Talk:Human rights in the United States/Archive 4

message: This article has an extremely liberal definition of what a "human right" is.  There are a lot of good parts of the article.  But I'd say a third to half of the issues listed are not related to human rights.  The following sections should be removed:
:1) Health and the family
:2) Prison
:3) Death penalty
:4) Freedom of expression (the parts about reporters being prosecuted for ignoring subpoenas)
Human rights should be limited to things that are near universally accepted as rights.  For instance just because western Europe has outlawed capitol punishment doesn't make it a human rights issue.The Goat 14:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you have a point in that the article may be too chatty (or whiny), but that doesn't mean you can just strike entire sections. Health care and death penalty fall well within the topic of "human rights", and to what extent such rights are violated in the US is, as the article states, controversial. As long as the controversy can be attributed to notable sources, it has a place here. Any criticism voiced by AI automatically qualifies as notable to the human rights situation in the country criticized, even if there may still be opinions conflicting with that of AI. dab (��) 17:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the American Heritage Dictionary, "Human rights-The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law." This covers a wide-range of topics. The 'Health and family' section relates with "equality before the law". The 'Prison' and 'Death penalty' sections relate with "the right to life and liberty". The 'Freedom of expression' section re: subpoenas relates with "freedom of thought and expression". —Christopher Mann McKay 17:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Rights issues or Liberal Talking points? 

message: "The debate over gay rights to marriage (as opposed to civil union or other alternatives) is also often framed as a human rights issue"
:-Why is this worded as "framed as a human rights issue" and not "Not allowing homosexuals the right to marriage is a violation of human rights"? Why is it necessary to have the word "framed"? Not allowing one group rights that another group has is considered a human right violation.
:-I do not understand why "(as opposed to civil union or other alternatives)" is in this sentence. Aren't civil unions still a violation of human rights, as they advocate separate but equal?
Also, why are there no references to how sodomy laws violate human rights, like how in Kansas: "Convicted of sodomy for having sex in 2000 at age 18 with a 14-year-old boy, Matthew R. Limon was sentenced to more than 17 years in prison. Had Limon’s partner been an underage girl, he could have been sentenced at most to one year and three months in prison." Is this not a human right issue?
Please offer your input on my questions. If there are not objections in a week or so, I will re-write part of the article to better explain gay rights and human rights. 
—Christopher Mann McKay 17:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewording gay rights and human rights

message: America is nation number one - everyone knows this.84.56.70.126 17:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is America so great? 

message: This edit was deleted. "Few, if any actual violations have been proven." Do you know of any actual proven violations? How about a table of these: Law Violated  Court   Date of Finding    Case Name   ?Raggz 22:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added "however, the only confirmed violated international law was the intervention in Nicaragua" in replace of "Few, if any actual violations have been proven," which I removed in a previous edit. See Nicaragua v. United States for more information. —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 22:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm taking a rhetorical position on these issues. I assume that since I don't know of any actual finding of international law violations that there are none. Obviouslly if there are some, they will get added to the article and cited. What law was violated in Nicaragua? For the old stuff, I will accept the "conclusion(s) of history", so we don't need an actual court case. For claims after the Church Comission reforms (1981) I will ask for the law - and the case name. Raggz 23:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean "What law was violated in Nicaragua?", read the following copied from Nicaragua v. United States: The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America[1] was a case heard in 1986 by the International Court of Justice that found that the United States had violated international law by supporting Contra guerrillas in their war against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The Court ruled in Nicaragua's favor, but the United States refused to abide by the Court's decision, on the basis that the court erred in finding that it had jurisdiction to hear the case,[2] The court stated that the United States had been involved in the "unlawful use of force".[3] —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 03:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to worry, you found my post from before our discussion of Nicaragua. I will look up the case because I'm interested, not because I doubt you. Raggz 03:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Human Rights Record

