Talk:Human rights in the United States/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

NPOV violations

By policy, text that violates NPOV requires deletion.

serious human rights abuses

• Some critics (in both friendly and hostile countries) have criticized the U.S. Government for supporting serious human rights abuses, including torture,[11] legal rendition,[12] assassination,[13] imprisonment without trial[14] and for supporting dictatorships.[15]

This text violates NPOV because:

• it only presents one side of the discussion.
• it does not include the fact that the Geneva Conventions requires imprisonment without trial, and that the detainees have a human right not to be tried. This is a fact, not an opinion.
• It doe not state the fact that any American who tortured anyone anywhere is a criminal.
• It should state the fact that the interrogation methods very similar were ruled by the European Court of Human Rights not to be torture five techniques by UK v. Ireland (1978).

When this text is brought up to NPOV standards, please, only then revert it. If you do not understand why policy required deletion, please discuss this here before reverting. Raggz (talk) 09:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, one by one ... 1) this is one sentence in a much larger introduction, so of course it only presents "one side of the discussion". 2) It is totally a matter of opinion (your opinion, naturally - hence WP:OR) that detainees have "human right not to be tried" (Raggz this is an old, old problem with your editing - when you find any assertion you disagree with, you shout "original research"; however you quite happily chuck in your own views, opinions and interpretations into articles whenever it suits you). 3) The fact that torture may or not be a crime under US law does not in any way alter the fact that the US government has been accused of supporting torture. 4) Nor does a 30 year old ECHR ruling, which as discussed at length previously does not say what you think it says. --Nickhh (talk) 09:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

1) this is one sentence in a much larger introduction, so of course it only presents "one side of the discussion". Fine. As long as it complies with NPOV. Raggz (talk) 10:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

2) It is totally a matter of opinion (your opinion, naturally - hence WP:OR) that detainees have "human right not to be tried" Actually it is a fact and easily sourced. Raggz (talk) 10:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"(Raggz this is an old, old problem with your editing - when you find any assertion you disagree with, you shout "original research"; however you quite happily chuck in your own views, opinions and interpretations into articles whenever it suits you)." Nickhh, why plow the old ground, please assume good faith on my part, as I do with you. Raggz (talk) 10:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"4) Nor does a 30 year old ECHR ruling, which as discussed at length previously does not say what you think it says. --Nickhh (talk)". Perhaps not. I will read your source. The Constitution is also more than 30 years old. If the ruling got tossed, this too is relevant, if not, it is relevant. Raggz (talk) 10:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing the basis for your assertion of the "fact" that people's human rights are enhanced by their being indefinitely detained. As for a couple of the other points - I am perfectly entitled to point out to you that there is a pattern to your editing, in that you selectively wield Wiki-rules in ways that suit you. I do of course assume good faith, but sometimes that assumption gets knocked sideways when confronted with the reality of another editor's actions over time. And you have missed the point about the ECHR ruling - my casual reference to the fact that it is 30 years old was not meant to suggest that the ruling has been overturned. The discussion I linked to - which you of course participated in at the time - explains the main points, that it simply doesn't say what you want it to and that it is pretty irrelevant to the topic at hand in any event. --Nickhh (talk) 10:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Death Denalty NPOV violation

• In surveys, substantial numbers of Americans have expressed opposition to the government's positions on capital punishment,[19] the War on Drugs,[20] and gay rights.[21]

When this text is brought up to NPOV standards, please, only then revert it. NPOV requires that all important opinions be included.

In this case there are no reliable cites that any human right is being violated, this makes this OR and perhaps WP:SYN, because the supporting source does not discuss human rights, but only opinions about capital punishment, the war on drugs, and gay rights.

NPOV requires that all important opinions on these be addressed and they are not. NPOV requires that the key facts be included, and they are not. If you do not understand why policy required deletion, please discuss this here before reverting. Raggz (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• "The United States, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore are the only developed nations to use capital punishment in practice during peacetime." This is OR. It needs a reliable source.

• "This practice is controversial." True, no source needed.

• "Death penalty opponents regard the death penalty as inhumane[41] and criticize it for its irreversibility[42] and claim that it lacks a deterrent effect[citation needed]. According to Amnesty International, "the death penalty is the ultimate, irreversible denial of human rights."[42]" This requires deletion as a NPOV violation. This policy requires that all significant opinions be addressed.

• "The 1972 US Supreme Court case Furman v. Georgia 408 U.S. 238 (1972) held that arbitrary imposition of the death penalty at the states' discretion constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution." Good, beginning with a fact. What does this fact mean? I assume it means that all capital punishment since 1972 has fully complied with human rights law?

