Wikipedia

Talk:Human rights in the United States/Archive 12

< Talk:Human rights in the United States
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Vecrumba in topic ICRC Report
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

List

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Alright, can we do something about the list of hodgepodge treaties and miscellaneous documents the US failed to sign? Without any background or information about the treaties it seems to be a vioulation of WP:WEIGHT to list every single thing the US didn't sign. Can we just pick a few of the more important ones and discuss them? Soxwon (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You have a point, Sox. Pretty irrelevant in my view as well.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I suggest you do some reading about the "miscillaneous documents" and "hodgepodge treaties" you are referring to. CEDAW and CRC would be a good start.
  • From the CEDAW Wikipedia lede: "The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) is an international convention adopted in 1979 by the United Nations General Assembly. Described as an international bill of rights for women, it came into force on 3 September 1981. The United States is the only developed nation that has not ratified the CEDAW."
  • From the CRC page lede: "The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, often referred to as CRC or UNCRC, is an international convention setting out the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of children. [...] As of December 2008, 193 countries have ratified it, including every member of the United Nations except the United States and Somalia." Pexise (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
It would help to read what I actually said. Instead of just listing them and saying "Bad US Bad!" how about actually explaining a bit of context and reasoning behind the rejections? You say "read up on these documents," yet expect the reader to know all about them and why they were rejected? Soxwon (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you could work on that? To be honest, I do not know what the US has against international human rights treaties, so I'll be interested to learn more about why they have not ratified them. At least Obama has said that the non-ratification of the CRC is an "embarrasment" and that he will review non-ratification of other treaties: see this. Pexise (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
In which case you have gone from the topic of Human rights in the United States to rejection of human rights treaties by the United States. Might I suggest a new article on this topic? It appears to be a content fork by what you have stated.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleting sourced material in the lede

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Please explain your rationale for deleting this line from the lede. I would appreciate it if you don't keep deleting it until a consensus for deletion is reached: Pexise (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

In the 21st century, the US has actively attempted to undermine the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.[1]

My question is why that particular statute is on the same level as say the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or on the international front the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ICCPR, or the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees? Soxwon (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
The paragraph is about the US relation with international human rights treaties. In the early C20 the US supported the drafting of UDHR etc, later in the C20 the US stopped ratifying treaties and in C21, so far, the noticable change in the attitude of the US is not that is no longer ratifies human rights documents, but that it actively undermines them. This is a chronological summary, supported by relaible sources. Pexise (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
There are two problems with that paragraph. One, it's subjective. It needs to say that this is/was the opinion of HRW. And two, it isn't important enough for the intro. The ICC may be a cause celebre but it hasn't proved itself of sufficiently great value in the actual field of human rights. It seems to be more notable for U.S. opposition than for its actual achievements.
The U.S. stopped ratifying treaties when those treaties were advanced only to serve the interests of its enemies. They're "human rights" treaties in name only.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The lede is a summary of the rest of the article. The undermining of the ICC is elaborated on later in the article. The lede is not a reflection of your [uninformed] opinions about human rights treaties. Pexise (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
If it's elaborated on later in the article then this is only about why you think the ICC is important enough to belong in the lede. You haven't explained that.
As to whether or not it's right to characterize my view as "uninformed," perhaps you'd better wait until President Obama gets it ratified by the Senate.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Soxwon and Randy. The ICC material does not stand out above other issues in the article to be in the WP:Lede. Nor should the 10+ areas of leadership the US has taken in human rights law (e.g., gender, racial, ADA, etc.). The Lede is a summary and no major topic should be stressed.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

