Jump to content

Talk:Human rights in the United States/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 19

Manipulation with the editors' opinions?

I am a little bit surprised with some recent changes that has been made during last couple of hours in the section "Comments by uninvolved editors"[1] . I understood the section's name in such a way that uninvolved editors are invited to present their opinions and that the editors that have already been extensively involved in the discussion will refrain from any interference into that. However, a user Yachtsman1 started to supplement editor's opinion with comments that questioned the neutrality of them (I believe that the fact that these editors expressed the point of view not shared by Yachtsman1 was just a unfortunate coincidence :) ). However, after six uninvolved or minimally involved editors (Banjeboi, Mish, I, Biophys, Marting) presented their opinions (3 pro and 2 contra + radek's contra afterwards, so now we have 3 : 3 comments of uninvolved editors), I found that the whole section appeared to be completely rearranged. Some comments were removed, other posts were added from previous sections and the editors that have already been heavily involved in the discussion added their comments. Moreover, the name of the section have been changed from "Comments by uninvolved editors" to "Comments".
I have the strong feeling that:

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

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

Jay, who filed the RfC, asked me to reword it, because people here were complaining about it not being neutral. So I did. I removed the threaded discussion, and the instructions in yellow, and so on, which were very confusing. I also removed the distinction between involved and uninvolved editors, because it was leading to arguments. There is therefore a neutrally worded RfC in the section above; a section for comments; and a section below it for threaded discussion. That way, people coming to this anew will be able to read it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Second Paul here. The discussion was hard enough to follow and now I've got to re-read the whole page to find old comments. And all of this done with a purpose of making it look like one's POV has more support than it does. This isn't even to bring up the deletion of other editors' comments. This is going beyond simple violations of Wiki guidelines and starting to border on vandalism.radek (talk) 03:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
To clarify, my comment above refers to Viriditas moving around users' comments without their approval and outright deleting some of them.radek (talk) 03:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
To further clarify, Paul is not referring to my edits. You are either confused, or in the wrong thread; Perhaps a combination of both. Viriditas (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
To further clarify, he actually is.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you are seriously mistaken. I did not remove or modify the specific material Paul is referring to during this timeframe. I may have posted one or two comments, but I did not change anything regarding this particular issue. Please try to follow discussion a bit more closely. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Paul, please add a comment (or move this) to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#RfC where a related discussion is already underway. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Uh, yes you did, and you were admonished by an adminsitrator for doing so, promising not to do so in the future to avoid blocking. [[2]]--Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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

