Talk:Human rights in the United States/Archive 10

I propose deleting the section on international human rights
The article's subject is about Human Rights in the United States. It might be better to simply link the reader with a blurb and links to the relevant articles on these subjects. Can we reach a consensus on this? Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please expand upon your argument with actual reasons. What exactly is it you are saying?  Are you arguing for a section split, a more condensed version, removal of the entire section, or what?  Please also give examples that do not pertain to human rights in the United States.  In other words, why should the section be deleted?  You've proposed deletion, but I don't see any reason. Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you so very much for your thoughts. The "actual reasons" are stated above. The article's title is Human rights in the United States. The subject, therefore, is Human rights in the United States. It is not Human rights of the United States, nor is it Human rights outside of the United States. The materials proposed for deletion are matters that are outside of the stated topic of the article, they are irrelevant, immaterial and inapplicable to the topic at hand. They are a content fork, and should be removed, with links provided for each separate article on the subject. Thank you again for your thoughts.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not an adequate reason nor are you being clear. Are you arguing for a split or not?  Do you even know what that means?  I'm sure the section can use some work, but international human rights is part of U.S. foreign policy.  Please visit Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor to get some idea of this topic.  Human rights in U.S. policy is one aspect of this article. Viriditas (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a particularly adequate reason, and I am being perfectly clear. I am advocating deleting it, which is why the section is entitled "I propose deleting the section on international human rights".  Can anything be more clear?  If you contend keeping this material in this article when it addresses issues not germaine to it, kindly list your reasons.  Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not a reason, that's a proposal. Now prepare a reason.  This isn't that hard, you know? Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me repeat: The article's title is Human rights in the United States. The subject, therefore, is Human rights in the United States. It is not Human rights of the United States, nor is it Human rights outside of the United States. The materials proposed for deletion are matters that are outside of the stated topic of the article, they are irrelevant, immaterial and inapplicable to the topic at hand. They are a content fork, and should be removed, with links provided for each separate article on the subject.  If you contend that this material is germaine to the topic, please provide "reasons" for your position.  If you contend that these items should not be removed, please provide "reasons" for your position.  Thank you again for your thoughts.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reasons require evidence. Please provide it.  You made a claim without evidence.  I gave you a link to the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.  That's one organization that is in the U.S. and is focused on promoting U.S. human rights around the world.  I can give you a reference to a book, American Exceptionalism and Human Rights (2005) that discusses the topic in relation to human rights policies at home and abroad.  To put this another way, international human rights policy is part of this article, but it doesn't require the amount of material at present.  This is where a "split" comes in.  So on the one hand, you are arguing that the material in't relevant, but you haven't supported your claim other than to say it is a "content fork", which is somewhat circular since you already said that about the title.  So, why doesn't this material have anything to do with human rights in the United States?  That's the question you need to answer.  Because it is a content fork, isn't a reason.  It's your opinion.  Now give a reason. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In a civil matter in a Court of Law, the Plaintiff provides "evidence", something I know all about. This is not a Court of Law.  Wikipedia has guidelines that must be followed, including the fact that an article's content relate to the article's subject.  The section on international human rights ss inapplicable to the topic of the article, and should be deleted.  One editor disagrees, and has provided a link to another Wikipedia article for support.  Does anyone else want to chime in here? --Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. Every policy and guideline on Wikipedia recommends presenting evidence to support claims.  If you need further help understanding how Wikipedia works, please consult an administrator who will explain it to you. Viriditas (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I completely oppose deletion of this section, the international human rights conventions mentioned are extemely important and central to the issue at hand. Pexise (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

UNREAL -- Unilateral move of article
Soxwon engaged in an WP:Edit War, wanted to change the scope of the article to include international events and unliaterally moved the article to ""Human Rights and the United States" -- a grossly larger scoped article. He did so with no discussion of such a change in article scope.  He had asked about a change in article scope, BOTH EDITORS that responded disagreed entirely with the idea (the scope of the article would be gargantuan including all historical international issues and it is already too long).  He simply changed the title unilaterally anyway.

After this outrageous unilateral scope of article change, I actually had to move it back to "Human Rights inside the United States" to return it to its original scope (Human Rights in the United States).Mosedschurte (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all it was "Human Rights in the United States." Second the article I moved it to already redirected here. Instead of being a complete anal case, how about actually thinking and realizing that this article was meant to cover Human rights and the United States. By your definition this entire article should be deleted based upon the fact we are using international standards since they didn't originate in the United States. Soxwon (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Next time, when you suggest changing the entire scope of the article to something massive, and BOTH EDITORS that respond disagree, try not to go about the unilateral change of the article name anyway. That was beyond ridiculous.


