Talk:Human rights in the United States/Archive 3

Edit to First paragraphs
I tried to clean up the language in the first few paragraphs. The prior version seemed confusing and redundant. Though there were some good links. I tried to maintain the spirit of the original in my edit. HOWEVER - these first few paragraphs seem to be editorializing to a large degree. I think a short neutral paragraph about the scope of the article would serve us better. Feel free to revert or replace if you want - wasn't trying to vandalize I promise ;-) PS: It's good to focus on the US HR record, but there are many countries in wikipedia who deserve but do not have HR pages.PBF 22:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

== I've copied all the stuff I edited replaced and put in in a sandbox so you can see the old version: User:Prettyboyfloyd/HRUSA

Reason for removing government overthrow section
Okay, now. It said on the old  'Overthrow of Democratic Governments by the United States government and its Proxies'  subsection that the US government said it supported democratic reform throughout the world, but its records claim just the opposite. What records? And what evidence do you have that proves they only support brutal dictatorships after they aid in the overthrow of another government? And then there were excessive uses of weasel words and the word 'brutal'. For example, it said, "The 9/11 attacks occur on the democratic nation of Chile. On this bloody day 3,000 civilians are massacred as well as the democratically elected president Salvador Allende. When the brutal coup and massacres are over, the brutal dictator Augusto Pinochet seizes power. The CIA contributed to the downfall of the Chilean government prior to the coup and were close allies of Pinochet." I must say, it exercises a negative point of view over the rule of Augusto Pinochet. Now I do agree that he was one of the most corrupt and power-hungry lunatics of all time, but not everyone else does. Heck, some people think he was the most perfect head of state of all time. All I'm saying is that the information was POV-ridden, pointless to have in this article, and that I thought the best thing to do was remove the subsection. --Kschwerdt514 04:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten this and added it back. The rewriting includes removal of the previous heavy POV slant, more neutral description, and links to wider and more appropriate sources. But the section itself seems encyclopedic so removal doesn't seem appropriate. Improvement seems more the answer. FT2 (Talk 08:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that you mention it, that does sound better than removing it. But shouldn't this article be about human rights in the US, and not about how the US government has affected human rights around the world?--Kschwerdt514 17:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The human rights record of a government or country is not just its domestic record. That's why (as is noted elsewhere on the article) the topic is "human rights and the US" not "human rights IN the US". The entire US human rights record is being considered, and as with most countries, human rights records of countries are not limited to how it acts within its own borders or to its own citizens. For example, overseas assassinations were part of the human rights record of the USSR and several other countries, Israeli actions in Lebanon will be part of the human rights record of Israel, the process of extraordinary rendition will be (whether good or bad, right or wrong) part of the human rights record of the USA, and so on. FT2 (Talk 01:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That makes sense, but they have the unsuccessful aided overthrow of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez on there, and that makes me want to bring up a few questions. First of all, I thought that subsection was about actual successful overthrows, not overthrow attempts. So why should an unsuccessful overthrow be listed there. And that brings me to my second question: what does an unsuccessful coup d'etat have to do with human rights issues? I feel that little bit of information has little purpose here, and therefore I feel I should remove it. --Kschwerdt514 19:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose the commonsense question is whether attempting to forment revolution or undermine the legitimate government of another sovereign nation, is a human rights issue, or whether it's only abuse of people that's a human rights issue. For example, if the old USSR had established a sleeper network in France, with the intent of causing riots, or discontent, publishing media reports that would tend to discredit the government, and thus cause a revolution or coup or a change of government, would that be considered a human rights issue? If so, then Chavez probably is too, because success or failure would not be the issue - the attempt is what counts. (Understand this is an open question since I myself am not utterly sure of the answer in all cases). I can see a possibility that it would be an international crime (against peace, or against another sovereign nation), but not necessarily a humans rights issue, to try and topple another country's govt for ones own purposes. That's the question that it comes down to. Thoughts?


 * And specifically - do we have cites or examples of such actions and whether human rights bodies usually consider them human rights issues, if people were not illegally killed or their rights damaged, to achieve them? And do we know enough of the Chavez case to know whether human rights were harmed in the attempt to topple his government? FT2 (Talk 20:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

11 year old Guantanemo prisoners
I removed this little bit of information for not citing a source. Something as inflamatory as that had better be backed by evidence.

Archives

 * See also Talk:Human rights in the United States/Archive1 and Talk:Human rights in the United States/Archive2

A note about what this page is about
Barneygrumble should note that this page is about Human rights in the United States. It therefore discusses a wide range of human rights issues - and whilst at times it compares it to international norms, it does not take a view as to what it is right or wrong. It is not "human rights abuses in the United States", nor is it "human rights successes in the United States". There are many issues that are clearly human rights issues, but for which there is no definitive answer as to whether it's good or not. Take availability of abortion - is that a good or a bad thing? We may differ there. But is it a human rights issue? Yes, jguk 17:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think abortion is typically left out of human rights discussion because it isn't clear cut enough. With most human rights issues it's pretty obvious that what's going on is wrong regardless of your own ethical stance.  Also, you wouldn't see it mentioned in most places where human rights are an issue because there are simply so many other issues that overshadow it.  We shouldn't be throwing things like abortion in just to fill up space.  I disagree with you when you say an issue should be on this page just because it has human rights involved.  The waters are already muddied enough without pulling in divisive issues with no clear "violation" or "success" of human rights, as you put it.  TastyCakes 18:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You write: "With most human rights issues it's pretty obvious that what's going on is wrong regardless of your own ethical stance." Er, no. If every human right was so obvious there wouldn't be a debate about anything and it wouldn't take so long to change. Is it "obvious" that women are persons and deserve the right to vote and hold office? It is to people in the west (although even here it's a relatively recent innovation) but not to many other people in the world. That's one of the interesting things about human rights. In places where  a certain thing is not a right, people tend to rationalize the situation by trying to claim that it's not a 'real' human right. I don't understand why you don't think these things should be discussed just because they're divisive or unclear. --Lee Hunter 19:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that Western concepts of morality are built into what we define as human rights, because Western concepts of morality were what started the idea of human rights as we now know them. And Western values continue to be how we define human rights.  At one point perhaps "the" (by which I mean "our") concept of human rights didn't involve women having the right to vote etc, but it does now.   So the standard concept of human rights was expanded to include that.  From Wikipedia's human rights article:
 * Within particular societies, "human rights" refers to standards of behavior as accepted within their respective legal systems regarding 1) the well being of individuals, 2) the freedom and autonomy of individuals, and 3) the representation of the human interest in government. These rights commonly include the right to life, the right to an adequate standard of living, the prohibition of genocide, freedom from torture and other mistreatment, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, the right to self-determination, the right to education, and the right to participation in cultural and political life.
 * Now take one item on that list and tell me anyone is going to say "no, that's the opposite of a human right." You can't because those are "clear cut" human rights - especially in Western culture but I don't think there are many people in the world overall that would say "education and representation in government are bad" or "torture is good".  You couldn't add to that list something like "women should be allowed to have abortions" or "fetuses have the right to not be killed before they're born" because it's not clear cut in this way in Western culture, which, as I said before, is what we continue to use to define human rights
 * I don't mind if these issues get discussed. I just don't think they should be in an encyclopedia entry on human rights when the definition of human rights hasn't been expanded to include them, and may never be.  You won't see issues like this in articles about human rights in other countries, why should they be crammed in here?  TastyCakes 23:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You really think nobody would dispute that "the right to an adequate standard of living" is a human right? - Nat Krause 19:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you're right I don't think that should be there. People shouldn't have an inalienable right that is economically impossible.  I suspect it was added by someone recognizing the Chinese government's stance that they are improving human rights by improving their people's living conditions.  TastyCakes 22:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Who has defined abortion as a human right? Or gay marriage? Or the *amount of people in prisons. Some of you decree yourselves to be judge and jury. Human rights can begin to be encyclopedic. So what is the consensus. Let's see, there was a big UN meeting on it. There have been several Geneva conventions. Let's look to them. What have people been charged with in war crimes trials? Torturing dissents? Yes. Refuse gay marriage? No. I know some of the editors do not like the US. However, try to be independent. Leave your personal opinions out of these pages. Barneygumble 03:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If country X decides that issue X is a human right, then it is absolutely worthy of inclusion in any general article on human rights in country Y. Good heavens, all we're saying is that issue X is considered a human right in country x but not in the United States. It boggles my mind that you perceive this as an attack on the US. We're NOT saying "X SHOULD be considered a right in the US" We're just stating the plain fact that it IS a right in some countries but NOT in the Unites States. That is banal factual information which is perfectly relevant to the article. All we're doing is delineating what is and is not considered a human right in the United States which is the whole point of the article. You Americans are just so damned touchy these days. --Lee Hunter 14:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see it as an attack on the US. But I think there is a fundamental difference between an official or de-facto "right" in a country and human rights.  I don't think things can be considered violations of "human rights" in one country and not others.  Human rights are supposed  to be inalienable rights of every human and transcend secular laws.  They are not necessarily the same as "what people are allowed to do in certain countries".  That is why it's so hard to get something added to the list of fundamental human rights. That is why things like abortion shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia entry on them.  TastyCakes 01:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The way the article is written, it presents these certain "contrevesial" topics as being fundamental human rights, not the opinion of one particular country. Barneygumble
 * The amount of people in prison is not a violation of human rights no matter how you look at it. Which country has a limit on it's prison population? Name it please, or let's delete it.
 * Non sequitur. The claim wasn;t that the U.S. doesn't put a limit on its prison numbers. --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 17:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * So then how is the number of prisoners a rights violation? The only thing a government could do to keep the number of prisoners lower, is to put a cap. Then however, the rights of ordinary citizens could really be violated because they would be subjected to additional criminals. Barneygumble 17:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The ethnicity of people in prison is not in itself a human rights violation.
 * It is nevertheless widely seen as an indicator of insitutionalised racism, and thus an issue of human rights. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 17:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * See Race and Incarceration in the United States a press backgrounder from the organization Human Rights Watch. --Lee Hunter 17:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not disputing the statistic. But is the ethnicity of prisoners a human rights violation? It's a long hard stretch (and unencyclopedic stretch) to say that the ethnicity of prisoners indicates institutionalized racism. There is no proof of that. Are these people in jail fairly? Did they commit the crime for which they are imprisoned? Did they receive a fair sentence? These are the questions which could indicate human rights violations. Not "are they black?". Barneygumble 17:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Who is it considered an indicator by? Yourself and like-minded foreigners? There could be several reasons why a higher rate of minorities in prisons, ranging from rap music to poverty. However, the allegation of racism is unsubstantiated. Barneygumble 17:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * So it's not racism, it's just that as we all know, only minorities comit crimes, and as long as they're allowed to go free, then it's a threat to the country--172.141.193.91 17:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No, don't be childish. This is an encyclopedia. You cannot make an assumption that a higher level of minority must be a result of institutionalized racism. Barneygumble
 * Is coming from the person I replied to? If so, you just blamed all crime on rap music, and minorities, and told me not to make assumptions?--172.141.193.91 18:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one making assumptions. Do you actually read what is written. I said there could be many different reasons why there were higher numbers of minority prisoners, all which would be speculation. You guys assume that higher number of minorities in prison = racial bias by cops. Well, it could be higher number of minorities in prison = higher poverty rates. It also COULD be higher number of minorities in prison = poor family structures. You can't degree any of the reasons to be THE reason why. Hence if you cannot prove systematic bias by the police, that would result in thousands of more prisoners being incarcerated (thousands would be required to raise the percentage that high), then the entry must be removed. "You assume too much" Barneygumble 22:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The existance of high security prisons is not in itself a human rights violations. Statements such as "there have been reports that some nonviolent prisoners have been sent to supermaxes" violates the wikipedia policy on weasel words Avoid weasel terms
 * Universal healthcare. It is presented as being a fundamental human right. So, anything but socialism is a human rights violation? More unsubstantiated claims that "This has resulted in a wide gap in the quality of treatment between those who can afford health insurance and those who cannot" disregards the argument that socialized medicine reduces the quality of care even further. Regardless, the merits or detractions from socialized medicine is a seperate debate, but it's not a human rights violation!
 * Universal healthcare=socialism? How peculiar. On what grounds do you make that claim? --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 17:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure, socialism. What do you think universal healthcare is a part of? Certainly not capitalism. So if it is demand that healthcare be included or else it's a rights violation, then by default, socialism is demanded. Is welfare then a human right? Barneygumble 17:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Er, the U.K. is a capitalist country, none of whose political parties reject the notion of universal health care (of course, if you want to try the vicious-circle route of defining a country as socialist if it has universal healthcare...). Open your eyes, there's a big world out hhere.  --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the condensending remark. I've lived in the UK. (Their healthcare sucks.) They are not a "socialist" country, but it is a socialistic policy. There's a lot of gray area in between a pure capitalistic society and a purely socialistic one. Sweeden is not a purely socialistic country either, but it's a few steps closer than Britian. The article infers that the lack of socialized medicine is a bad thing. Perhaps care in the US is actually better? That's not mentioned. (You don't hear about 2 year waiting periods for knee surgery in the US, or the lack of dialysis machines, so the old people die.) Regardless, the lack of "universal healthcare" is not an inherent human right. Any such debate belongs on the heathcare pages.
 * Gay marriage has been voted on by the people in resounding numbers against it. So you are saying that something which 75% of Americans oppose is nonetheless a human rights violation? Does America have a democracy where laws are derived from the people or should they be at the bidding of subversive foreigners. Canada's social laws are their social laws, but that's all they are: social laws. America even banned drinking in the 20s. Personally, I like my lager, but the banning of drinking wasn't a grave violation of human rights.
 * In a tyranny, it's the tyrant who makes the laws that might violate human rights; in a democracy, the people can be involved in making laws that violate human rights. I don't see your point.  Are you really saying that, if the majority want it, it must be beyond moral reproach? --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 17:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it's a social issue decided by the people. Is outlawing bestiality a human rights violation? Is prohibiting polygamy a human rights violations? What about incest? Society has a right to make laws on social issue. They are NOT rights violations? Barneygumble 17:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You're not reading or thinking about what I said. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You're lucky that don't enforce that incest thing, or you might not be here to have this argument--172.141.193.91 17:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow you're funny.. Glad to see we've got the 12 year old dork demographic represented here. TastyCakes 01:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * well yes, the majority of the country seems to like both the idea of 'shoot to kill' and racial profiling being implemented in NYC, if the NYPD decided they were within their rights to go around executing any non-white citizens in name of national security, I'm sure much of the country would vote to support that.. that makes it a good thing, obviously--172.141.193.91 17:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The fact that convicted felons are not allowed to vote is another grave rights violation? It certainly is presented as such. Which country let's felons vote? By the article standards, a prison term term would be a human rights violation.


