Talk:Human rights in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human rights in the United States article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

To-do list for Human rights in the United States:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do:

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject United States (Rated B-Class) United States Portal This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) WikiProject Human rights (Rated B-Class) This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Project page, where you can join the Project and contribute to the discussion. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. High This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Contents 1 Health Care 2 Consensus 2.1 Third Time 2.2 Emerging human rights 3 Raggz's point of view 3.1 Universal Human Rights - proposed 1st draft 4 Health care revisited 5 Lead section 5.1 Lead Improvement Edits 5.2 Does the Lead comply with Lead? 6 Claims of consensus 7 opening section 8 On tacit consensus 9 NPOV tag 9.1 Health care as a human right 10 Pederasty human Rights & marriage human rights? 11 Sections to be improved before inclusion 11.1 US sovereignty and human rights 11.2 US federalism and human rights 12 Remove section on Universal Health Care? 13 The LEAD and original research 14 Discussion to improve the lead 14.1 The second paragraph 14.2 Opening sentence 14.3 New text 14.3.1 More bullet points 14.3.2 ICC 14.3.3 Human rights violation 15 NPOV violations 15.1 serious human rights abuses 15.2 Death Denalty NPOV violation 15.3 Police brutality 15.4 Medical care - no policy issues 15.5 Universal health care debate 16 References 17 Talk page is 328 kilobytes 18 Raggz's behaviour on this page 19 The ICC and the US 20 Some criticisms 21 Consensus revisited 22 NPOV & extraordinary rendition 23 I quit 24 Recentism 25 Ultramarine making major changes without discussing 25.1 US participation in international human rights treaties 25.2 The U.S. and the International Bill of Rights 25.3 Other international human rights documents 25.4 The U.S. and the Inter-American human rights system 26 survey on sexual orientation 27 My change to lede text 28 Smoking 29 The U.S. and the International Bill of Rights 30 The section "On Life, Property and Personal Security" 31 Changes by Pexise

[edit] Health Care

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, states that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care.”[49] Unlike most other industrialized nations, the United States does not offer its citizens universal health care. The United States provides limited coverage to individuals and families with low incomes and resources through Medicaid, provides coverage to persons age 65 and over, or who meet other special criteria through Medicare, and federal law ensures public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay;[50] however, hospitals can still attempt to collect the unpaid bills, often damaging the uninsured patient's credit.

Male circumcision is widely practiced in the US. There is an ongoing controversy regarding advantages and disadvantages. Some see non-therapeutic circumcision of children as a human rights violation.[5][6] [7]"

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948 is not binding on any nation as law except by treaty, although it is a respected resolution. If the health care system within the US violates this, then a federal judge would make this determination. If a US judge did not make this finding then the UNSC could. Neither have. What human right is denied? The US and the UN are both presently satisfied with US health care, are they not? If the US and the UN are satisfied, then what authority is not?

Universal health care as a human right? Where in the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Charter or US law does universal health care appear? Is there any reliable source that states that universal health care IS a human right within the US? There are different human rights in different countries. This article is about the US.

Male circumcision? Where does this phrase appear in the laws above? Which human right are we discussing specifically?

Why are we talking about credit ratings? We are claiming that international or US law protects credit ratings? Can anyone be more specific? It is true that within the US unpaid bills will damage ones credit rating - but what human right is involved?

This text got restored, but no one bothered to explain the nexus between a human right and universal health care. Why? Raggz (talk) 09:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I am willing to be overruled, especially with the Heath Care section, as I'm on the fence about that as well. But the fact is that you did not adequately state the case for its removal before, and apparently lacked the consensus of other editors to delete it. The issue had been discussed before, and the section stayed. Your own opinion does not justify the removal of the section.

I am still puzzled why you continue to insist that all human rights must have a basis in US law. This is a point of view which I have already told you I don't agree with. Do we judge, say, Iran by saying that Iran's human rights record must be determined by looking at Iranian law? That's an outrageous assertion. If you continue to state this as your rationale for deletion, I am not going to be convinced. Now I know the US is not Iran, but the article still must be open to outside opinions. The criterion for deletion that you continue to present is absurd.

This article makes reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: a right to medical care. Pope John Paul II also called access to health care a basic human right. Barring the strange — but fixable — anomalies with it such as the circumcision passage, the section makes a fairly good case for its own inclusion.

Now, you may be right that the section could use some further work. It should not be difficult to find more authorities who have written that lack of health care in the US is denying a basic human right, if you are unsatisfied at present with the number of references section. However, there are standard templates for requesting this, and the talk page is also here for a reason. Silly rabbit (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

One possibility from google. No doubt others can do better:

• Center for Economic and Social Rights (2004). The right to health in the United States: What does it mean?.

Silly rabbit (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"I am still puzzled why you continue to insist that all human rights must have a basis in US law."

Because the article is about Human Rights and the United States. US Human Rights are determined by the US Congress, the US Supreme Court, and the UN Security Council. Is there another means to determine what is - and what is not a human right within the United States? If so, what is that? Raggz (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a point of view which I have already told you I don't agree with. Do we judge, say, Iran by saying that Iran's human rights record must be determined by looking at Iranian law?

Yes, we do. What other law is Iran to be judged by? Iran has signed a treaty to abide by UN law as directed by the UNSC, so UN law is relevant as well as Iranian law. Should EU law govern Iran?

This is not about a pov, it is about the lack of any reliable source that indicates the actual existance of the human rights under discussion within the US. If the human right cannot be established to exist from a reliable source, why would we want to include it? This is not a pov issue, you need a reliable source that the human rights that you claim exist within the US actually exist.

That's an outrageous assertion. If you continue to state this as your rationale for deletion, I am not going to be convinced. Now I know the US is not Iran, but the article still must be open to outside opinions. The criterion for deletion that you continue to present is absurd."

It is not outrageous to assert that we should not discuss a human right that does not exist? There are human rights that exist in Europe that do not exist in the US. There are human rights within the US that do not exist in Europe. My objection is that our article is about Human Rights and the United States. I claim that it should focus upon Human Rights and the United States. The only international law relevant to human rights within the US is the UN Charter (as interpreted by Article 39 by the Security Council). Raggz (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you assert that there are human rights from any other source? All you need to do is articulate this source and offer a reliable source that this source exists. This is simple enough? Why is this request "outrageous"?

You reverted universal health care without offering any reliable source that health care is a human right within the United States. There presently is a debate within the US that universal health care might be articulated as a human right. I have no problem with an accurate discussion of this fact, but I do have a problem with your unsupported claim that universal health care IS a human right within the US. Why don't we offer an accurate discussion supported by reliable sources? Raggz (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, so I gather you no longer dismiss the section as complete OR? You are welcome to change the way the section is phrased if you feel that it incorrectly represents the issue. Don't delete it. Wikipedia has an official policy regarding this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Preserve_information Silly rabbit (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The health care section (and many others) remains entirely OR. It suggests that universal health care IS presently a human right within the US. There is no support from a reliable source and I do not believe that one will be offered. We cannot have a section asserting that any human right exists if that human right does not actually exist? A single reliable source will remove this objection, and ten pages of debate cannot. Raggz (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• One possibility from google. No doubt others can do better: * Center for Economic and Social Rights (2004). The right to health in the United States: What does it mean?.

In October 2004, CESR published The Right to Health in the United States of America: What Does it Mean?, a report on how the U.S. health care system falls short of international standards for the right to health. The report demonstrates that the U.S. health care delivery system is structurally flawed in ways that compromise the quality, adequacy, availability, and accessibility of people’s health in the United States. The report argues for a rights-based system of healthcare in the U.S.: instead of reducing medical services to their profitability, a rights-based approach calculates success by the care provided to patients.

This is an excellent reliable source advocating that the UN Security Council should recognize that universal health care is a human right within the United States. By analogy: it is a letter demanding that OJ Simpson be indicted for the double murder, and listing the evidence that should be considered. It is not a reliable source that the UNSC (or any authority) has actually ruled that this right actually exists. It is fine for establishing the existance of this debate, but not a reliable source for establishing that the UNSC (or any other authority) has made this determination. By analogy: a letter demanding that OJ Simpson be indicted does not prove that OJ Simpson WAS indicted, nor would it establish his guilt. It would establish a controversy as yet unresolved. Raggz (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the report is not a court ruling, and the article should not present it as such. Once again I ask, why can there be no mention of a debate? The title of the article is not "Court cases that have ruled on human rights violations in the United States." If there is a debate, then the article can and should present it. If there is a substantial history, going all the way back to Roosevelt, then clearly it should be here, no? Silly rabbit (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with discussion of this and other debates. The history of human rights and the US has seen a number of human rights emerge. I suggest a section on this evolving process, with a list of new human rights under debate. I support such a section, but will likely accept any other format that provides clarity for the reader.

I still oppose all claims that any human right exists - unless a reliable source is offered the claimed right actually exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 04:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Raggz (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

We appear to have reached tacit agreement that there are no reliable sources that health care in the US violates any human rights, but all we have are allegations for this? Raggz (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that consensus exists. Please stop saying that to justify your edits. —Viriditas | Talk 02:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Your present comment does not change the consensus that may or may not exist here, because you are not here to work toward consensus - but to disrupt the consensus process. Feel free to comment on the question here, THAT would shift the consensus, but would obligate you to engage in discussion. Raggz (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus for removal. Tacit or otherwise. Period. Silly rabbit (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The medicaid system provides health care to everyone who cannot afford health care. If the medicaid system were not in place, then we have consensus that a human right would be denied. It does however exist. Everyone else by definition can afford to pay for health care. (They may prefer not to, but when they cannot they get medicaid.) The medicaid system is roughly the equivalent of universal health care elsewhere with the exception that it is not offered to the affluent. Now we can debate health care here, and the issue is oversimplified and could be debated in great detail, but our topic here is human rights. Do we agree on this oversimplified summary for the limited purpose here? Raggz (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

We appear to have reached consensus for significant deletions and edits with all, except for Silly rabbit (love that name). Editors have responded {above} to points that may require further debate. Is there anyone with objections not yet articulated?

• SILLY RABBIT: Do you concur that when a claimed human right within the US does not have a single reliable source that establishes that the claimed right exists, that that this claim is OR until supported? Raggz (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a consensus for deletion? I certainly didn't sign up. Silly rabbit (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you did not agree (see above). Will you reply to my question? It was: Do you concur that when a claimed human right within the US does not have a single reliable source that establishes that the claimed right exists, that that this claim is OR until supported?

I'm only asking for a single reliable source that confirms the existance of the human rights that you suggest exist within the United States. All you need do is offer these. If you need time, no problem. I do not believe that these exist - or that you will ever be able to offer a reliable source for the Original Research. I've written at length. Is my request or my question unreasonable? Why don't you answer? Raggz (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is the consensus you speak of? I can't find it in all the above chatter. I don't need to establish the existence of anything: The article doesn't (and shouldn't) make any such ontological claims. I don't understand what you are objecting to as original research. It is surely verifiable that (1) There are groups advocating for the legal protection of a certain purported right (e.g., universal health care), (2) That groups and recognized authorities have sharply criticized some of its practices from the point of view of human rights (e.g., Amnesty International and the extraordinary rendition controversy). This is highly relevant to the topic of the article. Including this material, provided it is discussed in an NPOV way, is not OR. Saying that "It is a fundamental Human Right that all people should have the best of medical care for free" is OR, but the article doesn't assert that. Silly rabbit (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There is presently no reliable source that establishes (1) where most of the human rights being discussed derive from. The 1st Amendment to the US Constitution ensures freedom of religion. There is no debate that this right exists, and if there were, you could easily support this claim.

