Talk:Human rights in the United States/Archive 8

Huckabee comment
I'm deleting the following section: "Even right-wing politicians and commentators have criticised prison conditions in the US. Former Republican governor Mike Huckabee, for example, has stated that the conditions in Guantánamo are better than most US prisons. " If you read the article in question, you'll see that he isn't criticizing US prisons, he's PRAISING Guantanamo. Saying he was criticizing prisons unfairly misrepresents his opinion.Joker1189 (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Asinine Article
Who the hell makes an article about Human Right Violations of the United States of America? Probably because of some Liberal up in Scotland or the United Kingdom. All of the Inhumane treatment section save Police brutality, and much of the other sections, does not address a Human Rights Violation as I understand it. Free Health Care is not a Human Right; rather, free health care is a violation of the rights of Doctors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstone35 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ....haven't you got a more intelligent argument than that? Pexise (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do. I have to admit that some of the information here is accurate. I'm against the patriot act, torture, extrodinary redntion- but for the most part, this article is asinine. Since when is Free Health Care a human right? --Rockstone35 (talk) 03:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It does not say that *free* health care is a human right, hence the title "Universal Healthcare *Debate*". Health care is a human right, as detailed in Article 25 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 12 (1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, among others.  There is currently a debate around how the highest standard of health care for all is acheived. The universal health care model, as used in many European countries, Canada etc. is one way in which this can be done, universal health insurance, health subsidies etc. are others.  This is all detailed meticulously in the article, showing different sides of the health care debate and using reliable and relevant sources.
 * Anything else you care to criticise? Pexise (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If the article wasn't biased then how come the section on health care is a subsection of "Inhumane treatment"? (That entire section is rather laughable.)
 * What is the intent of the quote by Pope John Paul II if not as a backhanded criticism of U.S. policy? If he really did mean a swipe at the American system then we should say so explicitly.  Otherwise it needs to go.  (It probably needs to go into the main article on the health care debate anyway, as this isn't the place for it.)
 * I've never heard of the Center for Economic and Social Rights that is quoted by this article. No one has yet deemed them notable enough for an article, and this one doesn't even bother linking to a potential one.  Whether they're genuine advocates for human rights (doubtful but a possibility exists) or just another bunch of anti-American weasels pretending to care about human rights, their comments don't belong here either way.  WP has a real article on the health care debate.  The weasels should all be documented there.
 * The U.S. has signed the Universal Declaration, and that means there is a right to medical care. But that does not mean there's a "right" to a dominant government health care system.  We should have a link to the debate but it shouldn't be duplicated here.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the structure of the article is open to debate - the other sub-sections in the inhumane treatment section deal with negative rights - i.e. it is the state that is violating specific rights (right to life, right to security of person etc.), while the right is to be free from those actions. The right to health is a positive right, requiring that the state to act in order to guarantee the right in question.  For that reason it seems out of place.  I would suggest, possibly, sections based on Three generations of human rights as outlined in the UDHR, though you can also run into problems separating rights in that way, as many people would see such a division as a false distinction, particularly taking into account the Vienna Declaration (on the indivisibility of human rights).
 * I agree that the John Paul II quote is of dubious relevance. It appears to be there in the first paragraph where health as a human right is established.  I would be satisfied to cite the UDHR, ICESCR and perhaps CEDAW, CRC and some material from the relevant UN human rights committee.
 * While I am always sceptical about NGOs, particularly in the field of human rights advocacy, I am happy with the inclusion of the Center for Economic and Social Rights. Checking there website, their chair is Philip Alston and they have other reliable board members including a commissioner from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Unless you have some evidence that they are illegitimate in some way, I would be happy to keep this source.
 * As I mentioned in my earlier comment: "There is currently a debate around how the highest standard of health care for all is acheived. The universal health care model, as used in many European countries, Canada etc. is one way in which this can be done, universal health insurance, health subsidies etc. are others." This debate is part of the human rights discourse and as such is relevant here. Pexise (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I don't oppose trying it, I think introducing those three generations of rights could open a can of worms. Positive rights always bump into conflicting rights.  Even in your example, the rights of the condemned can bump into the rights of the populace to freedom from fear.
 * I'd much rather this article starts with the basics, and perhaps the Bill of Rights, then the Universal Declaration, and the odd ones later.
 * I have my doubts about Alston but I would reject his group regardless. As you said, this is a debate about achieving the highest standard of health care.  How Americans arrange these affairs is something to be decided by Americans.  It may be appropriate to include comments from the U.N., if only because we're basing a lot of this on the declaration, but it goes a bit far to cite other foreign or international groups in what is essentially still a sidebar.  Opinions from American-based groups would be more relevant.
 * And if we do that, it also opens the door to opinions from the Heritage Foundation, CATO, and any number of noteworthy conservative and libertarian groups. We'll have to draw the line somewhere.  I'd much rather we have a "see also" link with only short summary about the debate here.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a couple of points in response to this:
 * Philip Alston is a professor of Human Rights at NYU and a UN Human Rights Special Rapporteur - he is therefore an international authority on Human Rights issues.
 * The Center for Economic and Social Rights is based in New York.
 * We certainly shouldn't open the door to the Heritage Foundation, CATO etc. - these groups are right-wing economic advocacy groups without expertise in human rights.
 * I think the material does belong in this article, as the right to health is of absolute relevance and it is clearly not being attained in the US - therefore it is an important element to include in the article. Pexise (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Even Mary Robinson said the UN Human Rights Council has a slanted interest in human rights. This means less for Alston if he's not working under their shady imprimatur.  The UN's authority is actually pretty weak on this subject.
 * Yes, Heritage and CATO are right-wing (or perhaps libertarian) economic advocacy groups. Like them or not, these are not fringe groups.  They're as authoritative as any other large organization under NPOV rules.
 * This proposed third-generation of human rights is almost entirely about economic rights. The Center for Economic and Social Rights is itself a left-wing economic advocacy group.  They may have a headquarters in NYC but they appear to be international in makeup and scope.  In any case, as a left-wing group that wants government to have more control, they advocate for some rights at the expense of our more basic economic rights.
 * We could say about any country that the right to health is not being attained. It's a matter of degrees and priorities.  Countries using QALYs in their systems must recognize that because they're making those very calculations overtly.  Is a middle-class European sick person really better off than a poor sick person in the U.S.?  That's not so certain.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Erm - I think you've got your wires crossed a little here: the UN system is the global mechanism for human rights protection - international human rights law is derived from the UN and the UN oversees all of the human rights treaties and their monitoring mechanisms. To say that the UN is weak on the subject of human rights is like saying the US Supreme Court is weak on the subject of US law.  While the Human Rights Council may indeed be a flawed body, citing Mary Robinson as a critic of the UN system as a whole is patently ridiculous seeing as she was United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights from 1997-2002.
 * Heritage and CATO are not relevant to an article on human rights - they are not fringe groups, but nor do they have expertise or sufficient neutrality for an article on human rights.
 * Third generation human rights deal with collective rights and international cooperation (on environmental issues etc.). I think you may be referring to second generation rights - economic, social and cultural rights.  These are all codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
 * You're quite right - there are myriad countries where the right to health is not being fully realised. This does not excuse the fact that the US is also failing in this area. Pexise (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't get those wires crossed. By the UN's authority, I meant their legal authority.  It's not a world government.  Their authority over us is limited to the treaties we've signed, such as the Declaration.  Government decisions about health care in the U.S. is still primarily a matter for American voters.
 * Heritage and CATO are large organizations with many experts working on their behalf. They're not neutral, but neither are any of these left-wing groups.  It's hard to say that any organization with "Economic and Social Rights" in their name could be neutral.
 * I say Mary Robinson is a critic of the UN system because she is. That's a sidebar.  The main issue is that the UNHRC's member nations aren't neutral either.  Most (if not all) of them have a political interest in denegrating the American health care system to make up for shortcomings of their own.  It may be worth noting that Richard A. Falk, another special rapporteur, is a 9/11 conspiracy nut.
 * Yes, I was mistaken on which tier these group rights sit. My point still stands.  Many group rights are about gaining and sacrificing individual economic rights.  These third generation rights would come at the expense of first and second generation rights.
 * It's not a certainty that the U.S. is failing on health care. The actual numbers need to be looked at closely.  We've had proposals for universal care before.  So far, they've been rejected through the democratic process.  The U.N. can't overrule that.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"The United Nations (UN) is the only multilateral governmental agency with universally accepted international jurisdiction for universal human rights legislation. Human rights are primarily governed by the United Nations Security Council and the United Nations Human Rights Council, and there are numerous committees within the UN with responsibilities for safeguarding different human rights treaties. The most senior body of the UN with regard to human rights is the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights." Decisions made in the US on matters such as health care are up to the US government and voters, but this does not mean that they are or aren't complying with human rights standards. US government decisions have frequently breached human rights law as detailed in this article. The desicion to reinstate torture as an interrogation method was made by the democratically elected government of the US. Torture is still a human rights violation.
 * From the Wikipedia page on Human Rights:


 * Philip Alston is an international authority on human rights issues. As well as writing articles with Mary Robinson, who you have deferred to as an authority, he is a visiting professor at Harvard Law School, and edits one of the core human rights texts used on any university human rights course.


 * Whether you like it or not, all three generations of human rights are outlined and codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If you disagree with some of these fair enough, we all have laws we would like to change. Pexise (talk) 11:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This isn't about laws we'd like to change. Most of it's about treaties we haven't ratified.
 * The U.S. is in full compliance with the UDHR exactly as it was written. No one is denied medical care.  The complaints are that people who can afford it are expected to pay until they've depleted all their own resources.
 * The same UDHR article that says there's a right to medical care also says there's a right to food, clothing, and housing. Contrary to your interpretation, most American adults are expected to feed themselves.  The UDHR does not authorize all governments to create an army of bureaucrats to take control of America's farmers, manufacturers, and builders.
 * I went to the grocery store this morning and paid for it myself. I don't know if this disturbs Philip Alston but it doesn't matter.  He's occasionally hired by the U.N. (not the U.S.).  He does not speak for the U.S. government or its citizens.
 * There's a bigger problem about the article's statement attributed to his Center for Economic and Social Rights. That source bases most of its complaints on, not the UDHR but the ICESCR.  The U.S. has not ratified that one, and is therefore not bound by it.  (This should be noted in the article as it's more noteworthy than the opinions of Alston's group.)
 * As for torture, not only does the record of the U.S. government stand far better than that of its enemies, it stands better than that of its critics. While some may claim we've gone over the line, the record demonstrates great attention was given to figuring out where that line is.  Meanwhile, in the critics' zeal to condemn the U.S., far too many have consorted with our enemies.  And in doing so, they've ignored every chance to ask our enemies to stop fighting, and to stop using torture themselves.  I have to admit, it was nice to see them all claim to care about the Geneva Conventions even if we always knew they'd only care about it for a little while.  After all, if you step back and look at the whole, that really is what the record shows.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This isn't the place to debate the issue, we are here to discuss the article, and I think you have clearly acknowledged that this debate has a place in the article. By the way - I have never expressed my personal opinion on what health care model should be followed, and nor is my opinion relevant to this debate.
 * The non-ratification of the ICESCR is covered in the article in two sub-sections in the "International Human Rights" section.
 * Hmm, on the issue of torture - you're fighting a losing battle with that argument - why don't you just admit that outgoing administration really, really messed up? Are you really going to judge the US's record on torture against the standards set by North Korea, Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the Taliban?  The US's record better than its critics?  Try looking at all the critics in Western Europe where torture is absolutely prohited.  Sorry, but you can't defend the indefensible. Pexise (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In that case, let's see how far does the debate go? Obviously, you intend to go beyond what Americans have agreed are human rights, and into this third tier that seems to be popular only with the left.  That's fine but the differences need to be explicit.  The reader needs to know that it's disputed.  It doesn't help at all that another section contains a disclaimer.
 * It is misleading to have the article say that the U.S. is in violation of human rights, particularly for "inhuman treatment," when it is fully in compliance with the UDHR. It's like some corrupt small town sheriff making up new laws until he has one with which to fine the tourists.
 * This goes back to what you've suggested before about different sections for different layers of rights. That would be better because then you can lump all the "violations" into the new section, and state clearly that not everyone is willing to throw their consitutional rights away for these new socialist ones.
 * I was indeed talking about the critics in Western Europe, as well as some of those over here. There is every indication that they will change when their circumstances do.  It was also like this in WWII's early days.  Just as with Bush, they were calling FDR an imperialist and a warmonger before we formally entered that war.  We remember it differently now only because the Soviets changed sides and pulled the far left with them.  The National Lawyers Guild switched from "anti-war" to supporting Japanese-American internment.  So, yes, America's record is better than that of its critics.
 * But I'm not defending torture. I'm defending tough interrogation for unlawful combatants as far as the law allows in wartime.  Real torture is what our enemies do.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Americans don't decide what human rights are, they are international standards that have been codified in a body of international treaties and they apply equally to all nation states. I repeat again, this time in capitals because you don't seem to be reading it: FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD GENERATION HUMAN RIGHTS ARE ALL INCLUDED IN THE UDHR.
 * Please don't try these flimsy relativistic arguments about who is better and who is worse than the US. The US has sanctioned torture which is morally repugnant.  Stop trying to justify or defend this.  Have a look at the video on this website:  Pexise (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You cant be serious? In the occasional time where the USA has used Torture, the person who allowed it is in prison And your kidding yourself if you think there ain't torture in Western Europe.--Rockstone35 (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You're basically right. There need to be some ground rules as to the difference between state sponsored abuse and criminal incidents of abuse.
 * But it's probably not going to help. The torture meme runs deep around here.  Families of the Kuwaiti detainees spent big PR bucks promoting this view and got their money's worth.
 * BTW: We moved the discussion down to section break.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