 * well, when you decide to harass people of a specific ethnicity, ask them for 20 forms of ID before they can vote, then tell them that they're the same race as a noted felon, and thus can't be allowed to vote because they can't tell the difference between you and others of your ethinic group, that's at least a minor violation of some rights--172.141.193.91 17:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You again assume that something is only a violation of human rights if its unique or unusual. Why do you think it impossible that every country be guilty of such a violation? --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 17:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * So are prison terms, human rights violations then? Is the fact that you need to be 18 to vote, a violation of the rights of children? Society has the right to make laws. Barneygumble 17:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Now, notice I left prison rape alone. If prisons or prisoners use rape as a control tool that is a rights violation. Prisons are sent to be incarcerated, for a length of time, not sentenced to be raped.Barneygumble 16:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Please reread the article. NOWHERE, absolutely nowhere, do we state that universal healthcare is a fundamental human right. We say that is considered a human right in some countries but not in the United States. This is simple factual information. We do not say that gay marriage is a fundamental human right. We say that it is considered a human right in some countries but not in the United States. Again this is simple factual information and entirely relevant to the subject of the article. The levels of incarceration and the ethnicity of prisoners is widely viewed (at least outside the United States) as a human rights issue. Americans hate it when the rest of the world frames it as a human rights issue, but that's just how it is. Someone coming to the article will want to know if the human rights in country X are the same as in the United States. This is what an encyclopedia is for. Sorry if you find it embarrasing or awkward, but the information will stay in the article. --Lee Hunter 17:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Much of this article is a complete sham. It presents these issues as fundamental rights. Many are not written in an independent style. Who says the level of prisoners is "widely considered" to be a rights violation? Do you have a poll? How is the level of prisoners a rights violation? Explain it? Perhaps there are other reasons for higher numbers, but the numbers themselves have nothing, repeat nothing, to do with human rights. So how would the US limit numbers... by adding a cap? Infering that the higher numbers indicate a rights abuse is irresponsible. Your diatrabe into the US hurts the credibility of wikipedia. Barneygumble 17:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yo dude! It's not MY diatribe! This is an encyclopedia. That means that my opinion and your opinion of what constitutes a human right is simply not relevant. We go by recognized third party sources here. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the laws of various governments. Media reports. Books. This is what makes an article. Your personal interpretation of the universal declaration of human rights is purely 'original research' and is NOT considered a valid basis for editing. If you can find support for your interpretation among legitimate third party sources, they can be incorporated into the article but you still can't rip stuff out if it's well-supported by other third party sources. --Lee Hunter 18:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I know it's an encyclopedia! I referenced the UN universal declaration on human rights and multiple rounds of the Geneva conventions.  Not once does it mention the number or ethnicity of prisoners. Nor does it mention gay marriage. Nor is healthcare considered. Which organization or government has even ever considered the NUMBER of prisoners to be a rights violation? Read the UN document. That is my well supported third party source! Barneygumble 18:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the UN declaration is only one source. Secondly, everything that you claim is not a human right can be (and has been) interpreted by informed persons and groups to fall squarely within the declaration and the interpretations of those groups are unquestionably encyclopedic. See Human Rights Watch. See Amnesty International. See the laws of various countries. All laws require interpretation. That's why we have court systems, advocacy groups etc. What does the declaration actually mean by "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status." and then later "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law." (racial bias in prisons?) "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home" "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family." (gay marriage?) "Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives." (but not prisoners in the US?) "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care" (universal medical care?) "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home" (abortion?) I'm not saying that the declaration does, in fact, address these issues, only that it can be, and has been, interpreted to do so (by legitimate sources referenced in the article). --Lee Hunter 19:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The declaration was pretty specific in its points and generous intrepretation should not be applied. The first one, is well short of the mark. Example, Jim Crow laws were bad. The current number of minorities in prison doesn't prove a systematic bias. However, that's what the article infers. As for marriage, it says specifically "men and women" and "race, nationality, and religion." It never mentions sexual orientation. As for healthcare, there is medicare just as there is welfare. However, if that statement meant "universal healthcare", then Uncle Sam ought to be buying me a house. As for abortion, it requires more open intrepretation to justify abortion as a human rights issue from that statement, than for me to justify incest. I would have a lot easier time doing that. You reference HRW and Amnesty international as end-all and be all of sources. NAMBLA thinks their member's rights are being violated. Does that then warrant inclusion because they are a "third party"? If not, why not? Is it only not popular enough? What more reason do you have to include gay marriage because Canada does it, than to claim that polygamy because Saudi Arabia does it? In reality, both a social issues, not human rights issues. Barneygumble 21:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Again I point you to the Human Rights Watch article on [race and incarceration in the United States]. A WP article isn't supposed to 'prove' anything, only to give a balanced coverage of various viewpoints. You seem to favor eliminating this viewpoint because it doesn't suit your idea of human rights. The fact that United States does not interfere with sexual relationships with the exception of those between adults and children could be worked into the article. That governments balance the rights of various parties and limits rights in some instances is noted throughout the article. For some reason you seem to think this is a criticism of the United States when we're simply offering a factual and comprehensive description of what is happening. Of course, governments must limit the rights of some people (the right of people to pursue their sexual interests) when it hurts or exploits others (children) and shouldn't limit the rights of others (i.e. consensual adults in private). --Lee Hunter 22:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The HRW article discusses the race of prisoners, but doesn't contend that it is a grave human rights violation. This is an encyclopedia, we should be airing viewpoints.. Not to mention "The United States death penalty receives controversy from both within the United States and outside of it. Many regard the death penalty as inhumane and criticize it for its irreversibility." That is not a NPOV discussion. It infers that the death penalty is completely wrong and the US is at fault. What about: "Racial minorities, notably Blacks and Hispanics, are over-represented in the US's prison population." That statement presents a POV, that there are rights violations going on in the US, strictly due to minority statistics. The level of minorities, in of itself is not a rights violation. If you want to have your pow-pow on the minority population in prisons, it should be done so on another page. I think mediation or arbitration may be needed. Barneygumble 00:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Excuse me while I pick my jaw up from the floor. You write "The HRW article discusses the race of prisoners, but doesn't contend that it is a grave human rights violation." Did you actually read the article? Here's just one quote "The high and disproportionate rate of minority incarceration in the U.S., particularly that of blacks, is a grave challenge to the country. Last year, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights warned that racial inequalities in the criminal justice system threatened to negate fifty years of hard-fought civil right progress." I can't believe you're suggesting that this article from Human Rights Watch about human rights in the United States is somehow not relevant to an article about human rights in the United States. The only third party source you seem willing to refer to is the UN declaration which makes no specific mention of human rights in the United States. Is is just me, or is something a little off here. --Lee Hunter 15:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, actually you missed the line: "In this briefing, we do not analyze the diverse reasons for these troubling statistics" nor do they provide any justification for the line: "While incarceration rates reflect many race-neutral factors, racial bias or sheer indifference to the fate of minority communities has surely contributed to the development and persistence of such racially disparate rates of incarceration". This Wiki article (and other editors) assumes that human rights are being violation... because of massive racial profiling and bias. I still contend that there is no factual justification for this! Show me some proof. It would take a vast racist conspiracy on a grand scale to raise the prison population of black and latinos to 63%, when they are about 25% of population. There could be several reasons as I have suggested previously. The only one that would constitute a "human rights violation" would be racist in nature. So is there a vast conspiracy or is it something else? Barneygumble 15:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Lee Hunter, I don't think you understand what makes minorities being more common in jail a human rights issue in some situations. The fact that they are there does not necessarily imply anything.  If they are there because they indeed commit more crimes there is no human rights issue, other than a possible carry over from past human rights issues (eg slavery) but in most situations that's a bit of a stretch.  Now if you have data that shows "this percent of white people that went up for murder got the death sentance versus this higher percent of black people", that's a human rights issue.  Such data does exist, and I find it more concerning than the fact that blacks are 12 times as likely to be in jail as whites, or whatever the stats are.  Your discussion doesn't reflect this, nor does the article itself.  In fact, maybe I'll make a little rewrite when I've got more time... TastyCakes 15:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * For the umpteenth time, this is not my opinion. I don't have an opinion one way or another. This is a legitimate third party source providing their evidence. Your opinion of their opinion is irrelevant. This is a perfectly valid source for a WP article. Surely an article about human rights in the United States must contain the viewpoints of people who criticize the state of human rights in the US. Isn't this blindingly obvious? We do not say that they are right or wrong in their criticism we just note that the controversy does exist. This is how WP articles are written. --Lee Hunter 16:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I assume you read the article you posted. So then I assume you noted that it's not the statistics themselves that are the meat of the thing but some of the elements that contribute to those figures.  It is not a human rights issue just if more black people are in jail than white people.  It is if they are targetted via profiling and so on and are hence more likely to go to jail for committing similar crimes.  Those issues make up a large part of this article.  Also note that nowhere does it say it is an article on human rights.  Just because Human Rights Watch publishes a paper on something, doesn't mean the subject of that paper should be thrown into a wikipedia article blind.  