If you want to retain a claimed human right within this article, then you only need a reliable source that establishes that it exists. If we have a section for rights that do not exist but are being debated, then a source that proves the debate will work, but this will not and should not prove that the claimed right actually exists. In fact, the existance of a debate to recognize a human right proves that the right is not recognized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 06:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There is presently no reliable source that establishes (1) where most of the human rights being discussed derive from. The 1st Amendment to the US Constitution ensures freedom of religion. There is no debate that this right exists, and if there were, you could easily support this claim.

If you want to retain a claimed human right within this article, then you only need a reliable source that establishes that it exists. If we have a section for rights that do not exist but are being debated, then a source that proves the debate will work, but this will not and should not prove that the claimed right actually exists. In fact, the existance of a debate to recognize a human right proves that the right is not recognized.

I have commented above. Some comments have drawn attention, some not. Those not commented upon have tacit consensus. If someone has an issue they will revert.

You have reliable sources to support the claimed rights? Fine, just edit one or more in. You want a section for human rights that do not exist? Fine, edit it in, just make it clear that they do not exist within the US. Raggz (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No. It is not true that those commented upon have tacit consent. I also note that things are fairly quite around here lately. If you *really* had consensus for these deletion, then the other involved editors would be participating in this discussion. At the moment, it is just you and me. Silly rabbit (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Those NOT commented upon have tacit consent.

How many editors do you speak for? I cannot speak for others, but I assure you that reverts are possible if they do not agree. Why not focus upon YOUR objections and not theirs? I ask you (again) will you please sahre the reliable sources that establish the existance of the rights that you claim exist within the US? Raggz (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Double negatives are tricky: Those not commented upon do not have tacit consensus. Until we can find some common ground, this conversation is fairly pointless. I have already told you that I am not interested in establishing the existence of rights. Silly rabbit (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You are not "interested in establishing the existence of rights"? Does this mean that you are exempting yourself from the requirement to offer a reliable source for your claims? Is it because you cannot establish the existence of rights? This article is about human rights that actually exist? I'm fine with your editing in a section about human rights that do not exist, if there is relevance, and I believe that a discussion of these might be worthwhile.

May I now edit this article so that it no longer misleads the reader in regard to human rights that may or may not exist, but for which no one has one reliable source? Raggz (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You continue to misrepresent what I have been saying all along. Silly rabbit (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No, but perhaps I misunderstand. Could you explain in more detail? Raggz (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third Time

Will you reply to my question? It was: Do you concur that when a claimed human right within the US does not have a single reliable source that establishes that the claimed right exists, that that this claim is OR until supported? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 06:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "exist"? Silly rabbit (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You want me to define what it means to exist? You might mean that human rights do not exist on paper, but they exist in nature, within the hearts of men, or are conferred by God? You could choose any of these well worked origins. Few in modern times invoke these. You needn't define existence, Aristotle could not.

I expect you to offer a citation that proves that the claimed human rights actually exist (by your preferred definition) within the USA. Take an example: I can offer a citation that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental human right within the USA and another citation that it does not exist within Europe (except for the Swiss). You just need a reliable source that states that the right to not be circumcised is a human right within the USA. Raggz (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The circumcision issue is a red herring. That was removed several days ago. Silly rabbit (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? I have stopped reading the article until we have consensus - or do not. Raggz (talk) 07:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I had meant to mention it here. A sort of "peace offering," but I overlooked it. Silly rabbit (talk) 07:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the only answer I can give: If the article makes a specific claim, then the claim should be attributed to a reliable source. So, if the article claims that "Universal Health Care is a fundamental Human Right", then that will certainly require attribution. If, on the other hand, you feel that somehow just by a section or topic being included in the article that it is implicitly suggested as being a "Right," then no, I don't think a source needs to be provided to establish that the right "exists" in the legal sense. The section must establish the relevance of its subject, which is somewhat subtler. Silly rabbit (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that in an encyclopedia we need to define which rights actually exist. No, this definition need not be legal. You may offer your preferred means for defining which rights actually exist and whicy do not. This question is of course EXACTLY what courts do every day - but I'm open to your analagous process. What is it? Raggz (talk) 07:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this, and the section below, starts to give some shape to our hopeless debate. Let me think about it. Silly rabbit (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have not been hopeless. I am not now. I have confidence.

Think about Europeans, you would agree that they have had human rights even before the EU was formed or before governments recognized them? It would have been improper to list the human rights presently recognized in a 1922 encyclopedia as existing? Human rights are evolving everywhere, in different ways, at different rates. In this article we need focus on one nation - and in the present. Raggz (talk) 07:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

We appear to have reached consensus for significant deletions and edits with all, except for Silly rabbit (love that name). Editors have responded {above} to points that may require further debate. Is there anyone with objections not yet articulated? Raggz (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that consensus exists. Please stop saying that to justify your edits. —Viriditas | Talk 01:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emerging human rights

Human rights have emerged within the US since the beginning. We have some discussion of this. I feel strongly that the material you are describing would enhance discussion of this process. If emerging human rights are scattered about, they confuse. That would not be good. Raggz (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Emerging Human Rights

• The Historical Emergance of Human Rights

• Present Controversies for Potential Emerging Human Rights

I am open to ideas in this direction. Let me think about it. Silly rabbit (talk) 07:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Raggz's point of view

• The article claims that the circumcision of infants denies a human right within the US. It does not cite a reliable source. This claim was deleted as Original Research - and reverted without a reliable source being added with the revert.

Note: This statement was then deleted as part of the editorial process: through discussion and consensus-building. Silly rabbit (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Is universal health care a human right within the US? If this is a fact, then all that is required to revert this section is a single reliable source that establishes where this human right derives from. Because there was no reliable source, the claim was deleted as original research. There was nothing to debate, because no reliable source existed to debate about. The text deleted was reverted without comment and without adding the necessary reliable source.

What was eventually offered was a reliable source that claims that the UN Security Council should apply UN law to the US, and that the UNSC should find and enforce the human right of universal health care within the US. While this source confirms that this is a subject for debate - it actually confirms that presently the UNSC has not acted as advocated.

The question is if a reliable source that confirms that an issue is being debated may be used to claim that an issue has been settled. Raggz (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No, this is not the issue. No one is claiming that any issue is settled. Silly rabbit (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, as far as I can understand it, the basic idea of the concept of "human rights" is that these rights are inherent and universal. The wording of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights implies this ("All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights"; "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration ..." and almost every succeeding clause begins with "everyone" or "no one"), even if some of its claims might not be philosophically compatible in your or my opinion. Since "human rights" are inherent and universal, it doesn't seem meaningful to discuss whether these rights exist in the United States—different people have various ideas about which rights exist, but the ones that do exist exist everywhere. The question is only whether a particular government implements (or fails to obstruct) a particular right. You yourself make the point in the following section that Americans in particular hold the idea that rights "exist with or without governmental recognition".—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your pov (and that of Silly rabbit) is that national human rights laws are irrelevant, that human rights law is universal worldwide? All you need is a reliable source and we can state that national human rights law is the same everywhere in the world because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights made it so? What about the many nations that have not agreed by treaty with this otherwise non-binding resolution? Are they bound by it even without the consent of the governed?

"You yourself make the point in the following section that Americans in particular hold the idea that rights "exist with or without governmental recognition" God (or the Creator) is the source of US and worldwide human rights by US constitutional law. This is quite clear and is an easily supported fact. Do we have consensus for adding a section that elucidates the role of God and human rights and the United States? Modern discussion rarely get into this, and I had not anticipated a consensus for inclusion, although this is an important element for human rights and the US. There are tens of thousands of reliable sources for the role of God in US human rights.

From a secular view, what reliable source should we cite to explain where universal human rights derive from? I believe there should be a secular element to our new section, but I cannot think of where to find the reliable source to support this. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 03:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is not so much my POV but my attempts to understand what people usually mean when they say "human rights". As far as I can tell, this is typically some sort of moral claim, rather than a claim that a specific right or immunity is specified in or protected by the legal system of a particular country. As with any moral claim, then, what exactly is a right and what isn't is a matter of opinion, rather than being decided by judges or legislators. These claims, I suppose, arise from wherever people think morality arises from, and people obviously have different ideas about that—some trace it to one of various religious beliefes, other from different sorts of secular philosophies. The more relevant thing for this article is a case where some people have reached similar conclusions about morality and human rights, even if they have different basic understandings of why they exist in the first place.

People mean a great many things when they say human rights. I'm fine with a broader discussion, with broader definitions, but no one has taken on this challenge yet. Perhaps you will? The key would be having a solidly sourced authoratative staememt about what other form you are inserting.

One thing that people mean by human rights are legally enforced human rights and I insist that we adequately cover these. When we are discussing legally enforced human rights I suggest that we be specific and accurate about what legal right.

Like yourself, I believe that all people are endowed with human rights that no government may deny, but this is a uniquely American philosphy (at least in modern times) and I am an American. Do you also share this view? Should it be in the Article? Raggz (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say that "God (or the Creator) is the source of US and worldwide human rights by US constitutional law." I'm fairly certain that neither God nor a creator is mentioned explicitly in the Constitution.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 22:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Care to wager? It is actually the Declaration of Independence. The entire (European/US) human rights movement began as Christian theology. Raggz (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly feel confident wagering on the question of whether the Declaration of Independence is part of the U.S. Constitution. It is not.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 00:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And I will take your wager. It is not within the document but it is central to constitutional law, and it is for practical purposes, the constitution. God is everywhere within older US Constitutional law and history, even our money says "In God We Trust". It also has a Masonic icon. Raggz (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please review In God We Trust. —Viriditas | Talk 23:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Universal Human Rights - proposed 1st draft

The wording of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights"; "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration ..." Although this declaration is not legally binding upon any nation, most have adopted it by treaty.

Since "human rights" are inherent and universal, it is not meaningful to discuss whether these rights exist in the United States, because national human rights laws are irrelevant and do not apply anywhere. People have various ideas about which rights exist, but the ones that do exist - exist everywhere. The question is only whether a particular government implements (or fails to obstruct) a particular right. Americans in particular hold the idea that rights "exist with or without governmental recognition" because they come from God (or "the Creator").

The part that I am unclear upon is how are universal human rights determined? Everyone in the US has access to health care, but not to universal health care. Does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights specify universal health care - or just to health care? How is this decided without laws and judges? Raggz (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus appears to tacitly exist.Raggz (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that consensus exists. Please stop saying that to justify your edits. —Viriditas | Talk 01:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Health care revisited

I have considered the question of moving the "Health care" section out to a possible Emerging rights section. However, I cannot say I support this idea. For one thing, there are health care rights guaranteed by US law as well as treaties to which the US is signatory: see the article for details. These rights may or may not be adequately enforced, but they are certainly there. For instance, if I need emergency health care, then I have the right to it regardless of my ability to pay. That said, there is also an ongoing controversy about whether and how to strengthen these rights. It is POV to farm off discussions of the controversy out to other sections when they most naturally belong in the Health care section, which in turn belongs alongside the other mainline human rights.

To make sure that all sides are represented fairly, perhaps the language used in the article could use some adjustment: in particular to provide a clear "disclaimer" of sorts in NPOV language that the views represented are part of an ongoing controversy about the role of government in establishing and defending health care rights. Thoughts? Silly rabbit (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent points. You will easily find reliable sources from the US Judiciary that confirm that the poor have a right to health care. This is a human right within the USA. The debate regarding Universal Health Care has nothing to do with the poor. Universal health care is not a human right within the USA. (I might be in error, you only need a reliable source to correct me.) Thus one topic would go in as an actual human right WITH the necessary reliable source and the other would be an emerging proposed human right that does not presently exist. In fact, this would be good in the article, the right of the poor to free medical care is a human right that has emerged, universal health care is an example of a potential right that may emerge. You offer a great example.

