Talk:Human rights in the United States/Archive 1

message: Please do not ask me again to discuss anything with VeryVerily. Even on the rare occasion when he posts a few words to the talk page, he has no intention to discuss anything. Witness this discussion and his most recent edits. Shorne 08:13, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  VeryVerily 

message: Shorne's editwarring having attracted my attention, I see this page is full of personal ranting against the US. One can recognize these from the unsourced "some say", "criticized by many", etc - in many cases I suspect the "some" consists only of the writer and three of his whinier acquaintances.  Since we have a requirement for verifiability, any such statement should either be evaporated, or cite a reputable published source, preferably one that has done a poll. To read this, one would think a person could get jailed for stomping on one of 7-11's Bush cups, as my wife did just yesterday (after paying for it), and so far she's escaped the clutches of the government. :-) Stan 21:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This personal attack cannot be considered a serious objection. Shorne 21:24, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In your self-centered view of the world, I'm sure it's not. But you're also a newbie who still has a lot to learn about how WP really works - although based on past experience with other energetic POV warriors, you'll be gone before you figure it out. Stan 21:35, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal rants 

message: This is a formal request for VeryVerily to discuss his dispute about this article (my most recent version) before editing the article any further. Shorne 05:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh shut up.  You reverted all the edits I made to the article.  Why don't you explain your reverts?  Oh, because the burden of proof is always on whoever is not you. VeryVerily 09:22, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formal call for discussion from VeryVerily 

message: "Such negative views are often described as "anti-Americanism", although they are also held by many political liberals in the United States." This appears to be implying that only liberal Americans are not "anti-American". Hardly. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:24, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision 3

message: The first paragraph needs to be removed and replaced with something neutral anyway, but here I explain why I have marked it up as "dubious".
I don't think that it is true to say "The United States has an established legal tradition of providing strong protection for civil rights and human rights". Slavery was only abolished in 1865. Laws requiring various forms of racial segregation were only finally removed in 1968. Reading from any international report on human rights in the U.S. (eg Amnesty International), it is clear that this statement is not generally perceived to be true. Of course, America's human rights position is improving and the article should reflect that. But it is also taking a two steps forward one step back approach.
I think, generally, it is misleading to start any article on human rights in any country by reference to that country's constitution. Constitutions tend to have lots of bullshit in them about human rights that are then ignored left, right and centre by the governments of those countries. Putting these words in the first paragraph without acknowledgment of how the constitution has been interpreted in a way to deny human rights, is misleading. A proper section of the article proper on the constitution, noting how it has been interpreted in practice, may be appropriate, however. jguk 13:03, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: My markings up of "dubious"

message: There's a reason for these. My suggestion is to stop removing content and add the tags, and place your reasons for disputing the section on the talk page. Then, if the original author can't justify the section, clarify it, or improve it at all then and only then remove the material. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:13, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious tags 

message: Why has this been forked without discussion? After all, Amnesty International has a whole section on their assessment of U.S. human rights and this hasn't been forked! I'm going to add a merge tag until we can get to the bottom of this! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I forked it because it's a pretty separate subject, the section has grown rather large and cumbersome, and China's opinion wholly lacks the recognition that Amnesty International's does.  Imagine if twenty countries prepared reports like this; would we have a long section for all of them? VeryVerily 06:50, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It hasn't grown that large. And so far as I know, only China has done a national report on America's human rights record. I'd suggest putting it back in summary form. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:03, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with a link to it?  And you're guessing about how many have. VeryVerily 13:38, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'm happy to admit I'm wrong. Which other countries have done such a report on U.S. human rights? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:51, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a hypothetical question.  Certainly there are a gazillion "watchdog" and "human rights analysis" and "thinktank" organizations out there.  The question is, which ones have enough credibility to deserve citation in a scholarly, encyclopedic article?  China with their joke of a report certainly does not.  AI (unfortunately) does. VeryVerily 06:39, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? why is it such a joke of a report? It may be hypocritical, but apart from that what was the other things that made the report invalid? sorry for the numerous questions, but I realise you are coming from a considered POV, I just would like to understand where you are coming from. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read any of their reports?  They're hilarious.  For instance, some shyster in Georgia ran a funeral home, improperly disposed of corpses, and pocketed the money from his customers.  This hustler's scam was listed as a "human rights abuse" in the United States. VeryVerily 07:43, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that so? well, why isn't that in the article?! - Ta bu shi da yu 20:40, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  China's assessment of US human rights 

