Talk:Human rights in the United States/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Focus and bring in line

If Cuba can have, in its human rights section, massive sections tinged with anticommunism, then so can this article, here, have sections tinged with anti-capitalism. It's only fair.

Personally, I want to see a "Victims of Capitalism" deathcount in the same way we've all seen "Victims of Communism" deathcounts, but that's a separate issue. ;)

Thoughts on sections the article could import/include:

• Indian removal and the reservation system. The U.S. Reservation system today are oases of murder and horrendous poverty, and that reflects directly on the human rights of the United States as a whole. No one really ever talks about 'the rez' and we should. IT IS NOT "in the past".
• Racism in the United States and its current manifestations, including widespread death and destruction of everyday black people.
• Anti-immigrant sentiment and that 'wall' some right-wingers insist on building along the border with mexico.
• Mass arrests and harrassments of left-wing political dissidents, because it does happen.

Most of these already have their own articles in one form or another: The murder of Fred Hampton, various stuff having to do with black nationalism, the civil rights movement etc.

We need to fix this thing to bring it more in line with the human rights records of other regimes that have been known to be repressive in various ways. The U.S. does not have a clean bill of health, and to try to pull some kind of American exceptionalism thing here is no good.

Kikodawgzzz (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No. You won't be doing that. I'm sorry, but you cannot get away with that per NPOV. Anti-capitalist information you want to add? There's very little, if any, anti-capitalist sentiment in the United States. There are no reliable sources (leftist fringe websites do not count) that state capitalism is linked to racism or forms of oppression. Anti-immigrant sentiment is not isolated to the U.S. it is an issue in many western countries, especially in the U.K. however in the U.S. it is generally only an issue of illegal immigration. Illegally entering the United States and staying beyond the legal time frame specified to remain in the country is a violation of federal U.S. law. Anyone who engages in such a violation is a criminal, therefore it is not racist or wrong for people to be opposed to criminal activity. You will not be editing this article to suit your biased views. I'll make sure of that. 72.39.210.23 (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I won't fight you myself, because if you're the 'protector' of this page, the attack-dog who repels all intruders, then I obviously won't defeat you. So, this situation (and your threatening behavior) has been reported to the NPOV Message Board. My guess is that the board's inhabitants will have quite a bit to say about your take on all this.

Back to the things that need adding: I was thinking of inserting information from the MK-ULTRA mind-control experiments. What do others (besides 72.39.210.23) think? Could that work? Kikodawgzzz (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If you think that the article about Cuba is unfair then you should correct it, not balance it by adding bias to this article. This article does in fact discuss human rights abuses in the US, but these must always be reliably sourced. The article should mention treatment of aboriginals and immigrants, but must include attempts by the US to protect the human rights of those groups. While there is some truth in the issues you raised, you appear to be overstating them. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with TFD. Soxwon (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Also agree with TFD. We have had extensive discussions about the content of this article, and agreed that the content should remain within the criteria of human rights standards as set out in international treaties and declarations. However, if you can find suitable sources that identify human rights violations, the issues with native Americans should, of course, be included. Also, if you have sources identifying state-sponsored racism against blacks in violation of human rights, they should also be included. Obviously, these issues also bring into question the historical scope of the article, and whether we want to deal just with contemporary human rights issues or historical abuses (slavery, Jim Crow, killing and displacement of native Americans etc.). Probably best to discuss the material here first. Pexise (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

MKULTRA (straight-ahead mind control stuff, literal mind control) was in the fifties and uncovered in the seventies. There were experiments at Columbia University (New York) in the nineties on black youth using money given to their parents as a legitimizing cover (biological-sciences racism). And yes, the poverty and violence on the rezzes is very current. I am indeed talking about current material here. Also, there's lots of evidence showing that Hurricane Katrina's circumstances violated and actively continue to violate human rights in the US. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Then let's see some reliable sourcing, though I'm not sure the Columbia study has proper weight for inclusion. Soxwon (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The worst thing is the "victims of communism" marking in the Cuba article. That's very neutral, don't you think? So neutral that I want to REMOVE IT! In the USA about 500 people are getting SHOT every year because they TRAVEL BETWEEN MEXICO AND THE USA! People trying to get over to Cuba, are also being shot. USA got a long history with genocide, slave trade, wars killing million of people and more! I will imagine at least 50 000 000 deaths since 1900. Because of hunger, the very good health care, executions, killed immigrants and more.

