Talk:Human rights in the United States/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 19

Continuing problems with sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some critics ... criticized

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lede image again

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

Radek:

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

Viriditas:

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

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

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

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

• [1] "The Status of Liberty embodies the idea of freedom, which is a key idea in understanding rights"; good, strong reference, at the beginning of a chapter on Human Rights, from a UK (not US) law textbook
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5] (more tangential)
• [6] (ditto)
• [7]

I also found a source that distinguishes the freedom and immigration the SOL symbolises from human rights: [8], but on the whole, the symbolism does seem to have transferred itself to human rights to some extent. So I am not sure that it should be the lead image, but I am satisfied that there are enough good sources connecting the Statue of Liberty to the concept of Human Rights for us to have a picture of it somewhere in this article. JN466 20:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thanks. I'll put that Chinese site aside for a moment. In the context of religious discrimination against Muslims, Geaves makes a passing comment about the U.S. being "the champion of human rights and civil liberties in the world as symbolized by the Statue of Liberty". Based on the published history and meaning of the statue in the literature, I see things differently. The statue is not intended to represent the U.S. as a leader in human rights and civil liberties. The statue shows that the light of liberty (the torch) shines on everyone, everywhere, (the seven spiked rays of her crown representing the seven oceans and continents) beyond the political borders of nation states that exist for this moment in time. No matter where we are, in this century or the next, we cannot escape the birthright of freedom. She is not standing still, but rather breaking free from the shackles of tyranny. The statue holds a tablet of law, commemorating the signing of the U.S. Declaration of Independence. Although she sits in New York, her gaze and torch is fixed on enlightening the world. This is a symbol of freedom and independence, but also friendship between nations and world peace. Further, there are specific remarks about the symbolism of the statue from Chauncey Depew that were made at the Inauguration[9] that I think would be appropriate for this article. Unfortunately, I do not have time to repost them here, but I will do so later. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

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

It starts on p.37[10], but take a close look at the last paragraph on p.56[11] through p.59.[12] It's hard to just isolate a few words out of context as it wouldn't do justice to the full text, but if I had to pick and choose:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

