Wikipedia

Talk:Human rights in the United States/Archive 19

< Talk:Human rights in the United States
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Said victim in topic Citations needed
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19

Edit warring over including content on Chelsea Manning

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

I am surprised to find six edits of this content without anyone coming to the talk page.

It was added here by Γνῶθι σεαυτόν formerly known as "AgainstDisinformation" who, to put the record straight, is not subject to a block.

It was reverted here by ScrapIronIV with edit reason Treason, not "freedom of expression".

It was reverted back into the article here by C.J. Griffin.

It was again deleted here by SantiLak with edit reason Unexplained reversion, take to talk.

It was re-added here by Reaganomics88, i believe mistakenly, with edit reason The reasons for removal are clear, this user who created this was an obvious POV pusher who has since been banned indefinitely.

Then it was removed again here by SantiLak which i believe was to correct Reaganomics88's mistaken re-addition.

Anyway, i have pinged everyone involved in order to allow for discussion on this. SageRad (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not a question of Human Rights or any such nonsense, and does not belong here. The individual described in the section that was removed was convicted of a crime, and was sentenced for it. I know you and your new buddy have become very close since your mutual backscratching sessions on his talk page, but you can take your POV pushing elsewhere. Scr★pIronIV 18:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch ([1] [2]) are reliable sources on the relevance of human rights to the case of Chelsea Manning (and vice versa). So too are these academic papers on matters of domestic and international human rights law:
  • Fuller, Roslyn (2013). "A Matter of National Security: Whistleblowing in the Military as a Mechanism for International Law Enforcement". San Diego Int'l LJ. 15: 249. Retrieved 2015-11-24.
  • Benkler, Yochai (2014). "A Public Accountability Defense for National Security Leakers and Whistleblowers". Harv. L. & Pol'y Rev. 8: 281. Retrieved 2015-11-24.
Other sources may disagree that human rights are involved, but should be cited to rebut the claim here, rather than to delete it from this page.--Carwil (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I would suggest not to include her in this page. The reason: she is mostly known as "the soldier who committed a massive national security breach by releasing thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks". This is not a famous human rights case. Given a significant numbers of much more notable human rights issues/cases in this country, this example is probably undue. Yes, this is a highly notable case, but not as a human rights case. My very best wishes (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know a single European country where a whistleblower would be condemned to 35 years' imprisonment for disclosing classified documents to the media. How can revealing the wrongdoings of a government be called treason? Invoking the Espionage Act when there has been no collusion with a foreign power is highly dubious. Anyway, the case is notable and Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are highly reliable sources that cannot just be dismissed. I agree entirely with Carwil. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
This is starting to turn into a forum on this issue which is not what it should be. - SantiLak (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Human rights in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Human rights in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

United Nations General Assembly

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The lead claims "... and in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has not fully expanded complete rights to all human beings within its borders as compared to the international standard set by the United Nations General Assembly, because of social and political issues that stem from the history of the United States...

Support is required for the assertion that the United Nations General Assembly has any authority to set any standard of any kind. The UN Charter reserves this to the [[UN Security Council].

Support is also required that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not fully expanded complete rights to all human beings within its borders.

Article 13. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.: (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15. (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. 

Raggz (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Legality of waterboarding