 * If this article was to actually cover All International events regarding the United States in its history, the section on World War II alone would be huge, including the the leadership and activities at the Nuremberg Trials, the Hiroshima Bomb, the Fire Bombing of Dresden in World War II, the controverial Rheinwiesenlager camps holding German prisoners the Fire Bombing of Tokyo, the Bombing of Kobe in World War II, Nagasaki_bomb, etc. All of these absolutely dwarf in every regard tiny cases such as Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse and the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.   And that's just one 2 year period (1944-45). Mosedschurte (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a tip, think before you type. It really helps, I swear. Mentioning all of that in a world war two section could be done fairly easily and painlessly. There's a lot of detail here that is unecessary. Instead of doing mass deletions and being anal about reading the title, use a little common sense. It really does help I swear. And I agree, they would, but they still deserve mention and deleting them is POV for an article covering Human Rights and the United States. Soxwon (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You've got to be kidding. That was just two years of World War II issues alone I raised that dwarfed issues like Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse and the Guantánamo Bay (which humorously had like EIGHT PARAGRAPHS of material -- re weight matching magnitude the Dresden bombings would have to have probabloy 800).  I did so only to illustrate the ridiculousness of attempting to expand the article to include international human rights issues with which the United States has had in its history only to show how huge and different the article would become.  If you add in the rest of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc. it would be even more gargantuan.  It is already 9.5K prose, at the very upper limit of the guidelines, and too long as it is.


 * Re: "By your definition this entire article should be deleted based upon the fact we are using international standards since they didn't originate in the United States."
 * Absolutely not, and this is poorly manufactured straw man. The only two things deleted from the entire article were the obvious ones -- activities that occurred OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES. I did not delete the "International" section, nor any treaties with other countries (which might also cover activities in the United States) or international standards.Mosedschurte (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I would agree naming the article "Human rights and the United States" if it helps, but I oppose naming it "Human rights inside the United States". In any case, territories permanently or temporarily under the control of the United States count as "in the US" in my eyes. Larkusix (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus to move the article to any title at this time. The fact that Mosedschurte chose to move the article to his preferred version in order to exclude content from this article is a sign of someone who does not understand how Wikipedia operates.  Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't see any consensus to move the page. I've moved it back. It is locked for a month, so you have time to (dis)agree. I'm off camping for a bit, so if you disagree enough and care, you'll have to find another admin William M. Connolley (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."
 * I've been editing and keeping an eye on this article for a long while now, and this type of thing tends to happen periodically - some people take a personal objection to it and try to make sweeping changes, mainly involving deletions. This often smacks of attempts to censor the article.
 * If I remember rightly, this article was at one point called "Human Rights and the United States", hence the re-direct from that title. I would have no objection to changing the name of the article back to "Human Rights and the United States".
 * I would certainly object to changing the name to "Human rights inside the United States". There is no rationale for changing the title thus, in fact, it seems that the suggestion may even be an indirect attempt to carry out the type of censorship I mention above.
 * Regardless, I agree that the scope of the article needs to be clearly defined. As I see it, in order to be encyclopaedic, the article takes, as its theoretical framework, human rights as defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the subsequent UN  treaties, conventions and declarations etc.  This is one of the reasons for objections to certain sections.  Some people don't realise that the UDHR includes socio-economic rights as well as civil-political rights - the sections on hurrican Katrina, universal health care etc, refer to socio-economic rights - for example, Article 25, section 1 of the declaration says:
 * If anyone has an alternative theoretical framework for the article, I would be open to suggestions, although I believe that the UDHR is generally considered to be the accepted mainstream definition of what Human Rights are.