As far as I know, there are no treaties that the US has signed in regard to human rights where there is an authority other than the US Supreme Court or the UNSC that determines and interprets them. (I might be in error, you only need a reliable source to correct me.) As a practical matter, I believe that US law alone governs human rights within the US, and that is why Americans have richer, deeper, and broader human rights than people anywhere else have. Raggz (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we concur that when a claimed human right within the US does not have a single reliable source that establishes that the claimed right exists, that that this claim is OR until supported?". We have achieved consensus that: Unless a claimed right exists, and this existence is supported by a reliable source, that any unsupported human right other is OR until supported? This remains the primary question. We can debate national human rights and universal human rights as a secondary question. The primary question is if we will require reliable sources, not if we will not discuss national human rights law or if the US Constitution lacks relevance in regard to human rights and the United States (as the most recent editor suggested). May I now begin to delete the text where it is OR for lack of any supporting reliable source? Raggz (talk) 07:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus appears to tacitly exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 21:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that consensus exists. Please stop saying that to justify your edits. —Viriditas | Talk 01:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Tacit consensus does exist. If you want to become productively engaged in this question, it is: "Do we concur that when a claimed human right within the US does not have a single reliable source that establishes that the claimed right exists, that that this claim is OR until supported?" You have not offered any opinion about this question, so have tacitly agreed to the consesus. If you want to address this question, only THEN consensus will shift. It has not yet done so. Raggz (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This is pointless and disruptive. If there is such a thing as tacit consensus, then go and argue for its inclusion in Wikipedia policy. Otherwise, stop claiming that you have consensus when you don't. The way you seem to use it is something along the following lines: "If I write something on the talk page, and no one responds to it, then I get carte blanche to do whatever I want. If an editor can't answer a question that I think needs answering, then I can do whatever I want." But I really disagree with this approach to editing: Other editors have given their opinions on many points, and some have already gone round and round trying to answer your leading questions. The bottom line is that consensus is not owned by the person who gets the last word in. Silly rabbit (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You fairly characterize my claim as ""If I write something on the talk page, and no one responds to it, then I get carte blanche to do whatever I want." I'm not creating policy (in my opinion) so long as I adhere to the actual WP Consensus policy. The key issue not addressed is that some reasonable amount of time needs to pass first for tacit consensus to exist. We agree on: "The bottom line is that consensus is not owned by the person who gets the last word in." As long as people are engaged in the good-faith consensus building process, no one may claim tacit consensus. I couldn't and I wouldn't. Even if I did, WP policy would specifically deny such a claim.

I do not understand why my efforts to build consensus are viewed as disruptive. This is a serious issue. Could you address this more clearly? Raggz (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Permenent Lack of Consensus: A "Permenent Lack of Consensus" might be claimed, but in my opinion it does not comply with WP Policy. An editor might enter on the discussion page: I declare a "Permenent Lack of Consensus" on this topic and will not be offering further edits, nor will I participate in consensus building. Instead I declare a "Permenent Lack of Consensus" so that future consensus building efforts may no longer be undertaken without my consent. Now this is not a claim that you have made, nor is it likely that you ever would make this claim directly. You are however seem to be making an implied claim for "Permenent Lack of Consensus"? Although I have exaggerated your actual claim to illustrate its weakness, is the characterization of your claim unfair? I claim that when editors abandon any effort at consensus building that their opinions become irrelevant to the good faith consensus process that WP requires. How might your view of the WP consensus building process differ? Raggz (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, I think it is safe to say that the consensus will not be whatever you mandate. Consensus, by definition, must emerge as a result of multiple parties participating. If you continue to take eccentric editorial positions (evidence by the ample disagreement with you on this and other pages), then you will find that, yes, there is a permanent lack of consensus with things as you frame them. If, on the other hand, you are willing to participate in the editorial process in a more normal and cooperative manner, then I think you will find others willing to work with you. However, I find it unacceptable the way that you "claim consensus" for something when either: (a) it was on the outcome of a leading question, (b) the result of a misrepresentation (see straw man), or (c) having nothing obvious to do with the text. Consensus is based on edits, not on nebulous and vague arguments. Please read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. Go ahead and make edits, propose alternatives, etc. Try to make good-faith efforts at improving the references (rather than deleting the text), and so on. That is how consensus comes about: by editing and by discussing possible edits. Out-arguing everyone else on the talk page is, in fact, counterproductive. Claiming consensus because you have made the final word on some question or another, is counterproductive. Silly rabbit (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Raggz, I think it is safe to say that the consensus will not be whatever you mandate. Consensus, by definition, must emerge as a result of multiple parties participating." Agreed.

• "If you continue to take eccentric editorial positions (evidence by the ample disagreement with you on this and other pages), then you will find that, yes, there is a permanent lack of consensus with things as you frame them." Please offer one example, so that I know precisely what you mean? What do you mean by "normal"? Raggz (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Normal. I think I have already defined this. Usually editors make an edit. If that edit is reverted, then they go to the talk page and make their case. If they are overruled, or there is a significant opinion that the edit should not be included, then the editor who made the original edit does not have consensus to make the edit. Sometimes, compromises are acceptable. Usually, multiple editors will get on board with various different ideas. Some of them then propose various ways to address the issue (either on the talk page, or through various edits of the article). Usually no one gets there own way entirely, and the process involves a certain degree of flexibility from all parties concerned. If everyone is flexible enough, then consensus emerges naturally from a "soup of ideas." See what Pexise is doing below: trying to solicit comment on some sections. This is the right way to go about doing things. Being pushy, and claiming a false consensus when there is none, is not part of the process I have just described. I'm sorry if that does not agree with your own peculiar interpretation of Wikipedia policy, but it just is the way things are done around here. Silly rabbit (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Not normal. Asking leading questions. Using straw man arguments, and actively misrepresenting what other editors would have. Repeatedly asking other editors to explain Wikipedia policy to you, or by repeated misapplying those policies to compell editors to do so. Questions such as the one which started this whole discussion are not normal: "Do we concur that when a claimed human right within the US does not have a single reliable source that establishes that the claimed right exists, that that this claim is OR until supported?" This has nothing to do with the text, and is a sneaky attempt to trick the answerer into implicitly sanctioning some controversial edit or another. If you say plainly what it is you want to do, and why you think it should be done, then that is how the editing process usually goes. Silly rabbit (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section

WP has a policy on this. It is to SUMMARIZE, and is not for debate.

We need to delete all of the unsupported speculative opinions from this summar. I suggest that we not include these claims in the opening summary if they have not FIRST been discussed and consensus reached within TALK.

I will be editing the speculative claims without reliable sources out. PLEASE go through the WP process, don't revert because you BELIEVE speculative claims, offer a reliable source that PROVES the claim, and do it in the appropriate section before the summary. Please review the summary, and if I missed any speculative claims, please edit these out until we have consensus in the appropriate section. Raggz (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your changes. Please review WP:NPOV. —Viriditas | Talk 23:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I will be reverting your revert. The edit I made was in part to comply with the WP:NPOV. The issue is that there are many allegations for human rights violations, but no reliable sources that establish a single one. Please add reliable sources rather than reverting. Your revert violated (in my opinion)WP:NPOV. There needs to be a section that summarizes these speculative claims (that has consensus within Talk) before it can go into the opening summary. If you disagree about what WP policy is for opening summaries, please share that here? Raggz (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please be aware of the WP:3RR. I'm going to leave you a warning for the 3RR on your talk page, so that when you break the rule and I report you, you will have been previously warned. All of these claims are sourced and have consensus. Your behavior on this page is the very definition of WP:DISRUPT. I suggest you familiarize yourself with it. —Viriditas | Talk 23:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss your removal of NPOV. This is core policy and is non-negotiable. Please present a particular aspect of the lead section that you find troublesome and I will help you improve it. Removing NPOV is not acceptable. —Viriditas | Talk 23:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not recall removing NPOV. Are we discussing a tag? I invite you to participate in the many sections above that are of interest, or to create new ones. Raggz (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edit removed WP:NPOV. Have you read that policy? I invite you to participate in this discussion. Why did you remove the material from the lead? —Viriditas | Talk 01:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Do we have consensus that the Article's opening summary should be a summary of material developed via TALK in the supporting sections?

  Doe we have consensus that the Article's opening summary should not include speculative allegations that have not been supported to exist by a reliable source within the body of the Article? Raggz (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop appealing to a false consensus and address the issue. I am willing to help you. First, please read and understand WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. —Viriditas | Talk 01:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I had spent an hour trying to find WP:LEAD. So, is the Article in compliance in your opinion? Raggz (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, as I explained on your talk page, you made the changes and I reverted asking for why you removed NPOV. You are required to discuss and explain your changes. My opinion about whether I think the article complies with the lead section guideline may be helpful, but I would first like to understand your edits. That's the point of discussion. —Viriditas | Talk 02:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The question is whether or not the lead section conforms to the guideline. It is not whether we should remove NPOV, as that is non-negotiable. —Viriditas | Talk 01:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead Section rather than Opening Summary? Fine. Raggz (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Did I remove an NPOV tag in error? Sorry, if I did. I support retaining it. Raggz (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall saying you removed any tag. I said you removed WP:NPOV from the lead section. —Viriditas | Talk 01:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing or deleting this. Why is it in the lead? Raggz (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. NPOV refers to the fair representation of significant POV's regarding the topic. —Viriditas | Talk 02:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My edits were intended to enhance compliance with WP NPOV, and in my opinion did so. You may of course have a different opinion. Raggz (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Great; show me how your edits did that. Use diffs to demonstrate your point. —Viriditas | Talk 02:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I will read about diffs later. (1) We reached consensus that sections (such as health care) only included speculative allegations. (2) No one had an interest in offering a single reliable source that any human rights violation had occured in the past decade. (3) This made claims that such violations had actually occured OR. There is at least one example of an actual human rights violation that I eventually intend to edit in.

The lead had a number of serious NPOV violations, and the supporting sections no longer had consensus for retaining these claims (consensus had shifted). Then you read the changes, skipped reading the Talk, and jumped in. As this happened, consensus shifted again. Now, will you discuss the Lead? Raggz (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's get specific. In the current version of the article, do you see NPOV violations? If so, what are they? As for discussing my opinion of the lead, we will get there after I understand your edits. I still don't. —Viriditas | Talk 02:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

May we now shift back to the Lead? We agree that NPOV is non-negotiable. Here are the questions:

• Do we have consensus that the Article's opening summary should be a summary of material developed via TALK in the supporting sections?
• Do we have consensus that the Article's opening summary should not include speculative allegations that have not been supported to exist by a reliable source within the body of the Article? Raggz (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, please stop asking if we have consensus, as we need to discuss first. Also, please do not ask leading question. There is no need for you to keep repeating the same questions that do not help the discussion. I have asked for diffs above in order for you to justify your statement. You have not yet provided evidence to support your claim regarding NPOV. Now, regarding the lead section itself, please provide evidence of what you consider "speculative allegations". —Viriditas | Talk 02:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've already challenged and removed most (but not all) citations that I did not believe meet WP:RS. The primary issues issue (on this subject) is that none of the reliable sources move beyond speculative allegations. There are numerous reliable sources for speculative allegations, but none at all that move beyond this. Read a bit of talk above, Police Brutality might be a good example (and is one of few sections where consensus did not briefly not exist). Do you think we have a reliable source beyond speculative allegations that any human rights issue of note exists? Raggz (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you consider engaging in the discussions above and articulating your concerns in the proper sections? 03:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This section is just fine. We want to have a centralized discussion. —Viriditas | Talk 03:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Allegation: "An allegation is a statement of a fact by a party in a pleading, which the party claims it will prove. Allegations remain assertions without proof, only claims until they are proved." Raggz (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me be specific: which speculative allegations do you find in the article (lead/body/etc) that are not supported by a WP:RS? —Viriditas | Talk 02:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"It has a powerful and often independent judiciary and a constitution that attempts in many areas to enforce separation of powers to prevent tyranny." Raggz (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. In the future, please provide an example with a brief explanation. Looking at the diff,[1], your edit to this section shows that you removed the words attempts in many areas to enforce and replaced it with simply enforces. Is that a correct appraisal? See also: Checks_and_balances#United_States:_three_branches. —Viriditas | Talk 03:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds about right. ... attempts in many areas to enforce violates NPOV and OR (in my opinion. It implies that it does not enforce but "attempts to enforce", which violates these policies. Theere is nothing in the Article that supports these claims, it just got tossed into the Lead without discussion. The WP WEASLE WORD policy applies here, direct language is to be preferred. Vague allegations not even mentioned anywhere are a serious NPOV violation. You reverted this without offering a reliable source, what do you think? Raggz (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your changes wholesale because you didn't explain them. We are now discussing your changes, finally. Now, you call this particular passage a "speculative" and "vague allegation", is that correct? Strangely, you neglect to point out the problems with the wording of "powerful and often independent judiciary". You say that the article doesn't support these claims, and yet at the same time, you infer that the article supports your claims. You can't have it both ways. Either you argue for the removal of the entire passage or for your preferred wording, but making a blanket statement that applies to both contradicts your position. —Viriditas | Talk 04:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - there is a definite double standard at play here. Most of the unsubstantiated claims remain in Raggz's version, while he deletes well sourced material. What is going on? Pexise (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's basically wikilawyering and gaming the system. —Viriditas | Talk 09:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You might refer to Talk (above) for an explanation. If you are a bit more specific, a more specific answer would be possible. Raggz (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead Improvement Edits

"I reverted your changes wholesale because you didn't explain them. We are now discussing your changes, finally." I suggest that we now not debate the past unless it matters for Article improvement? I can defend my edits, you can respond ... endlessly, but to what point? My agenda has been to persuade you to engage in concensus building and it now seems possible?

The current topic of discussion is not the "past". —Viriditas | Talk 09:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Does the Lead comply with Lead?

Does the Lead comply with Lead? I suggest starting over. Raggz (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest An Inconvenient Truth as a model for a successful Lead for a controversial article. Does anyone else suggest another successful lead? This is an article that strikes the right balance, it focuses on what the article is about and not what the millions of critics might prefer. Global Warming is another successful article, it offers greater debate, but only with significant issues that have strong support from reliable sources. Raggz (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to describe exactly what specific aspects of those two articles you find helpful in relation to this article. Please always try to talk in terms of particulars rather than generalities. —Viriditas | Talk 09:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There are seven sentences in the Lead. Six explain the subject, one is for critics. Does this ratio seem about right? Raggz (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No. The size and focus of the lead section is directly proportional to the size and focus of the article. —Viriditas | Talk 09:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What ratio of discussion of the topic vs critics of the topic seems appropriate? Raggz (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed text for the LEAD: The "United States Supreme Court was the world's first human rights tribunal."^[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 05:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Claims of consensus

Raggz, you have claimed in every discussion on this page to have reached consensus when that does not appear to be the case. Please stop making this claim. —Viriditas | Talk 00:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No Viriditas, I will not comply with your unreasonable demand. Asking about consensus is a necessary part of the process. Tacit consensus may be reached when the discussion settles out, and (in my opinion) statements for tacit consensus should go into the appropriate section, and if no one objects, such consensus exists. I am committed to consensus building and invite you to commit as well. Raggz (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Consensus. You are not following this guideline. —Viriditas | Talk 01:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I read Wikipedia:Consensus, thank you. The only part that applies (in my opinion) is that consensus has changed. You were not participating, and after a series of reverts (that you did not discuss until challenged), consensus has changed. Raggz (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That is partly true, however, your claim that consensus has been previously reached is debatable, IMO. —Viriditas | Talk 02:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

And we have debated it. Next? Raggz (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus will emerge on its own. There is no need for you to claim it. —Viriditas | Talk 09:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read Consensus. You and I are obligated to work together to reach consensus. Asking if we have consensus is an effective way (in my opinion) to reach consensus - or to determine the lack of it. Raggz (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] opening section

I think the opening section needs some work. In order to summarise the rest of the article mention should also be made of the US and international human rights. A balanced passage could mention the US's role in drafting the UDHR, and then some of the criticisms that have been made. Pexise (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my issues are NOT about balancing pro and anti arguments, but producing a good encyclopedia artice. There is no need to balance between these, it could be entirely anti-US if warranted, and if we reach consensus.

Although the modern roots of liberal democracy is from Europe, the United States was the first modern liberal democracy. The first independent judiciary was from the US. The US was strongly committed to the creation of the League of Nations and the United Nations. If not for the US, all classrooms in Western Europe would likely have swastikas today, and there would now likely be no democracy. Even the European Union in large part was only possible due to the post-war role of the US (it was originally the United States of Europe. When all of these assertions are supported by reliable sources (and debated fully here) would anyone object to inclusion? Raggz (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's part of the problem with your edits. Balance is part of WP:NPOV. And please recognize that consensus does not override policy. —Viriditas | Talk 09:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not possible to work toward Consensus when your reply does not discuss which part of the above is an NPOV issue? Could you please be a bit more specific? Raggz (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much all of it. You seem to be starting with a set of suppositions and working towards finding references to support your claims. It's not a matter of "if", but "when" these assertions are supported. Pairadox (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, strongly. This is just history? There are thousands of history books for references. So, we leave the swastikas out, no problem. Let us start here:

• "Although the modern roots of liberal democracy is from Europe, the United States was the first modern liberal democracy." Is there any objection here?

• The first independent judiciary was from the US. Is there any objection here?

• The US was strongly committed to the creation of the League of Nations and the United Nations. Is there any objection here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 10:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) Yes. Show the references. I'll object to anything that doesn't have a solid, diverse range of sources for such sweeping statements. Not all have to be in the article, but it would be all to easy to start from a set of ideas and then cherrypick refs to support your views, which is why I would like to see a range of sources. (I happen to agree with some of the above, but without refs...) Pairadox (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, keep in mind that the material would have to be found in reliable sources about human rights, otherwise it is WP:OR. Considering the plethora of human rights material, this should be easy, but choosing neutral sources is difficult. That's where the NPOV policy comes in. —Viriditas | Talk 10:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't place that restriction on them. The statements are rather general in regards to human rights, so I don't think limiting the sources to ones about human rights is correct. "The first independent judiciary was from the US" doesn't have a human rights clause, so the source shouldn't require one. Pairadox (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we are talking about two different things. If Raggz wanted to add this information to the article, it would have to be in the context of human rights, otherwise it's OR. You may want to take a look at Raggz' talk page to see that this has been an ongoing problem for some time. —Viriditas | Talk 11:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It would need to be in a human rights context in the article, yes, but the source would not necessarily have to be about human rights. To continue with the independent judiciary example, I could easily see that source being a history of jurisprudence rather than a history of human rights. Pairadox (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Then the problem becomes one of WP:SYN. To avoid it, we use sources devoted to the topic. If you could find an example that proves your point, that would help. —Viriditas | Talk 11:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, synthesis would only come into play if a conclusion were being drawn from the original statement. A simple statement of "The first independent judiciary was from the US" doesn't imply anything more than that and only needs a source that documents that assertion. An implication that it makes the US a leader in human rights, or a trailblazer in human rights, or anything beyond "the first independent judiciary" would require a source stating that. Pairadox (talk) 11:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz is advancing a position implying the conclusion. That these statements are in any way connected to this topic would require a source related to human rights. It's not even debatable. —Viriditas | Talk 11:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know how to respond to that. If you won't discuss the value of sources, what's the point of continuing this? I might as well leave you and Raggz to your ongoing, pointless arguing. I just wish it were confined here and not clogging up AN/I. Pairadox (talk) 12:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you haven't been following the discussion. Raggz claimed that WP:NPOV doesn't matter and could be discarded with consensus; neither is of course true. He also asked if anyone would object to adding assertions supported by RS and gave examples advancing his position. WP:SYN covers this in detail. I don't understand what the "value of sources" has to do with this. The reason we have policies and guidelines is so that we don't have to reinvent the wheel every time an editor like Raggz comes along. If you want to argue that ignoring NPOV and using SYN is ok, feel free to do so...on those policy pages. —Viriditas | Talk 13:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

i dont see how raggz is ignoring NPOV. he has sources for this claism and hie is making a wellreasoned and well-rational argument Smith Jones (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I like this discussion. I speak for my own thoughts and have not provided Viriditas with any form of power of attorney. I support WP policies and believe that they work well. Raggz (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome, Mr. Jones. Raggz has removed NPOV from the lead and argued that "there is no need to balance between these, it could be entirely anti-US if warranted, and if we reach consensus," which is entirely untrue. Consensus does not trump NPOV. Now, if you would be so kind, could you explain what Raggz is trying to "reason", and inform me how it is relevant to this topic? Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 03:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

May we get back to the topic now? I'm not concerned about anti-US or pro-US, although I do have a pov. The article is about Human rights and the United States. It is not supposed to be pro or anti, just an article. If someone misunderstood me, no I do not advocate the violation of any policy. I thought the discussion was most productive until it diverted into whatever it diverted into. Where are we? Raggz (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On tacit consensus

Some of the editors on this and related pages have invented the notion of tacit consensus. Please note that there is nothing at WP:CONSENSUS about tacit consensus, and invoking this as a rationale for anything is a flawed and disingenuous misrepresentation of official Wikipedia policy, and should not be tolerated. If this were a legitimate reason for making a controversial edit, then it would be spelled out clearly in the official policy. It is not. Thus if editors here and elsewhere insist upon using the notion of "tacit consensus" as a justification for their removals of information or other edits likely to be controversial, then I must insist that they go to Wikipedia_talk:Consensus and obtain community acceptance and approval of "tacit consensus" first. Thank you, Silly rabbit (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"In essence silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community." Consensus Does anyone dispute that this is about tacit consensus? If so, how is this different? Raggz (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you need to read the rest of the surrounding paragraph. Here is the full passage:

generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. In essence silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community.

In other words, if someone reverts, that means there isn't consensus for the edit. Period. So claim "tacit" consensus on the talk page all you want, but the bottom line is that you don't have it. Silly rabbit (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

When I claim tacit consensus, the intent is to stimulate discussion before I edit the change discussed. Reverting without discussion is not the preferred means to advance Consensus. Raggz (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:BRD. Silly rabbit (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Raggz (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

Just wondering why the NPOV tag is there - generally the article seems OK and balanced to me. Is there any particular section or passage which is causing the problem? Pexise (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of any response, I will now be removing the tag. Please discuss here if you think there is a reason that it should be replaced. Thanks. Pexise (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the article is without adequate pov balance in that it is sometimes focused upon human rights that are only recognized by the European Court of Human Rights and nowhere else. There probably should be a european section, because many human rights in Europe are nearly unique in recognition. This gives it an inappropriate eurocentric perspective. I believe that this article should focus upon those human rights that are globally accepted, and should not have this existing regional focus. While this lack of NPOV compliance is serious, I do not object to the removal of the tag. Raggz (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Example? The only reference I could find to EU was in the death penalty section - abolition of the death penalty is a global human right issue - there is an international treaty on this and it also violates the right to life as designated in the UDHR. Pexise (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

We have an article about Human rights and the United States. Many of these human rights are not recognized by the UN, the US, or almost any body, save the European Court of Human Rights. I assume that there is an inadvertant euro-bias, because few others would presume human rights only recognized by the European Court of Human Rights. I am assuming good faith, that the presumption is unconcious. Raggz (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please give at least one example of what you are talking about. Pexise (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

See health care (below) Raggz (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Health care as a human right

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, states that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care.”^[2] In addition, the Principles of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association require medical doctors to respect the human rights of the patient, including that of providing medical treatment when it is needed.^[3] Unlike most other industrialized nations, the United States does not offer its citizens universal health care. The United States provides limited coverage to individuals and families with low incomes and resources through Medicaid, provides coverage to persons age 65 and over, or who meet other special criteria through Medicare, and federal law ensures public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay.^[4] The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986 ensures patients the right to emergency medical care regardless of citizenship or immigration status. "

There is not one reliable source offered that there is an international or US right to universal health care. Everyone in the US has a right to health care, just not to universal health care. In Europe (I believe) there exists a right to universal health care, and I believe that it is due to the normal bias we all have to percieve other cultures differences, the difference here is presented as a human rights issue rather than as a political issue.

