Talk:Human rights in the United States/Archive 2

POV discussions <-- See here 8/5/05

 * There seems to be some issues I have with the POV expressed in the article. No one seems to want to discuss it, but just keeps changing it back. The UN declaration on human rights gives a nice overview of what is a human right. If the US violates it or has violated it, it is welcome to be included in the list. Why don't you guys read it then rethink what human rights are.


 * Health and family - Abortion, government healthcare, euthanasia, and gay marriage are NOT human rights issues. No where in the Declaration are any of these considered human rights.


 * Prisons - The number or race of prisoners in of itself is not a human rights abuse. Ex-felons not being able to vote is not a human rights violation. Human rights involves being tried fairly and speedily, not the number. The number is irrespective of process.


 * Again, read the article then let's discuss which ones the US violates. Barneygumble 18:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see how the declaration in any way supports your view (even if one were to accept that a UN document was the final word on human rights, which is debatable). For example what does the declaration mean by "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." The question of equality is central to the question of same-sex marriage. Same goes for "Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law." "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence" and "In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."
 * What does the declaration mean when it says "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." If you define the foetus as a person then abortion is clearly a human rights issue. Pro-choice people would argue that the liberty and security of women is being infringed if abortions are outlawed.
 * It's nice that you cite the declaration of human rights but these are only broad statements. The actual interpretation can involve all of the questions raised in the article. It should also be noted that the wording of the declaration was deliberately vague so that all countries would feel comfortable signing on. (Liberty can mean one thing in China and something else in the United States.) It represents politics and diplomacy as much as human rights. --Lee Hunter 00:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't decree the UN document the final word, but it is at least a solid reference. The document is pretty specific in its discussion of rights. Article 16 deals strictly with marriage. No where is gay marriages mentioned. No where is abortion mentioned. I think it is best to avoid unconventional intrepretations on the broader quotations. If you want you could use your 3rd quote (on privacy & family) to justify incest as a human right, but surely that was the intent. I think there are core human rights that are desired by any people of any nationality. Liberty can mean one thing in China and something else in the States due to the respective oppressive/open natures of government. It's not the desire of the people to be ruled with an iron fist.
 * I appreciate the dialogue but still see little evidence to back up a claim that my aforementioned disputed claims as to what constitutes human rights. It's reallly laughable that anyone can argue that the number of prisoners in itself is a human rights abuse. It discredits wikipedia when average readers come across such an article and laugh. As Wikipedia struggles for credibility, such an astray from a NPOV will cause a steady decline in the popularity of wikis.Barneygumble 04:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Nobody wants a discussion!! People revert without discussion because they know they are flat-out wrong! I have my evidence and my argument. Where's anyone elses? It's been two weeks and no one is brave enough to argue. Barneygumble 20:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Reverting without discussion? Don't you think that might be because you have been deleting huge chunks of text worked on by numerous editors because you believe that only your understanding of human rights is correct? The sole support for your argument appears to be the deliberately vague wording of a single UN document. Nothing else matters to you, including the laws and declarations of human rights of any other country. If someone points out that health care is seen as a human right in Canada, for example, your response is "That's not relevant because universal health care is not mentioned in the UN declaration." Really there's no point in arguing with you because you're hiding behind a document that could be interpreted in a thousand different ways but only your way is correct (i.e. any issue not explicitly mentioned in the declaration is not a human right).--Lee Hunter 15:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * There's nothing else to do but delete them! What, the number of prisoners is a human rights violation? Basically, how the article reads, everything short of socialism is a human rights violation. The now super important issue that gays cannot marry is now some sort of human rights issue? Please, if it was so important we would have seen protests in 1990. Preventing euthanisia is not a human rights issue. They were all deleted, because they are NOT human rights issues. What I referenced wasn't just "one document" like a Time magazine article. It was a UN declaration, agreed to by all signatory nations. Those nations defined what human rights were, and you dismiss it as irrelevant. Barneygumble 00:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag
It looks as if the POV dispute has settled down. Is there any ongoing dispute that would justify keeping the NPOV tag on the article? -Willmcw 07:06, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * given no activity on TALK for a month, I'll go ahead and complete Willmcw's question by rming the NPOV tag. Feco 21:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

US forces have been holding 5 Americans in Iraq without charge
... that we know of ...