message: This is an opinion and thus inappropriate: "The United States has had a chequered history of civil rights." Maurreen 12:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst the article currently concentrates on the negative aspects of America's civil rights history, I don't think anyone is claiming that there aren't any good points. I certainly wouldn't want to change "chequered" to "bad" or "appalling" just because we haven't listed the good bits yet. jguk 13:26, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Chequered has a pretty negative connotation, as you must know.  (Yes, appalling would be worse, as would godawful, but that hardly validates a slightly less bad term.) VeryVerily 04:44, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This needs to be framed in more neutral language. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:06, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "Chequered history"

message: I'd like to suggest that at least a couple draft versions of this article be made. That could make it easier to work out something acceptable to all or most. Maurreen 12:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would just create two unbalanced articles. Keep it on this page and we'll merge the page as new info gets added. We're starting to work together to write a good article now - let's try to keep it that way. If you know anyone who can support some good points to say about human rights in the US though, please point them towards this page. There must be something good to say about human rights in America, surely? someone? jguk 13:39, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a joke?  This comment just seems remarkably ignorant to me. VeryVerily 14:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Is what a joke? Do you think the article is balanced now? jguk 14:18, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That there's almost nothing good to say about human rights in America. VeryVerily 15:11, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: VerilyVerily, I don't think we're stopping you from adding good things about U.S. human rights. Please, feel free to add this material. Only don't remove what seems to be negative information just because you don't like it! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:52, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The good things are already there.  Jguk (and you?) are just trying to water them down or eliminate them.  What am I trying to remove?  The heavy emphasis on practices that ended 140 years ago?  Go load up Human rights in China with Qin dynasty excesses and we'll talk. VeryVerily 04:42, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not. I have not been editting other articles, so I can't comment on them. I have been editing this one on its merits. If the U.S. has had instances of bad human rights then I see no reason not to include this information. I could say the same for you (though I'm not) that you are trying to water down the negatives! Lets try to work together to balance the content of this article. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:08, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I am trying to contextualize the irrelevant.  Turning this into a history article serves no purpose other than to dredge up old grievances. VeryVerily 07:44, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Working out the disagreements

message: I would like to see some references for making the claims in the first two paragraphs in this section. In particular, the comment "Many view the United States as an exemplary human-rights leader and consider these enumerated rights to be among the strongest in the world" seems to be entirely POV and is expressed in weasel terms. jguk 18:38, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course many believe that.  Are you serious?  Do you get all your news from The Guardian? VeryVerily 04:37, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: VeryVerily, this may be the case. However, please review weasel words to see why it is inappropriate to have this statement in its current form. If you could help us clarify this with an example of several other defenders of the U.S.'s human rights record, it would be most appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:17, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with much of the "weasel words" policy, as I believe does Jimbo as well.  There are noted two significant schools of thought on the subject of this article.  In fact, criticism of America's human rights record is generally just lame leftist sniping from unreconstructed Marxists and countries with far worse records, but we can't say that outright in the article. VeryVerily 06:33, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty POV of you to say this. Please write from a NPOV. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:09, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles should be written from an NPOV.  Talk comments do not need to be.  Duh. VeryVerily 07:29, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I was heading out the door when I read your comment, so I may not have crafted my words very carefully. However, criticisms of the U.S. are applied by people other than "lame leftists" who are "sniping from unreconstructed Marxiss and countries wih far worse records". However, if this is what you beleive then I'm sure you'd be willing to back up your beliefs, lest you want me to think you haven't thought things through very carefully. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:02, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessments of human rights in the United States