ICRC Report

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

The ICRC Report [1] does not say that KSM claimed to have only been waterboarded 5 times. What it says is: Mr Khaled Shaik Mohammed gave the following description of this method of ill-treatment, used in his third place of detention: "I would be strapped to a special bed, which can be rotated into a vertical position. A cloth would be placed over my face. Watter was then poured onto the cloth by one of the guards so that I could not breathe. This obviously could only be done for one or two minutes at a time. The cloth was then removed and the bed was put into a vertical position. The whole process was then repeated during about 1 hour". The procedure was applied during five different sessions during the first month of interrogation in his third place of detention. Dlabtot (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, yes, he did state 'five occasions' but the claim that this 'conflicts' with the torture memo footnote is simply a false claim made by Fox News. The footnote does not say 183 occasions or 183 sessions. The footnote says: The CIA used the waterboard "at least 83 times during August 2002" in the interrogation of Zubaydah (IG Report at 90), and 183 times during March 2003 in the interrogation of KSM, (see id. at 91).[2] The plain meaning is that the CIA used the waterboard 183 times during 5 sessions. There is absolutely no conflict. Dlabtot (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It all comes down to semantics if you ask me. You can make the case for either interpretation. Personally, when I first heard 183 times, I thought of 183 sessions. I personally think it makes more sense to speak in terms of sessions. It's easier to make the mistake of believing '183 times' means '183 sessions', not '183 applications', because that's how we tend to interpret things. If I told you "My wife cheated on me two times", you'd be thinking in terms of men, or maybe instances, but certainly not in terms of orgasms. If I said "My brother cheated on a test three times", you're definitely not in thinking in terms of specific questions. When it comes to torture, I think we tend to view a torture session as one "unit" of torture. Let's be honest, if John McCain said the North Koreans tortured him twenty times, and it turned out it was applied in less than fifteen minutes, the American people would feel gipped. But that's just my opinion. Honestly, the thing to do is to keep the source, but make it clearer what it's actually indicating. Joker1189 (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It obviously needed some more clarity, but the FoxNews story explains what had previously been confusing.
The line we have about "This may have gone beyond even what was allowed by the CIA's own directives" shows that some people believed "times" meant "sessions".
Here's a bigger excerpt from the original document:
During a session, water may be applied up to six times for ten seconds or longer (but never more than 40 seconds). In a 24-hour period, a detainee may be subjected to up to twelve minutes of water application. See id. at 42. Additionally, the waterboard may be used on as many as five days during a 30-day approval period. ... The CIA used the waterboard "at least 83 times during August 2002" in the interrogation of Zubaydah, IG Report at 90, and 183 times during March 2003 in the interrogation of KSM, see id, at 91. (page 37)
Clearly, the word "times" is not the same thing as sessions. That fits the meaning of Fox's U.S. source.
BTW: This bit about FoxNews helps to illustrate our POV problem. It's one thing to dislike them but it's quite another to think it's normal to regard them as an automatically unacceptable source for WP. Conservatives sneer at "al-Guardian" in much the same way but I don't see anyone saying we should exclude them.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If we thought of 'times' to mean 'applications', the BBC would have us belief that CIA directives state water-boarding can be used less than two minutes a day. It's reasonable to believe then, that at least once the media used 'times' with the explicit belief it referred to number of sessions, not applications. I was apathetic before, but now I have to agree. The source should stay. Joker1189 (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Here's a suggestion - Try compromise and put BOTH sources. Wikipedia is a not a battlefield. This is not about putting the source that supports an underlying belief, this is about neutrality. Wikipedia is not a battlefield. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

A bit late to this, but if we have sources which conflict on interpretation and our own opinions are changeable, the proper course is to have the original report and not put in either interpretation. Our debating here over interpretations is WP:OR. Best case is to add a note that there are conflicting interpretations of how many individual instances (total cycles) of waterboarding application this constitutes. PetersV       TALK 17:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Other issues

Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

In addition to issues discussed here, another editor here, issues regarding the article BEING TOO LONG (almost 9,700 KB prose text now) 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 for an entire section 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) 04:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi MS, I've removed the tags as they're very disfiguring. It's better to improve the article, even if it takes time, than leaving it with so many tags on it. I've left the NPOV tag in place, as I don't know the status of that one. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, went ahead and replaced a few of the more obvious tags and too long (see sections above). Agree with the improvement point. I actually improved three of the sections yesterday with some fairly extensive sourcing, repairing contextual issues, etc. Obviously, looking at all of the many issues raised by many editors on this article, it requires extensive work on many more sections that will take much longer than one day.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
As that was your sixth revert in less than six hours, I reported you at WP:AN3. Viriditas (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Mosedschurte, you are engaging in civil POV pushing again. Most of these bullet points have already been addressed, yet you continue to bring them up again as if they had not. This is disruptive. You also seem to be making things up and ignoring the sources in the article. Your use of tagging is not accurate, and the sources you've added to the article do not appear to have anything to do with human rights. Finally, your deletion of abolitionist Anthony Benezet, one of the people responsible for creating the first human rights organization in the U.S.and ignoring 188 years of human rights history is either blatant trolling or displays an incredible amount of ignorance of the topic. Replacing Benezet with a photograph of LBJ is quite possibly the silliest thing I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I'm going to have to ask you to either engage in discussion or stop editing here. You were asked to defend your edits here and you have completely ignored the discussion. Instead, you keep acting unilaterally as if nobody has questioned your edits. Except, looking up above this thread, I see four editors who disagree with you, and you have not addressed their points. There are currently two open ANI reports on your disruptive behavior, and I expect to open three more in the next 24 hours. Please do not continue to act disruptively in this article. Your edits have been questioned, your sources have been questioned, and your edit warring and page move warring against consensus has to stop. This is the exact same disruptive behavior that your predecessor User:Raggz engaged in, and I have to wonder if there is any connection between you and him and others. Your insistence on "Off Topic" and "Undue Weight" and "Unbalanced" is exactly how Raggz used to discuss here, until enough editors figured out he was disrupting the article and he was asked to leave. Isn't that an interesting coincidence? Furthermore, I find it interesting that your tag-team partner, User:Yachtsman1, created his user account just days before Raggz disappeared. What are the odds of three different editors engaging in the same exact disruptive tactics on the same article? Interesting, don't you think? Of course Raggz got off easy, since when he was confronted with these questions, he said he was suffering from brain damage (he actually said that) and disappeared, never to be heard from again. Viriditas (talk)