... and this policy apparently dates back to at least April.

Is there any reason not to include this fact in the article?

Also, Amnesty section seems to suggest a) that they have no specific complaints against the Bush administration, and b) they have said nothing of consequence regarding American human rights policy in five years. Shouldn't we bring this up to date? BrandonYusufToropov 8 July 2005 22:03 (UTC)

User:BrandonYusufToropov edits
I've reverted BrandonYusufToropov's edits to the version as of 18:14 8 July 2005. The edits introduced a rather strong POV and loaded numerous complaints in the first few paragraphs. Carbonite | Talk 13:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Can you please describe the POV problem you see? What did I write that was nonfactual? Also, inasmuch as I discussed these edits beforehand, is there any reason not to discuss them here before reverting? BrandonYusufToropov 13:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The introduction give the whole article a very strong negative slant. Even the first sentence now states that "While human rights in the United States were historically perceived as being on par or nearly on par with most developed countries...".


 * The edits were extensive and I felt it was best to return it to a version that was more "stable". That's not to say that your information can't be incorporated into the article, but I think it's better to start from a version that had some amount of agreement. Carbonite | Talk 13:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The only discussion I saw was this, which had no mention of completely rewriting the introduction. I regard the introduction of an article as the most important part, because it's often the only part that's read. Any major changes to an introduction should have rather strong consensus and discussion. Again, I'm not saying that your edits don't belong, just that it was too much change with too little discussion. Carbonite | Talk 13:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay. I hear what you're saying about discussion. I don't think it's POV to point out, though. that American standing on this issue has in fact taken a serious hit in this area in recent years []. This change in perception among Europeans and people in Muslim nations, not to mention human rights organizations, is simply not addressed in the present article. If it's POV to use the past tense, isn't it POV to use the present tense, too?


 * Can we look at the specific elements together? What, specifically, beyond the use of the past tense, do you have a problem with? BrandonYusufToropov 13:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I can't guarantee that I'll have much discussion time today (due to real world matters), but I'll list my main concerns about your version:


 * The first sentence describes the view of human right in the US only from the perspective of certain groups. I think the previous opening sentence was more NPOV: "While human rights in the United States are generally perceived today as being on par or nearly on par with most developed countries, critics argue that the United States has room for improvement."
 * There's too many qualifiers in the opening paragraph such as "are likely to argue" and "suggested an official shift".
 * The examples you provided do belong in the article, but not in the intro. This was a problem in the George W. Bush article, where some editors favored having lots of specific detail in the intro. The introduction should be NPOV by itself, without need for the rest of the article to provide balance. Your introduction is extremely critical and unbalanced.
 * The intro should focus less on 9/11 and its effects. Yes, it's very important, but it shouldn't completely overwheml the introduction. The current version gives more of an overview, instead of immediately focusing on the changes since 9/11.
 * I probably won't be around for a few hours, but I will participate in this dicussion as time permits. Thank you for hearing my side. Carbonite | Talk 14:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how hr were seen as "nearly on a par with other developed nations", even before 9/11. That's a statement much too sweeping and would need specification. They were certainly not on a par with hr in Western Europe up to the 1968. Of course they were always better than in the Soviet Union, which was also 'developed', but comparison with the SU is hardly setting a high benchmark. If the US situation today is compared with China, Saudi Arabia and such places, the US will easily look like "the land of the free". The US were certaily hr pioneers from 1783 until 1793, but they were hopelessly overtaken in the course of the 19th century. "on a par" may hold from 1968 to 2001, but obviously with the current situation, they can hardly be reckoned on par anymore with Western European standards. Bottom line, the statement needs clearer specification, or it needs to be removed. dab (&#5839;) 14:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC


 * I've been asked to take a look; here are my thoughts:
 * Although there were some problems with BYT's changes (e.g., "likely to argue"), it seemed on the whole to be neutral and factual; if anything, it was rather conservative in its account of recent events (and of the previous situation, as dab points out). Carbonite has a good point, though, when he suggests that most of it belongs in the body of the article rather than in the summary (though some reference must surely be made in the summary).  Could BYT place his material in the body of the article? --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 17:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Here's my personal POV
To talk about human rights, you need to draw a line between the general public and individual cases.