The data is used to support allegations of things like profiling and unequal sentencing (although other, non-human rights social issues make up a large part of the explanation).  That is what should be emphasized in the article, not the numbers themselves. My opinion of what human rights watch has to say is not the issue here, that you are emphasizing the wrong part of what they're saying is.  TastyCakes 18:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Surely you're joking. Here's the first sentence from the HRW article: "In this briefing, we present new figures documenting racial disparities state-by-state in the incarceration of African Americans and Latinos" later "As the charts in this update reveal, there are striking differences among the states in the degree of variations of racial disparities in incarceration. State criminal justice and law enforcement policies clearly play a role in creating these differences." and  later  "racial inequalities in the criminal justice system threatened to negate fifty years of hard-fought civil right progress". Your assertion that the Human Rights Watch article is not about human rights is simply staggering. Equal treatment before the law is the most fundamental human right. The Human Rights Watch article explicitly states that minorities are not treated equally. And yet you still say that this article isn't about human rights? Gimme a break.  --Lee Hunter 19:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not joking, and don't call me Shirley. You keep assuming that the racial disparity is due to widespread racism, yet there is no proof for it. The questions to ask are, 1. Did they commit the crime for which they are in prison? 2. Were they given a fair trial? 3. Did receive a fair sentence? I doubt you can answer 'no' to any of the questions for the vast majority of prisoners. I do not disagree there is a disparity, but simply dispute that this proves that there are human rights violation. The summary line: "In this briefing, we do not analyze the diverse reasons for these troubling statistics" ought to put this article to rest. This is an encyclopedia and you need little more that generous assumptions to make conclusions. Barneygumble 20:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The HRW article presents a statistical analysis showing (in their opinion not mine) that incarceration of blacks vs whites varies dramatically from state to state. Why is that? They conclude (again its not me making this up) that "State criminal justice and law enforcement policies clearly play a role in creating these differences." In other words, it's not because blacks are more likely to commit crimes it's because law enforcement in some states is applied more harshly against blacks. Like any statistical analysis, you and I can have our differences about what their statistics really mean. What you cannot dispute (without looking extremely foolish) is that this is an article that offers a viewpoint about human rights in the US. --Lee Hunter 20:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll agree to the inclusion of race of prisoners strictly due possible sentencing disparities. However, the article's section needs rewording to create a more NPOV as these are statisically inferred disparities, not proven facts. As written, infers that the disparity is solely do to racial discrimination. My argument is not limited to prison race. The number of prisoners is next on the list. To include that, you're going to have prove a lot of people are falsely in prison. Good luck. I suggest we start a new debate section. Barneygumble 21:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I get the impression you're not even reading what I write anyway. I am saying exactly what you are.  It's not the numbers that make a human rights issues, it's the reasons behind the numbers.  It doesn't say that having more black people in jail is a human rights violation.  It says that fact points to possible human rights issues.  TastyCakes 20:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * We're making some progress here. A moment ago you were writing "nowhere does it say it is an article on human rights" and now you're writing "It says that fact points to possible human rights issues." --Lee Hunter 20:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Some of the latter part of the article does deal with human rights, when it goes into some of the perceived causes of prison population discrepencies. I was mistaken to say it didn't.  But a lot of it is simply prison statistics.  I agree with Barney, the section needs a rewrite to indicate why racial makeup in prisons may be explained in part by human rights violations.  TastyCakes 22:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Good point Barneygumble; the "critics" of governments ignore the human rights abuses of criminals. They get a free pass not even worth talking about. nobs 18:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Note this article is not entitled Human Rights Policy of the United States Government; hence I think it is very apt to discuss the human rights abuses of various criminals perpetrated upon other Americans, and or abuses of other persons & citizens, including organized groups, unless you wish to change the articles title. nobs 03:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Flag Burning?
it just occured to me, that isn't legal anymore, anti-terrorism and sedition laws and what not, maybe it's time for a minor re-write? --172.141.193.91 17:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Flag burning for expressive purposes is protected under the first ammendment. Some states have laws that make it illegal.  However I think you'd be hard pressed to find more than a handful of people that are actually prosecuted under those laws.  TastyCakes 05:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism
I'm laying it here without reverting the article, but this paragraph is gonna need reworking. And it can begin with specific sourcing to validate any of the underlying statements made.
 * "An example of such a right that has been denied would be the right to criticize the government openly. This practice, guaranteed under the Constitution, was nevertheless vigorously suppressed both early in the country's history (see Alien and Sedition Acts), and in later years, when charges of "Anti-Americanism" greeted political fringe groups. Such charges were pursued prominently at the start of the Cold War in 1950 by Senator Joseph McCarthy and earlier by the House Committee on Un-American Activities, which investigated suspected Communists, some of which were confirmed later to have been foreign spies as revealed in 1995 in the VENONA project." nobs 18:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Here are some sources: Alien and Sedition Acts, McCarthyism, Joseph McCarthy. Which part of this paragraph do you have a problem with? --Lee Hunter 18:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, the "right to criticize the government openly" is rather dodgy. First off, there is a right to free speech, not a right to "criticize the government." So you might change "criticize government to free speech." It's often been intrepreted to protect speech critical of government, but the right of itself is not inherently "criticizing the government." The second sentence is a fragment. Barneygumble
 * Lee Hunter: Thank you, I'm well aware of those sources. The above will need outside primary sourcing, beginning with the assertion " Such charges were pursued ", (i.e., charges of "Anti-Americanism"), "by Senator Joseph McCarthy and earlier by the House Committee on Un-American Activities". You will need to qualify "charges pursued", seeing that both Senator McCarthy & HUAC have no Executive power to "pursue charges". (Senate & House are in the Legislative branch).  This assertion, burried in three different sentences, is false, prima facia (false on its face). No hurry, but it does need reworking. And there is at least one other problem, maybe more. nobs 18:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that they didn't charge "anti-Americanism". McCarthy charged that some people working for the federal government were Soviet spies. Barneygumble 19:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Absolutely correct; one would have to look at the original House Resolution for the Dies Committee in 1938, and later when it was renamed "Un-American Activities Committee" in 1945 to see what was being refered to as "Un-American". I would suggest the problem now lies with "pursuit", from which we get "suit" as in lawsuit, implying prosecution.  Legislative bodies have no prosecutorial power.  Barney, is a wholesale deletion now in order, or should we wait? nobs 19:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Probably try to rewrite it. Most of my wholesale deletions on this page, although warranted, are reverted. At least Lee Hunter is willing to argue. Many users, like natalinasmpf, just revert citing "censorship." Barneygumble 19:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The paragraph uses "charges" in the sense of "allegations". If that's not clear to you, feel free to change it. McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) were primarily concerned with rooting out people with Communist sympathies more so than spies. Or rather, his idea of "spy" was pretty broad - it included everyone who at any time belonged to the Communist Party or expressed any leftward leaning ideas. --Lee Hunter 19:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Many of the people they exposed were spies. Even if they were "only" communist party members, isn't appropriate for a government to root out of it's government, people who are ideologically akin to their enemy. Is that a human rights violation? McCarthy and HUAC target government employees. Owen Lattimore (spy) was sent by Roosevelt to advise Chiang Kai-Shek. Little wonder the nationalists lost to the commnunists, eh? Oh, but it was a violation of human rights to expose a spy working for the government. Barneygumble 19:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It's one thing to expose spies in government but McCarthy was particularly obsessed with Hollywood and especially with Hollywood screenwriters, which is why his name comes up in the article (that whole 'freedom of speech and thought' thing) --Lee Hunter 20:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Have you read this document yet (50 U.S. Code Chap. 23 Sub. IV Sec. 841), referenced in full here CPUSA? nobs 20:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Lee Hunter: your statement here " McCarthy was particularly obsessed with Hollywood and especially with Hollywood screenwriters", I beleive can be proven to be factually incorrect. I beleive you are referring to testimony given before the HUAC in 1948, two years before anybody ever heard of Joe McCarthy. (See also Hollywood blacklist for details). nobs 20:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right, it was the earlier HUAC that was focused on Hollywood screenwriters. --Lee Hunter 20:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Returning to 50 U.S. Code Chap. 23 Sub. IV Sec. 841, this is an extraordinary document in American history. It is codified law (care to discuss Human Rights vis-a-vis the CPUSA and this law that was a result of their activitiy?).  This is not poetry.   This is not an opinion. This is part of a law that was passed by the people's democratically elected represtentatives and signed by the President of the United States in response to the demands of the people who elected them (unfortuneatelly, this is how a democracy works), and part of a package of larger reforms as a result of decades of Communist Party activities within the United States.  So this is a codified statement, for all time, what the people of that generation, and thier lawmakers felt, about Communism, and the Communist Party.  It is not the paranoid rantings of Joseph McCarthy (indeed, this law in some respects is a testament that Joseph McCarthy in some measure represented the views of the people of that era).  What makes this codified law so curious however, is one simple word that occurs at the end, "should", meaning that blistering indictment of the disrespect of other peoples human rights that the Communist Party held, was not outlawed.  The Congress looked at the problem, and rather than insert "is hereby" outlawed, put in "should be" outlawed, giving it no  effect.  And they did this in respect of persons rights in a free society. I will explain Joseph McCarthy's role or significance in this (or rather, lack of significance, because it none) later. nobs 20:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * So we see (A) Legislative Committee's have no Consitutional power to "pursue charges" as the article alleges and (B) there are unsourced conclusion regarding the actions of both Joseph McCarthy and HUAC. Also, the document cited shows it was not the policy of the United States Govenment to pursue human rights violations, it in fact bent over backward to protect them, while at the same time the Communist Party of the United States itself could be charged with a massive disregard for human rights, as referenced per 50 U.S. Code Chap. 23 Sub. IV Sec. 841.