• "In California v. Anderson 64 Cal.2d 633, 414 P.2d 366 (Cal. 1972), the Supreme Court of California classified capital punishment as cruel and unusual and outlawed the use of capital punishment in California, until it was reinstated in 1976 after the federal supreme court rulings Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976), and Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 ( 1976).[43] As of 2008-01-25, the death penalty has been abolished in District of Columbia and fourteen states, mainly in the Northeast and Midwest.[44] " Good fact. Is it important to human rights? If so, what right. It does not violate Policy. Raggz (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• The death penalty is also prohibited in international human rights documents and treaties, including the Second Optional Protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.[45] True, but this treaty does not apply to the US. You are hiding a key fact, a NPOV violation. Please do not revert without disclosing the key fact of relevance. Raggz (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• "The UN special rapporteur on human rights found the United States to be in violation of Article 6 the ICCPR in regards to the death penalty in 1998, and called for an immediate moratorium.[46] (The recommendation of the special rapporteur is not, however, legally binding under international law.)" We are getting closer. Violation is the wrong word. Only the UNSC and the ICJ can find any violation. NPOV requires accuracy on this, so I will edit this and get it into compliance. Feel free to improve upon my edit, just make sure that we keep this part in compliance with WP:NPOV.

• "Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976 there have been 1077 executions in the United States (as of 2007-05-23).[47] There were 53 executions in 2006.[48] Texas overwhelmingly leads the United States in executions, with 379 executions from 1976 to 2006;[49] the second-highest ranking state is Virginia, with 98 executions.[50]" These facts mean what? They do not violate WP policy, but what do they mean? Did any of them violate a human right? If they did, say so, and cite the source. If they did NOT, then say so, and cite the source. If you cite opinions, cite both sides.

• "A ruling on 2005-03-01 by the United States Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons prohibits the execution of people who committed their crimes when they were under the age of 18.[51] Between 1990 and 2005, Amnesty International recorded 19 executions in the United States for crime committed by a juvenile.[52]" Good facts. I like this paragraph, as long as ONE of these was after 2005-03-01. If not, a NPOV violation. If so, we need to cite a source and strongly assert a human rights violation.

• "It is the official policy of the European Union and a number of non-EU nations to achieve global abolition of the death penalty. For this reason the EU is vocal in its criticism of the death penalty in the US and has submitted amicus curiae briefs in a number of important US court cases related to capital punishment.[53] The American Bar Association also sponsors a project aimed at abolishing the death penalty in the United States,[54] stating as among the reasons for their opposition that the US continues to execute minors and the mentally retarded, and fails to protect adequately the rights of the innocent.[55]" First, all of this is irrelevant. Second, it ALL violates WP:NPOV. This is a paragraph about opinions and by NPOV all opinions need to be in this paragraph and they are not. Please do not revert iuntil there is compliance. Raggz (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Some opponents criticize the overrepresentation of blacks on death row as evidence of the unequal racial application of the death penalty." A violation of WP:OR. Please do not revert without the necessary source. A violation of WP:NPOV as well, please do not revert without stating all of the key opinions. Raggz (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• "This over-representation is not limited to capital offenses, in 1992 although blacks account for 12% of the US population, about 34 percent of prison inmates were from this group.[23]" Fine, no problems.

