved in that either (no matter what any amoral ACLU lawyer might have said). The Army has been even more diligent in prosecuting them today than they were in WWII (although they haven't executed anyone yet).
This is actually what happened to Abu Ghraib. The Army prosecuted that one immediately but most of the people who claim to care about human rights ignored it until after the pictures came out. But I don't think it'll work out the same way again. They'll try, though, and that'll be intereresting to see.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • What do you mean by "lawyer for the other side"?
  • The photos are from Iraq and Afghanistan. Pexise (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, first, it's obvious that she is taking sides. Just look at the quote you cited. If the abuse does reach "far beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib" then how far does it go?
Just think about it: What evidence does she have to say that, which the Democrats in Congress did not have when they pursued this? They've had access to all these pictures for years with plenty of motivation to pin this on the Bush administration if they could.
Clearly, she is speaking with authority she is does not have. I seriously doubt that she has even seen the pictures, and yet she is taking an adversarial position rather than an investigative one. There is no other way to explain this than that she is taking sides. Again, what has she seen that the Democrats did not see?
And yes, I know the pictures are from both theaters. That's why I've addressed "Pictures from other investigations" in my previous post.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • None of that is concern to us. If she is considered a credible source by the BBC, then she can be quoted in the article. Regardless, let's wait and see what comes out of this one, and add any relevant material to the article when the photos have been released. Pexise (talk) 09:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not much of a concern because this isn't really the right article to address this.
That being said, the BBC considered her a source because she's directly involved in the case against the U.S. government. That makes her a person of interest only in the same manner that a mass murderer's attorney would be. It doesn't mean she's credible or non-biased.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Photo release cancelled:

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

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

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

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

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

NPOV tag

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

We had a discussion about this earlier, with no rationale offered for the addition of tags (see Conflict of Interest, Neutrality, and Factual Accuracy tags above). Pexise (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't actually mean to add "minor" to the tag, I used a program. Anyway, there is a rational for it, being the disputes seen on this talk page. There IS evidence that this is biased against the US (though, for defense of this article, an article about human rights with any country tends to be negative). --Rockstone35 (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Could you list some specific issues, please? This is, obviously, a topic that evokes strong opinions. Wading through the talk pages for this article would be a tedious and probably frustrating task; so could you list some specific issues that you see? Dendlai (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
One memorable problem is the question of when something becomes part of the human rights record of the U.S.
If an American soldier commits a crime not authorized or encouraged by the government, and the prosecution begins immediately, in what way does that belong here? To do so would mean that every substantial military intervention is virtually guaranteed to merit inclusion here -- including those engaged solely on behalf of human rights.
And if it does belong here, then why shouldn't Louis Till be listed as well?
-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It belongs in the article if it is a recognised human rights violation, such as torture, and/or if it is referred to by a source as a human rights violation. Don't forget that the US government is responsible for ensuring that it's agents (e.g. the military, the police, the CIA) do not commit human rights violations such as torture - something discussed at length in previous discussions.
  • Also, as well as specific violations, this article deals with the general human rights record of the US and issues concerning the US and human rights (e.g. treaty ratifications, role in promoting and protecting human rights, historical participation in landmarks in human rights development such as the UDHR). Pexise (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Do other human rights articles discuss marginal criminal activities by individuals? I don't see it.
Yes, the U.S. is responsible for the acts of its soldiers, and that's why they've been prosecuted. But marginal criminal activity is simply that. Marginal criminal activity may be notable to specific articles where critics want to pretend to care about human rights, but it has no place in a general article like this one. In fact, it appears that the forthcoming photos are all from those cases that other countries might have swept under the rug.
Then what about Louis Till? Going by your standards, what justification would there be to exclude him from this article?
-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean regarding my position that many of America's critics don't really care about human rights?
Just look at that UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Perhaps he is, personally, a nice guy, but that position is influenced by the GA, which includes some of the worst regimes on earth. Even a good man would be stifled by its bureaucracy. Have you heard of their recent "anti-racism" conference? What kinds of "human rights" concerns could ever be expected to come out of that mess? It's only natural that anti-Americanism would get a high profile there, and the crimes of our enemies a much lower one.
To be fair, the quote we have from the guy is very guarded. He didn't try to claim that the goings-on at Abu Ghraib were a deliberate policy of the U.S. government. (And that's why Abu Ghraib doesn't belong here unless to show that the U.S. military does investigate and prosecute its own.)
But the bottom line is still, if the U.N. cared about human rights to the degree that they should, they'd have worked harder to stop real human rights abuses committed by their friends. As for the others, while I hope Amnesty and HRW are still sincere at their core, they continue to avert their eyes to the misdeeds of their friends. But you don't have to take my word for this. Just look at when they claim to care about human rights, and when they turn silent.
And what about Louis Till? It's an interesting parallel in that the facts of his crimes were also exploited by the worst political interests.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Who are these so-called "friends"? Pexise (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Can you provide an example of a country that the UNOHCHR and other human rights organisations are silent on to back up your claims? Pexise (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'd have thought the "anti-racism" conference explains a lot about the U.N., but here's something more pertinent: Sanctioning Human Wrongs.
The so-called "human rights" activists are often silent when bold moves could make a real difference. For example, most of these "anti-war" demonstrations include factions from the far left (many are organized by those extreme groups). The participants include friends of Hamas, Hezbollah, and FARC.
This one included supporters of Al-Sadr, who, as you must know, has been part of the reason the Iraq war lasted so long. (This wasn't an isolated incident; they've long had a presence at these things.) That links to another article about the discovery of one of their torture chambers. Their friends don't bother with anything so tame as waterboarding.
The problem isn't simply that they befriend the wrong people. The real trouble is that some of these left-wing protestors aren't bad people. They might not be supporting war and real torture if groups like HRW and Amnesty could dare to call them on it. Instead, they choose not to -- probably a fundraising decision.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure, HRW has reports on Iran. Do you think the Iranian leaders take that seriously, knowing that HRW has one on the U.S., too?
Look, I've always been willing to say that HRW and Amnesty do some good work. But filing reports is fine for an otherwise quiet think tank. HRW and Amnesty are much more than that. They have access to the eyes of millions of people who'd like to say they care about human rights -- and that's exactly what the protestors have to do with this.
I shouldn't need to tell you that mobilizing public opinion is an important function of these "human rights" organizations. Those protestors like to call themselves a Second Superpower. They can sometimes influence U.S. policy. Saddam Hussein had fully expected them to stop the invasion of Iraq outside Baghdad.
Yes, they can stop CIA from waterboarding (for a while, at least). When are they going to stop torture everywhere else? They have a bias.
You asked, who are these so-called friends, and you did me a favor by pointing out the NAM.
The only business a true human rights advocate might have with the NAM is to ask them that they start caring about human rights. Somehow, I just don't think her meetings with Dick Cheney would have gone the same way. It's fine to be cordial but not pliant.
So, to summarize, people are judged by when they choose to speak up, and by the company they keep. There's no way of getting around this.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
We were not discussing sources here. If we were, I'd say they're useful as long as let the reader know who said it.
But we were discussing when something is worthy of mention in a general article about human rights in the U.S. And we still haven't heard your position on Louis Till and why that does or doesn't belong here as much as you think Abu Ghraib does.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Quit deleting my tags, There is rationale.

  • This article is always going to have bias, and any article that has bias should have a NPOV tag.
  • Amnesty International is not always a reliable source in an article about this in the same way a Nazi is not a reliable source for information about the holocaust, both would have biases.
  • The USA has traditionally had an excellent human rights record. While throughout history, the USA has had numerous "questionable" human rights activities, its bad activities is only 1% of all of it's human rights. This article harps on the 1% instead of the 99%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstone35 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
This article is always going to have bias, and any article that has bias should have a NPOV tag. Thank you for stating your intentions. Apparently you're not looking to improve what the article says, you just think it should have an NPOV tag. Your actions, while no doubt meant in good faith, are clearly disruptive. Please stop. Dlabtot (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • What is supposed reason for the NPOV tag? Could someone please tell me one specific issue with the article in terms of POV? Then, we can address that issue. If there are others, we can address them one by one. Till there are none left. Dlabtot (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The tag continues to be added with no reason given. It is also being added using a programme so it doesn't show up on watchlists etc., otherwise I would delete it straight away. No specific reason or content has ever been offered for why the article is not NPOV. Some editors disagree that there should be any criticism of the US human rights record on Wikipedia, and to they add the NPOV tag for that reason. Pexise (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