Now, as to Senator McCarthy: The PSI only has subpoeanea power to compel witnesses before it who are employees of the United States Government, or businesses & persons who do business with the United States government. It has no legal authority whatsoever to compel testimony from private citizens. Joseph McCarthy, as Chairman earned reputation of being abusive toward witnesses compelled to testify, who exercised their Constitutional right not to give evidence against themselves, i.e. admitting membership in the Communist Party, or Communist Party affiliated organizations, or espionage. Please note, when a person is employed by the U.S. government they take an oath to "bare true faith & alligiance to the same" and there are a series of statute laws that bar a person from holding a view or belonging to an organization that advocates the violent overthrow of the United States government. They are free to hold those views outside of government, but this is by law, and remains the law, a disqualification to employment, and may result in prosecution if a person is found to have violated the oath. So the idea that is being perpetrated within this article, that Joseph McCarthy promoted the wholesale disrespect and violation of all American citizens human rights, is pure bullshit. McCarthy may have been guilty of violating Senate rules as to how to conduct proceedings, and nothing more.

Since McCarthy, both Houses of Congress have instituted reforms regarding the treatment and protection of witnesses testifying before committees. Two simple examples in very recent years will illustrate how "McCarthy-type abuses" have occurred:
 * (1) the Enron hearings under Senator Fritz Hollings, when Ken Lay was called to testify, everyone knew he would plead the Fifth Amendment; hence, before he was sworn in, each member of the Committee was allowed an opening statement, most heaped abuse directly upon Ken Lay, to which he could not respond, not having been placed under oath. Once completed, Chairman Fritz Hollings addressed him deriscively as "Kenny boy" and asked him to stand to be sworn in.  This is exactly what McCarthyism was, ridicule and abuse from a Congressional Committee to which the witness was publicly subjected.
 * (2) the September 11 Commission, although not a Congressional Committee, generally held proceedings using established Congressional rules & procedures. Its Public Hearings were held in a Congressional Hearing Room, and looked very much like a Congressional Hearing. When Richard A. Clarke (and others) testified, the public attending the hearing were allowed to applaud testimony, and "owww" & "ahhh" without the Chairman keeping order & gaveling the session, thus some witnesses felt intimidated by a hostile crowd. This is what is meant by McCarthyism in its original meaning, and as aptly demonstrated, the paragraph in question needs a serious revision. nobs 02:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

POV reversion placed here pending sourcing or revision
"An example of such a right that has been denied would be the right to criticize the government openly. This practice, guaranteed under the Constitution, was nevertheless vigorously suppressed both early in the country's history (see Alien and Sedition Acts), and in later years, when charges of "Anti-Americanism" greeted political fringe groups. Such charges were pursued prominently at the start of the Cold War in 1950 by Senator Joseph McCarthy and earlier by the House Committee on Un-American Activities, which investigated suspected Communists, some of which were confirmed later to have been foreign spies as revealed in 1995 in the VENONA project."
 * needs serious rewrite. nobs 02:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Why? McCarthyism and the anti-communist crackdown is a well documented fact. -- Natalinasmpf 04:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Please see discussion under Anti-Americanism above; this paragraph has serious problems. nobs 04:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * prima facia evidence exists to this paragraphs factual deficiencies cited above. nobs 04:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * McCarthyism and the House Committee on Un-American Activities are hardly factually deficient. -- Natalinasmpf 04:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Cut and pasted from above: " Such charges were pursued ", (i.e., charges of "Anti-Americanism"), "by Senator Joseph McCarthy and earlier by the House Committee on Un-American Activities". You will need to qualify "charges pursued", seeing that both Senator McCarthy & HUAC have no Executive power to "pursue charges". (Senate & House are in the Legislative branch). This assertion, burried in three different sentences, is false, prima facia (false on its face). nobs 04:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Like I said before, "Anti-Americanism" isn't a charge. It's factually inaccurate and looks like it was written by a teenager without proper understanding of the U.S. Barneygumble 12:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed; the assertions placed as "fact" sound like recycled statements from junior high school teachers without a willingness to even look at source material. There appears to be no good faith effort to even examine evidence.  This raises the possibility of placing dispute tags regarding factual material in the event of a mindless edit war. nobs 16:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Numerical Quantity of Prisoners
The other section getting bulky so let's take these one at a time. Next up, quantity of prisoners. The number of prisoners is not, in of itself, a human rights violation. For anyone to include this, one needs to prove that there are massive amounts of people falsely in prison. If not it must be deleted. Barneygumble 21:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * "Violation"? Please show me where in the article it says or implies that "imprisonment is a violation of human rights"? You can't 'cause it ain't there. This article is not about violations of human rights per se, it is about how human rights are granted or constrained in the United States. Imprisonment is, by its very definition, a constrainment of human rights (all of those rights in the UN declaration you are so found of). It is the most profound constraint on human rights next to capital punishment. That's all imprisonment is - human rights, constrained. This is not a bad thing. There are people who very much belong in prison. However the fact that the United States chooses to imprison (i.e. constrain the human rights of its citizens) in far greater numbers than any country in the world is naturally germane to an article on human rights in the United States. Basically it means that the US grants more freedoms than just about anywhere but is also far harsher than any country in removing those freedoms if people break the law. Like, how could you write an article about human rights in the US and not mention the high level of incarceration? --Lee Hunter 13:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The US doesn't "choose" to imprison more people. Victims of crimes also have their human rights violated then. Should we include murder and rape rates in the article? How can you have an article on human rights and not include people who's right to life have been violated? As for prison levels, perhaps people in the US perhaps commit more crimes. Perhaps the investigation by the police is better in the US. Perhaps there are more solved crimes here. Perhaps longer sentences are given for the same crimes. All possibilities, but none of them have to do "human rights" as classically defined. The higher prison levels in an article about human righs indicates that there is something wrong with it. It infers that it is a bad thing. Perhaps the citizens of the US walk the streets safer because more criminals are behind bars. The citizens of the US may have increased human rights because they are not subject as frequently to convicted felons. Barneygumble 14:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Again you're reading all sorts of stuff into the article that isn't there. And again, I have to point out that, by any possible definition (classical or not), incarceration is the lawful constraint of human rights. Look at any of the human rights in the UN declaration and you'll see that imprisonment constrains them. That's really the whole point of imprisonment. You go to jail and you can't raise a family, partake in the political process, enjoy free speech, hold down a job etc etc etc. Does the US choose to imprison more people than other countries? This is blindingly obvious if you look at any country-by-country per capita crime statistics.  . By any measure, the per capita crime rate in the US is middling (not terrible but not great) and the rate of incarceration is astronomical. Imprisonment as a way of protecting the human rights of the public is a novel concept to me, but if you can find legitimate third party sources to support this view, feel free to add it to the article. In the meantime, you have to respect that the other third party sources that discuss incarceration as a human rights issue (note that I say "issue" and not "violation") support inclusion of this topic in the article. Also note that your suggestion that people are safer in the US because of higher levels of incarceration is incorrect, the figures are again only middling. --Lee Hunter 15:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * So then who is the credible third party that deems prison population levels a human rights issue? I see links to statistics, but that's it. Sure, when someone goes to jail their rights are restricted. Victims of the criminals have had their rights violated as well. If someone is killed they cannot provide for their family or take part in the political process. Rape, robbery, assualt...all affects the rights of people. Every felony crime has a victim. If the US is the middle of the road of crime rates and higher on incarceration rates, that means to me that either its better police work or more likely prison sentences are longer. However, if a dangerous criminal is given a short sentence than appropriate, perhaps he will repeat his crime. Look at the recent child abduction cases, like Shasta_Groene or Jessica Lunsford. Obviously, their rights were violated. Normal people also have the right to walk around without constant fear of being a victim of crime. Otherwise, their LIBERTY would be restricted. I don't know why this is so novel of a concept? So if we include prison population levels, then we should include crime statistics. Barneygumble 17:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You write: "So then who is the credible third party that deems prison population levels a human rights issue?" Here are a couple: Incarcerated America. Cruel and Unusual (extract "In this report, Human Rights Watch criticizes the human rights impact of drug sentences in New York for low-level or marginal drug offenders. We do not challenge the state's decision to use criminal sanctions in its effort to curtail drug abuse and drug trafficking. To an extent far greater than other drug control policies, however, the use of the criminal law is subject to important human rights constraints.") These are without really looking. I'm sure I can find many, many more if you'd like. --Lee Hunter 17:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, so that answers the question, but please address the rest of my last post. Barneygumble 18:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Regarding whether victims of crime have had their rights violated? I suppose so, but like I said, that's your horse to ride. If you are trying to say that because victims of crime have had their rights violated we shouldn't allow viewpoints regarding the rights of prisoners, I'm afraid I don't follow your logic. One does not preclude the other. Also, it's worth noting that the vast majority of new incarcerations in the US (about 75% according to HRW) are for non-violent crimes (mostly drug-related). Not that drugs don't have an impact on society but dredging up "the human rights of crime victims" in a discussion of incarceration is a little disingenuous, to say the least. --Lee Hunter 18:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If the defined definition of human rights is so broad as to include criminals in prison, then it is broad enough to include the victims of the criminal actions. I'm saying that to include the one, you have to include the other. Additionally, you'd have to include both sets of info on all the other countries' pages on human rights. Human rights is universal, not defined differently in different countries. Non-violent crimes also have victims. Look at the folks at Enron? "Drug-related" crimes are not necessarily limited to possession of 1/3 ounce of pot either. Family members of hard-drug users may have their human rights violated. It's more disingenuous to ignore the victims of criminals and focus simply on the criminals. Barneygumble 18:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, whatever. Like I say, the human rights of victims is your horse to ride. Just make sure you're not putting stuff into the article that's only based on your opinions or your sense of moral outrage. It's an encyclopedia not a podium. Re. other countries, I think we're getting way off track here, but in my opinion you only need to include rights/incarceration information where it is either a) clearly notable (certainly true for the US but not so for every country) or b) addressed by reputable third party sources. In any case, I'm sure that over time  the articles for all countries will be updated to include this information wherever it's relevant. If you think it's a good idea then, hey, go ahead and write it up for those articles. --Lee Hunter 18:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not my "horse to ride." Articles are not supposed to be point-counterpoint editorials. They are supposed to be encyclopedic. What is lacking is a clear definition of human rights. Is any restrictions by law a human rights issue? 16 year olds cannot vote. Is that a restriction of their rights?


