Jump to content

Talk:Human rights in the United States/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Alleged violations of national sovereignty

I am in favour of deleting this section, but if anyone can present compelling reasons why it should remain I'll listen. Views? JN466 09:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - Absurd section and side show, I vote for delete. I would also kick the section on the International Court as well. The US is not a signator to this convention, and its inclusion is a mystery.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
JN: In the Labor Rights section, do you advocate eliminating the last sentence of "at will employment"? People have the right to organize into unions, but no source I am aware of has made it a human right to be employed on an entitlement system by the private sector. I also edited the intro. to achieve flow and eliminate some obvious POV. I think it's better, but please let me know if you disagree with it and we can collaborate to improve it. I left your religious change alone, by the way, as it's accurate. Thanks.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
It has been deleted. I support the deletion per the reasons stated above.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to hear from other editors about this. There is a discussion of at-will employment and its human rights implications in this book. For example, employees working on a pure at-will basis may be reluctant to complain about unsafe working conditions (because they can simply be fired). The sentence certainly needs a source though. JN466 17:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
That may be true, but the issue is not their right to complain, which they have, but their right to work, which they do not have. Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure this is about the right to work. The discussion is on page 114, but at-will employment pops up a few more times throughout the book. At the moment I am inclined to think it is worth a (sourced) sentence in that section.
The deletion of the "Alleged violations of national sovereignty" section I am fine with, obviously. JN466 17:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm still having trouble with this. The fact that the vast majority of American workers are not part of a union, and that their jobs are therefore "at-will", is neither her nor there in my opinion. In any event, most states recognize at-will employment even IF you are a member of a union. The variable is the contract the union may or may not have with the employer. I am still having trouble how being "at will" affects collective action in the form of labor rights.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit to the lede by Yachtsman1

[1] I think this is a reasonable edit and support it. We still have a strong mention of torture allegations at the end of the lede. JN466 17:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you much. See? Cooperation IS possible, folks. I am not really that unreasonable, I just like balance and the elimination of obvious POV.Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a couple of issues: It has a powerful and independent judiciary

Is this statement necessary if in the very same paragraph it goes on to say: The Constitution and treaties are generally interpreted by the judicial branch and particularly the Supreme Court?

Legally, human rights within the United States are those rights recognized by the Constitution of the United States and those recognized by treaties ratified by the United States Senate as well as certain rights articulated by the Congress of the United States.

I strongly disagree with this statements inclusion as based on the 9th and 10th amendments, and what of the bill of rights?

Also in general, a lot of states guarantee greater rights than laid out in the Consitution or granted by Congress, should a mention of this be made? Soxwon (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:BOLD Sox. Make the change and seek comments after you do it.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I usually put all edits on talk for a page with an RfC. Soxwon (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Edited. Changes had been made.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I have viewed the changes by Sox, and they look reasonable to me. I support it. The opening is now contained, easy to read, and touches the subject matter of the article in an NPOV manner.Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Problems

I'm probably not the only one to weigh in on this, but I'll try to be specific

  • Why is there only one blockquote about opposition to Universal healthcare, that hardly covers the scope of the opposition's position.
  • I can tell the person who wrote the death penalty section is against it, so who is for it and what do they think?
  • The prison system section has lots of weasel wording (heck the whole thing uses vague terms like "some" and "social critics"
  • Additionally, the prison system is nothing but condemnation, are there steps being taken to fix the problems, reasons for the overcrowding and other problems. Also, does Pelican Bay and others really justify sweeping statements like those used? Isolated incidents are hardly ever representative of a whole (and you must prove they are)
  • The next section, what do the police have to say about the situation? Why are isolated incidents used, I've seen cases where officers shot a man over 100 times because "that's all the bullets they had." Does this mean cops go around shooting ppl excessively all over the US?
  • A hurricane is never going to have happy results, the section seems to be a little WP:FRINGE.
  • For the Human rights treaties not signed or signed but not ratified section, you either need to give a little reasoning and background, or get rid of it. To simply say "they didn't sign it," doesn't give reasoning (and could be implied to be simply they didn't care)
  • The entire international human rights section is grossly out of balance. Surely the amount of money we spend, the number of charity organizations that are supported from here, and the work we've done through gov't programs like peace corp warrant more than a paragraph versus 14 paragraphs of things we didn't do or did wrong.