The US has a system where many only have access to the basic system (access to the same basic care that people are assured in Canada and Europe) which we call medicaid or medicare. There properly is great and continuing debate about what is "necessary" and what is not necessary. Where the US differs from Canada and Europe is that many Americans opt to pay for enhanced medical services that are rare or unavailable in Canada and Europe. Breast enhancement surgery for example is largely limited to the affluent, does this deny any human right?

There is no debate within the US if every American has a human right to necessary medical services, now is there? This was settled, what, thirty or forty years back? medicaid The universal health care debate has nothing to do with human rights, now does it? Raggz (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

:If Americans "ha[ve] the right to a standard of living adequate for the health ..." under the UN human rights charter, and the 'adequate' access to health services is 'settled' by medicaid, then, yes it does have to do with human rights. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Either Raggz altered his message or I got lost in his logic circles and mis-read it. But whatever happened, I redact my previous comment based on the current reading of Raggz post my and 'understanding' (such as it is) of his question.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand Red.

• If someone wants to challenge the adequacy of medicaid in regard to human rights law, I am fine with this. This can be done, and with enumerable reliable sources. It is, and should remain, a perpetual subject of debate.
• If someone wants to suggest that the US does not have medicaid, that the US does not recognize a human right to basic health care, I dispute this.
• If someone wants to claim that allowing the affluent to buy enhanced medical care and to have elective proceedures denied to the poor is a human rights issue, this argument may be made as well. Just make it clearly. Raggz (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm planning some significant deletions of original research in regard to universal health care. In addition I'm planning to delete some seeming irrelevant statements. (listed below):

• Influential figures, such as Pope John Paul II, have stated denying access to afforable health care is a violation of the right to life.[64] Was the Pope stating this in regard to the US? Was he speaking of malaria in Rwanda? If not about the US please do not revert this quote, if so please be more clear.

• 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.[65] 46.6 million Americans, or 15.9 percent, were without health insurance coverage in 2005.[66] Americans are also disatisfied with the price of many things. Relevance to human rights, please?

• 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."[67] I'm leaving this for now. All I ask is that context be offered, what "right to health" is being denied, and who is denying it. If the context is not offered, then I may eventually edit this quote out as well, or add these myself Raggz (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The next two statements are factual, but no context to the US is offered.

• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, states that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care.”[61]

• In addition, the Principles of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association require medical doctors to respect the human rights of the patient, including that of providing medical treatment when it is needed.[62]

There is no linkage of these to the denial of any human right. Medicaid covers everyone who cannot afford care. Those ineligible have the ability to obtain medical services at their own expense. The language strongly implies that these are human rights denied, but no reliable source is offered for this implied claim. Does anyone have reliable sources that basic medical services are unavailable to anyone in the US? That linkage is necessary here. Raggz (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think more discussion is necessary. I have already weighed in on this topic elsewhere in the page. Raggz was trying to find references on whether Health care is a human right. We now have various opinions (including that of the former Pope), which attest that Health care is such a right. At some point in the edit history, I separated out part of this as a "Universal health care" debate, as a nod to one of Raggz's suggestions before. Now I see that Raggz has (disappointingly) decided that he/she no longer accepts this compromise, and has gone back to deleting things which I had previously undeleted and discussed. I suggest, as I have before, that we wait for other editorial opinions to weigh in on the healthcare section. Silly rabbit (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I recently reverted Raggz's edit. First of all, I do not accept the stated reason for the removal of Pope John Paul's quote. As part of an earlier debate between Raggz and myself on this very issue, Raggz wanted additional sources alleging that health care is a human right. Removing this quote is detrimental to that purpose, although perhaps it could be placed differently. May I suggest instead of deleting entire sections to move text up into the parent Health care section? I agree that the Pope quote is in the wrong place with the current article structure. Things like this happen when a large number of controversial edits happen over a short period of time. Silly rabbit (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, the first line of the section Raggz would like to delete makes a fairly clear case for inclusion: "The level of government involvement in providing, ensuring, and enforcing the right to adequate health care is a topic of longstanding political debate." If (a) health care is a right, and some level of health care should be ensured by the government, and (b) there is a debate about the extent of government involvement, then universal health care clearly has a place in this article. Perhaps the format could be changed, some of the bits moved around since this is a relatively new part of the article structure, but I recommend against deleting it. Raggz seems to prefer deleting things instead of working on issues with them. I am of the opposite kind. May I ask: what sort of constructive edits can we apply to this section to bring it into shape. Silly rabbit (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am just fine with inclusion of human rights debates, so long as the Reader knows these are debates about potential rights - not about existing rights. Health care is a human right, there is a huge body of US law on this topic. I recommend citing these sources that declare this right. Silly rabbit is correct, I believe that the article should cite the reliable source. Findlaw.com is where I would first look.

Medicaid is usually the means for compliance. Litigation regarding medical care as a right is always ongoing, and should always be so, to ensure that the human right to medical care evolves as is necessary. Universal health care has nothing to do with any human right because those who cannot afford medical care are assured subsidized coverage. I have been guilty of making statements about "health care" when I meant "universal health care". Others have as well. I will be more clear.

• There is no debate in the US if health care is a right. Everyone in the US either has the ability to pay for health care - and if not, has the right to subsidized health care.
• There is a debate if universal health care is a human right. We may cover this debate if we wish (I don't), but we need to be clear that there presently is no such debate.

The Pope's statement is irrelevant to the US, and was not made in regard to the US. Applying it this way is a SYN error. To use this quote it is first necessary to link it to this topic. Health care in the US has been a recognized human right for many decades. Medicaid may or may not be effective in meeting this right, was this the subject he was addressing, medicaid in the US? Raggz (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

So... human rights that apply to everyone, don't apply to the US? I don't understand your rationale that the Pope's comments are not relevant. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Pope's statement doesn't belong.

If this article doesn't restrict its concept of "rights" to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which is seedy enough to begin with) then it'll continue to be another Wikipedia POV magnet.

Like it or not, the U.S. is in compliance with the Universal Declaration as far as health care goes. If you read carefully, it also talks about food, clothing and housing in the same sentence. No one seriously believes that means some government agency should be dressing us up. At least not yet.

BTW: Be careful about that number of "uninsured Americans." It includes non-citizens.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"So... human rights that apply to everyone, don't apply to the US? I don't understand your rationale that the Pope's comments are not relevant." The Pope almost certainly was not speaking just about the US (except of course that the US is part of the world). Who claims that this text is about the US specifically? When the Pope looks at the world, and he thinks about the right to health care, where would the health care in the US rank? This is another WP:SYN violation UNLESS there is linkage to the US specifically OR if the US denied that the right of health care. Raggz (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pederasty human Rights & marriage human rights?

Someone deleted a lot of text stating that it was about marriage and not pederasty. Would it be possible to elaborate? I looked this word up. Is pederasty a human right somewhere? What is the issue? Raggz (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

74.93.22.214 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) deleted the Sexual orientation section claiming that it was about pederasty. I then restored the section, because there is nothing about pederasty even in the section. No one claimed that pederasty is a right, but 74.93.22.214 seemed to think there was a parallel between the right to marry and the "right" to molest young boys. Go figure. Silly rabbit (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

So, just to be reiterate, no sane editor here believes that pederasty is a human right. Just some anon IP who has an axe to grind. Silly rabbit (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing this up, and for handling the vandalism. Raggz (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sections to be improved before inclusion

The following sections are quite poorly written, un-referenced and unbalanced. Please improve them here (see comments below) and then include them in the main article:

The word "enumerate" was carefully selected. It comes from a key body of constitutional law relating to the use of this word in the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment recognizes for the first time that civil rights may exist that have yet to be enumerated. For example: the Americans with Disabilities Act enumerates a fundamental civil right that always existed but had never been enumerated.

I will of course work on this language to make it more clear. Federalism is especially difficult to understand if you grow up in a different system. This fact makes it important that the article explain why federalism is important to this topic. The federal government is prohibited from legislation regarding marriage, it simply lacks the authority to do this. Only state governments may do this. People who live in non-federalized systems view state governments as administrators of national laws. The legal requirements to get married or to get a teaching license will not vary quite widely depending on where you live. Human rights are then homogenous nationally, but within the US the human rights must meet the minimum federal standards, but in some states are quite a bit greater than in others. For example: There are no national assurances of sexual-orientation rights, but where I live in California there is such a human right recognized, but a mile away in Nevada there is no such right recognized.

Most human rights within the US are primarily within the jurisdiction of state governments. When state governments fail to protect federally guaranteed human rights, only THEN may the federal government act. This happened in the South when states denied racial groups the equality guaranteed by the US Constitution.

• Will the Reader: (1) get these facts from our article and (2) are these facts relevant to the topic?

If the answer to these two key questions is no, the section might be dropped. If "yes", then it will need improvement. Raggz (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remove section on Universal Health Care?

As I have been accused of restoring this section from Raggz's most recent deletion without consensus, other editors are welcome to express their opinions here as to whether the section should be removed, or what other editorial direction should take. I would ask that Raggz please abstain from filling up this section with debate, although he/she is also of course welcome to weigh in succinctly. Silly rabbit (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

When one editor(s) has an issue with the state/quality of a section for an article, one method of building concensus is to take the section to the talk page or a sandbox for people to work on it and bring it up to meet quality standards. (Perhaps leaving a minimal, non-controversial 'placeholder' peice of information in the main article with a hidden < comment > for editors about the work going on at another location). Since this talk page is already overly long, I would recommend a sandbox- and since Silly Rabbit seems interested in the subject, would you be willing to start the sandbox and post the link here? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Read the large volume of discussion on TALK regarding the health care original research. Silly rabbit and I have discussed this and decided to seek mediation, as the content dispute could not be resolved by discussion. Raggz (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have created a sandbox here for the section in question. I have also attempted to revise it according to some of the issues mentioned in this talk page. Please have a look at it. Silly rabbit (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The material in the sandbox lacks relevance to this topic because:

• It does not offer a single reliable source that health care is a human rights issue for the US. This would be a section about what the US Supreme Court (or UNSC) decisions require. (There is a LOT of material that could be cited).
• It does not offer a single reliable source that Universal Health Care actually is a human rights issue in the US.
• The article does offer ample reliable sources that there exists a debate internationally and within the US in regard to the question if the US health care system denies anyone any human right. This means that the article may state that some allege violations but may not imply that they occured (without a source). It may not build a case that implies non-compliance. To comply with NPOV both sides need to be quoted within a lengthy section on this debate. The section would need to state that the question is undecided and not make unsupported implications.