 * Well don't look at me. You're the one who wants to expand the article to talk about the rights of crime victims. Most human rights discussions are centered around the role of government in protecting or limiting rights. The role of criminals in limiting rights sounds like a novel (i.e. original research) take on the subject but at this point in time I'm more concerned about the stuff you're trying to remove from the article than the stuff you want to put in. Re. 16 year olds, yes the age at which someone is allowed to vote is obviously a limitation on their right to vote, but not an especially notable one with respect to the United States (it's in line with the rest of the world). If the age limit was very young (2) or very old (30) it might be interesting enough to include in the article. You keep forgetting that we're only creating a general article about human rights in the US. Anything that is interesting or unique about the rights situation in the US is worth including. Imprisonment is highly notable (in that it has been noted by others) the age limit of drivers is not. --Lee Hunter 20:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * So the only criteria is that somewhere in the world it is allowed? Where is euthanasia allowed? Certainly not Asia. Barneygumble 19:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * "The only criteria"? Please show me where I wrote that? --Lee Hunter 20:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Supermax Prisons
The existance of high security prisons is not in itself a human rights violations. Statements such as "there have been reports that some nonviolent prisoners have been sent to supermaxes" violates the wikipedia policy on weasel words Avoid weasel terms. Additionally there are rights of other prisoners in the general population to consider. A prisoner who is violent or dangerous cannot be in the general population. People in jail for theft would have their rights violated if they are killed. The article is also contradictory. It rightly casts a shadow on prison rape, but then criticizes any effort to segregate the most violent criminals. Barneygumble 21:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Origin of human rights
The statement that the modern notion of human rights originated in the 20th century is one sense tautologous, in another tendentious. If thought of broadly, it's saying nothing more than that the modern notion is modern. If thought about more carefully, we're left in the dark about what it is about the "modern notion" that is significantly different from ealier notions, and what grounds there are for the claim. Could these issues be addressed before the claim is re-inserted into the article? --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 14:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The modern theory on human rights really begins at the Enlightenment and developed by John Locke. 18th and 19th century classical liberalism really defined "human rights" in a modern sense. It continued with, among others, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. It was really only further developed in the 20th century. Barneygumble 15:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Leaving aside the fact that this is also rather confused and self-contradictory, why are you adding the grossly oversimplified (to put it mildly) claim to the article? --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 15:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I wrote the sentence in question. I don't think it is a tautology. It doesn't just say "It comes from the 20th century", it says, "it comes from a particular sort of 20th century thought." I don't think the statement is, as Barney says, POV; at least, I don't have the same point of view that Mel does. Barney is right, in a sense, that "human rights" are traceable to Locke and the classical liberals. However, what I mean is, nowadays when people start talking about "human rights" (as opposed using some other variation on "rights"&mdash;"individual rights", "natural rights", etc.) they are usually taking a perspective that stems from the Universal Declaration on Human Rights in the 1940s. That document is undoubtedly from the far left of the liberal tradition and so it's not really "classically liberal". My intention was to point out a potential shortcoming of the discussion of "human rights"&mdash;this is terminology that is favored by the liberal left, and so, naturally, they will tend to hold the U.S. up to the measuring stick of left-liberalism, deprecating other concepts of individual rights, such as a libertarian one, as well as anti-liberal, communitarian, group-rights or non-rights-based philosophies. - Nat Krause 15:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I am understanding where you are coming from. However, the UN declaration on Human Rights was not from the far left. It includes many things found in the Bill of Rights as well as other amendments to the Constitution. No one can claim that ANY of the founding fathers were from the far left. They were all classical liberals. It is the developments since then. Many of the items in the article considered human rights are not found in the UN declaration. The deveiation from the classical definitions of human rights started gaining momentum in the 60s. The wording can be changed slightly in order to clarify your intent.


 * Any attempts of mine to include reference in perspective to Moynihan's law was reverted, however it is appropriate. The human rights article on China deals with physical torture and imprisioning political dissedents, while the US page talks about the illegality of euthanasia. Barneygumble 17:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It's true that the Declaration of Human Rights is influenced by documents like the Bill of Rights and the Rights of Man and Citizen, etc. That's to be expected, because Universal Declaration was indeed a product of "liberalism" in some sense, although they were left-wing liberals who some would argue had betrayed their liberal roots. However, not everything from the Bill of Rights, etc. was included when they were coming up with their list of "human rights". The Bill of Rights specifies a right to keep and bear arms, for instance, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen includes property in its list. The former was excluded from the Universal Declaration, while the latter was included by henceforth completely forgotten (it doesn't appear in either of the Internatinal Covenants). Instead, they have added clause like, "Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security"; "everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory"; a guarantee of "protection against unemployment"; "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State"; and even "Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country"; none of which has anything to do with the Bill of Rights or anything similar (and the one about protecting the family, by the way, could easily be interpreted to mean that people have a human right to be protected against gay marriage). These things are noew considered to be human rights. But, when was the last time that you heard anyone refer to property rights or the right to keep and bear as "human rights"? In mainstream sources, rarely or never. - Nat Krause 11:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Health and the Family
I'm not sure how these debates affect human rights as defined classically. The morality of abortion is always a debate, along with euthanasia, etc. However, are these human rights issues? NAMBLA wants to legalize pedophilia. Some want to legalize polygamy. What about incest then? Are they human rights issues as well? Or does society have a right to make social laws without them being considered human rights? Barneygumble 20:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Surely the question of whether a foetus is a human being and therefore has the right to life is as much a human rights issue as anything you could possibly name? Same goes with the woman's right to be free of government interference in the medical choices she makes for her body and her family. Re incest, pedophilia etc I won't dignify that with a response. --Lee Hunter 20:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Gay marriage is a rights issue, but polygamy isn't? An adult-age brother cannot marry an adult-age sister. That is no more of a "human right" than gay marriage. I throw out the extremes to illustrate a point that we lack a clear definition of human rights. There is no more justification for defining gay marriage as a human right than there is define polygamy as one. Barneygumble 21:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * In editing articles we try, as much as possible, to only reflect what has been published or broadcast on the subject. Gay marriage is a human rights issue only because that is how some of these sources have framed the discussion. For example, Canada recently approved gay marriage (with relatively little fuss) after court challenges that were specifically based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. During the debate in Canada, the leader of the opposition did try and raise the possibility that polygamy would be next on the list (he was mostly ridiculed). Note that I am not offering an opinion as to whether gay marriage is or is not a fundamental right, that's not for you or I to decide. If some informed sources frame it as a human rights issue, then according to Wikipedia policies, that's exactly what it is. That means that all this stuff about lacking a clear definition is entirely beside the point. We don't need a definition, we just go by what's out there. Outside of NAMBLA, has anyone in the world seriously proposed incest or pedophilia as a human right (other than the right of children to be protected from predators)? No? Well, then it doesn't warrant inclusion in this article. It's very simple really.  --Lee Hunter 22:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh so now you're against polygamy? Bigot!  I kid, I kid..  But really, do you think it's fair and balanced that America get slammed for not allowing gay marriage (which, what, 2 countries allow?) while to my knowledge China's human rights article doesn't even mention Tianemen Square?  Why does it seem like we're changing the definition of human rights depending on what country we're writing about?  TastyCakes 16:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * What on earth do you mean by America getting "slammed for not allowing gay marriage". Are we talking about the same  article??? This is what the article actually says: "While some countries such as Canada and Spain have been moving to recognize same-sex marriage, the issue remains hotly contested in the United States. There has recently been talk of enshrining the traditional definition of marriage (one man and one woman) within the Constitution. (See Same-sex marriage in the United States)." Exactly which part of those two sentences "slams" the US in an unfair way or misrepresents the debate. Please tell me and I promise I will gladly fix it. --Lee Hunter 17:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You have a habit of latching onto one sentance in a whole post. "Slamming" was a strong word to use, but the fact that it's brought up at all implies people have better human rights in these places because they have gay marriage.  Does it not?  The idea behind human rights is that all humans should have them, and that there is general consensus on that (within western culture at least).  Most of the things you're fighting for don't fall into that category and that's why they aren't in many of the other human right's pages on wikipedia.  The point of my last point was that America's page on human rights deals with very different (and much b roader) topics from other countries, and that doesn't seem right.  Personally, I think gay marriage is a grey area because marriage sometimes implies certain material benefits tax wise and such.  People get dinged financially because they're gay.  But other than in that context, it's simply a cultural matter of not wanting to call two people of the same sex "married" and that isn't a human rights issue.  TastyCakes 20:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You write "the fact that it's brought up at all implies people have better human rights in these places because they have gay marriage. Does it not? " Or course not. It only means that in the United States the issue has been debated in the media, ruled on by the courts, addressed by legislation and raised as an election issue at the municipal, state and federal levels. That's what makes it notable and worth inclusion in the article. Some other countries have said yes, others have said no. One of the countries saying no, at least so far on the federal level, is the US. I suppose to the people favoring gay rights it makes the US look bad. To the people against gay rights, it makes the US look good. Does this article take a stand on the issue one way or another? Nope. We just report on what the situation is. Once again, you're reading this article as if by mentioning any issue we're trying to point fingers at the United States. Take a deep breath, relax, stand back at least four feet from your monitor, squint your eyes and look at the headline. What does it say? "Human rights in the United States". Not "A list of things which we think should be human rights in the United States". What is it you want, an article that reads "with respect to human rights everything in the United States is just perfect, the concept of human rights is exactly the same as everywhere else in the world, and by golly, everyone is in perfect agreement." Sounds lovely but it's completely false. --Lee Hunter 21:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Look, as I've said before I think there are legitimate human rights issues in the US, some of which include certain elements of topics we're arguing about. But this is supposed to be an article about human rights, not rights in general.  Gay marriage is a right, not a human right and so should not be included here (except with the qualifications I listed above).  This isn't supposed to be a current events page on what's allowed in America unless those things deal with recognized human rights.  And yes, you're going to say "well it's not our job to decide what a recognized human right is" and fine.  I'm sick of this page, I don't care what you people do with it.  If you want it to wander all over the map in things that aren't related back to what most people consider human rights, fine.  It's not like anyone looks for a Wikipedia article on human rights in america for reasons other than to bicker or read about bad things that happen there, whether they be human rights issues or not.  TastyCakes 23:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * "Gay marriage is a right, not a human right" Ah but the question, is not "is gay marriage a right?" but rather whether preventing gays from marrying is a violation of their fundamental human right of "equality before the law"? Some say it is a violation some say it isn't. As I mentioned before, this human rights question was the basis of numerous successful court challenges in Canada. Canada is one of America's two neighbours, its largest trading partner and the country that is the most culturally similar to the US. We're not talking Azerbaijan here. --Lee Hunter 13:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well I told myself I wouldn't get sucked into this argument again. But one more time can't hurt..  The question is not "equality before the law" since before the change gay people were free to marry people of the opposite sex and straight people couldn't marry people of the same sex.  They have the same rights as far as the law is concerned.  The issue was that the law was changed to redefine marriage, which effectively expanded the rights of everyone (although of course only gay people would use those new rights).  As I said before, gays not being able to marry is not in itself a human rights issue.  If they are put at some disadvantage because they're not married, it is.
 * P.S. I am Canadian and I am aware of how similar the two countries are in many ways. TastyCakes 15:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed, gay people are certainly free to marry the people that they don't want to marry. I guess you could say that that's a kind of freedom. :) --Lee Hunter 17:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Not just gay people. Anyone can marry people they don't want to.  ;) TastyCakes 17:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This is what I mean when I say that "human rights" discourse tends to frame issues in a left-liberal worldview. We report the findings of authorities on the subject, and the authorities on the subject tend to be left-wing liberals, because that is who tends to use the phrase "human rights". But still, why do you say, "Outside of NAMBLA ..."? One could equally well say, "Outside of Canada, etc., has anyone in the world seriously proposed gay marriage as a human right?" - Nat Krause 23:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not an expert on the issue, but I believe it has been accepted as such in several other countries and has been argued on that basis in many others. In the US there is a movement afoot to specifically ensure that gay marriage not be enshrined as a right. Which is also good fodder for the article. After all we're not here to decide whether it is or is not a right, but only to report that the question has, in fact, been widely and publicly debated. Whether or not the US decides that it is or is not a right, we should still provide some mention of the debate. Regarding the question of whether it's left wing liberals who talk about human rights, you got me there. I guess the people who are interested in human rights talk about human rights just like the people who are interested in mathematics talk about mathematics. If right wing conservatives aren't interested in talking about human rights then I guess they only have themselves to blame if their views are not represented (although conservatives do seem rather keen on right to life questions). But regardless of who is proposing gay marriage or right to life or whatever it doesn't change the fact that the question has been raised and vigorously and widely debated (even to the point of violence). We can't talk about human rights in the US without mentioning prominent and widely reported efforts to challenge the status quo. --Lee Hunter 00:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No, that's not it at all. "Human rights" is vocabulary favored by leftists, the same way that Marxists talk about "the proletariat", but everybody just calls them the working class. Right-wingers tend to talk about "individual rights" or "natural rights" or "Constitutional rights", none of which have a clear-cut distinction from "human rights". - Nat Krause 00:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose this might be true, at least in the US. I notice though, that the phrase has recently gained currency on the right (at least within the Bush administration). --Lee Hunter 00:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, what can I say? He is a compassionate conservative, after all! - Nat Krause 10:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You (lee) use generous, but uniquely applied definitions of the issue of human rights. Gay marriage is rights issue, but polygamy isn't? One what grounds can you include one and dismiss the other? Recent popularity among small circles doesn't necessarily make it a "rights issue."Barneygumble
 * Where did I say that polygamy is not a rights issue? I don't know that it is or it isn't, only that I haven't heard that it has become a significant part of the public discourse on human rights in the US. If I'm wrong, please correct me. --Lee Hunter 17:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * So what is your criteria for human rights then? Is there a defined criteria? Barneygumble 14:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There are a number of laws and declarations which have been interpreted in various ways depending on the time and place and person. Despite the fact that most countries have signed on to the UN declaration, no two countries (as far as I'm aware) have exactly the same interpretation of what is a human right. Canada and the United States both played important roles in writing the declaration but between these countries there are some significant differences in what is considered a human right. That's the whole point of the article. What is and is not considered a right in the United States? Are there limitations to those rights? Are those limitations the same as in other countries? What protections are available to its citizens? I think these are all legitimate questions to ask. On the other hand, I don't think it's reasonable to examine every conceivable permutation of human rights. For example, there may be a corner of the world where a man has the right to marry his sheep. If there is, it hasn't been widely discussed with respect to the United States and wouldn't be worth including in the article. But US laws governing same-sex marriage, abortion, euthanasia etc have all been challenged on the basis of human rights and are a notable part of the public discourse. --Lee Hunter 15:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Health and Family_re: civil vs. human rights

