Talk:Human rights in the United States/Archive 4

Amnesty International says it has "documented patterns of ill-tre

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Human Rights issues or Liberal Talking points?

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

1) Health and the family

2) Prison

3) Death penalty

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

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

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

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

Rewording gay rights and human rights

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

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

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

Also, why are there no references to how sodomy laws violate human rights, like how in Kansas: "Convicted of sodomy for having sex in 2000 at age 18 with a 14-year-old boy, Matthew R. Limon was sentenced to more than 17 years in prison. Had Limon’s partner been an underage girl, he could have been sentenced at most to one year and three months in prison."[1] Is this not a human right issue?

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

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

Original Research - Most of this Article

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final exams should take precedence for your priorities.

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

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

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

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

Non-compliant

I've added the non-compliant tag.

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

Solution #1.

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

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

Solution #2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is America so great?

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

Facts & Allegations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 18:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Human Rights Record

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

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

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

What do you mean "What law was violated in Nicaragua?", read the following copied from Nicaragua v. United States: The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America[1] was a case heard in 1986 by the International Court of Justice that found that the United States had violated international law by supporting Contra guerrillas in their war against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The Court ruled in Nicaragua's favor, but the United States refused to abide by the Court's decision, on the basis that the court erred in finding that it had jurisdiction to hear the case,[2] The court stated that the United States had been involved in the "unlawful use of force".[3] —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 03:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Third Reich

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proof vs Allegations

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

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

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

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

Iran

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

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

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

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

You can not prove it is against the law. However, I believe Operation Ajax was illegal. I did a quick search to see what news media say about the operation. I found an article on the The Guardian, a very reliable source, which says the operation was illegal. Stephen Kinzer have also said Op. Ajax was illegal and has even written a book on it[2]. So, it seems to me some people have been documented in saying Operation Ajax was has violated international law; however, you claim it hasn't violated international law and can't back up your claim with a source. Until you find a source, which you claim is "unfair", I think "There has however, never been any finding of any violation of international law" should be removed. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 04:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Survellience Internationally

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

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

Prisons

Death Penalty by Race

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

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

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

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

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

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

Felons can't Vote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 17:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scrutiny?

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

An example of this is how the status of human rights in the United States recently have come under scrutiny for the government's positions on capital punishment,[3] police brutality,[citation needed] the War on Drugs,[4] and gay rights[5]

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

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

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

Delete Mass surveillance section?

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

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

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

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

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

Iraq war not illegal?

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

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

Another problem with this statement is that Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary-General during the Iraq invasion, has contridicted this statement, as he has been qouted as saying "[The invasion of Iraq] was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal"[3].

—Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 03:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

European law and torture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In December 2004, The Justice Department published a revised and expansive of acts that constitute torture under domestic and international law, they concluded torture may consist of acts that fall short of provoking excruciating and agonizing pain and thus may include mere physical suffering or lasting mental anguish."[4]

"According to The American Heritage® Dictionary, "tor·ture (tôrchr) n. 1. a. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion. b. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain. 2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense. 3. Something causing severe pain or anguish."[5]

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

—Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 02:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Delete the Section on Torture as OR?

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

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

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

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

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

How about this: [6]? or this: [7]? Pexise 12:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Quote: "The interrogation techniques authorized by the Department of Defense, particularly if used simultaneously, amount to degrading treatment in violation of article 7 of ICCPR and article 16 of the Convention against Torture." The document can also be found by linking to the report at the bottom of the page here: [8] Pexise 15:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Reliable and unreliable sources

Human Rights First

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

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

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

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

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

Human Rights Watch

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

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

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

New York Times

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

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

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

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

Boston Globe

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

Both can be referenced. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 03:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

OR Sections

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

National security exceptions as OR

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

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

Affirmative action and other sections as OR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freedom of Expression as OR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sexual orientation as OR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Death Penalty as OR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Euthanasia as OR

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

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

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

Regarding sources

Please do not change direct quotations.[9] Regarding tags stating that a source is missing, do not claim this immediately after a source. Also, statements in the intro that summarize sourced statements later in the body need no repeat these sources.[10]Ultramarine 02:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Democide section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Here [11].Ultramarine 18:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Sorry Ultramarine: "According to Webster's dictionary [12], the American Heritage dictionary [13], and dictionary.com [14] , democide is not an established word in the english language. Its use in this article must be altered to an accepted word from the English lexicon. Using Neologisms certainly violates Wikipedia's Avoid Neologisms guideline. I have included the relevant sections of the guideline:

Neologism as defined from Wikipedia's Avoid Neologisms

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

Why Wikipedia prohibits using neologisms

Generally speaking, neologisms should be avoided in articles because they may not be well understood, may not be clearly definable, and may even have different meanings to different people. Determining which meaning is the true meaning is original research—we don't do that here at Wikipedia. [15]"

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

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

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

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

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

• The US and the International Criminal Court - how the US has opposed the ICC, the bi-lateral agreements that the US has been imposing on small nations granting immunity to US personnel [16], and the anti-ICC "Invasion of the Hague Act" [17]
• The US and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - how the US has not ratified one of the two core treatise of the International Bill of Rights (along with ICCPR) [18].

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

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

Two more additions that could be mentioned:

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

Pexise 19:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

POV?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pessimistic POV

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

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

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

NPOV tag

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

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

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

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

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

Alleged Human Rights violators residing in the US

This is a notworthy subject, worthy of a new section: [[19]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pexise (talk • contribs) 15:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who? What section of the article are you talking about? What line do you want to remove? How the hell can there be consensus if no one has a clue what you are talking about? Silly rabbit (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think he means there's a consensus that it wouldn't belong.

Such a section might make sense, theoretically, if there were any alleged human rights violators living in the U.S., but it depends on who's making the allegations. A section on the shrill screams about Rumsfeld, et al, by some extremist groups wouldn't belong here.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"Native Americans"?

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

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

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

Which allegation?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 05:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Police brutality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Police brutality section neutrality discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Police brutality redux

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Police brutality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OR Deletions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gender Rights section neutrality discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Death Penalty

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

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

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

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

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

I am deleting the death penalty section. I propose the text below.

Death penalty

Main article: Capital punishment debate § Human rights

See also: Capital punishment in the United States

The use of the death penalty is primarily undertaken with the authority of state law, although federal law may at times also authorize it. Because of the US legal system relies upon federalism and because of the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution, the US Government has limited or no authority over the use of the death penalty authorized by state laws. An important exception is that the federal and state judiciaries have the jurisdiction to enforce constitutional protections (human rights) that capital punishment might violate. Capital punishment has been intensively and actively reviewed to ensure that human rights violations do not occur. The judiciary are actively reviewing thousands of death penalty cases at any given time to ensure that the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution protections are applied for all convicted criminals.

A ruling on March 1, 2005 by the United States Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons prohibits the execution of people who committed their crimes when they were under the age of 18. Between 1990 and 2005, Amnesty International recorded 19 executions in the United States for crime committed by a juvenile. Some opponents criticize the overrepresentation of blacks on death row as evidence of the unequal racial application of the death penalty. This over-representation is not limited to capital offenses, in 1992 although blacks account for 12% of the US population, about 34 percent of prison inmates were from this group. In McCleskey v. Kemp, it was alleged the capital sentencing process was administered in a racially discriminatory manner in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In 2003, Amnesty International reported those who kill whites are more likely to be executed than those who kill blacks, citing of the 845 people executed since 1977, 80 percent were put to death for killing whites and 13 percent were executed for killing blacks, even though blacks and whites are murdered in almost equal numbers.