Do we agree? If not, we still need mediation. This topic is subject to mediation, might we address the issue on the proper page? If we now agree, we of course may move on and close the mediation process. Raggz (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on your mandate that a SCOTUS or UNSC case has to have been adjudicated before the material is relevant for inclusion in the article. Other editors, myself included, find the material topical and relevant. The issue is thus whether it asserts anything not supported by the references. You believe that by bare inclusion, it seems to assert that some violation of human rights has taken place. I have already disagreed with this interpretation, and so have other editors. The existence of a high profile debate is enough to warrant inclusion here. Hence, the remaining question is whether there any specific issues that you have with the section? Are there any individual sentences you would like to change, for example? Is there a passage that you feel should be removed? Silly rabbit (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You mistate my claim. I am only claiming that a reliable source is necessary for material to be included. (A SCOTUS or UNSC case would be examples of such a source, what source do you instead propose?) Without this it may be "topical and relevant", but Policy precludes its inclusion, particularly without consensus.

I ask again:

• What human right does the lack of Universal Health Care within the US deny? Isn't this a necessary fact for the Reader? Without a reliable source such claims require deletion as original research.

• What reliable source asserts that the right denied is actually being denied?

• Why not cite the USSC decisions on the right to health care? Why hide them?

We have agreed to take this issue to mediation. We can settle this there. No other editors have stated your opinions on this, and in any case, there is no consensus for retention. (If any editors wish to add their names to the mediation case, they are free to do so.) If there were consensus, policy still requires the deletion of original research like this. You may fix this issue quite simply by editing in one reliable source to support your orginal research. Raggz (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, clearly mediation is required. I note that User:Pexise has expressed conviction that the material should be kept, so it clearly doesn't seem that you have a majority on your side for the removal of the material. Also, please see WP:BRD. By default, consensus exists for material which has been longstanding in the article. You can boldly delete the material, but if it is reverted that then means you do not have consensus for removal. I ask you yet again to please read WP:CONSENSUS.

Now let me address your questions yet again:

• What reliable source asserts that the right denied is actually being denied?

Point me to the line in the text where the article alleges that a human right is being denied, please. Otherwise your position that the text "is original research" because it somehow implicitly tries to assert that a right is being denied is patently untenable. There are references there about human rights and health care, and there is a legitimate, documentable controversy about the extent to which the US is fullfilling its obligations to uphold those rights. Not documenting the controversy is a disservice to the article. A whitewash.

• Why not cite the USSC decisions on the right to health care? Why hide them?

You have a cite in mind? Again, Pexise and I have both expressed our frustration with your repeated insistence that everything in the article must have been adjudicated by SCOTUS. The criteria for inclusion is relevance to the topic of the article, not some legal standard you invented.

Since, by deleting the material, rather than engaging in productive discussion, you have revealed an unwillingness to identify any specific issues, I think mediation is necessary. Silly rabbit (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted to Silly rabbit, as Raggz has begun inserting propaganda (random, off-topic quotes from Reginald Wilson et al.) and removing sourced information again (prison system deletions caught my attention). I recommend that Raggz make small, incremental changes, and since this is a controversial page, I encourage him to raise them on talk first. —Viriditas | Talk 12:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Viriditas - some of my sections that are meticulously sourced and took many hours of work to write had either been deleted or defaced. Pexise (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"By default, consensus exists for material which has been longstanding in the article. You can boldly delete the material, but if it is reverted that then means you do not have consensus for removal. I ask you yet again to please read WP:CONSENSUS." Consensus is a good thing, something worth the effort that I have invested into it. Please review shifts in consensus again.

To this point: There is no reliable source that universal health care is a human right within the US. This absence makes the entire Universal Health Care section a SYN policy violation, and consensus is not required for removal. An effort for consensus was made, and considerable efforts expended, but in the end policy violations require deletion even without consensus.

It has been established that health care is a UN human right that the UDHR codifies this. Where is the reliable source that explains exactly what this right means in any practical sense? We cannot jump past this needed source to alleged violations of the right, that would be a synthesis error. Example: health care must presumably be affordable, but what exactly does affordable mean? We cannot just jump to claiming a lack affordability without a citation that explains affordability in regard to the UDHR. The information about consumer disatisfaction with costs is a SYN error. To claim that the UDHR requires universal health coverage is a SYN error if there is no reliable source for this.

I would prefer to use the many US judicial decisions on the right to health care. I don't understand why the UDHR is relevant since it is presently not enforced and is too vague for practical use in regard to the US. These outline in precise and evolving detail the right to health care in the US. Why not use these? I am not requiring US judicial opinions, I will accept any reasonable authority, but presume that there are no others. No one has identified another form of authority for the right to health care. 03:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, the U.S. is in full compliance with the UDHR.

UDHR talks about health care in the same sentence as food, clothing and housing. For anyone to pretend that UDHR mandates a socialized health care system, they would then have to believe it also mandates universal government food, clothing and housing programs.

It's proper for someone to link to the socialized health care debate, but it's not a human rights issue, and so it doesn't belong here. I'd prefer we limit this article to the boundaries of the UDHR. Otherwise anyone can start inventing more of their own human rights.

Also, as I said above, that number of "uninsured Americans" includes non-citizens. It confuses the issue to call them "Americans".

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This could be a useful source: [[2]] General comment of CESCR - guidline on how to interpret human right to health - e.g.

• Economic accessibility (affordability): health facilities, goods and services must be affordable for all. Payment for health-care services, as well as services related to the underlying determinants of health, has to be based on the principle of equity, ensuring that these services, whether privately or publicly provided, are affordable for all, including socially disadvantaged groups. Equity demands that poorer households should not be disproportionately burdened with health expenses as compared to richer households. Pexise (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

How does the CESCR relate to human rights and the United States?

The poor pay almost nothing for health care. They get health care at a higher level than they would get in Europe. Public subsidies per person are much higher than they are in Europe. Those in poverty are all covered, and they pay nothing. As incomes rise, costs rise. The present debate is where to end public subsidies, at two times the poverty rate or three times. The next debate is about the afluent. They get no subsidies, should they? No one forces them to buy medical insurance, is this wrong? Europe is the same, the rich get better medical care than the average get, rich Canadians flood northern US hospitals. Germany and the Netherlands even allow the rich to opt out of the systems. There is a HUGE body of US human rights law that you may draw upon for sources. There is a right to health care in the US, and this right is enforced so that the poor get more services than they would in Europe. The real issue is that most Americans are quite affluent and get really nice health care. The poor want Botox and boob jobs too, they do not like long lines, why would they? There is resentment, everyone wants to get the upper-level health plans, which are private and expensive. Is this about human rights? Raggz (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The LEAD and original research

Most of the LEAD is original research, and the OR needs to be deleted AGAIN. If someone wants to revert this material, fine, just comply with the policy requirement to offer a reliable source for this. WP:OR. The old text is in italics, the new is not.

• The human rights record of the United States is a controversial and complex issue. The United States has been praised for its progressive human rights record at times[2] and criticized for some of its policies and practices at other times.[3][4]

The human rights record of the United States (and every nation) is always controversial and complex to analyze. The United States has been praised for its progressive human rights record at times[2] and criticized for some of its policies and practices at other times. This is true for all but a very few of nations.

• Historically, the United States has been committed to the principle of liberty and has sheltered many political and economic refugees in times of international strife. It has a powerful and often independent judiciary and a constitution that attempts in many areas to enforce separation of powers to prevent tyranny. Legally, human rights within the United States are those rights recognized by the Constitution of the United States and those recognized by treaties ratified by the United States Senate as well as certain rights articulated by the Congress of the United States.[5] The Constitution and treaties are generally interpreted by the judicial branch and particularly the Supreme Court. Human rights within the United States are thus largely determined by the judiciary.

The United States is committed to the principle of liberty and has sheltered many political and economic refugees in times of international strife. It has a powerful an independent judiciary and a constitution that enforces the separation of powers to prevent tyranny. Legally, human rights within the United States are those rights recognized by the Constitution of the United States and those recognized by treaties ratified by the United States Senate as well as certain rights articulated by the Congress of the United States.[5] The Constitution and treaties are generally interpreted by the judicial branch and particularly the Supreme Court. Human rights within the United States are thus largely determined by the judiciary.

The language was changed to minimize the prior pov slant to imply that fundamental constitutional processes no longer operate in the US. If someone wants to say this, it needs a section before it goes into the lead and of course sources will be necessary. Raggz (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Internationally, the United States was central to the creation of the United Nations and to the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the latter part of the 20th century, however, the US has participated in few of the international human rights treaties, covenants and declarations adopted by the UN member states. In the 21st century, the US has actively undermined international treaties and mechanisms such as the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court.

Internationally, the United States was central to the creation of the United Nations and to the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the latter part of the 20th century, however, the US has participated in few of the international human rights treaties, covenants and declarations adopted by the UN member states. In the 21st century, the US has declined to ratify many international treaties such as the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court.

The US has never undermined the ICC and there will be no reliable sources that it has. There will be reliable sources that the US has engaged in bilateral diplomacy to ensure that US citizens are not subjected to an international court that does not recognize the fundamental human rights of Americans. Don't revert this text with a source to an Article 98 cite without prior debate here please. Raggz (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• The United States government has been criticized for human rights violations, particularly in the criminal justice system and where national security is a concern. Some critics (in both friendly and hostile countries) have criticized the U.S. Government for supporting serious human rights abuses, including torture,[6] legal rendition,[7] assassination,[8] imprisonment without trial[9] and for supporting dictatorships.[10]

The United States government has been criticized for human rights violations. Some critics have criticized the U.S. Government for supporting serious human rights abuses, including torture.[6]

The issues deleted were deleted because these topics have not been supported by a reliable source in regard to human rights and the United States. Restore this text only with the necessary sources please. Raggz (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• In surveys, substantial numbers of Americans have expressed opposition to the government's positions on capital punishment,[11] the War on Drugs,[12] and gay rights.[13]

These three topics have not been supported by a reliable source in regard to human rights and the United States. Raggz (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have just reverted Raggz's recent edits - User:Raggz please do not make these changes without discussing first - discuss involves more than one person - i.e. not just you. I must reiterate a previous user's comments that it would be recommendable for you to make gradual changes, discussing them first on the talk page. Pexise (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

We have discussed all of these. You have not engaged in any discussion on talk before reverting. I invite you to now engage. WP:BOLD WP:IAR WP:OR WP:NPOV Raggz (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Please visit civil liberties as it is an excellent example of how to write a LEAD. Does anyone else have another good example to share? Raggz (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's not a good example, as civil liberties is barely an article, let alone a lead section. All you need is WP:LEAD; there's no need to constantly bring other articles into this. —Viriditas | Talk 10:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead could be improved, but it seems like User: Raggz is attacking this article with his unilateral deletions. I suggest a sandbox and REASONABLE discussion here in order to reach consensus. Pexise (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Who has an example of a great LEAD? Raggz (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't need one; the lead is based on the actual article itself, not other other articles. All you need is WP:LEAD. —Viriditas | Talk 23:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. You don't want examples, and don't have any. Does anyone have any? Raggz (talk) 06:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion to improve the lead

The human rights record of the United States is a controversial and complex issue. The United States has been praised for its progressive human rights record at times^[12] and criticized for some of its policies and practices at other times.^[13][14]

Historically, the United States has been committed to the principle of liberty and has sheltered many political and economic refugees in times of international strife. It has a powerful and often independent judiciary and a constitution that attempts in many areas to enforce separation of powers to prevent tyranny. Legally, human rights within the United States are those rights recognized by the Constitution of the United States and those recognized by treaties ratified by the United States Senate as well as certain rights articulated by the Congress of the United States.^[15] The Constitution and treaties are generally interpreted by the judicial branch and particularly the Supreme Court. Human rights within the United States are thus largely determined by the judiciary.

Internationally, the United States was central to the creation of the United Nations and to the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the latter part of the 20th century, however, the US has participated in few of the international human rights treaties, covenants and declarations adopted by the UN member states. In the 21st century, the US has actively undermined international treaties and mechanisms such as the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court.