message: "The United States has worked throughout it's history to help advance human rights throughout the world. A notable example would be the use of military force to free Europe from the Third Reich, which likely would still be ruling most of Europe otherwise." Why was this deleted, it is commonly accepted as fact. Do you want a cite, and will then be happy? Why not address my earlier question on this topic BEFORE editing it out? Raggz 22:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I removed this statement by mistake. I was editing the article and then when I was saving it another edit has taken place, so I had to merge my last edit into the new edit and I think I messed up; sorry about that. I think a source would be proper, as the U.S. did not join the war for the purpose preventing Germany from dominating Europe; although, the U.S. did give money and supplies to countries opposing Germany before joining the war, the U.S. only joined WWII because U.S. ships were attacked by German U-boats when bringing supplies to Europe and because of Pearl Harbor—At least that is what I learned in History class.—Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 23:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I can only assume that this was deleted because it was an insane observation.  Or more accurately, because it is not a "fact". Please read more about the history of the Philippines, Mexico, and Vietnam. Or about the second world war, where thousands of Russians made a difference too.--Nickhh 23:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Nickhh. I invite you to help. We need someone like yourself to help document all of this. All I ask is that you always cite the human rights law violated and how the violation was determined. You will note that I credited the USSR above, feel free to add it. Raggz 23:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "All I ask is that you always cite the always cite the human rights law violated and how the violation was determined" - A human right violation does not need to violaate a law to be a human right violation. For example, not allowing same-sex marriage is a human right violation; however, denying homosexuals equal treatment is not against U.S. or international law. —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 21:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that there may be other ways to prove that a human right was violated than the two we agree do this (a conviction in a court or by historical consensus). What is it? Does one person's opinion that a violation of a human right has occured make it true? For that person it does, but when a community or a nation find that a human right is denied by denying same-sex marriage, isn't that more significant? Raggz 05:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Multiple countires have found denying same-sex marriage is a violation of human rights and they have made it legal to have same-sex marriage. It is not opinion if banning homosexuals from having equal rights is a human right violation, it is a fact. —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 07:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Reich

message: This edit was deleted: "In all cases under dispute within the United States involving survelliance, the same practice would be legal anywhere else in the world. The US has strict privacy laws in this regard." Why? It is true and comonly known that US privacy laws are FAR more restrictive. Please offer an example of a nation where terrorist suspects don't get wiretapped? Raggz 23:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is about the human rights in the United States, it does not matter what is legal elsewhere. Having that sentence sounds like a rebuttal, which sounds like you are not following NPOV. Not only that, but the statement is unsourced. —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 07:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survellience Internationally

message: What does scrutiny mean? By whom, the UN? The ICC? The Red Cross? For what? What law? The Reader deserves to know these answers.
An example of this is how the status of human rights in the United States recently have come under scrutiny for the government's positions on capital punishment,[3] police brutality,[citation needed] the War on Drugs,[4] and gay rights[5]
:I didn't write that, so I don't know what scretiny means. I changed it from  An example of this is how the status of human rights in the United States recently have come under scrutiny.. → A substantial amount of Americas have been surveyed as being opposed to the.. as the refernces are opinion polls. —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 07:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take as much time as you need. I am impressed with your intellect and integrity. I trust you. ou do belong at UCB. The word is spelled scrutiny. It means review. Who is reviewing the human rights record of the US? What law is used for review. This article belongs to you. I will support what you decide, even if I disagree. Raggz 08:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I meant is that I do not know what the original author who wrote that sentence meant by scrutiny, like which groups have scrutinized the government’s positions; I know the definition of scrutiny. Thank you for your kind words, I hope to get into UCB by next year; however, the major I am applying for has a very low acceptance rate, so I’m hoping for the best. Also, just because I am an active contributor, does not mean the article belongs to me (see WP:OWN). I encourage you to disagree with me, so I can see your side of the issue and make the article less POV.—Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 17:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scrutiny?