 * I also agree that it is necessary to define the geographic scope of the article, as well as the way we deal with the issue of agency. At present, the article deals with human rights issues relating to agents of the US state (police, military, CIA etc) as and where they operate. As has been pointed out, the US has an expansive foreign policy, and as such, agents of the US operate in many foreign countries.  I see no reason not to include US activities in other countries, and have heard no plausible reason to restrict the article in this way.
 * At the moment, we are only dealing with direct actions of the US and US agents, and have not included indirect support for or sponsorship of human rights violations. While this subject matter is of relevance to the article, its inclusion could indeed lead to the article becoming too long, and as such, a separate article should probably be created.  However, if others thought that the scope of the article should be broadened to include US support for human rights violations, perhaps a summary section could be created with a link to a longer article.  Pexise (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Too Long
The article is currently over 120K, and over 9.5K prose text. This is already at the upper end of the 6K to 10K prose text article suggested top size.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * With Larkusix's additions, it is now up to nearly 9.7K prose text -- at the very upper end of the too large guideline.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please walk away from this article. Your disruptive actions in the last 24 hours have violated just about every policy on guideline we have on Wikipedia.  Further behavior will result in multiple reports on administrator noticeboards. Viriditas (talk) 04:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet another threat in violation of Wikipedia policy along with a demand to "Please walk away from this article".Mosedschurte (talk) 04:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a threat. You made five reverts today, including a page move against consensus and naming conventions, in addition to which, you added synthesized, non-neutral content based on sources that do not discuss human rights, while at the same time falsely tagging sourced sections and wikilawyering on the talk page.  Here's your chance to redeem yourself:  Please revert to the last version before you began editing and ask an administrator to move this article back to it's correct name.  If you do not, I will file a total of six noticeboard reports against you.  Thanks for your attention in this matter. Viriditas (talk) 05:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Inside/outside the United States
I saw the AN threads asking for outside editors' input. Looking at what seems to be the issue, I think this deletion rationale e.g. was inappropriate. The events in Guantánamo Bay are still reflective of how human rights are dealt with in the United States, as the decision-makers determining what happens in Guantánamo Bay clearly sit "inside" the United States. The United States controls far more territories abroad than a country like, say, Luxembourg. It is probably the most internationally active nation today. When prisoners are "rendered" from US custody to other countries with laxer views on human rights for questioning, these are decisions that are made in the United States. To claim that anything that happens outside the 50 States has nothing to do with "human rights in the United States" strikes me as ill-advised, and I would not be in favour of restricting the scope of this article in this manner.  JN 466  12:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I have to disagree. The way to go is to create two articles: (1) "Human rights in [within] the United States", and (2) "Human rights violations by the United states". Everything outside the international borders of US (like Guantánamo Bay) belong to second article. Let me give you an example. Would you include everything from Soviet war crimes into Human rights in the Soviet Union? No.Biophys (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If these war crimes were being committed as we speak, or within the last 2, 5 or 10 years, then yes, I would include them.  JN 466  18:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Soviet war crimes have been committed during the existence of the Soviet Union. Who said that timing is relevant? Would you include crimes by Russian Army in Georgia to article Human rights in Russia? Ask users who edit those articles.Biophys (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think you will be able to change my mind. For example, present-day UN human rights reports on Israel comment on alleged human rights abuses in Gaza, the West Bank, and Syria. Our article Human rights in Israel includes a section on the 2006 Lebanon war. Our article on Human rights in Rwanda mentions that the Rwandan government supplies child soldiers to the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. And if this were the early 1940s, it is inconceivable that an article on "Human rights in Germany" would exclude reports of the mass murder of Jews taking place in occupied Poland, or the mass rape of Russian women by German troops, based on the reasoning that these crimes were not taking place on German soil.  JN 466  19:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also please note that the "2008 Human Rights Report: Russia" by the US Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor includes a prominent mention of human rights abuses perpetrated by Russian troops in the course of the South Ossetian war, on Georgian soil. I think our readers would expect our series of articles covering the human rights situation in various countries to be scoped according to the same principles applied there.  JN 466  20:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is fine to mention Soviet war crimes in article Human rights in the Soviet Union, but such things should be kept separately, at least for the reason of readability. Do not you see this article is too big? The best logical solution is to divide domestic and foreign issues.Biophys (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No. If the article is too big, you spin out articles and include a shorter summary here. You do not change the scope.  JN 466  21:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And please do not take comfort from my use of the word "mention". The US human rights report on Russia goes into a fair amount of detail on Russian actions in Georgia.  JN 466  21:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would refer you to the article Human Rights in the People's Republic of China which features sections on Tibet and Darfur. I would also point out the fact that, as mentioned in earlier discussions, the USA is particularly expansive in its foreign policy at present, hence more mention of international issues. Pexise (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Tibet is fine, because that is an internationally recognized part of China, just like Chechnya (a part of Russia) belongs to "Human rights in Russia". Darfur is not. Perhaps we need a separate article about the US and human rights issues at the international arena.Biophys (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I could be open to the idea of a separate article on US human rights issues internationally - that could also include US support and indirect involvement in human rights abuses (as in the Darfur example in the China article). However, whatever decisions are taken, the status of ratifications of international human rights documents should stay here as these documents relate to domestic policy as well as international policy. Pexise (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Justifying the use of the NPOV tag
I would like to see short bullet points listing specific neutrality problems so that I can address them and fix the article. Each point should consist of less than 25 words. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The consensus at this point is that the article is not neutral. See supra.  If you remove the tag, I will report you for edit warring.  This is getting ridiculous.  I will be preparing a list of points as to why this article fails neutrality that will be extensive, and I will post it within 24 hours.  Be warned, it may say things you disagree with.  In light of that fact, I ask that you comply with WP:CIV when reponding to it.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can and will remove the tag if you cannot answer my request to justify its use. Now, please justify the use of the tag with short bullet points explaining how the problem can be fixed.  If you refuse to do this, the tag will be removed, and this discussion will be used as evidence.  I will not respond your usual list of "extensive" distractions.  Talk page etiquette requires short and succinct points that are easy to address with the goal of improving the article.  Please reply to my request with a short reply addressing specific neutrality problems in bullet point form.  If additional clarification is needed, then a short discussion may take place. Viriditas (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A consensus of one then? Thanks for the confirmation.  This will take some time, as this article's problems are huge.  As stated, the "bullet point" list you request will be provided.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What part of what I'm saying isn't reasonable to you? The tag is used to alert editors to a problem so they can fix it.  It isn't used at the personal whim and fancy of POV pushers.  If you can't specifically address the neutrality problems that you say exist in simple to understand language, then I can only conclude that they don't exist and the tag should be removed. Viriditas (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The only true POV pusher I have seen around here is you. Neutrality has been disputed above by numerous posters, and they have posted on it extensively.  Where would you like me to start my bullet list?  The content forks for human rights violation outside of the United States, or the undue weight portion of the article?  Please let me know.  Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks, now? Tsk, tsk.  I thought for sure I was going to get a few more false accusations of uncivil behavior before you started to show your true colors.  To refresh your memory again: You deleted material from the article.  I restored it with sources and expanded it.  That is not "POV pushing"; it's the very definition of good editing.  In other words, I cleaned up after your POV pushing by representing the subject you falsely claimed did not exist.  Is that clear?  You can start your bullet list right below here. Viriditas (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks are your stock in trade, so it would make sense you would direct my attention to them if they appear, or play the victim when they don't. I merely state the obvious, no attack necessary.  Your position clearly discounts any countering opinion as "wrong" and advocates your own position as "right".  It ignores neutrality, which is the preferred "pov".  As stated, it will be up in the next day.  Some of us have to work.Yachtsman1 (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought you were working. More personal attacks?  Tsk, tsk.  I await your justification for your use of the NPOV tag, which I suspect will arrive Real Soon Now.  Of course, if it doesn't, I'll just remove the tag. Viriditas (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And if you remove the tag, I will simply re-add it, and await a consensus of more than you to counter the tag. Until that happy moment, I remain --Yachtsman1 (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. The person adding the tag has to use the talk page to explain how the tag can be removed, and the explanation must be reasonable and easy to understand.  It should also entail both a quick-fix solution and a long-term approach.  This is because tag warring is a common tactic used by POV pushers to hold articles hostage, and they will often move the goal posts depending on which way the wind blows. Viriditas (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