I didn't read the top few sections but really this article focuses on one side of the issue far, far too much. You need to give the other side if you want an WP:NPOV article. Soxwon (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Having read just the racial section I must say I'm not impressed. It doesn't even mention the 13th or 15th amendment or even the emancipation proclamation or any of the other positive elements of US history. This is not a list of US sins. I'll read some of the other sections but really, shouldn't the race section have gotten adaquete coverage before moving on to all these things we didn't sign and Katrina? Soxwon (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
For the feminism section, what about the National Organization of Women? Soxwon (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
For the accused section, Ex Post Facto and Habeas Corpus and the 7th amendment (jury trial)?? Soxwon (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Having just run across the article, these were my similar observations in a section above.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Soxwon, do you think this article is the place to discuss opposition to Universal healthcare? If so, tell me how you would do it. Which human rights-related sources would you use? Are you aware of the human rights issues associated with U.S. prisons? Should the most notable incidents drawn from good sources be used as examples? As for excessive violence from law enforcement in the U.S., have you reviewed the literature? Police brutality and excessive violence in the U.S have been the focus of human rights groups and the UN. What is "fringe" about the Katrina section? Please describe the problem so I can fix it. Finally, has human rights in the U.S. increased or decreased after 9/11? I have more questions, but I would like you to answer those first. Not Mosedschurte, but you, Soxwon. Viriditas (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
If you are going to treat this as a POV fork I'll put it up for deletion. You must have BOTH sides fairly represented on any given issue if you are going to include it, or you are going to make it into an attack article. As for Katrina, where should I begin. The fact the majority of it comes from the same two partisan sources, or the fact that the one sentence that doesn't, is completely different than the article it quotes. And btw, how about addressing all of the information that you neglected to mention? Soxwon (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't know what you are talking about. You must have me confused with someone else. Can you please address my questions? Also, please show that the "majority of it comes from the same two partisan sources". I don't see that at all. Also, please show me specifically how the source differs from the material. These are reasonable questions and should be very easy for you to answer. You say you have a problem with the material. Fine, please show me the problem so I can either fix it or remove it. Viriditas (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Katrina

(outdent)Two partisan sources: [ttp://www.southernstudies.org/ISSKatrinaHumanRightsJan08.pdf] and [2]. All of the others refer back to these two sources save for the AP article. The AP article does not support the statment made in any way:

The UN Human Rights Committee and other groups allege that these problems reflected racial and economic prejudice; most of those trapped in New Orleans were African-American and poor.

First of all from the article itself: Both experts are independent and unpaid. Secondly if you actually read the article it says that the main problem is that the replacement housing will be at market rate, rather than subsidized. Nowhere does it make sweeping comments about racial and economic prejudice. In short, the paragraph is poorly sourced and POV. Soxwon (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

To directly address your points: 1)The secondary source used (New Orleans CityBusiness), describes ISS as "nonpartisan". Are you challenging that statement? If so, what reliable source are you using that calls them "partisan". Please provide it. 2) I see your problem with AP. You failed to actually look at reference 99. Look at it again. There is more than one source being used - there are three, and they all compliment each other. Did you review the other two sources? The source you are referring to is only used to show that, The experts said the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and local governments will violate the human rights of thousands of New Orleans residents by demolishing public housing units. The majority of those affected are black and many were devastated by Hurricane Katrina, they said. That's it. The other two sources support and compliment the material about the "UN Human Rights Committee and other groups allege that these problems reflected racial and economic prejudice." I have it saved offline, so let me pull the quote for you. But more to the point, I'm not clear on what you are challenging. Can you specifically state what you are challenging? The sources appear at the end of the sentence/paragraph per best practices. Are you challenging any part of this statement? If so, please specifically state which part. The UN Human Rights Committee and other groups allege that these problems reflected racial and economic prejudice is referenced to Klapper, Bradley (2006-07-28). "U.N. Panel Takes U.S. to Task Over Katrina". AP Online (The America's Intelligence Wire), and is a news article covering the findings from the UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations on Report of the USA to the Human Rights Committee (July 27, 2006)[3]. I'll try and see if I can clear up any of the ambiguities (which you were right to observe) with some kind of cleanup effort. Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Biophys, I asked you to explain your reasoning at 07:13. You didn't, and at 14:59 you removed the material. This is not how Wikipedia works. Please use the talk page. The discussion both on the talk page and on the NPOV noticeboard shows no consensus for removal. Please do not bring your long history of edit warring to Human rights in the United States or act as a proxy for other edit warriors. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been already discussed (see above). Almost all editors except you suggested this material be removed. It is not notable with regard to human rights. Moreover, all this content can be found in Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina, and as such represents POV fork.Biophys (talk) 00:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This is not true. Please provide an actual reason for deletion and diffs of what you claim above. I've asked you to provide an actual reason other than "I don't like it" and I haven't received one. I'm looking at more than a dozen reliable sources on the subject in front of me, consisting of newspaper articles, journal articles, research studies funded by Brookings, reports from the UN, and books about human rights released by academic publishing houses. I'm reading a journal right now that has the entire issue devoted to Katrina. The claim that this is "not notable with regard to human rights" is not true by any stretch of the imagination. If you would please provide with a description of your personal criteria for inclusion, then we can begin to have a discussion. This is a reasonable request. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This has been discussed at length by numerous editors above in many sections discussing its many problems for an article on "human rights" -- they have been raised ad nauseum. The idea that no reason has been given for its deletion was simply false. Numerous editors have given such reasons.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
No reason has been given for its deletion. This is a true statement. Please provide a reason based on evidence and state your standard for inclusion. This is a reasonable request. I will personally remove the material if anyone can demonstrate a valid reason why it should not be in the article in any form, including a summary style from a new article, which I am in the process of creating. If there is an objection to blockquotes, then I would share that objection and agree that prose supported by secondary sources is favored over large primary source blockquotes. This is why I am creating a new article about this subject. But I expect this information to be in this article in some form (preferably 2-4 paragraphs, possibly intermixed in the racial section, possibly in a different section), and I haven't seen a single argument against inclusion. All I see is the usual supsects handwaving and edit warring. Want me to remove the content? Fine, then convince me based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines why it shouldn't appear here. Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Guys, please let's calm down.