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

RE: the Obama quote - check the source: Obama is referring to the period the US has just gone through when torture was legitimised and practiced as government policy. Pexise (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the Obama quote is rather quaint. It also has great potential for irony as more of the people who like to claim they oppose "torture" start to accuse him of it, too.
The Hurricane Katrina section isn't the worst we've got but it's always been off the rails. Those "shoot to kill" orders it mentions were never more than the Governor's attempt to appear tough. How many looters were actually shot? Besides that, looting wasn't even a federal issue. When it says, "the government was accused of overreacting" that implies it's the federal government, but it wasn't.
Even if it was sufficiently notable for this article, the shooting of looters has historically been the proper response in an emergency.
I'm tempted to believe the entire section was added as a parody.
If this article was serious, we should have more stuff on natural disasters. This is something that the U.S. excels at (which is why it's not covered here). Even in Katrina, the federal response was enormous, and the casualty count turned out to be far below what the computer models had projected. People complained for two reasons: 1) a huge toll was inevitable given the scale of the disaster; and 2) politicians and so-called "human rights" activists saw an opportunity to make hay. Had Katrina happened in another country, the death toll would have been much, much higher.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
BTW: Pexise, we still haven't heard your position on Louis Till and why that does or doesn't belong here as much as you think Abu Ghraib does.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
What is your case for including Louis Till? What is your source? Pexise (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
My position is that Louis Till would not belong here. His crime was a personal one, and he was prosecuted for it by the Army. It was definitely not part of the human rights policy of the U.S.
The trouble is, the same logic applies to the Abu Ghraib photo on this article. The guards' crimes were personal ones, and they were prosecuted for it by the Army. It was definitely not part of the human rights policy of the U.S.
So, why do you think that photo belongs here but not Louis Till?
-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Louis Till's crimes were indeed a human rights issue, but they weren't the policy of the U.S. The same reasoning applies to the crimes of the guards at Abu Ghraib.
I'm sure many critics of the U.S. claim that Abu Ghraib was an issue of U.S. policy, but the quotes and sources we have here don't explicitly say that. Bertrand Ramcharan's statement would be worth keeping if we had other information supporting it, but it does not make a firm judgment that the incident reflected U.S. policy.
That excerpt from HRW is way too ambigious for an article like this. It probably violates SYNTH, and if not, it comes perilously close. Besides that, it's mostly about other matters found at Abu Ghraib, and that doesn't support keeping the picture.
I can understand that a lot of America's critics, rivals, and opponents want to claim that that picture represents a direct link to a deliberate policy by the Bush administration. But if they're saying such a thing, I want their names -- and precisely where they stood in a war against fascism -- to be remembered so that they can't quietly take it back later. A nebulous linkage just isn't satisfactory.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Or, let me put it another way: If there are many sources claiming that the guards' crimes at Abu Ghraib were a matter of U.S. policy (which Louis Till's crimes clearly weren't), then let's use them instead of the ones you have here now.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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

That's simply not true.
The only thing we've got related to that picture is that Bertrand Ramcharan says (in the ref) that "there have sadly been some violations of human rights committed by some coalition soldiers."
Again, that's no different than Louis Till. If you're going to say one incident was a "human rights" issue, and not another, it would be fascinating to read that rationale.
In fact, the source characterizes Ramcharan's statement as "an apparent reference to the incidents of abuse at Abu Ghraib". Apparent??? That's an extraordinarily weak link to the photo we're using.
If we drag that photo in here, let's get a real reference to an actual person saying it's related to U.S. human rights policy. We cannot use something so weak that it later allows the person who said it to weasel out after his sympathies change. And if we can't find such a source, then ditch the misleading NPOV photo until you do.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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

