Talk:Human rights in the United States/Archive 16

Removal of Hurricane Katrina

 * In the aftermath of the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina, the UN Human Rights Committee issued a 2006 report recommending that the U.S. endeavor to make certain the rights of poor and black Americans "are fully taken into consideration in the reconstruction plans with regard to access to housing, education and health care".  The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Prison Project also documented mistreatment of the prison population during the flooding.  In 2008, the Institute for Southern Studies, a nonpartisan research center, published a report on "Hurricane Katrina and the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement".  The study was one of five published by the ISS on the consequences of Hurricane Katrina, and was a collaborative work produced along with the Brookings-Bern Project on Internal Displacement, co-directed by Walter Kälin, the Representative of the UN Secretary-General on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons.  The report found that the U.S. government neglected to adhere to "internationally recognized human rights principles the Bush administration has promoted in other countries." From May to June 2008, United Nations Special Rapporteur Doudou Diène was invited by the U.S. government to visit and study racial discrimination in the U.S.  Diène's 2008 report was delivered to the United Nations Human Rights Council and was published in 2009. 

Mosedchute once again removed this material with a false edit summary claiming "undue weight", and previous edit summaries of "off topic". For the last four days I have asked Mosedchute to explain why the material is off-topic, and he has still not answered the question. Previous discussions on the matter (1, 2) show that there is support to keep the material in the article and it is covered by many sources on the topic of human rights in the United States. I've asked Mosedchute several times to explain how this is "undue weight" but he has been unable to explain what that means other than saying, "Justification was plainly given in the Edit summary for WP:Undue Weight and Wikipedia Summary Style." I fail to see how restating my question as an answer is acceptable. What is the justifcation for undue weight and off-topic? Mosedchute cannot give an answer no matter how many times I ask. So, before I restore the material again, I will ask him to answer three questions: 1) why did he remove the material 2) why did he say it was off-topic, and 3) why he claims it is undue weight.  I look forward to reading Mosedchute's direct answers to these three questions before I restore the material. Viriditas (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (1) This is again, false.  It was not removed, though I think it should be, as explained at length above.
 * (2) It was moved to the "Other Issues" section
 * (3) Other editors and I have explained AT LENGTH how having an entire section in a subject as broad as "Human Rights in the United States" was WP:Undue Weight
 * (4) This is the text that has been put in Wikipedia summary form:

 Current text in the Other Issues section : In the aftermath of the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina, criticism by some groups commenting on human rights issues was made regarding the recovery and reconstruction issues   The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Prison Project also documented mistreatment of the prison population during the flooding. , while United Nations Special Rapporteur Doudou Diène delivered a 2008 report on such issues.


 * Note that I still think that the above should be removed.Mosedschurte (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it remotely possible for you to participate in just one talk page discussion that does not involve scrolling the discussion off the screen with incoherent text and content? Please read WP:TALK and learn how to use the talk page.  Reply to queries and comments with short indented text.  Your above reply does not consist of any type of discussion nor does it allow me to subsequently reply to all four points, and hence is disruptive like all of your other talk page posts.  If you want to provide evidence of a "Current text in the Other Issues section", you use a simple diff.  Please replace the above useless text with this link.  Please learn how to use the talk page.  Now, when asked to reply to my three questions above, you have still not replied.  Instead, we get the same spam from you, consisting of the usual, "Other editors and I have explained AT LENGTH how having an entire section in a subject as broad as "Human Rights in the United States" was WP:Undue Weight."  Do you understand that that is not an answer to why you think the material is "undue weight" and "off-topic"?  All you keep doing is taking my discussion questions and rephrasing the question as an answer.  How does this answer the question in any way?  If this continues, I'm going to report you to ANI.  You have not addressed a single question asked of you, and I'm going to ask them again here so you can't claim to have missed it again.  Mosedschurte, I want your reply to these three questions.  I do not want a reply from anyone else. Viriditas (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. Why is the Katrina material undue weight?
 * 2.Why is the Katrina material off-topic?
 * 3.Why should the Katrina material be removed?
 * Three simple questions. Please answer them.  Do not reply with anything remotely resembling ""Other editors and I have explained AT LENGTH..."  That is not an answer. Viriditas (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It exhibited WP:Undue Weight because an entire section was devoted to a single storm that occurred in 2005 in an article on "Human Rights in the United States", a country of 300 million people with a 200+ year history -- a grossly disproportionate amount. As merely one indication of grossly undue weight, by giving it its own section, it was literally accorded the same weight as, for example, the entire section on Domestic Law, International Treaty law or Gender Equality for the entire United States.

It is off-topic because it is a section devoted to historical events while we have steered clear of a focus on historical events of FAR FAR greater magnitude. For this reason, it should be removed.Mosedschurte (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, none of that makes any sense. You do not get to personally judge the significance of the incident.  According to the featured article, Hurricane Katrina, the storm was "the costliest hurricane, as well as one of the five deadliest, in the history of the United States...the deadliest U.S. hurricane since the 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane...[and] is estimated to have been the costliest tropical cyclone in U.S. history."  Your interpretation of how we use the term "undue weight" is completely at odds with the way Wikipedia uses it.  Please actually read the policy and understand what it means.  There is nothing "undue weight" about Katrina in this article. As for off-topic, your comments again make no sense.  You say, "we have steered clear of a focus on historical events of FAR FAR greater magnitude," and this means what exactly?  I have previously asked you to explain this on your talk page, and you refuse.  Now, what the heck is it supposed to mean?  If you can't justify your reasons for removing the material, then you need to add it back. Viriditas (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: "Sorry, none of that makes any sense"
 * Nice discussion. This seems to happen every time someone answers one of your questions.