Inappropriate rationale for removal of Katrina section

This edit removing the Katrina section had the edit summary "rm POV fork to Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina. Also undue weight. We can not reflect each UN report here."

This edit summary misconstrues the meaning of WP:POV fork. Creating a POV fork means that content (praise or criticism) is deleted from one article but inserted or retained in another related article, creating two articles with different POVs: e.g. one positive, one negative. In this sense, it is the removal of this section which is actually creating a POV fork, by deleting all human rights-related criticism of the Katrina response from this article and retaining it elsewhere.

As for the second part of the argument, We can not reflect each UN report here: given that that the UN did report on this and there was widespread controversy around this topic, I think it is appropriate to include a summary of it in the present article, along with a link to the main article.

Accordingly, I endorse the restoration of the section by Viriditas. JN466 12:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

For reference, sources testifying to the importance of the Hurricane Katrina response as a human right issue are easy to find: Greenwood Publishing Group, House Committee Hearing, Columbia University Press, Carolina Academic Press and many many others. JN466 12:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Are any of these sources from an international organization that has found that the United States violated a convention, treaty or international law regarding Hurricane Katrina survivors as a matter of law? The subject of human rights violations does not rest on the allegations of organizations, but rests solely in the international bodies with recognized powers to make such a pronouncement and/or courts. In other words, if it does not come from the UN and/or one of its commissions, agencies and/or courts, it's not worth citing, unless to clarify such a pronouncement/finding. It's lie saying someone has been found guilty of a crime when they have not been to court. Thank you. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

This list is incomplete

Journals
  • "Natural Disasters and the Rule of Law". Human Rights: Journal of the Section of Individual Rights & Responsibilities. 33 (4). ABA Publishing. Fall 2006. ISSN 0046-8185. Editorial board This issue has eight articles devoted to a discussion of human rights and Katrina.
  • Fletcher, Laurel E. (March 2007). "Latino Workers and Human Rights in the Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina" (PDF). Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law. 28 (1). Boalt Hall School of Law: 107–162. ISSN 0046-8185. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
News reports
  • Alter, Jonathan (2004-09-19). "The Other America". Special Report. Newsweek. Retrieved 2009-05-20.
  • "Report says U.S. Katrina response fails to meet its own human rights principles". New Orleans CityBusiness. 2008-01-16. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • Klapper, Bradley (2006-07-28). "U.N. Panel Takes U.S. to Task Over Katrina". AP Online. The America's Intelligence Wire. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • Sothern, Billy (2006-01-02). "Left to Die". The Nation. pp. 19–22.
Research studies
  • "Hurricane Katrina and the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement" (PDF). Institute for Southern Studies. Jan., 2008. Retrieved 2009-05-18. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • Goldman, Lynn. Christine Coussens, Institute of Medicine. (2007) Environmental public health impacts of disasters: Hurricane Katrina. National Academies Press. ISBN 0309105005
  • Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population-based Study of Labor and Human Rights. Payson Center, International Law Clinic, and the Human Rights Center, University of California, Berkeley Special Report. Laurel Fletcher, Phuong Pham, Eric Stover, and Patrick Vinck. June 2006
Books
  • Bullard, Robert (2009). Race, Place, and Environmental Justice After Hurricane Katrina. Westview Press. ISBN 0813344247. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Levitt, Jeremy (2009). Hurricane Katrina: America's Unnatural Disaster. University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 0803217609. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Bringing Human Rights Home: A History of Human Rights in the United States. Praeger Publishers. 2007. ISBN 027598821X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)

Comments on Reliable sources

If you're going to post "reliable sources" in an effort to support your contention that Katrina belongs here, it might help if you leave out the ones we're going to laugh at.

Jonathan Alter is an opinion columnist. He's well respected, but he's a liberal, and therefore hardly objective when it comes to pointing fingers at the Bush administration. I think it's fine to use him to provide color and context but he doesn't confirm anything.

I guess the AP story on the "U.N. Panel" is about Doudou Diène. He's a Senegalese socialist (who also complained about the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, btw). Most U.N. "human rights" sources are hypocrites. Quote him and a lot of readers won't take you seriously. Even so, I don't think his opinion on Katrina, as stated here, is strong enough to be worth mentioning. A recommendation that poor people get jobs in reconstruction is hardly notable.

As I said before, the so-called "non-partisan" Institute for Southern Studies is not an objective source. Anyone who thinks about it is going to click on that link, see it's run by Julian Bond, and they'll know that's not an objective source. Again, the ISS has to call themselves "non-partisan" for tax reasons. It would be as if we referred to the Christian Coalition as "non-partisan." That would technically be true as well, but anyone who reads that would think it was meant to be intentionally deceptive.