← Guys. Let's take a step back. Fighting over an NPOV tag is not a good way for anyone to spend their time. Leaving aside some of the more heated rhetoric, the initial request is a reasonable one. It may help to reboot the conversation and focus it on specific issues of article content and sourcing. Yachtsman1, if you see a huge number of NPOV issues, it will still be helpful to break the problem down into individual, bite-sized pieces and tackle them one-by-one. Identify what you believe is the biggest NPOV issue (Katrina?) and briefly list the specific issues you see with it. Even if you have done this before, in the reams of discussion above, it will be helpful to do it again in a focused and (ideally) dispassionate manner. The most constructive approach of all would be to simultaneously propose alternate wording that you believe would better reflect NPOV. MastCell Talk 16:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Cutpasted from ANI: I believe that most of the article is neutral. However, there are a few snags with the article. The Katrina section needs more citations; the whole first half of the first paragraph is unsourced, including a quote by a living person. Sorensen's quote needs context as to when and why it was said, and the whole waterboarding section needs copyediting. And finally, the Gitmo section needs a massive overhaul, because the whole section is all over the place, some facts don't have citation, etc. Sceptre (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Sceptre (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sceptre, can you tag the issues you note? I would like to fix them, if it is possible. Viriditas (talk) 08:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Mosedschurte
This article is almost a comedic riot of silliness (and quite embarrassing for Wikipedia). I had no idea it existed until seeing its mention on the NPOV board. It includes:
 * Discussions of "human rights" outside the U.S. (directly contravening its title), such as actions in Iraq by the U.S. Army.
 * A discussion of U.S. workers working longer hours than in some other countries (seriously, this is actually shoehorned into this article)
 * A discussion of the simple employment-at-will legal existence (which exists in almost every country on earth) -- the idea of which in a purported "human rights" article is so laughable, this alone is embarrassing to Wikipedia
 * A generalized sentence of "treatment of autistics" (as if this were relevant to "human rights")
 * Incredible WP:Undue Weight negative mentions of individual cases heavily weighting in sections of the article addresssing where the United States literally leads the world (by a wide margin), such as Freedom of Expression.
 * Despite that the United States has the world's #1 most aggressive civil recourse system for gender and racial discrimination (by a huge margin, by the way, nothing else in the world is even in the ballpark of the massive Title VII judgments available to U.S. plaintiffs in these cases), literally no mention of this is made (????), nor any mention of the massive (compared to every other country no the planet) U.S. racial and gender preferences for minorities and women, with, instead, WP:Undue Weight given to every prior historical negative.
 * It -- hold the laughs -- actually contains an entire section on the rescue efforts for Hurricane Katrina (where half of an entire city under sea level was flooded via levy breaks) as a "human rights" violation.  Even were this addressed as a "human rights violation" in reports of serious note, a section on it is beyond laughable in the WP:Undue Weight category, especially given that few (if any) countries in the world could have even mounted the size of rescue efforts put forth (not that they didn't have problems).  Honestly, this section was so ridiculously out of place in a purportedly Encylopedic article on "Human Rights" for a nation of 300 million people that I though at one point that it was going to quote Kanye West.
 * The "International Human Rights" section is virtual archetypal example of POV editing and WP:Undue Weight in a Wikipedia article section. They should freeze that text and put it somewhere as an exemplary how-not-to-edit blockquote.  For example, forget just being a major actor, the United States has actually literally led the world in funding and providing professionals for the major war crimes tribunals addressing the Rwandan Genocide and the Bosnian Genocide (never mind the Nuremberg Trials et al.); is the largest funder of UN peacekeeping troops; led the NATO action stopping the Slobodan Milošević repression of ethinc Albanaians in Kosovo; was the leader attempting to get U.N action to stop the Darfur massacres; was the primary actor (or close thereto) in opposing the two biggest human rights violators in world history (Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin); has given literally billions of dollars a year for decades -- the world leader by far -- in aid to address dictator-caused famines and other human rights abuses around the world; has effectively led the push against the most ghastly police state in the world today (North Korea); the list goes on even too long to begin to recount the leadership in this arena.  Yet virtually none of this is mentioned, with huge weight being given to every purported negative international human rights source in existence.  The end reading of which is utterly laughable as a section.