message: jguk reverted all of my edits with the deceptive edit summary that it was just "reorganization".  In fact he blew away my entire rewrite of the history section (which was all duplication) and various other edits, and imposed a completely new intro unilaterally with a heavy and inappropriate diachronic focus, wiping out the intro that we had worked out months ago to balance POVs.  I am reverting.  I'll look at the subsequent edits to see what can be restored. VeryVerily 04:30, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead section is too long. I suggest you read Wikipedia:lead section. You keep reverting, and its getting a little silly. Also, you removed my dubious tag on a section I had brought to talk. You also removed the dubious tags for something jguk took to talk (see #My markings up of "dubious". I suggest you be more careful. I suggest that if you revert again that you firstly take your issues to the talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:16, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version is outlandish, short or long.  You should not confuse your own ideas of "progress" with objective truth, and this is not a history article anyway.  (Cf. Qin dynasty above.)  I know people want to pan the U.S., but it's pretty sad having to reach back a couple of centuries to find ways to do it.  What's "silly" is jguk repeatedly blindly reverting my rewrites and unilaterally casting our old hashed-out intro to the wind, but I don't see you on his tail. VeryVerily 06:36, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't wish to "pan" the U.S. (in fact, you seem to have a bit of a seige mentality going on here), but I would like for information to be presented correctly and carefully in the article.  I think the lead section is not concise enough at the moment, and in fact if I placed it on peer review I think that might be something I would ask about. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last revert 

message: VV added:
"many see the United States as a model of human and civil rights due to its legal protection of these guaranteed rights." 
:(clarification: I actually added this sentence). - Ta bu shi da yu 22:29, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this comment. We can retain the "many", but we should qualify. After all, if there are many defenders it shouldn't be hard to source what they've said and incorporate this into the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:29, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: US as a model of human and civil rights

message: The Patriot Act isn't very prominent on this article. Since it's recent, and currently being revised, I suggest it be placed within the History section (recent history). Any objection? --Rebroad 16:46, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I object. It is already in the national security section. Gazpacho 21:28, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patriot Act 

message: Once the page is unlocked, I'm going to add material from this article, and also from unlawful combatants, in particular this section: "The purported legal status of "The purported legal status of "unlawful combatants" in those nations currently holding detainees under that name, has been the subject of criticism by other nations and international human rights institutions; including Human Rights Watch and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The ICRC in response to the US-led military campaign in Afghanistan published a paper on the subject  
The legal situation of unlawful/unprivileged combatants (IRRC March 2003 Vol.85 No 849)". It's part of human rights, after all. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:41, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's human rights. But I'm not convinced it's human rights in the United States? Guantanamo Bay, strictly speaking, is in Cuba (not that I'm suggesting you put this stuff on the Human rights in Cuba page - after all, it's already there!). jguk 21:51, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't they being held on a U.S. base? And they're not being held by the Cubans. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:27, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it's on sovereign Cuban territory. That's an important point: it's why the Bush administration argues the US Constitution doesn't apply to it. Even if the base were on US sovereign territory, it still wouldn't be in the US - just as the US bases in the UK, Germany, Japan, etc. are not in the US. jguk 22:46, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but shouldn't that information be also added to this article? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:50, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Guantanamo Bay