• "In McCleskey v. Kemp, it was alleged the capital sentencing process was administered in a racially discriminatory manner in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." A major NPOV violation. All cases have verdicts, so what did the Court rule? NPOV requires the facts - in this case the verdict. If there is no verdict yet, NPOV requires that both positions be summarized, unless both sides agreed and there was no debate. Please bring into policy compliance before reverting. Raggz (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• "In 2003, Amnesty International reported those who kill whites are more likely to be executed than those who kill blacks, citing of the 845 people executed since 1977, 80 percent were put to death for killing whites and 13 percent were executed for killing blacks, even though blacks and whites are murdered in almost equal numbers.[56]" Is this the only significant opinion on the question. I do not know, so will leave this text. If someone knows of another significant opinion, please add it? Raggz (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted some of the recent edits in the death penalty section. I'm not sure they need further justifying on talk pages, but please note Raggz that some of the changes you made were classic examples of your selective approach to "original research", as I referred to above. For example, you added a sentence saying that certain human rights treaties are inapplicable to the United States "unless imposed by the United Nations Security Council". I'm no expert on international law, but I don't think that the UNSC can "impose" treaties on sovereign nations. You also added this sentence - "the General Assembly did not find enough merit to endorse this [the rapporteur's] recommendation and forward it to the UN Security Council which could have ordered changes in the US death penalty". How do you know that the UNGA did not "find enough merit" in the recommendation? And again, can the UNSC really "ordered changes in the US death penalty"? You spend ages on talk pages discussing things in great detail and endlessly quoting your latest favourite wiki-rule - and then still go ahead and try to insert nonsense and pretty brazen original research into articles. --Nickhh (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You have challenged my unsupported claims as original research, and you are correct, now that this is challenged, I may not revert it without citations. There was nothing wrong with adding it, it can all be supported, and there is nothing wrong about your challenge. You are correct, the UNSC may not impose a treaty, but the US did ratify it making it non-self executing in US courts. If I said that treaties could be imposed, I apologize and was wrong. The UNSC can order changes in the US death penalty, because the treaty was ratified. Raggz (talk) 11:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem was not just that it wasn't sourced, it was that the assertions you made were factually incorrect, or unfounded interpretation of events on your part. And there is plenty wrong I'm afraid with adding incorrect statements to this encyclopedia. What exactly has been achieved here by you putting nonsense into the article, and then by me taking it out and us discussing it here? We have all wasted our time and for a short period of time some of the content of this article was misleading. --Nickhh (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If I prove that the assertions were factually correct, what then? Would it matter? I can do that. I'm not sure about the 3R rule, if I put it in and also support it, does that count as a revert? Raggz (talk) 12:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, we do not delete material because it violates NPOV. What we do is reword it and/or provide contrasting views, and discuss alternatives on the talk page. We don't take your shoot first and ask questions later approach.

Another thing that I have noticed is that your rationale for making controversial edits keeps changing. First it was "OR deletion", despite the remarkable paucity of OR in the deleted text. Then it became the fanciful notion of "Tacit consensus." Now it is NPOV, which as I have said is not legitimate grounds for deleting material. Raggz, this kind of behavior is explicitly precluded under the WP:GAME behavioral guideline. I suggest you read it. Silly rabbit (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Police brutality

All of this text needs to be deleted until we bring it into compliance with NPOV policy, read WP:NPOV.

• We need to contrast US police issues with some form of international standard. I'm sure there are studies? One hundred incidents would be one hundred too many in one sense, but an remarkable record in any practical sense. NPOV requires some sense of balance that is missing.
• 1997 was eleven years ago. A fresh report is needed. What is the trend?
• Tasers are non-lethal weapons. NPOV requires disclosure of the fact that all of these people likely would have been shot with bullets. How about the other side of Tasers? Do they save lives? NPOV requires a full discussion.
• In 2001, the New York Times reported that the U.S. government is unable or unwilling to collect statistics showing the precise number of people killed by the police or the prevalence of the use of excessive force. This should go in the first sentence.

"In a 1999 report, Amnesty International said it had "documented patterns of ill-treatment across the U.S., including police beatings, unjustified shootings and the use of dangerous restraint techniques."[64] According to a 1998 Human Rights Watch report, incidents of police use of excessive force had occurred in cities throughout the U.S., and this behavior goes largely unchecked.[65] An article in USA Today reports that in 2006, 96% of cases referred to the U.S. Justice Department for prosecution by investigative agencies were declined. In 2005, 98% were declined.[66] In 2001, the New York Times reported that the U.S. government is unable or unwilling to collect statistics showing the precise number of people killed by the police or the prevalence of the use of excessive force.[67] Since 1999, at least 148 people have died in the United States and Canada after being shocked with Tasers by police officers, according to a 2005 ACLU report.[68]

This entire paragraph is being deleted because it does not fairly address all relevant opinions as WP:NPOV requires. The points above are not why it needs deletion. It is the fact that there is absolutely no balance attempted. Raggz (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Do not delete this paragraph, which is well sourced with research by reputable, mainstream human rights organisations. If you want balance, find additional material which reflects a different view. --Nickhh (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Medical care - no policy issues

This section is really looking better. What it needs is a stronger link to human rights. People whining about how much their boob jobs cost are common, we cover this complaint, but is there a right to a $40,000 boob job? I say no. Raggz (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Nevertheless, according to a March 2007 poll by CBS News and the New York Times, 81 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with the cost of health care.[76]" NPOV requires that we balance this by explaining that US health care is the most advanced and expensive medical system in the world. Americans are especially fond of elective and cosmetic surgeries. Of particular importance is the sense of satisfaction. Personally I see nothing here about any human right. If health care cannot be afforded it is provided for free. Why are complaints about costs by people who can afford health care important to human rights? Raggz (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• "46.6 million Americans, or 15.9 percent, were without health insurance coverage in 2005.[77]" I assume we mean PRIVATE health insurance? Is PRIVATE health insurance a human right if Medicaid provides adequate coverage? Raggz (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Moreover, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act has been criticized by the American College of Emergency Physicians as an unfunded mandate.[78][79]" What does this have to do with any human right? They have a good argument, should the fedral government require hospitals to treat patients and not get paid? Why is it a human rights issue if the federal government has an unfunded mandate, they do this all of the time in many areas. Raggz (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Universal health care debate