In short, it's a virtual panoply of POV-constructed sections. It would take probably weeks to go through this article with the major comparative sources on recourse and enforcement of relevant rules regarding comparisons to other countries to write anything remotely NPOV. Right now, it looks like something that could have been written by the heavily discredited (to put it mildly) UN "Human Right Commission" headed by such NPOV/Human rights stalwarts as Syria and Libya attempting to find anything to spin negatively to blow grossly out of proportion. Mosedschurte (talk) 05:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Up at bat, eh? Welcome.  Your understanding of the concept of "undue weight" appears to be in serious error.  Please actually read the policy you linked to above.  I'm going to start by addressing your assessment of the Katrina section.  You claim that this section is lacking "reports of serious note".  Could you describe what you mean?  These are good sources that describe the issue.  You seem to be proposing that anything negative about the U.S. human rights record should be removed, and only pro-U.S. sources should be used.  Is that a correct observation of your position?  If so, it goes against the very notion of NPOV.  I would like a response from you, Mosedschurte, and not the predicted tag-team response from the usual suspects I expect, having seen this same charade play out for several years now.  In other words, to focus on this one point, what would an acceptable human rights section on Katrina look like?  Please keep WP:ENEMY in mind when you compose your reply.  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 06:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "You seem to be proposing that anything negative about the U.S. human rights record should be removed, and only pro-U.S. sources should be used. Is that a correct observation of your position?"
 * Is that a joke? I didn't mention a single "pro-U.S." source in my entire post. This appears to be some sort of stock response.
 * See my comments at the bottom. All discussion of human rights advancement is connected at the hip with an anlysis of critical and what you would call "negative" portrayal. Do you understand this or do I need to explain it to you further?  Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "In other words, to focus on this one point, what would an acceptable human rights section on Katrina look like?"
 * This is beyond easy. To begin with, as the most simple of editing decisions, there would simply not be an ENTIRE SECTION in an article "Human Rights in the United States" devoted to the rescue efforts for a single hurricane in the year 2005.  This could not be more straight forward in an article of this breadth of scope on a country of 300 million people with a 200+ year history.  Keep in mind that not only is there, right now, NOT a section in the International Human Rights section on, say,-- to give just ONE example -- the U.S. taking the lead in the Nuremberg Trials, prosecuting the worst violations of human rights in world history,  but it may not even be mentioned in the entire article.  Yet there is an entire section on the rescue efforts in a single hurricane in an article purporting to address "Human Rights".  To even type as much generates laughs.  This does not reflect the balance of secondary sources on these matters, to put it mildly (rather, it would be about 1,000-to-1 the opposite direction).
 * Considering the attention this subject has received from human rights organizations and nonpartisan groups, there are enough secondary sources to describe it in its own section, however it might be viewed as more balanced (from your POV) if related historical rights issues were included. So, the answer is not to delete it but to expand it.  This isn't the first time this has happened, and there are other related issues, such as environmental justice and environmental racism that are connected. Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: "the predicted tag-team response from the usual suspects I expect, having seen this same charade play out for several years now.""Charade"? Pointing out the rather comical POV and gross WP:Undue Weight issues herein.
 * I disagree. You want to paint a rosy picture of the U.S. that is divorced from reality, when in fact, history shows that all human rights have been fought for and won by people who have criticized the status quo.  No human rights have been given to anyone. Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think he's saying that we're using too many negative sources, not that we should remain completely positive. Which is understandable: humans by nature tend to write more in criticism than in praise. Sceptre (talk) 07:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. On a more very basic Wikipedia editing note, the weight devoted to negative (and irrelevant given the article scope) text is WELL, WELL beyond undue given the breadth of sources on the history overall in the sections addressed herein.  I just pointed out a few very basic areas that jump off the page given even just a very rudimentary knowledge of world history and U.S. legal history.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I recently added three sources to the further reading section (a three volume set) that celebrate the role of the U.S. in promoting human rights at home and around the world. It should be used and added to the article.  The history of human rights advancement in the U.S. comes in the wake of negative attention.  You can see this when you look at the overall picture.  So, the problem isn't the use of negative sources, but how we present the positive outcome, if there is one. Mosedschurte, do you understand that the positive advancement of human rights in the U.S. has come out of the criticism of negative incidents?  You cannot separate the two, but you can present the problem as a whole.  I'm not getting the sense that you understand this. Viriditas (talk) 07:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "Mosedschurte, do you understand that the positive advancement of human rights in the U.S. has come out of the criticism of negative incidents?"
 * There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of our tasks as Wikipedia editors. We as Wikipedia editors are not here to "advance[] human rights in the U.S." through publishing "criticism of negative incidents" on Wikipedia.


 * Rather, we're here to edit articles reflecting the balance of information from reliable sources and magnitude of issues on the articles in which we edit. Skipping over (or spending just a sentence or two on) all of the massive world historical leadership positions taken by the U.S. on literally the largest human rights issues in world history and largest efforts to stop human rights violations worldwide while simultaneously devoting an entire multiparagraph section on, say, rescue efforts regarding one hurricane (presented as a "human rights" violation) is CLEARLY not reflecting the balance of sources and contextual importance of the issues in the article.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be misunderstanding (deliberately or mistakenly) what I have written. To repeat it again for you so that it is perfectly clear: the positive advancement of human rights in the U.S. has come out of the criticism of negative incidents.  This is a function of history, and does not represent any personal or political POV.  It is in fact, reflective of every single source on the subject.  Either you are ignoring the history of human rights in the U.S. or you are purposefully skewing an accurate portrayal of the subject.  Our job as editors is to write the best article we can, using the best sources (i.e. not Fox News).  And, we do not ignore the historical role of human rights in relation to a tragedy like Katrina.  We use the best sources we have to represent the topic.  If you have sources that challenge this view, then please provide them. Viriditas (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)
 * Re: "To repeat it again for you so that it is perfectly clear: the positive advancement of human rights in the U.S. has come out of the criticism of negative incidents. This is function of history, and does not represent any personal or political POV."