This is counterproductive. If you have an issue or accusation, be direct and make it. Leave "interesting, no?" innuendo at the door. PetersV       TALK 21:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
P.S. LBJ was the single person responsible for passage of the Civil Rights act through his ability to manage the political process—it would have gone nowhere without him. (Were you even alive then? I was.) Study events in more detail before making sweeping denouncements about "silliness." PetersV       TALK 21:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Put up or shut up. Provide a single reliable source that supports your POV in relation to human rights. Benezet started the first U.S. human rights organization and Mosedschurte removed it without any explanation, even after repeated queries. And nothing Mosedschurte has added to this article is related to the human rights literature. It looks like he's engaged in some serious backchannel canvassing to get you and the other meatpuppets to show up here and make nonsensical comments, but it's transparent. The history of human rights in the U.S. does not begin with LBJ, and trying to tell me that it does is absurd. Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Look, stop with the insults, you can't even bother looking up a title, preferring to dispute it on the basis of being a "vestigial" edit of some enemy editor instead of spending the all of ten seconds it took me to verify the actual title. Leave your antagonism at the door. I simply stated LBJ's crucial role and that it wasn't "silly" to have a picture of him. Did I say civil rights "started with LBJ?" You know, I'm rather tired of antagonistic editors sticking their words in my mouth and then attacking me for them. Chill already. And you're definitely overusing "put up or shut up" on this page. PetersV       TALK 02:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
   As long as I'm at it, I'm also tired of anyone calling more than one editor perceived as being their editorial enemy part of a meat puppet conspiracy. I just came by to look at what else people have been working on looking to get away from some of the WP:BATTLEGROUND elsewhere and I run into you, apparently loaded for bear. If you rushed any faster to accuse editors of bad faith the sonic boom would be deafening—perhaps that's why you're not hearing me? I don't give a damn about your prior wars, don't make me part of them. PetersV       TALK 02:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Basic misunderstanding

Latest comment: 15 years ago50 comments9 people in discussion

Reading (most of) the above discussion it seems like Viriditas is failing to understand the basic argument that people are making. It's not a question of finding sources here - sure, a lot of reliable people have written on Hurricane Katrina or the difference between US labor market laws and that of, say, France. But those people's writings belong in those respective articles. Here, AT BEST they warrant a one sentence mention. So it's not an issue of whether or not SOME reliable source exists on these particular topic but to what extent they are reliable here. In other words, it's an issue of UNDUE WEIGHT (and in some cases FRINGE). A good chunks of this article should be simply removed and relevant sections, if any, rewritten from scratch.radek (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That isn't remotely accurate and I suggest you do some basic research on the subject. Katrina was one of the worst disasters in U.S. history and every source that discusses human rights in the U.S. expands upon it in detail, as it was and currently is a diaspora of incredible magnitude, of which the government at all levels failed to prevent, prepare for, and to protect during and after the event. No argument or evidence has been presented showing this is a footnote to history, rather the opposite can be shown. Katrina is quite possibly the greatest human rights issue in modern U.S. history, and there is ample evidence supporting this idea. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Even if Katrina was one of the worst disasters in US history, and even if the government preparation/reaction to it was a total mess that does not make it a Human Rights issue. The relevant information - aside from a possible one or two sentence mention here - belongs in the article Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina.radek (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The sources describe it as a human rights issue, and the core arguments concern access to housing, education and health care, and the status of so-called Katrina "refugees" or survivors as internally displaced persons (IDPs), and the international protection afforded them by the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, a key principle in human rights that, according to some critics, the United States refuses to recognize. Whether you consider it a HR issue or not is completely irrelevant. We don't write articles based on editorial POV. We go with the sources. To claim, as you have, that this not related to human rights, shows me that you haven't done the slightest bit of research on the topic. Viriditas (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
There are some sources which deal with it as such but they represent a minority point of view. That's why they're UNDUE.radek (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
All modern human rights sources deal with it; this is not "undue weight" in any way. Please read the policy again. It is actually a violation of NPOV to exclude this material, and the treatment of IDP's is a core topic in human rights. If it was a minority POV, you would be able to show that only some human rights organizations have addressed it, or that the UN has not given attention to the issue (they have, in several reports), or that reliable secondary sources have not reported on the topic (dozens of sources can be found), or that academic books have not covered the topic (dozens), or that journals have not addressed the issue (many, and I'm going to continue adding the sources right now). So, this does not meet the criteria for "undue weight" at all, nor can you argue that it does. Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean "All"? That's obviously not true. And one more time - UNDUE is not just a question of whether or not there are sources on the topic. It's whether the topic is receiving attention in the article that is appropriate to the more general topic in the literature. And currently it's way way over represented. radek (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
All human rights-related sources on the topic of Katrina deal with this issue as an issue of importance; they do not deal with it as a minority POV. I'm getting tired of your wikilawyering. Since you are not informed on this topic, there's no need for me to continue this discussion with you. You appear to be wasting my time with nonsensical comments and wikilawyering. I'm going to get back to adding sources to the Katrina/Reliable source section and continue to prepare for expansion of the topic in relation to the core topic of IDP's in the U.S. which concerns itself directly with human rights in the United States. Please stop wasting my time. Viriditas (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