A good suggestion. Let me explain: Originally, it was another editor's position that only "non-partipants" could comment, and therefore the fact that each commentator had already particpated under the "uninvolved" section was in direct odds with that position. I added the summaries underneath the first few comments to show that they had edited the talk page and article previously and were thus "involved", but would never edit the actual comments. These were later removed. Verititas has since moved an entire section of this RFC without a consensus to the Katrina portion of the talk page, and has edited comments from editors without permission. In short, if looking for the person acting as a "moderator", look no further than user:Virititas. Yes, it's completely outrageous. Check out the edit summary if you have any further questions, because the "changes" are coming from "left" field on this occassion.Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
More distractions. Nobody ever said "non-participants" could comment. They said that the RFC needs to reflect the position of involved editors, and that the RFC is designed to solicit opinions from non-involved editors. Please at least try to follow what is said. Paul Siebert's criticism of your continuing interference in this RFC is dead accurate. And SlimVirgin apparently tried to cleanup the mess, so she cannot be blamed here. The fact is, you and your "team" have not allowed this RFC to operate in good faith and it has been distorted at every level. Oh, and nice job trying to divert the criticism away from you and on to me. I do have further questions, such as where are the neutral editors, and why isn't this RFC designed to attract them? This is a show RFC, and cannot be considered legitimate. Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Then please explain this comment left on my talk page: [[3]]. I think it amply speaks for itself, and your own words stand in stark contrast to what you have stated above.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Shrug. I thought I was a neutral non-involved editor... --Martintg (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
You're a rare breed, then. :) Viriditas (talk) 03:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Viriditas, perhaps you should entertain the possibility that YOU are the non-neutral editor here and the fact that the RFC isn't going the way you wish it was does not mean that others are non neutral. And you REALLY REALLY REALLY you need to cut out the personal abuse.radek (talk) 03:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
That's funny, because as a neutral editor, I haven't participated in the RFC, or have you been too involved to notice? Oh, and I challenge you to find a single discussion comment where I have opined on the topic of this RFC, other than to observe that several editors have not been following the consensus (or lack of it) on the talk page. Looking forward to your reply... Viriditas (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you so much for showing support for those who agree with you, and casting adverse judgments on those who do not. We are all very surprised, we swear. As for "untrue statement", please share a few with me. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Please let's be nice to each other ... :) JN466 17:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
To Yachtsman1. No problem. The first example of a false statement is your above post. My major purpose was not to show support for those who agree with me, but to explain what concretely did I mean in my previous post. I did not mean changes made by Viriditas, and, therefore, your statement "To further clarify, he actually is" was a second example of false statement made by you.
More important, the major person I showed support for was Martintg. As you probably noticed, he shared the oppsite point of view, however, he took every effort to reflect my POV in his post when my own post appeared to be removed. This is an admirable example of intellectual honesty and nobility. And this is a good example for you to follow.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Yet the greatest number of changes were made by Viriditas, which was the point being made. Your point was that someone had decided to regroup the posts, and to act as a monitor. Things like this: [[4]] and this [[5]]. Virititas's changes/reverts of talk page comments have also been well documented. Perhaps misread your points would be more accurate? Or perhaps you "meant" something else? You delve into dangerous territory when you accuse someone of a false statement, Paul.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The examples provided by you has no relation to the RfC section. My point was clear: someone was adding the comments to the posts of others and someone re-grouped and even deleted the posts of others to create an impression that majority of the editors support the idea to remove Guantanamo and Abu Graib. Obviously, this was done not by Viriditas, and your attempt to accuse him in that, as well as to use my words as a support for your accusations look funny. Two explanations of your behaviour are possible, you either (i) did it unintentionally (in other words, you just misunderstood something), or (ii) it was a deliberate lie. Although I prefer to believe in (i), in both cases you have at least to apologise.
If I missed or I didn't understand something, please, explain, however, I see no flaw in my arguments so far.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Try Number 1, then, Paul. The Rfc section was heavily edited by the user in question, thus the "flaw in your argument", by simply reverting other's comments, primarily those who were previously involved and supported eliminating "Guantanamo and Abu Graib" among other items from the article, thus acting as a "moderator" as you put it by censoring comments. Indeed, the editor in question was forced to apologize for doing just that on her talk page by an administrator. If you meant something else, I apologize for the confusion, taking your comments to mean "moderating" the Rfc in general, which was precisely what was happening in direct violation of talk page policy. However, and in any case, the explanation was provided by user:slimvirgin, which to my knowledge has been accepted. Are we clear then?--Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Glad to hear that the incident was a result of your misunderstanding. In that situation some explanations may be sufficient. As I already wrote, my major concern were: (i) the comments made by you (you conceded it was incorrect, so forget about that), and (ii) changes that apparently were made by user:slimvirgin([6] and some others). Slimvirgin provided explanations for these actions, so, although I still think such an action wasn't justified, I at least can assume user:slimvirgin's good faith. However, I found no evidence of manipulation by neutral editors' opinions made by Viriditas (I mean, in the RfC section). Moreover I let you know clearly, that I didn't mean him, so you couldn't and you shouldn't use my words as a support for your allegations.
Consequently, you have two options: (i) either to provide an evidence that Viriditas edited the RfC section between 00:47 26 may and 02:16 26 may, when the unjustified modifications took place; or (ii) apologise.
I believe now we are clear.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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

I think it is important to show that certain editors here have not been honest, and this thread demonstrates that fact. For example, Yachtsman1 continued to make false claims even when the person he was supposedly referring to corrected his error. If editors cannot be honest, they have no business editing this page. So yes, I think this thread should remain on this talk page as a beacon of light to those who think they can get away with making false statements. Viriditas (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Hopefully we'll be at a place a month or two from now where we've made progress and can revisit filing this away. PetersV       TALK 22:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Labor Rights?