New Orleans CityBusiness is just reporting what the ISS had said. From what I've seen, they're not saying they agree.

I don't know why you think this stuff will help. What's to be gained if readers don't take this article seriously? -- Randy2063 (talk) 04:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but it doesn't sound like you understand how we use sources on Wikipedia. If you have a particular question about a source being used or content, then please ask, but your comments above are completely irrelevant. We have a reliable secondary source referring to the ISS as "non-partisan". In order for your claim to have any merit, you would need to provide another reliable source showing that they have been described as "partisan". Do you understand? Your POV does not have any bearing on this topic. We only go by what good sources say. Viriditas (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
No, it is you who doesn't understand. As I've said at least twice before, yes, I agree that the ISS is "non-partisan." But that's IRRELEVANT AND DECEPTIVE.
You are using the label "non-partisan" to make it appear as though the ISS is a neutral observer. It is not.
NOBODY believes Julian Bond is an objective judge of the facts surrounding Katrina. Got that? NOBODY. To label the ISS as "non-partisan" serves only to blur the facts. Blurring the facts is not what we're supposed to be doing here.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
That's your opinion; the term "non-partisan" comes from a secondary source. Can you point me to a good source that calls them "partisan"? The study in question was funded by Brookings. The article on Brookings, calls them "non-partisan" as well. At what point are you going to admit that you don't have a leg to stand on? Viriditas (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
You're right only in that it's a complete waste of time trying to reason with you.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I just showed you that there are multiple sources referring to both the ISS and Brookings as nonpartisan. Can you provide a good source that says they are not? Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Why don't you just call it "progressive"? The Institute for Southern Studies article calls them that, too.
You've never answered what you'd think of an article that labels the "Christian Coalition" as "non-partisan."
-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see how distracting me from this topic will help, but I'll bite: Can you find me a good reliable source that calls the CC "non-partisan"? Or, are you just making this up? Viriditas (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I would never say the Christian Coalition is "nonpartisan" in the sense that you seem to think we're talking about the word. What I am saying is that the word "nonpartisan" has another meaning in the law.
As the article Nonpartisan#United States of America explains, "nonpartisan" does not always mean unbiased.
If you want to keep it like this, go ahead. As I said, I'm not going to waste more of my time. Readers can click their way to the ISS article to see Julian Bond's name. Perhaps they'll be like you and believe that an organization started by Julian Bond is objective.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Let me try this one more time. Do you have good sources that say that ISS is partisan? Please provide them. We don't edit based on the opinions of editors . Surely you know that? Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Did you even read what I said? Partisanship is also irrelevant. I was saying that the term "nonpartisan" is irrelevant and deceptive. It does not necessarily mean "unbiased" even though some people would think it does.
Here's the history of the ISS. They're loons. But you don't need to take that site's word for it, or mine. The fact that they were founded by Julian Bond should tell you enough.
But if you want to sit with a smile on your face imagining that everyone who reads this article is going to be fooled by the word "nonpartisan" then you'd better think again. Some people will be fooled. Others will read about Julian Bond and start laughing at you.
And that's fine with me, so I'm signing off.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
You seem to think that we edit Wikipedia based on personal beliefs about people and ideas. Well, we don't. We edit based on sources, and unless you have sources, good sources, saying that the ISS is partisan, then you don't have an argument. Understand? Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
ISS is not a human rights organization. [[4]] Putting aside the issue of partisanship, and as I have seen countless times on this thread, ISS in not being a human rights organization is not reliable as a source on this subject matter. I believe that was also the rationale used to eliminate a Washington Post article I linked as a source previously. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Nobody claimed ISS was a human rights organization, nor do they have to be one to be used as a reliable source. (Nor could you make such an argument as such a criterion would contradict the RS guideline) So, the first two points you have just made have been refuted. Third, nobody claimed the Washington Post article was removed for either of these reasons. What was claimed was that the Washington Post article was removed for two reasons: 1) The news article did not discuss human rights in relation to Katrina, and 2) You interpreted the article to say something it did not. The fact is, the ISS research report is discussed by many reliable secondary sources in direct relation to human rights, and the report itself discusses these rights. If this isn't making sense to you, please ask someone to explain it to you or bring it up somewhere else. You appear to have a basic misunderstanding of what kind of sources we use and how we use them. Viriditas (talk) 08:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Response by Mosedschurte

In response to my many POV and WP:Undue Weight points above, I received responses from this editor such as:

  • "Mosedschurte, do you understand that the positive advancement of human rights in the U.S. has come out of the criticism of negative incidents?" (Viriditas)
  • "You seem to be proposing that anything negative about the U.S. human rights record should be removed, and only pro-U.S. sources should be used."(Viriditas)
  • "Our job as editors is to write the best article we can, using the best sources (i.e. not Fox News)."(Viriditas)
  • "You want to paint a rosy picture of the U.S. that is divorced from reality, when in fact, history shows that all human rights have been fought for and won by people who have criticized the status quo. No human rights have been given to anyone."(Viriditas)