Generally, more than 50% of people in China are possibly not very unhappy. Maybe many of them are happier than many U.S. citizens. At least these Chinese people have jobs and they believe that they have a future. Try to ask the same questions to an average inner-city black who could very likely be badly educated and jobless and without insurance and lives in a fatherless home and drinks soda and eats junk food everyday.

Life can be simply hopeless in the U.S. Many Chinese people are also hopelessy poor and abused but they are living in a much poorer and densely populated society.

Now let's talk about individual cases. Many political activists in China are persecuted. That's true. But how about their counterparts in the U.S.? Don't tell me you have no idea about that.

As to the rights of minorities. So far Chinese are not entering Tibet like hell. The Tibetans, however unhappy (actually not that unhappy), are living on their land and have limited religious freedom. How about native Americans? They were mudered by the millions during the past several hundred years. Their cultures are largely lost and they have little hope other than running a casino. Muslims in China lived with others peacefully for over 1000 years. How about Muslims in the U.S. Some major cities have unusually large black population, such as Detroit, MI (81%) and Gary, IN (90%). Why? If the law tells the White you can't send Rosa Parks to the back of the bus, White people simply flee. White people go to work in the cities by day. They leave the cities by night. Minorities in China are never so discriminated.

Then why do you say the U.S. has an average or above average human right status? That's because most people are content with their lives and they only know a foreign country's individual cases. You think people in the U.S. have good human rights because you can buy SUVs and Gameboys. No, that's not human rights. Pigs are well-fed on farms. Average people in the U.S. are fatter and not well educated. Most of you cannot speak a foreign language. From dawn to dusk, you consume U.S. papers, TVs, music, movies, radio, websites, books, ... that most of you are totally shielded from the rest of the world. They are not capable to make reasonable comparisons. Tell me it's some sort of perceived good human right.

If you take drug problems and crime rates into consideration, some of you may want to send your kids to China or Saudi Arabia. No, you can't do that because most of you are not prepared to adapt yourselves to another language, culture or value system. I am a native Chinese speaker, now try to tell me I am wrong in my language. You are prisoned for life in your Hotel North America. You can checkout any time you like, but you can never leave. You talk about the sky-rocketing college tuitions. How many of you can pack up your suitcase and go to study in another country? Fact is, most people in the U.S. are more or less deprived of their rights to migrate. It's not by the law, it's by your system.

Now let's talk about religious freedom. Yes, it's true that being too religious in China can be a bad idea. But how about Falungong in the U.S.? You tolerate it because it does not rob White church-goers from the Bible Belt. Think about the Mormons of the 19th century. You tolerate Chinese religious sects because they are not harming your political-religious conglomerate. Let's see what will happen if Dalai Lama converts just 5% of White Christians into Tibetan Buddhists in Alabama. Let's see.

