Jump to content

Talk:United States/Human Rights

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a topical archive of discussion posted to Talk:United States

Human Rights section

User:NWOG insists on inserting a POV-laden summary of human rights in the US. There is already a separate article on this very issue that is much more balanced – that is, not simply a list of selected human rights abuses. Rather than revert again, I'll suggest here that it be removed. android79 14:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

How is it POV? It's simply facts. NWOG

POV by exclusion – leaving out any mention of positive contributions by the US to human rights. The POV is not my main objection, anyway – there's a whole article on the subject already. android79 14:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a short human rights section but NWOG's version is extremely one-sided. It's a laundry list of Howard Zinn style complaints, with no mention of constitutional protections such as the rights to free speech, a speedy trial, legal representation, etc. Any section that's added to this article should be short and based on the content of Human rights in the United States. Rhobite 14:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I think a prominent link to Human rights in the United States is sufficient, but I wouldn't oppose a short summary based on that article's content. android79 14:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

If there's another article on this, then anything more than a link to that page is unnecessary and will only serve to be a focal point of controversy and edit wars (as it is turning into now).

If you feel it is one-sided, why not contribute to it? As of now, it is one-sided, but that is, I feel, because you are not taking part and contributing to the section. Perhaps you have extensive knowledge of constitutional protections and rights to legal representation, etc. while others do not? If you do have knowledge on this subject, it would be great to add what you know, don't you think? NWOG

Not to mention that NWOG's hit list mostly concerns itself with cold war foreign policy, not human rights within the U.S. Rhobite 16:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Human rights in the United States

Human rights in the United States needs to be linked to from this article, presumably from someplace in the government section. Where? JeffBurdges 15:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

yes, i was asking myself the same thing. Ive recently been through the People's Republic of China page and the Cuba page, all very well done with their Humans rights parts. But im disapointed that there is no section of human rights in the United States page. After all, there is a lot of ground to cover, from Gitmo to Abu Ghraib, where prisoners have no rights whatsoever and recieve numerous tortures. The american influence in latin america/africa/middle east is also something that is just plain wrong. Specially what they have done to Africa, all of the oil of nigeria is in hands of american corporations. I suggest placing it on the politics section.
Good luck! The United States repeted, blatant crimes against humanity (and democracy) do deserve a spot on this article (somewhere between apple pie and "most powerfull military of any sort"). Unfortunatly I've noticed that Wikipedia, by nature, does come with a bourgeois or west-centric viewpoint..."general consensus" might not be with us on this one. But go ahead, the truth will prevail sooner or later!--sansvoix 23:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Any major articles about U.S. influence in South America should be discretely linked from the Foreign relations section. JeffBurdges 22:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright, it seems that the page Social issues in the United States is what really needs to be linked from this article, probably by giving it a small subsection under either government or society. Human rights in the United States can be given an inline link from there? Seem okay? JeffBurdges 22:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Human Rights (see also Human Rights reverting)

The little section on human rights is much too vague. I agree that it should be short and refer to another article; however, it should state that most of these criticisms have been over the War on Terror. It also needs to be a bit more concrete. For example, to what does the following passage refer? ". . . as well as some restrictions on freedoms of speech and the press . . ." Joey1898 19:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree on that it was vague; concerns of human rights in US is a major issue internationally and the debate is currently represented neutrally. For "...as well as some restrictions on freedoms of speech and the press...", see the references to American Civil Liberties Union and Reporters without borders criticm about questions such as white house control of major media outlets or journalists punished for refusing to reveal sources. The section would be vague if it was too long, so I think we shouldn't include detailed criticism. I agree that War on Terror should be represented as the US pov for balanced discussion. Klaam 10:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think we should replace the little section on human rights with the first paragraph of its "main article":
While the human rights record of the United States of America has featured a strong avowed commitment to the protection of specific personal political, religious and other freedoms, it has also had a long history of legally-sanctioned slavery, and both de jure and de facto racial and ethnic-religious discrimination, and occasional violation of those freedoms, particularly in times of "national security" crisis. In the early 21st century, most notably following September 11 and the ensuing War on Terror, invasions of privacy, intrusive inspections, and questionable detentions under the USA PATRIOT Act, as well as allegations of torture at prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay represent predominant issues.

Bobburito 02:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I put this, but somebody deleted it:

I believe mine to be more neutral. 68.110.9.62 18:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the criticm has anything to do with left-wing or right-wing politics, and definitely nothing to with the president, engagement in conflicts or culture wars (unless we are talking about anti-Western rage in middle-East and elsewhere - that doesn't belong to this section; the section now discusses the Western debate, which has significant influence). Critizing entities (such as Supreme Court of the United States, American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders, etc.) are generally politically neutral, and on the other hand, members from the both ends of domestic political spectrum have engaged in criticism. Someone had vandalized the section and it's now reverted to the version prior to the above changes. Somebody should add the official U.S. federal government pov into the section. Klaam 22:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the edit "allegations of", because it's already clear to the reader, that the statement represents just a one pov. And on other hand, of most issues, there are cases which are recognized by all parties, i.e. all povs are consistent that five-year detentions without trial are "lengthy" or that government charging journalist is a restriction of free press; the debate is more about whether these are bad or good. Klaam 22:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

See, I don;t think that any of that is clear at all. You might (I disagree however) be right that we can all (unlikely) agree that 5 years is lengthy but the otehr allegations. There is nothign damaging about having 'allegations" and it makes it more NPOV. PLease stop blindly reverting.Gator (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