message: Let's discuss them here.
====Introduction====
* My first change is to the first sentence. I have changed: "The United States has an established legal tradition of providing strong protection for civil rights and human rights." to "Although the United States has had instances in the past where it has infringed the human and civil rights of people, it has subsequently established a legal tradition of providing strong protection for those rights." See #My markings up of "dubious" for why this was marked as disputed. I have tried a compromise. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:47, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Racial minorities, notably Blacks and Hispanics, are overrepresented in the US's prison population. According to Human Rights Watch, "black men [in 2000] were eight times more likely to be in prison than white men".  According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, approximately 40.2% of the prison populaion is black, while 32.1% of the population is Hispanic,  with several enquiries and critics commenting negatively on the use of racial profiling and the overrepresentation of minorities in American prisons. One of the critics is U.S. Senator Darrel Issa, who introduced a bill on May 14, 2003 that condemned both of these things . An enquiry was held by the Virginia Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights that dealt with African Americans in the Virginia Criminal Justice System .
Why did I do this? Because the phrase "with several enquiries and critics commenting negatively on the use of racial profiling and the overrepresentation of minorities in American prisons" could be disputed. The reader should be able to see which enquiries have been held, and they should be able to see who the critics are. On this site, I can add anything. Unless I can back it up with evidence, I shouldn't trust the material. That's why we have the weasel word policy, even if people like VeryVerily and Jimbo (!) don't like it. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits made

message: * My first change is to the first sentence. I have changed: "The United States has an established legal tradition of providing strong protection for civil rights and human rights." to "Although the United States has had instances in the past where it has infringed the human and civil rights of people, it has subsequently established a legal tradition of providing strong protection for those rights." See #My markings up of "dubious" for why this was marked as disputed. I have tried a compromise. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:47, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: =====Death penalty=====
I modified the sentence The United States sometimes executes juvenile offenders: since 1990 Amnesty International has recorded 38 executions of child offenders worldwide, 19 of them in the USA. Along with Somalia, the United States is one of the two sovereign states in the world not to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits use of the death penalty against child offenders.  to The United States sometimes executes juvenile offenders: since 1990 Amnesty International has recorded 38 executions of child offenders worldwide, 19 of them in the USA. According to Amnesty International, along with Somalia, the United States is one of the two sovereign states in the world not to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits use of the death penalty against child offenders who are people convicted of crimes committed when they were under 18 years old. 
Firstly, Amnesty's definition of child offender needed clarifying. Also, I am trying to show straight up where the information is coming from. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:17, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Racial minorities, notably Blacks and Hispanics, are overrepresented in the US's prison population. According to Human Rights Watch, "black men [in 2000] were eight times more likely to be in prison than white men".  According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, approximately 40.2% of the prison populaion is black, while 32.1% of the population is Hispanic,  with several enquiries and critics commenting negatively on the use of racial profiling and the overrepresentation of minorities in American prisons. One of the critics is U.S. Senator Darrel Issa, who introduced a bill on May 14, 2003 that condemned both of these things . An enquiry was held by the Virginia Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights that dealt with African Americans in the Virginia Criminal Justice System .
Why did I do this? Because the phrase "with several enquiries and critics commenting negatively on the use of racial profiling and the overrepresentation of minorities in American prisons" could be disputed. The reader should be able to see which enquiries have been held, and they should be able to see who the critics are. On this site, I can add anything. Unless I can back it up with evidence, I shouldn't trust the material. That's why we have the weasel word policy, even if people like VeryVerily and Jimbo (!) don't like it. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues

message: I modified the sentence The United States sometimes executes juvenile offenders: since 1990 Amnesty International has recorded 38 executions of child offenders worldwide, 19 of them in the USA. Along with Somalia, the United States is one of the two sovereign states in the world not to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits use of the death penalty against child offenders.  to The United States sometimes executes juvenile offenders: since 1990 Amnesty International has recorded 38 executions of child offenders worldwide, 19 of them in the USA. According to Amnesty International, along with Somalia, the United States is one of the two sovereign states in the world not to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits use of the death penalty against child offenders who are people convicted of crimes committed when they were under 18 years old. 
Firstly, Amnesty's definition of child offender needed clarifying. Also, I am trying to show straight up where the information is coming from. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:17, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Death penalty