 * Re: '" Your interpretation of how we use the term "undue weight" is completely at odds with the way Wikipedia uses it.  Please actually read the policy and understand what it means."
 * Wikipedia policy: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. . . . Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. 
 * My statement above: "It exhibited WP:Undue Weight because an entire section was devoted to a single storm that occurred in 2005 in an article on "Human Rights in the United States", a country of 300 million people with a 200+ year history -- a grossly disproportionate amount. As merely one indication of grossly undue weight, by giving it its own section, it was literally accorded the same weight as, for example, the entire section on Domestic Law, International Treaty law or Gender Equality for the entire United States."
 * And of course it in the top five deadliest storms. This, of course, does not mean that it should receive an entire section in "Human Rights in the United States."Mosedschurte (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you make an effort to use standard text and formatting? I don't need the "re", I know you are referring to my comments.  And I don't need the bold, italics, and bullets, I'm perfectly comfortable reading plain text in a small paragraph.  Your non-standard use of indents and asterisks defeats the use of standard indents.   Now, looking at your reply (squinting actually, as it is mostly unreadable in its current form) I see that you are quoting policy at me.  Let's take a look, shall we?  First, you quote the NPOV policy in regards to undue weight from viewpoints, which doesn't apply to the material in question, and if you think it does, you need to describe how it does because you haven't done that.  Second, you quote the part about giving undue weight any aspect of the subject.  In both cases, you ignore the subtle distinctions between viewpoints and aspects.  So, there we are.  But now, you argue that the storm itself is insignificant and the amount of material in the article given to it was out of proportion to other sections. I'm curious how you have reached these conclusions about significance and proportion without actually analyzing or discussing the human rights issues related to Katrina.  Most sources list Katrina as one of the worst natural disasters in U.S. history.  If true, would it also follow that it is also one of the worst human rights disasters as well, and considering its coverage in the human rights literature, would this not merit one large paragraph (212 out of 8400 words)? Viriditas (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "In both cases, you ignore the subtle distinctions between viewpoints and aspects. So, there we are." (Viriditas)
 * Not only is this false, but this completely dodges the actual statements above that directly comport with Wikipedia policy on WP:Undue Weight.
 * Re: "But now, you argue that the storm itself is insignificant " (Viriditas)
 * This is an overtly false -- and directly contrary -- description of what I and other editors have stated.
 * Re: "Most sources list Katrina as one of the worst natural disasters in U.S. history. If true, would it also follow that it is also one of the worst human rights disasters as well"
 * First, not only no, but we don't even address the other far more major such loss of U.S. life from far more prominent domestic incidents, many (if not most of which) also had a substantial component of human action/inaction in the death toll.
 * In fact, Hurricane Katrina wasn't even the deadliest hurricane on the Gulf Coast, this was: 1900 Galveston hurricane, with a death toll utterly dwarfing that of Katrina, and it has rightfully received no mention in an article on Human Rights in the United States. Nor was it even the number two deadliest Gulf Coast hurricane alone, with the 1928 Okeechobee hurricane killing even more mostly black citizens via a storm surge overcoming an inadequate dike alone, which is also rightfully not mentioned in Human Rights in the United States. In fact, it wasn't even the deadliest hurricane to his Louisiana alone via storm surge, which was the 1893 Cheniere Caminada Hurricane, which of course is rightfully not mentioned. Or yet another flood, the famous Johnstown Flood, which killed even more people directly related to the failure of a now famously ill-built-and-maintained dam holding back water.  And it is absolutely dwarfed by the 500,000-675,000 U.S. citizens who died in the 1918 flu pandemic, which also receives no mention.  Or the over over 7,500 New Orleans civilians that died from the yellow fever outbreak of 1853, which further rightfully receives no mention.  Or even in terms of much larger other natural disasters resulting in U.S. civilian deaths alone, such as the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, again with death tolls dwarfing those Katrina. Neither have the thousands of civilian dead caused by the circumstances of U.S. and Confederate troops in the American Civil War alone.  Nor were the 8,000-12,000 prisoners of war who died from neglect in the American Revolutionary War included.
 * Unlike these far larger events, some with a much larger component of human action/inaction, Katrina actually IS CURRENTLY DISCUSSED in the article. It just doesn't have an entire section devoted to it in Human Rights in the United States.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

SECTION 10: 1. U.S. Government Response to Hurricane Katrina, 2. Human Rights Crisis Evolving in Los Angeles County, California.
 10.1. U.S. Government Response to Hurricane Katrina

Between the two subjects described below, it appears that an article that is expected by the reader to provide truthful reflection of the state of Human Rights in the U.S. today, is entirely failing to provide the basic information on the main human rights events of recent years.

I initially chose to put the Los Angeles issue adjacent to the Katrina issue, based on my limited understanding of the matter of Katrina from discussions with people who volunteered to assist in the crisis after the disaster.