message: According to the American Heritage Dictionary, "Human rights-The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law
According to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary “Human rights-fundamental rights, esp. those believed to belong to an individual and in whose exercise a government may not interfere, as the rights to speak, associate, work, etc.”
Both of these definitions do not mention anything about privacy concerns being human right issues because privacy issues are not a human right issues. Does anyone disagree with me or have a problem with me deleting the whole mass surveillance section? —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 01:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me. I like the definition, good work. Raggz 01:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of sections (like prisons) that allege human rights violations, but are not specific which human rights law they allege is violated. Prisons are a complex issue where various rights need be judicially balanced. When human rights are violated (and this does occur) people can and do go to jail. The citations involve a single incidence of alleged or confirmed abuse, or events at a single prison. These citations do not prove a pattern of human rights abuses. Therefore I plan to delete those that confirm isolated incidents. Indymedia doesn't qualify as reliable either. Raggz 01:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete Mass surveillance section? 

message: Then the US is an island in regard to international law and human rights? If I accept your preceding claim for this, that there is no need to contrast with other nations, then I have a lot of deletions to do. Do you agree to the approach that human rights in other nations is irrelevant?
If not, you can help with insertion of a supported statement contrasting the level of human rights in SE Asia, China, Japan, Korea, or wherever you wish. 
Europe has made a legal determination that the practices of the US interrogators are not torture. What we really need is any reliable source that suggests that these practices are legally torture anywhere in the world. Otherwise the whole torture argument is OR. It can and will be deleted as OR, if not supported, to be reverted only when supported. To be clear on this important point: We have no reliable source for proof of human rights violations being tolerated in the US in the past 25 years?. We have reliable sources that make allegations, and these need to be written accurately as allegations that remain unproven. 
If no reliable source can be found that supports the hypothesis that proves that the US tolerates or practices torture, then this section will be deleted as OR. Proof will require (1) naming the law violated and (2) explaining the court ecision or other means of proving the allegation.
I oppose deletion of the torture section, and prefer that we find a way to adress this issue without claiming that the US supports or tolerates torture - unless this is proven. The allegations of torture should be covered, but as allegations and other material to sustain a NPOV. Raggz 21:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken. In terms of the UN, there is a credible allegation that the US has violated the ICCPR. This should stay. The article should note that a concern has been addressed and that it may ultimately be determined if the UNSC determines that such has occurred. The rest needs to go, as the rest is without a reliable source. Raggz (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete the Section on Torture as OR? 

message: Human Rights First does not qualify as a reliable source. It is an advocacy group. As such, if used, all quotes and claims should include the phrase unproven allegations by Human Rights First ... 
From it's Mission Statement: Human Rights First is practical and effective. We advocate for change at the highest levels of national and international policymaking. We seek justice through the courts. We raise awareness and understanding through the media. We build coalitions among those with divergent views. And we mobilize people to act. Pretty clearly an advocacy group. Raggz 06:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An organization does not have to be neutral and can be advocacy group while still being considered as a reliable source per WP:VER policy. —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 03:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what comes after your quote on the Human Rights First website, conveniently omitted here: "Human Rights First is a non-profit, nonpartisan international human rights organization based in New York and Washington D.C. To maintain our independence, we accept no government funding." Also, the UN, UNOHCHR and the UN human rights committees advocate for the protection and promotion of human rights - are you going to suggest that they are not reliable sources? Pexise 14:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course I continue to view Human Rights First as an advocacy site. It claims that it is (see mission statement above). I accept the language you cite as accurate and also irrelevant to the question of advocacy. Raggz (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Human Rights First

message: Human Rights Watch is something of an advocacy group, but it does high quality research and has consistently been factual in it's reporting. I'm OK with this group as a "reliable source".
:We appear to have reached a tacit Consensus on this section?
::No.  The discussion is ongoing below.  Silly rabbit (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Human Rights Watch

message: Reading two papers that criticised the NY Times for it's lack f objectivity in regard to human rights issues, I wonder f it should qualify?
I changed the text from US media to NY Times, because this was the focus of both papers cited. 
EXAMPLE: "Studies have found that New York Times coverage of worldwide human rights violations is biased, predominantly focusing on the human rights violations in nations where there is clear U.S. involvement, while having relatively little coverage of the human rights violations in other nations."
:Just because the New York Times focuses on the U.S. does not mean it is not a reliable source per WP:VER. —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 03:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New York Times