"Could"? That's not saying the guards' actions were a "human rights issue" that the U.S. government has committed. Otherwise, you'll need to fully explain why Louis Till shouldn't be here. So far you've only danced around it. Or is it that you don't think his crimes were a human rights issue?
If you don't know what I'm getting at then I suggest you read more closely. It is you who's wasting our time by piling on garbage that has nothing to do with the human rights policy of the U.S.
I'll tend to this myself this weekend.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

  • I note that the NPOV tage has been removed with a note that a "consensus" reached a "conclusion" this this article is neutral. A consensus of one does not a consensus make. I will be readding the tag. Please attempt to reach a consensus of more than one person before removing the tag in the future. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • As a recap the following editors think the article in question is neutral: user:Dendlai and user:Pexise. The following editors think the article is not neutral: user:Randy2063, user:Rockstone35, user:Dlabtot (who asks for sepcific examples), user:Joker1189 and user:Yachtsman1. At this point, it might be a good time for us to come to a consensus on how the article might be improved to reach neutrality. Simply discounting or denying that this article is not neutral is not a healthy manner in which to proceed. I would suggest we begin with undue weight, and work our way from there. There should be pro and contra positions regarding America's human rights record, each provided weight and each written in a scholarly manner. If this can be achieved, I think we can reach a point of neutrality that can make everyone happy. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I have re-added the NPOV tag. The neutrality of this article remains in dispute. Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I have added this article to the NPOV noticeboard, and comments are welcome. [1] Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree the NPOV tag needs to stay. If Pexise can't describe why the guards at Abu Ghraib belong here, but Louis Till doesn't (and I don't believe either of them belong here) then we'd better work out some guidelines.
BTW: I haven't gotten around to altering it the way I think could meet standards, but I'll get that done when I have more time.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Please use short bullet points to briefly summarize why and where this article fails to be neutral. I'm sure there is room for improvement, but I would like to see specific examples in bullet form so I can address and fix them. Tags are used to show that something needs to be fixed. Please tell me what I can do to fix it, otherwise I'm going to remove the tag. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a human rights issue when it results from government policy. In the case of Abu Ghraib, we have excellent human rights sources saying that it was the result of government policy, so it belongs here.
  • If you have other sources saying that what took place there were not human rights violations, please add them. Pexise (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

List of those implicated in US torture policies

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

I'm surprised you didn't mention Dick Cheney. But I think we know only that he'd been briefed. He didn't technically have any authority to approve it or to stop it, although it's obvious he supports every legal measure in the fight against fascism. BTW: The statute referenced to make the earlier determination that it was legal at the time has not been rewritten (and probably won't be).
For names who did have some authority, and who could have stopped it if they truly wanted to, there's Nancy Pelosi, Jane Harman, Bob Graham, John D. Rockefeller IV, Porter J. Goss, and Pat Roberts.
Pelosi says she only knew it had been approved, and not that they had started using it. In other words, she's conceding she knew of it ahead of time. Like most people who claim to oppose torture, the louder they whine against it, the faster they'll slink away and say nothing when it's done on their behalf. This is why it's important that we remember where everyone stands -- particularly those who today claim to oppose torture.
In any case, Goss says everyone present had been very enthusiastic. We could get the full story if those transcripts are ever released, but (not surprisingly) Pelosi has not joined the call for that.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. Might be worth adding that to the article. Pexise (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
It's odd that CIA director George Tenet hasn't gotten more mention.
Well, maybe not that odd. He was a Clinton appointee, and a registered Democrat. That's probably why the people who claim to oppose torture are going after the lawyers who informed the CIA what the legal parameters were.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Randy2063, if you continue to use this talk page for partisan bickering instead of improving this article, I will file a report about you at ANI. Viriditas (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
That wasn't "partisan bickering." Pexise isn't American. I'm sure this didn't alter his view of these particular politicians in one way or another. My comments were meant to illuminate the bias inherent in the press and commentary we see on this subject.
If you'll note, Pexise had asked for names, and I provided some he'd be less likely to have noticed. You might also note, I didn't debate his choice of the term "torture policies."
Before throwing stones, I suggest you take a closer look at your own contributions here.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm aware of my contributions here, none of which are partisan. My only interest is in improving this article. If you want to help, great. But if you are just here to soapbox, take it somewhere else. Viriditas (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality in lead section