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

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

When full sources are not available online

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

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

Immigration and ethnicity

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

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

US participation in human rights treaties

In the latter part of the 20th century, however, the US has participated in few of the international human rights treaties, covenants and declarations adopted by the UN member states.[5]

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

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

Further assessments

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

Health care section

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

Mass Revert of all typos, etc.

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

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

RfC: Article scope

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

Comments

(no threaded discussion in this section, please)

Why not? This helps to clarify positions during this discussion.Biophys (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Because, my self-admitted "uninvolved editor" (guffaw), it only serves to distract away from the RFC. Does the wikilawyering ever end? Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • OPPOSED TO EXPANSION OF THE ARTICLE TO INTERNATIONAL MATTERS - not only am I opposed to expanding the article beyond the "narrow scope", as you put it (interesting phrasing -- not unlike some of the phrasing in your edits of the Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) cult articles, I'm not even going there beyond that), but it makes little sense to do otherwise in an article titled "Human rights in the United States. Other editors coming across this article will continue to express similar suprise as those above when large sections of the article address issues outside the United States.
Moreover, as explained up the Talk page, the topic would dwarf everything in the page right now with just 2 years alone -- the Nuremberg Trials, the Hiroshima Bomb, the Fire Bombing of Dresden in World War II, the controverial Rheinwiesenlager camps holding German prisoners the Fire Bombing of Tokyo, the Bombing of Kobe in World War II, Nagasaki_bomb, etc. All of these are from 10 to 100,000 times the magnitude of issues as Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse and the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. And that's from just two years, setting aside the leadership in the Rwanda genocide trials, the Bosnian genocide trials, Korean War, Vietnam War, leading efforts to oppose the two of the three most ghastly human rights abusers of this century (Hitler and Stalin), leading the efforts to attempt to contain the largest current police state/abuser (Kim Jong-Il's North Korea), and Pol Pot's Cambodia Killing Fields, leading the efforts to stop the mass killings in Darfur, etc. These issues greatly outscale (thousands of times over in magnitude) issues regarding just two prisons (Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay) currently discussed. Were the article's scope to be so expanded, those two prisons would end up meriting maybe a sentence, or no mention at all, given their tiny magnitude in relation to the other issues.
Keep in mind that that article is already RIGHT NOW sitting on the precipice of the WP:Article Size 6 to 10KB prose text guidelines, at 9.7KB. Expanding it into the massive overseas fronts would mean a substantial decreasing in size (and probably elimination) of a lot of the smaller areas, and even then it would likely continue to violate WP:Article Size. Mosedschurte 19:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. First off RfC's are supposed to be clear and neutral, and ideally concise. This is already quite a mess. To answer the stated question though of course a good article would cover Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay, et al. as any countries human rights work is not confined to only what they do within their borders. The United States in particular is known for acting outside its own policies. Look to serving our readers and you'll likely find your answers. How does Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay, etc. impact human rights issues in the United States? There are entire books devoted to these subjects. -- Banjeboi 21:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Perhaps the title should be Human rights and the USA - because people outside the USA see these two issues as being about the United States human rights record, and often about the human rights of people who are not US citizens, people from countries such as the one I live in. If the USA has the power to extract people from other sovereign countries, and imprison them for months or years without trial in territory outside of the USA, then it has something to with the approach to human rights taken by the USA - and presumably the decision to do that was taken within the USA. So yes, it is about 'Human rights in the USA', because it is an approach taken from within the USA. Mish (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • complete outline of the Human rights record of the United States including international matters is my vote as somebody not involved in US issues, but who commented on the issue of sexual orientation Mish (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I disagree that the article must tell only about the events inside the USA. The sole reason for creation of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp (I mean, creation of the camp in that concrete place, outside the US territory) was to remove its inmates from protection of the American laws. Therefore, a story about Guantanamo is a story about the (successful) attempt of the US authorities to circumvent restriction domestic legislation applies on treatment of ordinary criminals or POWs. Consequently, the story about Guantanamo camp has a direct relation to the situation with human rights in the USA.
    My conclusion is that some events outside the US may have a direct relevance to that article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I hope you agree that "under (direct) U.S. jurisdiction" precisely and clearly addresses Guantanamo and similar to be in scope while not opening the article to the entire planet. PetersV       TALK 02:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Limit scope of this article to "Human rights in [within] the US". All international US-related human rights issues (Iraq, Europe, Cuba, etc.) should be included in separate article(s) and only briefly mentioned here. This is needed: (a) to make this article more readable per WP:MOS (it is already too big), and (b) to be logical and consistent with the practice for other countries. For example Soviet war crimes (outside the Soviet Union) are undeniably human rights issues. But we are not going to paste these materials into Human rights in the Soviet Union, and rightly so. I consider myself almost uninvolved editor, since I only made two edits in this article.Biophys (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • (comment by RfC originator) I think everybody is agreed that events of 65 or 165 years ago should not receive detailed coverage in this article. We only have one single-word mention of slavery and native Americans, for example. The main scope of this article is the present day. JN466 23:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Not at all. This article should begin from adoption of the United States Constitution, however it should describe only human rights issues in (within) the US. It does not matter if we are talking about modern day Iraq or WWII Europe.Biophys (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Well that obviously makes the now historical "Abu Ghraib", "Alleged violations of national sovereignty" and "Extraordinary rendition" sections easy historical deletes. That's good to hear. But it would still have to be expanded to include the current pushes to stop Human rights abuses in Darfur, North Korea, etc.