message: Satter, Raphael. "Report hits US on human rights", Associated Press (published on The Boston Globe), 2007-05-24. Retrieved on 2007-05-29. The Human Rights Watch Annual Report should be the citation, not a second hand discussion.
:Both can be referenced. —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 03:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Boston Globe

message: "The Heritage Foundation citing the massive damage done to communities by violent crime says that "any lesser punishment is tougher on innocent people" -Raggz
:Citing commentary of authors who do work for the Heritage Foundation is not necessary. We could fill a whole article with opinions of people regarding human rights, lets keep only professional organization's official reports and statements, individual authors commentary, unless someone very significant, is not important. Read WP:NOT. —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 07:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Here one opinion balances the other. If it were a cited fact, another fact (not an opinion) would be necessary. I would prefer to delete both opinions. Are we agreed to drop the opinions and clean it up?Raggz 21:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not in disagreement to not reference any opinions, unless they are from influential or important persons of revalence, or persons who are experts and have published reports in journals and such. —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 03:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Heritage Foundation and Human Rights Watch are similar, and I believe that both qualify under your criteria. Raggz (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We appear to have reached a tacit Consensus on this section? Raggz (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Commentary

message: This is unsupported OR, and I believe partially unfactual. I expect to delete it soon.
:We have consensus. Raggz (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: National security exceptions as OR

message: What human rights law is at issue here? Without this, OR. Raggz 00:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Euthanasia is only legal is Oregon, I don't think there any laws elsewhere; although California was dicussing it. I don't think this section is revelent to human rights even if there was laws regarding euthanasia; seems to me this section should be removed as not being relevant. —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 01:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We appear to have reached consensus. Raggz (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Euthanasia as OR

message: Please do not change direct quotations. Regarding tags stating that a source is missing, do not claim this immediately after a source. Also, statements in the intro that summarize sourced statements later in the body need no repeat these sources.Ultramarine 02:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that I should not have edited a quotation, it was an unintended error. The source was challenged, but Christopher prefers to remove these himself, and I honor his request. We don't have a summary, not yet.Raggz 02:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding sources 