Good title change. There is a serious NPOV issue here. Everyone in the US wants cheaper and better health care. There is a debate if universal health care would enhance the right to health care - or would it impair the right to health care. This section requires deletion for NPOV policy reasons, because it does not reflect the various relevant opinions. I will defer deletion for a week or more. Raggz (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• The level of government involvement in providing, ensuring, and enforcing the right to adequate health care is a topic of longstanding political debate. Indeed, as Peter Lawson indicates in his chapter of the Case Western University textbook Public Health Management & Policy,

“ Various experts and pundits have weighed in on the debate surrounding calls for a national health care system precisely because this issue forces one to consider some of the most intrinsically difficult questions within the political and economic philosophy of the United States: the role of the state in private life, the appropriate position of the government vis a vis the market, and rights of individuals within a capitalist marketplace. ”

Historically, several Democratic Presidents (Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton) and legislators have attempted to institute universal coverage, as well as Republican Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. In 1994, First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, an attorney and social activist experienced in the area, tried to implement a universal-care plan without a single-payer system. However, Congress defeated the measure.

• Why do we describe Hillary Clinton beyond First Lady? I am not aware that she has ever been a social activist. She was a corporate attorney and was on the Board of Walmart. Perhaps she did some work as a social activist, and I'm sure she is a member and Board member of some social activist groups. Did she actually work at this, I doubt it but will take your word that she did.
• It is a serious NPOV violation to not describe the political damage that HillaryCare did to the Democratic Party in 1994. Many blame her for the Democrats losing both houses for twelve years. These cites need to be included. Also there needs to be opinion cited about how HillaryCare seriouslly damaged the Clinton Administration, not just by losing Congress. Just adding the HillaryCare link will help, and add equal time to the other side? Raggz (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The 1993 Clinton health plan (i.e., "HillaryCare") is already linked in the text. Yes, the 1994 election did focus on big government, and notably the Clinton health plan. It may be appropriate to include some mention of this (but not to go overboard with the politicking). Silly rabbit (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It was widely reported that HillaryCare was so unpopular with the American people that the entire party suffered for twelve years. Only a sentence is necessary for context. Raggz (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a sentence to this effect in the article as it is. Silly rabbit (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

One dimension of the debate over universal care concerns whether universal health care is a human right, as defined in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The Center for Economic and Social Rights, an international human rights advocacy group, calls for health care reforms in the US to reflect the "right to health," and that the current US health care system "falls short of international standards for the right to health."

• This fails the NPOV test. The first sentence is fine. The text presumes that universal health care would be better, but the majority of Americans doubt this. Logically, if this were not true, we would have it now. Universal health care in the opinion of many would deny the human right to health care. Others differ. We cannot describe one side and not the other.
• Note that: health care reforms in the US to reflect the "right to health" does not mention universal health care. Raggz (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If you read the reference, they are talking about universal health care. So I don't think inclusion here is misrepresenting their viewpoint. You are right that the other side needs to be presented. How about providing some sources rather than suggesting deletion of text? Silly rabbit (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Good. What is needed for balance is the contrasting thesis: that universal health care will result in a lower quality of health care. Restated, that the right to health care would be denied rather than enhanced by universal health care. Why would any American oppose a better system? The real issue is IF it is a better system. We can now change our health plan from many choices. Under Universal Health Care choices are lost, physicians and patients are not decision makers, the government sets limits.

The link to the topic is the right to health care. Does universal health care enhance or reduce the right to health care. Am I more clear? Raggz (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, quite clear. I am a little concerned, however, that this is how you have framed the debate. It does seem reasonable to me, but it will need to be properly sourced. I am also awaiting sources to provide the required balance that you wish to see introduced into the section. Silly rabbit (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Alicia Ely Yamin, a human rights attorney at the Harvard School of Public Health, has advocated universal health care in the American Journal of Public Health, citing the pragmatic reason that the US government is failing, she claims, to enforce and uphold nominally extant health care rights.