About the ban against immigration to and from Mexico, it kills more than the Berlin Wall ever did! And their terror support on terrorist organizations against Cuba, for example Omega 7, Alpha 66 and The Cuban-American Foundation, have killed over 3500 Cubans between 1963 and 2006! And the Soviet war in Afghanistan was started by the USA cause they supported Taliban, and it killed over 900 000 civil Afghans, 15 000 Soviet-Russian soldiers, and 18 000 Afghan soldiers! And they support Israel, that got press from Human Rights organisations, with milliards of dollars every year! And the things I've told you now, is not human rights abuse, what? 62.16.168.251 (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Domestic legal protection structure

This section has several problems which need to be addressed. I have added a sentence to clarify that the individual states have the authority (and have often used that authority) to provide their residents greater protections than those afforded by the federal government. The text also contains language which is either wrong or which is the subject of controversy and therefore needs to be clarified. For example, the 14th Amendment does not mention unenumerated rights and no court has ever held that it implies such rights exist (the Supreme Court has held that through the 14th Amendment many, but not all, of the rights in the Bill of Rights apply as against the States through a concept of incorporation). The 9th amendment does mention unenumerated rights, but the Supreme Court has never cited it when recognizing any right not mentioned in the rest of the Constitution. The simple fact is that when speaking of individual rights the US Constitution sets a floor below which the government may not sink, but not a ceiling above which the government may not rise. In other words, Congress, the states, counties and cities are free to provide greater protection than required by the Constitution (and often do) but may not provide less protection. When it comes to the Supreme Court "articulating rights not recognized" (paraphrasing the current article) this is a matter of great controversy. The Court has repeatedly denied doing any such thing - although many people believe that it has done so (e.g. reproductive rights, non-discrimination rights etc). While some argue that the court has created these as "new rights" and other have urged that the court use the 9th amendment to recognize them, the court has consistently said it has recognized these rights through the due process and/or equal protection clauses of the constitution which make certain rights "fundamental to the concept of ordered liberty." The court has consistently said it is not creating "new rights" but merely recognizing ancient rights as they apply in the modern world. I am a Constitutional law professor and could turn this entire section into an article in and of itself, although I do not think that needs to be done. Any thought as to how we can clean this up, keep it short but ensure that it is accurate and well sourced? I will try to put some language together and post it here, but I would like to hear the thoughts of others. Franklin Moore (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This vs. others

Most of the articles about Human Rights in... are about human rights violence, but not this, that is about how USA describe human rights. why not a change? USA have broken MANY human rights, for example about racism, bad health care, discrimination of women, prisons, death penalty, war crimes and torture. It have been better if all articles about human rights by country had been about the same thing, 62.16.168.251 (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I think same thing why this article not say anything about that nearly only say "good". While in another article with another country especially in Asia and South-American even single very little trouble with some one and something or the fact it even not real they say so loud about broken human rights. Well I think this article pro-USA and nearly complete POV anyway just go to wikileaks we will see many "good source" say complete reverse with this article say.Tnt1984 (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Rape

The US--and it is not alone--does not have a very good track record regarding sexual assault, victim blaming, availability of rape kits, &c. Anyone knowledgeable enough with sources to start this section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.117.170.50 (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Bradley Manning

Perhaps time to include details of the case of Bradley Manning - problematic detention conditions and he could now face the death penalty according to the Guardian. Amnesty International has taken up the case. Pexise (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Human rights OF the United States?

I think it looks a bit odd to read about the war of terrorism and the Abu Ghraib prison torture when the article is about human rights IN the United States - after all, these incidents did not happen in the United States! What about renaming the article to human rights OF the United States? That would allow us to include the human rights track reocrd of the United States that occurred in other countries or in relation to non-Americans.Craddocktm (talk) 00:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Japanese internment

No mention of Japanese interment? I would especially like to see the legal justification that was used for denying them their rights under american law. 68.188.25.170 (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It's already in Human rights in the United States#National security exceptions

They can legally justify things in wartime that they can't justify in peacetime. For example, the Emancipation Proclamation would not have been legal in peacetime.

Of course, it helped to have some "civil rights" groups willing to go along with it. The National Lawyers Guild supported the FDR administration in this. But they're pretty far to the left, and many leftists were willing to do anything to protect the Soviet Motherland, which was fighting for its life at the time.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Bin laden section

Obivously whoever wrote this section about the "extrajudical" killing of bin laden is either A: a Al-queda propaganda agent B:an Chinese/north korean/russian leftist-nationalist trying to defect attention from themselves or C:just plain Crazy so i will delete the section tommorow anyone agree or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.169.226 (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, since you have not deleted it I will be doing so if no one is objecting. Alone with the portion claiming Mr. Anwar al-alaki was killed while he was a U.S. citizen. He in fact relinquished his citizenship long before being brought to justice. In any case, both men were killed as combatants in the war on terror, and both were admittedly at war with the US. Being killed by your enemy during a war is simply not a case of "extra-judicial killing". 24.60.214.65 (talk) 07:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Dead links