Following the repeated deletions of my segment on Los Angeles, I went back and read a bit about the history of the editing of the Katrina story. There is no doubt in my mind that the segment on Katrina, in its current form, is rather non-specific, and appears to direct the readers to sources from outside the U.S. to hear the truth on the matter.

One could expect better than that from Wikipedia. Even if there is a space limitation, there is no need to be circumspect. The major facts on the matter need to be stated, and if unclear, try to sort what part was established as truthful, and what part remains unclear.

10.1.1 Mistreatment of Prisoners

However, if events referred to as "mistreatment of the prison population during the flooding." were indeed documented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Prison Project, then the main facts should be clearly stated. And if the main facts are anywhere close to what I was informed of, then clearly this was one of the major human rights event in the U.S. in recent decades. Delegating it to a elliptic single paragraph at the end of this long article is out of proportion with the significance of the matter of Katrina relative to title of this article - Human Rights in the U.S. Although the title does not explicitly states so, one expects that the article be current and reflect the state of affairs in the U.S. today:

Open Questions:

a. Were prisoners allowed to drown slowly in their cells when water levels were rising?

b. What was the exact days of the event?

c. What are the sources to verify it?

d. What do we know about the number of prisoners who perished as a result?

e. Did it happen only in one prison or more than one?

f. What level in prison administration was responsible for the abuse?

1'''0.1.2 U.S. Government Response ti Hurricane Katrina '''

a. What was the U.S. government response to the issue of prisoner mistreatment, if any?

b. What were the main reasons that U.S. government response to Katrina, beyond the prisoner's issue, were seen as as human rights issue?

I believe that an encyclopedia has no room for circumspections. It's either you tell it as it is, or delete it altogether.

'''2. Human Rights Crisis Evolving in Los Angeles County, California  Following prudent advice from editors, I started working on a full article titled: Human Rights in Los Angeles County, California 1985-2009'''. Most of the text and the references are already posted under my talk (Jz12345678), although it will take me a bit longer to bring it to standard Wikipedia format. What was inserted here, under Human rights in the United States is only an abstract with key references. The subject as a whole seemed to generate resistance in the past. I solicited and continue to solicit editorial comments, in order to bring the text of both the abstract and the article to a final form,

Careful review of the subject matter and the references would leave no reasonable person with a doubt that this minor edition to the article on Human Right in the United States, is in fact documenting some of the most dramatic human rights issues taking place in the U.S. today, both as related to scope of the violations, and also related to the nature of the consitutional violations underlying the matter.

I would be grateful for any editorial comment on both the subject matter and the format.

Jz12345678 (talk)Jz12345678

Hi Soxwon:

This is the second time that you delete a whole segment without making any comment whatsoever on the matter at hand. When a contributor provides text, it is assumed that he/she made a good faith effort, and the evidence is in the text itself. It should be likewise expected from anybody who deletes text to demonstrate at least a minimal intellectual investment in the subject at hand and justify the deletion based on the text that he/she seeks to delete, and the perspective of the matter at hand.

Deletion absent any explanatory comment is indistinguishable from censorship, albeit good faith is taken for granted.

Looking forward to comments on the matter...

Any such comment would be gratefully appreciated...

Otherwise, I am not sure of the procedures, but I request that the issue be declared a dispute, and that it be evaluated in a more formal way.

Jz12345678 (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Jz12345678 Jz12345678 (talk) 08:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Jz12345678

Ongoing Katrina discussion
Please seeTalk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States for full discussion.

The Article in its current form fails to reflect the key facts regarding human rights in the U.S. in the past decade or two.

Reading the article as it stands today, and following elaborate discussion on exclusion/inclusion of human rights affairs outside the U.S., it appears that some of the main human rights affairs of recent years INSIDE THE CONTINENTAL U.S. have been excluded from this elaborate write up as well. At present, the write-up gives very heavy weight to historical and abstract discussion, but avoids explicit description of the key facts in the matter at hand, on the ground.

If one imagine a high school or college student reading this article for an introduction to the subject, one would have to conclude that he/she would not be well informed regarding the state of human rights in the U.S. today, or in recent years, and would not be able to form an informed opinion on the matter either.

The opening statement is indicative of that:

"Human rights in the United States are legally protected by the Constitution of the United States and amendments,[2][3] conferred by treaty, and enacted legislatively through Congress, state legislatures, and plebiscites (state referenda). Federal courts in the United States have jurisdiction over international human rights laws as a federal question, arising under international law, which is part of the law of the United States. [4][page needed]"

It lacks any reference, factual or comparative, which would provide the reader any clue regarding the state of human rights in the U.S. today, on its own, and compared to other nations that we may choose to compare ourselves to.

I myself got recently interested in Wikipedia, when I realized that on some critical economic/legal issues related to the current financial crisis, it provided straight forward facts and assessment regarding the role of various corporations in the evolving disaster. The readers expect no lesser candor from Wikipedia on the issue of human rights.