• This is good, one of the best parts. It would be good to add a sentence or two more? What rights? What failures? Just my opinion though... Raggz (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would be happy to go into more detail here, since her study is one of the more reasonable and non-partisan advocacy pieces I was able to find. Silly rabbit (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Other voices have weighed in on the other side of the debate. For instance, Michael J. Hurd argues in The Washington Times:

“ Health care is not a right -- no matter how often you hear otherwise. Health care is the consequence of heroic efforts on the part of individual doctors, who have every right to charge what the market permits. If we take away the right of medical professionals to set their own fees, we will undermine their independence and chase the best ones into early retirement. ”

• Fine I suppose. It has nothing to do with universal health care and might be moved to health care?

Huh? I am trying to provide some balance, per all of your suggestions. If you want, I can delete this quote. But I think the point deserves expansion rather than redaction, don't you? Silly rabbit (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The quote is about the right to health care. I agree that health care is a right, as does the US Supreme Court. This author disagrees. It belongs in the Health care section, not the universal health care, since the author is not discussing universal health care. Since the US Supreme Court differs with this author, I would prefer that the Court also be cited, but I have not read that decision and don't have that cite. But that decision and this opinion are not about universal health care. Raggz (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Now I understand your point of view. I had understood the source to be referring to universal health care, but perhaps I was mistaken. At any rate, perhaps the best way forward would be to remove the quote, and give some sources documenting the other side of the UHC debate, as you have framed it. Silly rabbit (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk page is 328 kilobytes

The talk page must now be archived. I will begin the process. —Viriditas | Talk 23:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

/Archive 4 created. —Viriditas | Talk 23:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

/Archive 5 created. —Viriditas | Talk 01:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the archives? Aren't they supposed to be moved together with the page？--Skyfiler (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Raggz's behaviour on this page

I would like to question whether User: Raggz is behaving in good faith with his/her edits on this page. I would like to question whether his/her intentions are to improve the article, or to attack it. His/her contributions seem to be generally negative, deleting well sourced, relevant material without reaching any consensus on the talk page. Saying you are going to delete something on the talk page and then deleting it because you disagree with is not DISCUSSING your edit. Pexise (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Raggz has been citing various Wikipedia policies, all with the apparent goal of removing material he/she does not agree with. Furthermore, Raggz often distorts the meaning and intent of the policies themselves (such as repeatedly invoking "tacit consensus" despite being asked to stop) to further this goal. The behavior appears to be an attempt to game the system and is expressly prohibited under Wikipedia behavioral guidelines. Furthermore, this pattern seems to be replicated elsewhere, notably at Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States. Silly rabbit (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Raggz - you suggested on my talk page that I read WP:BOLD. I suggest that you read it again, carefully paying attention to the "Don't be reckless" section - this passage strikes me as particularly relevant:

• ... substantial changes or deletions to the articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or abortion, or to featured articles such as cheese or Spoo, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. A careless edit to such an article might stir up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may become defensive.

It strikes me that you have created a lot of defensiveness among editors who are unhappy about you deleting their hard work because it does not coincide with your views. Pexise (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

While it is obviously a little unfair to single out one editor's actions on an article talk page, at the same time the issue needs to be highlighted as it goes to the issue of content, on this page and others. Raggz regularly misinterprets WP policies and guidelines, as well as complex legal theories and rulings when editing. Whenever they say they are editing "according to policy X" or that an assertion or analysis they have placed in an article is "backed by source C" I would recommend that other editors review the relevant policy or source in detail. You will often find it does not say what Raggz wants it to say. Sometimes it even says the direct opposite. --Nickhh (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed with the above observations, which match exactly his behavior at the US terrorism article. When I ask him to back up his claims, he ignores me or says he needs to walk his dog, or has memory problems. But then never agrees to retract his statement if he is shown to be mistaken. This smacks of bad faith editing.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz - please don't present opinion as fact in your additions to this article, also, if you present controversial edits on the talk page first, you can WORK WITH OTHER EDITORS to present an acceptable version in the article. Pexise (talk) 11:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The ICC and the US

I erroneously deleted the text within the lead in part because I claimed that the word undermined was not within the source, and it was. I apologize.

This article needs and extensive section added on the US and the ICC if we want to include the ICC issues fairly and in compliance with WP:NPOV. It is presented as a fact that the US has undermined the ICC, when this is an opinion. If an opinion is presented, it need be presented fairly by NPOV, and this claim is not.

I propose to delete all mention of the ICC until it can be presented fairly and in accordance with policy.

What are the facts? It is important to begin by determining what we agree on. That in italics is claimed to be fact.

• The US did not ratify the ICC treaty, and it did so citing concern that the treaty would deny human rights.