But it's simply NOT our job as Wikipedia editors to undertake the publication of this criticism for such advancement.

Rather, it is to reflect the sources and events in context. For example, suffice to say that the number of sources about, say, the U.S. leadership at the Nuremberg Trials, prosecuting the Rwandan Genocide, leading the opposition to the worst human rights abusers in history such as Joseph Stalin, leading in U.N. Peacekeeping funding to stop human rights abuses, the world's #1 most aggressive civil recourse for racial discrimination and gender discrimination in Title VII, one of the most aggressive (if not the most aggressive) Freedom of Expression legal structures in the world, etc. entirely dwarfs the sources of claims that the rescue efforts of a single hurricane in 2005 being a "human rights" violation. Yet, humorously from a Wikipedia editors perspective, the latter is actually been given a multi-paragraph section in a "human rights" article while almost none (or maybe none) of the former are even mentioned.


 * Re: " Our job as editors is to write the best article we can, using the best sources (i.e. not Fox News)."

Fox News? Who has ever mentioned Fox News? As indicated now, you're not even responding to discussion, but rather, spouting some sort of political slogans.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said above, you aren't "getting it", either willfully or not. Thankfully, I can easily prove my point in few words.  I'll do it now: If you were to rewrite this article, and as your first step. you were to create an outline, what subtopics would the outline contain?  Please note, your entire outline would have a single theme: the positive advancement of human rights in the U.S. arising out of the criticism of negative incidents.  Do you disagree?  Then provide an outline that does not show this.  You cannot.  This is because it is a historical fact reflected by all of the sources on the topic.  You don't seem to understand this concept.  FYI... Fox News is a topic of ongoing discussion several threads up.  It might help to familiarize yourself with the talk page instead of making ignorant accusations.  I can't help but notice that you are repeatedly trying to hijack this thread by changing the subject.  In case you have forgotten, the topic is human rights in the United States.  Please confine your discussion to that topic. Viriditas (talk) 07:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "Thankfully, I can easily prove my point in few words. I'll do it now: If you were to rewrite this article, and as your first step. you were to create an outline, what subtopics would the outline contain? Please note, your entire outline would have a single theme: the positive advancement of human rights in the U.S. arising out of the criticism of negative incidents."
 * --Well, that pretty much does it for reasonable non-silly discussion. You just asked a question to "prove your point", then hilariously answered it yourself re what "I'd do."
 * --Perhaps this is in indication as to why this article is in such a laughable state in terms of POV and WP:Undue Weight.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No response to my challenge other than a personal attack? Tsk, tsk, it's too early for that.  Considering that my first major edit to this article was at 05:18, 19 May 2009, and only to the Katrina section, I'm afraid you can't blame me for the problems in this article.  In the past, I have tried to mediate disputes on this page, and I've made reverts to blankings by Raggz et al. but I haven't really participated in this article before now.  But, please, propose your outline.  If you were to rewrite this article, how would you do it? Viriditas (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not only have I not seen a single personal attack towards Viriditas, I have not seen a single attempt to reach a conensus by this editor either. If you can work with others, great, if not, your present course of conduct is hardly constructive.  Please try to work to each a consensus on the POV problems in this article, and stop with the non sequitors.  Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop addressing the editor and address the questions asked of you. You and Mosedschurte have been unable to address any questions asked of you.  All you do is attack editors.  Your behavior is transparent and needs to stop.  Your threats in the above thread to continue edit warring over the POV tag, even when requests for justification have been made, are disruptive.  Propose solutions or don't edit here. Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

As I have been instructed not to address the above-editor, I will therefore not directly address the editor. I concur with Mosedschurte on the basis of the reasons he has provided. I also agree with the other editors on this thread, including Joker and Randy, that the article in question violates neutrality. There is a consensus that this is the case, for the reasons provided by all of us. As it stands, the article requires clean up. I have accomplished the following based on consensus:


 * Reworked the introduction to reflect the article's content, and to ensure neutrality;
 * I have added a piece in the race section displaying that Obama has been voted in as president, and linked to one of his speeches as a cite;
 * I have proposed the elimination of US human rights outside of the United States as a content fork and as being inapplicable to the subject of human rights in the United States;
 * I have proposed elimination of the Hurricane Katrine section of the article as a violation of neutrality, and on the basis of undue weight.