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Limit scope of this article to "Human rights in [within] the US". This article should be confined to domestic human rights issues within the USA, which is already a huge topic on its own when one thinks of slavery of the 19th Century and the civil rights movement today. Some think issues like Guantanamo Bay needs to be included, but if we do that, what about these CIA detentions in Europe? If those CIA detentions are included what about those civilians killed in Afghanistan and US backing of Israel and the Palestinian issue and the CIA's assasination attempt on Castro, etc, etc, etc. The scope will just continue to creep. Create new articles to cover international issues if required. Some contend that CIA detentions in Europe should be included, because the reason for their creation is the same as that of the Guantanamo camp: to put some persons under the US jurisdiction and, at the same time, to deprive them of basic right warranted by the US laws. However many European countries have agreed to suspend their own human rights laws to allow the CIA to hold prisoners on their territory, so the CIA detentions could also be a subject of Human rights in (insert your European country here). There is a stronger case to include the Guantanamo camp and CIA renditions in the article War on Terrorism rather than this article. This war isn't being fought by the USA alone, but many European countries are involved too. The bottom line is that this article should not become a WP:COATRACK of grievances against the USA. --Martintg (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Opposed to Expansion: I have been heavily involved in this article and the talk page. The article involves human rights within the United States. As such, it should be limited to the subject of human rights within its own borders. Articles on the human rights policies of the United States, an enormous undertaking, deserves its own article, or bettwe yet several sub-articles, most of which in fact already exist. I would suggest that this policy be used on the matter of human rights by country in the future. The matter of human rights within the borders of the country should be covered, and a separate article on policies outside of that country and generally provided for each country. I think this provides good order for the subject. I would also suggest that many areas within the article itself stray off topic, including gay marriage, for instance, and/or are written by people with no background in American law and forms of government in America's uniquely federal system, where power is shared by local, state and federal governments such as the section on Hurricane Katrina. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose to inclusion of extra topics - propose moving things like Guantanamo to another article, say Human Rights and US Foreign Policy (I can see that one becoming a mess quickly too, but at least the issues will be easier to navigate).radek (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Include discussion of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo as a matter of course This is the article on the Human rights record of the United States. It is not credible without a discussion of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay. These topics have been covered in the article for years, and I see no good reason to remove them now. Country reports by the UN human rights council cover a nation's conduct in military operations as a matter of course, as do the country reports on human rights published by the US State Department (example: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/eur/119101.htm). Editors should focus on improving the content of the existing sections, so the article cites the best scholarly and media sources available, and do so collaboratively, rather than by edit-warring. Given the number of human rights-related issues discussed, most of which are the subject of a dedicated article and need not be duplicated here in the same depth, the present article should give a brief summary of each issue, with a link to the main article. Reductions in overall article length should not be achieved by excluding issues, but by adjusting the length of the various summaries. JN466 08:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't exclude US human rights issues outside US borders The article wouldn't be credible without mentioning (Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, renditions, and the application of international law, among other issues. Larkusix (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Include US rights issues outside US borders if and only if the incident in question originated with a person being arrested, captured, detained, or otherwise taken while within US borders. The articles should say what can happen within US borders, and then link to the articles about American-operated detainment facilities on foreign soil, but the rights for persons put into those places are so different that they have no relationship to typical US rights. The article would be amiss to neglect to say that a person in America can be taken from America and put into a foreign prison, but after leaving America the other rights on this page no longer apply and belong in a separate article. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Do not include US Human Rights issues outside of US borders. It says IN the United States. Also, many abuses that occurred outside of the USA were not sanctioned by the government. --Rockstone35 (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion. While technically, the article title could taken as meaning "Human rights inside the United States," common sense says the article scope should include human rights violations commited by people acting under US laws (e.g. soldiers) in foreign countries and also violations commited in territory under US rule (Guantanamo.) I cannot see any problems with the inclusion other than the possible technical violation of scope defined by article title. Offliner (talk) 09:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose expansion. Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo can still be included as those are U.S. controlled installations—so, that is, embassy grounds and military installations included, but not outside the gates. PetersV       TALK 14:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I take it this means support inclusion of territory under direct US control military or diplomatic control, but oppose expansion beyond that? i.e. any location included within the US legal framework, but not beyond that? This would include bases controlled by US personal under military authority from the USA, but not operations undertaken outside US jurisdiction. That sounds like quite a sensible compromise, and would be a way of diffusing the disagreement. Mish (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Correct. U.S. jurisdiction (thank you) only. PetersV       TALK 19:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate that people want to include everything including the bombing of Dresden (I lost my uncle), but if we include every possible alleged action everywhere this article will never achieve any focus of scope. PetersV       TALK 02:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose expansion -- not that it'll help much. This article will remain a natural magnet for this kind of stuff anyway. -- Randy2063 (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support as per Offliner above. Iraq has been effectively under US control until recently, as is Guantanamo. If there is too much material, that just indicates the amount of interest the topic attracts - so create two specalized articles where all the detailed stuff can go, one called "Human rights issues within US borders" and one called "Human rights and US foreign policy", or something similar. Then let this article contain summaries of the two others. Let people use their energy constructively, in stead of fighting them off! --Anderssl (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't exclude US human rights issues outside US borders A person who seeks out this article is likely to be interested in how the U.S. exercises legal power anywhere that it holds sway. Plus, I think it is the case that U.S. human rights policies that are applied in extraterritorial areas are sooner or later going to affect U.S. residents. Excluding these cases seems like legalistic apologism. --Coleacanth (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo we could also start a new article on US Foreign Policy and Human Rights. Pexise (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion of Abu Ghraib, Gunatanamo, Bagram Air Base and other US controlled facilities. Most of these problably deserve separate articles, which would mean executive summaries could be left here. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion. "Human rights in the United States" should logically include all areas directly controlled by the United States, including foreign embassies and military zones. This isn't a geographical scope, it's a political scope, so political reality should be considered. – Quadell (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