• Under international law, treaties may not be imposed upon nations that have not ratified them (unless as an action of the UNSC0.

• Article 98 Agreements refer to Article 98 of the Statute of Rome. The Statute anticipated bilateral agreements under Article 98, and there are various legal opinions about what Article 98 means or does not mean. These competing legal arguments are presently unsettled. If we discuss one opinion, we need discuss others - and we do not.

• Article 98 agreements that prohibit nations from the legal rendition of Americans to the ICC do not provide any legal protection whatever for crimes committed within that nation. If Venezuela gets a secret warrant from the ICC, India may not seize an American for ICC rendition. Without an Article 98 agreement, India can legally impose rendition upon Americans. Article 98 agreements do not limit prosecution and trial of Americans in India by India. The Reader needs to understand this, and the word "impunity" is often misused in this context.

• Among the most important of US Human Rights is the right to a jury trial by peers. No American may be tried by a judge for any offense.

This is perhaps the most important right because it deters tyranny, if in China and offered but one human right, arguablly this would be the first selected because without it no other right may be enforced if there is a tyrannical government. Tyrants can and do appoint corrupt judges that render unjust verdicts that no jury would render.

Consent of the Governed: Any government imposed upon any people without their consent is by definition tyranny. Those nations who have opted into the ICC have consented. The majority of the world's population have not consented to ICC rule. Should ICC rule be imposed forceablly by the minority upon the majority? This is a question we should address both sides of.

Back to the citation used in the lead that claims that the US has "undermined" the ICC. What does it claim that this "undermining" was?

• First, the Bush administration negotiated a Security Council resolution to provide an exemption for U.S. personnel operating in U.N. peacekeeping operations.

• Second, the Bush administration is requesting states around the world to approve bilateral agreements requiring them not to surrender American nationals to the ICC. The goal of these agreements ("impunity agreements" or so-called "Article 98 agreements") is to exempt U.S. nationals from ICC jurisdiction.

• Thirdly, the U.S Congress has assisted the Bush administration's effort to obtain bilateral impunity agreements. The Congress passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA), which was signed into law by President Bush on 3 August. The major anti-ICC provisions in ASPA are:

• a prohibition on U.S. cooperation with the ICC;
• an "invasion of the Hague" provision: authorizing the President to "use all means necessary and appropriate" to free U.S. personnel (and certain allied personnel) detained or imprisoned by the ICC;

punishment for States that join the ICC treaty: refusing military aid to States' Parties to the treaty (except major U.S. allies);

• a prohibition on U.S. participation in peacekeeping activities unless immunity from the ICC is guaranteed for U.S. personnel.

All of these issues relate only to the imposition of ICC jurisdiction over Americans. There is no other form of "undermining" involved here. The use of the word undermining in our article is improper, because the Reader does not realize that "undermining" relates only to the extension of the ICC to Americans. There are many reliable sources that establish the fact that in many cases, the US has supported the ICC. Raggz (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The point of international conventions and treaties is that they should be ratified by all states - that is how they gain their legitimacy. By not ratifying and then removing the US signature from the treaty, the US is undermining the treaty. It also sets a standard which other states can refer to: "I will opt out of the treaty - the US has, so why shouldn't I?". Also, by enforcing impunity for US citizens, the US is undermining the rule of law. Impunity is a direct affront to the rule of law. Pexise (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The President has no more authority to commit the US to any treaty than I have. This authority rests with the Senate. You are saying that every nation should sign every treaty, that there should be no discretion?

Americans have greater human rights recognized than do those recognized by governments in Europe. The ICC treaty does not reduce European human rights, but if it did, would Europeans embrace it? Raggz (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Some criticisms

The text should say: "Some critics (in both friendly and hostile countries) have criticized the U.S. Government for supporting alleged serious human rights abuses, including suspected torture,[15] rendition, Cold War assassination attempts,[16] and for Cold War support for an Iranian and other dictatorships.[citation needed]".

• "...(in both friendly and hostile countries)..." Is the text important? There presently are no "friendly" criticisms cited, but undoubtedly they could be found. If there is consensus that this text should stay, I am fine with this. It just doesn't seem very important for the LEAD summary.