Not exactly building confidence as editing with an NPOV.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop ignoring my questions per talk page guidelines. Failure to answer them but continuing to make the same points will get you in trouble. I asked you above to provide an outline for a potential rewrite that meets your objections. So far, you have remained silent on the matter, but still show up here to make personal attacks. Your strategy of "scrolling" the discussion off the page with the use of distracting commentary is tiring. Please address the questions asked of you. Viriditas (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Re: "Please stop ignoring my questions per talk page guidelines. Failure to answer them but continuing to make the same points will get you in trouble." (Viriditas)
I can't say I'm surprised at threats at this point. If you're going to threaten people in violation of Wikipedia policy, try to make it less ineffectual than a threat to get other editors "in trouble" if they "ignor[e] my questions".Mosedschurte (talk) 06:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Another personal attack? Please answer the question and get back on topic. Viriditas (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
This is again, simply false. Not a single "personal attack" in the comments, and in fact, the last one was just out to point your Wikipedia policy violation with a false threat. And yet more deflection, including demands to answer your interrogatories, rather than discussing the glaringly obvious and overwhelming POV and WP:Undue Weight problems editors have pointed out regarding this article.Mosedschurte (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
You've distracted away from the direction with nothing but personal attacks, and all you can do is address the editor, rather than the points raised. Please stop your disruptive behavior. Viriditas (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I concur. There has been no attempt to reach a consensus on these topics. Instead, we have denial, and the playing of the victim card. We need to work TOGETHER to reach cosnensus. Unfortunately, Viriditas's hostility towards anyone with a countering point of view is making this difficult. Please try to remain constructive and reach a consensus on how to make this article neutral. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Please, I've seen this little tag-team charade too many times. All I've seen from Mosedschurte and Yachtsman1 are personal attacks, evasions of points, promotion of unreliable sources, and non-neutral edits (see below). Answer the questions asked of you, and address the topic. I've directly addressed the problems raised in this article and I've attempted to help fix them, only to be attacked by you Yachtsman1. If you can't discuss the topic without discussing the editor, then don't edit here. It's that simple. Your little "game" of making a criticism and attacking anyone who responds to it with a tag-team is old and tired, and many editors before you have tried it. None have succeeded. Viriditas (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a personal attack, please stop. List your concerns, and then end. Also, please assume good faith as required. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you address the questions asked of you and stop addressing editors. Your behavior is disruptive and does not help improve the article. I have assumed good faith, until proven otherwise, with your continued attacks above. Please focus on the topic, instead of constantly distracting away from it. This isn't Fox News, where you get to attack people and make stuff up. This is Wikipedia. Now, address my questions above. Viriditas (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your post. The "questions" have already been addressed by many editors at this time. See supra. I have also made a fresh review of Wikipedia policy, and nowhere does it require me to provide further explanation on a neutrality discussion than what we have here. At this point, we should be trying to reach consensus on how best to achieve neutrality on this article. I would suggest that at this point, you show how us what you propose to improve the article in question so that consensus can be reached. Thank you again. The obvious points that have been made is that we should eliminate undue weight, eliminate human rights outside of the United States, and eliminate the section on Hurricane Katrina as a human rights violation. So far, there are numerous editors who have reached this consensus, and I can omnly count you as in opposition. In a spirit of cooperation and in order to incorporate your views, please provide us with your view on how neutrality can be achieved. Thank you again.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I already have above, and you refused to answer my questions. Right now, I don't consider you to be working in good faith. I consider you to be a hostile, POV pusher who makes personal attacks and distracts from the discussion and is incapable of discussing the topic. This isn't Fox News. This is Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
And that's your point of view, and that's the problem. You have tarred me with the "Fox News" brush, and you have absolutely not a clue how wrong you are. This is not an election, this is not a war, and this is not a contest of who watches which news outlet. Objectifying your perceived "opponents" with these tactics is terrible form, and uncivil. Just thought you should know. Wikipedia is not a battlefield.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sexual orientation section

Prior discussion outlining issues.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why is this in this article? The problem I have with it is:

  • Sexual orientation is not a human right in and of itself;
  • Recognition of marriage between homosexuals is not a human right;
  • The section on the 14th Amendment is uncited and totally incorrect;
  • The section on what "might" be recognized in the future is crystal balling, a prediction based on opinion of what "might" happen in the future, not facts.