And btw, neither the 'Criticisms' article not the Hurricane Katrina article itself contain the phrase "human rights".radek (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so please save the fallacies for someone a little more gullible. We are discussing human rights and Katrina in this article. What some other article includes or lacks has no bearing on this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
No doubt there are many conspiracy theories about Hurricane Katrina, but Occam's razor tells us that given a choice between simple bureaucratic incompetence and systematic abuse of human rights in relation to the response to Katrina, simple bureaucratic incompetence is the cause. I think one needs to be mindful of WP:UNDUE. --Martintg (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
This particular special case of Occam's has a name of its own; it's called Henlon's razor. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 06:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
You mean, Hanlon's razor, the variation of which you are referring to is: "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence." But of course, that's not the central argument, and most sources actually say just that, i.e. chalk the poor response up to incompetence. But that isn't related to the human rights issues, which discuss the Guiding Principles and IDP. There are other issues related to human rights as well, such as the social needs of the survivors. Where are you getting the malice thing from in regards to this, anyway? Are you reading that into it? Viriditas (talk) 08:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Accusing your opponent of appealing to "conspiracy theories" when none have been mentioned or discussed is a nice tactical strategy used to shout down your opponent. On Wikipedia, we tend to go with the sources. And the sources (posted above in Katrina/Reliable sources) support these claims. If there is a specific claim you would like to challenge, by all means do so. But please do so without resorting to obvious fallacies. UNDUE deals with minority POV, and this is not a minority POV. The human rights issues related to Katrina have been covered by every reliable source imaginable including multiple UN reports covered by secondary sources. Books published by academic press have also discussed the topic in depth. Please address the topic directly without trying to distract away from it again. This has nothing to do with UNDUE and everything to do with one of the greatest human rights issues in modern U.S. history. Viriditas (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like minority POV to me. I live in Australia and I like to believe that I am fairly well read and up to date on most issues, and the Aussie press can be very critical of the USA, but I must say the idea that Hurricane Katrina being "one of the greatest human rights issues in modern U.S. history" is news to me. Are you sure you are not simply cherry picking various sources and creating a synthesis that leads you to believe Katrina is "one of the greatest human rights issues in modern U.S. history"? But if there are human rights issue in regard to Katrina, they correctly belong in Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina. --Martintg (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
According to the human rights literature, these issues belong here, as this article covers human rights in the United States. I'll ask you what I asked all the other editors who said it should be excluded. What is your criteria for inclusion, and does it differ from normal Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Please answer this question directly so that I can address it. Please also show how your criteria for inclusion applies to other articles, so that we may see examples at work. I'm not going to deal with hypotheticals or what you think policy should be. I'm going to deal with facts and real-world application. There are enough reliable sources on the topic to merit inclusion. What is your criteria? Pleas also note, that those who argue against exclusion inevitably do so because the conclusions reached by the sources are critical of the United States. Per NPOV, this type of criticism is essential to the article, especially in relation to the status of Americans displaced by Katrina. Per NPOV, continued removal of such key criticism is against policy. The subsection could be called "Internally displaced persons (IDPs)" and discuss the role of American policy in this regard, with the Katrina issue highlighting the topic. It is not only relevant to this article, it is a core topic in human rights. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Viriditas, I'll let Martintg answer your demands if he's so inclined but I just can't help but juxtapose this quote of yours:
Please also show how your criteria for inclusion applies to other articles, so that we may see examples at work.
with this quote of yours from a response to me above:
What some other article includes or lacks has no bearing on this discussion..
The above demands just seem like you're trying to throw up roadblocks in the face of consensus.radek (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
And your comment shows that you are trying to wikilawyer and show contradictions where none apply. I asked for Marting's criteria for inclusion. And I asked him to show me an article where he could apply his criteria, i.e. a real example. You then took a separate discussion out of context (a discussion that had nothing to do with criteria for inclusion) and tried to bring it up here to show a contradiction. Pure wikilawyering, nothing more. I stand by my comment and await Marting to show me how his criteria for inclusion can be applied. This has nothing to do with whether this material already appears in another article. Completely different discussion. This is very simple, so if you can't follow it, then ask someone for help. I'm asking Marting to show me his criteria for including this information in the article. And if there are other articles where this type of criteria can be seen in action (such as an example illustrating his criteria), I would like to see it. Two different things. Viriditas (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