 * Perhaps a larger debate needs to be waged over what distinction, if any, exists between "Human right" and "Civil right." I think this distinction is relevant to this page and the issue of Gay marriage.  Certainly, sertain issues related to marriage and homosexuality - separately - involve both.  The right to conduct one's family as a unit, the right of a family to remain unseparated, unharassed, free to pass along cultural heritage, and capable of livelihood is certainly a human rights issue.  (In fact, family-related human rights issues in American history, with regards to slavery, Native American treatment, migrant labor, and other issues seems to be largely ignored by the Wikipedia article.  Further, Native American issues in general, including language rights, forced mobility, cultural genocide, agricultural/faunal liquidation, etc., are shockingly ignored here, and all of these certainly have pertinence to any human rights debate.)  Extending the debate from "family" to "marriage" (which, by definition, is "social recognition of family, or dependent union) has varying levels of human  rights relevance, depending on what element of marriage is being considered.  I view the practice of religious ritual, and the free conduct of independent religious communities, to be a human, not a civil, rights issue.  Therefore, the right of a religious body to recognize a marriage must be upheld, inclusive; to me, a polygamous social arrangement can not be determined to be sociologically harmful in all situations, as it has been observed in other cultures with varying effects.  However, any human rights violations persuant to the said marriage (ie. sexual abuse following the religiously-recognized marriage of an adult to a minor) is prosecutable, and therefore the recognition of such a marriage can be the cause celebre of a legal injuction - yet the recognition itself is not open to legal appeal.  Unrelated to religious rights, "marriage" is a question of civil rights, not human rights, since the only substantive definition of marriage is a legal recognition of economic and social co-determination.  The status of "love" or "reproduction" can have no relevance to issue of legal marriage (if it did, half of the heterosexual marriages in the United States would have to be revoked, due to the "love clause").  Here's the principal distinction between human and civil rights: civil rights can be voted on, and approved or denied, according to legal mores; human rights are inalienable, even within an anarchic state.  This gets into a debate about "equality under the law" and whether this is a human right.  I would say that, marginally and arguably, that it is not: prisoners, foreign nationals, minors, the mentally disabled, and others do not enjoy full equality under the law, and these situations are not violations of human rights.  Civil rights have limits; the alternative is, by definition, anarchy.  (A "society of law" must involve the reliquishing of certain amounts of civil and legal rights to exist)  The onus of democracy, then, is to determine the extent of civil rights, and the factors against which a government is obliged to discriminate.  Again, a government has no demonstrable interest in regulating marriage in any way, except to prevent human rights abuses.  To deny the right to marriage due to the gender of the spouses is, thus, to deny the equality of the genders with regards to economic determination; to deny marriage on the basis of race or religion is to do the same for those respective factors.  It is up to the voters, however, to determine the extents of civil rights.  Medical equality, sexual privacy, workplace discrimination, etc. with regards to homosexuality all have human rights implications.  Marriage, in any sense, does not.--User: David  18:18 30 May, 2006

US page w/ regard to general page and others
Looking at the main human rights page, there is no inclusion about many of these topics I bring up. Going to other country pages, the legality of euthanasia is not included, nor is there a section on whether felons can vote. In fact, such pages as Human rights in Saudi Arabia doesn't even mention that no one can vote at all, much less felons. Ever other page deals with human rights as defined classically. The US is the only page which is set to a different standard. This creates a bias and POV. Barneygumble 20:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * WP is a work in progress. There are more WP editors in North America than there are in Saudi Arabia so it's hardly surprising that the US article is more comprehensive. The suggestion that this proves some mysterious anti-US bias is simply ludicrous. All it proves is that much more work needs to be done on other countries, for example there's nothing at all (that I can find) about human rights in Canada. --Lee Hunter 21:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's because Canada has no human rights issues. The model country, eh? ;) Barneygumble 21:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * So I assume the Saudi page will mention things like gay marriage, abortion and "lots of people are in jail" as human rights issues once the page is filled out further? My worry is that this page trivializes human rights. People dissappearing in the middle of the night is brushed over on other countries' articles, but America gets a chunk on gay people not being able to marry, or them not providing free health care.  To me, human rights issues should carry more weight than this.  It's like calling guantanamo bay a gulag.  Sure there are issues there, but you're using a very heavy word to describe something that is orders of magnitude less chilling.  TastyCakes 23:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That's exactly my point. It's the result of an arbitrary definition of the term "human rights." It is used here on the US page so that any gripe, complaint, or grievance is classified as human rights. Barneygumble 13:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

"All men are created equal" NOT in Constitution
It's rather shocking that people put up statements here without bothering to find out whether they're true.

One need look no further than the Wikipedia article Preamble to the United States Constitution to confirm the truth (or otherwise) of the deleted intro sentence that claims "all men are created equal" is contained in the preamble to the Constitution.

Instead, it is the Declaration of Independence that states "all men are created equal." Unfortunately for those who believe sloppily sourced POV is somehow needed to make the US human rights record seem even worse than it already is, the Declaration of Independence is not U.S. law, so it could not have "permitted" or outlawed anything, including slavery, according to the deleted sentence. It was historically a justification for the separation of the "united Colonies" from Great Britain, but today it is considered simply the moral and spiritual underpinning of the American nation.

There now, more red meat for the dogs: US human rights abuses violated not only the law of the land, but the very spirit of it too! Go to it, ladies and gents. Especially you junior accountants from old Blighty. &#8212;da blaze  01:11, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestion&#32;regarding &]]! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes&mdash;they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. - Nat Krause 10:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Mediation
I agreed to mediate a dispute between User:Barneygumble and User:LeeHunter. It has now been brought to my attention that other parties are involved in the dispute. Since any agreement between Lee and Barney can be disregared by the others involved, they should participate in the mediation process. However only two parties can enter into mediation, as such I'm requesting that all of the parties involved accept the users already in mediation as the represntatives of the two sides. Thanks. -JCarriker 11:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * With respect, that's not possible. To begin with it presupposes there are two "sides". It is also very-anti-Wiki to suggest two users can dictate exactly how one page will look. I will not try to deliberately mess up the mediation, but neither will I consider myself bound by it, jguk 12:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * With all do respect, it is possible and has been done. You are being asked to particpate in the mediation process, not dictated to. The only thing I asked was that the users that are already in mediation be chosen as the represntatives, but each side does have the right to select their own representatives&mdash; this is a request not a demand. I answered a request for mediation between two users whose disagreement turned out to involve others. I'm only asking that other users participate so that the mediation will actually be useful. For more information please read mediation -JCarriker 15:46, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've communicated to J that I don't feel comfortable representing others in this situation. There's at least one other dispute involving multiple reverts (the post-modern-classical-liberal-19th-20th-century thing) which I don't grok in the slightest. --Lee Hunter 13:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If you are not comfortable representing others, you do not have to. -JCarriker 15:46, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * JCarriker, why did you just change Jguk's comment? --goethean &#2384; 15:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't intentionally, the openining senctences of both of our post are very similar I accidentally added a phrase to his post instead of mine; which I have just corrected. Sorry. -JCarriker 08:38, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

The intro
It's been a long time since I've looked at this article. It has improved a lot. The first sentence used to imply that the U.S. was one of the most serious human rights offenders. Now it's more balanced. However, the intro isn't spotless. I am particularly disturbed by this sentence: "The US government and press engage in continual public review of alleged human rights abuses thereby making abuses of human rights in America more likely to be reported than in countries where the press enjoys fewer rights." This is a tautology, a sentence true by its own definition. All it basically says is that the press engages in public review, making it more likely that something will be reported than in a place like North Korea where the press does not. Well, duh. I would think so.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:13, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

So the only problem here is redundancy? Not to mention, it is a rather minor issue as well. It may be "duh", but many other readers may not have thought of it. -- Natalinasmpf 15:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe it could be worded better, but I think it makes a valid point. The article has a lot of stuff in it that isn't mentioned in other countries' human rights records because they don't have anyone that makes an effort to expose it.  That should help the reader view American human rights issues mentioned in the article in the context of human rights globally.  TastyCakes 16:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

"'Historically, the human rights record of the United States of America has featured a strong commitment to the protection of specific personal freedoms, and the occasional disregard of those freedoms.'"
 * why didn't anybody tell this to the slaves for 80 odd years, and the segregated blacks for another 100 odd years?
 * will reword the lead section shortly, awaiting comments.

Doldrums 13:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)Doldrums


 * changed introductory line to include slavery, racial & ethnic(?) discimination of blacks, native americans. added the national security rationale for many violations - internment of japanese in ww2, human rights violations in war on terror, strategic bombing. Doldrums 08:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's just me, but I find the whole opening, and especially the first sentence, has lots of less relevant stuff and provides little that really introduces the article. I'd prefer to see a more neutral overview of the foundations and the current state of human rights in the US. The whole idea of human rights was still a novelty in the 19th century, so it's not especially significant that the US (like everyone else) was still sorting things out at that time. And it's a little odd that a discussion of human rights in the US doesn't begin with at least a few words about the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The historical stuff can be covered in the history section and the yadayada about human rights being a lefty issue could be noted somewhere near the end. --Lee Hunter 13:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

agreed. how about incorporating the following as the intro.
 * certain rights are guaranteed by the constitution, bill of rights (but are limited, and have/had limited applicability)
 * a history of political reform & jurisprudence protecting and expanding certain rights (perhaps also role of free press, effective state institutions)
 * participation in International human rights instruments
 * significant acts of violations of human rights by US or in US
 * currently debated issues

Doldrums 15:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Freedom of the Press
Now I never thought I'd be the one pushing for something else to add to this page, but shouldn't Judith Miller being jailed for not revealing sources be put somewhere under freedom of the press or freedom of expression? I think it classifies as a human rights issue, a lot more than "America puts too many people in jail". TastyCakes 16:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The specifics of any one case, unless it involves a major precedent, seems way too granular for a general article about human rights.--Lee Hunter 19:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, that seems reasonable. Although in the article now you'll find:


 * "Two Pakistani Americans allegedly affiliated with the Islamic militant group Harakat ul-Ansar were arrested in Pakistan by Pakistani authorities and held and alledgedly tortured in a Pakistani jail. The two allege that they were interrogated by men flashing FBI agents shields. 2"


 * Which I think also falls under this category. Also, isn't the fact that the supreme court can force a journalist to reveal confidential sources a threat to freedom of the press regardless of how often it has been done?  But I agree with you in part, if it hasn't happened more than a couple of times maybe it's not worth mentioning.  TastyCakes 20:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * There's a Wikipedia guideline somewhere than says something like this isn't a regular encyclopedia so more stuff can be added. I'm adding more stuff to the Freedom of the Press section, including mention of Judith Miller and other journalists.