The moral: It's natural to criticize others but painfully hard to apply the same criteria on yourselves. It's one thing to call your own bias NPOV, another to prove it logically. -- Toytoy 15:45, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * you are basically saying "don't confuse human rights with standard of living". And I agree. To get an idea of the human rights situation anywhere, you have to study how a society treats its misfits (and how it defines "misfit"), not look at the average well-behaved citizen. dab (&#5839;) 16:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You got it right. There's another issue: How a society or government behaves when a batch of normal people are getting out of control. What will the U.S. government do if the Whites are learning to speak Spanish and getting ready to take the first flight to Mexico? What will the establishment behave if all of you decide to elect a nobody from Tanzania as your next president (because he/she does not have a party to cover his ass)? China has a God damn bad records of "human rights violations" because many Chinese are not under control. Those of you in the land of the brave, despite of your Constitutional right to bear arms, how much can you do to change your government? How many of you are constantly in direct / indirect / unidirectional / bidirectional contact with a foreign country (BBC, Der Spigel, Le Monde, Yomiuri Shimbun ...)? What if many of you try to sell foreign court decisions to some headstrong U.S. judges ("Look, if I were a Cuban, I have such-and-such rights ... Now give me a fair trial, you jerk Your Honor.")? What if the Democrat House members all fly to China to request some help if GWB decide to sell them a Klansman Supreme Court Justice who are coughing all the time because he inhaled too much of the f**king smoke of the burning Cross last night? If a government does not have to face these difficult times, it's so cheap and meaningless to give people the human rights they want. -- Toytoy 16:49, July 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Re: "What if the Democrat House members all fly to China to request some help if GWB decide to sell them a Klansman Supreme Court Justice who are coughing all the time because he inhaled too much of the f**king smoke of the burning Cross last night?"
 * --- lol, BrandonYusufToropov 17:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You know Toytoy, I don't know if you're just trying to wind people up, but it seems like you have a pretty warped perception of America's system. What would happen if a bunch of white American's wanted to go to live in Mexico?  They'd let them go.  Because it's none of the state's business. What would happen if white Americans started converting to buddhism in large numbers?  Nothing because the state has no business in people's religion. In America it's not the state's job to control people any more than necessary.  China has "a God damn bad records" of human right's violations not because many Chinese are "not under control", but because the state is trying to control them on issues that the state should have no part in, like religion, information, what movies they watch etc.  At least not in a free society.  As for "how much can you do to change your government", well you can vote for different people and parties which sets it one step above China.  As for foreign courts, I think you'll find the American system can use legal precedents set in cases from Britain if an American one isn't found and incorporates others from other RESPECTED practicioners of law and order.
 * And I'd just like to repeat your line "it's so cheap and meaningless to give people the human rights they want". You sound like Hu "Democracy is a blind alley" Jintao.  I think you have a weak grasp on the essence of what a "free country" is and it worries me that you'd even be messing with a wikipedia page on human rights. -- TastyCakes


 * One famous/infamous example: Jane Fonda in North Vietnam. One obscure example: There was a U.S. rock-n-roll singer who went to the USSR and became their own Elvis in the 1960s. I couldn't remember his name, possibly he's from Denver, CO. He died in the 80s or 90s. -- Toytoy 18:07, July 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * You are listing off things that you apparently think are "violations of human rights" that are not things imposed by the government but rather results of the government let people do as they like. Namely results of freedom.  Furthermore you compare stuff that happened in America decades if not centuries ago to stuff that's happening in China today.  You claim China treats minorities better when minorities make up a tiny portion of China, largely live in rural provinces where they are the majority, and quite often are about as different ethnically as a German is to an Italian.  It's simply a non-issue in China.  Now if hundreds of thousands of white people, or black people or mexicans (it would have to be millions to be proportionally equivalent) start moving to China looking for jobs, we'll see how nice and multicultural the Chinese are.  Did you hear of the things average Chinese were saying when Condoleeza Rice said something they didn't like in China?  Tolerant wouldn't be the first word I'd use.


 * Your stuff on race seems fairly twisted. White people don't live in the inner city.  That's a human rights abuse?  It's a socio-economic trend yes, and an unfortunate one, but is anyone forcing this to happen?  Meanwhile you refer to Tibetans as a minority.  They weren't a minority until China invaded and took over their country.  Is there a difference there?  They're allowed to practice limited religion?  Gee, that's big of you China.  Now how about our country back?  You think the average Chinese is better educated than your average American slob?  Sadly, I don't think so.  And as for Americans being self centered, have you ever looked at a typical Xinhua news day on their site?  It's certainly not very internationally oriented, even in the English edition. The difference from domestic American press being they remove anything remotely critical to their Government's policies, whereas some American news sources thrive on the stuff.  If you're poor in America you might (probably) have trouble affording health care.  If you're poor in parts of China a party official might have you executed and sell your organs to wealthy transplantees.  Is there an order of magnitude difference here?


 * Your religion spiel also confuses me. There are all sorts of stupid religions in America.  The state doesn't care.  You can have as many strange, occult rituals as you want and they're not going to come and cart you off in the night to some forced labour camp.  That much of the population would dislike you for having a religion is a shame.  But if they beat you up for practicing it they'll go to jail.  That sounds familiar to what happens in China.  Oh no, that's where they arrest the people practicing the stupid religion and beat them up in jail.