War on Terrorism

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

Cleanup and article status

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

POV tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Much of the article is written as if the title were "Human rights violations in the United States", not Human rights in the United Sttaes, with very little context of the actual rights provided, and merely a listing of various violations and controversies. It also is not just littered with WP:Undue Weighted sections, but almost comically so. It employs Unbalanced discussion, and its international focus is almost entirely on negative historical vioaltions that are absolutely dwarfed by other international historical and current activities to attempt to stop/contain human rights abusers.
• Hurricane Katrina - as discussed by many above, this section is Off Topic in that it is an entire section (rather than one sentence in an article of this magnitude, if even that) is improperly devoted to a historical event, while other far larger historical events not only have no section themselves but receive no mention at all. It also grossly exhibits Undue Weight in a "human rights" article on the United States in an entire section that is 2.1 KB devoted to the rescue efforts for one storm that hit in 2005 in an article on "Human Rights inside/in the United States."
• Justice System - this section is particularly Unbalanced with virtually no mention of the United States huge leadership in criminal justice protections and the various protections therein. Instead, it essentially contains a panoply of WP:Undue Weight complaints that are not put in their structural Context of the overall system.
• Death Penalty - this section is written like an Editorial piece, almost entirely containing the arguments of just those opposing the death penalty. In addition, this one subsection alone on one form of sentencing used in some states is a massive 8.1 KB and badly needs to be put in Wikipedia summary form. Furthermore, whole paragraphs are literally devoted to state execution rates, individual cases are nameed (with fed cite form?), etc.
• Police Brutality - this section is written like an Editorial, conveying only negative sources on the issue, put together to form a negative POV in Sythesis form.
• Overal Discussions of International events - setting aside the fact that international events are not "in the United States" and Off Topic, virtually no Context is given as it includes virtually none of the international human rights leadership of the United States, and in fact part of which has recently been changed by one editor to War on Terrorism -- a ridiculously massive WP:Undue Weight 21 KB section on this event alone, and needs to be put in Wikipedia summary form, and actually contains several subsections. The article devotes large sections to alleged international human rights violations without devoting a single paragraph to the gargantuan human rights improvements by the U.S. in Afghanistan after removal of one of the worst modern human rights abusers in the world in the Taliban and their brutal oppression of the 20+ million of that country -- including the replacement of that regime with a democracy and one with a constitution protecting far more human rights than the latter, and which also has freed thousands of political prisoners and aggressively pursued former human rights violating leaders --, in Iraq after the removal of Sadam Hussein, who again was one of the worst human rights abusers in the wrold in another country of 20+ million -- including the leadership in freeing thousands of oppressed political prisoners, uncovering seveal mass graves and helping with the prosecution of former brutal regime human rights violators -- or that the United States has taken leadership in opposing maybe the worst human rigtht abusing regime on earth in North Korea while the U.S. military serves serves as the primary foreign military force along the Korean DMZ helping to protect 50+ million in South Korea from North Korea's attempts to "reunify" (i.e., conquer) South Korea with its nearly 5 million man army. To mention just three massive examples (not to mention the probably 50+ less ones).
• Abu Ghraib prison abuse - in addition to being Off Topic in an article on Human Rights inside/in the United States, an entire section is deveted to his one historical event, and it is a large 2.2KB section, exhibiting WP:Undue Weight and even includes a huge block quote from HRW. In addition, this is one of several historical events (occurred in 2003) now several years done -- in fact, it devotes entire sections to such -- while not devoting a single paragraph to the even more recent actions taken in an attempt to stop the slaugter of thousands in Darfur, the stopping of ethnic cleansing of nearly 1 million Albanian Kosovars by forcing Serb withdrawal. Or other major historical events that dwarf thousands of times over these events, such as the Nuremberg Trials, the Hiroshima Bomb, the Fire Bombing of Dresden in World War II, the controverial Rheinwiesenlager camps holding German prisoners the Fire Bombing of Tokyo, the Bombing of Kobe in World War II, Nagasaki_bomb, the leadership in the Rwanda genocide trials, the Bosnian genocide trials, Korean War, Vietnam War, leading efforts to oppose the two of the three most ghastly human rights abusers of this century (Hitler and Stalin), leading the efforts to attempt to contain the largest current police state/abuser (Kim Jong-Il's North Korea), and Pol Pot's Cambodia Killing Fields, leading the efforts to stop the mass killings in Darfur, etc. All of these are from 10 to 100,000 times the magnitude of issues as Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse and the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.
• The U.S. and the International Criminal Court - this section is far too long, taking up 4.3KB, needs to be put in Wikipedia summary form and is severely Unbalanced as it almost entirely takes one side of the debate about the ICC.
• Guantánamo Bay - in addition to this section being Off Topic in an article on Human Rights inside/in the United States, as Guantanamo Bay was chosen for the facility specifically because it was OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES (Cuban land on which the U.S. has a perpetual lease), it exhibits gross Undue Weight with an entire section on events on one prison alone that is also a whopping 5.0KB, actually including a long block quote from Amnesty International, and badly needs to be put in Wikipedia summary form.
• "Enhanced interrogation" and waterboarding - this section mostly covers actions done outside the United States (Off Topic), is grossly overlength exhibiting Undue Weight at a whopping 7.0KB badly needing to be put in Wikipedia summary form, includes long block quotes from one consultant, and is written in an Unbalanced regard, taking the side that the enhanced interrogation techniques were human rights violations.
• Extraordinary Rendition - This massive 5.5KB section is almost entirely devoted to two historical cases occurring in 2001 and 2004 -- almost comically Undue Weight, and is completely lacking in Context.
• Health Care - this is a 2.9KB section that currently is given WP:Undue Weight, that badly needs to be put in Wikipedia summary form. It is also written like an editorial section and conflates no health insurance/coverage with no health care at all.
• United Nations Human Rights Council - another massive section given WP:Undue Weight in a Human Rights in the United States article at 5.0KB. In addition to the Undue Weight, this section is also particularly humorous in that it makes it appear as if the U.S. is is the only country to criticize the UNHRC, which of course is famous for its almost singular anti-Israeli-bent and the inclusion of several of largest human rights violators on the planet among its membership. It also includes allegations by the even more international derided "U.N. Commission on Human Rights" predecessor and includes "critcism" of areas discussed elsewhere in the article. Mosedschurte (talk) 05:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spamming of the talk page noted. I have left a warning on your talk page. The above comment was made on May 23[13] and the issues have been thoroughly discussed and addressed since that time, and the observations aren't even accurate when compared with the current version of the page. In the future, please do not spam this talk page. Viriditas (talk) 11:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very long and summary style tags