section break

 * I'm sorry that I've been mixing up a few of these terms. It might have helped if your positions didn't rely on treaties we haven't ratified like ICESCR.  They don't apply to the U.S., and President-Elect Obama is not going to try to change that.
 * I'm not aware of any court cases that ruled we were not in compliance with UDHR. Interestingly, this article does refer to court rulings with respect to other rights, but none about health care.
 * On reading CESR's PDF, I came across this footnote:
 * For example, in a study comparing care in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States, the U.S. had the highest survival rates for breast cancer, the lowest waiting times for elective surgery, and the highest likelihood of doctors who would ask for the patient’s opinion and discuss the emotional burden of illness.
 * They weren't just complimenting the U.S., of course. Their intent was to say that rural and minority areas aren't served as well.  While I don't doubt that, it still begs the question, how do services in those areas compare with these other countries?  They don't say.  In any case, it's worth investigating.
 * I've seen a couple of the videos. I was once an Amnesty member, and I still keep up with their fundraising stunts.
 * Yes, it's rough stuff. I'll be impressed when they show their volunteers going through our enemies' techniques.  The fact that they can't do that illustrates that they know in their hearts it's not really the same thing.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 05:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The rights outlined in the ICESCR do apply to the US - first because those rights are outlined in the UDHR, second because they are part of international cutomary law.
 * Just because the US hasn't ratified the ICESCR doesn't negate the existence of those rights, and doesn't mean that the US cannot be held up to those standards. China has signed but not ratified the ICCPR, that does not mean that China is permitted to torture its citizens or arbitrarily imprison political opponents. Pexise (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see where you get that idea. Even the much-derided ICC can only prosecute crimes that occur on the territory of a state party, or if the accused is a citizen of a state party, unless the Security Council gets involved.  They're all toothless outside of their jurisdiction.
 * As ICESCR quotes Amnesty, "The United States signed the Covenant in 1979 under the Carter administration but is not fully bound by it until it is ratified."
 * There are other treaties against torture that China has ratified, although I doubt they worry about it much. The list at ICESCR shows that China was a member of that covenant's committee, along with Russia, Algeria, and Jordan.  I'm sure they all picked only the most humane diplomats for those posts.  Every one of them is as committed to human rights as the 6.7 billion other people in the world who say they oppose torture.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think you have understood what I was trying to say here: human rights are UNIVERSAL - they apply to all states regardless of whether treaties have been ratified or not. Hence, political prisoners in China are suffering human rights abuses whether or not China has ratified the ICCPR.  Likewise, the human rights standards for health apply to all countries regardless of ratification of ICESCR.  The US is not meeting those standards.  This does not mean the US will be prosecuted, it does mean that the US is not meeting international standards for this human right.
 * Generally, the US is reluctant to place itself before international human rights standards, hence the failure to ratify the ICESCR, the deficient retification of the ICCPR and the failure to ratify numerous other human rights treaties. Pexise (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The U.S. is quite properly reluctant to placing its free people under the thumb of bureaucrats from other countries whose primary duty is to advance their own nation's interests. As I noted, China had ratified ICESCR and sat on its committee; and as you noted, their interest in human rights is not the same as yours or mine.
 * Yes, human rights are universal but the true nature of human rights is not accurately defined by ICESCR. It wasn't dropped from Heaven on golden scrolls.
 * What's the definition of "international standards"? ICESCR is an agreement by politicians sometimes elected by educated majorities, and sometimes not.  Most of the world doesn't even understand these concepts.  Who is speaking for them that you could include their number in your definition of universal?
 * Many in the rest of the world (including Amnesty) would gladly degrade the notion of freedom of speech to advance their own wish list of "rights". Their view of individual rights is extremely limited.  I consider these basic rights to be self-evident.  They don't.
 * Then consider that most of the signatories represent countries that lost nothing by ratifying this treaty. Their economies simply don't measure up.  If the definition of universal excludes the U.S. then that's obviously not the right word.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Human rights are all those rights set out in the UDHR and other international human rights treaties. They are universal and apply to all countries equally. They are also interdependent, interrelated and indivisible (see 1993 Vienna Declaration). If the US doesn't want to adhere to these rights, fine, but you must therefore accept that the US has a poor record of compliance with human rights mechanisms and standards. Your comments about the US not wanting to submit to multilateral institutions could equally be said by any other government in the world, and progress in the realisation of human rights globally would be greatly limited as a result. Pexise (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, in a vague sense, and if we ignore the true meaning, my statement might be said by any other government. But that falls apart when we get to specifics, particularly about the individual rights and liberties that most countries have so much trouble with.  (Please note that you're on the side of China in this one.)
 * I looked over the Vienna Declaration. I guess where it says, "All peoples have the right of self-determination" you seem to think they didn't mean Americans.  It's fine for you to have that opinion, but it is your opinion, just as it is your opinion that the U.S. has a poor record on human rights.
 * It hasn't been demonstrated that the American system isn't the very best possible for Americans. Although the CESR claims to care about rural and minority areas, we haven't seen a comparison to rural and minority areas in other countries.  Do other countries really have uniformity?
 * Which is better for cancer treatment, a rural area in Britain under their NHS or Arkansas under Medicaid? Which system is better for handling premature births?  We usually see only broad comparisons, like the ones mentioned by Mankiw that don't take cultural differences into account.  (The more I look at CESR's report, the more bias I find.)
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I most certainly am not on the side of China, I have pointed out several times in this article that China is a human rights violator and I have condemned those violations, just as I have condemned the non-participation of the US in international human rights treaties. What you don't seem to realise is that the US is not the exceptional country you think it is in terms of individual freedom. Freedom of speech, political freedom etc are practiced in countries all over the world - in Europe, the same standards of democracy are acheived as in the US and these countries also fully participate in international human rights treaties, including ICESCR. Pexise (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I said "in this one." China is a signatory, and was a member of the committee that governed its practices.
 * Although other countries are usually good on freedom of speech, their committment is far more malleable in challenging times (see libel tourism, Ezra Levant, the Canadian Human Rights Commission free speech controversies, and this incident in London). Their position on the right to bear arms doesn't even need to be mentioned.
 * Many western countries don't value economic freedom very highly at all, and that's partly what this is about. Individual liberty is not cherished the same way.  When you say there should be a "right" to health, the inevitable outcome is that all people must accept the government's system.  They may allow the right to purchase private coverage but they are forced to pay for the government package first.  And if they don't have enough money left after that, then they're stuck with that system.  If this means they must wait thirty days for an MRI, or if those government benefits exclude some medicines, then that's just too bad.  The choice was never theirs.
 * They may think it's still okay overall, and that individual sacrifices must be made for the greater good of the state. That's fine, but making compacts with such people is not the slam-dunk case you think it is.  Just because European and Chinese politicians agree on a treaty with "rights" in its name doesn't make it an automatically good thing.  As the Vienna Declaration said, "All peoples have the right of self-determination."  American health care is an American issue, not an international one for international leftists to pretend to care about.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you'll have to do better than that - the US is an equally bad offender when it comes to limits of freedom of expression - in fact there has been a very similar case in the US to the London incident you cited: see this. Also, you will notice that the US is number 53 out of 168 in Reporters Without Borders 2006 worldwide press freedom index, not the model of press freedom that you may think it is. It's low ranking is mainly due to restrictions placed on the press under the pretext of the "war on terror" (the "tough times" you mention?) - this is from their report:

The United States (53rd) has fallen nine places since last year, after being in 17th position in the first year of the Index, in 2002. Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of “national security” to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his “war on terrorism.” The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 US states, refuse to recognise the media’s right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism.

Freelance journalist and blogger Josh Wolf was imprisoned when he refused to hand over his video archives. Sudanese cameraman Sami al-Haj, who works for the pan-Arab broadcaster Al-Jazeera, has been held without trial since June 2002 at the US military base at Guantanamo, and Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein has been held by US authorities in Iraq since April this year.

That's before even mentioning the infamous tazer incident when a Florida student tried to question John Kerry about the war on terror. And I've had the pleasure of seeing Bill O'Reilly telling people to shut up, cutting off mics, threatening to send "Fox Security" to the houses of people who criticise him on air etc. There is no way any broadcaster could get away with such behaviour in a European country.

Regarding economic freedom, human rights do not deny this, however, there is a duty upon the state to protect the most vulnerable people in society. In the area of health care, this means making sure that no-one goes without adequate health care and that health services are of the highest possible standard. Of course, any policy changes should be made democratically, but it looks like the US public has just voted for a more progressive health policy anyway. Pexise (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Apples and oranges. None of those incidents even come close.  The items I brought up were citizens living within their countries who were merely stating opinions.  None of them were due to wartime conditions.
 * Keith Henson was convicted by a jury for using threats of force. You can disagree with the jury's opinions if you like but it's not the same thing.
 * Bill O'Reilly's actions were not supported by the government. It's a bit amusing that you say, "There is no way any broadcaster could get away with such behaviour in a European country."  I don't doubt that at all.  If you mean his threats, Franken and Olbermann seemed to imply it was actionable.  If you mean cutting people off, well, broadcasters have the right to control the content of his show.  Freedom of speech includes the freedom to say things we disagree with.
 * There is no federally guaranteed right to withhold evidence of a crime. Reporters are often given that privilige but not always.  I don't know of a country where there is such an immunity all the time.  Incidentally, the federal government also got a court order to see outtakes from a 60 Minutes interview with Frank Wuterich.  CBS News took them to court and lost.  It's an interesting issue but not a sign that freedom of speech is being eroded.
 * If those are the standards for Reporters Without Borders then it's only natural that they'd give a lower score to countries that fight fascism.
 * Sami al-Haj was not held because he was a "journalist" but as a bag man for Al Qaeda. Bilal Hussein was captured for other reasons before it was known that he was the infamous photographer.  Both were lawfully held under the laws of war.  GTMO detainees like al-Haj had some legal victories, but ultimately not many big ones.  The laws of war do allow for detaining people without trial.  If you don't like it, blame the Geneva Conventions.
 * The U.S. government is fulfilling its duty to protect the most vulnerable. That's why we have Medicaid.  We still haven't seen any good evidence that Medicaid in rural America is inferior to the NHS in rural Britain.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The case of the London Scientology protester was an arrest, while this was obviously unacceptable, it appears that the police officer was acting in error and it is unlikely a prosecution will follow. The US citizen was prosecuted for "threats" though I find it hard to believe that threating to target a nuclear bomb at the Scientology HQ could legitimately be treated as a serious threat. Regardless, there are still 52 countries ahead of the US in the press freedom index. Oh, and regarding "fighting fascists" - weren't you just criticising European countries for malleable standards during "tough times"? Pexise (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, if the London professor isn't prosecuted than I'll ignore him for the moment.
 * Yes, the situation with Keith Henson is odd. I suspect there's more to it than his advocates are admitting to.  A jury did convict him for making threats.
 * That press freedom index would be different if those countries went to war.
 * I specifically said "challenging times" but perhaps you didn't get my intent. I meant it as a concession that these weren't normal circumstances for these other countries.  But I bring them up because these are not deviations necessary for public safety or to conduct a war.  Freedom of speech was limited by government officials in a non-emergency.
 * None of the items I mentioned were wartime measures. For examples of that, the British shut down The Morning Star (then the Daily Worker) during the early days of WWII before the far left switched sides.  The U.S. had its own Office of Censorship.  The examples I used here were for ordinary people.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It was a *protestor* in London, not a *professor* - he's 15 years old. I think we've pretty much exhausted this debate, it has been interesting, I hope we have both learnt something, I've made a couple of additions to the article, including information on the International Bill of Rights, and the US's ratification of the ICCPR. I can't see that any other changes need to be made for now. Pexise (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we agree on the Pope's statement not being applicable. I'll remove that eventually.  I don't care about the CESR's claims to worry about it for now.  If nothing else, at least I can get a few laughs out of them.
 * The caption for the "Inhumane treatment" section still needs to be changed. It's POV.  I may rearrange things to fix it without changing the underlying text.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Randy, you might want to track the recent changes to this article, Pexise just added the caption today. If you ask me, I think the admins might want to lock this article after I undo his changes. --Rockstone35 (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Changes by Pexise

 * See.
 * Several unexplained POV changes in the titles. What was wrong with listing which treaties were signed and ratified, signed but not ratified, and not signed? Note that the US have some legal obligations if signed but not ratified so incorrect and POV to dump these together with not signed at all.
 * Removed: "Non-binding treaties voted for: Universal Declaration of Human Rights "
 * Instead of a neutral description we now have "The U.S. was one of only four countries which voted against the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in September 2007." POV, no explanation of US view.
 * "As with many other states, the US's ratification of the ICCPR was done with some reservations – or limits – on the treaty." has been changed to "The US's ratification of the ICCPR was done with five reservations – or limits – on the treaty."
 * "Altogether, along with the United States, thirty eight states are not parties to the treaty, including Myanmar, Saudi Arabia and Cuba among others." No mention of the many dubious states that have signed the treaty, like Sudan, Zimbabwe, Belarus, China, and Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea).Ultramarine (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also a misleading edit summary: Pexie had not not discussed these changes.
 * So POV deletions of US supporting material and instead adding only critical.Ultramarine (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. The style of simply putting the treaties in a list is not encyclopedic, remember, Wikipedia is not a collection of information or facts, it is an encyclopedia.
 * 2. You can add a brief summary of the reason that the US did not sign the Declaration on indigenous rights (though not a massive tract copied from the US State Dept website as you have done below for the ICC).
 * 3. RE: the ICCPR, we're not talking about other states, we're talking about the US.
 * 4. Note that I have included the number of states who haven't signed the ICESCR, allowing material added by you.
 * 5. My name is Pexise, not Pexie. Pexise (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. Your version is also a list. You avoided my point. It is incorrect to lump not signed and signed but not ratified together.
 * 2. See no reason to discuss this particular treaty in detail when other treaties are not. Lets leave all the details to subarticles.
 * 3. It was you who started adding the status of other states to other treaties. Are you arguing that that we should remove these?
 * 4. See 3. Best to not go into details here. Or should we add details regarding every treaty?
 * 5. Right.
 * 6. You did not answer why you removed Non-binding treaties voted for: Universal Declaration of Human Rights " Ultramarine (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. We are discussing treaties of international law, these treaties need to be ratified to become legally active, therefore, whether signed or not, if they are not ratified they are not legally active. As such, the signing of the treaty or not makes no difference if the treaty is not ratified (other than showing an intention). Regardless, information is included about whether the treaty has been signed, so no information is being left out.
 * 2. Fine
 * 3. I'm happy with it as it is, I don't think we should get too far off the topic though.
 * 4. See three.
 * 5. Do you want to change the title of this section then?
 * 6. You can add that if you like, probably best in the "Support for International Human Rights" secion. Could also mention the part US played in writing the declaration, which I have alluded to in part of the lead. Pexise (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. There is are legal differences between not signed and signed but not ratified. Like that the later obligates a state to not actively oppose the treaty. So incorrect to lump these categories together.
 * 2. Will remove this text then.
 * 3. No double standard please.
 * 4. See 3.
 * 5. Done
 * 6. Will add. Ultramarine (talk) 04:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. In legal terms the difference between signing and ratifying is far more significant than anything else. There are no legal obligations on the state until the treaty is ratified, once it is ratified, the state should have all of the legal obligations contained in the treaty (enless, of course, it is done with reservations like the US's ratification of the ICCPR).
 * 2. ...
 * 3. Need to keep the article relevant. The examples are there to illustrate the kind of company the US keeps in not ratifying the treaty.  Pointing out that some dubious states have ratified the treaty is too far off topic here - should be done on the page of the ICESCR page.
 * 4. ...
 * 5. Thanks.
 * 6. Better to add it in the support for human rights section. Pexise (talk) 10:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A. There are legal obligations if signing but not ratified. Upon signature, a state is obliged to do nothing to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty. If there was no difference between not signed and signed but not ratified the UN would not bother to keep these detailed tables regarding this and Bush would not have bothered to unsign the International Criminal Court treay. No reason to have lower quality categories than the UN. So there should be separate categories for unsigned and signed but not ratified.
 * B. No double standard. If mentioning dubious states that have not ratified a treaty, then we must also mention dubious states that have ratified a treaty.
 * C. Regarding Universal Declaration of Human Rights, if including non-binding declarations like Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, then the list should also include Universal Declaration of Human Rights for npov.
 * D. Regarding your change to "The US's ratification of the ICCPR was done with five reservations – or limits – on the treaty." Many states have expressed various reservations in this and other treaties. No reason to single out this particular treaty among all the others discussed here. Better discussed in the subarticle on this treaty. If discussing it in this article, then NPOV require mentioning that such reservations are common among those states that have signed this and other treaties.Ultramarine (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A. Sure, but this information is included anyway (signed treaties say signed but not ratified). What is important is that states ratify treaties, that is why treaties come into force after a certain number of ratifications, the whole point of a treaty is that it is ratified etc etc. Regardless, THIS INFORMATION IS INCLUDED ANYWAY.
 * B. better to just leave this and include the sources, people can look it up for themselves.
 * C. OK, fine, I'm happy with it where it is, though might be good to mention how the US was central to the creation of the UDHR in the support for human rights section.
 * D. No, I disagree. Furthermore, the US's reservations are notable, they are numerous and they have been widely criticised.  I can expand with more information and sources about criticism of the US's reservations on the ICCPR if you like (there's loads of material out there about this, I'll be happy to expand this section.) Pexise (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A. Again, there are important differences which is why Bush took care to unsign a not ratified treaty regarding the ICC and why the UN take care to note the status. If this "information is included anyways" (do not shout, please) then what is the problem with separate section?
 * B. Agree.
 * C. I am fine with both a brief and and a longer description as long as they are npov.
 * D. If it is just going to be criticism of the death penalty there are other sections for that.Ultramarine (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A. I meant that this information is already included in the article (it says in brackets if they are signed but not ratified).
 * B. ...
 * C. Sure - I'm not going to write this, but think it would improve the article.
 * D. Not at all, the death penalty is the least of the problems - there are many accusations saying that the US has not really ratified the treaty because the reservations go against the spirit and meanings of the treaty. Pexise (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A. Exactly what is your opposition to the earlier categories if this information is already included in your version? As noted there are important differences between unsigned and signed and not ratified.
 * D. The death penalty is the main reason for the reservations to the ICCPR. Opposition to what in the US are controversial issues like universal health care are the man reasons for not ratifying the ICESC. How about briefly mentioning this?Ultramarine (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A. Signed but not ratified and not ratified should be grouped together because what is important is that the treaties have not been ratified.
 * D. Not true - it is the US's unwillingness to accept international law that is the main reason for the reservations. The death penalty is one of the reservations, but the main problem is their refusal to assimilate the ENTIRE TREATY in domestic law.  This has been widely criticised as fraudulent ratification of the treaty, and a fraud on the international community.  I can include this material if you like.  Pexise (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A. Why are you ignoring my point that there are important differences which is why the UN and Bush take care to separate them?Ultramarine (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * B. "US's unwillingness to accept international law"? Very general allegation. The US has ratified numerous treaties. I have added sources to articles about ICCPR and ICESC showing why the US opposes or have made reservations.Ultramarine (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A. can you do a sandbox of what you're proposing here on the talk page first and then we can come to a consensus.
 * B. right - I was actually also referring to the ICC and ICJ, as well as the ICCPR. Regardless, I don't think this has any significance for content here. Pexise (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A. What was wrong with the earlier version?
 * B. ICC discussed in another section. Why mention reservations if not mentioning the reason for these reservations?Ultramarine (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A. It's better to divide between ratified and not-ratified - this is how UN and human rights bodies and organisations list treaty statuses.
 * B. It's important to mention the reservations - why would you not want to mention them? They are an important part of the US's relationship with human rights. Pexise (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A. The UN certainly marks which nations have signed and not. See earlier for differences between not signed and signed but not ratified.
 * B. Read again what I saied. Why mention reservations if not mentioning the reason for these reservations?Ultramarine (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A. OK, I've changed this.
 * B. The reservations are very important for the US's compliance with the treaty, as such it's important to mention them. Pexise (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have made some changes. Thoughts?Ultramarine (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not happy with them. Please discuss them on the talk page before altering the article. Pexise (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's it, I'm giving up again - hopefully someone else will stop you ruining this article, I haven't got the time or the energy any more. Pexise (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced POV
I haven't read the article, but the lead has some claims that are not supported by the references given.