 * Also, Wikipedia's United States article has a seperate page for references that includes details on what each reference is about. Detailed references would be good for this article as well, either on the same page as the article or on another. Or else footnotes. Currently, it's too hard to determine whether there's something to support some of the statements in this article. -Barry- 19:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

What happened to this article?
It seems I stopped watching it for like a month and it fills back up with unsupported, inflammatory rhetoric by people lacking a firm grasp of english. Isn't anybody watching for this stuff? TastyCakes 20:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

And you replace it with euphemisms? There do exist some serious problems, and I don't see how replacing it with the word "issues" helps it any further. For one, they are prominent accusations all the time, from groups ranging from Amnesty International to others...it's hardly inflammatory to state their accusations in an NPOV way.


 * I didn't say I'd fixed everything, that's part of why I posted here. It's not inflamatory to relate the accustions in an NPOV way, and the changes I made were an attempt to do this.  But this is how they said it:

"Torture

''The torture practised by CIA, United States military and FBI is widely criticized inside and outside United States. Both citizens of United States and citizens of foreign countries are occassionally kidnapped outside United States and transfered to "detention" facilities, sometimes for periods ranging from months to years. Overseas torture facilities are known to be maintained at least in some Eastern European countries, Thailand, Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq and Cuba. Also prisoners of war are applied torture and their rights are abused. In 2004, photos leaked from Abu Ghraib prison caused a political scandal in US. Cases which involved CIA kidnapping people in Sweden, Italy and Germany and torture in detention, some which resulted death, have heated transatlantic relations recently.''

''The two detention camps at US Naval base of Guantanamo Bay have gained attention as one of the largest known facilities in recent years, hosting over 500 detainees illegally transfered to the base. Detainees have been held in imprisonment for up to four years without charge or trial. Third-party observers such Red Cross are constantly denyed access to conduct medical review, detainees have included children from 11 year old and the country's own citizens. United States Supreme Court has ruled that the detainees are under the juristication of United States law, but the military doesn't enforce the resolution.''

War crimes

''United States is criticized for abonding the Geneve Conventions of war crimes and not bringing its war criminals to be trialed in International Criminal Court. The war criminals in the United States military are often not sanctioned even internally, possibly messaging approval of such crimes."''


 * Do you see what I'm talking about? Although I must say I was impressed by their use of the words "juristication" and "abonding". TastyCakes 16:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * And by the way, I changed problem to issue in one spot because it was more fitting. The Patriot act is an issue, not a problem, if you're going to be NPOV.  Further, that's hardly the only change or particularly representative of the other changes that I made.  TastyCakes 19:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Mankind in the Declaration of Independence Obviously Means all Human Beings
The statement “Human rights in the United States of America are built on the self-evident truth that all men are born free and equal; however, by "men" at the time of writing, white males were meant.” is nonsense since the Declaration of Independence states created instead of born and is based on John Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government.

John Locke said in Chapter VI Of Paternal Power. Sec. 55. Children, I confess, are not born in this full state of equality, though they are born to it.” his contention being that children of either sex were under the authority and protection of their parents either mother or father.

In Chapter IV of Slavery Sec. 22 he writes “Sec. 22. THE natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule.” He is speaking of slaves having liberty in this cite.

The writers of the Declaration of Independence held it as fact that all human beings are created equal and have the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness as well as other natural human rights. These rights exist even if the were subject to the commands of another such as the a citizen to the government or a slave to her owner. They believed those in authority had limits placed on that authority by nature. Some of these limits are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence itself. There is also clear evidence that they did not believe that such freedoms were already obtained, but instead to be aimed for. This is even if the government had to be abolished through war and another set up in its stead designed to protect those natural human rights.

Kerwin brown 00:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That sound like the explanation that was not given back then, maybe because it wasn't necessary, those whose right's were being violated were not given the tools to fight for those rights. Instead, what the 'state' gave it citizen, was the right to be selfish and greddy. Most know how slavery was abolished, but I dont think we know why it was abolished.  Is not like they had Amnesty International back then or anything.  I see some things in the following quote and maybe it could be revise "Some confuse equal rights with equal authority and thus assume that those with less authority lack these rights which gives birth to the mistaken hypothesis that by "men" the Declaration of Independence meant, white males."  Because we know, those who wrote the constitution did not reffered to themselves as 'white males', we know they did not included 'slaves' in their back-then utopia of All men are created equal...I think that quote, more than anything else, decries for help...

Introduction
I would think an article on human rights in a particular country should focus on explaining the rights of a citizen within the context of legislation and law and that it should give the reader a sense of how those rights compare with other countries. At some point, the article should certainly discuss how human rights are abused or limited, but this needs to be placed in the larger context. The current introduction to this article tries to give a very long-winded rundown on human rights issues in the past and a myriad of hot button issues (even to the point of mentioning Afghanistan!) and then lurches into an ambiguous tangent about liberalism. All this before we even say a word about the US Constitution or explain anything about what actually constitutes "human rights in the United States". It seems that we're a little too anxious to mount our favorite hobbyhorses before providing the reader with the basic information suggested by the article title. --Lee Hunter 18:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That is because this page is a sounding board for everyone who wants to bash the United States. I am all for healthy ctricism of all governments and institutions however common sense and NPOV left here a long time ago.  I notice their are a number of Canadian contributors to this page yet the information on Human rights in Canada is a bit lacking.  For our wonderful (western) European brethern, their pages are mostly non existent and the ones that do exist (UK & Germany) are weak to say the least (one paragraph on Northern Ireland?  That should cover it, I mean nothing shady happened up there?).  They are quick to cast dispersion on Eastern Europe but do not feel the need to comment on themselves or any problems that may exist within their societies.  I can see why that is, since none of these countries have ever had any issues with human rights (France..cough...Spain...cough...UK).  At least the Aussies have put a real page together that could use some expansion but hits all of the relevant points.

I am not saying that everyone cannot edit this article or that only Americans should. What I am saying is that it is very skewed to the left and it would be great if everyone got of their high horse every once in awhile and looked at their own countries/regions. I also realize that 2/3 of the English speaking world lives in the US and that in itself will lead to a robust article but for our foriegn contributors to be so vehement on this page and leave their own pages blank is a joke. It must be nice to always smell like roses. This should comment should be as well received as a fart in church but I am interested to hear the reply.--Looper5920 06:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

International Marriage Broker Regulation
Out of all the things on this page, does the paragraph about the "International Marriage Broker Regulation" need to be in this article? Death Penalty, Torture, and regulation of companies hawking address of foreign women. Really....--Thunder 18:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
This article seems to focus only on alleged abuses of human rights in the US, and has very little mention of the the progression the US has made in expanding human rights. The US lead the world in expanding sufferage, and promoting freedom. It still has much more generous freedom of speach and expression then many European countries (ex. holocaust denial laws in Europe). The US has had issues with human rights just as any other country has.
 * Yes, holocaust denial laws in some European countries certainly belong to encyclopedia, so please find good sources and edit the article Human rights in Germany. And to your statement "US lead the world in expanding sufferage, and promoting freedom", U.S. was one the last Western countries to grant universal suffrage and the human rights record generally has never been particularly shiny comparing to some other Western democracracies and what is considered as human rights today. But this is not the point in the article, the article is for objective discussion of human rights in this specific country. --Donut2 12:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I ran into this page doing some dab work, and as I look through it I have to say that it's pretty incredibly POV. For example, if a naive observer came to Wikipedia and read only Human rights in the United States and Human rights in the People's Republic of China, that observer would think that the human rights situation in the US is much worse than that in China. This is, of course, preposterous. If I get a chance I'll come through and fix some of the most egregious stuff. Of course, I'm sure this was unintentional on the part of the editors to this article who I'm sure were acting in good faith. --Deville (Talk) 04:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL, your comments are so true. This article is complete garbage--don't know how I came across it, but its amazing the crap people will write.  I think it should be deleted. ER MD 07:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is indeed ridiculous. Sure there's some issues with regards to human rights in the US no more than in any other western country but it never ceases to amaze me how articles like this are set up compared to those regarding countries where it really is a problem. To treat the US as a human rights abuser akin to true human rights abusers is obscene. I suggest that people who write this stuff go to say North Korea or Zimbabwe and write an article there about human rights abuses in those countries. I'm sure their subsequent treatment in those places will give them a unique understanding of, and ability to compare, human rights situations in the US versus other countries. FYI, discuss the deletion nomination of this article here--Kalsermar 15:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be wonderful if you worked on the article Human rights is Zimbabwe, that's how we improve Wikipedia! There are very few articles about Zimbabwe anyway, likely because we don't have many Zimbabwean Wikipedians. But too few Zimbabweans is a not reason to delete other countries' articles. Read Deletion policy. Deletion nomination does not qualify under any deletion policies, I remove the nomination. --Donut2 13:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree that this article looks more like it would belong in a trash can than on an online encyclopedia. Either this article needs a massive overhaul or it should just be plain deleted. And besides, where did the people that edited this article get their information from to say that all that torture goes in in the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. I mean I do think it's quite the cesspool and that it should be shut down, but how are you sure that everything that is listed on this article actually goes on there. How gan you be sure that this isn't gossip that's been passed around between Anti-Americans? and American citizens and 11-year-old kids being detained at Guantanamo? Give me a break! Says who? And then this article makes it look like the American citizens support these atrocities (they don't mention any opposition). For instance, at Aby Grahib, when it wasn found out that such horrible things were going on there, there was outrage among the people and mombers of the government, but they only mention the people that were maddened by this. Now why wouldn't this apply to Guantanamo? This article only demonstrates negative points of US human rights, which there are actually very few of, and amplifies them. It looks like this article will have to undergo a heavy overhaul. In that case, I'll be helping out in fixing the article. --Kschwerdt514 17:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I recommend this article be deleted, along with "Torture and the United States." Both these articles are jokes, not encyclopedic. How many people are there here who are not angry, anti-American school children? I mean, Jesus. By the way, I just found this: Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_Kingdom. The notion of "structural point of view" is very useful. (Or see here: User:Cultural_Freedom/Glossary) --BrianMDelaney 02:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"in the United States"
Im not sure that gitmo or Iraqi human rights violations belong in this article, and probobly deserve an article of their own. This is an article about human rights IN the US, not violations by the US military in other parts of the world. Id just like to know if people disagree, if not I'll just delete those sections.


