Talk:Human rights in the United States/Archive 5

message: I have reverted Raggz's edit on the grounds that this issue was already discussed at length over six months ago, as well as in the talk page archives.  There did not appear then to be consensus that the section constituted Original Research.  Furthermore, I restored this section once, already indicating my own objection to its deletion.  Also, Raggz:  Before deleting large amounts of material, it would be nice if you would discuss exactly what you think is wrong with it.  I am interested in working on fixing problems with the page, but only in a positive productive direction.  Simply saying "OR deletion" doesn't help me (or anyone else here) to address any issues that you have with it.  Also, there are a variety of interesting templates available for indicating sections and statements that you feel are unsupported by existing sources, are phrased in a POV manner, etc.  Usually, editors post a concise comment on the talk page documenting a controversial edit they would like to make, occasionally accompanied by a template in the section under consideration.  Then there is a period of a few weeks in which comments are solicited, so that all parties involved are included in the editorial process.  When the opinions of those involved have finally been heard, a WP:CONSENSUS emerges (nearly always based on the opinions of two or more participating editors).  Silly rabbit (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted 

message: This section is being deleted as OR. There is no evidence offered that any human right was denied. Evidence would be a finding by any US court or international court with jurisdiction that (1)Extraordinary rendition occurs and if it occurs (2) that it violates any law. All that is included are suspicions and allegations of illegal conduct, proof would be a conviction or at least a formal charge. Raggz (talk) 08:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We appear to have reached tacit Consensus. Raggz (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extraordinary rendition 

message: This section is all OR. First you need to show that some violation of an international law occured - or that some human rights abuse occured. You cannot, not if the standard is a finding by any international tribunal. A war or invasion is not a human rights abuse. 
The ICC prosecutor investigated your charges and released a report last year that refutes your charges.
Legality of Iraq War Raggz (talk) 09:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We appear to have reached tacit consensus on this issue. Raggz (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Legality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq]] 

message: There was no reliable source for any human rights violation relating to health care policy. The UN material would fit into the UN section. The UN Commission cannot and does not find human rights abuses, only the Security Council has this authority. The UN Security Council considered the Commission's report and evidence and did not act on these. If it had, this would be a reliable source for actual human rights abuse. It is an allegation that you might want to move to the UN section, the claim would be supportable there. Raggz (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am inclined to delete the following text as irrelevant to this topic. Why should it remain? "In addition, the Principles of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association require medical doctors to respect the human rights of the patient, including that of providing medical treatment when it is needed.[62]" Is there a question of physicians not treating patients, or of any violations of this? Waht is this about? Raggz (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health care 

message: There was no reliable source for any human rights violation relating to affirmative action policy. Raggz (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think relationship between affirmative action and historical racial discrimination (a human rights violation) is well documented. See Supreme Court rulings in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke(438 U.S. 265 (1978)), Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña (515 U.S. 200 (1995)) and Hopwood v. Texas (78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996)). Though I don't know it can be inserted as progress in human rights development or a new form of racial discrimination. --Skyfiler (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent points! I accept your assertions, and withdraw my claim for affirmative action being original research, as long as you edit this section and add the reliable sources that were lacking. I may debate you on the edits, but I accept that these are reliable sources and that this section will not be original research when you edit this in. Raggz (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We appear to have reached tacit Consensus.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 01:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Affirmative action 

message: Here is an example of a section that should be retained, yet it is nearly all OR presently. US Courts have found violations of human rights that have occured almost daily. Why should our article focus on listing these? We could if we want to.
"Some have criticized the United States for having an extremely large prison population, where there have been reported abuses.[26]" This is irrelevant. It does not prove that any human rights violation has occured. Violations have occured, cases could be made, but our article has neither.
As of 2004 the United States had the highest percentage of people in prison of any nation. There were more than 2.2 million in prisons or jails, or 737 per 100,000 population, or roughly 1 out of every 136 Americans.[27] "Human Rights Watch believes the extraordinary rate of incarceration in the United States wreaks havoc on individuals, families and communities, and saps the strength of the nation as a whole."[28] Again, no SPECIFIC human rights abuse is proven or even alleged. Incarceration alone is not a human rights abuse.
Examples of mistreatment claimed include prisoners left naked and exposed in harsh weather or cold air;[29] "routine" use of rubber bullets[30] and pepper spray;[30][29] forced immersion in scalding water causing second and third degree burns (one documented case);[30] solitary confinement of violent prisoners in soundproofed cells for 23 or 24 hours a day;[31][29] and a range of injuries from serious injury to fatal gunshot wounds, with force at one California prison "often vastly disproportionate to the actual need or risk that prison staff faced."[30] Such behaviors are illegal, and "professional standards clearly limit staff use of force to that which is necessary to control prisoner disorder."[30] It is against WP policy to invoke an isolated incident or incidents that are unrepresentative. I have no doubt that these and worse events have ocurred and that they seriously violated human rights. The question we have as editors if these are so widespread as to deserve mention? We need not agree, but the rule is that some reliable source need be quoted and this one does NOT suggest that these abuses are widespread.
Human Rights Watch raised concerns with prisoner rape and medical care for inmates.[32] In a survey of 1,788 male inmates in Midwestern prisons by Prison Journal, about 21% claimed they had been coerced or pressured into sexual activity during their incarceration and 7% claimed that they had been raped in their current facility.[33] Tolerance of serious sexual abuse and rape in United States prisons are consistently reported as widespread.[citation needed] It has been fought against by organizations such as Stop Prisoner Rape. Here is an example where I deleted test that I should have retained, so I will revert it. This is a good example: it makes the point that human rights are widespread and so deserves mention.
The United States has been criticized for having a high amount of non-violent and victim-less offenders incarcerated,[28][34][35] as half of all persons incarcerated under State jurisdiction are for non-violent offences and 20 percent are incarcerated for drug offences.[36][37] This text is OR, even though it has relaible sources cited. The sources are not challenged, but the failure to prove RELEVANCE to the article itself is. We not only need cite reliable sources, these sources need to be making points relevant to the article. These sources do not establish that any human rights abuses are occuring in the US. IF this had been established the sources should then be cited, if relevant.
The United States is the only country in the world allowing sentencing of young adolescents to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. There are currently 73 Americans serving such sentences for crimes they committed at the age of 13 or 14. In December 2006 the United Nations took up a resolution calling for the abolition of this kind of punishment for children and young teenagers. 185 countries voted for the resolution and only the United States against.[38] Here is an example of text that should be moved. In this case to the UN Section. The UN action had no legal force, nothing in the General Assembly does, but it has moral force and deserves inclusion. I will move it.
I hope someone has the time to restore this section after taking the time to find reliable sources that suggest that the US prison system is worse or better than those in Italy, the Congo, or Mexico. Unless such a US-specific link is established from a reliable source, this section needs to be an OR deletion. Raggz (talk) 10:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We appear to have now reached a tacit Consensus on this section? There is a huge body of US judicial decisions on the denial of human rights in prisons. These any UN judicial decisions are relevant, but other authorities require discussion here? Raggz (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prison System 