<--- No, it's not wikilayering, just merely pointing out that you're being inconsistent. When it suits your purpose and argument you say "what's in other articles doesn't matter" and when it suits your purpose and argument you say "show me where this is done in other articles". You can't have it both ways. And please don't make barely-hidden uncivil comments like This is very simple, so if you can't follow it, then ask someone for help.radek (talk) 01:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem able to follow the discussion or to tell the difference between a discussion about criteria for inclusion and a discussion about the lack of material in another article. I'm sorry, you haven't pointed out any inconsistency at all, but you have shown that you are intellectually dishonest. Viriditas (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Viriditas, calling somebody "intellectually dishonest" is a personal attack, your second one here towards me. It is also inconsistent with telling someone that they can't "tell the difference between a discussion about criteria for..." - if I can't tell the difference, how can I be dishonest about anything. Furthermore, please stop moving around and deleting other users comments. This is a talk page, not the article itself. It is also very very disruptive.radek (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a personal attack, please strike through your comment that radek is "intellectually dishonest", or provide me permission to to do so. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
It is wikilawyering and intellectually dishonest to take points from two different discussions made to two different people and then claim there is a contradiction. That's my position and I'm sticking to it. Radeksz pretended to be interested in discussing the issue, but his only interest was to find some way to discredit my point, a point he never was able address. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Yet a personal attack it remains, so please strike through your comment that radek is "intellectually dishonest", or provide me permission to to do so. Thank you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
No, it is a valid description of his argument. Now, either address the topic, or go away. Is that clear? Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay. I note that your entire theory of human rights violations for Hurricane Katrina survivors rests on the position that they are IDP's. Please provide me with a link where the UN or USA has designated Katrina Survivors as IDP's to fall under the protections of of the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. Thank you so much.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Huh? It's not my "theory" nor has anyone designated Katriana survivors as IDP's, which is the entire crux of the dispute in the sources. Of course, you already knew that, which is why you asked me a question that cannot be answered. Should this also be described as intellectual dishonesty? Considering that you have shown knowledge of the topic of IDPs in your past edits, I suggest it can be. So, to set the record straight, you posted a red herring. Is such a thing intellectually dishonest? I don't know. Viriditas (talk) 02:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your admission, and you are correct, I know international law, and I know the mechanisms for designation of IDP's. It appears that the survivors of Katrina have not been designated as IDP's, and that as they have not been designated IDP's, they are not afforded the special protections of international law and do not fall under the protections of of the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. It would, indeed, be "intellectually dishonest" as you so eloquently state, to argue that these individuals fall under the protections of of the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement when they have not been classified by either the USA or UN as falling under this classification of protected individuals. In conclusion, your entire argument falls like a house of cards. Your point is not that these people have been denied protection as IDP's, but that they have not been classified as such, and that they "should" be classified as IDP's to gain the protections you point to. This is not a matter of a breach by the United States of international conventions on human rights, but an opinion shared by your sources that they should be afforded such protections. As you have failed to provide an example whereby the United States has breached human rights laws and conventions regarding the survivors of Hurricane Katrina, this section should be removed from the article as a violation of WP:NPOV, and as immaterial to the subject matter. Thank you. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • You have a basic misunderstanding of the NPOV policy and how we use sources. It is not our responsibility to "prove" that the U.S. has violated any human rights laws. It is our responsiblity, per NPOV, to represent all significant POV, and the issue of IDP's is a significant one, in that 1) It is an important topic in relation to the United States as there is significant discussion and debate about whether the U.S. recognizes the Guiding Principles or not; and 2) The issue in relation to Katrina and IDP's has been discussed extensively in such sources, and is relevant to the topic. As editors, we are not in the business of proving anything; in fact it is our responsiblity to represent arguments even if we think they are wrong or if we disagree with them. Combine this with your inability to cite sources correctly (Re:The Washington Post and Ray Nagin) and your misunderstanding of basic guidelines and policies (No offense, some of them are esoteric), and a pattern emerges. The pattern points to a general misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. Regardless of what the position of the U.S. is in relation to IDP's, it is a significant topic in human rights that needs to be addressed in this article. Katrina is only one aspect of such coverage, and it is well-represented in the literature. My understanding is that you and others are against inclusion because doing so opens the U.S. up to criticism. Part of the NPOV policy is to represent such criticism in neutral terms. So, to follow your argument to its conclusion, the inclusion of such material is not only necessary, it is required for NPOV. I hope you understand. Viriditas (talk) 04:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The NPOV policy you cite requires a "neutral point of view". Neutrality is not achieved by providing sources with which one agrees. As the actual policy states: Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be fixed. See WP:NPOV. Wikipedia "works" on this policy. The cites/sources you have provided are biased, they are not based upon fact, they are editorialized findings, they seek designation when none exists. My understanding is that you and others are for inclusion of this material because doing so opens the U.S. up to criticism. You are not asserting facts, but instead you are asserting opinions of facts. The "fact" is that these individuals are not IDP's, and are not due the protections alleged denied to them under international law. That they should be designated as IDP's is a matter of opinion, and the opinion is based on a criticism of the United States on this basis. It violates WP:NPOV on that basis. Once you review the actual NPOV policy, I can only hope you understand. It should be stricken from the article because that's the way Wikipedia "actually" works. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Please familiarize yourself with the NPOV policy a bit more and how we use sources to attribute opinions about facts. The sources meet and exceed the requirements for RS; each source needs to be evaluated on its own merit. Your wikilawyering and broad, sweeping claim of alleging that all the sources are biased on this topic is absurd and will not be taken seriously by anyone, especially when the issue is represented in reliable newspapers, journals, research reports, and serious books devoted to human rights. I know you've only been here since September 2008, so your "rookie" arguments are understandable. But, please, take the time to read the policies and guidelines, and when you become more familiar with how the place works, feel free to ask questions. You could even hang out on the NPOV and RS noticeboards and learn a thing or two. Good luck. Viriditas (talk) 05:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Re: "I understand you've only been here since September 2008, so your "rookie" arguments are understandable." (Viriditas)