 * I strongly disagree that Guantánamo should be deleted from this article. It is not a separate country. Only the US government is responsible for human rights there. Similarly, the US government is responsible for the actions of the US military anywhere in the world. To expunge US military actions abroad is to say that no one is responsible for its actions. Wuzzy 23:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not saying that the US government is not responsible for what goes on in gitmo and much of Iraq, however I dont think that such things belong in this article. They do not occur in the United States, which is what the article is suposibly about. This article should be about Human Rights in the United States, as the article title states. Iraq is certainly not in the United States and Gitmo is not either. Perhaps a seperate article should be created called "Human Rights and the United States Military" or something to that effect. This article should be about the development of human rights in the US and the current status of human rights in the US (Capital Punishment, Supermax, police abuse, arab-americans, ect). Iraq and Gitmo have little to do with this.


 * Are you saying that you favor having a parallel series of articles, one for human rights in each country in the world, and another series for each country's military, or should this apply only to the United States? Wuzzy 10:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah I think that is about right. If a country has military operating outside their borders it would makes sense to have a seperate article detailing the human rights and that army. In many cases it would not make sense as the military is operating inside the country, but w/ the US, UK and such cases I think seperate articles are needed.

suffrage
Hi, I added back the suffrage into the list of rights the Constitution guarantees. I agree that the discrimination term is problematic, but I would say it's pretty clear that the Constitution guarantees equal suffrage in any reasonable sense of the term. --Deville (Talk) 00:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Reworking the article
Well, I promised I'd come back and do some of the work that this article needed, and it's going to be slow going. I rewrote the intro, and instead of a polemic on Guantanamo Bay, it is now IMHO a fair assessment and overview of the human rights history and current situation in the U.S. I also removed a few sentences which were tagged by fact tags three months ago and untouched.

Any comments here or improvements to the article are welcomed. -- Deville (Talk) 00:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your efforts, it now looks more like how an intro to an encyclopaedic article should be, a concise and to the point section. Well done!--Kalsermar 02:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Good job! -AED 04:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Big improvement! Next steps: either remove all discussion of slavery, or add information about slavery to the articles about human rights in England, and human rights in France. In addition, do a search for the text string "Jew" or "Holocaust" in the article on human rights in Germany, and ask yourself what's wrong with the picture.... That is: the human rights records of the countries with articles about their human rights all need to examine the same time frame -- that's assuming that point of Wikipedia isn't simply to bash the U.S., I'm new enough here that I'm not yet certain whether that's the case. --Cultural Freedom talk 19:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation
I see a lot of discussion about other points, but I don't notice any about this. There is a long list of allegations in the Torture section, but not one citation, except for the number of deaths. This is very bad. We can't just claim the US does this, you need to find reputable sources that state it. I'm not saying they don't, just that it needs to be backed up. --Mathwizard1232 21:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

United states is either 24th or 29th in freedom of speech
If you guys are NOT going to add it, then i will
 * oh no, i feel so repressed--IworkforNASA 01:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * May I ask what that means? 24th or 29th?  This was measured by whom?  And how? --Deville (Talk) 02:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

yeah i'm not sure how you actually measure it, but it's measured -Dragong4
 * By whom? --Deville (Talk) 01:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * By no one it seems, try not to feed the 'editor' --IworkforNASA 23:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

the U.S., like nearly all Western countries, has also had a history of legally permitted slavery
Which other Western countries held slaves during the eighteenth and nineteenth century? Herne nz 09:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Brilliant point. Any other gems you want to enlighten us with?--Looper5920 12:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Silly me. I forget to point out this is a direct quote from the article. As it is in paragraph 2 and as it has been there for some weeks, I thought it might have been spotted by now.

So who can provide some us with some factual information on slavery in Western countries?

Herne nz


 * Perhaps you can get started here: Abolitionism --  Cultu ral Fre edom   2006-07-18 07:49 (UTC)

Sure. And what a confusing little article it turns out to be, It claims England and Wales abolished slavery in 1772 for example. But if you look at the Somerset case, 1772 was the first time a slave travelling with his master appealed to the British courts for his freedom. The prompt result confirmed a man can not be slave, as slavery was not legally permitted in England. This was not a change in the law - it was confirming what had been the case since 1102. Now there is a pile of difference between the institional and racist slavery of millions of Africans which was permitted in the US until the 1860's and the failure of the UK to question every man from Virginia and his servant entering the country ninety years before. And yet an aboliton date is given, lumping both countries together as having an 'abolition date' as if British slaves were freed on this date.

Herne nz 08:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, then. I think that warrants an edit. Black-Velvet 10:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it really doesn't. Slavery existed in the parts of countries (dependencies, colonies, etc., or the homeland proper) within thirty-five or so degrees of the equator until sometime in the 19th century. It ceased being permitted (for various reasons, some involving changes in the law, some not) in Boston, Oslo, London, etc., much earlier. The statement needs to be restored. --  Cultu ral Fre edom   2006-07-23 10:52 (UTC)
 * Good link for the above argument....www.victorianweb.org.  Puts a good time reference on it. --Looper5920 11:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with what has been pointed out--that the Wikipedia link is misleading, most of Europe hasn't seen any slaves since today's nation states have been formed. Read: The ancient tribes had slaves, of course, but that isn't any justification for the debated phrase. Some European states allowed slavery in their colonies, but that is a (reprehensible and yet) different case. Other states simply didn't have colonies. etc. etc. etc.


 * Also one might point out that there is little difference between slavery and serfdom, which was around in many parts of Europe (especially eastern and Russia) untill at least the early 19th century (based on off the head knowledge). Also on the point of no slavery in England may I refer you to the Jonathon Swift "Government without consent of the governed is the very deffinition of slavery" when we talk about the Penal Laws in Ireland against Catholics and Ethnic Irish which existed in some fasion untill the beginning of the 20th century.  If we talk about slavery in these types of articles we should refer to a common definition is basically what I'm getting at.  17 April 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.54.204.68 (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

As nobody seems to be following up on this concern, I will give the sentence the remainder of this year for the phrase to be changed. Otherwise I'll delete it.--Ibn Battuta 12:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually >> (http://www.rootsweb.com/~ilwhite2/wchs10_26_00.html) Many Confederates fled to Brazil at the end of the Civil war, where slavery was still legal. They still have traditions about this history, they are called "Confederatos" I believe.

Test page at Talk:Human rights in the United States/Sandbox
I just moved this out of article namespace. -- User:Docu

Death Penalty
I hate to add to a big debate, but the statement "The death penalty has been all but abolished in the Northeast, but still continues in the South and West" is not really true, and needs to be cited in any case. While Texas has the most death penalty cases, most states still have it. Trying to split the regions (politically) seems unencyclopedic if you don't cite it properly.

US related topics - why?
May I ask what on earth the "US related topics" at the bottom of the page are doing? They are not serving giving any information whatsoever about the topic itself. In this context, someone might even misunderstand them as a decoy to distract from the critical topic in favor of America-friendly topics. At the very least, the paragraph should be made foldable. 80.133.39.208 19:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is just a sidebar that appears in a number of high-level articles about the United States. The human rights article isn't supposed to be a 'critical' article any more than the others. It just provides information about how human rights are addressed in that country. --Lee Hunter 19:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Main page for Torture and the United States
I've created a new main page, Torture and the United States, merging material from Uses of torture in recent times and Human rights in the United States. The merger is still sloppy, but I've tried to clean it up and at least create a clear format for references. Summary sections could make two very long articles shorter. The naming (not Torture in the United States, which will redirect) is due to the extensive interest in US practice of torture abroad, and because no neat line seemed possible to draw between this and the domestic legal issues. Have fun editing!--Carwil 18:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Why aren't there articles called "Torture and the United Kingdom," "Torture and France," "Torture and Germany," etc.? I'm working under the assumption that the main point of Wikipedia is not simply to provide a forum for angry anti-Americans to vent their spleen. Perhaps my assumption is incorrect? Any enlightenment would be appreciated! --BrianMDelaney 02:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should also have an article about "Ice Hockey in Zimbabwe."


 * Be bold. --BrianMDelaney 01:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

yes because the very idea that any German or British person ever violated anyone's civil rights is just as ludicrous as the subject of Ice hockey in Zimbabwe. 66.27.77.192 18:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Why are people so mean to Europeans? Can't we just forget the Holocaust, the Empire on which the Blood Never Dried, etc.? --BrianMDelaney 23:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have the 1978 citation for torture in the UK. (Ireland v UK?) It relates to the interrogation methods used on IRA suspects, the "five positions" (which were pretty much the US methods absent water boarding) and just plain beatings (which are not a US practice) - NONE were ruled to be "torture" by the court. I don't know if the Brits still beat their prisoners during interrogations - do they? Raggz 00:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Citation Removal + History
--Viy. I motion to separate the article into two sections; one dealing with modern human rights issues, and one dealing with historical rights issues, such as, "History of Human Rights in the United States." Right now the history is just a small section at the top, where it is utterly drowned out by the rest. (Also, on my edit: anyone with a halfway rudimentary knowledge of US history would know that people have been prosecuted for attempting to assert Constitutional rights; Alien and Sedition Act, United States v Spirit of 76, any of hundreds of other wartime prosecutions, usually lumped under "incendiary" speechmaking. Just or not, it has happened.  TwilightDragon 20:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Review
I've had a go at removing some of the editorializing and essay/POV talk from the article. This has included: FT2 (Talk 11:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Rebalancing the introduction, which was very heavily slanted, to show instead the strong views of both sides in a more neutral balanced light, highlighting:
 * 2) * Factors that give it a high profile
 * 3) * Additional freedoms and strengths which were not reported, such as strong judiciary, separation of powers, strong views of citizens willing to stand up for these freedoms, etc
 * 4) * More balanced representation of perceived problems, but without POV words such as "blatent" (!) . Instead, actually now lists the concerns neutrally without 'standing on a soapbox'.
 * 5) * Note the opposing point which is often made, that the US in fact gets unfair and disproportionate examination compared to many countries that are far worse.
 * 6) Existing section on actions against other govts was removed earlier today, essentially due to heavy POV slanting and poor style. Encyclopedic content. Rewrote with proper cites, in bullet form, and with more factual sourced descriptions and links.
 * 7) Various other fixes, errors, editorializing and POV slanting, eg:
 * 8) * The US did not "create" the term "unlawful combatant", nor is this "without basis". Its a Geneva Convention term in international law. The actual controversy is not whether the term exists, it's whether it is being over-used (in combination with rendition) to allow otherwise unjustifiable torture. Corrected.
 * 9) * Extraordinary rendition is touched on, but the German case and actual cites as well as the term itself were not really mentioned. Cites and information added.
 * 10) * "See also" links for Capital punishment placed in a separate sub-section, should probably be in section header. Fixed.
 * 11) * Basis for national security exceptions is poorly explained and lacked examples. Clarify and cite them.
 * 12) * Presidential claim of summary powers in conflict notes Lincoln in the civil war but omits Bush and override of FISA in war on terror. Added link.
 * 13) * NSA mass surveillance of citizens controversy (ruled unlawful, stayed pending appeal) omitted. Add it.
 * 14) * Rewrite health and family to clarify these are considered human rights by some, usual legislative process by others, and to remove editorializing and summarize the main debates, and why some consider them human rights issues.