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Following the deletion by User:ScrapironIV of the sentence "After World War II, an "International Military Tribunal for the Far East" was set up to prosecute Japanese soldiers charged with torture. A number of the Japanese soldiers convicted by American judges were hanged, while others received lengthy prison sentences or time in labor camps" because it allegedly dre a parallel between American misconduct and Japanese atrocities, I propose to replace it by "According to Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, "Waterboarding is broadly seen by legal experts around the world as torture, and it is universally prosecutable as a crime." which is cited in the Washington Post. This has the advantage of avoiding any mention of the Japanese, while still reporting the point of view that waterboarding is illegal. If no one objects, I will proceed to make the edit. Againstdisinformation (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You might wait to see if someone actually objects, if that is your stated intention. There is more than enough content from HRW, and their view has been given more than enough weight. The quote specifies "universally" which would indicate that there is no disagreement. There IS disagreement, and it is not universally prosecutable. The quote is inherently flawed. Scr★pIronIV 20:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@ScrapIronIV: Sorry I didn't see your objection, but you need not be so aggressive, you don't own Wikipedia. So, if you don't agree, let us calmly go to Dispute Resolution. Againstdisinformation (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
You keep claiming that I am aggressive; I don't think you know what that word means. Personally, I find your pinnipedian tactics to be passive aggressive. So, we agree that neither of us is a perfect social animal. As for DRN, it is a bit premature. And no, I don't own Wikipedia. Netiher does Human Rights Watch. As I stated, the quote is inherently flawed, and more than enough weight has been given to HRW's opinion on the matter. Find a better quote from a different organization. Scr★pIronIV
The fact remains, there is international consensus that waterboarding is torture. During the Bush administration, bureaucrats attempted to redefine torture to allow waterboarding, and historians have noted this disregard for the rule of law in reliable sources. There really needs to be zero equivocation on this point. Viriditas (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@ScrapIronIV: I don't know exactly what you are trying to insinuate with your epithet "pinnipedian" but I have a misgiving that it is not very flattering. First you objected to any reference to the Japanese lest, God forbid, a parallel might be drawn with the US military. I obliged and let you erase the whole paragraph, even though the source was impeccable. Now you protest that undue weight is given to HRW. What will it be next? In fact, you seem hellbent on defending waterboarding. If this is the case, and not to sound "pinnipedian", I will tell you outright that I find this disgusting. Now, I am not going to look for other references just because you say so. Againstdisinformation (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Human Rights Watch is a fairly well respected organization, which, if anything, has been accused of a pro-Western, pro-capitalist bias. http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/14/the-bias-of-human-rights-watch/ But just as a reality check, Amnesty International also considers waterboarding to be torture https://www.amnestyusa.org/news/multimedia/waterboarding-is-torture . Can ScrapIronIV supply a ref of a human rights organization that says waterboarding is acceptable in some situations? Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
"After World War II, an "International Military Tribunal for the Far East" was set up to prosecute Japanese soldiers charged with torture certainly requires support because none were charged with torture, only mass murder. A reliable source is required to make the claim that torture was charged. Raggz (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Human rights in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human rights in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Human rights in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Human rights in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Citations needed

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The following paragraphs have no citations but make some serious accusations. You need to provide references about where you got all this information and from what source.

"Marijuana legalization and decriminalization is seen as a step of progress in decreasing the prison population. Other non-violent offenses which carry extremely long prison sentences in the United States include fraud and other acts of corruption, offenses relating to child pornography, and contempt of court.

The number of foreign nationals in US prisons has skyrocketed in recent decades. The US Justice Department rarely approves of foreign prisoners' extradition to their home countries, and most are deported after serving their sentences instead of before their trials. This is seen as a huge contributor to prison overcrowding, especially in California, Arizona, and Texas. It is estimated that illegal immigrants from Mexico make up 40% of the prison population in those 3 states. This goes hand-in-hand with the US immigration policies, which have also been criticized by human rights groups.

The United States has also been widely criticized for its attitude towards parole and incarceration alternatives. There is no parole in the federal prison system, which has drawn international outrage from human rights groups and is believed to be a major contributor to prison overcrowding. In addition, 16 states have no parole in their prison systems. Parole is rarely granted where it is allowed, and the USA is the only country that currently has juveniles serving life sentences without parole. The USA has also been heavily criticized for having few or no alternatives to incarceration. Probation, fines, and community service are extremely rarely issued instead of prison time. It is believed that money and profits are the main driving factors behind all this."[citation needed]................ No kidding.

In addition, you need to provide information about who does the criticizing regarding the United State's practices centered around parole and incarceration alternatives and why they criticize it. Is it The United Nations? Oxfam International? WHO?? You need to say which human rights groups are outraged and why. You need to list the 16 states that have no parole in their prison systems. That should be easy. I don't believe that the U.S. is the "only country" that currently has juveniles serving life sentences. It may be the only industrialized nation that does this but the only country?? You provide NO references for ANY of this so why should I believe it's true?

NONE OF THIS IS REFERENCED SO YOU MAY OR MAY NOT BE MAKING IT ALL UP. IF WIKIPEDIA WANTS TO BE A CREDIBLE SOURCE OF INFO THEN ITS EDITORS NEED TO REFERENCE AND PROVIDE MORE IN DEPTH EXPLANATIONS ABOUT THE STATEMENTS THEY MAKE.

FOR EXAMPLE: making vague statements like, "This is seen as a huge contributor to prison overcrowding....." is lazy. FIND OUT WHO SEES IT THAT WAY. I really can't believe that editors let contributors get away with articles as poorly sourced like this one is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.90.39 (talk) 06:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I have a dizaster in Egypt me and my so plz need help before we get killed we are us citizens mohamed said And nour eldeen said 011201552367023 my email mohamed27121972@ Gmail.com Said victim (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States/Archive_19&oldid=1149560211"