message: The Philippine-American War, the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Vietnam War, and other conflicts, are cited as democide. This may or may not be true, but this section does not even allege any human rights abuse. Wars are not human rights abuses and cannot be included in this article unless an actual reliable source establishes a human rights abuse. This is OR unless a reliable source for human rights abuse is established. Raggz (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We appear to have reached a tacit Consensus on this section? Raggz (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes.  The section was removed (by you), and no one has revived it.  Silly rabbit (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Democide

message: * "It has a powerful and often independent judiciary and a constitution that attempts in many areas to enforce separation of powers to prevent tyranny." This text uses "attempts" but does not support the implication that the judiciary only "attempts" to enforce separation of powers to prevent tyranny. This is thus original research.
* The United States has a powerful independent judiciary ensuring that the constitution enforces the separation of powers and all other constitutional measures designed to prevent tyranny and to protect human rights. Raggz (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good example.  Rather than delete the entire section containing the sentence you object to, remove the single word attempts.  I'm not sure I agree with the characterization of this as OR.  Poor wording is probably nearer the mark. Silly rabbit (talk) 07:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Your writing skills exceed my own. See above however for why so much was deleted as OR. There needs to be a US nexus, a connection to a US human right, and the article lacks these almost entirely. One would think it was entirely written by Europeans... Raggz (talk) 07:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I feel strongly that the edit above removes OR. Attempts is not the same as does. The former requires a reliable source and the latter does not absent a challenge. Raggz (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US constitution 

message: "The United States government has been criticized for human rights violations, particularly in the criminal justice system and where national security is a concern. Some critics (in both friendly and hostile countries) have criticized the U.S. Government for supporting serious human rights abuses, including torture,[6] legal rendition,[7] assassination,[8] imprisonment without trial[9] and for supporting dictatorships.[10]"
What human rights are being violated? Please cite the human right violated and the court that found this violation (or at least is considering it). None of the citations do this, making these claims OR. 
What does supporting dictatorships mean? Is there a nation on earth without diplomatic and treaty relationships with dictatorships? What is a dictatorship? Is Cuba one - or not? NATO is in Afghanistan, is this supporting a dictatorship - or not? Are all NATO members guilty? Whatever does this mean, will someone please make it specific so that I need not delete it? 
When I go to the citation it says: "In the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, the United Kingdom and the United States orchestrated the overthrow of the democratically-elected administration of Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq and his cabinet from power. The support of the coup was carried out, using widespread bribery[1] in a covert operation by Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). According to a report on the BBC, Britain, motivated by its desire to control Iranian oil fields, contributed to funding for the widespread bribery of Iranian officials, news media and others. The project to overthrow Iran's government was codenamed Operation Ajax (officially TP-AJAX).[2] The coup re-installed Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in the primary position of power. In 2000, former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, during the administration of President Bill Clinton, called it a "setback for democratic government" in Iran.[3]" US law changed in the 80's, and such action has bneen illegal since. If we want to go back 54 years, why not update the reader on what happened since 1953? Much has changed, who reads a 1953 encyclopedia?
There is a policy for the opening summary, something about summarizing the rest of the article. Where in the article do these claims get discussed or supported?
What SPECIFIC human rights are being violated? May we edit these in - and what definition or source we are using to define these human rights? This is presently garbage, no one knows what it specifically means. Any objections to deletion? Does anyone want to edit the specifis in? I prefer deletion. Raggz (talk) 09:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: This is an important human rights document. The application of it within the US is by the US Judiciary or by the UN Security Council (article 39 of the UN Charter). This may be applied to the US, and no reliable source is required to suggest that it MAY be applied. What I am asking for is a reliable source that the UNSC has ACTUALLY applied it to the United States. Raggz (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Criticism