message: I removed "However, others note that these groups commit crimes at a far higher rate than white Americans." because it never states who says this. Quite frankly, if I don't see evidence for it, then I won't beleive it. If there really are others who say this, then it should easy to find them. At least then their claims can be examined in the light of reality. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:11, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Racial minorities, notably Blacks and Hispanics, are overrepresented in the US's prison population. According to Human Rights Watch, "black men [in 2000] were eight times more likely to be in prison than white men".  According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, approximately 40.2% of the prison populaion is black, while 32.1% of the population is Hispanic,  with several enquiries and critics commenting negatively on the use of racial profiling and the overrepresentation of minorities in American prisons. One of the critics is U.S. Senator Darrel Issa, who introduced a bill on May 14, 2003 that condemned both of these things . An enquiry was held by the Virginia Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights that dealt with African Americans in the Virginia Criminal Justice System .
Why did I do this? Because the phrase "with several enquiries and critics commenting negatively on the use of racial profiling and the overrepresentation of minorities in American prisons" could be disputed. The reader should be able to see which enquiries have been held, and they should be able to see who the critics are. On this site, I can add anything. Unless I can back it up with evidence, I shouldn't trust the material. That's why we have the weasel word policy, even if people like VeryVerily and Jimbo (!) don't like it. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Prison

message: I modified the text to say Critics of China's "report" say it contains nothing of substance but disconnected allegations intended to divert attention from China's own human rights record.. "Troubling" is a POV and an assertion that we should not be making. We should let the facts speak for themselves, and the reader should make up their own mind. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:27, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: China's assessment