There are several dead links in this article, including 66-68. there may be more, just wanted to put that out there, its really inconvenient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.192.17 (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

President Bush republican administration “waterboarding” torture

Belchfire your removal [1] deserves in my opinion place in Wiki. Your demand was “Needs better sourcing”. I used the following refs A-C:

1. According to the Human Rights Watch report (September 2012) the United States government during the U.S. President Bush republican administration “waterboarding” tortured opponents of Muammar Gaddafi during interrogations, then transferred them to mistreatment in Libya. ref A: US: Torture and Rendition to Gaddafi’s Libya Human Rights Watch September 6, 2012 ref B: Delivered Into Enemy Hands US-Led Abuse and Rendition of Opponents to Gaddafi’s Libya Human Rights Watch 2012
2. President Barack Obama has denied water torture. ref C: HRW: USA käytti vesikidutusta libyalaisiin yle 6.9.2012 (in Finnish)

Both HRW (English) and yle (Finnish) are verifiable and reliable sources. The Finnish ref may be supplemented with an English one, but I have no reason to doubt the reporting of yle (Finland's national public-broadcasting company) based on the books by president Barack Obama I read. In any case, the HRW reporting should be returned in my opinion immediately. Everyone are free to help in this. Watti Renew (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Life in Prison for Juveniles

As of today, it is no longer allowed to put someone under the age of 18 in prison for life without parole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.98.231 (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I added a mention of this case, Miller v. Alabama. Ndickinson1 (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hope vs Fact

This article seems to be mostly based on the aspirations outlined in certain legal documents but the de facto, lived realities of suffering of too many Americans on the bases of race, gender, sexuality and religion are not even touched on. In the interest of accuracy, I think that this article should adopt a less biased (pro-United States) approach and incorporate research that reflects that these hopes, as noble as they may be, are still incompletely realized. 184.97.252.42 (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this reviewer and I made edits to incorporate information from other Wikipedia pages to address the reality of human rights in the United States. Even though I linked to those other pages, including Supreme Court cases and pages on slavery and women's rights, an editor reversed it saying the text was "potentially valuable but unsupported."

I would appreciate support in getting my cited changes restored. Thank you. Ndickinson1 (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I meant to leave a note on your talk page about this. I removed it (actually it still exists in history) because there were no source citations and no edit summary indicating that the information was copied from elsewhere on Wikipedia.

I would recommend that if you are copying information from other articles, you should also copy the source citations and use the edit summary to indicate that you are copying content from another article, and list the name of the article. If the content being copied does not have citations, it is likely to be removed again.

You may find these Wikipedia help articles helpful: WP:RS and WP:CITE.

I will restore your edits, but you will have to add source citations, otherwise someone is likely to remove the content again. Feel free to leave a message for me on my talk page if you need any help. – MrX 20:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mr.X. I will try to add some more information in the next day or so. I did include a lot of embedded links to the Wikipedia pages with the source material. Ndickinson1 (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation

I will be removing the "Iowa lgbt" and "Gay is the New Black" photos because they aren't as relevant as the United States Same-sex marriage map and there isn't enough room. If anyone has any possible solutions please let me know... Prcc27 (talk) 04:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Links

>> Uranium mine troubles Native American groupsLihaas (talk) 07:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Rejected. It's obvious that no one supports this move. As the proposer, I deem it appropriate for me to close it early. Thanks for your participation. Roamingcuriosity (talk) 13:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Human rights in the United States → United States human rights –

The title of this article is too narrow to cover its contents. In particular, the contents in section 8 - War on Terrorism, as well as section 10 - International comparison, don't fall strictly under the scope "Human rights in the United States", which is interpreted by many as "Human rights within the border of the United States".

Given the unique position of the United States in the global arena, with its omnipresent political, economical influence, its military operations, and more specifically, with its efforts in the international human rights progress, as well as controversial acts, and in accordance with the general spirit of Wikipedia as the sum of all human knowledge, it is hereby proposed that, instead of removing the contents, the title shall be changed to "United States human rights". Roamingcuriosity (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Brief Opinion