Jz12345678 (talk) 09:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Jz12345678

The introductory sentence is perfect. The history of the Human rights in the USA is mostly postive anyway. --Rockstone35 (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the introductory sentence has been challenged by neutral editors on the content noticeboard, and many issues have been discussed about it here. The current lead section does not meet the requirements of WP:LEAD.  If it doesn't summarize the article, it gets removed.  Whether the history of human rights is positive or negative has no relevance that I can see.  We write articles based on the best sources, using the broadest strokes that best represent those sources.  It doesn't matter what editors think is positive or negative; we go with what the best sources on the subject say.  As for your opinion, it is most assuredly wrong.  The history of human rights in the United States originated with Christian ethics and enlightenment philosophy in Europe.  But even though Europeans came to the New World to escape their oppressors and search for religious freedom and independence, they forgot the Golden Rule.  As a result, the struggle for human rights in the U.S. centers on the  mistreatment of Native Americans, the slavery of African-Americans (which gave rise to the first human rights org. in the U.S.) and a struggle for civil rights and liberties which continues until this day.  I'm not sure how anyone would characterize this experience of pain and loss, struggle and gain as "mostly positive", but those who can claim its fruits will certainly relish its sweet taste.  Freedom is a constant struggle; nobody ever handed liberty to someone on a platter or allowed just anyone to come and claim it as their own.  This war, this battle, is ultimately in the imagination of the individual, and while some might fight for the hearts and minds of others, one must be truly free as a person before we can help others become free.  This history is neither positive or negative, but like the yin and the yang, it gives rise to each other in a mutual interdependence, a dance that weaves a narrative of what was once fantasy into hard fact.  Reality is neither "mostly" black or white, but a continuum of gradual shades of grey.  No history of any nation is mostly this or that, and you would be wise to examine it with an open mind free from bias and prejudice.  There is also not one history; There is the mythology a nation tells its people, and there are the stories the people tell each other, and there are things we can agree about, disagree with and meet somewhere in the middle.  There are also observations of this history beyond its borders from other nations and peoples who have come into contact with these myths and stories, and have had to create a new viewpoint that they can call their own.  As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia does not subscribe to any one view, but uses the best sources about the topic to come to some kind of understanding that we can at best say is accurate and neutral.  The notion of "positive" and "negative" has no role here. Viriditas (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ignatieff in the lead

 * Throughout the Cold War and since that time, few nations placed more emphasis in their foreign policy on the promotion of human rights, including tying foreign aid to human rights progress and annually assessing the human rights records of government around the world.

Mosedschute cherry picked this material from the first page of Ignatieff's chapter, "Introduction: American Exceptionalism and Human Rights" and placed it in the lead section without proper attribution. According to Turabian and other style guides, this would be considered plagiarism, so I added the attribution "According to Canadian historian Michael Ignatieff". Mosedchute removed this attribution without a proper edit summary and changed it back to the original content.

Giving Mosedchute one last chance, I added the attribution back in, but I fail to see how this summarizes the aritcle in any way and I question why it is in the lead section. It's an opinion from Ignatieff, and Mosedchute attempted to state it as fact rather than attribute Ignatieff's ideas accurately and appropriately to avoid plagiarism. I'm seeing a disturbing pattern with every edit Mosedchute makes to this article, and it's getting to the point where every edit he makes needs to be checked and double-checked for errors. The lead section is supposed to summarize the main points of the article, not make unattributed claims cherry picked from the first page summaries of introductory chapters to a topic because the editor aligns themselves with a certain POV. Unless this point is discussed in the main body of the article, it doesn't belong in the lead, and furthermore, it needs to be attributed to Ignatieff directly to avoid plagiarism. Looking at this again and at my style guides, for all intents and purposes, this is classifed as plagiarism due to the same words being used without direct quotes. Here is the source to compare:


 * Throughout the Cold War and afterward, few nations placed more emphasis in their foreign policy on the promotion of human rights, market freedom, and political democracy. Since the 1970s, U.S. legislation has tied foreign aid to progress in human rights; the State Department annually assesses the human rights records of governments around the world.  Outside government, the United States can boast some of the most effective and influential human rights organizations in the world.

Therefore, I am removing it until it is 1) rewritten into the body of the article 2) paraphrased or quoted and attributed correctly. Any other reinsertion of this duplicate material may result in serious sanctions, so think twice about reverting this removal. Viriditas (talk) 11:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That must make your 5th or 6th threat which violates Wikipedia policy on a number of levels, and several editors have asked you to stop, but you continue to make such threats. Another editor (rightfully) added the source and sentence back anyway.  It was NOT a direct quote, though a full phrase was used in one part of the sentence.  I paraphrased it to fix the quoting issue (not all of it was a direct quote anyway).Mosedschurte (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you are wrong on this one. Biophys, your tag-teaming, edit warring partner restored plagiarzied material which used the same words and concepts belonging to Michael Ignatieff.  As you can see with your own eyes above, the words, "few nations placed more emphasis" is stolen directly from Ignatieff's book without attribution.  These ideas belong to  Ignatieff, not to you or Biophys, and they are not your words or ideas.  These ideas must appear attributed to Ignatieff, must use quotes if they are to use the same words, and they must appear in the body of the article in order to be summarized in the lead in a section about foreign policy.  You will be reported and I will pursue sanctions if you continue to plagiarize his ideas.  This is your second warning. Viriditas (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