message: Hm. I think those are good guidelines that everyone agrees are nice, but they non-binding; no nation can possibly live up to all of them; and I'm confident that no nation does. I mean, the International Bill of Rights and "related instruments" you provided a link to, jguk, comprise no less than 96 separate declarations and instruments. Ninety-six! And that's not counting the "optional protocols." Even the U.N.'s own web page admits that the list is "non-exhaustive." And has every nation in the world ratified every one of them? No. So I don't see how a patchwork of inconsistently ratified and implemented ideals should be by itself a universal standard for judging any nation.
So while I think they're good indicators of international sentiment, relying solely on 96 non-binding declarations and protocols can only provide endless fodder for criticism of any country, including the countries that traditionally (and often rightly) criticize the U.S. for its own human rights violations, essentially leading to an unproductive "he said, she said" spiral.
Instead, I think we should concentrate on international human rights practices at least as much as on human rights ideals so that we can get to something approaching an accurate real-world picture instead of merely the idealistic gripings that have marked this article to date.
We also need to consider the source of the criticisms. The countries that most criticize the U.S.'s human rights record are other Western nations. Then there's China, whose motivations for criticisms, however valid per se, are certainly different than the Western nations'. The Soviet Union, too, used to relentlessly criticize the U.S. on segregation and other racial inequities. But even though countries like China and the USSR may have (had) valid criticisms, it's obvious that they're really more interested in deflecting criticism of their own abysmal human rights records, while Western nations on the whole couch their complaints in good-faith principle. Omit self-serving but valid criticisms? No. But we should note them appropriately. Same for principled criticisms too, IMO.
But at the same time, Western and European governments do things that many Americans would consider violations of basic human rights, and that obviously conflict with several provisions of the U.N. human rights documents, again leading back to a "he said, she said" dispute where no one's right and no one's wrong.
So can we approach this based on international human rights practices as well as its principles? I think a great example is the death penalty. The EU has outlawed it, but the U.N. condones it based on several stipulations which most U.S. states with the death penalty follow. So whose conception of "human rights" do we use here? Europe's or the U.N.'s? That's why I think we need to be very aware of the existing disconnects between principle and practice.
PRINCIPLE, PRACTICE, and NPOV
I really think it's possible to tackle this subject with NPOV, and by calling on both international principles and practices.
Principle. How about referring to especially contentious practices as "disputed" and "undisputed." For example, genocide is an undisputed violation of human rights, whereas the death penalty is a disputed one (U.S./U.N.vs. EU). And of course, whatever's "disputed" would be based on who's making the criticism. (I doubt China would claim that the death penalty is a violation of human rights, for example.)
Practice. Here's another possible NPOV usage that's based solely in international practice: "In its use of the death penalty, the U.S. diverges from the mainstream of most Western and industrialized nations, which are widely seen as leaders in advancing human rights, and which have banned the practice." (Well, they are, de facto.)
The above sentence sidesteps the quagmire of a written "standard" (the U.N. condones the death penalty; Europe doesn't; who's right?) but it still describes the situation effectively, and in a way that lets the reader make up their own mind (if it isn't made up already! :-)
Roundabout way of saying it, I suppose, but NPOV ain't always easy (I know -- I used to be a journalist, and shielding the paper from liability - er, I mean writing in NPOV - was a major obsession in the newsroom).
WHY THE BIG DEAL?
I know I'm making a big deal out of these seemingly little questions, but let's face it: everybody thinks this article is a big deal, and rightly so. Because the U.S. occupies a unique place in world history in its groundbreaking advancements of civil and human rights -- and in its egregious violations of them -- I think it's important to treat the subject in a way so that the final product (as much as anything can be final here) is unassailable. I mean, whether you love the U.S. or hate it, the unassisted truth will more than back you up. :-)
I also know that I'm talking more than I'm writing, but this is the kind of thing that I'd rather chew over first before diving in. Thoughts?
:Before continuing, I think it would be useful to check that you have read this site. I'd recommend clicking on "country reports" and reading some for countries which you perceive as having a good human rights record. If you've ever read one of China's reports on the US, you'll note that it's written in exactly the same style. (In fact, since China's reports are essentially collections of news reports from Western news sources, I'm not sure they deserve the scepticism they sometimes attract.)
:It's quite appropriate to my mind to assess the United States (and every other country) by the highest international standards. The documents I linked to state established international norms (even though none of them are adopted by every country): Unfortunately, the "undisputed"/"disputed" distinction you propose would leave every human right in the "disputed" column. So I think we have to take the international norms as our benchmark.
:However, in stating this, I note that, of course, it is not for us to do our own research and our own assessment. We must report what others (such as Amnesty International) report. They will use their own benchmarks that, I think, are not too different from the international norms. I see nothing wrong with that. As long as we stick to the facts readers can decide for themselves whether what we state is actually a problem or not.
:Finally, as you know, I very much think that the article has to have positive comments about the human rights position in the United States. But I also think those comments have to tie into reputable sources rather than being mere words of praise. Whilst your statement "the U.S. occupies a unique place in world history in its groundbreaking advancements of civil and human rights" no doubt reflects a strong opinion that you have, I do not believe it is demonstrably true. jguk 00:26, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Human rights simply refer to general rights we have as Humans, as opposed to rights we have as US Citizens. Obviously our civil rights cover our human rights because they are required to, but generally, any obvious right such as the right to live is considered a Human right. --65.3.202.58 06:02, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Determining international human rights standards ''for the purposes of this article''

message: Let me try to answer the questions inlined into the draft version: 
* Who holds the two opposing views in the intro?  Without any difficulty you can name partisans of each view (e.g., American conservatives vs. Chomskians), and with more difficulty you could name many more.  But the point of the intro is to introduce the two schools of thought, so I think listings of this kind are out of place.
** It's just they aren't really explored in the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inlined questions 

message: In the 2001 report on USA Amnesty International does not equate death penalty with torture. The first paragraph of the report is the summary of human rights situation in the country, and the issues mentioned there may not be related to each other.
I offer a comparison with 2004 report on Czech Republic, in which the first paragraph reads: "There were reports of ill-treatment of members of the Romani community. Police officers convicted of assault in one case received a light sentence. 'Cage beds' were used to restrain patients in psychiatric hospitals and residents of social care homes for people with mental disabilities." Again, these are clearly two unrelated issues. - Mike Rosoft 21:20, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of my edit: death penalty / torture