For instance: "Furthermore, human rights in the US typically are restricted significantly during times of war and crisis.[17][18] For instance, during the American Civil War, and recently the Global War on Terrorism, the right to Habeas corpus in the United States has been significantly curtailed for persons accused of engaging in certain conduct.[19][20]" These need to be backed up by sources or immediately removed. It's also misleading, because the Habeas corpus in the United States can be dropped in times of rebellion or threats to public safety, according to the U.S. constitution. Okiefromokla complaints 00:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I just deleted the disputed statement, mainly due to this sentence: "Human rights in the US typically are restricted significantly during times of war and crisis". It was just laughable; there shouldn't be dispute over its deletion. If there is, it is such a controversial statement that it would need reliable sources before being reinserted, although there are none, as human rights are most definitely not normally restricted "significantly" during times of war. Okiefromokla complaints 00:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The US Constitution does in fact offer authority to significantly restrict human rights during war, (just as the EU may as well). Presidents have exercised this constitutional authority, for example the right to habeaus corpus has been suspended. Japanese-Americans had their human rights legally denied during WWII because US human rights laws permits such emergency powers. The President may legally suspend US civil rights today if necessary, or even declare martial law. There is no problem finding hundreds of reliable sources making these points.


 * There are two citations, why is it claimed to be unsourced? Did they fail to support these claims?


 * The article suggested that the President had acted to restrict human rights reently. I do not believe that this was the case. Raggz (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Mere belief in something to be wrong isn't enough to warrant deletion. The onus is on you to prove it. Annihilatron (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

International Criminal Court

 * The article is about human rights in the United States and is not about the International Criminal Court or the United States and the International Criminal Court. The discussion of the ICC is off-topic for this article because the international diplomacy relating to the ICC is irrelevant to the article’s topic and no one has suggested that US ICC diplomacy was a human rights denial.


 * The reference to the International Criminal Court in the Lead violates WP:Lead because it does not summarize material about the ICC that is found elsewhere in the article. WP policy requires that it be moved out of the Lead.


 * WP:NPOV is seriously violated by this text which offers an inaccurate and biased summary of a complex issue addressed in several WP articles. The United States argued for greater human rights standards in the Treaty of Rome, not the low standards that were agreed to. The article covers only the allegations of one advocacy group, and for this reason this text requires deletion to comply with WP:NPOV.


 * WP:OR requires deletion of this text because there are no citations to reliable sources that allege that the ICC diplomacy engaged in by the United States was in any sense a human rights violation. Raggz (talk) 04:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Raggz, we are in agreement. Many parts of this article are certainly far from NPOV, so anything you can do would be appreciated. Feel free to make changes to anything that doesn't conform to policy. Okiefromokla questions? 04:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Good. At this point we have consensus. It seems unlikely that anyone can answer the above, but I will defer deletion of the offending text to comply with WP policy in case someone can explain why this text actually complies with policy. Raggz (talk) 07:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but we have already covered this ground, there is no consensus, the ICC is fundamental to human rights and the material stays. Full stop. Please stop trying to ruin this article. Pexise (talk) 10:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-21 Human rights and the United States needs to be reopened. The case was closed partly due to Raggz disappearing.  Now that he's back, he seems to have time to participate in mediation.  I suggest you petition to reopen the case as a participating party.  Viriditas (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The ICC is, among other things an enforcement mechanism against human rights violations. The article addresses US human rights-related diplomacy extensively. The lead sentence attempts to summarize the text in the relevant section. The text does not require deletion, though you may modify both body and lead towards NPOV if you find them troublesome.--Carwil (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Pexise (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no reliable source that suggests that the diplomatic activities of the US in regard to the ICC were a human rights issue, for this reason it is WP:OR. If someone has or finds such a reliable source my objection will be met. Feel free to revert this text with the required reliable source, and with modification to comply with WP:NPOV. Please do not however insert it back into the Lead unless it complies with WP:Lead


 * Please address the policy issues framed above. As editors we cannot permit this text to remain since it violates WP policies. If you believe that it complies with WP policies, please explain why? We cannot debate WP policy here, just our compliance with it. Does anyone claim that it complies with:


 * WP:Lead
 * WP:NPOV
 * OR


 * Please do not revert this text until it complies with all three. Raggz (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Pexise, we do not need to reach consensus to delete material that violates either WP:NPOV or WP:OR. We are not discussing content within this section, we are discussing policy compliance, so WP:Consensus is not applicable to the policy question. I understand that you want this content retained, but even if you want material that violates NPOV and OR, we cannot, even if we all agreed to do this. There are really only two relevant questions: (1) is the text supported by a reliable source that says that this is a human rights issue and (2) are both sides of the ICC debate fairly presented? Unless you suggest that BOTH policies are met, we must delete the text. Please limit your responses within this section to these policy questions. If you have content isues, may we discuss these in another section?


 * Viriditas, what is there to mediate? It would be best if you would just address the policy qustions (above). (1) Is there a reliable source and (2) does this text meet NPOV? These are the only relevent questions for this section. Do you have anything to say on these points? Please take the content discussion to a content section. Raggz (talk) 01:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm attempting to help reopen dispute resolution, specifically the mediation case you abandoned on 9 February 2008 and was eventually closed due to inactivity on 2 May 2008. After being MIA since February, you returned to Wikipedia on 30 August, engaging in the same behavior as before. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know what kind of contentious history editors on this page have had, but Raggz is right in this case. The Rome Statute in the lead is a violation of NPOV &mdash; specifically, undue weight. Mentioning at all is possibly debatable, as it is only slightly related to human rights and thus not a good example of “… international human rights treaties, covenants and declarations adopted by the UN member states.” But since this sentence is a perfectly adequate summary, no example is needed. Back to the Rome Statute: It relates to who has jurisdiction to try certain criminals, so there isn't much about it (including the reason for the US’ objection to it) relevant to human rights situations in the United States or of its citizens abroad. If there are no reliable sources confirming that the statute is a human rights issue, WP:OR would apply. Okiefromokla questions? 03:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Two statements from Human Rights Watch about the US undermining the ICC: "HRW considers that the major impact of the Bush administration's anti-ICC campaign is to diminish the credibility of U.S. efforts to forge coalitions against human rights abusers and to undermine future U.S. efforts to advance international justice in discrete cases, such as leading NATO in arrests of war criminals in the Balkans, or bringing war crimes charges against Saddam Hussein.". Pexise (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Raggz - could you now return the text, adding these references. Thank you. Pexise (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll revert it. Pexise (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Positive and Negative Rights
It seems to me to be worth noting that the strong disparity between how different rights are respected in the US, has a strong cultural basis. I propose that the following information, in some way, be added to the article:

There is a strong distinction in the US, if unarticulated, between negative and positive rights, which explains why for many rights, the US leads the world, and for others, it lags far behind. To summarize, a negative right protects someone from interference, for example, the right to not be prevented from expressing a belief, or the right to not have one's weapons confiscated. A positive right actively guarantees that one must be supplied with something, such as housing or health care. Culturally, compared to other industrial nations, there is a somewhat greater importance placed on negative rights, and a far lesser importance placed on positive rights. The reason the US lags behind in positive rights is because they are not viewed as inherent, inalienable rights that people are entitled to simply by being human, as well, many believe that they inherently take away from negative rights, which in contrast, the US still leads in because usually, no public good is considered great enough to sacrifice them.

Do other people think that this sort of information, in one form or another, is relevant enough to add to the article?

14th Amendment right to UHC?
It was mentioned here that Universal Health Care is a right, as enumerated by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the 14th Amendment. Whether or not I agree that UHC is actually a valid right or not being beside the point, neither UHC nor anything like it is mentioned anywhere in the text of the 14th Amendment. I've deleted the reference to the 14th amendment in this sentence because there's not even a chance it could be reasonably cited. If someone can show that the 14th Amendment does explicitly or implicity guarantee a right to UHC, as opposed to what it actually guarantees, which is that all persons born or naturalized in the states are citizens, equal protection for all from deprivation of rights, that representatives are apportioned based on population, that anyone who has participated in a violent insurrection against the US government is barred from holding a senatorial office (unless allowed in by a 2/3 vote), and that the US government owes a debt to former slaves but no government entity has an obligation to pay it. --68.224.178.2 (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding
This article really needs a section on waterboarding. I'll start it, but haven't got a lot of time, and this topic really needs some attention. Pexise (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We already have a section for Human rights in the United States. It should go there.
 * It doesn't take too much space to say that much of the world pretended to care about three fascists being waterboarded for a combined total of less than five minutes. And that many of those same people who claimed to oppose waterboarding were friends with real torturers.  Make sure we get some names of those who took these positions.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that waterboarding doesn't happen anymore. At least from what I can tell. Isolated incidents don't go here. --Rockstone35 (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be fine with me to mention waterboarding (it's going to happen anyway; we can expect the article on celery to mention it eventually) but it's a bit ridiculous to transfer the critics' entire argument over here. With only three fascists having been waterboarded it doesn't merit much space in this article.  Then if it were to stand, we'd eventually need to add the U.S. side for context.  It's way out of proportion.
 * It's a bit odd that measures to protect citizens, like interrogation, could be judged to be inhumane. True inhumanity would be to bomb foreign cities without getting aszmuch intelligence as legally possible.
 * Perhaps we need a section on how the U.S. defends the world. And then, eventually, the countries that don't pull their share (or worse, defend the fascists) should get their own "human rights" articles.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yha, well what bothers me is that this article has a lot of discussion about isolated events, which gives a negative light on the USA. Not to mention that this article is massive when it should be quite small. Every country has violated human rights at one point in time, they should all get an article. --Rockstone35 (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to add other arguments to the section on waterboarding, please do.
 * The article is about human rights, waterboarding is a grave human rights violation (as stated by the UNOHCHR) so must be included.
 * There is a section on how the US supports human rights in the world already, please add to it with reliable, sourced information about facts (not US government rhetoric).
 * the countries that don't pull their share (or worse, defend the fascists) should get their own "human rights" articles.
 * You are quite free to create articles about the human rights records of any countries, please do. Pexise (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * THe US Government is a reliable source --Rockstone35 (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be a WP:PRIMARY source in this case. Pexise (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus to delete the material on waterboarding, or the photo of the Abu Ghraib. Please add other sources if you have them.  Deleting the material as you have been doing is vandalism. Pexise (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * THere is a consensus, it is an isolated incident, and that picture is of another isolated incident that resulted in charges. Please do not revert my edits until we discuss it further. I am going to revert this page back to my version. --Rockstone35 (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I read this, I see no consensus, only a normal content dispute. If you feel the section breaks wp:undue, I would suggest pursuing that argument.  "too long" and "isolated incident" are opinions.  Since this issue has gotten HUGE attention from the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches, HUGE coverage in the domestic and international press... I can't see how it can POSSIBLY be given wp:undue weight.  Restored.sinneed (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The same applies to the picture, though to a lesser extent. You might make a case for wp:undue there... but I doubt it.  This is a famous site with a famous set of events, and has had great impact on the politics of the nation and the world.sinneed (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, for the sake of my health, I think I'll stop now, I don't feel like fighting. =/. In my opinion, keep the text, remove the picture, that is a good compromise. --Rockstone35 (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't a negotiation. Pexise (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is: Mediation. I'm going to fight to remove that imagine, regardless what it takes (well, to a point). If we cant resolve this by talking, I'm going to take it up to the Arbitration Committee. --Rockstone35 (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The link you provided says that Wikipedia mediation is about reaching consensus in decision-making, not negotiating over content. Are you sure you want to take this to the arb committee? What are your grounds for removing the picture? Pexise (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The main problem about the picture is that it represents an isolated event. That picture is of a criminal human right violation, which is recognized to be criminal by U.S. law, and the people who authorized the rights violation are currently rotting in jail. --Rockstone35 (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The picture represents abuse which took place at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, where systematic abuse and human rights violations took place. It certainly belongs on this page. Pexise (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have started a Request for comment. And if we do find that the picture is okay, then we should add text noting that the entire executive branch apologized and Lynndie England and Charles Graner are both in jail. It seems one sided right now. --Rockstone35 (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * * OOPS! I just realized that a third opinion might be better! Sorry, I'm going to request that instead. --Rockstone35 (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, to present the case that the photo should be included, I would like to refer to this section from the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse article which outlines how the abuses committed were human rights violations: Pexise (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The International Committee of the Red Cross stated in its confidential February 2004 report to the coalition forces that prisoners deemed to have an "intelligence" value were systematically "subjected to a variety of harsh treatments [...] which in some cases was tantamount to torture".

Some legal experts have said that the United States could be obligated to try some of its soldiers for war crimes. Under the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions, prisoners of war and civilians detained in a war may not be treated in a degrading manner, and violation of that section is a "grave breach". In a November 5, 2003 report on prisons in Iraq, the Army's provost marshal, Maj. Gen. Donald J. Ryder, stated that the conditions under which prisoners were held sometimes violated the Geneva Conventions.

Also, legal analysts point to the fact that Alberto Gonzales and others argued that detainees should be considered "unlawful combatants" and as such not protected by the Geneva Conventions in multiple memoranda, known today as the "torture memos," regarding these perceived legal gray areas. Gonzales' observed at the time that denying coverage under the Geneva Conventions "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act" suggesting, at the least, an awareness by those involved in crafting policies in this area that US officials are involved in acts that could be seen to be war crimes. The US Supreme Court challenged the practice of ignoring the Geneva Conventions in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, in which it ruled that Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions applies to all detainees in the War on Terror and that the Military Tribunals used to try these suspects were in violation of US and international law.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is seen as an amnesty law for crimes committed in the War on Terror by retroactively rewriting the War Crimes Act and by abolishing habeas corpus, effectively making it impossible for detainees to challenge crimes committed against them. Because of this on November 14, 2006, invoking universal jurisdiction, legal proceedings were started in Germany - for their alleged involvement of prisoner abuse under the command responsibility- against Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo, George Tenet and others.