If you flat out lie calling it plagarism in the edit summary -- it is not plagarism, it has been paraphrased, like virtually every other source in this article -- or threaten another editor on this page ONE MORE TIME we're going to ANI. Even had I used the words "few nationas placed more emphasis" -- AND IT DID NOT at the time of your discussion above or at the time of your last edit summary-- that still would not be "plagarism". I have absolutely had it with these gross violations of WP:Civil and WP:Disruptive editing. The examples are now so long, it's difficult to even participate editing in this article or the Talk page.Mosedschurte (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is 100% plagiarism, and you have plagiarized Ignatieff's several times now, all according to the common and most popular definitions of the term. Furthermore, you are not dealing with statements of fact, you are dealing with opinion, and all opinion must be attributed to the author. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a legal brief, nor a battleground for POV.  Here on Wikipedia, we differentiate between statements of fact and statements of opinion.  Please recognize the distinction between the two: Statements of fact are often very easy to source, uncontroversial, and rarely disputed.  They do not usually require author attribution.  For example, if I say that "Benezet formed the Pennsylvania Abolition Society in 1775" this is not a statement of opinion.  It is an uncontroversial fact supported by sources.  If, on the other hand, I say "Few nations other than the United States placed more emphasis in their foreign policy on the promotion of human rights", this is an opinion attributable to Canadian historian Michael Ignatieff, and it uses words that are taken directly from his book.  To use this material, you have to do four things: 1) If you quote it, you need to quote the material in full and use proper author attribution 2) If you paraphrase it, you need to do so in the context of foreign policy and human rights, in the body of the article, and you need to attribute this opinion to the author.  You can't just stick it in the lead.  The lead is a summary of the article and does not deal with opinions not already discussed in the body 3)  You need to show that this opinion is notable and you need to be able to show that it has been covered in secondary sources.  You can't just cherry pick quotes to suit your agenda or POV.  Furthermore, you need to show that it is relevant and is discussed in the article. Viriditas (talk) 21:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Honestly, the false accusations and threats aren't even worth addressing anymore. It can't be more clear that the "Ignatieff" quote is a paraphrase"
 * Original quote : Throughout the Cold War and afterward, few nations placed more emphasis in their foreign policy on the promotion of human rights, market freedom, and political democracy. Since the 1970s, U.S. legislation has tied foreign aid to progress in human rights; the State Department annually assesses the human rights records of governments around the world.  Outside government, the United States can boast some of the most effective and influential human rights organizations in the world.
 * Paraphrased quote you just deleted falsely claiming "Plagarism" : ''"During and after the Cold War, few nations emphasized the promotion of human rights in their foreign policy as much as the United States, which also ties foreign aid to human rights progress and annually assesses the human rights records of numerous governments."'


 * Literally could not be a more clear paraphrase that you falsely claimed as "Plagiarism of Michael Ignatieff" and flat out deleted here.


 * Unfortunately, history has shown after your numerous threats that demonstrating that you've made YET ANOTHER false accusation (this one utterly laughable) in gross violation of WP:Civil )(again) will not dissuade you into stopping the practice, or ceasing to continued WP:Disruptive editing of this article, including massive Edit Warring with reverts of virtually every change made by other editors, including typo corrections and the like.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your "paraphrased quote" used words directly from Ignatieff without quotes and did not attibute this opinion to him. It is his opinion, and per NPOV we attribute opinions directly to the author.  Your statement above is highly deceptive, as it only represents the latest iteration in your modification of the quote, which both you and Biophys pasted back in with unquoted material taken directly from Ignatieff's book without attribution.  Per Turabian and all other academic sourcing guidelines, using material not attributed to the original author is classified as plagiarism.  These ideas are not statements of fact.  They are statements of opinion, and they belong to Ignatieff.  You took his words and made it seem like a statement of fact.  This isn't how we write articles.  Please read and understand WP:ASF, which is part of our core policy of WP:NPOV.  The entire referencing and citation style guidelines are encapsulated here:
 * "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves...When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion...In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity...A reliable source supporting that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is..A careful selection of reliable sources is also critical for producing articles with a neutral point of view. When discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view."


 * If any of this isn't making sense, ask questions. You also haven't explained why you cherry picked this quote for the lead section.  The lead section is supposed to summarize the article.  How does this quote summarize the article? Viriditas (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)\\


 * Re: "used words directly from Ignatieff without quotes and did not attibute this opinion to him."