I would suggest either getting cites to support this section as a matter of human rights, eliminating "predictions" or possible recognition, or eliminating it all together. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this section is hardly relevant and should be removed.Biophys (talk) 03:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Same with "Natural disasters". This is classic Wikipedia:Coatrack and undue weight.Biophys (talk) 03:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, and I would ask that you explain your reasoning in the dedicated section, Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States#Katrina, so I can address it in detail. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
There are also many POV forks in this article, especially in the "international" sections.Biophys (talk) 03:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps see UN declaration on sexual orientation and gender identity. -- Banjeboi 04:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The United States is not a signatory to this declaration, even if it applied, and the total number of signatories equals 66 out of 192 countries. Hardly persuasive in this context. Thank you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems they actually are - U.S. Joins Call to End Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation. -- Banjeboi 05:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
They have not yet joined this agreement. Even if applicable, can you tell me how what is written in the proposed deleted portion applies to the agreement? Have we seen an example of people being "prosecuted" or sent to jail in the United States for being a homosexual, which is what the declaration applies to? What is the point of its inclusion?--Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
AI USA on human rights, Yogyakarta Principles on LGBT human rights, AI 'Stonewalled' report on 4 US cities, human rights factsheet on LGBT, Washington-based LGBT HRC, SPLC report on HR abuses of transgender people, AI report on policing of trangender in NY, AI report on policing of transgender in Chicago. Sexual orientation is not in itself a human right, but the abuse of people's human rights on the basis of their sexual or gender identity is a human rights issue, regarded as identity-based persecution; issues of discrimination, unequal treatment, etc., these are human rights issues, regardless of sexual or gender identity - where these are practiced because of peoples' sexual or gender identities, then they become human rights issues on that basis. Mish (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Yet none of these allegations are included. Instead, we have crystal balling prediciting that one day, sexual orientation might be viewed under the equal protection clause. We also have a discussion concerning the 14th Amendment that is wildly inaccurate from a legal standpoint, and is totally unreferenced with talk of recognition of gay marriage. What does this have to do with human rights?--Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree the section needs more work, for example to cover the rights of LGBT generally, civil unions, employment, freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention, harassment, privacy, safety in private and public spaces, etc. all needs spelling out more as how these relate to which human rights and to the constitution specifically. I would look at the work that needs doing, but I have no understanding of US constitutional affairs, and I do not want to have more understanding right now. What does it have to do with human rights? LGBT people are human beings, so to deny on the basis of their sexual or gender identity any human rights accorded to other human beings is to deny them their human rights. Mish (talk) 06:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
No rights are denied, none are listed, instead we are asked to interject a thought they might be rejected as they are unmentioned. The issue of gay marriage is one of "recognition". No law in the United States "bars" gay people from being married, and there are certainly lots of religious organizations that may choose to perform such a marriage. Instead, the issue is reserved to the states under the Constitution and the state either chooses to "recognize" that union as "marriage" or not. There are specific laws (unmentioned, what a shock) that make it a crime to harass and/or discriminate against gay people that exist on the state and federal levels. This is not included, most likely because it would cast the United States in a positive light and that they might actually have laws and policies that support human rights. In any event, the section on Constitutional law is woefully, almost laughably, deficient. The crystal ball predictions are specious, and Wikipedia does not advocate crystal ball predictions of "what might" occur in the future. I would argue that LGBT issues ARE an element of human rights, but that this section does not address it properly, and should simply be deleted, or heavily edited. The problem you have is that because the United Sattes is a federal democracy, you will have to link to laws, codes, policies, USC and regulations to answer the point. In other words, this is an article that can exist wholly on its own. Rederence to a separate page may be more appropriate.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 07:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you are probably correct, that this topic needs to be dealt with in its own right, with a short section in here that links to that article and has a brief paragraph describing the situation. Having just read the US Constitution (for the first time since studying Political Science at University 30 years ago), then it seems that a right to marry is not specifically addressed, so lesbian/gay civil unions would not be addressed either. Amendment 14 includes equality in relation to the law; it appears that the argument for extending the civil registration of unions beyond a man and woman is that failing to do so restricts that equality under law. Some states have legislated to extend this right to LGBT people by extending a legal process - civil union - beyond one group of US citizens to all US citizens (by including LGBT people). I might misunderstand this, but that is how it appears to an outsider with only a limited understanding of these issues. The US Bill of Rights does not appear exhaustive account of human rights, and is primarily about civil rights, although pretty fundamental rights. The freedom of consulting adults to engage in civil union (or marriage) is seen as a fundamental human right in human rights discourse, and it is now argued that this human right includes LGBT people (sources already provided). If this is a human right that is contested, and is subject to rights discourse in the USA, then it makes no sense not to include some mention of that discussion here - especially if sources are available that describe the matter. I agree that the section is deficient, and it does deserve more serious attention by somebody who is competent to do so - particularly (as you say) ways in which human rights have been recognized and attended to, as well as where they are seen as lacking. Mish (talk) 08:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I've inserted a link to the main LGBT rights in USA article into the sexual orientation section. Mish (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • If we look at the human rights reports the US draw up on other countries, the treatment of homosexuals is part of the report's scope. Example: [5] That surely makes sense, so the topic should not be excluded from this article's scope either. If this present article is too long, section summaries can be shortened to the essential points. At any rate, there should always be a pointer to the main article on that specific subtopic. JN466 14:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • comment - unlike clearly shoehorned in sections, such as Hurricane Katrina and the international oddities (in an article about "Human rights in the United States), sexual orientation is at least arguably one that should be included on "Human rights in the United States". But, again, like much of the article, very little Context is provided. Also, given that there is serious dispute on whether it should be addressed in the context of human rights, it should also not be given WP:Undue Weight, though it is actually not large now compared with some of the other somewhat humorously bloated Editorial style sections (addressed above).Mosedschurte (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sexual orientation section