No one here is arguing that it is not a human right violation. But is it notable? Think about the fact that the US soldiers in that picture did something illegal under national law. It is the same concept of a criminal torturing and murdering someone in the USA, granted they were in the military, but I think of them as criminals who broke US law, not as if the USA were to do it. If we have that picture, than lets list every human rights abuse made by every criminal in every country. Scared? --Rockstone35 (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Another idea, the information you just copy and pasted could be put in the section with the picture as well, as it shows that the supreme court agreed that it was in fact torture. I can end this whole thing by making a mention that the supreme court found them guilty. --Rockstone35 (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * US soldiers committing torture in breach of the Geneva Conventions and allegations of war crimes? I'd certainly say that's notable.
 * Please feel free to start pages on the human rights records of any other countries. Pexise (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If I may jump in here, I've got a few observations.
 * For one thing, although there were some policy problems, the actual behavior of the guards at Abu Ghraib as in the pictures was criminal behavior against orders. That's why they were charged, tried, and convicted.  That wasn't U.S. policy, and therefore it doesn't belong as a "human rights" issue any more than when a criminal on the street holds up a tourist.
 * Another problem is the sources you bring up. While The Nation is notable, it's firmly on the left.  Their opinions are of the left.
 * Democracy Now! is another story. They're firmly toward the extreme left.  Everything they say is to be taken with a grain of salt.  Don't believe for a second that they truly oppose torture when it's in the interest of socialism.  While you can believe whatever you like about them, don't expect it to win any more points than if you had cited David Duke (who is equally as vile).
 * "The US Supreme Court challenged the practice of ignoring the Geneva Conventions in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld"
 * On Hamdan, when it ruled that Common Article 3 applies, it overturned a previous ruling that said it didn't. So, it was with the lower court's approval that the GCs didn't apply.  It's also worth noting that GTMO was already operating under Common Article 3 by that time.  And finally, Common Article 3 is a pretty slim victory.  They're still not entitled to POW status.
 * In other words, that means the U.S. was not "ignoring" the GCs. It was reading it literally.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And don't take those "legal proceedings" in Germany seriously. Nor should you cite Michael Ratner without giving it some careful thought.  They're a joke.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Ans since we now have a third opinion, I believe I may now revert this article back to my revision. --Rockstone35 (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus to remove the Abu Ghraib picture. You haven't even mentioned to issue of waterboarding, so no idea why you think you have license to delete a well sourced, entirely relevant section?  I am reverting these sections. Pexise (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see: Amnesty International report "Iraq: Beyond Abu Ghraib: Detention and torture in Iraq"

COnclusion 1 (U)
 * Also see: Taguba report

Several US Army Soldiers have committed egregious acts and grave breaches of international law at Abu Ghraib/BCCF and Camp Bucca, Iraq. Furthermore, key senior leaders in both the 800th MP Brigade and the 205th MI Brigade failed to comply with established regulations, policies, and command directives in preventing detainee abuses at Abu Ghraib (BCCF) and at Camp Bucca during the period August 2003 to February 2004. Pexise (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Pexise (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See also: Human Rights Watch: The Road to Abu Ghraib

"The severest abuses at Abu Ghraib occurred in the immediate aftermath of a decision by Secretary Rumsfeld to step up the hunt for 'actionable intelligence' among Iraqi prisoners. The officer who oversaw intelligence gathering at Guantnamo was brought in to overhaul interrogation practices in Iraq, and teams of interrogators from Guantnamo were sent to Abu Ghraib. The commanding general in Iraq issued orders to 'manipulate an internee's emotions and weaknesses.' Military police were ordered by military intelligence to 'set physical and mental conditions for favorable interrogation of witnesses.' The captain who oversaw interrogations at the Afghan detention center where two prisoners died in detention posted 'Interrogation Rules of Engagement' at Abu Ghraib, authorizing coercive methods (with prior written approval of the military commander) such as the use of military guard dogs to instill fear that violate the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman Degrading Treatment or Punishment."

We have a third opinion, and the third opinion agreed with me. Quit vandalizing the article. --Rockstone35 (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that "Several US Army Soldiers have committed egregious acts" doesn't mean it was a matter of policy. The U.S. had well over a million troops in Iraq over the years.  It isn't in any way notable that "several" of them went over the line.
 * On this: "The severest abuses at Abu Ghraib occurred in the immediate aftermath of a decision by Secretary Rumsfeld to step up the hunt for "actionable intelligence" among Iraqi prisoners."
 * That's from HRW which, for better or worse, needs to exploit this kind of stuff for its fundraising.
 * The paragraph itself is more than a little bit misleading. It mentions Rumsfeld's name  but it should be noted that he had to pass everything through lawyers.  Surely, most of those who favor the American side of the war do see the need to step up the hunt for "actionable intelligence".
 * For those who do buy (and in some cases literally did pay money for) HRW's spin, it may be a given that the presence of a controlled and muzzled dog is such a violation. It isn't for everyone.
 * None of this has yet supported the notion that the pictures of the unauthorized prisoner pyramid are a matter of U.S. policy.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion
Given the number of people above who have commented (more than two) a Third opinion request isn't really appropriate. But since the dispute is primarily between two editors, I'll add mine. Those are my opinions. I agree, there is no consensus for removing the image. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Rockstone35, your last comment reveals your bias, and your edits indicate attempts at whitewashing. Removing sourced content without sufficient explanation is considered vandalism.
 * Pexise, be aware that edits to this article that heavily emphasize human rights abuses may violate WP:UNDUE. If there is enough such information, it should be summarized in this article and split off into another. The Torture in the United States article may be a better place for some content.
 * The images from Abu Ghraib have had ample coverage in national and international sources, making them sufficiently notable for inclusion here. In my opinion, the Abu Ghraib image should stay. Wikipedia is not censored. There is ample precedent for inclusion of images that have encyclopedic value, even if those images are offensive to some. See the end of Talk:Muhammad/FAQ for further examples.
 * Characterizing the recipients of torture as "a few fascists" constitutes a logical fallacy known as argument from emotion. Any arguments stemming from that are irrelevant to this discussion.

Honestly I never said anything about facists. And it is not a matter of policy.

But it doesn't matter anyway. Those who come to this page will probably have their minds already made up, and if you don't have your mind made up; there is a good chance this article is too hard for you to read.

When the article about human rights in North Korea is shorter than about the USA, there is a problem. If we are to have this article with the information that remains. I would ask you to please add more positive information about the Human rights in the USA, because the USA was the first democratic republic since Rome, and the first one where freedom of speech, the press and religion was guaranteed to all citizens. The USA set a milestone, and it would be a shame for that information to be lost to pictures about events that were not US policy. --Rockstone35 (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the whole of the discussion above in my comment about fascists, not just yours. The term came up several times.
 * I contribute many third opinions. I've been careful about contributing opinions in disputes that I don't already have an opinion about. My mind wasn't already made up. My opinions form after investing my time looking at the edit history of the article and looking at the arguments on the talk page.
 * Each article must stand or fall on its own merits, without regard to what else is on Wikipedia. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to cut content from one article just because another article lacks sufficient content.
 * That said, I agree with you that more positive information in this article would be welcome. The publicity given to human rights problems reminds me of the publicity given to clergy who commit immoral acts, yet are expected to set examples of morality. Such instances are notable, reportable, and deserve explanation. Similarly, the slip-ups and abuses committed by the United States or its representatives, whether policy or not, deserve visibility and explanation. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I will agree with you on that one. I will add the information back in pending Pexise's agreement that I will be allowed to add more positive information as well. --Rockstone35 (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Edit: Pexise seems just as guilty as bias too though. He has been obsessed with this topic it appears. --Rockstone35 (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Woops. I meant to include a comment to Pexise in my original opinion, but it got lost during an edit conflict. It was a key point I wanted to make. I have restored it. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Amatulić,

You misunderstand my use of the word "fascists". In the discussion on waterboarding in this article, my comment specifically said "three fascists." I was making a point about giving the topic undue weight for three individuals. It doesn't bother me that we'd mention that it happened, but if you'll note, all the text came from the main waterboarding article. A brief mention, followed by a link should suffice. We really don't need the rest of it copied here.

If you don't like the word "fascists" then please consider which three we're talking about. Yes, the word is sharp but it's fitting, and I wasn't about to simply call them "three people" (they deserve more) or "three Muslims" (Muslims don't deserve the association).

I am not making any kind of call for censorship. If you read my comments about that picture, I was saying that it doesn't fit this article.

This article is about human rights policy. The Abu Ghraib guards were operating on their own in those pictures (as some admitted when they pled guilty), and they were charged, tried and convicted for it. To use a picture of those guards only shows an absence of sufficient other material with which to criticize the U.S. Or are we going to start sections on individual tourists who've been mugged on holiday in the U.S.?

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I was going to re add the picture, but your comment changed my mind. It would be better if that picture was used in Torture in the United States in my opinion. Torture in the United States would include by association individual events such as with Abu Garhib. --Rockstone35 (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)--Rockstone35 (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * edit: The thing is, the only possible people who could be 100% neutral in the article are aliens or someone who has been living under a rock for the past 300 years. If you live in America like Randy (I think) and I do, you are naturally biased towards America, but if you live in Europe (like I imagine Pexise does), you are naturally biased against any country that is not yours (naturally, and most European countries don't seem to like us). --Rockstone35 (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

A few points:
 * Amatulic - first of all, thank you for taking the time to read through the edit history and discussions on this topic.
 * In response to your constructive comments, I would like to point out that I have repeatedly suggested that Rockstone and Randy add more material about the positive role that the US has played in the world regarding human rights. I have also added information to this article in the past about the positive role the US has had (relating to the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
 * While I clearly state on my user profile page that I have an interest in US politics and a certian level of expertise in human rights, I do not come to this page with a biased point of view. This page is about human rights and my aim is to include information about human rights and the US.  Abu Ghraib and waterboarding are two of the most high profile human rights issues relating to the US of recent years (in terms of media attention, discussion by international human rights organisations etc.) and their inclusion is important.
 * There is no consensus for the deletion of the section on Waterboarding or the Abu Ghraib photo. Pexise (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Clearly, you have an opinion about the meaning of Abu Ghraib. Is it your belief that those guards were under orders to get those pictured Iraqis to talk?  Was that a picture of U.S. policy or a crime?
 * The purpose of WP is not to recycle public perceptions.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My opinion is not relevant here. What is important is that international human rights organisations and internal US military investigations have declared the acts at Abju Ghraib to be human rights violations and international crimes.  What I think about this does not need to be mentioned. Pexise (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * He does have an opinion. Although that picture doesn't belong here, instead I'll start adding more about the positive role the USA has had in both the past and recent years. --Rockstone35 (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said earlier in this discussion: "There is a section on how the US supports human rights in the world already, please add to it with reliable, sourced information about facts (not US government rhetoric)." Pexise (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Despite what you may think, the US government is a reliable source of information. --Rockstone35 (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In some cases. My point is, don't just include some statement from the State Dept. saying "the US supports human rights in the world and fights oppression everywhere..." or similar.  Please include concrete, verifiable facts about actions or policies that the US has carried out to further the cause of human rights in the world.  That shouldn't be so difficult, should it? Pexise (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you mean. Will do. Actions do speak louder than words. --Rockstone35 (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Update: I am happy with what I have added currently. I hope all of us can work together to make this article more neutral and encyclopedic. --Rockstone35 (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
Pexise,

What you may have missed is that the guards in the pictures were a minor point to the story. Even if you want to mention Abu Ghraib over here, the only purpose that picture serves is to sex up the story in an unserious way.

Most people don't really understand exactly what was going on at Abu Ghraib. This is one of the reasons why.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Randy, I'm going to request mediation against Pexise. I understand his points, but I side with you. --Rockstone35 (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't bother. It's only one article, and much of Wikipedia is like this.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Err... too late.

Lets do this. --Rockstone35 (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"In 2004, photos showing humiliation and abuse of prisoners leaked from Abu Ghraib prison, causing a political and media scandal in the US. Forced humiliation of the detainees included, but is not limited to nudity, rape, human piling of nude detainees, masturbation, eating food out of toilets, crawling on hand and knees while American soldiers were sitting on their back sometimes requiring them to bark like dogs, and hooking up electrical wires to fingers, toes, and penis." "The images from Abu Ghraib have had ample coverage in national and international sources, making them sufficiently notable for inclusion here. In my opinion, the Abu Ghraib image should stay. Wikipedia is not censored. There is ample precedent for inclusion of images that have encyclopedic value, even if those images are offensive to some. See the end of Talk:Muhammad/FAQ for further examples." Pexise (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The picture stays until a consensus is reached that it should be removed. Pexise (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The section that contains the photo includes the passage:
 * The purpose of the photo is to illustrate this. It may also be suitable to include other Abu Ghraib photos, the hooking up of electrical wires to the hooded figure is particularly emblematic of this case.
 * Please note Amatulic's comments as a third party in this discussion:

Okay then, that's fine. --Rockstone35 (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you think for a second that I'm asking for censorship then you have no idea what this discussion is about.
 * Is it your position that we should expand the topic of human rights to the fact that crimes are sometimes committed?
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If there are other crimes that: then yes, please include them. Pexise (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * have been committed by the US military with links to other US agents;
 * have recieved massive national and international media attention;
 * have been the subject of internal military investigations;
 * have been the subject of declarations by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights suggesting that they could be classified as war crimes;
 * have been the subject of statements by prominent international human rights organisations and
 * have had lengthy reports about them written by prominent international human rights organisations