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

Thank you for your thoughts. The lead section already has one critique of US human rights policy outside of the United States, so I got rid of the other as undue weight. Indeed, the entire portion on US human rights violations outside of its borders counters the topic at hand. The source on the ICC does not show an "undermining" by the US of the ICC, but instead opposition to it, and refusal to sign the document, and therefore violated POV, and was changed to "opposed". The prior opeing, which acts as a summary, also lacked citations (and none are really needed in an opening anyway), so I find your present stance mystifying in this respect. I will also remind you that you do not own this article, and that you must assume good faith. If you choose to engage in an edit war, that's your choice. I would suggest you refrain from doing so. I would also direct your attention to the article Human rights in the United Kingdom for an article that serves as my template. This article is constructed correctly, covers the subject at hand, and has the rhyme and reason so missing from the jumbled mess of an article we are discussing. Thank you again.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Every article must be treated on its merits alone, and the decision to use Human rights in the United Kingdom as a "template" for this article, is a discussion you failed to have on this talk page. Unilateral editing, especially on articles that have a long history of controversy and dispute, only makes the problems worse, and could result in a block if you continue. Your comments above show an inability to engage in direct discussion, and your POV of "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" is not going to work here. Your edits seem to consist of adding kindling to a wildfire I and others are trying to put out. Please do not edit unilaterlally in the future, and do not add unsourced material to the article, and please do not change the lead section to match your POV rather than the focus of the article. The lead needs to reflect the article, not your personal opinion. Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. This article is being treated on its "merits", which I find less than meritorious indeed, as do a number of other editors. The article I linked simply has rhyme and reason, is neutral, and shines above the jumbled mess we have here, so as a template, it works. I also dislike being threatened, so please stop doing so in the future. This is itself a violation of WP:CIV. I also find your points that I cannot "engage in a direct discussion" when I have addressed your posts point for point throughout this process to be wildly inaccurate. The lead reflects the article, it just does so "neutrally". If you find it does not, kindly provide specific examples and we will try to reach a consensus on this subject. Thank you again for your thoughts.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
You have not addressed any of my points in any discussion. Instead, you continue push your POV and boast about not having to follow any guideline or policy. Again, this is not a unilateral process. You need to be able to discuss your edits and defend them. Viriditas (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your personal attack. I will let my comments speak for themselves. Again, thank you so very much.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Your comments have not addressed my questions or points. Do you understand? Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
My comments have perfectly addressed your questions and points. Other editors have also answered your questions and points. We have spent days addressing your questions and points. You are the only person who has raised them, and they have been addressed repeatedly. You have responded instead with a stream of insults, personal attacks and requests for clarification that I am now going to ignore in the hopes of making actual progress to bring this article into compliance with neutrality requirements as they are actually written by Wikipedia with the other editors who have reached a consensus that this article is not only neutralk, but what steps are required to improve it. Do you understand? Thank you again.Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
You have not addressed my questions or my points, and you continue to waste my time by adding unsourced content to the article, disrupting the talk page, and generally being a nuisance. If you had addressed my questions and points, we would not be talking about your refusal to do so, now, would we? Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
See supra. Thanks again.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sections not "in the United States"

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

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

I concur. Do you think we should delete these sections?--Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Definitely, and these are just the easy ones -- clearly outside the U.S., so there is not really any question. Way outside the article's scope.
The other issues you raised above on the entire "International" section raise issues that also deal with "in the United States" issues.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this Article about Human Rights in the United States?