Any other suggestions on improvements to this article from editors I can communicate with directly are appreciated. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think all initial points by Mosedschurte are valid and can serve as a basis for improving this article.Biophys (talk) 03:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of human rights outside the U.S.
Mosedschurte objects to this topic, but authors like Michael Ignatieff have covered it in books like American Exceptionalism and Human Rights (2005) and it is an important subtopic. Viriditas (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of U.S. workers working longer hours than other countries
Mosedschurte objects to this topic, but it is an important part of labor rights, a subtopic directly related to human rights in the U.S. Viriditas (talk) 07:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To put it mildly, you're not exactly helping the silliness of your POV and WP:Undue Weight concerns with the commission of subtopics such as this given the many points made above.Mosedschurte (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you address this discussion without personal attacks? Try it.  Do you need me to find you sources on labor rights as human rights in the U.S. or can you find them yourself?  Do you understand the concept of WP:ENEMY?  Do you understand that we need to be able to write articles that do not represent our personal POV?  Is any of this making sense to you? Viriditas (talk) 08:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the mean and standard deviation for hours per week? If it's within a standard deviation, then criticism and praise should be balanced. Sceptre (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Viriditas (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Treatment of autistics
Mosedschurte objects to this topic, but it is an important component of the disability rights movement, a subtopic of human rights in the U.S. Viriditas (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that autism could be considered part of the disability rights movement. That said, the current sourcing is poor. The article states that the "United States Government currently is heavily criticized for it's [sic] poor treatment of autistics, especially in the fields of employment." OK - but the cited source is a handful of letters to the editor of the Washington Post, in response to an op-ed column. That's not what I would call evidence of "heavy criticism", especially compared to the sourcing for other items (U.N. reports, scholarly works, etc). Maybe we can find a better source? MastCell Talk 16:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The original editor did not pay any attention to the human rights component.  Glancing at Gbooks, there are a number of good sources on this, even one which describes both sides of the argument.(Mesibov et al. 1997)  One important point is whether the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities comes into play here. Viriditas (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a novel suggestion
How about we just rename the article Human rights and the United States so there can be more wikilawyering. Soxwon (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Definitely not. Then we'd have to include every allegation re every war, war crimes tribunal, etc.  The article would be huge.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that's the whole problem with this jumbled mess of an article, Sox. Too long, and too much information. I suggest we kick this part, and link to the pages where these stories are actually covered. This is a simple resolution to the problem.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No I think that the article isn't too long, what I think is the problem is that it goes into too much detail. I don't think these extreme cuts are really necessary or really productive. Discuss first, I propose this move as inclusive and really the cutting as unecessary. Soxwon (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Right now, the cuts are just the obvious ones outside the very scope of the article per its title re "in the United States". The same thing would be true of a section on the dropping of the bomb at Hiroshima -- outside the scope.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They wouldn't be necessary if you would listen and actually take into consideration the change. Soxwon (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stop WP:Edit Warring with continued insertion of 8,000+ bytes of material clearly not "in the United States". If you want to change the scope of the article to include all U.S. international actions in its history (which would, by the way, make it grossly WP:Too Long -- it's already over 9.5K prose text), then suggest that instead.  Don't add huge swaths of material outside the scope.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Moved, and btw your suggestion is ridiculous as Human Rights and United States redirected here anyways. A seperate article would be more ridiculous than keeping it. Plz stop rmving material. Soxwon (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * BEYOND RIDICULOUS, your unilateral move. It has been moved back to the same concept as before.


 * I simply cannot believe that you unilaterally simply changed the article title to change its entire scope because you did not wish to discuss a potential scope change -- WITH TWO EDITORS ABOVE ALREADY TELLING YOU THE HORRIBLE IDEA OF SUCH A SCOPE CHANGE. Mosedschurte (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually beyond ridiculous would be your POV and editing style (other words apply but we don't use them in polite company. That is YOUR interpretation of the scope, and as such it is not automatically law, though I'm sure in your own little world it may be. And as for two editors, HEY THAT'S HOW MANY VIRITIDAS AND I ARE IMAGINE THAT, DON'T START MASS DELETING OK? Soxwon (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)It's not "my interpretation". The article's ACTUAL NAME was "Human Rights in the United States". All I did was delete material outside the United States (by the way just two clearly NOT "in the United States" subsections in an article that has roughly FORTY sections and subsections.

In addition, were we to change the scope of the article to actually cover International events regarding the United States in its history and human rights, the section on World War II alone would be huge, including the the leadership and activities at the Nuremberg Trials, the Hiroshima Bomb, the Fire Bombing of Dresden in World War II, the controverial Rheinwiesenlager camps holding German prisoners the Fire Bombing of Tokyo, the Bombing of Kobe in World War II, Nagasaki_bomb, etc. All of these absolutely dwarf in every regard tiny cases such as Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse and the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. And that's just one 2 year period (1944-45). Mosedschurte (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Repeating yourself verbatim doesn't help. If you'd looked Human Rights and the United States redirected here too. Guess that throws your interpretation out the window. And again, cutting out details does acutally happen and things can be cut to a manageable size. The article can be edited w/o mass deletions I swear (you probably think I'm crazy but it IS possible). Soxwon (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If it helps to cover the topics mentioned in the article, naming it "Human Rights and the United States" would be appropriate. In any case: Since when doesn't Guantanamo Bay belong to the United States? Additionally one could argue, that what happens in US bases around the world that are under the authority of the US counts as "in the US". Larkusix (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Since when doesn't Guantanamo Bay belong to the United States?"
 * Since forever. It's in Cuba and the US has a perpetual lease.  This is why the various regulatory bodies located the detention facility there -- it's not in the U.S. to attempt to avoid various statutes.  This is why it is such an issue moving inmates now if they would be relocated to prisons inside the United States (see news articles today on the issue on the closing funding/alternative dispute).