Please briefly summarize your support or opposition to this move. - SantiLak (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The scope, subject, and title of this article are fine as they are now and I will agree that there are some things that need to be removed in certain sections such as extraordinary rendition of other countries citizens and maybe Abu Ghraib, but GITMO is controlled by the US and should stay. This article title follows the article titles of all of the other Human rights in ___ articles and it should stay that way. - SantiLak (talk) 01:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment can editors please check parallel articles before proposing move suggestions. Gregkaye ✍♪ 02:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes I have done that, and I have explained why this title should be different, given "the unique position of the United States in the global arena, with its omnipresent political, economical influence, its military operations, and more specifically, with its efforts in the international human rights progress, as well as controversial acts". The title should be different because the United States is different. Roamingcuriosity (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as per Category:Human rights by country Gregkaye ✍♪ 02:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Sounds as if the nominator wants this established article to cover a different topic. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, it's the naming convention as per a host of other articles on similar subjects related to human rights. — Cirt (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Please discuss the requested move more here. - SantiLak (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Drone attack civilian casualties

The rationale for adding this section:

1. Those operations were authorized by the US President under US laws, both are "in the United States".

2. Human rights violations have to be somehow accounted for. Because of the unique position of the United States, with its military presence around the globe, most of these incidences, eg. killings of innocent civilians, occur outside the US territory. It would be ridiculous, for example, to report killings of civilians by US drone in Pakistan under "Human rights in Pakistan", wouldn't it?

3. With the latest technology, which allows the drones to be controlled through satellite by military personnel physically situated within the United States, according to General Atomics MQ-1 Predator, it is not unlikely that those operations also meet the strict criteria of being "in the United States".

Roamingcuriosity (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Soapbox, so human rights abuses do not need to be "accounted for", certainly not within this article. The article is not titled Human Rights abuses by the United States; the section is not germane to the topic. Seaphoto^Talk 02:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I concur, the article is on Human rights in the United States not by the United States, these actions took place in Pakistan, not in the US. - SantiLak (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Note this article is a redirect from "United States human rights". Shall I start a new article instead of adding to this one? Roamingcuriosity (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Just presenting some mere facts here and I don't see how this violates any guidelines. Per WP:SOAP, "an article can report objectively about such things" as advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment. Maybe I should go in length and report the details of the criticisms the US has drawn on this issue? And be careful when you claim "human rights abuses do not need to be 'accounted for'". Many people in the world would love to hear this. Those abusers, of course. Btw, I have the deepest respect for those on Wikipedia who devote their time to the fight against vandalism. But human rights is a sensitive issue, so I can feel that maintaining the balance is a challenge. Roamingcuriosity (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Actual war crimes are a matter of the laws of war. It is generally not any kind of a human rights abuse to kill an enemy when you're in a war (and, yes, even if the enemy chooses to hide out in Pakistan or Yemen). Civilian casualties happen much more frequently when combatants and civilians are able to mingle, but in that case the failure is usually in the mingling, which means that it is American's enemies who perform human rights abuses.

There are, of course, many who don't support the laws of war, and pretend that it's still America's fault. These people are actually encouraging (and thereby supporting) war crimes. If they're notable, they should be named, referenced, and never forgotten. But the opinions of non-notable figures is a lesser matter. It's not notable if some minor-league radical opposes drones.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Please note that the issue is not whether the US has committed any war crime. In fact, please note that the US is not at war with any of the states mentioned in my original edit — unless you can prove otherwise. In the Pakistan case, it is reported that the drones were actually flown out of a Pakistani base [2]. So the laws of war hardly apply here. Roamingcuriosity (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I said, "(and, yes, even if the enemy chooses to hide out in Pakistan or Yemen)." What matters is *who* the enemy is, not *where*.

When we're at war with Al Qaeda and their affiliates, it doesn't matter at all that their ally is hiding in Pakistan. We don't need to declare war on Pakistan to fight an Al Qaeda affiliate there.

There is nothing new about this. It's always been this way.

If you're not saying the drone attacks are illegal then I don't see the point to having that section. This is a human rights article, and you're assigning rights to the Taliban that they don't have, and don't deserve, while you're throwing away any rights that the Taliban's victims might have. And that's beside SantiLak's point that this article is about human rights in the U.S.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

We can talk about this on facebook if you like :) Roamingcuriosity (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, the article is on Human rights in the United States not Human Rights abuses by the United States, these actions took place in Pakistan, not in the US and don't fall under the scope of the article. - SantiLak (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If you skim through section 8 of this article, almost nothing there meets the strict criterion of being "in the United States". Nevertheless, everything is there and seems to have been there for a long time. The Abu Ghraib contents, for example, date back to earlier than 2009, as I have bothered to check. So I don't see how this new section doesn't fit. However, if you insist, I can request a page move. It seems that a title like "United States human rights" better fits this article, and more importantly, the issues that result from the unique position of the United States in the global arena that probably no other countries share.
Btw, just a matter of technicality: "Human rights in the United States" and "Human Rights abuses by the United States" are not mutually exclusive. A lot of things fall in the intersection. Though personally, I really hope to see more in the difference: {in}\{abuses by}. Roamingcuriosity (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