 * What I'm trying to say is this. There are many faults with America and American culture, yes, as there are with Chinese culture.  But these are not human rights violations.  Others in a position of authority forcing something on a victim, or failing to prevent others doing so, is (as opposed to someone without authority committing a crime).  Fundamentally, as an American, you can still disagree with the government, go wherever you want, have as many kids as you want, write books bashing anyone you want, practice whatever religion you choose, own land where you can afford and be free of persecution from the authorities for doing all this.  And if you do commit a crime you can bet you violated a just law and will receive a reasonably fair trial etc.  Wrong on all counts in China.  How you compare them to China like they were on the same level is beyond me.  And no, I'm not American.


 * One final note that it's the Chinese government that wants to judge human rights on material comforts/happiness and the American government's definition that says those are irrelevent. -- TastyCakes 22:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Human rights is not about happiness. Human rights means being less scared of the powerful, whether they're governments or rich people, because you know there are things they can't get away with doing to you. Human rights have, indeed, suffered in the US in recent years; however, the happiness level of Americans, or Chinese, has nothing to do with that. You can have perfect human rights and still be thoroughly depressed (ask any Scandinavian :) - Mustafaa 18:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Yusuf Islam
Is refusing entry to Cat Stevens such a terrible human rights violation that it warrants mention in the intro? If that's the worst hr violation, things must be pretty darn good. --Lee Hunter 17:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I think it's irrelevant, he's not even a US citizen. Almost deleted this in my edit this morning, but figured I was stirring up enough sand already... BrandonYusufToropov 18:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, that's quibbles. Erratic or partisan behaviour of the authorities is a sign of undermined rule of law and usually bad news for human rights, but this doesn't belong in the intro. dab (&#5839;) 18:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Bertly's edits
indeed, rule of law means that suspects are treated as suspects, not as convicted criminals, anything else will turn into a witchhunt. the concerns with human rights deterioration since 2001 are precisely that "terrorism" has become a fetish term used by the autorities when they wish to ignore constitutional rights. used in this way, the term of course loses its exact defninition, and ultimately anybody who is undesireable will be labelled "terrorist". The Russians show where this approach leads, over in Chechnia (of course I'll agree that the situation in Russia is much worse than in the US). This is just the same process that happened with the terms "communist" during the Cold War, "degenerate" in 1930s Germany and "savage" or "witch" in Early Modern times, i.e. a sign of societal hysteria. If it is enough to label a person a "terrorist suspect" to take away his human rights, well, that is a sign of a poor human rights record, it's as simple as that. dab (&#5839;) 09:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOVing this article
I have NPOVed the intro which was obviously very needed.--Bertly 00:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "neutral" in your dreams :oD dab (&#5839;)

Prison populations?
The source in the article points to the United states having the second highest percentage of its citizens in prison as of 2004, next to Rwanda. However, the linked source reports that figure as being accurate only in 1999, which is further discredited by pointing the finger at Russia rather than Rwanda GeeJo 03:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Rwanda is a special case because of the genocide trials, and its numbers are bound to fluctuate. Ignoring Rwanda, the US is second after Russia, both with roughly 0.7% inmates. This is 4-6 times more than in either Canada or Mexico. dab (&#5839;) 19:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

constitution vs. record
detailing the evolution of the Constitution is all very well, but shouldn't the article focus more on the actual record. After all, the Constitution is just a piece of paper, as long as its ideals are not carried out in reality. Hell, the Soviet Union promised its citizens they would all be equal in one big brotherhood of nations, and at the same time was a dictatorship of the ruling party. So, of course there should be a section about the constitution, but this is not the main focus of this article. Anyway, the intro needs to be shorter, most of the stuff in it at present could go to the "History" section. dab (&#5839;) 10:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Two Kinds of Criticism
Some of the criticism of the US human rights record is not really about rights violations, as it is about the disconnect between theory and reality. Human rights are reasonably well protected in the US, but abuses do happen - overall the US does better than most. The most serious impediment to improving the rights situation is the unwillingness of US society to acknowledge that they don't take their ideals seriously in practice. Peter Grey 20:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Extreme POV
This article goes beyond the normal POV found in most articles.
 * --> " lynching of blacks was a generally unchallenged social reality for most of the following century" Are you joking that this is not slander? Barneygumble 17:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "Slander"? Ironically slander is a concept that goes against freedom of expression. How many times did the police turn a blind eye to thousands of lynchings in the 1900's to 1960's?
 * I don't know. Tell me. Generally characterizing that it was a "unchallenged social reality" is not an unbased POV??
 * --> "Two Pakistani Americans allegedly affiliated with the Islamic militant group Harakat ul-An..." An allegations of alleged abuse should not be listed to present itself as fact. It's not proven. Barneygumble 17:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a serious allegation. It's possible. It's not asserted to be fact, but it's highly likely.
 * "Highly likely" is your POV! It's an allegation, by alleged terrorists. It's also highly likely that they are taught to claim abuse.
 * --> Abortion, government healthcare, euthanasia, and gay marriage are not human rights issues. They are social or moral values issues. Considering none of it was legal 70 years ago in any country, would then every country in the world in 1935 be