Hilarious lecture given the source today. I would stick to the facts, try to remain WP:Civil and try to lay off attacking other editors knowledge thereof.[[Mosedschurte (talk) 05:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Is that an ad hominem or you are referring directly to the topic? Viriditas (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • This is not about "reliable source", this is about WP:NPOV. If we went by the use of "reliable source", your own edits removing the Washington Post was made in bad faith, as it is actually identified as such in WP:REL. Your continued attempt at "biting the newcomer" is noted, and simultaneously viewed as laughable, as well as uncivil. I have been here since September, 2008, well done. In that time, I have actually read the policies you consistently cite to incorrectly, and I've written a few articles as well. I can only wonder how someone who trumps their experience so loudly for their length of time on this site can so consistently violate every policy it has. The fact is that they are not IDP's. That's a fact, provide a source. The fact that they "should" be dsignated as IDP's is an "opinion", and should not be included in this article, which is also the entire argument for its conclusion. In other words, this is not about a violation of human rights laws and conventions, it is about how it "should" be considered as such because the survivors "should" be classified as IDP's and criticizes the United States accordingly. That's "opinion", no more reliable than your own on Wikipedia policy. Does anyone else agree that this should be eliminated on this basis? Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • You are wikilawyering again. Read the policies, or ask questions, as you still aren't "getting it". This is all about reliable sources. NPOV is achieved by representing significant viewpoints from reliable sources. I don't recall anyone here saying that Katrina survivors should be designated IDP's. If such a claim exists, that's a claim from the sources, not from anyone here on Wikipedia. You seem to be reduced to misinterpreting policies and guidelines and setting up straw man arguments. Whatever the Katrina survivors are or are not is not the issue. The issue is accurately representing the topic of IDP's in this article, and using good sources to do it. Again, you are falling back on your previous argument about "proving" something, and I already pointed out to you this is not what we do here. We represent significant viewpoints with the best sources we have. That's it. If you are still confused, please ask someone who has been here longer than eight months and has more than 1,826 article edits in main space. Your article creation history says you've only created 3 articles during your time here. Perhaps you could experiment by creating a few more? Viriditas (talk) 05:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your uncivil comments, they are ignored as not meriting a response. On the basis of what I have stated above, does anyone else advocate eliminating the section on Hurricane Katrina from the article or not? This is about consensus. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Consensus cannot override NPOV. You would know this if you read the policies. And, you aren't the first civil POV pusher/wikilawer to try it, nor the last. Again, this is a classic rookie argument. Keep 'em coming. You are giving me good ideas on how to expand the civil POV pushing essay. Viriditas (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Exactly what is this POV you believe is being pushed by the deletion of this particular section? --Martintg (talk) 06:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you rephrase your question? I believe I have addressed this several times in this discussion alone. Viriditas (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Re the Katrina section, there is one paragraph that may apply to the scope of the article, pared down, and stated as allegation; most of the section is a synthesis improperly conflating economic and racial issues with human rights issues (not to mention the assumption that gross incompetence is intentional negligence). PetersV       TALK 06:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Can you expand a little bit about the "synthesis" bit. I think you are referring to material added by Yachtsman1, and I took him to task for it in Archive 8. Viriditas (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, you reverted them without an attempt at conensus, I remember it well. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
        • I discussed the incident in depth, here. Your material is still in the article, however, it lacks a secondary source. In other words, you are quoting a primary source document to promote your POV, and in so doing, you cherry picked the final analysis and assessment section while ignoring two entire sections on the topic (p.12 and p.22) in the same report. Without a secondary source supporting the selection of this material, it becomes problematic. What is most telling about your cherry picked edits, however, is that you completely ignored the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur that appear at the end of the report, recommendations that address the IDP problem directly. This is the type of POV pushing that we avoid by always using secondary sources to support primary source documents. However, when we only have the primary source documents, we need to proceed carefully, You attempted to twist and distort the findings by only selecting one aspect of it, and this is not acceptable editing behavior. Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I checked out the current section on Katrina. While there might be something to say about Katrina, the current section does not have any of it. Obeying our sacred duty to WP:Dear Reader, I endorse deletion of this section. Neither the hurricane, the mismanagement of the levee budgets nor blaring incompetence in the evacuation and following homeless assistance are not, after all, human rights issues as the concept is commonly understood. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 07:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The sources in the current section discuss human rights and Katrina, (unlike every source added to this article by Mosedschurte) and Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States#Reliable_sources supports them in spades. Of course, that is only a partial list of sources, and the content meets and exceeds RS and all related guidelines. I appreciate the sentiment, though. The least you could do is try to attack the sources. Come on, I know you can do it. Put on your thinking cap. Viriditas (talk) 07:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
How could a UN report possibly be an inappropriate source in a human rights article? As documented above, numerous human rights organisations commented upon this and were covered in secondary sources: Greenwood Publishing Group, Amnesty International House Committee Hearing, Columbia University Press, Carolina Academic Press, and many many others. "Natural Disasters and the Rule of Law". Human Rights: Journal of the Section of Individual Rights & Responsibilities. 33 (4). ABA Publishing. Fall 2006. ISSN 0046-8185. I am sure the section can be improved, but then let us research and improve it, rather than argue about whether it should be deleted altogether. JN466 08:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Interesting theory, but the latest UNHC Report that came out from the United States in April, 2009 examined Hurricane Katrina under the prism of race and economics, with the effect that poorer people who lived in low-lieing areas were especially vulnerable to the surge. It was never found to be a human rights violation by the UN. Naturally, because it did not criticize the United States, it was immediately reverted, and I was accused of "cherry-picking".--Yachtsman1 (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I've responded to this distortion here. Yachtsman did not use a secondary source to support his inclusion of a primary source quote (not needed in all cases, but very important when dealing with controversial or disputed content and where there is no consensus on the talk page before adding the material). Furthermore, Yachtsman1 ignored p.12, p.22, and p.29 of the report, focusing on a select quote he cherry picked to push his POV. Page 12 and 22 present useful information about Katrina that can be used in this article and page 29 is probably the most important, because it is here that the Special Rapporteur recommends:

The Federal Government and the States of Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi should increase its assistance to the persons displaced by Hurricane Katrina, particularly in the realm of housing. The principle that "competent authorities have the primary duty and responsibility to establish conditions, as well as provide the means, which allow internally displaced persons to return voluntarily, in safety and with dignity, to their homes or places of habitual residence" should be respected.

So why did Yachtsman1 ignore this? Because the internal quote in the above recommendation by the Special Rapporteur cites principle 28 of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. This is a clear example of cherry picking. This is the most important human rights-related quote about Katrina from the report, and Yachtsman1 chose not to use it. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Conspiracy-mongering and your own POV duly noted. And why do you want this included from specific pages? Because it supports your own POV. It asks for an increase in assistance (which is akin to saying "puppies are nice", it's standard), it does not suppport your theory of a human rights violation as this is not even alleged in the report. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 06:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Just to add to this discussion, I will re-iterate something I said in an earlier discussion, but that seemed to get lost in the massive proliferation of content on this talk page:
  • As I see it, in order to be encyclopaedic, the article defines human rights as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the subsequent UN treaties, conventions and declarations etc. This is one of the reasons for objections to certain sections. Some people don't realise that the UDHR includes socio-economic rights as well as civil-political rights - the sections on hurrican Katrina, universal health care etc, refer to socio-economic rights - for example, Article 25, section 1 of the declaration says:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