General discussion

Please post any threaded discussion here:

This article has always covered Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay

It is untrue to claim that there has been a recent effort to expand the scope of this article to include matters such as Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. These topics have always been covered, as they obviously should, until this present effort to have them removed from the article. Please see article status as of 4 April 2009: [7], 1 March 2009: [8], 2 February 2009: [9], 1 January 2009: [10] 1 December 2008: [11], May 2008: [12] January 2008: [13] Each of these article versions covered Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay.

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

Opinions

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

Break up the article

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

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

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

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

Good proposal. A history section would be a useful addition. I think this is the only way this article can work – as a summary article providing access to the more detailed articles. JN466 09:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Minor comment. Although majority of human right issues beyond the US border belong to 3, some of them, e.g. Guantanamo may be relevant to 2, because they are directly connected to the situation with domestic human rights (the US authority simply cannot keep anyone in detention for a long period of time without a trial, therefore they had to move the prisoners formally outside of the US land).--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the proposal to split this article into three is a good one. I'd don't see why Guantanamo camp and CIA renditions should be in 2 and not in 3. Apart from my argument that these parts really belong in the article War on Terrorism since other countries were also complicit in these renditions, the fact is that Guantanamo Bay isn't considered a part of the USA and thus cannot be considered domestic, regardless of the viewpoint that prisoners were held externally to circumvent domestic laws, (and that viewpoint can just as easily be presented in 3). If on the other hand the inmates of Guantanamo camp were all US citizens then I would agree with you, but they are foreign enemy combatants who are held for allegedly committing acts outside the USA, where US law has no jurisdiction anyway. --Martintg (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I strongly support this proposal. --Anderssl (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Not the biggest fan of this proposal. The biggest problem in my opinion is that the bulk of the positive comments of the USA in this article are historical in nature, while the bulk of negative comments revolve around hotbed current issues like treaties, death penalty, Guatanemo, Katrina, etc. I can the recent sections having arguably greater POV while the historical one too much in the other direction. But assuming the POV is fixed soon, it's a pretty good proposal. Joker1189 (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Federal