As a courtesy notice: the discussion here is making little progress and is getting somewhat political. My time could have been better spent on more meaningful contributions. Thus, within approximately 24 hours, if I still don't receive any constructive feedback, addressing specifically the points I stated above (rather than some repetitive and general statements I have already addressed specifically), I will revert the deletion of the new section. Thanks. Roamingcuriosity (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You haven't explained how this is a human rights abuse by the U.S. Your source (which isn't exactly unbiased) doesn't say that it is one.

It mentions civilian casualties, but civilians are killed in wars all the time, and it's perfectly legal when the conditions are met. Your source even mentions that the courts ruled against making some of these things more public. They know that these things are legal.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, the article is on Human rights in the United States not Human Rights abuses by the United States, these actions took place in Pakistan, not in the US and don't fall under the scope of the article. The issue is not whether these were legal or they were abuses but that they were in Pakistan and don't fall into the scope of the article. SantiLak (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. In that sense, much of the War on Terror section should be removed. It's out of place in this one. -- Randy2063 (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I am requesting a page move. In the mean time, I have also improved the section with consideration of the points brought up here, so that it is more "in the United States". Thanks for the input. From now on, any outright removal of the section without discussing it first on this page will be regarded as an unfriendly gesture and will be met with ... well, friendly but firm opposition. Roamingcuriosity (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Your new section was just an expanded version of the old section and still does not fall under the scope of the article. The article is on Human rights in the United States not Human Rights abuses by the United States, these actions took place in Pakistan, not in the US and don't fall under the scope of the article. There was no consensus in any way to support re-adding your section and I don't see how what you added is any more "in the United States." You ignored other editors who specifically said not to re-add the material without discussing it. Not receiving consensus for re-adding the material is important as well because there was no consensus from what I saw in support of re-adding it but instead there was consensus to keep it out. Also threats are not really the kind of cooperative environment Wikipedia tries to foster in its editors, try and assume good faith and embrace the cooperative spirit. - SantiLak (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Please, don't be confrontational, and please, back up your claims with reasons and evidence:

1) "these actions took place in Pakistan, not in the US" -- you are equating "human rights" with "abuses of human rights". Your interpretation is way too narrow. Human rights is not just about abuses, but also about intentions, decisions, policies, and public opinions. Human rights is not a physical entity, whose exact location can be precisely measured. It's a concept, an idea. It is what people have in their mind. The actions that result, whether advocacy or abuse, are just the last 10% of the story. So, please, read the section again with an open mind. It's much more than just "these actions". Except "these actions", everything else is in the United States if you read it with an open mind.

2) "You ignored other editors who specifically said not to re-add the material without discussing it" Please explain: have I not discussed it with you and others? What are those comments I made above? See, I have been trying to explain, with reason and from different perspectives, to you and others why this section needs to stay. I have also proposed the alternative of starting a new article. But I haven't heard back from you on this alternative. And I haven't heard back from you on the three points I brought up at the beginning of the discussion. And I haven't heard back from you on why the rest of section 8 can stay while the new section should go. All I got back from you is: "the article is on Human rights in the United States not Human Rights abuses by the United States". That's how you participate in a discussion? OK, no personal attacks. I take this back immediately. But you started by claiming that I ignored other editors. So we are even.

2.1) But just to get this important point straight: When removing content from an article, whether it be a whole section or even just a single word, if the removal is likely to be opposed by one or more other editors, it is important to make sure there is clearly a consensus to remove the content. When in doubt, discuss prior to removal. You failed to discuss with me in the first place, and not the other way around. And It is preferable that good-faith additions remain in the article pending consensus. So while we are discussing this, the new section should stay there. I am sure you are already a seasoned Wikipedian. So I am sure you are familiar with these.

2.2) Also this: Wikipedia is not a democracy You said there was consensus to keep it out. That's incorrect, because you are excluding me when you said consensus. And while I have been trying hard to help us reach consensus, you just keep saying "in the United States not by the United States". So all you have is just a vote.

3) "threats are not really the kind of cooperative environment Wikipedia tries to foster in its editors" Threats? Where? "a courtesy notice"? OK, I take it back and apologize. I admit I was frustrated by your "in the United States not by the United States". I will stop doing that. But a threat seems like an overly harsh charge. I love Wikipedia, and that's why I am here, probably spending more time than I should. No ill intention at all. Hope to meet you guys some day and have a nice chat -- when we are in a better mood of course. And I will never threat anyone.