• "...suspected torture..." If torture has actually been confirmed and I missed that source, fine. Otherwise - NPOV. Raggz (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

re: "(in both friendly and hostile countries)"

I have concerns about this wording as well. Perhaps "critics, from within the US and from countries around the world," TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus revisited

I thought we had an agreement that new text would only be added with consensus. We need to discuss consensus. I'm not now reverting pending consensus, because unfortunately I will be away from the Net until the 17th. I suggest a sandbox first? Raggz (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What text are you referring to? The text that you most recently added? I am confused. Silly rabbit (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV & extraordinary rendition

The WP:NPOV policy has not be applied to the extraordinary rendition material. It needs to be applied. Raggz (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I quit

Raggz, I can no longer deal with you anymore. I am sick of arguing, and no other editors have stepped in to assist. Defile the article to your heart's content. Silly rabbit (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a sad note. Your dedication to the article will be missed. Please consider returning after a WikiBreak to rejuvenate your enthusiasm. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Recentism

Some sections lack historical perspective and some focus on only one aspect of the issue. Some random questions:

• Does sexual orientation equality apply to employment and serving in the US Army?
• How free was the freedom of speech during the red scare and Watergate era?
• Are the extremely large prison population and police brutality recent phenomenons or not?
• Is health care affordable before 2007?
• Who is Martin Luther King, Jr.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyfiler (talk • contribs) 17:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine making major changes without discussing

User:Ultramarine please discuss your changes on the talk page first - this page has taken a lot of time and hard work to develop and is now at a satisfactory stage for most editors. Please discuss first before making the changes you are making. I'm happy for you to add more information about the US and international treaties, but please don't delete information which is there now. Pexise (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

All my edits were carefully explained. Only unsourced information was deleted except the statement "The U.S. was one of only four countries which voted against the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in September 2007" which condensed to simply note that the US voted against nonbinding treaty, since it was presented in a biased way without presenting the US view. If insisting, we can include the rest but then reasoning must also be explained to achieve NPOV. On the other hand, you deleted much sourced information and restored various factual errors.Ultramarine (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Please use the talk page to "carefully explain" your edits, not the edit summary. —Viriditas | Talk 04:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Why are these major changes being made on the article, instead of working with established editors on the talk page first to arrive at some consensus? I object to this editing style that attempts to make major changes though edit waring, instead of cooperative discussion. I'd like to see the arguments pro/con for these major changes. Looking at the edits myself, I see sourced information being removed, as well, so the edit summaries are not really accurate either. In any case, edit summaries are not the place, and its not suitable for explanations. So I will restore the stable version. Lets see what editors agree that can be included or change, yes?Giovanni33 (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:BOLD. All the edits have been carefully explained with many errors corrected. Exactly what is your objections? Ultramarine (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine - it is clearly a false statement, otherwise you would be able to show us where you "carefully explained" your edits on the talk page. However, some of your added material is useful, and should be included. I'm sure we can work together to include your version in the text. I do, however, object to your deletions of existing text without discussing first ON THE TALK PAGE. I'll work on this when I've got a bit more time. Pexise (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Carefully explained in edit commentaries. Only unsourced material removed except as explained above. Many corrections of factual error and sources added. If you have any concrete objections, please state them here.Ultramarine (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this would incorporate both versions:

US participation in international human rights treaties

The U.S. has signed and ratified the following human rights treaties:

• International Convention on Civil and Human Rights (ICCPR)
• Optional Protocol to the CRC on the involvement of children in armed conflict
• International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
• Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
• Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees
• Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children child prostitution and child pornography[1]

The U.S. and the International Bill of Rights

The US has not ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), one of the three core texts that make up the International Bill of Rights (along with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), its two protocols and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). The covenant - which was opened for signature in 1966 - came into force in 1976 and has been ratified by all but five (one of which being the US) of the UN member states. The ICCPR and the ICESCR are the legal treaties that enshrine the rights which are outlined in the Universal Declaration. The US's ratification of the ICCPR was done with five reservations – or limits – on the treaty. Among these is the rejection of sections of the treaty which prohibit capital punishment.

Other international human rights documents

As well as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court the U.S. has not ratified the following international human rights treaties:

• (first) Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
• Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty
• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) (signed but not ratified)
• Optional Protocol to CEDAW
• Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (signed but not ratified)
• Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture
• Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951)
• Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (1954)
• Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (1961)
• International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families

The U.S. was one of only four countries which voted against the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in September 2007.

The U.S. and the Inter-American human rights system

The US is a signatory to the 1948 American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and has signed but not ratified the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights. It does not accept the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Costa Rica-based Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

The US has not ratified any of the other regional human rights treaties of the Organization of American States, which include:

• Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty (1990)
• Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
• Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (1985)
• Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence Against Women (1994)
• Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (1994)
• Inter-American Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities

Pexise (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

survey on sexual orientation

"In one survey, "41% of adults agree that "not allowing same-sex couples to marry goes against a fundamental American right that all people should be treated equally, while 47% disagree."