The United States government has been criticized for human rights violations, particularly in the criminal justice system and where national security is a concern. Some critics (in both friendly and hostile countries) have criticized the U.S. Government for supporting serious human rights abuses, including torture,^[16] legal rendition,^[17] assassination,^[18] imprisonment without trial^[19] and for supporting dictatorships.^[20]

In surveys, substantial numbers of Americans have expressed opposition to the government's positions on capital punishment,^[21] the War on Drugs,^[22] and gay rights.^[23]

[edit] The second paragraph

I propose the following change to the second paragraph:

The United States was founded with the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. Legally, human rights within the United States are those rights recognized by the Constitution of the United States and those recognized by treaties ratified by the United States Senate as well as certain rights articulated by the Congress of the United States.^[24] The Constitution and treaties are generally interpreted by the judicial branch and particularly the Supreme Court. Human rights law within the United States is thus largely determined by the judiciary.

I advocate removing the passage about refugees, since it doesn't fit with the rest of the paragraph. There should definitely be a section of the article (and of course also a place in the lead) for this material, but it needs to be written first. Second, I also advocate removing the part about the independent judiciary enforcing the separation of powers. This is an important feature of the US government, but it is not immediately relevant to human rights, and muddles up the meaning of the rest of the paragraph. Silly rabbit (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Good points. I propose substituting human rights for seperation of powers. It has a powerful independent judiciary and a constitution that enforces applicable national and international human rights laws. Raggz (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say that separation of powers is an important and relevant issue as separate powers are a fundamental aspect of a healthy democracy. The last sentence in the paragraph may need to be adjusted, to make sure that it is clear that we are dealing here with US law, not human rights themselves which are not determined by the US judiciary, but are those that are enshrined in the UDHR. Pexise (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opening sentence

The United States has been praised for its progressive human rights record at times^[25] and like all but four other nations (Human Rights Watch cite) has been criticized for its policies and practices.^[13][26] Raggz (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Footnote 25 is not acceptable. We do not interpret sources. Please find a better reference or rewrite. —Viriditas | Talk 01:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I never liked that cite. We can find better. Raggz (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New text

Not all of these will go in. Context is important. Does anyone object to using these for context/NPOV balancing? Anyone who finds a good spot may use these.

• To follow the first sentence: Americans believe that they live in one of the freest socities in the world.^[27] Raggz (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• "The United States was the first nation to include civil liberties in its Constitution." "Civil liberties are the rights of citizens or civilians as distinguished from those of the military, the clergy, or foreigners, who may have certain or traditional restrictions placed upon their freedom."^[28] Raggz (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• "The Constitution and its amendments, which explain civil liberties, are the supreme law of the land.^[29] Raggz (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Civil liberties are what makes the United States a great nation in spite of its many problems.^[30]

• "The personal freedoms of Americans are unequaled by any other countryin the world."^[31]

• Americans have the right to a jury trial by their peers, a right that directly descends from the Magna Carta, a human right that is rarely recognized by other nations. ^[32] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 02:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• The authority of the US Supreme Court to review laws for constitutionality is not stated within the Constitution, but derive from its own Marbury v. Madison decision in 1803.^[33] Raggz (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Jim Crow or racial segregation laws were widespread by the 1890s. These were based upon the quickly discredited legal theory of seperate but equal, a theory that the Supreme Court adopted in 1896 with Plesy v. Ferguson. ^[34] Raggz (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of this is good background, though I am not sure about in the lead paragraph. Specific remarks:

* "Americans believe that they live in one of the freest socities in the world." This is not NPOV, and as such needs to be attributed to a reliable source. Similarly, "The personal freedoms of Americans are unequaled by any other country in the world" cannot be said in Wikipedia's voice, and clearly invokes WP:REDFLAG.

* "The United States was the first nation to include civil liberties in its Constitution." Yes. Good point.

* Jury trial: Probably this does deserve to be mentioned. But this is guaranteed in the magna carta, though, and so not unique to the US.

* The authority of the Supreme Court... This is interesting, but I am not sure relevant to the article. As you say, context is important, so how and where this is to be incorporated are as important a question as if.

* Jim Crow. I also noticed this omission in reading the Racial section. Not to mention the entire American Civil Rights Movement. The section could use some serious expansion. Silly rabbit (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Americans believe that they live in one of the freest socities in the world." This is not NPOV, and as such needs to be attributed to a reliable source. It is attributed and is a direct quote of an authority. It would violate NPOV, if not for the word BELIEVE. Raggz (talk) 06:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Similarly, "The personal freedoms of Americans are unequaled by any other country in the world" cannot be said in Wikipedia's voice, and clearly invokes WP:REDFLAG.. The redflag claim may be handled by citing a "mainstream media" source. Are you claiming that a US Civil Rights textbook is not mainstream? I accept the voice point.

I will need to see the book to make that determination for myself. I cannot find any reviews of it online, which suggests redflag to me, but maybe I am wrong. Anyway, what would you say? "Reginald Wilson, some random author, wrote that..." Who is Reginald Wilson, and why is his POV relevant to the article? Silly rabbit (talk) 11:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

He's got a Wikipedia page: Reginald Wilson. The book Raggz is quoting is ISBN 0802767516, and is classified as a children's book.[3] We need to use scholarly sources, or at the very least, more reliable, authoritative academic sources. —Viriditas | Talk 11:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Jury trial: Probably this does deserve to be mentioned. But this is guaranteed in the magna carta, though, and so not unique to the US. Consider that human rights unique to the US, such as this and the right to bear arms are very significant. If not for the right to a jury trial, the US Government would have the authority to join the ICC, but the ICC would not agree to respect this right. This was a major reason for not joining, the ICC decision not to respect American human rights. If you were Chinese and could only get one human right, this would be the first you would choose because it is the primary defense against tyranny. Without it, everyone who opposes the government gets jailed. The right to jury trail (I believe) has disappeared from Europe. No ICC member may have it. Raggz (talk) 06:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that the US, with its guaranteed right to a trial by jury, is any more just than, say, France? Otherwise, I don't think we should try to pursue the comparative aspect of this. It is fine to point out the existence of the right to a trial by jury and the importance of that right, without denigrating the ICC and the legal systems of other countries. Silly rabbit (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More bullet points

• In 1954 Brown vs. Brown reversed the seperate but equal doctrine and is among the central anti-discrimination Supreme Court findings. Brown v. Brown's reversal of Plesy v. Ferguson illustrates that the US judiciary can and does make fundamental changes to what human rights are recognized legally.^[35] Legally recognized human rights are not the same as human rights, because they are known to be subject to serious errors at times. Chief Justice Roger Taney said in 1857 for Dred Scott "A black man has not rights which a white man is bound to respect"^[36] While the US judiciary has made serious errors that have persisted for decades, history shows that in time these will be corrected.^[37]

• Many parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were modeled after the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence".^[38]

• Human rights in the US typically are restricted significantly during times of war and crisis.^[39][40]

• No human right is absolute, there are many people and many rights, and limits exist for each human right. ^[41]

• The role of the US judiciary as a protector of human rights did not fully develop until the 1890's. ^[42]

• State and not the federal judiciary had the primary role for enforcing constitutional protections prior to the American Civil War. This was a period when few federal laws affected individual rights.^[43] Raggz (talk) 07:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• The Civil War transformed the federal judiciary, beginning the evolution to what it now is because the outrage over the abuses former slaves and others had been subjected to lead to these changes and to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In actual practice however, the initial effects of these reforms were directed toward business and commerce rather than individual rights protections, it would be fifty years before federal courts began to focus upon individual rights.^[44] Raggz (talk) 07:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of these would seem to be more suitable for a "History of the American Legal System" article. I don't think we want to go into great detail about how the American judiciary came to be in this article, so be somewhat selective about what you want to include. Silly rabbit (talk) 11:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be made very clear that Reginald Wilson is not an acceptable source. Raggz needs to raise the bar on his research. —Viriditas | Talk 11:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This last string of suggestions seems factual enough. I just think it is too much "deep background" to be included here. However, you are correct that Wilson is an unacceptable source for the article. I am sure that this latter material is easily sourced elsewhere though. Silly rabbit (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ICC

"In the 21st century, the US has actively undermined international treaties and mechanisms such as the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court." This is not true, although people hold this opinion and opinions may be cited. People hold many opinions and we are not obliged to cite all of them. The Article 98 agreements do not undermine the ICC, Article 98 is within the Statute of Rome. Article 98 authorizes bilateral diplomacy, which is what the US is engaged in. The text makes it look like treaties permitted by the Statute undermines the Statute. There are opinions that claim that this diplomacy does undermine the ICC, but they are a minority, and we need not cover them. We may, but only if we offer the contrasting majority view as well. Is this really worth the space? Raggz (talk) 06:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In the 21st century, the US has declined to ratify numerous international human rights treaties, such as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court." This is because the "United States participation in the ICC treaty regime would be unconstitutional because it would allow the trial of American citizens for crimes committed on American soil, which are otherwise entirely within the judicial power of the United States. The Supreme Court has long held that only the courts of the United States, as established under the Constitution, can try such offenses."^[45]

To attain NPOV there needs to be context and contrast. This takes space. I suggest that the context and contrast do not belong in the LEAD, so this sentence does not either. Raggz (talk) 06:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that some more should be written on the reasons given for the US not to ratify the ICC. The sentence in question should be rewritten to reflect NPOV. Silly rabbit (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

User: Raggz - there is something Orwellian about your argument here, and I suspect that you are pretty much paraphrasing the line taken by the US govt. The US has CLEARLY undermined the ICC, pressuring countries not to sign the statute can not be interpreted in any other way.

The third paragraph is about the US and International Human Rights. It is a balanced view, pointing out that the US was instrumental in creation of the UDHR etc. It then points out the FACTS that the US has not ratified many of the subsequent treaties. This is the way the US is seen internationally. Regardless of the US reasons and justifications for not participating in human rights treaties, the way the US in viewed by the international community is through its lack of participation in international conventions. The reasons, justifications and details can be discussed later in the article. Pexise (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Human rights violation

"The United States government has been criticized for human rights violations, particularly in the criminal justice system and where national security is a concern." Why these two areas? What does "where national security is a concern" really mean? Nothing. Raggz (talk) 07:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Criminal justice system, I suppose refers to death penalty and prison conditions. National security refers to Guantanamo, torture allegations etc. Pexise (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV requires that you use text that allows the Reader to know if it is a fact that these deny a right or an opinion. It requires that you identify the specific right. You won't have a source that asserts this as fact, so just be sure you right it to comply with NPOV, as opinion. Raggz (talk) 09:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Some critics (in both friendly and hostile countries) have criticized the U.S. Government for supporting serious human rights abuses, including torture,[16] legal rendition,[17] assassination,[18] imprisonment without trial[19] and for supporting dictatorships.[20]"

Torture text: Torture by any American anywhere in the world is illegal. Numerous cases exist where torture was alleged and was determined not to be proven.Template:Cites Some cases exist where torture was proven, and in all of these cases criminal convictions resulted.Template:Cites Controverisial interogation methods that are similar to the European five techniques and waterboarding are alleged to be torture, and the US judiciary.Template:Cites and Congress.Template:Cites have been actively investigating these allegations. Raggz (talk) 07:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this text from the article? Silly rabbit (talk) 12:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Is legal rendition a human rights abuse? If so, by what authority? This authority needs to go in. Raggz (talk) 07:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Extraordinary rendition is the practice of transporting prisoners to third countries where torture may take place. Pexise (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Not true - and you have no source either. Extraordinary rendition is a process of moving a prisoner from country to country. It has nothing at all to do with torture. If you want to address torture, deal with torture. NPOV requires a source - and that you state if the claim is for fact or opinion. You will find many sources with the opinion that a human right was denied, so you can say that as OPINION. NPOV requires that you identify what human right the source believes violated, if possible.