 * That's a great source. It shows the U.N.'s acting high commissioner for "human rights" saying that there "might" have been a war crime.  That's not the same thing as saying the U.S. has committed war crimes.  By the time of that article it was already determined that pictured Abu Ghraib incidents were due to poor supervision of the troops by their immediate superiors (later reports did go higher but not much higher).  In WWII, the U.S. had charged and tried thousands of American troops for crimes, and even executed over 100 of them.  We don't cite them all as illustrative of U.S. policy at the time.
 * Interestingly (and we need to make a note of this), that U.N. official also says the U.S. has performed "a major contribution to human rights in Iraq" by getting rid of Saddam Hussein. That is about U.S. policy.
 * It's also pretty funny that that source ends with a quote from a Chinese U.N. diplomat. I guess it's rather appropriate, seeing as how they're prominent members of the U.N.'s "human rights" efforts.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not trying to prove or disprove whether what took place at Abu Ghraib were war crimes. I am pointing out how these events are notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic article on the US and Human Rights.  The fact that declarations have been made by the highest international authority on human rights issues makes the case extremely relevant for inclusion.
 * You will notice that I included the comments praising the removal of Saddam Hussein in the quote I have included in the article. Pexise (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I will end the request for mediation now. :) --Rockstone35 (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, that explains the red link on my talk page. :)
 * By the way, while I do think the Abu Ghraib picture has encyclopedic value, I do agree that it may be appropriate in the article about Torture in the United States, although it doesn't really fit there either since the event didn't occur in the U.S. (and in answer to a comment above, yes, I am a U.S. citizen). The picture should be wherever the events in Abu Ghraib are described. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is the question. Does a Human Right violation that takes place without the orders of the Commander count? Does a Criminal who violates Human Rights have any right to be noticed here? It Torture in the United States would be a better place, but I don't know for sure. --Rockstone35 (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit: Should we remove the image? I still think we should because of the reasons described. --Rockstone35 (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it should be deleted. Those who like to claim to be concerned about the Abu Ghraib scandal say it was for interrogation.  That's the position taken by this article.  It quotes HRW saying, "The severest abuses at Abu Ghraib occurred in the immediate aftermath of a decision by Secretary Rumsfeld to step up the hunt for "actionable intelligence" among Iraqi prisoners."  This picture is irrelevant because those prisoners pictured weren't there for interrogation.
 * While there were excesses in interrogation at Abu Ghraib, they are not represented by these pictures. The only reason this picture is in this article is because we have it.  It's the type of thing we've seen posted by every left-wing blogger who wants to pretend they oppose torture.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think, if we keep the text and delete the picture, it should be fine. I still think the entire section should be removed, but oh well. --Rockstone35 (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is still no consensus to remove the picture. The picture illustrates the content of the text (the specific act is referred to in the text), so is relevant.  As there are no grounds to remove the picture it should stay.  There is no prohibition to use the same image on more than one page.
 * Rockstone - to answer your question: the state is responsible to prevent torture taking place within its jurisdiction, so yes, an act of torture that takes place without an order from the Commander is still the responsibility of the state. States should take measures so that their security forces and military will not commit torture or cruel, inhuman or degrating treatment e.g. specific training, orders, culture against torture within the military etc.  See Convention Against Torture.  I advise you to read the whole treaty, but articles 2, 10 and 16 are particularly relevant in this case. Pexise (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Torture in the United States is a better place to put it. There's an entire section in that article about torture by U.S. representatives outside the country's borders. I just added a reference there to a Pentagon official admitting to torture in Guantanamo Bay. Arguably, any US military base is inside the United States, because it's considered US property. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay then, I'm going to start making lists of every single person who ever committed torture in all countries. While we are at it, lets list every act of torture made by all soldiers of all nations. Don't try to stop me. --Rockstone35 (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Pexise,
 * The text is misleading. Even if say that the state is responsible for keeping the guards in check (which it is), there are still two problems with that.  One, that's a violation on an entirely different scale.  Most countries have prisons where abuses take place.  They're generally not worth mentioning.
 * Now let's assume that you decide that it is worth mentioning -- as I'm sure you will. The second problem is that the article makes no attempt explain that this is what's happening.  It is very deceptive.  A reader who gets this far in the article will assume the abuse of these thugs was government policy.  It's not until the very end of the section when it's explained that the guards were prosecuted, and most people won't understand that their behavior wasn't authorized.
 * The claims about Rumsfeld only makes this worse. They might be more reasonable if they weren't being mixed up in the middle of that section.  As it is, the readers aren't merely confused.  They're misled.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Rockstone: fine. A good place to start will be the UN Committee Against Torture - you can look at all the country reports.  You could start an article with your list (might want to stick to 20th century, or post WWII to make it more focused).
 * Randy: if you have a good source which backs up your point of view, please add it to the article. Pexise (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not proposing an addition. I'm saying we need a rearrangement, at the least, and probably a rewrite.
 * I tell you what, I'll explain how it happened at Abu Ghraib, and you tell me which item you disagree with:
 * In late 2003, prisoners rioted. Some of these rioters were killed, and others were moved into the same "hard site" where the intelligence detainees were kept.
 * An Army clerk at Abu Ghraib named Lynndie England violated the rules to visit her boyfriend on the night shift at the hard site, and they took pictures amusing themselves playing pranks on these rioters.
 * In January 2004, a soldier handed copies of the pictures to Army CID who then began their investigation. It was announced in a press statement two or three days later, although no one made a big deal of it at the time.
 * About three more days later, the Army relieves the general in charge of Abu Ghraib, and begins an investigation about the MPs (the Taguba Report).
 * The accused guards came up with cover stories that they were under orders to prime these prisoners for interrogation (remember that the prisoners were in that section of the prison for rioting, not interrogation). The guards wrote letters to their families pushing their cover story in an effort to persuade the Army to drop the investigation against them.  They contacted Hackworth, who then contacted 60 Minutes to reinforce this "torture" meme.
 * The Taguba report is completed, and concludes the guards were doing this on their own. A few weeks later, the Fay Report begins a wider investigation.
 * 60 Minutes shows the pictures, being sympathetic to the "torture" meme, and that's when the rest of the world started to pretend that they care.
 * The Fay Report concludes a few months later, after investigating everything. It tallies more criminal abuses, and some procedural problems.  For example, there were some interrogation methods that required a general's authorization, and they didn't necessarily get it due to confusion over the requirements.  There was also the presence of muzzled dogs that was authorized even though it should not have been (for which an officer was disciplined).  These are things that go beyond the abuses in the pictures, but they're still rather minor when considering the scale.  An any event, they're a separate issue than the pictures.
 * The Army never drops their charges against the soldiers involved. Years later, some of them, like Lynndie England, plead guilty and admit during sentencing that they had been doing this on their own.  Only one or two of the guards sticks to their story, and they're found guilty.
 * I don't think any of this notable for this article. Regardless, this is a completely different telling than you have.  You can tell me which items you disagree with.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you'll get a fuller picture of what happened here: Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse Pexise (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you really think so then you can tell me which item of mine you disagree with, or what of importance you think I left out.
 * Note that I didn't mention Rumsfeld. He had nothing to do with the events in the pictures.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a much fuller explaination of what happened at Abu Ghraib in the Wikipedia article: Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse. Pexise (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That still doesn't answer my question, nor does it name one item you disagree with.
 * The comparison is to the section in this article. My list of events is what really happened.  It doesn't match the summary here, which implies military policy was at fault without making a good case for it.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Which bit of the text do you disagree with? Pexise (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't mention Abu Ghraib at all. It's not within the scope of this article.
 * If you insist on keeping it, it must be separated from the bit about Rumsfeld. The events at Abu Ghraib were on a much lower level than DoD.  This switching back and forth between issues (policy, procedural errors, and crimes at Abu Ghraib) may be the biggest problem with this entire subject on WP.
 * The HRW source used here isn't worth much. That particular report is from back in 2004.  They might have been ignorant about some of this.
 * BTW: That underage boy was sodomized by an Iraqi contractor, not a soldier. (Correction: they don't know who it was; the prisoner who says he witnessed this described him as possibly being Egyptian.)
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The source is completely legitimate and suitable.
 * Regardless of who sodomised the prisoner, the prisoner was in US custody. Read the Convention Against Torture. Pexise (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I was simply making a comment that the article was wrong when it said the rapist was a soldier. It's a minor point, however.
 * I don't care about whether you want to include the boy or not. I don't agree that this belongs within the scope of the article, but if you insist on listing every crime that occurred in Iraq under U.S. custody, was alleged to occur, or claimed by Iraqis to have occurred then one more claim of rape that no one could ever locate the victim is as fitting as anything else.  In fact, we might as well add alleged pickpockets.
 * But the real problem that you need to address is that the article is misleading.
 * As I said, mixing the three issues (policies that critics don't like, procedural errors that the military ruled was wrong, and crimes that were prosecuted) is either sloppy or intentionally deceptive.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The point is that there are numerous HUMAN RIGHTS SOURCES relating to this case, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and UN human rights bodies (the UN Committee Against Torture also dealt with the case - another source to be introduced when I have time). Pexise (talk) 09:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And if you read closely, they don't conflict with what I've been saying. Most of this stuff comes straight from the Taguba Report and is repackaged to suit their fundraising requirements.  They're almost all second or third hand sources based on the Army's investigations.  Or did you think Amnesty and HRW sent spies into Abu Ghraib?
 * (Or are you saying that the U.S. Army is a HUMAN RIGHTS SOURCE?)
 * For an example of what I mean, look at this Washington Post article cited by this article. It says it's based on interviews conducted for the Taguba Report.  It's useful in that the actual interviews were never released, but it's only more detail.  It doesn't really say anything that differs from Taguba or Fay.  But look closely, and the Post says it's from "statements taken from 13 detainees shortly after a soldier reported the incidents to military investigators in mid-January."  Look above to the list of events I gave and you'll see it follows what I've said happened in January 2004.
 * The source from HRW goes a step further. It takes the Taguba Report and tries to pretend it confirms some ICRC complaints.  (Read closely and you'll see that I'm right.)  We'd call that a violation of WP:SYNTH if it happened here.  Fortunately, Wikipedia's fundraising drives aren't tied to its articles the way Amnesty's and HRW's are.
 * That's why we need separation between criminal acts by the Abu Ghraib guards, and whatever you'd like to think Rumsfeld's policies were. They're completely different things.  The readers of this article are entitled to know that.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have a good source which backs up your point of view? If so, please add it to the article. Pexise (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said, the sources we have don't conflict with what I've been saying.
 * There's no doubt that most of your sources are relying on the Taguba report. The Taguba report is entirely about criminal abuses of the Army's own rules.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So what's your point? The fact is there were severe human rights abuses which took place at Abu Ghraib with multiple victims and multiple perpetrators.  As one of the most high-profile and visible episodes in recent U.S. history, it certainly belongs in this article.  We currently have some excellent sources explaining what took place.  If you have other sources which recount a different version of events, please let us know what they are.  Pexise (talk) 11:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"Hilas told investigators that he asked Graner for the time one day because he wanted to pray. He said Graner cuffed him to the bars of a cell window and left him there for close to five hours, his feet dangling off the floor. Hilas also said he watched as Graner and others sodomized a detainee with a phosphoric light. 'They tied him to the bed,' Hilas said." Pexise (talk) 11:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the sodomizing of an inmate, this is from the Washington Post article we have as a source:


 * If you read what I wrote before: That's why we need separation between criminal acts by the Abu Ghraib guards, and whatever you'd like to think Rumsfeld's policies were.  They're completely different things.  The readers of this article are entitled to know that.
 * You may disagree that they're entitled to know that, but it would be good if you could explain why you think that is.
 * If you read the article you just quoted, you'll see they mention the teenage boy earlier. And if you'll note, that's from Taguba's investigation of criminal acts.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, this is getting rather tiresome. We have reliable sources which:
 * 1) Connect Rumsfeld to the abuse
 * 2) Say it was a soldier who sodomised the teenage boy

"These events occurred on my watch. As secretary of defense, I am accountable for them. I take full responsibility. It is my obligation to evaluate what happened, to make sure those who have committed wrongdoing are brought to justice, and to make changes as needed to see that it doesn't happen again. I feel terrible about what happened to these Iraqi detainees. They are human beings. They were in U.S. custody. Our country had an obligation to treat them right. We didn't do that. That was wrong. To those Iraqis who were mistreated by members of U.S. armed forces, I offer my deepest apology. It was un-American. And it was inconsistent with the values of our nation."
 * If you have reliable sources that contradict this, please let us know what they are. Otherwise, your arguments are just your opinion.
 * Also, if Rumsfeld bore no responsibility, as you assert, why did he apologise for what took place and why did he say that he was responsible?
 * Explain this quote from Rumsfeld:

- Donald Rumsfeld

Pexise (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right that this is tiresome but you're factually wrong on both of your numbered counts. The sources we have don't say what you just said they say.
 * 1) Nothing connects Rumsfeld to the specific abuse in the pictures. Those were not his policies.  What they were doing was never ordered or authorized by Rumsfeld, nor by any of the officers or senior NCOs running the camp.  If they were, those former guards would not be doing time in prison today.
 * Rumsfeld had gone over lists of interrogation techniques. Some were rejected by DoD lawyers, and others were rejected by Rumsfeld himself.  The list of techniques he authorized were sent down through the chain of command, including the camp at Abu Ghraib.  None of these abuses were on the authorized list.
 * Rumsfeld essentially apologized for not putting the people in place to run everything right. It's a nice thing to say but it's no different than the CEO of Exxon apologizing for an oil slick even though no one thinks he authorized a tanker to run aground.
 * 2) The Washington Post source you mention does not say it was a soldier who allegedly sodomized a teenage boy. One of the soldiers did sodomize a prisoner (or prisoners) with a lightstick but that's a separate incident.
 * The Post says an Iraqi prisoner "witnessed an Army translator having sex with a boy." These translators were civilians.  The Taguba report (repeated in the Fay report) specifically describes the rapist as an Arab (probably Egyptian) civilian translator (probably for this company although the witness description differed enough that it couldn't be proved).
 * The confusion isn't just a problem with this article. The main article on Abu Ghraib abuse is seriously mixed up.  Maybe now that Obama has been elected, it'll be easier to tell the straight story.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's an excerpt from Taguba's testimony to Congress under oath:
 * Taguba told the committee he found no evidence of a standing policy at the prison for MP guards to first soften up prisoners before questioning by military intelligence and other interrogators.
 * "I believe that they did it on their own volition," the general noted. "We didn't find any order whatsoever written or otherwise, that directed them to do what they did."
 * Several of the perpetrators admitted to this later. Whatever you like to think about Rumsfeld, it's a separate issue than what the guards were doing in the pictures.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I still see no reason to change the content of the article - what are you suggesting we change? Pexise (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There are three things that the Abu Ghraib scandal was about:
 * Policies that the critics don't like. For example, the authorized interrogation methods.  Taguba himself is extremely critical of Rumsfeld for this and he thinks they were illegal.  (This isn't to say he's correct, but they're the closest thing truly applicable to this article.)  There was also initially some disagreement over what was legal.  Some measures were authorized by Rumsfeld and rescinded by him a few months later when another military lawyer told him differently.
 * Procedural errors that were mistakenly allowed without authorization from above, such as the use of muzzled dogs, for which an officer was disciplined for signing off on.
 * Crimes that were never authorized and were prosecuted, like the abuse you see in the pictures.
 * I don't think either #2 or #3 belong in this article. They're not U.S. policy, and they're small potatoes.
 * Even if you do think they belong, they should not be mixed together. They are entirely different things.  If you mention the abuse that happened in the pictures, the readers should not be given the impression that Rumsfeld authorized that.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The only time Rumsfeld is mentioned is in the HRW quote. If you have another source which contradicts what HRW says, please let us know what it is.  Otherwise I can't see what you're proposing we change?  How about if we add a section break for the content about Abu Ghraib.  Pexise (talk) 14:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The new section does help. There are two more things it needs:
 * From the end of the first paragraph starting with "In their report, and then going through their entire HRW excerpt, does not belong in that section. It's really part of the overall torture meme and should not be in the Abu Ghraib section.  I realize there would be some confusion because it mentions Abu Ghraib, but it's really about DoD policy and not Abu Ghraib itself.  I'd prefer to ditch it entirely.  You can probably find something else if you insist on mentioning Rumsfeld.
 * Then it needs to be made clear that this was a crime not authorized by the DoD, which was already investigating this.
 * I've decided to fix the conceptual errors in the Abu Ghraib abuse article when I have more time this week.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"The severest abuses at Abu Ghraib occurred in the immediate aftermath of a decision by Secretary Rumsfeld to step up the hunt for 'actionable intelligence' among Iraqi prisoners. The officer who oversaw intelligence gathering at Guantnamo was brought in to overhaul interrogation practices in Iraq, and teams of interrogators from Guantnamo were sent to Abu Ghraib. The commanding general in Iraq issued orders to 'manipulate an internee's emotions and weaknesses.' Military police were ordered by military intelligence to 'set physical and mental conditions for favorable interrogation of witnesses.' The captain who oversaw interrogations at the Afghan detention center where two prisoners died in detention posted 'Interrogation Rules of Engagement' at Abu Ghraib, authorizing coercive methods (with prior written approval of the military commander) such as the use of military guard dogs to instill fear that violate the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman Degrading Treatment or Punishment."
 * Abu Ghraib is mentioned 3 times in the quoted passage:
 * The report the passage is quoted from is called: The road to Abu Ghraib. I think that qualifies it for inclusion in the section. Pexise (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The key words in the title of HRW's report is "The Road To." The report itself isn't about Abu Ghraib.  It's just a PR paper trying to capitalize on the news.
 * Look at their uses of the word:
 * "severest abuses at Abu Ghraib occurred in the immediate aftermath of a decision by Secretary Rumsfeld" -- that's about Rumsfeld not Abu Ghraib.
 * "interrogators from Guantnamo were sent to Abu Ghraib" -- that's incidental, and really a no-brainer when we've got two war zones.
 * "The captain who oversaw interrogations at the Afghan detention center where two prisoners died in detention posted "Interrogation Rules of Engagement" at Abu Ghraib" -- and that is partly at Abu Ghraib but it's a separate incident. If you recall, I had said the second thing Abu Ghraib was about is Procedural errors that were mistakenly allowed without authorization from above.  That's what this was.  It turned up in the Army's Fay report investigation about other things that happened at the camp.
 * None of them have anything to do with the guards in the pictures.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

1. no, it's about Rumsfeld and Abu Ghraib. 2. Guantanamo isn't a war zone. 3. ... Well, the guards in the picture are not illustrating this quote, they are illustrating the piling of human bodies mentioned in the prededing paragraph. Pexise (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There are two Abu Ghraib stories. One is about the guards, and the other is part of the larger story on interrogation.  They should not be mixed together.
 * No, read their report and you'll see it's not about the guards in the pictures. It doesn't matter that they talk about Abu Ghraib a little bit, or even that they talk about the pictures a little bit.  They're separate incidents.
 * It doesn't matter; there are two wars. My point was simply that it's to be expected that resources would be shifted from one war to the other.  You don't think anything of it that some personnel were taken from Korea.  So what's the big deal that some were moved from Bagram?  If anything, the fact that people move back and forth illustrates how unauthorized practices can migrate with them.  (The DoD's OIG report covers this.)  If you think about it, this is actually exculpatory for Rumsfeld but HRW plays it the other way because this is one of the "torture" stories that rake in big money for them.
 * The piling of bodies was part of the scandal in the pictures.
 * In reality, both Abu Ghraib stories are rather small. We wouldn't be talking about it if not for the fact that the Abu Ghraib pictures are practically the only ones they have.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Who are you referring to when you say that the Abu Ghraib pictures are the only ones they have?
 * The photo illustrates content in the previous paragraph, not the HRW report. All of the material refers to the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, so is all together in that section.
 * Suggesting that HRW is accusing the US of torture because it makes money for them is absurd. Besides, they are by no means the only ones, among others, the UN Committee Against Torture has criticised the US for its practices.  Pexise (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Section break II