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

This is true. Although you can push US army bases on foreign soil to be also in the US, if you wanted to. Sceptre (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary, it is not remotely true in this universe. There are close to a thousand reliable sources on the topic of Hurricane Katrina and human rights, and it's been addressed in multiple reports by research centers and think tanks, the United Nations, and NGOs since 2006, and is still under discussion by those groups. Ignorance is not a valid rationale. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughts. I have edited the sections you provided on euthanasia because this was a private act by doctors at non-state hospitals, and was not reflective of state action. Including it is akin to accusing the UK of a human rights violation when one of its citizens kills another citizen during a confrontation. And while I realize that these matters are of some importance to you, please be advised that civility is taken rather seriously in this project. Keep your comments civil. I am editing your comments on that basis. Kindly refrain from such acts in the future.
Consider this your first and last warning. Do not edit my comments again like you did here. My comments were directly addressing the argument. Per Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments, do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. Viriditas (talk) 08:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The human rights stance on Hurricane Katrine stems from a strained reading of the U.N. Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, which provides that governments are responsible for preventingand avoiding conditions that might lead to displacement of persons, and for taking all measures possible to minimize displacement and its adverse effects. Under this theory, the US Army Corps of Engineers failed to meet this obligation by enforcing and/or re-building levees in New Orleans. The guiding principles also state a national governments’ obligations to protect people during displacement,regardless of whether that displacement is due to conflict or disaster. The Principles guarantee, among other things, the human right to dignity, security, liberty of movement, and respect of family life. They also forbid discrimination of any sort, whether it be on the basis of race, language, national origin, legal or social status, age, disability, or property. It is alleged that the US failed to meet this guiding principle when people without automobiles were not evacuated, and the majority of these individuals were black and/or the elderly. Prisoners were left behind in jails when cowardly guards fled their posts. The Guiding Principles obligate governments to provide humanitarian assistance to internally displaced persons in accordance with the principles of humanity and impartiality and without discrimination. They statethat international humanitarian organizations and other appropriate actors have the right to offer assistance and that consent to do so shall not be withheld—especially when authorities are unable or unwilling to provide the needed assistance themselves. They also mandate that international humanitarian organizations offering assistance are obligated to protect the human rights of IDPs. It is alleged that principles were not always honored in the wake of Hurricane Katrina because of fraud by private contractors, and refusal to accept aid from foreign governments, who offered medical aid and equipment, as well as the mismanagement of the American Red Cross in assisting with efforts. Other points include the cost of housing, medical care expenses, etc. Do we now have it all straight?[[2]]
The problem you have is rather obvious as the United States is a Federal Democracy, not a unitarian form of government. Government is shared in this case on three levels - municipal, state and federal. Each layer of government has a different job in disastor assistance. Municipal government normally provides the manpower and has jurisdiction over the means of providing logistics and evacuation plans from its jurisdiction. State government has, under the US constitution, primary jurisdiction over the health and welfare of its citizens. The federal government provides the monetary considerations and additional resources to assist in disastor relief. In this case, the first line of defense, the municpal government, fell apart, which meant that contray to their own evacuation plans, they failed to bus their own citizens without automonbiles out of the city. Instead, lines of busses were left in the city. The guards at the prions you identify were municipal employees, and they abandoned their posts. The police force left. The next line was the State of Louisiana. Under law, the state has the primary power to assist its own municplities. The State failed. Once the State failed, the State then requests "Relief Disastor Assistance" from the federal government, which has to be invited into the territory of the "sovereign" state. Once requested, the federal government then declares the area in question a Federal Disastor Area, and FEMA enters the picture. In other words, the role of making such a request for federal aid and assistance falls to the Governor of the State. In this case it was Blanco, who dragged her feet for days.[[3]] The result was an epic breakdown in leadership on all levsl of government. Bush could have declared martial law in the early hours, but that would most likely have lead to a separate human rights violation section. Once the federal government was allowed into the city, they engaged in rescue efforts and other steps to ensure food, medical care and other steps were taken for the remaining citizens. Couyld it have been done better? Certainly, but this particular disastor engulfed an area roughly the size of the United Kingdom, not just New Orleans. the entire number displaced? 400,000. [[4]] What does that mean? Take the entire population of Baltimore City, and find them new homes. Even the guidelines you cite to at Principle 7, subparagraph 2 state: "The authorities undertaking such displacement shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to the displaced persons, that such displacements are effected in satisfactory conditions of safety, nutrition, health and hygiene, and that members of the same family are not separated". I would suggest that housing and assistance for such a number of people was provided "to the greatest extent practicable".
In conclusion, I don't think Hurricane Katrina was a Human Rights violation, I think it was a human disastor generally. It showed the pitfalls of lousy local leaders coupled with a gigantic natural disastor of biblical proportions that overwhelmed the federal government. I think its inclusion in this article is seriously misplaced, and that you are stretching by including it. It deserves its own article, but is not an example of a human rights violation in the United States. Thank you. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Please provide a single reliable source that best represents your view, using the term "human rights". Please note, interpreting primary sources in a controversial or disputed article, requires good secondary sources that portray the point drawn from the primary source. If this isn't clear, please request help on the reliable sources noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 08:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I have provided the sources, and they make the same points. They are relied upon extensively, and linked. If it is your contention that these sources are "unreliable", please provide specific examples of why you so contend. If it is your contention that they do not support my argument, please provide specific examples of why you so contend. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
That's not how we use sources on Wikipedia, and if you still don't understand your problem, please contact the reliable sources noticeboard. Let's make this very simple. Please provide one source that supports your claim that the U.S. response to Hurricane Katrina did not violate human rights. Just one source please. Or, to make this even easier for you, provide just one source that criticizes the conclusions in dispute. Can you do that? Viriditas (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
We also don't prove negatives, on wikipedia or anywhere else. The sources I provide do not even mention the term. For a look at the sources, "click" on the links above. I have also separately responded on the NPOV board, but then again, you already knew that.Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Please provide one source that directly addresses or challenges any of the conclusions or statements reached in the Katrina section. If you cannot, then you must drop your dispute. Viriditas (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Let me see if I follow this logic - You are asking me for a source that makes a negative claim? My sources already provided already do that rather amply because they point to leadership failure, and not your claim of discrimination, as the cause of the misery. Please provide me with one source, just one, that shows positively that discrimination was the underlying reason for the failure in response time. Thanks a bunch.Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
None of the sources you "provided" have addressed the topic. To refresh your frazzled memory, you are the one that has made negative claims. You said, "I don't think Hurricane Katrina was a Human Rights violation." Great, now show sources that support that claim. You can't. Instead, you show sources that don't discuss the topic. Either address my request, or I will chalk this up to disruptive behavior on your part. You maintain that "the human rights stance on Hurricane Katrine stems from a strained reading of the U.N. Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement." Now, prove it with sources that directly address your claims. You can't because they don't exist. Original research is not allowed, so stop interpreting multiple sources to say what they don't say. Put up or shut up. Answer the question. Viriditas (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't have time to work this in right now, but I suggest taking a look at this from Popular Mechanics.