message: I was wondering whether you think the line in the "Democide" section: "However, the total number of deaths is only a very small fraction of the democide done by many non-democracitic states." is relevant here?  It seems like it belongs in an article which compares democratic and non-democratic states and human rights records - this page is not such a discussion, it is simply stating the US Human Rights record. Pexise 08:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not a simple list article, also includes criticisms and arguments for.Ultramarine 09:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your right, it is not a simple list article, it is a discussion of the US Human Rights record.  However - I would still query the wording of this sentence - is this the space for a broad comparison of 'democide' between democratic and non-democratic regimes? Pexise 10:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That can be discussed. But that is not what the sentence states, it comparing the US democide to the democide of many dictatorships.Ultramarine 10:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, this seems like a fairly moot point - obviously the US democide is far less than those of dictatorships.  We could mention at the end of every section that terrible human rights abuses have been committed in Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia, and that US human rights abuses are on a much smaller scale, but this should be taken as a given - it does not add anything. Pexise 10:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In some circles the US is seen as the most evil nations in the world, so pointing out this is wrong in one section certainly adds to the article.Ultramarine 10:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try not to use weasel words: "in some circles".  Once again you are setting up a straw man here - where in the article does it suggest that "the US is seen as the most evil nations in the world"? Pexise 10:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just making a general point. It is easy to say that the murder of one person is no different from the murder of a thousand. In the real world, there is a difference. Therefore the article on the atomic bombings discuss the alternative, probably much higher, number of deaths caused by not bombing Japan using the atomic bombs. Relative evils matter.Ultramarine 10:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that's fine - as you say, the reader can easily refer to the relevant sections on the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings, Vietnam war etc, and to the democide section itself. I don't think the sentence belongs here. If you want to provide more detail, make more specific comparisons (a ranking would be great e.g US is no. 40 of 190 or whatever), or relevant comparisons that don't seem to have a political agenda behind them. Pexise 12:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not given any reason. Again, Wikipedia allows criticisms and arguments for.Ultramarine 12:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I am in agreement with Pexise. I don't think this is a place for a broad comparison of 'democide' between democratic and non-democratic regime. It seems like this is worded like some kind of justification. I don’t believe it provides any meaningful information to the reader. At least in my opinion. —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 17:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no broad comparison, the text compares only the US to other nations. But if wanting a ranking, we can state the US is on place 13.Ultramarine 17:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so an edit would change the text of the section to: "R.J. Rummel in his estimate of 20th century democide counts many of the civilian causalties during the Philippine-American War, the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Vietnam War, and other conflicts, as democide.  This places the US as the 13th most prolific perpetrator of democide of xxx countries for which data is available.ref" Pexise 18:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, some NPOV please. "R.J. Rummel in his estimate of 20th century democide counts many of the civilian causalties during the Philippine-American War, the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Vietnam War, and other conflicts, as democide.  The US is on the 13th place (583,000 deaths) of the nations causing democide (China, the number one nation, has caused 77,000,000 deaths)."Ultramarine 18:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Here .Ultramarine 18:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All figures of mass murder are controversial. You will get imprisoned in Turkey if you write anything about the Armenian genocide. Mao's China is mostly fine, although there are still labor camps in China having hundreds of thousands of people and various reports of murders of opponents in order harvest their organs for transplantations, so democide is still continuing there, although on a much smaller scale.Ultramarine 19:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggestion to remove democide section as democide is a clear neologism, therefore contravening WP:NEO Pexise 16:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since 400 academic works have cited it, it is no longer a neologosm. 200,000 goggle hits. If you want to dispute academic research, publish in acadmic journals or books, not in Wikipedia.Ultramarine 16:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: "State terrorism" is not mentioned either. Should it be removed? Since 400 academic works have cited it, it is no longer a neologosm. 200,000 goggle hits. If you want to dispute academic research, publish in acadmic journals or books, not in Wikipedia.Ultramarine 16:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Democide section

message: I think two sections are definitely needed which are not yet included in this article:
* The US and the International Criminal Court - how the US has opposed the ICC, the bi-lateral agreements that the US has been imposing on small nations granting immunity to US personnel , and the anti-ICC "Invasion of the Hague Act" 
* The US and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - how the US has not ratified one of the two core treatise of the International Bill of Rights (along with ICCPR) .
I think it is important to include these two important aspects of the US relation with the international standards and mechanisms for human rights protection.  Let me know if you can contribute. Pexise 19:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would really be helpful if there was a source explaining why the US has objected to these.Ultramarine 21:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The United States has been rumoured to have contribued to almost every coup is in the world so I see no reason to mention this particular unproved allegation. What is the relation to human rights?Ultramarine 16:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a whole article on the Venezuelan Coup attempt which deals with alleged US involvement, so I have linked to that article. Many human rights violations resulted from the attempted coup, including several assasinations, curbs on freedom of speech, desolution of democratic institutions etc. Pexise 16:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important sections which are currently missing - can anyone help write them? 