 * I'm referring to critics of the U.S. that like to claim that the U.S. is guilty of a policy of torture. Nobody outside the military cared about the Abu Ghraib investigation until the pictures came out.
 * The section mixes up the two aspects of Abu Ghraib. The HRW commentary would really belong in the main part of that section.  Look at it this way, the Abu Ghraib subsection starts with the pictures-scandal, and then it has the obligatory knock at Rumsfeld, and then it ends with the pictures-scandal again.
 * Does this article imply that Rumsfeld was part of the pictures-scandal? Yes, it does.
 * Was Rumsfeld part of the pictures-scandal? No, he wasn't.
 * Does HRW come out and say Rumsfeld was part of the pictures-scandal? Not really.
 * It's rather obvious that HRW is generating support through this, although I'll say funding is important for every cause, good or bad.  One of their big funders is George Soros, who isn't exactly George W. Bush's best friend.  They don't have an even record.
 * But I put the U.N. in a totally different league. At their best, their opposition to torture is like that of the sleaziest politician.  At their worst, they're collaborators.
 * The true test of whether or not someone cares about human rights, and truly opposes torture and war, is not how loud they are when they criticize the U.S. Any simpleton can do that.  They also need to ask their friends and co-America-critics not to bomb and torture people.  Most of America's critics have utterly failed in that regard.  One only needs to look at where they stood over the last few years.  What tortures did they claim to oppose, and what tortures were they silent about?  It's rather astonishing.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this debate is now over. I've made some small changes to the article, I can't see any more that are necessary. Pexise (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's over for now. I'm not touching the Abu Ghraib section until I venture into the main Abu Ghraib scandal article.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

black jailings
A point was just made in an edit to the article, which is not the place for it, but it's something that I've noticed for a long time about this article. By dwelling on the statistic that blacks outnumber whites in jail, the article seems to imply a purposeful or systemic racist policy or mentality by police organizations or the United States government itself. Per WP:NPOV, this needs to be balanced out: blacks tend to occupy the lower half of economic stratification (the unfortunate reasons for which is a discussion for another day), and poorer people tend to be more apt to commit crimes and join gangs, hence the higher rate of incarceration for blacks. This is obvious, but the article implies some kind of atrocious and racist wrongdoing by the United States. What we need is a secondary source(s) for research that explains the reason behind the higher incarceration rate&mdash;the real reason, not the implied racism. Okiefromokla questions? 04:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm I think originally the point of the claim was that more blacks are put on death row than whites accused of similar crimes, and that criminals are more likely to face the death penalty for killing a white person than a black person. If solid references of that can be given I think it should stay. Is there somewhere else in the article that makes reference to the prison population being skewed towards minorities, other than in the capital punishment bit?  TastyCakes (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I agree with OkieFromokla; blacks tend to be poorer, and thus are more likely to commit crimes. --Rockstone35 (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not disputing that. I am saying the inclusion of this issue in the article has in the past been framed as the justice system not being consistent based on race.  The "over-representation" of blacks and hispanics in America's jails used to be given as a human rights issue.  That was removed for the reasons you give and replaced with what is there now - the accusation that the ideal of equality before the law is not being perfectly observed in America's courts.  TastyCakes (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah. It had been a while since I had actually looked at the article. It appears there is much less of this than I remember. However, there is a sentence that appears in two places (Racial and Death Row): "in 1992 although blacks account for 12% of the US population, about 34 percent of prison inmates were from this group." It could use a source to explain why that is. Perhaps soon I'll stop being lazy and find one myself :) Okiefromokla questions? 23:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, I think a clarifying sentence like you're proposing would be good. TastyCakes (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That would have been me who made the point. I forgot I wasn't in the Talk page... DOH! --Rockstone35 (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

New alleged torture case
Looks like we will need a new section on the Benyam Mohammed case - allegations of medieval torture, using razor blades among other implements. Looks like UK may have been involved as well. Pexise (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh god, not you again. When will these Liberals understand that not every allegation needs addressing. --Rockstone35 (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia - the aim of an encyclopedia is to be comprehensive in its coverage, not selective. This is an important case, currently being hotly debated in the media. Pexise (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

By that logic, this and every other human rights page must be 20,000 words long and address things that only one or two would find against human rights. I've never even heard of the case. Its not even in the national media at all. I haven't seen a thing about it on FOX news or even CNN (not that I watch much CNN). I don't know what you are talking about. --Rockstone35 (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So, let's get this straight:
 * If the U.S. does something wrong as a matter of policy, it goes in, even if it was just a minor incident.
 * If someone working for the U.S. (military or civilian) does something wrong, it goes in even if it was never authorized, and the U.S. prosecutes him for it.
 * If someone working for the U.S. makes a mistake, then that goes in, too.
 * And now, if some fascist accuses someone working for the U.S. of doing something wrong (authorized or not), then we'll simply take his word for it, and put it in here too.
 * This is called "scraping the bottom of the barrel."
 * Well, at least there's some humor in it.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well - it looks like there is some serious hard evidence that proves that the US was complicit in medieval-style torture. The UK high court has asked for the documents to be made public - if these documents are finally released, this could have major implications for the human rights record of the US, and that will DEFINITELY be going in this article. Pexise (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, if they're released, and if the fascist isn't a liar. What are the odds that a (supposedly-former) drug-addicted fascist would lie and accuse the U.S. of something that isn't true?
 * Or, even if they're not released, this story could still turn into another loon-magnet like the Downing Street memo. Those are always fun.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The documents are actually US intelligence, which, though we know is not always reliable, will be a valid source for by Wikipedia standards. The testimonies of the victim are already in the public domain, it is just the US intelligence that is being kept secret. Pexise (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Even though this wasn't considered Legal even in the United States of America? --Rockstone35 (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's wait and see what the documents say. I've got a feeling more of this sort of thing will be coming out over the next few years. Pexise (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it. But I agree. Lets not add anything new to this article until we get hard evidence. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Rockstone35 (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like things are moving forward: Pexise (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * From the looks of things, I would guess that they don't have anything of importance.
 * I doubt that these lawyers have a direct channel to the President through which they can convey classified information. It will first be read by someone on the lower rungs of the White House who may not have the right clearance.  So, it wouldn't be surprising for this to be blanked out.
 * Regardless, the redactions are clearly marked. If it gets to Obama, he'll see this and know enough to get the classified version if he wants it.
 * Stafford Smith must know this. He may be a low-life but he's not stupid.  That implies he feels the need to stoke a circus atmosphere rather than to present hard facts.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, it may very well be that a mid-level bureaucrat who handles this will find the classified version, and give that to the President so that he has the entire story right away.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, the Weekly Standard did a story on this guy. He's freely "admitted being an al Qaeda-trained operative."
 * It does look like he'll be released to the hapless Brits, and he'll be able to tell any story he wants. The people who claim to oppose torture will surely eat it up.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A UN Report has come out about this. Looks like Brits are implicated along with the US Also, a full investigation is being demanded by the leader of the opposition into the Benyan Mohammed case.


 * My first thought was that the UN report would not be a surprise. It's from the GA, so most of it isn't.  It's not as though the UN had spies (other than Binyam Mohammed) sitting in and watching those interrogations.  So, there's a lot of filler.
 * But there is one funny charge that's priceless: They're upset that those who fight fascism use surveillance and data mining (while their friends use real torture).  They seem to be of the belief that fascists outside of the U.S. have fourth amendment rights.  Of course, considering the types of nations that make up the GA, this should have been expected.
 * In any case, that's one section this article doesn't yet have. You might as well tell the world that the U.S. monitors the communications of communists, fascists, and their friends outside of the U.S.  It probably won't hurt much, as Bin Laden already knows it.  And I'm sure it's going to be exaggerated, but we're used to it by now.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This page needs major editing
This article, before my edits, consisted of 11,200 words. By comparison, Human rights in North Korea: has only 2,800 words. IMO, the sheer size of this monstrosity of an article speaks to an unfortunate, and probably unintentional POV. It’s natural that concerned American citizens would care more about human rights in America, but this article needs some serious focus.

To that end, I’ve made some major edits:

I’ve entirely deleted the Age and Freedom of Movement sections. These issues are far too obscure to warrant mention on an already bloated page.

I’ve deleted references to the dozen jailed reporters. It seems like a pretty big non-issue, only mentioned in one paper, and with no follow-up for years.

“Don’t Tase Me Bro” was removed for similar reasons. I suspect it was added as a joke in any case.

The overrepresentation of blacks on death row and US ranking by reporters without borders are mentioned twice. I deleted the first occurrences.

“When citizens' right to peacefully gather was acknowledged and written into the Bill of Rights, there were no clauses about free speech zones, "permits" to hold demonstrations, or "protest free zones." This is the biggest moot point I’ve ever read, and highly POV.

“Nevertheless, according to a March 2007 poll by CBS News and the New York Times, 81 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with the cost of health care.” I fail to see what this has to do with whether or not universal health care is a human right. A substantial portion of those who think that health care cost a lot(which is pretty much unquestioned) also think government shouldn’t regulate it.

In one survey, "41% of adults agree that "not allowing same-sex couples to marry goes against a fundamental American right that all people should be treated equally, while 47% disagree." I don’t see how this really contributes to the article. Besides, I don’t see how a poll stating that many people support gay marriage helps, when the proportion for is a) less than 50% and b) outnumbered by those against.

It’s a start for now. But there’s still a long way to go before this article is Wikipedia-quality. I think we should really focus on shortening it. The Torture, Health Care, and Dealth Penalty sections In particular are huge. They should really be small summaries of the issue, and link to their respective pages for the bigger picture. --Joker1189 (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You are the first person here who was bold enough to do this! THank you! --Rockstone35 (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Surely the correct response here is to expand the North Korea Human Rights page? Regardless, what is still in dispute, or are you happy to remove the POV tags at the top of the page? Pexise (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

In particular, I find the capitol punishment section pretty bad. It's essentially a list of why the death penalty is bad, without a pro-voice in it. The POV stands for at least that section for sure. The Prison System section reeks of the same impartiality, especially since I'm pretty sure that the condition of prisoners is an issue pretty much below the radar in the United States. I mean, the section practically blames the prison system for prison rape.Joker1189 (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Capital punishment is prohibited under international human rights law, and prison conditions are a primary concern for international human rights bodies, hence the need for these sections. Pexise (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Since when is capital punishment prohibited under human rights law?
 * Or was this another one of those treaties written by Europeans that targetted the U.S. but left special exceptions for their anti-American friends? It's funny how those things pop up in the field of "human rights," like the way they loudly claim to oppose torture and then always hide under the bed when their friends are doing it.
 * If this is the case then we definitely need to explore it somewhere on WP, and those critics should be listed by name.
 * I don't see any treaties listed that cover prison conditions.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights it states: "Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." The death penalty violates this right. The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights commits its signaturies to the abolition of the death penalty. Here is a relevant UN declaration relating to prison conditions:. Prison conditions also fall into other categories of rights such as security and integrity of person etc, which states are obliged to guarantee. Pexise (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The "right to life" doesn't apply to criminals. Otherwise, their right to "liberty" (also in your quote) would be infringed by any form of imprisonment.  I don't think you're going to argue that.
 * Something tells me that the Second Optional Protocol is optional. The U.S. hasn't signed that one.
 * The link you gave to the UN rules includes this: "60. (1) The regime of the institution should seek to minimize any differences between prison life and life at liberty which tend to lessen the responsibility of the prisoners or the respect due to their dignity as human beings."  This means they want prisoners to have some degree of freedom within the prison, and that inevitably leads to some of them committing crimes within the prison.
 * On the other hand, maybe we're thinking of this the wrong way. Is there no crime within foreign prisons?  Are there statistics showing other countries to be more civilized than Americans, and thus, their criminals always on their best behavior?  I'm sure the racists will love exploring that.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The article says: "everyone has the right to life, liberty....etc.". Of course criminals have the right to life.  They also have the right to liberty, it is just temporarily restricted.
 * All human rights treaties are optional, no state is impelled to sign them. You asked if human rights law exists which relates to capital punishment, I have clearly shown you a treaty which deals specifically with this.
 * All prisoners everywhere have the right to certain standards of treatment, in US jails or anywhere else. Pexise (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If that interpretation of "everyone" could stand up in court (without laughing) then SCOTUS would have abolished the death penalty decades ago. Criminals give up their right to liberty when they're sentenced.  It's not temporary if they have a full life sentence (although it is that way in Europe where they don't believe in life sentences either).
 * You were talking about human rights law. The word "optional" degrades that.  The phrase "human rights law" cannot be used to give an appearance of authority to the whims of a small group of nations with oversized egos.  But I am glad to see you acknowledge that all treaties are optional, and that the U.S. is not in violation if it doesn't sign them.
 * Yes, all prisoners have the right to certain standards of treatment. No, it's not an international human rights issue when one prisoner violates another.  There are competing standards.  American prisons could abolish rape entirely by turning medium security prisons into supermax facilities, but then you'd be complaining about that.  Critics have to understand that there is a balance between tight security and open prisons, and that there will be risks all along the way.  This is an important point that must also be addressed whenever debating with people who favor the death penalty.  It applies here, too.  And unless you can explain why European prisons are crime-free, then you need to be sensitive to that balance.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * FWIW: Canada didn't abolish the death penalty until 1976, and France in 1981, and the U.K. in 1998. They must have ratified the UDHR long before that.  So, if you're right about this interpretation (which, of course, you're not), they were all apparently in violation for decades.
 * If you're so sure it works this way, perhaps you'd like to note these violations in those countries' human rights articles.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We're not here to debate these issues, the facts stand as they are. Human rights treaties are all optional, not signing them shows a lack of commitment to the principles of human rights.  One such principle is the death penalty, another is the duty to protect prisoners.  Regardless, these are human rights concerns and so belong in the article.
 * Please do add your concerns and material to the relevant human rights pages of the countries you mention. Pexise (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't about the issue, it's about how it's portrayed by this article.
 * You couldn't be more wrong about not signing treaties showing a lack of commitment to human rights. When you have treaties with little or no purpose other than to benefit human rights abusers, it is those who ratified such treaties who exhibit the real lack of commitment.  Just because some treaties put "human rights" in the name doesn't mean they care.  For this article to make such a knee-jerk judgment is POV.
 * FWIW: I'm an opponent of the death penalty. But as such, it was an embarrassment to me personally how the rest of the world has disgraced themselves on this issue.  You should never assume that every death penalty opponent cares about human rights in the slightest.
 * Yes, the penal system has a duty to protect prisoners. That doesn't mean they can reasonably be expected to do so 100% of the time.  Otherwise, every nation on earth would merit such a section.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Which treaties are you referring to when you say they have no purpose other than to benefit human right abusers? Pexise (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Protocol I is the most noteworthy example. It was pushed through by the Soviets to advantage their aspirations for bloody international revolution.  Of the signatories, only the Soviets and the British could have had a real expectation of ever fighting a serious war where the treaty would matter.  The others are dead weight whose ratification lets them claim they care about human rights hoping it comes at no cost to themselves.  It was a net plus to the Soviets, as they could never be depended upon to honor such a treaty.
 * Though not a human rights treaty, the Kyoto Protocol is somewhat similar. It did come at some cost to western Europeans, but most of the world could sign it without it mattering one way or another.  China signed it easily, and that only helped them attract more industry to become the world's #1 polluter.
 * There another new "human rights" resolution on the horizon.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Having quickly skimmed the protocol, it appears to offer protection to groups which are now classified as "unlawful combatants", probably the people currently in Gitmo. This does not go against human rights principles as Universal human rights apply to all people, regardless of affiliation, crimes etc.  It is precisely those most hated by societies that indeed require the most protection under human rights laws and provisions - remember the jews in Nazi Germany?  Regardless, your new president seems to agree with this as he has pledged to close Guantanamo within a year.
 * The "new" text you mention is a General Assembly resolution, not a human rights treaty. Pexise (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no human right to wage war without restrictions. Protocol I is only a good thing if you like small wars.  The Jews in Nazi Germany would have been just as dead with or without it.  Even so, Al Qaeda had exhausted any hope of qualifying as lawful combatants long before 9/11.  The thing you need to remember about the Protocol I is that most of the good things about it are already included in the GCs.
 * In closing GTMO, President Obama is fulfilling a cheap campaign promise to his base, and he's doing it in a smart (albeit meaningless) way. If you've been paying attention, he's really only promising to move GTMO detainees into the U.S.  Everything else thus far is tracking pretty close to the same as the Bush administration had done.  Some will get trials, and some won't -- for the same reason they wouldn't get them under Bush.  A handful of those tried could remain locked up even if they're acquitted.
 * The ones we do release will become someone else's problem. The only known American victim of a former detainee was killed in the Middle East.  She was probably a GTMO-opponent anyway.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And I don't see much of a moral distinction between a UN resolution and a minor treaty signed by a small circle.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Geez louise. Regardless of your individual interpretations of the death penalty, surely it can be admitted that the section in question is all Con and no Pro. It's not as though one day the United States said, "You know, I think today we'll violate an international protocol." A sizable portion of the US population, a majority if I recall correctly, support the death penalty, and we can't just decide for them if their opinions are valid enough to be included in the article. Joker1189 (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A pro/con approach to the death penalty can be included on the death penalty page. This article is about human rights.  In human rights terms the death penalty is a human rights violation, so only that aspect should be dealt with here.
 * On a side note, the majority of populations in most countries support the death penalty, hence the need for strong political leadership and international norms to abolish it as a practice. Pexise (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Since when is the death penalty against human rights? --Rockstone35 (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights it states: "Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." The death penalty violates this right. The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights commits its signaturies to the abolition of the death penalty. Pexise (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * From earlier in this discussion:


 * And from earlier in the discussion, it doesn't hold water. There is no history of that clause ever being seriously interpreted that way.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Read this: Pexise (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Also read this: To quote, page 4: The right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, other international human rights instruments and many national constitutions. Amnesty International believes that the death penalty violates these rights. Pexise (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, page 5: In a general comment on Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UN Human Rights Committee has stated that Article 6 "refers generally to abolition [of the death penalty] in terms which strongly suggest... that abolition is desirable. The Committee concludes that all measures of abolition should be considered as progress in the enjoyment of the right to life... " Pexise (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty also calls for abolition of the death penalty. Pexise (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Amnesty international does not declare what is in violation of human rights, and neither does the American Convention on Human Rights. The only one that has any power in the UN, and that still does not read right. Only the country in question can decide if the death penalty is in violation of human rights, and SCOTUS has not done so after the death penalty ban was repealed.--Rockstone35 (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Amnesty uses lots of materials from the UN, as have I - the optional protocol, UN Human Rights Committee etc. The Inter- American system also defines human rights law for the americas region.  Pexise (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Pexise,
 * I was referring to your cite of UDHR's Article 3. You do have Amnesty citing Article 5, but they're a group that relies heavily on (sometimes shrill and deceptive) fundraising.  You should never assume that money has nothing to do with this.  They admit this is their view, not necessarily an internationally accepted opinion.  They're not a source of law.
 * But there is one thing you might pursue. Many of these treaties do include signing statements where they list reservations.  For example, the British used one in signing the nefarious Protocol I.  The U.S. used them for the GCs to ensure that it wouldn't disallow the death penalty.  If the U.S. used one for the UDHR, and other countries didn't, but used the death penalty anyway, then they could be confronted on it.
 * That there are other treaties opposed to the death penalty that we haven't signed doesn't mean anything. It is POV to say that the U.S. position on a treaty is wrong and other countries are right.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Amnesty cites article 3 by saying that the death penalty violates the right to life.
 * Amnesty concludes that the death penalty is a human rights violation based on a body of international law including all of the declarations and statements I have mentioned plus many others.
 * I am well aware of reservations when signing treaties, these are allowed but they do not alter the contents of the treaty, only its application to that country.
 * I am not saying that the US is right or wrong in its position on the death penalty, I am merely stating the position in terms of human rights, which is what is relevant here. Pexise (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't see that in your recent links.
 * It does mention Article 3 in the PDF, but that's a quote from the UN General Assembly resolution 32/61 of 8 December 1977, and it discounts that interpretation right after:
 * 1. Reaffirms that...the main objective to be pursued in the field of capital punishment is that of progressively restricting the number of offences for which the death penalty may be imposed with a view to the desirability of abolishing this punishment...
 * If it asks for "progressively restricting" the death penalty then that's an admission that it was legal iaw prior treaties.
 * You misunderstood my intent wrt these reservations. What I'm saying is that if some countries used reservations then that indicates that they believed it possible that somebody might interpret the treaty this way.
 * In other words, your interpretation of UDHR Article 3 could be validated by the use of such reservations.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Reservations are used to limit treaties when a country does not wish to comply with the full conditions of the treaty - e.g. the US ratification of the ICCPR was carried out with multiple reservations so that it would not be implemented in US domestic law. Pexise (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

ICRC Report
This should definitely be included in the section on torture: leaked report from the International Committee of the Red Cross that directly accuses the CIA of using torture. Pexise (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's nothing new for this article. They're just repeating the claims that have been made here before.
 * This may be highly relevant for other articles. The leak itself is a serious violation of the rules.  They've done this before, and I've seen no serious effort to stop it.  It shows the ICRC has reneged in its duty to remain neutral.  That means that they don't take the Geneva Conventions seriously.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It will add to the article because it is an additional source and it provides more details about specific techniques used. When I get a minute, I'll add it to the torture section. Pexise (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you mean the specific techniques allegedly used. While I can easily believe they did these things to these fascists, they're still taking the fascists' words for it that this is precisely how it happened.
 * But by all means, go for it. Please ensure the names are listed when possible.  I do want everyone who pretends to oppose torture to have their positions remembered.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Who is pretending to oppose torture? Pexise (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you really say the ICRC has been evenhanded about this?
 * When the intensity of someone's whining about "torture" depends upon who's interrogating whom, it becomes clear that torture isn't the main concern.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean. The ICRC is mandated to report cases of breaches of the Geneva Convention wherever and by whomever.  In this case, there are serious accusations of torture committed by the US Central Intelligence Agency. What are you disputing about this? Pexise (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not disputing so much as laughing. These same allegations are already covered within this article.  It also has "see also" links to the Waterboarding, Torture and the United States, and CIA prison system main articles where they cover the same events yet again.
 * Have you ever seen a cheap action movie? One sign of a producer's desperation is when they stretch the budget by showing the same explosion several times from different angles.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

what about jailing kids? and sentencing kids to death or life in prison. the usa is one of few countries in the world that does this. prison guards also frequently kill prisoners. one example was frank valdez. he was killed and the guards were found not guilty and freed. http://www.ccadp.org/frankvaldez.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.120.169 (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have never seen a single report about the death penalty or life in prison given to kids. Most are tried in the juvenile court, and will be released at the age of 18. Judging from the article, it appears this man intentionally disobeyed direct orders, and either killed himself or was killed for safety reasons. I see nothing wrong with this. --Rockstone35 (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't be so quick to dismiss this.
 * In a world where the wartime "civil rights" of fascists is more important than the lives of children, the well-being of a cop-killer must rank pretty high.
 * I'm surprised the mythical Koran-flushing incident isn't listed in this article. The UN Human Rights Council must now have something to say about its urgency.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Reginald Wilson
This source is a children's book added by Raggz. I propose removing it and replacing it with something more current and scholarly. I'm surprised this is still in the article. Viriditas (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is no response in the next 24 hours, I'll remove it and the material it cites. Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * With no objections, removal in progress. Viriditas (talk) 07:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Maintenance tags have been readded
I have reverted a change removing the maintenance tags from this article. These are matters under discussion, the contentions of one particular editor to the contrary notwithstanding. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 07:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is not a single justification or rationale on this entire talk page defending the use of the off-topic and synthesis tags in the Katrina section. Please provide one now.  As this has been explained to you several times, it is the responsibility of the editor adding maintenance tags to justify their use.  Please do so.  Why have the off-topic and synthesis tags been added to this section? Viriditas (talk) 07:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment from above:

(outdent)Two partisan sources: [ttp://www.southernstudies.org/ISSKatrinaHumanRightsJan08.pdf] and. All of the others refer back to these two sources save for the AP article. The AP article does not support the statment made in any way: "The UN Human Rights Committee and other groups allege that these problems reflected racial and economic prejudice; most of those trapped in New Orleans were African-American and poor." First of all from the article itself: Both experts are independent and unpaid. Secondly if you actually read the article it says that the main problem is that the replacement housing will be at market rate, rather than subsidized. Nowhere does it make sweeping comments about racial and economic prejudice. In short, the paragraph is poorly sourced and POV. Soxwon (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thus, an "unpublished synthesis" not supported by the cited materials. It "strays off topic" because the survivors, as you note, have not been classified as IDP's. Instead, the focus is on a petition to the UN to consider these individuals as IDP's, and a request that it be considered under human rights laws in a petition to the UN. This is off-topic. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Raggz, is that you? I'm starting to think that it is.  The material you took out of context was directly responded to here.  Is there a reason you ignored the response?  Feel free to answer it here.  This discussion is extremely bizarre.  You are ignoring a response to an older discussion, and pretending the issue was never addressed.  This is exactly what Raggz used to do.  In any case, here is the reply I made at 02:38, 22 May 2009 that you appear to be ignoring:


 * "To directly address your points: 1)The secondary source used (New Orleans CityBusiness), describes ISS as 'nonpartisan'. Are you challenging that statement? If so, what reliable source are you using that calls them 'partisan'. Please provide it. 2) I see your problem with AP. You failed to actually look at reference 99. Look at it again. There is more than one source being used - there are three, and they all compliment each other. Did you review the other two sources? The source you are referring to is only used to show that, The experts said the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and local governments will violate the human rights of thousands of New Orleans residents by demolishing public housing units. The majority of those affected are black and many were devastated by Hurricane Katrina, they said. That's it. The other two sources support and compliment the material about the 'UN Human Rights Committee and other groups allege that these problems reflected racial and economic prejudice.' I have it saved offline, so let me pull the quote for you. But more to the point, I'm not clear on what you are challenging. Can you specifically state what you are challenging? The sources appear at the end of the sentence/paragraph per best practices. Are you challenging any part of this statement? If so, please specifically state which part. The UN Human Rights Committee and other groups allege that these problems reflected racial and economic prejudice is referenced to Klapper, Bradley (2006-07-28). 'U.N. Panel Takes U.S. to Task Over Katrina'. AP Online (The America's Intelligence Wire), and is a news article covering the findings from the UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations on Report of the USA to the Human Rights Committee (July 27, 2006). I'll try and see if I can clear up any of the ambiguities (which you were right to observe) with some kind of cleanup effort. Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)"


 * Yachtsman1, please address my reply directly. Viriditas (talk) 08:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They have been addressed, but I see you ignored them. Oh well.Yachtsman1 (talk) 08:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? Please show me where you have directly addressed my reply at 02:38, 22 May 2009. Your response above shows you completely ignored it.  You addressed a reply made at 01:23, 22 May 2009 by Soxwon, a reply made one hour before my reply was made.  Please address the material I pasted above for you now, (timestamped as  02:38)  or I will report you again at ANI for disruptive behavior.  Viriditas (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this serious? Your original contention was as follows: There is not a single justification or rationale on this entire talk page defending the use of the off-topic and synthesis tags in the Katrina section. Well, we see that's wrong, because on the "talk page" where "nothing" was supposed to exist, the following was posted:


 * (outdent)Two partisan sources: [ttp://www.southernstudies.org/ISSKatrinaHumanRightsJan08.pdf] and . All of the others refer back to these two sources save for the AP article. The AP article does not support the statment made in any way: "The UN Human Rights Committee and other groups allege that these problems reflected racial and economic prejudice; most of those trapped in New Orleans were African-American and poor."

First of all from the article itself: Both experts are independent and unpaid. Secondly if you actually read the article it says that the main problem is that the replacement housing will be at market rate, rather than subsidized. Nowhere does it make sweeping comments about racial and economic prejudice. In short, the paragraph is poorly sourced and POV. Soxwon (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose that theory must now be considered gone. Obviously, user:Soxwon addressed the issue that "[t]he AP article does not support the statment made in any way". He goes on to say "[s]econdly if you actually read the article it says that the main problem is that the replacement housing will be at market rate, rather than subsidized. Nowhere does it make sweeping comments about racial and economic prejudice. In short, the paragraph is poorly sourced and POV." Wikipedia states that the "source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article". Wikipedia also states: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". It is, therefore, not my burden to show "why" this should be deleted, it is instead "your" burden to provide reasons why it should not. The source states "The campaign has sought to leverage U.S. government acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the category of internal displacement within its borders, as it has in its United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Internally Displaced Persons Policy, and compliance with the spirit of the U.N. Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement." The spirit? What is that, precisely? the comments of the director of the group are not even located in the cite. The topic of this article is "Human rights in the United States". Wikipedia states: "The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information. While writing an article, you might find yourself digressing into a side subject." [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Stay_on_topic] The Katrina piece is a "side subject". Wikipedia suggests "If you find yourself wandering off-topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with the topic". The entire topic of Hurricane Katrina is a "side subject", it belongs in a "different article". That should very much answer your question. Thank you --Yachtsman1 (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yachtsman1, please follow what I am saying very closely. You are addressing a comment made by Soxwon at 01:23, 22 May 2009.  My reply to Soxwon was made an hour later, at 2:38.  In other words, you are addressing a comment that was superseded by a reply, a reply you are ignoring.  Please respond directly to my reply pasted above and timestamped at 2:38.  How does addressing a comment made at 01:23, a comment made before I replied to it address this issue?  Are you following this?  If you aren't, please ask someone to help you understand what I have written.  To further help you along, I will once again paste the reply you are ignoring:


 * "To directly address your points: 1)The secondary source used (New Orleans CityBusiness), describes ISS as 'nonpartisan'. Are you challenging that statement? If so, what reliable source are you using that calls them 'partisan'. Please provide it. 2) I see your problem with AP. You failed to actually look at reference 99. Look at it again. There is more than one source being used - there are three, and they all compliment each other. Did you review the other two sources? The source you are referring to is only used to show that, The experts said the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and local governments will violate the human rights of thousands of New Orleans residents by demolishing public housing units. The majority of those affected are black and many were devastated by Hurricane Katrina, they said. That's it. The other two sources support and compliment the material about the 'UN Human Rights Committee and other groups allege that these problems reflected racial and economic prejudice.' I have it saved offline, so let me pull the quote for you. But more to the point, I'm not clear on what you are challenging. Can you specifically state what you are challenging? The sources appear at the end of the sentence/paragraph per best practices. Are you challenging any part of this statement? If so, please specifically state which part. The UN Human Rights Committee and other groups allege that these problems reflected racial and economic prejudice is referenced to Klapper, Bradley (2006-07-28). 'U.N. Panel Takes U.S. to Task Over Katrina'. AP Online (The America's Intelligence Wire), and is a news article covering the findings from the UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations on Report of the USA to the Human Rights Committee (July 27, 2006). I'll try and see if I can clear up any of the ambiguities (which you were right to observe) with some kind of cleanup effort. Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)"


 * Please directly address my statement above. Please do not address a statement that was made before this reply. Katrina has been the subject of dozens of human rights-related articles, journals, studies, and books.  This is not a side-subject as you claim. Viriditas (talk) 09:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

''Is this serious? Your original contention was as follows: There is not a single justification or rationale on this entire talk page defending the use of the off-topic and synthesis tags in the Katrina section. Well, we see that's wrong, because on the "talk page" where "nothing" was supposed to exist, the following was posted''
 * Yachtsman1, please follow what I am saying very closely: Soxwon made a comment at 01:23 expressing his confusion with the sources since the URL appeared to refer to material that was not in the link. Pay attention to this next part:  At 02:38, I responded to Soxwon, explaining that the reference did not refer to the single source he checked out, but to three, and asked him to look at it again.  I then asked him further questions so that we could resolve the problem.  If this isn't making sense to you, please ask someone to explain it.  In other words, there is no justification for the "off-topic" or "synthesis" tag.  If you feel that there is, please provide a reason or answer the questions I asked Soxwon. Viriditas (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is making sense to me and it did make sense to me when I said it. Your point was wrong.  The issue of the Katrina portion was addressed previously in this thread.  In fact, the following exchnage also happened previously in this thread:


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


 * Sceptre, can you tag the issues you note? I would like to fix them, if it is possible. Viriditas (talk) 08:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The tags you deleted were suggested by you in the first place. You acknowledged there was a problem.  Now, I want you to follow what I am sayiong very closely:


 * Wikipedia states that the "source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article". Wikipedia also states: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". It is, therefore, not my burden to show "why" this should be deleted, it is instead "your" burden to provide reasons why it should not. The source states "The campaign has sought to leverage U.S. government acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the category of internal displacement within its borders, as it has in its United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Internally Displaced Persons Policy, and compliance with the spirit of the U.N. Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement." The spirit? What is that, precisely? The comments of the director of the group are not even located in the cite. The topic of this article is "Human rights in the United States". Wikipedia states: "The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information. While writing an article, you might find yourself digressing into a side subject." [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Stay_on_topic] The Katrina piece is a "side subject". Wikipedia suggests "If you find yourself wandering off-topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with the topic". The entire topic of Hurricane Katrina is a "side subject", it belongs in a "different article". That should very much answer your question. Thank you --Yachtsman1 (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Now, follow me closely. I want you to take into account the policies I have listed above.  they are Wikipedia policies, and I did not make them up.  Now, once ingested, here are my points, and I will restate them:


 * 1. The source states "The campaign has sought to leverage U.S. government acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the category of internal displacement within its borders, as it has in its United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Internally Displaced Persons Policy, and compliance with the spirit of the U.N. Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement." The spirit? What is that, precisely?