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

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

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

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

People who don't think the U.S. government responded strongly to this disaster just hadn't considered (or, more likely, chose to ignore) its vast scope.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Great. Find a reliable source that says that as a rebuttal to those who make claims about human rights violations. Until you do that, this thread is closed. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you've said it all.
It would be interesting to see if the other editors would agree with you on that. Frankly, I'd be surprised if even those who'd otherwise generally share your perspective would go that far.
Until they're willing to admit that they do, this source (which is highly respected and truly non-partisan) does belong here more than the ravings of Julian Bond's outfit.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality in the racial section

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

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

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

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

Complaint dept.

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

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

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

Then I suggest you don't understand the definition and use of WP:NPA. What I have written above is not a personal attack in any way. Please contact an administrator to help you understand what I have written. Viriditas (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
WP:NPA - "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done..." I understand this policy quite well, thank you. Please stop violating it.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I can provide many diffs of you doing that right here on this page. Would you like to see them? You've started every personal attack on this page, and when I respond asking you to stop, you turn around and accuse me of making a personal attack. Your disruptive behavior is tired and old and only serves to distract and hijack threads. Go away. Viriditas (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for offer of help, but I've been here long enough to use them and know how they work. Your most recent edit to the lead section shows that you do not. Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your thoughts. The lead section has thirteen cites, which were from the prior incaranation with changes in verbage, but not substance or citation. Again, thank you so very much.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Please don't be dishonest. We have diffs which show you adding unsourced material and even adding "citation needed".[5] Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
And thirteen cites, and this is an introduction that replaced some portion that basically said the human rights history in the united states was "complex", and unsourced. Thanks again for your thoughts.Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Re: "In fact you skip more than a century of history and start the section in 1964!" (Viriditas)

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

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

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

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

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

You skipped 188 years of human rights in the United States in order to whitewash the history. This is not acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 04:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States/Archive_9&oldid=296283227"