guilty of massive rights violations? Barneygumble 17:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * So? If it occurs in every country, it can be mentioned here. Gay marriage IS a human rights issue. It's happening in the US. Yes, countries in 1935 were guilty of human rights violations. Healthcare is still a human rights issue, "moral values" fall under human rights.
 * How is gay marriage a human rights issue? Is there life at stake? Are they being tortured? This wasn't even an issue 10 years ago. Why is it suddenly a human right? It is social debate. Barneygumble 19:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Human rights don't necessarily involve torture or death (Freedom of religion, freedom of speech are examples) The countries that have changed their laws re same sex marriage have done so because they have recognized it as a human right. At one time voting was not seen as a universal human right. Some people will frame it as a moral question or social debate  - but for the people who are most affected (i.e. gay couples) it is very much a question of equality and human rights. --Lee Hunter 20:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it's not a human rights issue, but, I have to ask, is there anything that is not a human rights issue? As far as rights are concerned, I mean? Couldn't this article more succintly be titled Rights in the United States? - Nat Krause 04:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * --> There is no reasonable way China's assesment of the US can be anything but a POV. Barneygumble 17:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * They are still sources. If it's not credible, it's still notable, not even mentioning that a lot of the assertions are quite frankly, true. If anything, it mentions human rights in the United States, and as an encylopedia, it discusses China's take on it.
 * --> The number of prisoners is not a human rights abuse. Perhaps the US has a better judicial system. Or perhaps the US's social system has created lots of criminals. However, the number of prisioners. Similarly a high number of minority prisoners is not in itself a human rights violation! Ex-felons not being able to vote is not a human rights violation. Come on people! Who is this stuff written by? A high security prison for the Charles Mansons of the world is not necessarily a rights abuse. The only thing that approach being an abuse is the prisoner rape issue. Actually that being said, I'll add it back in. Barneygumble 17:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not an abuse, but it's something to look out for. That said, having a dictatorship is not repressive in itself, but the possibility of repression is a possibility for abuse. Hence, having a high number of prisoners raises a red flag...-- Natalinasmpf 18:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you joking? What does a dictatorship have to do with criminal levels in the US? (A dictatorship IS respressive in itself.) Prison levels are not a human rights abuse. You can't link the two. A possibility of a possiblity is doesn't qualify as encyclopedic. Barneygumble 19:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The article is horribly written as well, seemingly by people who are not native English speakers. Much more work is needed! Like there is no mention that the US was the first country to ban cruel and unusual punishment? Any mention that convicts were given rights to a speedy trial and a trial by a jury of their peers. Who was the first country to do that? the US. Was there any mention in the article? No. Essentially much of the article, save the bits on slavery, is anti-American POV drivel. Barneygumble 17:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * What? The Athenians did the right to trial by jury before the US, and it was speedy for their time. Cruel and unusual punishment? That itself is subjective, and furthermore, yes, it probably should be mentioned, but it doesn't make the United States a human rights jewel either. Being the "first country" doesn't change anything. Being "a country that did sth" is something else. Just because it was the first to do so, however notable it is, doesn't make it stand out about anything. -- Natalinasmpf 18:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Why is being the first country to do something remarkable not notable. The US wasn't first on everything. It's certainly notable when Britian banned slavery.