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

Jurisdiction

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

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

Roger Daniels (not Daniels Rogers)

Daniels Rogers. Coming to America

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

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

Lead image

The Statue of Liberty. Given to mark the friendship established during the American Revolution between France and the United States, the symbolism has grown to include freedom and democracy.[1]

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

No, we're talking about the United States, and it is a symbol of the United States. My vote, and an expression of my freedom of thought - It stays for that purpose. You can show pictures of "people" somewhere else in the article if you like.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
No, we're talking about human rights in the United States, and the source used to support the image says nothing about human rights. Viriditas (talk) 05:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding. The Statue of Liberty is the most visible symbol of human freedom in the United States.Mosedschurte (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
You are on the wrong article. This is an article about human rights in the United States, and the Four Freedoms is one of the most important symbols of human rights in the modern era. The statue of liberty has nothing to do with the history of human rights, and if you think it does, please find a source that supports your addition per WP:V. I've reverted the rest of your additions because 1) We don't use maintenance tags to hold an article hostage, and the tags there now currently address the problem, and your incorrect use of these tags has been reverted by multiple editors, including at least one admin 2) You are duplicating dab links against best practices when the link already appears just below it, and 3) The image of the Four Freedoms is directly related to human rights in the United States. If you want to add an image of the Statue of Liberty and connect it to human rights, please find a source that supports you. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
There is no way that the the "Four Freedoms" is a more important symbol of freedom in the United States than the Statue of Liberty. Please find a majority of sources to support such a claim before unilaterally changing images.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Again, as the editor who keeps adding the statue of liberty into the article, you are required by the burden of proof clause in WP:V to support your claim that the statue is relevant to this article and appropriate to the lead section. You, not me, are required to provide sources. The image and concept of the Four Freedoms is directly relevant to this topic and is supported in the literature and is not in dispute. Now, why is the statue of liberty in the lead section of this article, what does it have to do with human rights, and what human rights-related citation are you referring to for support? These simple questions require simple answers, otherwise the image gets removed. And this is not the first time I have asked these questions. Please start following basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Viriditas (talk) 02:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Please see the current discussion below at Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States#Statue_of_Liberty_image. Consensus does not override the core policy of WP:V and there doesn't appear to be consensus on this issue. If you can't provide a reliable source supporting the connection between the Statue of Liberty and Human rights, we can't use it. It is that simple. No amount of consensus can change that fact. If you want to change the verification policy, then you need to go to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I really don't care which picture is on the lead at the moment. Perhaps we can direct our energies to the discussion in progress and engage some more editors in discourse. PetersV       TALK 23:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I would also add that as the protesters in Tiananmen Square created a makeshift Statue of Liberty as their symbol of freedom and human rights, the request for "verifiability" regarding the symbolism of the Statue of Liberty vis a vis such rights is observing (IMO) the letter of the WP:law but not spirit of the WP:law. My opinion only, of course.PetersV       TALK 00:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see and read Goddess of Democracy. It's got nothing to do with the Statue of Liberty nor with human rights in the United States. Viriditas (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I did find scholarly sources or two that makes the connection, but not right now. PetersV       TALK 00:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
The statue = SoL is from a business journal article, need to find that again. In the meantime, read here for "We all remember the tragedy of Tiananmen Square. My most poignant recollection is of one young man holding a cardboard cut-out of our Statue of Liberty." (author's emphasis) From Human Rights journal. PetersV       TALK 00:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear PetersV, firstly, the link you provided is a link to some very odd image (you probably inserted it by mistake). Secondly, you, as well as some other editors mix two things, liberty and human rights. The connection between them is not so direct as many peoples think. Therefore, although I concede that the photo of a document is not the best lede's image, the arguments like "The Statue of Liberty is the most visible symbol of human freedom in the United States" (or simlar statements) have no direct relations to human rights.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
That's a link to a blog and perfectly illustrates why they aren't reliable as sources. The information you quoted is incorrect. If you would please go and read the link to the Goddess of Democracy article I gave you above, you would quickly learn that the creator of the Chinese statue did not base it on the Statue of Liberty and there is no connection between the two. If this isn't making sense, ask questions and I will try to explain it another way. Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Tag removal