 * Let me translate: Where is the violation of human rights?  What is meant by the term "spirit"?  Where is the authority to make this determination?  Where is the finding referenced as follows in the article:  "The report found that the U.S. government neglected to adhere to "internationally recognized human rights principles the Bush administration has promoted in other countries".


 * 2. The subject is Hurricane Katrina.  The issue is Human rights in the United States.  There already exists an article criticizing the United States on this subject.  My contention is simple:  The issue wanders off-topic, it is best included in the article that already exists on this topic.


 * As I stated, the burden for why this should stay in this article lies with you, not me. Again, that is Wikipedia policy, not mine.  If you deem that the cites are synsthesized with the article, and that it relates to the subject at hand as a topic worthy of inclusion, please state your reasons.  Thank you. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 09:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, you're arguing from your POV, not from the sources or from the content. I'm going to make a few changes that will cleanup some issues. Viriditas (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please address the points made. If you simply refer me to my POV, then I can only assume you are denying my reasoning and refusing to answer me based on your own POV.  This is an absurd result otherwise known as "circular reasoning".  If you deem that the cites are synsthesized with the article, and that it relates to the subject at hand as a topic worthy of inclusion, please state your reasons. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any points to address. You are arguing from your personal POV, not from the sources.  I don't discuss personal POV on Wikipedia.  Please present a single source that supports your claims.  There are none.  We don't write articles based on personal POV.  We write articles based on sources. Viriditas (talk) 10:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then it appears that you don't "discuss" anything that you do not agree with, which is hardly constructive. The cited materials do not support the contents.  That's fact, not POV.  The section wanders off-topic.  That's fact, not POV.  If you have "facts" that counter my points, please provide them.  Thank you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't get it. Per talk page guidelines, the talk page is only used to discuss how to improve the article.  We do that by discussing evidence based on sources.  What sources are you using to support your criticism of the material?  We do not declare the content "off-topic" merely because you say so.  The importance of Katrina in U.S. history is huge.  And the human rights issues that have resulted from the hurricane, appear in many reliable sources.  Are you challenging their inclusion?  Fine, provide a source that says the human rights issues aren't important, or the hurricane was "no big deal".  Good luck. Viriditas (talk) 10:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Contrary to your thoughts, I "get it". Every time I make a suggestion I get a stream of circular reasoning and base denials.  Nor do I need sources to "criticize" the materials.  Let me repeat in bold:  It's your burden.  You have to provide the materials, you have to provide the reasons, and you have to demonstrate "why" these materials should be included.  At law we call this "burden-shifting".  It's not very effective in Court, and it's not very effective here.  Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 11:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I do not believe you "get it". See my concerns with your latest edits below.  You seem to be incapable of editing from a NPOV or using sources correctly. Viriditas (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Not synthesis

 * Made changes based on the actual report. Elimited non-synthesized information.

Yachtsman1? Please take a moment out of your busy day to actually read WP:SYN. The material you removed is not considered synthesis by any stretch of the imagination, but a properly paraphrased passage from a secondary source. Do you understand the difference? The original material that appeared in the Associated Press source said the following: "The U.N. Human Rights Committee said poor and black Americans were 'disadvantaged' after Katrina, and the U.S. should work harder to ensure that their rights 'are fully taken into consideration in the reconstruction plans with regard to access to housing, education and health care.'"

I wrote the following passage and cited the source like this:

"In 2006, the UN Human Rights Committee issued a report saying that poor and black Americans were deprived after the hurricane, and recommended that the U.S. should endeavor to make certain their rights to 'housing, education and health care' were part of the reconstruction effort:"

There is nothing to "synthesize" so your edit summary does not make any sense. Please read WP:SYN and try to understand it. In related matters, I hope you have read WP:3RR and now understand that edit warring does not mean making more than three edits per day. Please reassure me that you understand your mistake and you no longer maintain that anyone who edits a page three or more times is "edit warring". Viriditas (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yachtsman1, I appreciate your recent edits, but you adjusted the content to reflect the primary, rather than the secondary source. While in this particular situation it is not really a problem, this goes against best practice on Wikipedia.  Whenever possible, we source the material to the secondary source and quote the primary source.  For some reason, you reversed the process, and while this is not an issue at the moment, the reason we don't do this, is because cherry-picking the primary source directly without quotes, can be abused by POV pushers.  That's why, whenever possible, we cite the description to the secondary source, and quote the primary.  Also notice, that the primary quote is cited in full to prevent editorial interpretation. Viriditas (talk) 10:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thoughts. I have changed your edit to comport with the text of your sources without POV, added the fact that buses were part of the evacuation plan the city failed to follow as a pertinent fact (that would have saved lives and suffering) with a cite, and added the latest UN Report to the article.  As it finally appears there exists some semblance of synthasis with the material cited as sources, I have removed one tag.  I still maintain that this should not be part of this article.  It is a side issue.  Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 11:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We seem to be having serious difficulties communicating. Please read WP:SYN because you appear to be using the word "synthesis" differently than the way we use it on Wikipedia.  There is simply nothing to synthesize in my edit.  Also, you changed the text of my sources in a way that it no longer reflected the secondary source.  Do you understand?  If you don't have access to the secondary source, it is available online and I have also copied the text above.  I didn't want to burst your bubble, but the material you added about Ray Nagin is synthesis. First the source you added for Nagin says nothing about human rights.  Second, the material that you wrote, Ray Nagin, failed to provide for buses to take people out of the city once the governor declared a state of emergency as further stated in the State of Louisiana's disastor plan does not appear anywhere in the source that you cited and is an interpretation of the source that you added to reach a POV conclusion.  Do you understand what I have written here?  We also have some other issues to deal with, but I think we need to take baby steps.  I appreciate that you took the time to find a primary source for the 2009 UN report, but you appear to have cherry-picked the content, and this is exactly what I warned you about doing previously, and you ignored me.  So you have introduced two new problems in the article. Viriditas (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fully confirming the adage that you can't please some people. You are impossible.  I include a source from the UN on human rights, I blockquote the actual report, and you accuse me of "cherry picking".  I pick the Washington Post as a source, it is reliable, it is vetted, it absolutely complies with Wikipedia guidelines, and I get a source accusation.  It is as absurd as saying the human rights sources you have provided are not reliable because they "reported" on the events, and did not click away on their comuuters while it was happening, helping survivors into the Superdome.  This is ridiculous.  Please note the following:  "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example the Washington Post in the United States and the Times in Britain, as well as widely used conglomerates such as the Associated Press".  [Emphasis added]  WP:RELY  Please let me know when you have an actual argument on this topic.  Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 11:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me be as clear as possible. Please read carefully: This is not an allegation.  You cherry-picked paragraph 90 from a primary source document (2009 UN report) to promote your POV.  This is exactly how we are not allowed to use primary sources, and the statement that you wrote, The matter of Hurricane Katrina was raised by the United Nations Human Rights Council in its report from the Mission of the United States in 2009 requires a secondary source.  Please note the difference with the previous report from 2006 in the first paragraph.  It is based on secondary sources, and the primary source material that is quoted, not only appears in the secondary source, but is quoted in full in the article.  There is nothing to cherry-pick because paragraph 90 consists of all of the Katrina material.  Do you understand?  We do it this way precisely to prevent the type of edit you just made.  Please read this again if it doesn't make sense.  If you don't believe me, you are free to consult the relevant policies or contact someone on the RS source board.  I'm sure you thought you were being very clever, but having been here for five years, I've seen it all.  What you did is against the rules for a reason.  Without a secondary source, anyone can partially select a quote from a primary source document to promote their POV. Viriditas (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And let me be quite clear: I picked the quote from the United Nations Report because it was the section of the report that applied to Hurricane Katrina and its survivors.  You then removed it because you are edit warring with me. Let me direct your attention to actual Wikipedia Policy:  "Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims only if they have been published by a reliable secondary source."  []  It is a Report from the UN Human Rights Council, so I guess that this might be considered "reliable".  Your point rests on an allegation that we are not allowed to use primary sources.   You are wrong.  The policy states: "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source".  Thus, in order to meet your definition of prohibited use of a primary source, I would have to be providing an "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source".  Your position is "You cherry-picked paragraph 90 from a primary source document (2009 UN report) to promote your POV".  This is absurd by any standard.  The actual statement was that the report had been made by the UNHC in 2009, and it stated X, and the direct cite was then provided.  Your comment "I'm sure you thought you were being very clever, but having been here for five years, I've seen it all" is hysterically funny, because you are trying to wikilawyer with me (oh the supreme irony), you are referring me to policies when you obviously have no idea what the actual policies say, you make arguments that are circular, and you make demeaning comments that are, honestly, befuddling, and not very clever.  I will provide you with an opportunity to reinclude my cite, and stop this endless cycle of circular reasoning and fruitless debate.  Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 12:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me try to help you understand. You picked a quote, a specific quote about Katrina, out of many quotes in a primary source document.  That's a huge red flag.  You only chose this quote because it supported your POV, not because it was reflected by a secondary source, or because it  reflected the entirety of the content.  In other words, you chose this specific quote out of many quotes for no reason other than because you preferred it, and the reason you preferred it is obvious.  You can't do that.  It is not my position, it is exactly what you did.  And whenever a quote from a primary source is challenged, you have to give a reason why you used it.  Most editors on Wikipedia will automatically point to a secondary source that describes or uses the quote, and that is sufficient.  Please do exactly that.  You cannot continue to "wikilawyer" over every aspect of article editing.  At some point, you are going to have to buckle down and understand that NPOV has specific requirements, and you need to follow the guidelines that allow this place to function.  So far, I have not seen a single edit from you that shows you are capable of NPOV.  Now, if you want to use a specific quote from a general primary source document, you need to give a reason why.  As I said (and I'm purposefully repeating myself here because you aren't getting it) if you have a secondary source for this quote or material, that generally settles the challenge.  I looked at the document you are using.  There are many, many quotes about Katrina in it, unlike the 2006 report, which only has one paragraph, which is used in its entirety and also appears referenced in multiple secondary sources.  The reason we have these layers of separation is to prevent editors from picking and choosing quotes to promote their personal POV.  Do you understand? Viriditas (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well then shouldn't the entire section be edited to remove "cherry-picked" portions of UN Reports on the basis that they are included only to support your or my POV? Perhaps the report portion from the 2006 UN Report should be deleted? In other words, you chose this specific quote out of many quotes for no reason other than because you preferred it, and the reason you preferred it is obvious. You can't do that. It is not my position, it is exactly what you did. And whenever a quote from a primary source is challenged, you have to give a reason why you used it. Most editors on Wikipedia will automatically point to a secondary source that describes or uses the quote, and that is sufficient. Please do exactly that. You cannot continue to "wikilawyer" over every aspect of article editing. At some point, you are going to have to buckle down and understand that NPOV has specific requirements, and you need to follow the guidelines that allow this place to function. So far, I have not seen a single edit from you that shows you are capable of NPOV. Now, if you want to use a specific quote from a general primary source document, you need to give a reason why. As I said (and I'm purposefully repeating myself here because you aren't getting it) if you have a secondary source for this quote or material, that generally settles the challenge. I looked at the document you are using. There are many, many quotes in it, unlike the 2006 report, which only has one, which is used in its entirety. Do you understand? What's good for the goose, as they say. I mean, it may be "referred to" in other secondary sources, but shouldn't they explain this cite, and not you?   Yachtsman1 (talk) 12:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I just finished explaining to you several times why and how the 2006 UN report was not cherry-picked. Since you missed it: I'll explain it again in a simplified manner: 1) The 2006 UN report was covered by multiple secondary sources and appears sourced and directly quoted to a secondary source; 2) The passage that appears from the primary source, paragraph 26,  is the entire passage and content about Katrina from the source - there is nothing to cherry pick because it is reproduced in its entirety. 3) Specific quotes from the passage appear in multiple secondary sources 4) The cited material is parallel and consistent with the secondary reporting.  If this isn't making sense to you, please have someone explain it to you.  Since you did not respond to my request for a secondary source and decided to edit war your disputed material back into the article, for the record, you have now edit warred twice, meaning, you have made two reverts:, .  Please do not continue to edit war.  Please pay special attention: I have not reverted your edits.  This means, I have not edit warred.  If this isn't clear, please ask someone to explain it to you. Viriditas (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

''The consequences of the overlap of poverty and race were clearly seen in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Minorities, as the poorest segments of the population, lived in more vulnerable neighbourhoods and were more exposed to the effects of the storm. It is thus not unexpected that these groups suffered from disproportional displacement or loss of their homes. Katrina therefore illustrates the pernicious effects of socio-economic marginalization and shows the need for a robust and targeted governmental response to ensure that racial disparities are addressed. [110]''
 * Yachtsman1, you reverted my edit and re-added this challenged quote as a blockquote. This is extremely deceptive as it now appears that the quote is sourced to the Institute for Southern Studies and the secondary source that supports it, instead of the primary source you cherry-picked it from, which lacks a secondary source. This is extremely poor editing.  Can you please explain why you chose this particular quote out of a 30 page 2009 UN report?  I am officially challenging your choice of this quote, and asking you to point me to a secondary source that refers to it.  If you can't, then you will have to either choose a quote we can agree is neutral and does not reflect your chosen POV, or you will have to find a secondary source.  You do not get to pick and choose a quote out of a 30 page document containing many quotes about Katrina, especially when it looks like the reason you chose the quote is to promote a POV.  Now, please answer my question.  If you cannot, then please remove it.  Looking at the edit summary of your latest revert, (Readded cite without any analysis)  you seem to have got this backwards for the second time.  The statement that the material was reported in 2009 is not the analysis.  The analysis resides in your preferred cherry-picking of a specific quote that promotes your POV from a 30-page document that contains multiple quotes about Katrina.  I've explained this several times to you.  You cannot choose a challenged quote from a primary source document without a secondary source.  This is standard procedure.  Please produce a secondary source that points to this material or justifies your use of it.  Without it, it can't be used in the article.  This is very simple and the wikilawyering and edit warring and reverts need to stop.  Your friend, Mosedschurte, was just blocked for edit warring on this article, and you seem to be following him down this path. Viriditas (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)