message: I feel this entire article is biased towards pessimism. It reads like a hardcore liberal's playground--almost every subtopic ends up being filled with "XXX is claimed to be a violation of human rights because..." or "Human Rights Watch claims..." For example, the death penalty section seems to be entirely antagonist, particularly with the introduction of how the European Union finds the US in violation of human rights due to capital punishment. Is it really fair to include claims from organizations that are not even operating in the United States? Additionally, is it really fair to include any "claims"? The Human Rights Watch claims a lot, but how much of their research is unbiased and factual? They "claim" there is racism sprouting from capital punishment. But is this factual or neutral by any means since each and every crime is evaluated on a case-by-case basis? Just because a white person gets off less than a black person doesn't mean racism--perhaps the circumstances are different. Yet this article certainly doesn't tell you that--it basically says that The Human Rights Watch says its racist and thats all that matters.
Basically, to sum up what I am trying to say, I find this article entirely full of criticism and lacking any kind of equality in response to the criticism. Everything done by everyone, from the smallest of things to the biggest, is subject to criticism from at least someone, but that doesn't mean  that criticism is the ONLY way to respond. This article, however, only tells me the criticism of the topics discussed, yet I don't see the other side of the story, despite the fact that there is one. There IS a counter-argument to why the prison system is packed, which the article doesn't tell me, for example. --Lan56 11:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it really fair to include claims from organizations that are not even operating in the United States — on these grounds, we would be forced to scratch all of human rights in the People's Republic of China and Human rights in North Korea. Obviously, all sources cited here should be respectable, but it is little surprising that the sources we do cite are organizations that actually focus on the topic of this article (such as HRW). I daresay official statements by the European Union are notable, although here this only concerns the death penalty in general, and not the human rights situation specifically, and thus may not really be all that relevant. The EU generally tends to turn a blind eye to human rights issues in the US, as denounced by Dick Marty (who for some reason is not linked from this article??) dab (��) 11:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pessimistic POV 

message: Why doesn't this page note Human Rights Violations in regards to "Native Americans"?--Keerllston 05:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. I suppose it has something to do with the focus of this article on current, rather than historical, human rights abuses. I don't mean to say that there aren't modern-day human rights abuses involving Indian people, but they are a lot more complicated, harder to describe, and less well known.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 19:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone has a reliable source for this allegation, please add this section. Not just a speculative allegation, but a serious source. Raggz (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which allegation?—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 05:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Human Rights Violations in regards to "Native Americans"? Which specific human rights are we discussing? Raggz (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been any number - take your pick and we can start from there.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly there have been many. It will be necessary to list these. It will be necessary to deal with when the native nations were integrated within the US, and to what degree, because there is the question of when the US Constitution applied to them. The US Supreme Court held in Dred Scott that slaves were without legal standing, in effect that they had the same standing as did farm animals. The legal human rights of native Americans likely did not exist then, it is questionable when they became Native Americans and their prior nations ceased. It is presently argued that they still are sovereign in all ways and are not subject to the US Constitutional protections or jurisdiction. I am totally fine with this section, but suggest that it will turn into its own article. I agree that SERIOUS human rights violations occured and likely still occur. This is a complex subject. So, "If someone has a reliable source for this allegation, please add this section. Not just a speculative allegation, but a serious source." Raggz (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Native Americans"? 

message: Amnesty International says it has "documented patterns of ill-treatment across the U.S., including police beatings, unjustified shootings and the use of dangerous restraint techniques."
According to Human Rights watch, incidents of police use of excessive force have occurred in cities throughout the U.S., and this behavior goes largely unchecked.
An article in USA Today reports that in 2006, 96% of cases referred to the U.S. Justice Department for prosecution by investigative agencies were declined. In 2005, 98% were declined.
According to the New York Times, the U.S. government is unable or unwilling to collect statistics showing the precise number of people killed by the police or the prevalence of the use of excessive force.
Since 1999, at least 148 people have died in the United States and Canada after being shocked with Tasers by police officers, according to the ACLU.
:: I agree the dated reports is an issue.  As the section above reads, it implies that all of the reports are about the current state of HR in the US. In the main article, I've added the dates to the citations and included the dates in the text.  This more accurately describes the sources.  However, in order to make the section NPOV, it needs:
::* More recent references.
::* Reports on activities to address this issue.
::— ERcheck (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Commondreams.org is an advocacy site, it states on its homepage "Common Dreams: A Website That Could 'Shake the World'". As such, it is not a reliable source. The old HRW report is an example of a reliable source, they are a credible voice that pays close attention to fact checking (to protect their credibility as a voice). What you need is a reliable source that states that human rights are compromised significantly by police brutality. Raggz (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We appear to have reached tacit consensus. Raggz (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most of the material on commondreams is originally published by some other source.  So I would say that commondreams is fine.  Attribution should be given carefully, and particular sources can be handled on a case-by-case basis.  By the way, care to explain how this is relevant to this thread?  Silly rabbit (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Police brutality