4) I admit, I am no expert on this issue. I put my edit here in the hope that people who are experts can improve it and make it better. Over the years, I have seen many articles and sections within them turning from a short paragraph or even a single sentence into a comprehensive knowledge base. After all, that is what Wikipedia is all about. It's open. And every one can help make it better. But when you kill something at its start, you close all doors. You deprive it of all opportunities to improve and become better. Remember, Wikipedia is about summing the human knowledge, not subtracting from it.

5) I admit, my heart rate did go up a little bit when I read your comments. So if anything I just said sounds too harsh, please forgive me. But I stand by the points I made. And I believe I have already done my part in terms of good faith.

Thanks for reading. Roamingcuriosity (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Update: Since this detail is probably otherwise unnoticeable, I am highlighting it here: if you look at the time stamps, as evident by my response to Seaphoto, I noticed the removal of the section prior to 12:41, 26 October 2014. However, it was not until 00:37, 29 October 2014 that I added the improved version of the section, hoping to meet your standard of "in the United States", only after two and a half days and a fruitless discussion. Then, I noticed your removal of the improved version of the section prior to 13:15, 29 October 2014. It's now 20:23, 29 October 2014, that is, seven hours later, and I am not reverting your rollback. I believe I have already demonstrated the best of good faith.
So now, I am asking you to demonstrate your good faith by doing this: instead of my reverting your rollback, please bring back the section with whatever edit your want -- even to the extent of completely rewriting what I have written, as long as it is related to the topic of human rights controversies surrounding the drone program, so that it meets your criterion of "in the United States". This is how you prove that you are acting in good faith. So, now it's your move. Roamingcuriosity (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You are missing the point of the articles that are "Human rights in (insert country)"' which is that they are about human rights in that country, not actions that involve that country in human rights abuses in other countries. I understand perfectly your intentions on bringing up the drone program and of course I have my own personal issues with it but I am just following along with the scope of the article. The point of the article is to cover human rights in the United States and I understand I keep on repeating it but it is really important when it comes to the scope of the article. To be clear when I kept on writing those short "in the United States" comments it was because the discussion was getting off topic and becoming more of a forum for arguing about US drone strikes instead of being about the material, I'm sorry if I was unclear or maybe a little brash and repetitive but I was just trying to be brief and get the discussion back on point. I understand why you feel they should be covered but it really does not belong in the article because the issue still is that it is an action by the US outside of the United States. If you want to cover specifically things like the US launching drone strikes on its own citizens and killing them like Anwar al-Awlaki then that makes perfect sense because that has to do with the "in" part of the United States as he was a US citizen and was killed without a trial which is an extrajudicial killing of a citizen which has to do with the "in" part as he was a citizen. The distinction between that kind of drone strike against a US citizen in Yemen and one that kills innocent civilians in Pakistan seems small because they are both overseas and it seems to be that if one counts as "in" then both should but the fact that it was an extrajudicial killing of one of their own citizens makes it relevant to the "in." I understand why you think the information should be restored but I really think that we should finish the discussion before we do so as the point raised by Seaphoto when they reverted was that we need to discuss it and I apologize if I said you didn't discuss it really but what I really meant was that we need to finish the discussion before you re-add it. - SantiLak (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

As I have stated above, before removing the new section, you should have discussed it with me. Not the other way around. I understand when you fight vandalism, you just click revert. But this is not vandalism. However, since I have seen a positive gesture from you, let's move on. I concede that the section as I initially added looked like an ill fit for the topic of this article. But everything has a start, right? And apparently I have already got us started, because you have mentioned the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, which is a nice fit for the new section. You should have brought it up earlier :) And please note that I by no means just want to focus on Pakistan. It was just something that came up first in my search, and there happened to be another comprehensive Wikipedia article. Actually if you look at my improved version, it was hardly just about Pakistan. Also, I think I have been trying to stay on the topic throughout the discussion. So let's continue. Let's again talk about what constitutes "human rights in the United States".
First of all, in its most restrictive interpretation, it could mean "human rights as defined in the laws and protected by the laws of the United States". But that's overly restrictive and a lot of contents of the article would need to be tossed out, for example, the entire "History" section. We might as well just copy and paste the relevant sections on the Cornell law website and this article would be a lot more concise. On the other hand, we could interpret it more broadly as "everything people in the United States do and talk about and think about that's related to human rights according to its most fundamental definition, that is, the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". After all, these actions, talks and thoughts are where the laws come from. With this interpretation, everything in this article fits well, including section 8 and section 10 -- "International comparison".
We have been talking about actions. But every action has an actor and an object. The actors of those actions mentioned in the new section are "in the United States", correct? --by "those actions", I mean the drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and possibly other places, and not just in Pakistan. As a example, how CIA screens the targets to avoid killing civilians could be something to be added to the section, because it's in the US. And concerning the actions, there are discussions in the US at different levels. They could also be added. For example, there is a politician who wants to make sure similar strikes can't be carried out on American soil against US citizens. And of course there are human rights advocacy groups in the US, and what they do could be reported here. For example, their effort in trying to bring the program under the military so that it could be more transparent. See there are a lot of things that could be added to this section. But I am not an expert on this issue. I hardly ever follow the news. I started the section in the hope that those who are experts can finish it. But for now I think we have made some good progress here. I will wait for more input from you. Roamingcuriosity (talk) 09:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