 * And expanding this article to include the some 200+ years of international actions relevant to human rights would be a terrible idea. They would grossly dwarf everything in the article now, and the article now is already 9.6K prose text. Mosedschurte (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mosedschurte, I've been reviewing your edits and the sources you have used. Do any of them actually discuss "human rights"?  To set my mind at ease, could you point me to just one source that does?  From what I can tell, your edits gloss over most of the history of the human rights in the U.S. What exactly is it that you think this article is supposed to be about?  Viriditas (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Outline
Several editors have been very outspoken about what this article should not include. However, I have made two previous requests for an explanation of what this article should cover, with no response to my queries. So, I will ask again: What is the scope of this article? Please keep replies brief and to the point so we can move quickly on this and come to an agreement. Viriditas (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There appears to be confusion with my simple question. Several editors have answered my question with, "The scope of the article is Human rights in the United States".  That is not an appropriate response.  For some insight on what a response would look like, please see comments by Jayen4666.  We already know the name of the article, so please do not use that as a response.  Please also briefly describe  what this article will cover, such as an outline of topics and what types of sources are to be used.  Recent edits by Mosedschurte indicate that he does not understand that sources have to be directly related to human rights in order to be included.  Viriditas (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Jayen466
The scope should be that which is normal in international human rights reporting. As per examples given above, this includes both internal issues and external issues such as war crimes. Basically, everything that would be covered in a UN human rights country report, a human rights country report drawn up by the State Department, etc.  JN 466  17:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Mosedschurte
This repetition of this point for probably the 10th time is needless. Numerous editors have already responded that the article should cover what the title states - Human rights issues "IN THE UNITED STATES".Mosedschurte (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Yachtsman1
I will answer this again because I have already responded to it at least twice. The scope of the article is "Human rights in the United States". The article should be about "Human rights in the United States"., Anything about human rights outside of the United States should therefore not be covered, because it is not reflective of "Human rights in the United States". Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Objection to unilateral editing
Mosedschurte, you were recently blocked for edit warring in this article. Now that you have returned, you have stepped right back into the same disruptive behavior as before with your latest edits. Could you please explain these edits? Viriditas (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I too object to the wholesale removal of sections without consensus. As I have stated before, the scope of the article should be equivalent to that of any country-specific human rights report by the UN, or the US State Department, etc. I think the question that readers expect any "Human rights in ..." article to answer is this: What is the human rights record of this country? It seems rather inappropriate to exclude Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay on the basis of these locales not being "in" the United States.  JN 466  17:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My basic problem is that Mosedschurte was aware that his edits were previously disputed by several editors and he went ahead and made them anyway. This kind of editing behavior does not contribute to a collegial or collaborative atmosphere. Viriditas (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. Note also that this present article is the target of numerous redirects, including Human rights and the United States.  JN 466  18:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There has been consistent consensus that items concerning human rights outside of the United States be removed from this article. I will gladly refer you to the talk page items if you would like to review them. This is not "unilateral" by any stretch.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with this talk page and its archives. There is no such consensus. Viriditas (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I amy quite familiar with this talk page. The issue was raised numerous times, consensus exists.  --Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, it is readily apparent to anyone blundering in here that this talk page does not give the impression of consensus on much of anything. ;)  JN 466  18:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Now, when our readers go to an article called "Human rights in ..." they clearly expect to learn something about the country's human rights record. Human rights record of turkey redirects to Human rights in Turkey. Human rights in Morocco begins with the words, "Morocco’s human rights record is mixed." The article Human rights in Syria begins with the words, "The human rights record of the Syrian Arab Republic has been evaluated by a number of different sources." This is what these articles are about, countries' human rights records. As far as I am concerned, Human Rights Record of the United States should redirect here as well, or vice versa, rather than lead to an article about a document drawn up by the People's Republic of China. At any rate, it is impossible to have a credible discussion of the United States human rights record that excludes Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay, the rendering of political prisoners, and so forth, on the basis that the alleged human rights violations involved did not happen on US soil.  JN 466  18:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC
I think it is clear that editors are divided and are unlikely to come to an agreement soon. I propose we file an RfC on the scope this article should have.  JN 466  18:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea. It might bring civility back to these discussions, which has been sorely missing for the past few days.  Anyone else?--Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do and make sure you notify the primary WikiProject. Hopefully, such an RfC will demand a bit more honesty from some of the editors here. When asked to define this scope, some of them said, "the article should cover what the title states - Human rights issues "IN THE UNITED STATES" and "the article should be about "Human rights in the United States", yet when issues like Katrina are raised, they suddenly move the goalposts and declare it "off-topic". Viriditas (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've filed an RfC below. If I have failed to accurately represent editors' positions, please add a comment, or edit the statement describing your position.  JN 466  19:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it isn't working. The RFC statement needs to be brief and to the point.  And we do not need the same involved edtitors commenting.  That is precisely what we want to avoid.  We want a neutral statement that all sides can agree upon, so that uninvolved editors can make up their minds for themselves without involved editors attempting to change their mind.  That defeats the entire purpose of a neutral statement. Viriditas (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)