  • If anyone has an alternative theoretical framework for the article, I would be open to suggestions, although I believe that the UDHR is generally considered to be the accepted mainstream definition of what Human Rights are.
  • There are obviously guidelines and norms for the way in which states should meet their obligations regarding socio-economic rights, and I'm sure the sources used in the Katrina section refer to these. Pexise (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Basic misunderstanding (continued)

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Looking at the article lead, the lead is a mishmosh that is all over the place and is, itself, unclear as to scope, positives, and negatives. It would be better to focus the lead on the scope of the article. It can't just be editorial consensus—if we start including things like rights to "security" then in this economic downturn nearly every country on the planet would be lacking. Therefore, the article has to be limited to focus on:

  • what is considered to encompass Human Rights (capital H, capital R)—that can't be editorial consensus as that would be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. It must be a definition of Human Rights (not nice to be entitled to), preferably a treaty/convention that signatories are beholden to, I would suggest the Geneva Conventions as opposed to the UDHR which pretty much includes the right to a kitchen sink; as long as society is based on money the UDHR is a utopian vision—not that we should not strive to attain it, but it's far too all-encompassing to be used as scope for an encyclopedia article
  • the article then discusses U.S. and state law, policy, and implementation thereof relative to the (if suggestion taken) Geneva Conventions

Having thought about it more, screw-ups like Katrina are not applicable based on 20:20 (or not) hindsight, those make the article into a U.S. abuses minorities coat rack. The scope of this article is not Human Rights + civil rights + minority rights + universal medical care + universal schooling + rights to housing +....

  • we can then have a section of "Allegations of policies supporting human rights abuse", where specific policy items such as waterboarding can be discussed
  • we can discuss to what degree foreign policy is included, that should only be a mention of, say, support for country X alleged to do Y, see article ABC, no more

Otherwise the article will never be organized, be far to large to make any sense or contain any meaningful narrative, and just be an invitation for editors to coatrack and soapbox. Just my editorial two cents. PetersV       TALK 16:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. We have numerous sections which contain only criticism, and then WP:UNDUE discussing individual incidents in painfully long paragraphs while major policy issues are barely touched—indicating how unfocused the article is and how far it has strayed from the topic. I have to agree that the article as it stands is not balanced and inappropriately conflates (among other things) he-said/she-said on non-signings by the U.S. (seemingly always including some long critical opining by some official), incompetence, individual crimes, and genuine human rights abuses. PetersV       TALK 16:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no rationale to use the Geneva Conventions and not the UDHR. I would say we have to use both. What's more, we should be using mainstream human rights sources for this article and all of those would generally refer to the UDHR as the international standard on human rights. Pexise (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
There is a scale of rights from the most fundamental rights (the right to life) to rights related to quality of and opportunity in life. I was looking for a way to focus on fundamental rights. Just using the UDHR as an item list is quite voluminous—we should then consider a means to summarize it into categories to make the resulting narrative more readable. PetersV       TALK 03:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Which human rights-related sources are you proposing to use as a basis for these categories? Viriditas (talk) 06:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

5. All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis. While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Sources still needed

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This has been tagged as unsourced for some time now. Please provide a human rights-related reliable source that supports this statement. Viriditas (talk) 06:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There were obvious omissions which I corrected but still left fact-tagged. The proper means of addressing is not to fill the lede with citations but for it to be a true summary of article narrative. Right now that narrative is woefully lacking in terms of a cogent overview of how human rights function legally either under domestic law or international treaty, launching immediately into individual rights and a long litany of individual incidents and personal quotes. I divided the current Overview at a good breaking point for a section on "Domestic law" and added an "International treaty" overview as a start. PetersV       TALK 16:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Human Rights Watch - The US and the International Criminal Court
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States/Archive_12&oldid=1136805494"