So how are things going? Nice job fighting vandalism! b^.^d But be careful not to overdo it. Btw, although Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline for things, I do hope that we can finish this early so that I can go on and devote my energy to other things. My mind is largely single-threaded. When I leave this process running, it consumes a considerable amount of memory and cpu cycles (I hope this analogy makes sense). So I will appreciate it if you come back every day in an attempt to make some good progress here. Thanks. Roamingcuriosity (talk) 07:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It's Halloween night which also happens to be a Friday night. But considering my commitment to continuing this discussion, I feel compelled to come back. So here I am. But unfortunately, again you are not. Apparently in the mean time, today and yesterday, you have been actively contributing to other articles. So I believe it is ok to assume that you are no longer engaged in this discussion. After all, we are all volunteers, and have the ultimate freedom to decide where and how we want to contribute, and withdraw any time we like. The discussion has been dragging along for almost a week, and we certainly both have more important and more interesting things to do. So it's time for a conclusion.
Although I am not obligated to do so, I feel this will be helpful should future disputes arise concerning the scope of this article, which every one assumes but no one has clearly defined. Thus, drawing from our discussion, I am adding the section below. Feel free to comment and edit. Roamingcuriosity (talk) 11:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that I had the SAT today and Halloween yesterday so I was kind of swamped, I'll definitely comment in the section below. - SantiLak (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem. And I hope the one extra hour tonight helps :)
Again we are all volunteers. It's not like we have to get up six o'clock in the morning every day and come here on time. Actually we don't even have to move so fast. The things that have come up here are already plenty for us to think about. We can move forward at a slower and more confortable pace. What is important is that we all put thoughts into what we do. See wikipedia is about consensus, not votes. And consensus cannot be reached unless disagreeing parties are willing to put enough thoughts into the discussion. If one party fails to do so, consensus will not be reachable. It's something more desirable but much much harder to achieve than democracy. And that's why most of the time we can just fall back on democracy. It's like a simulated battle, where the side that's more numerous pervails. This is probably how the ancient Greeks came up with democracy -- just count the numbers and the outcome of a battle is already pretty clear, so why not save the bloodshed. But the winning side doesn't necessarily do a better job making everyone better. Thus all the big and small problems we have right now. And not just we, but other democratic countries.
Anyway, that was off the topic. I admit. In the mean time, I am putting the section back per Wikipedia policies, so that we don't need to rush to finish the discussion. Actually, I think we agree a lot more than we disagree. If you hadn't removed my edit in the first place, we would have had a more leisurely discussion, probably more productive as well.
Have a nice weekend! Roamingcuriosity (talk) 23:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Scope of this article

This is an attempt by Roamingcuriosity(talk), along with the effort of SantiLak(talk) and others, to clearly define the scope of this article, which has so far only been assumed by individual editors whose opinions don't necessarily agree, and never explicitly stated. It is intended to server as a guideline should further disagreements arise regarding inclusions and exclusions of new or existing contents.

It is hereby postulated that the scope of this article should be defined as "the laws of the United States or recognized by the United States, that pertain to human rights as derivable from their fundamental definition as the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, along with the actions, processes, discussions, and thoughts in the United States that lead to and have lead to those laws, and along with the applications, in terms of any actions, processes, discussions, and thoughts in the United States that involve such applications, of those laws towards cases involving both citizens of the United States and non-citizens, including people who reside in the United States or visit the United States, people over whom a US court has personal jurisdiction, and people who are subject to forcible actions of the United States police, armed forces, or other agencies that carry out such actions."

This is to overcome the limitations of other definitions, proposed or implied in previous discussions as well as probably assumed by others, resulting from overly narrow and restrictive interpretations of the title of this article, among which are "advocacy or violations of human rights that take place within the border of the United States", "human rights abuses in the United States", "human right laws in the United States", and "human rights of US citizens". Interpretations as such would have precluded the development of several existing sections of this article that are highly relevant and well-established, and would prevent further relevant contents from being added, among which are, just for illustration purposes, the rights of illegal immigrants, and the advocacy in the United States of human rights in other countries.