Is assasination a human rights abuse? If so, by what authority? This authority needs to go in. Assasination was once common and legal. US policy on assasination during the Cold War was very liberal, this changed with the Church Commission. Assasination attempts on Hitler and Castro were one thing, those (if any) after the Church Commission would certainly qualify as serious human rights abuses. Those before, only with context and mentioning that they were fully legal under US and international law. Raggz (talk) 07:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• State sanctioned assasination violates the right to life. Pexise (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, you need a source. Your source (by NPOV) will be either claiming this as a fact or as an opinion. Make sure your text tells the Reader which your source is claiming. As long as you have the source, you can say it. If you don't, it is OR. Raggz (talk) 09:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Is imprisonment without trial a human rights abuse? If so, by what authority? This authority needs to go in. The Geneva Conventions requires imprisonment without trial. If the US tried them, this would be a US war crime. If I get the link and you agree, will you drop this claim? (Yes, I know this is not what you read.) The GCs specifically state that it is not a crime to be captured in battle, and you will not be tried if captured. If you commit a crime or war crime, THEN a trial (and attorney) is required. Raggz (talk) 07:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Imprisonment without trial is clearly a human rights abuse, violating many rights. Pexise (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You say this, but what right? NPOV requires that you be clear about the facts. This is one of the facts you need to cover. What right? Is it a fact that imprisonment without trial denies a human right? Sometimes. In the case of Guantanamo it would be a war crime to give them a trial. The Geneva Conventions prohibits trials. This is a fact, include it and source it. Discuss BOTH opinions - with sources. We need to tell the Reader that giving the detainees a trial would be a war crime. Raggz (talk) 09:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• If you are seriously suggesting that imprisonment without trial is not a human rights violation, I would seriously question whether you are qualified to edit this page. Pexise (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it a human rights violation to support a dictatorship? Then the UN and every EU nation is guilty, as well as the US. This really means nothing. Why not say what we really mean? Raggz (talk) 07:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with this paragraph. Legal rendition could be changed to extraordinary rendition - and this is certainly a serious issue. The paragraph says: "support for human rights abuses" - this is completely correct and backed by citations. Pexise (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

However, a citation about Guantanamo Bay could be added to the imprisonment without trial reference. Pexise (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware that the Geneva Conventions require that the prisoners (1) get no trial and (2) be held indefinately without a set term? Do you realize that it would be a war crime to give them a trial? These are facts that some do not know. NPOV requires that we include these as facts (not as opinion) with the reliable source for this. We can and should state that it is the opinion of many that the US should try them, even if the trial violates their Geneva Convention rights. Raggz (talk) 09:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What human right is denied by legal rendition. We need a reliable source. I assume that you don't have one, but have opinions, and opinions for all major views should be included. The problem with the prior language is that it implied that rendition was a human rights violation, it should have said person believes it was a violation of (name a specific human right). Same with dictators, what human right - and who's opinion is saying this, and have both sides. Raggz (talk) 09:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There are many, many sources about this. Have a quick look on Google and you will find them. Pexise (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV violations

By policy, text that violates NPOV requires deletion.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.^[46]

• "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.[47]

”

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."^[48]

• 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.^[49]

• 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.[50]

”

• 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)

[edit] References

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)^[11]. 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.^[12] 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.^[13][14]"

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 [5]. 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)

[edit] The section "On Life, Property and Personal Security"

I'm under the impression that human rights are mainly protections from government abuse, not protection from violent crime, unfortunate as crime may be (if that crime is committed by private parties, without any state collusion, and the authorities in question give equal protection to all crime victims).

I think that this section needs to be carefully evaluated as to whether it belongs in this article, or in another article about violent crime in the United States.

I also suspect, but I'm unsure, that substantial portions of this section may be reproduced or paraphrased from the annual official People's Republic of China "Human Rights Record of the United States". Of course, I may be wrong.

Katana0182 (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes by Pexise

See [6].

Several unexplained POV changes in the titles. What was wrong with listing which treaties were signed and ratified, signed but not ratified, and not signed? Note that the US have some legal obligations if signed but not ratified so incorrect and POV to dump these together with not signed at all.

Removed: "Non-binding treaties voted for: Universal Declaration of Human Rights^[15]"

Instead of a neutral description we now have "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." POV, no explanation of US view.

"As with many other states, the US's ratification of the ICCPR was done with some reservations – or limits – on the treaty." has been changed to "The US's ratification of the ICCPR was done with five reservations – or limits – on the treaty."

"Altogether, along with the United States, thirty eight states are not parties to the treaty, including Myanmar, Saudi Arabia and Cuba among others." No mention of the many dubious states that have signed the treaty, like Sudan, Zimbabwe, Belarus, China, and Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea).Ultramarine (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Also a misleading edit summary: [7] Pexie had not not discussed these changes.

So POV deletions of US supporting material and instead adding only critical.Ultramarine (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

1. The style of simply putting the treaties in a list is not encyclopedic, remember, Wikipedia is not a collection of information or facts, it is an encyclopedia.

2. You can add a brief summary of the reason that the US did not sign the Declaration on indigenous rights (though not a massive tract copied from the US State Dept website as you have done below for the ICC).

3. RE: the ICCPR, we're not talking about other states, we're talking about the US.

4. Note that I have included the number of states who haven't signed the ICESCR, allowing material added by you.

5. My name is Pexise, not Pexie. Pexise (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Your version is also a list. You avoided my point. It is incorrect to lump not signed and signed but not ratified together.

2. See no reason to discuss this particular treaty in detail when other treaties are not. Lets leave all the details to subarticles.

3. It was you who started adding the status of other states to other treaties. Are you arguing that that we should remove these?

4. See 3. Best to not go into details here. Or should we add details regarding every treaty?

5. Right.

6. You did not answer why you removed Non-binding treaties voted for: Universal Declaration of Human Rights^[16]" Ultramarine (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

1. We are discussing treaties of international law, these treaties need to be ratified to become legally active, therefore, whether signed or not, if they are not ratified they are not legally active. As such, the signing of the treaty or not makes no difference if the treaty is not ratified (other than showing an intention). Regardless, information is included about whether the treaty has been signed, so no information is being left out.

2. Fine

3. I'm happy with it as it is, I don't think we should get too far off the topic though.

4. See three.

5. Do you want to change the title of this section then?

6. You can add that if you like, probably best in the "Support for International Human Rights" secion. Could also mention the part US played in writing the declaration, which I have alluded to in part of the lead. Pexise (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

1. There is are legal differences between not signed and signed but not ratified. Like that the later obligates a state to not actively oppose the treaty. So incorrect to lump these categories together.

2. Will remove this text then.

3. No double standard please.

4. See 3.

5. Done

6. Will add. Ultramarine (talk) 04:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

1. In legal terms the difference between signing and ratifying is far more significant than anything else. There are no legal obligations on the state until the treaty is ratified, once it is ratified, the state should have all of the legal obligations contained in the treaty (enless, of course, it is done with reservations like the US's ratification of the ICCPR).

2. ...

3. Need to keep the article relevant. The examples are there to illustrate the kind of company the US keeps in not ratifying the treaty. Pointing out that some dubious states have ratified the treaty is too far off topic here - should be done on the page of the ICESCR page.

4. ...

5. Thanks.

6. Better to add it in the support for human rights section. Pexise (talk) 10:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

A. There are legal obligations if signing but not ratified. Upon signature, a state is obliged to do nothing to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty. If there was no difference between not signed and signed but not ratified the UN would not bother to keep these detailed tables regarding this and Bush would not have bothered to unsign the International Criminal Court treay. No reason to have lower quality categories than the UN. So there should be separate categories for unsigned and signed but not ratified.

B. No double standard. If mentioning dubious states that have not ratified a treaty, then we must also mention dubious states that have ratified a treaty.

C. Regarding Universal Declaration of Human Rights, if including non-binding declarations like Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, then the list should also include Universal Declaration of Human Rights for npov.

D. Regarding your change to "The US's ratification of the ICCPR was done with five reservations – or limits – on the treaty." Many states have expressed various reservations in this and other treaties. No reason to single out this particular treaty among all the others discussed here. Better discussed in the subarticle on this treaty. If discussing it in this article, then NPOV require mentioning that such reservations are common among those states that have signed this and other treaties.Ultramarine (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

A. Sure, but this information is included anyway (signed treaties say signed but not ratified). What is important is that states ratify treaties, that is why treaties come into force after a certain number of ratifications, the whole point of a treaty is that it is ratified etc etc. Regardless, THIS INFORMATION IS INCLUDED ANYWAY.

B. better to just leave this and include the sources, people can look it up for themselves.

C. OK, fine, I'm happy with it where it is, though might be good to mention how the US was central to the creation of the UDHR in the support for human rights section.

D. No, I disagree. Furthermore, the US's reservations are notable, they are numerous and they have been widely criticised. I can expand with more information and sources about criticism of the US's reservations on the ICCPR if you like (there's loads of material out there about this, I'll be happy to expand this section.) Pexise (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

A. Again, there are important differences which is why Bush took care to unsign a not ratified treaty regarding the ICC and why the UN take care to note the status. If this "information is included anyways" (do not shout, please) then what is the problem with separate section?

B. Agree.

C. I am fine with both a brief and and a longer description as long as they are npov.

D. If it is just going to be criticism of the death penalty there are other sections for that.Ultramarine (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

A. I meant that this information is already included in the article (it says in brackets if they are signed but not ratified).

B. ...

C. Sure - I'm not going to write this, but think it would improve the article.

D. Not at all, the death penalty is the least of the problems - there are many accusations saying that the US has not really ratified the treaty because the reservations go against the spirit and meanings of the treaty. Pexise (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

A. Exactly what is your opposition to the earlier categories if this information is already included in your version? As noted there are important differences between unsigned and signed and not ratified.

D. The death penalty is the main reason for the reservations to the ICCPR. Opposition to what in the US are controversial issues like universal health care are the man reasons for not ratifying the ICESC. How about briefly mentioning this?Ultramarine (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

A. Signed but not ratified and not ratified should be grouped together because what is important is that the treaties have not been ratified.

D. Not true - it is the US's unwillingness to accept international law that is the main reason for the reservations. The death penalty is one of the reservations, but the main problem is their refusal to assimilate the ENTIRE TREATY in domestic law. This has been widely criticised as fraudulent ratification of the treaty, and a fraud on the international community. I can include this material if you like. Pexise (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

A. Why are you ignoring my point that there are important differences which is why the UN and Bush take care to separate them?Ultramarine (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

B. "US's unwillingness to accept international law"? Very general allegation. The US has ratified numerous treaties. I have added sources to articles about ICCPR and ICESC showing why the US opposes or have made reservations.Ultramarine (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A. can you do a sandbox of what you're proposing here on the talk page first and then we can come to a consensus.

B. right - I was actually also referring to the ICC and ICJ, as well as the ICCPR. Regardless, I don't think this has any significance for content here. Pexise (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A. What was wrong with the earlier version?

B. ICC discussed in another section. Why mention reservations if not mentioning the reason for these reservations?Ultramarine (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A. It's better to divide between ratified and not-ratified - this is how UN and human rights bodies and organisations list treaty statuses.

B. It's important to mention the reservations - why would you not want to mention them? They are an important part of the US's relationship with human rights. Pexise (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A. The UN certainly marks which nations have signed and not. See earlier for differences between not signed and signed but not ratified.

B. Read again what I saied. Why mention reservations if not mentioning the reason for these reservations?Ultramarine (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

A. OK, I've changed this.

B. The reservations are very important for the US's compliance with the treaty, as such it's important to mention them. Pexise (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have made some changes. Thoughts?Ultramarine (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not happy with them. Please discuss them on the talk page before altering the article. Pexise (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That's it, I'm giving up again - hopefully someone else will stop you ruining this article, I haven't got the time or the energy any more. Pexise (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)