 * Again, this seems like a joke and one can't tell when you're being serious. Are you seriously claiming that using single words merely used by an editor in paraphrasing and citing him is "plagarism"?
 * This accusation is so bizarrely ridiculous -- just look at the two passages above -- that you're badly exposing WP:Disruptive editing by seriously perpetuating this accusation.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What part of the WP:NPOV policy don't you understand? It's really simple and clear.  You originally plagiarized Ignatieff's opinion about human rights and foreign policies.  I added attribution per NPOV and you removed it.  Then, I noticed that the words themselves were not paraphrased, but copied verbatim from Ignatieff's book, and his idea was again, left unattributed.  We have policies and guidelines to prevent this, and you refuse to follow it.  Finally, the material does not summarize anything in the body of the article, so one must ask why you have added it to the lead section.  Is any of this making sense to you? Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Prior to you just being blocked for Edit Warring in this article, this excuse was so overtly false that you will not even begin to specifically address the CLEAR PARAPHRASING -- not quoting -- in the above two sentences. Norm of course, was this "opinion".  Rather it was a simple statement of fact summarizing the well-documented foreign policy emphasis on human rights.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The material was plagiarized, and it's original placement was a copyright violation. 3RR does not apply to copyvio removals and I was unfairly blocked by an administrator with close ties to you (you worked together on Joseph Stalin and he defended you when you were blocked a month ago for edit warring on this article)  Your most recent addition was an improved attempt at paraphrasing, but according to Turabian 2007/Chicago Style and the NPOV policy, opinions need to be attributed.  But since the material is not covered in the article, it does not belong in the lead section, and I've removed it per neutral editorial opinion on the matter over at Content_noticeboard.  The burden of proof is on the editor who wishes to add it back in, so you need to explain why it is in the lead section when it is not discussed in the article.  You also need to explain why you aren't attributing Ignatieff's opinion about human rights and foreign policy per NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * NO ONE is buying your pretext that this paraphrased material is in any way plagarized. In fact, I could probably go to ANI now with your continued fake accusations in violation of Wikipedia policy.  It literally couldn't get more paraphrased than this:
 * Original quote : Throughout the Cold War and afterward, few nations placed more emphasis in their foreign policy on the promotion of human rights, market freedom, and political democracy. Since the 1970s, U.S. legislation has tied foreign aid to progress in human rights; the State Department annually assesses the human rights records of governments around the world.  Outside government, the United States can boast some of the most effective and influential human rights organizations in the world.
 * Paraphrased quote you're falsely claiming is "Plagarism" as a pretext to delete : ''"During and after the Cold War, the United States placed greater emphasis on human rights as part of its foreign policy than many other nations, awarding foreign aid in order to facilitate human rights progress, and annually assessing the human rights records of other national governments."'
 * At least three different editors have added it back, you were just blocked for Edit Warring in this article, includig for edits based on this fake plagarism charge and the ploy of such charges is so transparent that it does not help your credibility.Mosedschurte (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The material was plagiarized, and its original placement was a copyright violation. You copied 28 out of 43 words including exact phrases from the book without author attribution and without the use of quotations. Per Turabian/Chicago style, this is classified as plagiarism. (Turabian 2007, pp.77-80) Viriditas (talk) 01:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Racial section
Mosedchute once again removed the chronology of this section, and made slavery come after LBJ signed his legislation in the 20th century. I would like to know why Mosedchute feels it necessary to describe history backwards or what sources he is using to show that LBJ is more significant and notable in the human rights literature. Viriditas (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please discuss subject of the article. Do not criticize a contributor.Biophys (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: "removed the chronology of this section" That seems funny because the idea of presenting the materials in chron order is supported by Mosedchute when it helps to push his ideas. See, for instance. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. The thing is, I am very flexible and open to working with him, but it is close to impossible to have a discussion with ihm.  Look at the Katrina discussion above.  I showed that the material is only a very small percentage of the overall article, and I was met with the same silence, again.  I think Mosedchute has some good ideas for this article, but the way he goes about implementing them is worse than a bull in a china shop.  For example, he seems to think this article is about about legal issues stemming from the constitution, but we already have an article about Civil liberties in the United States.  He also thinks that the foreign policy of the U.S. should be discussed in the lead section, but he refuses to look at Foreign policy of the United States or discuss it in the body of this article.  However, the section does need some work, so further changes are invited. Viriditas (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This is so unreal -- and your WP:POV pushing here is so blatant -- it's almost too ridiculous to address. It's not a "chronology" and this is not a history article.

This is an article on Human Rights in the United States, not a history article. You've literally TWICE NOW, stuck pre-1865 history above EVEN THE CURRENT human rights law, complete with a massive pre-1865 image to the right. Were this not enough, after the UNSOURCED abolitionist history you oddly jammed into another section was moved here and this was explained, YOU DID IT AGAIN. Please stop this WP:Disruptive editing.Mosedschurte (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You have not used the talk page to explain anything, instead you have unilaterally edited the article to reflect your twisted, warped, and revisionist POV. I fail to see how putting slavery in a chronological context of A comes before B is "POV pushing".  Perhaps like everything else, you are using a different definition.  LBJ did not come before slavery.  Do you get it?  History is what we write about on Wikipedia, so your attempt to put this subject into a narrow, legal framework is without merit.  We don't write legal briefs here, we write encyclopedia articles, which are broad in scope.  You are absolutely right that I've stuck pre-1865 information above and before the 20th century.  Does history work backwards where you are from? Viriditas (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)\