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

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

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

Statue of Liberty image

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

• Because the article is about the United States, and the Statue of Liberty is a symbol of the United States. It is also considered a human rights symbol, with its words "Bring me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..." inscribed on the book in her arm. It is a central symbol of human rights in this country. The satue was named as a world heritage site in 1984, and part of that basis was "She endures as a highly potent symbol – inspiring contemplation, debate and protest – of ideals such as liberty, peace, human rights, abolition of slavery, democracy and opportunity." [[14]].--Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry that's a link to a blog, which is not a reliable source for use on Wikipedia. Furthermore, that information concerns Criterion VI of World Heritage Site status, and is not a specific reference to human rights and the statue at all. Contrary to what you claim, this article is not about the United States. It is about human rights in the United States. There are no reliable sources that discuss the relationship of human rights in the United States and the Statue of Liberty. Without them, we can't use the image. All material must be supported by reliable sources relevant to the topic. The image will be removed from the article unless these sources are produced. There's a reason the Statue of Liberty isn't discussed in the article; It has nothing to do with the topic. Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your "point of view". Here's the link from the actual World Heritage site: [[15]]. Shocking as this may seem to you, and obviously contrary to your "point of view", this article is actually about human rights in the United States. You do not own this article. Whether you like it or not, the Statute of Liberty symbolizes human rights and freedom, and has been deemed a world heritage site on that basis. If we were to utilize your logic, we could not include an actual painting in an article on art, because the painting is entitled The Scream, and the article is not about a scream, but about art. I find your argument, in other words, less than stellar.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
      • It's not my POV nor is my POV the topic of this discussion. No matter how hard you try and make this a content dispute, it remains a dispute about sources, how we use sources, and how we best represent information contained within sources. No POV or content is at stake here. Blogs can't be used as reliable sources in this context and the World Heritage Site has no bearing on whether the Statue of Liberty is a symbol of human rights or not. The National Park Service does not discuss human rights and the statue. No published book about the statue discusses human rights. And no other source ties the two together. As a tertiary source, we only write articles based on what others say. What source discusses the Statue of Liberty as a symbol of human rights? Please provide it. Viriditas (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Verification of Daniels, D'Innocenzo; Lead

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

• Because a consensus on the inclusion of this section already exists, yet you have chosen to ignore that consensus. Every time anyone tries to add a cite, you remove the cite to maintain your position. The cite provided and which you continue to attack has been found to exist, contrary to your original assertion.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Please read and understand WP:V. That a cite "exists" is not a good reason to use it. All material must be verified. Have you looked at the reference and verified that it says what is claimed? No, you haven't, and neither has anyone else, and the cite was not accurate when it was added by the original editor, so why should we trust the information? Books exist, magazines exist, journals exist, but this has no bearing on our verification policy. To add this source into the article and use the material, you actually have to do the research. Now, per the burden of proof in WP:V, please quote me the passage and page number where this material appears. If you can't do that, then we can't use it. At least two editors question whether the material is accurate and whether it is relevant to human rights. We do not use sources simply because they "exist". Neither you nor anyone else has accessed this particular source and checked it. That is a fact. This is material that was added by an editor on this article some time ago, and is only now being challenged. There is no such thing as a consensus to use material which cannot be verified. That's not how Wikipedia works. Either verify on the talk page that the information is accurate, or stop adding it back into the article. It's that simple. We don't add unverified information to any Wikipedia article. Furthermore we see that the reference is inaccurate. Fact-checking reveals that there is no such author as Daniels Rogers; His name is Roger Daniels, and his book is called, Coming to America: A History of Immigration and Ethnicity in American Life[16] The book is not about human rights, and the statement sourced to Daniels does not appear in the book, nor is there a page number. The words "human rights" appear once in the book, and they are found in a quote from Thomas Jefferson about the slave trade. So Rogers as a source cannot be used. And D'Innocenzo has not been checked either. Also, unless this information is relevant to the topic and sourced in the body, it doesn't belong in the lead section. The lead is a summary of the article, not for the introduction of new material that may or may not be accurate. If this information cannot be verified, it will be removed. Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Verification of Schwartz; Lead

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

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

Use of U.S. Constitution as a primary source

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

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

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

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

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

Off-topic tag

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