Anyone want to tackle this at this point? It appears to be unreferenced POV with a touch of crystal balling. Are there any suggestions for improvement? Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

See the last of my earlier comments on this issue, in the appropriate section, which one or two people seemed to agree with. Mish (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
You might want to stay with the section, didn't you start that?, above on this very topic where concensus is to add context and sourcing but not to remove anything. -- Banjeboi 10:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I suggested removing it above. I am requesting comment on how to improve it now as consensus was to keep it. Understand? --Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
And please discuss changes on this section before making changes to reach a consensus. Let me give you an example - The "Right to Marry" is not one linked to the "right to marry" but instead goes to "recognition" of marriage by the state. There exists no law barring gays from marrying each others by a religious figure (nor could there by constitutionally), instead the law goes to recognition by the state of that union as a "marriage". Marriage is limited in this respect because it is the preferred vehicle for the procreation and raising of children born as the natural result of the union of a man and a woman, and as only men and women can form a union that naturally produces offspring from that union, it is the only "recognized" union by the state. Now we have more problems as a result.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Are we looking at the same page? Can't find the words 'Right to Marry' on the page. Recognition of marriage nationally appears under the section 'sexual orientation', and state recognition as a subsection. As this is not the extent of human rights for sexual & gender minorities, it might be better to have the section either carrying one general section which points elsewhere, or a set of subsections.
  • LGBT human rights in USA
    • Position on international treaties & declarations
    • Same-sex sex, historical and present-day
    • Civil Unions and/or same-sex marriage
    • Equality and discrimination
    • Transgender and transsexual rights
    • State-specific sexual orientation issues
    • State-specific positions on civil unions and/or marriage
    • State-specific transgender and transsexual issues
    • Hate-crime legislation
And so on (I doubt I have exhausted this). Mish (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
There is no "national recognition" of marriage, it goes by each state, and we would still need to see how you propose meshing this into a human rights article. The items you point to involve rights of the group, or laws created to protect them, but does not apply to human rights per se. It might be better to direct what US policies/laws infringe on LGBT righrs from an international human rights perspective.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, there would need to be a discussion on recognition of civil unions as a human right. So, the one that says there is no national recognition of marriage, that will be quite short. Then the state one would go into more depth. Same-sex would cover how the situation moved from abuse to tolerance, apart from exceptions. Equality and discrimination are human rights issues - and I would think it important to include where these things are respected and protected, as well as where they are not. I don't have to mesh anything - I'm not editing this article, I have no interest in this article, I was making some suggestions. I do not have any wish to be any more involved with this article than I have been. Mish (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Once again, the lede

This paragraph in the lede is unsourced and poorly written:

The United States has a long and established tradition in the area of human rights.[citation needed] Historically, the United States has been committed to the principle of liberty and has sheltered many political, religious and economic refugees in times of international strife.[citation needed] Legally, human rights within the United States are those rights recognized by the Constitution of the United States, Bill of Rights, and those recognized by treaties ratified by the United States Senate.[citation needed] The Constitution and treaties are generally interpreted by the judicial branch, making it the key body in determining national human rights.[1]

Please suggest ways it could be improved. Pexise (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The Overview

Isn't the overview meant to reflect the content of the article? As it stands, there is no mention at all of any of the many, many abuses and human rights violations mentioned later in the article: Pexise (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The Statue of Liberty.

On September 17, 1787 the United States Constitution was adopted, which created a democracy that guaranteed social and economic rights for all its citizenry. The American system seeks to ensure a free society where life, liberty and a host of inalienable human rights are guaranteed by its Constitution, including the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments of the Constitution), and as called for by the Declaration of Independence. Civil liberties in the United States are built on what has been described as a self-evident truth that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".[2] This view of human liberty reflects the opinion that fundamental rights are not granted by the state but are inherent to each individual (hence these rights are "unalienable" and each human is "endowed" to them by their Creator). The Constitution recognizes a number of inalienable human rights, including freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, and the right to a fair trial by jury.[citation needed]

Constitutional amendments have been enacted as the needs of the society of the United States changed. The Ninth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment recognize that not all human rights have yet been enumerated. The Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act are examples of human rights that were enumerated by Congress well after its writing.

The scope of the legal protections of human rights afforded by the US government is defined by case law, particularly by the precedent of the Supreme Court of the United States. Within the government, the debate about what may or may not prove to be an emerging human right is held in two forums, the United States Congress which may enumerate these or the Supreme Court which may articulate rights not recognized.