This definition of the scope of this article is by no means hard and fast. Everyone is encouraged to edit and improve in good faith.

Roamingcuriosity (talk) 13:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

No, write another article if you want to cover how the U.S. treats human rights in other countries. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Note the requested move is closed. And this is a different topic. Roamingcuriosity (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It's the same topic. You want the scope of the article to allow you to re-add this, do you not? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not the reason of your removal. And your removal is NOT justified by WP:BRD, so please stop doing that. Be constructive. And at least, follow the established policies. Roamingcuriosity (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It is precisely the reason for the removal and as three different editors have reverted your addition, it should stay out until consensus has formed. I agree with SantiLak, "The scope, subject, and title of this article are fine as they are now and I will agree that there are some things that need to be removed..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Please elaborate on what "it" refers to. And as I said, the proposed move has already been closed. It is irrelevant now. Roamingcuriosity (talk) 01:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You have opened the last three sections with the same immediate goal in mind - adding this material. Editors have opposed your addition in the first section, editors have opposed your move nomination in the second section which would conceivably then make the material appropriate, and I'm opposing your proposition to expand the scope of this article which would again conceivably make the material appropriate. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Mass survelliance

Why this article says nothing about PRISM (surveillance program) and similar mass survelliance programs in USA that seem to violate privacy and free speech rights?

It only contains one link to the main article about Mass surveillance in the United States. Jarble (talk) 21:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Enhanced interrogation

I notice that a lot of times the words 'enhanced interrogation' appear in quotes for no apparent reason. I think this comes across as a bit POV. Putting the words in quotes seem to suggest that the term is a euphemism for torture, which is a matter of opinion. In keeping with the Wikipedia page for Enhanced Interrogation, which only uses the words in quotes when it is specifically being quoted, I'm erasing the quotes.

I've also deleted the paragraph that only reads: "'We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history,' President Barack Obama said." Quite frankly, it lacks context, and contributes nothing to the article, and doesn't even specifically mention torture or enhanced interrogation.

Quite frankly, there's a lot of problems with the article. But I don't feel like inciting an edit war this close to finals. Joker1189 (talk)

In case anyone is interested, 'enhanced interrogation' is the exact translation of the German expression 'Verschärfte Vernehmung' used by the Gestapo as a euphemism for torture. Againstdisinformation (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the phrase you are trying to claim is "stricter examination" - not "enhanced interrogation".

Just sayin'

We now return you to your regularly scheduled propaganda. Scr★pIron^IV 18:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Who is the propagandist? You are playing on words in order to defend Bush and Cheney. 'Interrogation' is a quite correct translation for 'Vernehmung' and 'verschärft' means 'intensified' or 'increased'. So your distinction is spurious and, I would add, disingenuous. Againstdisinformation (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That is quite an accusation. The distinction is historical; neither of the terms you specify is "enhanced" - you are just POV pushing to self-victimize. Your translation is flawed, but it suits your purpose, so you push it as "truth." All I have asked for is appropriate use of sources, and to keep appropriate weight to particular organizations. That does not mean that I support any particular politicians or their actions. Scr★pIron^IV 12:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

What does enhancing interrogation mean, if not making it 'verschäfter'? Making it more pleasant, perhaps giving cookies? On this point, your bad faith seems to me obvious. The more so that, instead of reasoned arguments, all you have to offer are personal attacks: "your regularly scheduled propaganda", just POV pushing to self-victimize, "Your translation is flawed, but it suits your purpose". All this makes your contribution to this talk a net negative. Pinnepedianly yours. Againstdisinformation (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

So, you do perform a little WP:OR top "make" it fit. Glad you are finally admitting it. You put a specific spin - even when technically inaccurate - to enhance your position. That is the very definition of propaganda. And that specific (and inaccurate) wording change lets you play the "please don't use these words, because I can find it offensive" card. In the meantime, you use and support those words over and again. But, that's OK - dismiss my views, because I once received a check from a government agency.[3] Scr★pIron^IV 14:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The innuendo in your last sentence is either pure paranoia or libel. In any case, for me, it means the end of this exchange, which you seem to enjoy, but that I find at once tiresome and irrelevant. Againstdisinformation (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Is the #Healthcare section still up-to-date?

This section contains the following statement: "Unlike most other industrialized nations, the United States does not offer most of its citizens subsidized health care." Does this remain true to this day, even after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was enacted? Jarble (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)