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

This was explained on your talk page, yet you ignored the explanation and continued to say the same thing as before, even after it was explained. That's a nice civil POV pushing strategy, but the person adding the tag (you) has to support it with a reason. Why did you add the tag into the article?[14] How can I fix the problem it addresses? Previous discussion do not show support for the tag. By support, I mean reasoned discussion, not the loud back-slapping of tag teaming civil POV pushers who can't address the topic and continue to add maintenance tags in a disruptive manner and without justification. Why did you add the tag and how can I remove it? Please answer this question directly. Otherwise, the tag gets removed. Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
This was NOT "explained on (my) talk page". All you did was repeat your spurious reasons, claimed a consensus with "other editors" that does not exist (including a link to a discussion which actually shows that "other editors" disagree with you), and made insulting insinuations about how placing a POV tag in this article "speaks volumes" about me. The reasons for the tag are discussed a plenty above and it is unreasonable to ask for these reasons to be repeated. The fact that you call those who disagree with you "loud back-slapping of tag teaming civil pushers who can't address the topic" displays a pretty profound problem with civility on your part, never mind assuming good faith.
how can I remove it? Please answer this question directly. Otherwise, the tag gets removed. Sure. Get consensus. Don't blindly revert other editors. See comments by Yachtsman1 and Mosedschurte above. Have a little patience.radek (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
This WAS explained on your talk page, and I never used the word consensus or any of the other nonsense you repeat above. I can only surmise that you didn't understand what you read. You blindly reverted me and asked me not to blindly revert others? I'm sorry, I can't take you seriously at all. Either address the problem I raised or don't edit here. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
You did not use the word "consensus" but you did claim the support of other editors. Reading this talk page shows that there is at best only partial support from some, and much opposition from others. I find your statements like "I can only surmise that you didn't understand what you read" insulting and uncivil (this goes for the one you've left on my talk page). Please cut that crap out. Also, please try to be a little less combative. Also, what I did is restore a tag which you unilaterally removed - do you really consider this "blind reverting"? How would one go about restoring a tag but not doing it "blindly"? This is quite different than reverting other editors' edits wholesale as you have done previously. So, in addition to watching civility, please don't misrepresent other editors' edits.
Finally, your comment ending with "don't edit here" pretty much captures most of the problem with your attidute here. You do not own this article. This is Wikipedia, which anyone can edit. Don't make statements like that to others without a good reason.radek (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
You aren't understanding what you are reading. I never claimed the support of any other editors. I said on your talk page, "I and other editors have been asking this question on the talk page for weeks now with no reasonable reply." Please stop reading things into my comments. This conversation is over because it is only one way and likely headed towards a dead end. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
You're obviously splitting hairs here and if I fail to understand what you are saying it is because you're not being clear. So apparently "I and other editors" is not meant to invoke the support of others. Fine. Why'd you bother putting "and other editors" in there? Based on my previous discussion with you and what's found on this talk page it appears that your standard response to anyone who disagrees with you is some form of a very rude "you're just not getting it".radek (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
That pretty much sums it up, Radeksz. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I said "either address the problem I raised or don't edit here." I didn't say "don't edit here". Again, deliberate misinterpreation and distraction from the topic. Typical civil POV pushing. Discuss the topic, not what you think I'm saying or not saying, meaning or not meaning, doing or not doing, arguing or not arguing. If you have questions ask, if you have issues discuss them, but stop creating straw men and arguing with yourself. If you can't help improve this article, you don't belong here. It is that simple. Viriditas (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States/Archive_13&oldid=1085457556"