Many, many rights abuses? Care to expand? These things mentioned here are parts of the founding of America, and detail some of America's most historic moments. Soxwon (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The fact that the U.S. has many critics is mentioned in the lede. He apparently wants a condemnation in every section whether it belongs there or not.
Frankly, I'm proud that the U.S. has so many critics around the world. I'd hate to live in a country that wasn't so fervently despised by the fascists and their friends.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Please keep your comments focused on improving the article and not on attacking editors. Pexise is drawing attention to WP:LEAD and requesting that the overview be merged into the lead per best practice. Viriditas (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Constitution created a democracy?! Come on now. The founding fathers didn't even believe in what they understood by the term. The classical sense of the word meant something like the old South Africa. In the modern sense, I'd guess USA became one in 1921. Peter jackson (talk) 09:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You're forgetting the influence of the democratic Iroquois Confederacy on the founding fathers. Viriditas (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Exactly my point - this overview seems quite out of place here - what's the purpose of it? Pexise (talk) 11:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
No idea. Human rights in the United States should start with the Quakers and Anthony Benezet and their focus on slavery. You remember, the material Mosed deleted? Per Paul Gordon Lauren's The Evolution of International Human Rights (2003):

Despite the remarkable provisions of the new U.S. Bill of rights...actual practices denied equal rights to the majority comprising women, slaves, the unpropertied, indigenous peoples, and children. The Constitution itself provided official sanction for the practice of slavery by prohibiting Congress from taking action to eliminate the slave trade for twenty years, making no clear distinction between property rights and human rights...women in America would not be guaranteed their right to vote for more than a century...every state...restricted voting on the basis of age, race, and property or wealth, and thus denied the political right to vote and effective representation to the majority of the population...For these disenfrancished and dispossessed groups, and despite the official rhetoric of rights, neither the Consitution nor its Bill of Rights provided any immediate protection whatsoever...the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights in the United States...reflected far more vision than reality.

The story we are being sold has only one side. See also Lauren's essay in Bringing Human Rights Home (2007); Chapter 1; A Human Rights Lens on U.S. History: Human Rights at Home and Human Rights Abroad". Viriditas (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Excellent quote - can we incorporate it into the overview? Best to do it here on the talk page first. Pexise (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't use that exact quote because it was only offered as an example and represents several different passages. The only reason I was offering it was to show that only one side is being represented in the article. The author is a published historian and expert on the topic of human rights. You can read more about him, here. The basic line of reasoning is easy to source, so if there is a particular point you want to see in the article, let me know and I can help write it/source it. Also, we need to start using human rights-related sources, as many of Mosed's additions shouldn't even be in the article as they rely on sources that have nothing to do with human rights. Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, basic individual liberties are important to human rights. I would support changing democracy to republic though. Soxwon (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
What exactly are you disagreeing with? Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Forking needed of this page for technical reasons

I have a pretty beefy computer, that can handle large web sites, just about any game, and doing multiple high-level image edits--sometimes all at once. But this article actually is making my Firefox visibly chug on each reload. It's current 9356 words of readable prose, and 413kb in size. The printed version according to my Print Preview is THIRTY pages in length. This article needs to be forked to several sub-articles. I don't plan on editing the article, but I might suggest the biggest section as a fork, Human rights in the United States#International human rights with something like International human rights and the United States or something similar as the target. If my PC is having a technical fit on this page, I feel bad for everyone else. rootology/equality 22:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, I think the section should be reduced to match WP:WEIGHT. Soxwon (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Up to you guys based on consensus what to do; I just picked out that one as the "easy target" and suggestion purely as it's taking up the most real estate on my screen. I've got zero involvement or stake in this article. A fork, split, reduction, or something else does have to happen though, and soon, per policy. We're inconveniencing our readers with the sheer size of this page. rootology/equality 22:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I would agree in principle with the suggestion of forking the article, keeping a short summary of the international section in this article. Pexise (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree - separate out the domestic and international human rights issues. It will allow for better focus, resolve the some conflict about what should or should not be included, and reduce the size of the article. For non-US persons, the international human rights aspects may be of more relevance than the domestic aspects. Mish (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I just sicced Miszabot on the page and told it to archive 3-week old threads. That should help keep it readable...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't mean the talk page. I meant the actual article. rootology/equality 01:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Coupla things. Forking is a taboo word on Wikipedia ala POV Fork, we try to avoid those. I think this concerns parent and sub articles like almost every country has. This article, for instance, is technically a sub to the United States article. I too support finding ways - likely a split with summary style as well. SarekOfVulcan, thank you for the archiving however that only addresses this talkpage volume not the article heft. All efforts appreciated however. -- Banjeboi 01:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think it is safe to say we are all on the same page with this. The question is how do we proceed. I think splitting with summary style is acceptable, but the summary style must reflect the main points, and if it doesn't, this is where we run into problems. Viriditas (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Agree with Viriditas. Many of the international sections have their own dedicated articles; all we need here is a representative overview of these articles. Further details can be given there. Although please note – and I am sure you were all waiting for someone to say something like this – that the article isn't that big. The FA on Frank Zappa has over 10,000 words before you come to the references. So this is still in the ballpark. JN466 06:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I have no problems loading the page myself (using either 6 year old P4 PC or 3 year old celeron laptop running linux) - maybe the problem with the hight-spec PC taking time to load is ISP bandwidth? (accessing 10Mbit broadband ISP connection via hub). Tried the Zappa page - loads quick too. I can see accessing via a modem might be an issue, but what isn't these days? Still think it makes sense to break the page down. Mish (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Bernard Schwartz. 1968. Rights of the Person. page 44
  2. ^ Declaration of Independence
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States/Archive_11&oldid=1080615372"