 * Let's talk about the edits before changing the article, ok? BrandonYusufToropov 17:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I normally would, but I don't see how there is any possiblity that an allegation belongs on a page, presenting itself as fact. Barneygumble 17:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * With respect, this is really not the best way to edit an article. Suppose you and I worked together here on the talk page to develop text that addressed both of our important issues, and then we let a consensus develop about what does or does not belong in the article?


 * In fairness, I do want to point out that my edits to this page had to undergo extensive discussion and debate, whereas you are simply instantly reverting text that you don't want to talk about.


 * Isn't there a more collaborative way to move forward on this article? BrandonYusufToropov 18:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * yeah Barney. If you don't like a statement (and I'm not saying this article is good as it is), ask for sources. If no sources documenting it as widely accepted fact are brought forward, it must be either attributed or removed. This is the way to change the article, while unilateral changes will just be reverted. dab (&#5839;) 19:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I hope there is, but this sort of POV reduces the credibility of wikipedia. An article on human rights discusses gay marriage? Come on people. No one was even discussing gay marriage even 10 years ago, so suddenly it's this big rights violation? Or abortion is presented as a human right. The wording of the article makes it seem that lynchings were commonplace and socially acceptable? I don't mind discussing changes, or trying to balance views, but the article needs lots of work. It's really poorly written too. Barneygumble 19:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Leaving aside the other issues you've raised, I want to maintain that the subject of lynching


 * is in fact relevant to human rights,


 * and was in fact a generally unchallenged social reality in the US for most of the 20th century.


 * The Senate just passed a formal bill of contrition, noting its institutional failure to take a leadership position on this issue. It was in fact impossible to get a federal anti-lynching statute to the floor of the Senate for a vote for most of the 20th century, and this fact was connected to the thousands of lynchings that went unpunished. Not slander. History. BrandonYusufToropov 19:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it's relevant to human rights, but the statement that it was "an unchallenged social reality" is what I object to. There were many many people who worked to stop lynchings. Some even got lynched for it. Even this section is getting huge. Perhaps one section at a time. Barneygumble 21:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The WP article on Lynching in the United States supports your view. I've toned down that sentence. --Lee Hunter 00:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * So no one wants to discuss anything. Just revert to the crappy POV article that this is? This type of article will hurt the credibility of wikipedia. Barneygumble 17:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

No it is not. The allegations are not being represented as fact, but they are highly notable on the human rights record. China's assessment of it is likely to be biased, but it's not being represented as fact either. I've reverted your edits. -- Natalinasmpf 21:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * China's assessment of human rights in the United States follows almost exactly the format and style of America's assessment of human rights in other countries. It picks up on published news reports, most commonly in the Western media. It's therefore pretty reliable. Obviously the selection of what news reports to comment on is subjective, but this process is no more or less subjective than that followed by the US in its assessments.


 * As far as the suggestion that the size of the prison population is irrelevant to human rights - I beg to differ. A large prison population may be suggestive of an oppressive legal system that is over-keen to lock people up. Now we do not state this, we leave it to the reader to decide how bad (if at all bad) a large prison population is. But it's relevant information. If someone commits what in the US is considered "first-degree murder" they may well be locked up for life without parole. In the UK, they may well serve ten years in gaol before being released on licence. Which is better is a matter of opinion, and we do not need to guide the reader as to what opinion he should have, but it's worth noting that the US takes a more hardline approach to crime than most of the rest of the world, jguk 21:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Go up here to see new postings. All of these things are NOT human rights as defined by a reasonable person or the UN.

Please archive
In order to prevent this page from growing unmanageably long, please archive those conversations that have concluded. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 18:42, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: I have archived all discussions on this page for which no additions have been made since January of 2005 (with 2 minor exceptions). Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 21:28, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

VFD debate
This article has been kept following this VFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism by anti-US crusaders
If you are going to constantly push these ridiculous edits, you WILL be reverted. Please discuss them on the Talk Page first so that we can have a reasonable article.Existentializer 16:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected
I'm going to unprotect this page. Maybe we can get a little editing in without namecalling and high-speed reverting, okay? CDC  (talk)  23:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)