 * This is simply incredible. IT'S NOT A HISTORY ARTICLE, but let's get real -- you know that, and you're just making such edits anyway.  The old history 150+ year history for every section doesn't go above the current "Human Rights in the United States" in each section.  In fact, for most sections, we don't address such history at all, including the MASSIVE international human rights historical gains the U.S. has pushed for FAR MORE RECENTLY (this century).Mosedschurte (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make your opinion correct. We are discussing history, and all articles of this scope are oriented towards history.  This is not a legal brief.  Discuss your propose changes rather than forcing them into the article. Viriditas (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not the repetition but that accuracy of the statement that makes it correct. This article is simply not "History of Human Rights in the United States".  Were it so, it would look entirely different, with a focus on the 200+ years of advancements, various pioneers in the field, contextual human rights at the time, theoretical advancements and their legal structural changes throughout each decade the last 200 years, etc.  Rather, as has been stated many times, this article primarily focuses on the current "Human Rights in the United States", and this topic was delved into extensively in the international discussions as well.  There are other more specific articles for the various historical aspects of individual movements and historical advancements.  Thus, any brief mention of old (in some cases 130+ years old) material, if referenced at all, yields in focus to current law.  It really doesn't get more simply put than that. Mosedschurte (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that this editor just unilaterally attempted the same change placing 150+ year old history before the current law in this section, continuing the exact same edit war on material for which he/she was just blocked a few days ago.Mosedschurte (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you have unitlaterally reverted to your version, a version not supported by any human rights source. You have reversed historical chronology (no other article on Wikipedia reports historical events backwards), you have downplayed the historical importance of Benezet and slavery, and you have artificially inflated the importance of LBJ's signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over the entire history.  Can you explain why you have done this and what other articles with an assessment of GA and above have done this?  There are none.  This isn't how we write articles. Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:Edit Warring
The WP:Edit Warring has reached astounding levels, leading to WP:Disruptive editing that makes it impossible to even edit the article at all. The last two edits here and here reverted every single edit made by other editors, INCLUDING EVEN A TYPO AND THE CORRECTION OF "PRESIDENT" FOR "MR." for Obama. Moreover, literally THREE TIMES NOW, this editor stuck pre-1865 history above EVEN THE CURRENT human rights law in the racial equality section, complete with a massive pre-1865 image to the right. Were this not enough, after the UNSOURCED abolitionist history this editor oddly jammed into yet another section was moved to the racial equality section, and after this was explained, the editor made the same change again in the mass revert. Literally zero attempts at collaboration have been made -- it's just mass reverts and unilateral edits that had been disagreed with by multiple editors above.Mosedschurte (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hiding your repeated insertion of plagiarism, copyvio, and revisionist, backwards historical chronology behind "fixing typoes" is incredibly deceptive. Also, your repeated deletion of material in the lead section that summarizes the article goes againt WP:LEAD.  Please use the talk page to discuss these topics, as you do not seem to be addressing any of the open topics on this page.  I see that you still have not responded to my query about your deletion of the Katrina material above.  Repeatedly edit warring and refusing to address open discussion on the talk page is not appropriate.  And hiding under the excuse of "fixing typos" isn't going to work. Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Incredible that you're continuing to make the false accusations, especially after the embarrassing comparison above, in continuing gross violation of WP:Civil. And you JUST DID IT AGAIN, including the typos!  Perhaps most amusing, I just went to your user page and it says, no kidding, "1RR  This user prefers discussing changes on the talkpage rather than engaging in an edit war." For other reading this, I'm not joking, this particular editor really has that template.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No edits at all can be made without reverts, and attempts at discussion on the talk page have been met with numerous threats and false accusations. Basically, short of administrator action, the article is in complete WP:Ownership in the strictest sense of the term.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't use the name of editors in talk page section headers. Please read and understand TALK.  As a result of that guideline, I have removed my name from this heading.  Removing plagiarism and copyvio is not edit warring.  Please follow WP:BRD and discuss the changes you are proposing and await community feedback.  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the changes had nothing to do with "copyvio" or "plagarism" -- they were other sections entirely, sorry no 3RR cover there, though you really exposed yourself attempting to claim as such above. Moreover, even these accusations were shown as laughable falsities (what else is new).Mosedschurte (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is a particular change that you want to see in the article, the talk page is used to discuss it. I have used the talk page to discuss your removal and modification of the Katrina material.  You have not replied.  I have also discussed problems with the lead section.  You have not addressed them.  As for the rest of your changes, please discuss them here and now. Viriditas (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * When you post such things, do you realize that people can actually read this talk page and actually see all of the threats and baseless accusations you've made in gross violation of WP:Civil and flat out WP:Edit Warring including mass reverts of even typos and the like to such an extent that WP:Disruptive editing has essentially shut down this article? How attempts to answer your questions in any detail are met with screeches of "Spam!" and dismissive unpleasantries?  You don't "discuss" any of these things.  You simply announce your position, dismiss others, make changes and revert others' changes.  This is about as clear cut a case of WP:Ownership as it gets.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any discussion of your proposed changes in the above. Per WP:BRD and talk page guidelines, please address the changes you are proposing so that others can discuss it.  This is the talk page, and it is used for improving the article.  Since you are the one proposing to add and change material that you introduced and wrote, I am not clear on how I can "own" your edits.  It is the responsibility of the editor wishing to introduce material or make controversial modfications, to explain these changes on the talk page.  Your edits have been challenged, so please discuss them.  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Directly on point, You were just blocked for Edit-Warring in this article. Most of the earlier "proposed changes" by me and other editors were primarily returning some sections to at or near its state before your unilateral changes, for the reasons stated with each edit. You then reverted all changes to the article -- both your new unilateral changes disagreed with by editors and other changes -- including even the correction of typos, and did so at least twice even more superficially on utterly false grounds of "plagarism" for one sentence.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the diffs and edit history show the opposite: You made unilateral changes without engaging in any discussion on the matter, and continue to rely on a tag team of editors who also avoid discussion and make controversial changes not based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This matter will not go away until it is resolved.  You most certainly did plagiarize the material, and your direct copying of the exact 28 words out of a total 43 words from the passage in Ignatieff's book, including exact passages is defined as plagiarism and copyright violation.  You attempted to obfuscate from this state of affairs by making complex reverts and poor attempts at paraphrasing.  To date, the material is questioned by at least three editors, one of whom is neutral from the content noticeboard.  The material doesn't belong in the lead section unless it summarizes the most important parts of the article, yet you keep restoring it.  It also lacks attribution to Ignatieff, which is a violation of NPOV, as we assert facts about opinions, not the opinions themselves.  You have a documented pattern of engaging in this type of editing, where you go from article to article cherry picking items with a focus on only one POV and inserting it where it doesn't belong.  This is not the first time you have done this, and the noticeboards are full of incidents that document this pattern of behavior.  Furthermore, your use of reverse historical chronology and focuse on limiting the scope to legal concerns is challenged and unsupported.  I have asked you to provide me with reliable sources that support this unique style of article writing, and you have remained silent.  Instead, you continue to engage in edit warrring, reverting every change that I make.  If the material is disputed, then you have the burden to support it.  Please do so. Viriditas (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Disputed statement in lead