This sentance seems very out of place in the lead section - is there any disagreement for moving it to the sexual orientation section? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

My change to lede text

The intro asserted that "In the 21st century, the US has actively undermined international treaties and mechanisms such as the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court." Well, the Rome Statue is the legal enabler for the ICC, so it's redundant to mention both. The sentence is cited, but the citation only mentions the ICC.

While the citation clearly supports the assertion that the US has undermined an international treaty on human rights in the 21st century, this sentence creates the mistaken impression that it is citing multiple examples of human rights treaties that the US has undermined, and it does not accomplish that. I changed the text to reflect this.

If people want to cite other distinct examples having nothing to do with the ICC, and restore the old text, be my guest. Nothing immediately comes to mind (the US has undermined treaties having to do with climate change, but I don't think that specifically has to do with human rights per se) but maybe I am forgetting something. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Smoking

On a recent holiday to the beautiful state of Arizona I was refused a motel or hotel room everywhere in the town of Sedona simply because I am smoker. I only wanted to smoke in my own private room. Imagine if I had been refused because I was Jewish or gay! In the light of this would anyone object to me adding a section in the minorities sections under smokers? It seems like we are the only minority that is not only acceptable but even fashionable to discriminate against. SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 12:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hi. I reversed the edit. Your personal experiences are what is called original research, and it is expressly not permitted on Wikipedia. Material needs to be independently published in verifiable, reliable sources. See Reliable Sources, Verifiability, and No original research. Inclusion of material needs to be from a neutral point of view, and not given undue weight to its relative value. If you would like to propose a new section about smoking be added to the article, then you need to find independently published, verifiable, reliable sources that describe treatment of tobacco smokers as a human rights violation. Then draft some text that does not give that material undue weight and from a neutral point of view -- a task that I see as difficult, since restrictions on smoking are not generally considered human rights violations. (As for the personal opinions you express regarding smokers being "the only minority" acceptable to discriminate against -- you have got to be kidding me. When two black friends recently had racist insults hurled at them just for walking down the streets of Madison, Wisconsin; and when I pay more taxes every day and have to pay thousands of dollars in legal fees to guarantee that my chosen partner and I can have some semblance of the basic rights to care for one another and our family that straight people can have for $20, drunk, in Las Vegas; and when people who smoke pot are sentenced to decades in prison -- a tobacco smoker is unhappy because a hotel refuses to permit smoking in its rooms, a behavior that is a fire risk and leaves a lingering smell? Please.) --Lquilter (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for discussing it anyway. I may try and find a source. For now I will leave the article alone. SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 15:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. --Lquilter (talk) 16:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. and the International Bill of Rights

"The US has not ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), one of the three core texts that make up the International Bill of Rights (along with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), its two protocols and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). The covenant - which was opened for signature in 1966 - came into force in 1976 and has been ratified by all but five (one of which being the US) of the UN member states. The ICCPR and the ICESCR are the legal treaties that enshrine the rights which are outlined in the Universal Declaration. The US's ratification of the ICCPR was done with five reservations – or limits – on the treaty. Among these is the rejection of sections of the treaty which prohibit capital punishment."

The last statement unsourced except for a dubious and outdated source, a "Third World Network" article from 1999. Its claim regarding "all but five" is simply false, see [2]. The first statement is misleading, the US voted for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Ratification etc already covered elsewhere.Ultramarine (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The first statement says nothing about the US not signing the UDHR - it is merely explaining which documents make up the International Bill of Rights - the US has also signed the ICCPR, even with all the reservations. However, you are right, this first sentence could be improved to include the fact that the US hasn't signed the two optional protocols of the ICCPR either - I'll look into doing that. I'll get a better source for the last sentence - the OHCHR source seems to have moved (it is a well-known fact of course that the US has many reservations on this treaty). I think you'll find that of the UN MEMBER STATES, all but 5 have ratified, but I'll check this. Also, we need to expand the section about US reservations on the ICCPR, it appears that they neuter all of the international aspects of the treaty and the Human Rights Committee has been criticising the US about this - important to include this information. Pexise (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• That's it I QUIT - I can no longer work with you Ultramarine, you are completely wasting my time, you don't play by the rules. I've just seen that you deleted my section TWO HOURS after expressing your concerns on the talk page, what the hell kind of a discussion is that? And you have gone and changes all of the links that I carefully cleaned up and they are now all broken links. It's the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS not CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS. Well, do what you like, I'm quitting Wikipedia, I've had enough. Pexise (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You reverted my material previously without discussion. Links fixed.Ultramarine (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)