 * The United States Constitution, adopted in 1787, created a democracy that guaranteed social and economic rights for all its citizenry.

This statement in the lead is disputed by almost every source on the topic, and it's very clear that Native Americans, African slaves, non-European ethnic groups, and women did not have "guaranteed" rights in 1787. Why is this in the lead? (struckout comment because it confused Mosedschurte to no end) Is this statement accurate? Viriditas (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps because YOU PUT IT THERE. It was from the Overview section you unilaterally changed over the objection of two other editors.  You then reverted all attempts to make significant changes to the section, including even the almost comically ridiculous title "History" (there is very little history in the section, of course, and it was never intended as such), while no one can change your unilateral revisions, or you will simply blanket revert all edits made, including typos.  I think this has been made rather clear above. Mosedschurte (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are distracting away from the topic again. The material itself is challenged, not its placement in the lead.  I hope you can understand this simple statement.  I am neither the author of the material nor its proponent, however, I'm assuming you are due to your defensive posture and inability to answer my question. (Is there a single talk page discussion here where you actually directly answer questions about the article?  I can't find one. ) The material was placed into the current lead from a duplicate lead section.  The question is not why is this statement in the lead, but whether it is accurate.  Do you understand?  We don't need two lead sections, which is why the material was moved.  But regardless of where it appears, I am questioning its accuracy.  Do you understand?  If you do understand, please directly address my question.  Is it accurate to state that "The United States Constitution, adopted in 1787, created a democracy that guaranteed social and economic rights for all its citizenry"? Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "You are distracting away from the topic again. The material itself is challenged, not its placement in the lead."
 * Seriously, your original question was WORD-FOR-WORD: "Why is this in the lead?"  I answered it by pointing out that you placed it in the lead yourself. Perhaps consider changing it to " . . . that guaranteed several rights and civil liberties" would be in order.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * More distractions? Why am I not surprised?  The original section heading said (and still says) "Disputed statement in lead".  Therefore, when I asked, "Why is this in the lead" I was clearly saying, "Why is this disputed statement in the lead?"  Will you, at any point in the near future, directly address the underlying question? Is it accurate to state that "The United States Constitution, adopted in 1787, created a democracy that guaranteed social and economic rights for all its citizenry"?  If you read the human rights literature you will find that this question has been discussed extensively. Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is part of the feaux discussion cycle discussed at length above I suggested above:  Perhaps consider changing it to " . . . that guaranteed several rights and civil liberties" would be in order.  This was met with "More distractions?  Why am I not surprised?" Great discussion.  This after I directly answered your first question, completely with a link, asking why this was in the lead (which you later deleted) and was then berated for that.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't with the number of rights and civil liberties. The issue is directly related to the words, "for all its citizenry".  Please address that problem.  For reference, see: Three-fifths compromise, etc. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would cut the words "for all its citizenry", and I also would replace "social and economic rights" with "several rights and civil liberties". Note that doing so would likely lead to an immediate revert.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is better to just address the issue directly, stating that African slaves, Native Americans, women, poor people, etc. weren't included. I wouldn't say it like that, but I think it is better to to address the issue rather than talk around it.  We have the benefit of hindsight. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would definitely not expand the sentence in a short lede sentence describing the U.S. Constitution that "that African slaves, Native Americans, women, poor people, etc. weren't included", nor would I include the far more notable historical world pioneering precedents it set for the guaranteeing of human rights in that sentence. Rather, I would just go with the simple NPOV "''The United States Constitution, adopted in 1787, created a democracy that guaranteed guaranteed several rights and civil liberties." Mosedschurte (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not? Reliable sources on the topic discuss this very issue and its an important topic. Changing it to "several rights and civil liberties" doesn't even address the problem.  Please answer my question directly.  Why should we not address a significant issue related to the limitation of rights and liberties guaranteed by federal and state laws?  It is directly on topic. Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)