First, thank you for participating in the discussion about the article.
The problem with using word "allegations" (twice) is that it makes the issues sound uncertain - in realitity, the article can fairly assume that they have happened and include possible conspiracy theories in separate context. In details: detentions over 5 year are unsual by any standards, well documented cases like Abu Ghraib scandal are universally recognized to have happened and sanction cases such as Judith Miller have been well-reported in public and can be by any logics recognized as "restrictions". So I believe putting "allegations of" in the proposed form is like NPOVing George Washington with "is claimed to be the first president of the United States". Klaam 22:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
It currently reads (between the lines):
____________
In the early 21st century, most notably following September 11 attacks and the ensuing War on Terror, invasions of privacy, intrusive inspections, and questionable detentions under the USA PATRIOT Act, as well as use of torture, lengthy detentions without trial and forced confessions at prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay represent widely debated issues.
In recent years the government has enforced restrictions and governmental control to the mass media. Dozens of journalists have been charged for refusing to reveal their sources. Foreign journalists are sometimes denied access to the country, or enforced other penalties. Major domestic media outlets have been threatened with de facto sanctions if they refuse to censor or delay revealing of some sensitive political issues.
Many prominient domestic and international NGOs, as well as Western governments and the Supreme Court of the United States, have critized the federal government actions, often considering them as declines in human rights.
____________
The first sentence says that there's been a significant number of illegal invasions of privacy througout the early 21st century (significant enough to be included in an article like this). I don't think that's true. Do you know of any at all? I think the so-called invasions of privacy that are related to recent events are legal. It should be reworded.
The first sentence of the second paragraph makes it sound like every news broadcast is scripted by the government. It's much too biased.
Third paragraph: I don't like the word "many." How many? Also, something more familiar than "NGOs" should be used, or it should at least be spelled out. -Barry- 00:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Human Rights reverting

I inserted the words "alegations" into the following pargraph and was blindly reverted: "The United States is often under criticism from Western NGOs, and intermittently governments, concerning allegations of lengthy detention without trial, forced confessions, torture and mistreatment of prisoners, as well as some allegations of restrictions on freedoms of speech and the press, as being violations of human rights."

The way it read before presumed that these things were occuring and there is a great deal of debate about this (as we all know), so they are just allegations. I think my version was more NPOV (I personally don;t favor it being in at all, but am willing to compromise and promote consensus)and shouldn't be blindly reverted, but should be discussed. Thoughts?Gator (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Barry. Much better and NPOV.Gator (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's my reply written under the earlier topic:
The problem with using word "allegations" (twice) is that it makes the issues sound uncertain - in realitity, the article can fairly assume that they have happened and include possible conspiracy theories in separate context. In details: detentions over 5 year are unsual by any standards, well documented cases like Abu Ghraib scandal are universally recognized to have happened and sanction cases such as Judith Miller have been well-reported in public and can be by any logics recognized as "restrictions". So I believe putting "allegations of" in the proposed form is like NPOVing George Washington with "is claimed to be the first president of the United States".
What comes to Barry's edit: the debate is not exclusively related to terrorists or Iraq.Klaam 23:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I rewrote the section so please comment it. Klaam 23:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
You are mixing a lot of allegations with a few facts and claiming you can call the whole lot factual. I don't think this level of detail about isolated and very recent complaints is appropriate for this broad article. It reads like a pov-pushing attempt to smear the present administration and the revert-warring thus far should have clued you in to that. I'm adding the npov warning. keith 02:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Could you be more specific? Anyway, the section takes way too much space relative to it's importance to the reader. I believe the previous version , which just introduced the debate briefly, was better.Klaam 09:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Is certainly is way too long and doesn't even have counter-arguments yet. And I don't see how you have addressed the problem with stating allegations as facts. For example "reports of torture are common". come on... keith 14:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I changed a bunch of stuff, but disregard my comment about footnotes. I read http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite_sources#Footnotes and I think it's better to be more specific with regular text (regarding foreign journalists being banned from the U.S.) than use a footnote. Or to place a reference at the bottom of the article, if it's easy enough to tell what information from the article relates to the reference. -Barry- 15:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This section likely needs to be removed or cut way down and put as a one or two sentence part of another section, leading the reader to the overall article. For now, I have cut it down considerably and left it where it is. It was semi-ridiculous citing individual cases and the like on this page... that level of detail needs to be reserved for the main article about the subject. This page is already too long. Uris 17:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Human Rights

Not a flag waver or anything, we've got our problems; but this section only lists the negatives and ignores the positive influence the U.S. has had on the world in regards to this issue (despite the curre...no, I shouldn't get political). If this section includes information on slavery and voting restrictions it should also mention the bill of rights and other amendments. Support for repressive regimes should also be counterbalanced by the Marshall Plan, election monitoring, and democracy building (...sigh...so hard to write this and watch the news). I also don't see anything regarding U.S. historical (if maybe not current) leadership in environmental protections but that's another section. I did skim a lot, though, so I could be missing something - apologies in advance if I am being a fool. Haverberg 02:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think you are being a fool. The section was way too focused on the negatives and did not point out any of the positives. I have expanded the section to provide a more balanced perspective.
PLEASE NOTE: I don't think I have removed a single negative statement from the original text. In fact, I have even added some more negative statements. However, I have balanced them out with some positive stuff that the United States has done over the years. More importantly, I have highlighted the fact that our values are for democracy and human rights. I have also conceded the fact that we have not always lived up to our own ideals.
I didn't put in very much about our commitment to promote democracy and human rights around the world (the election monitoring and democracy building that you mentioned). It is an insult to Jimmy Carter to suggest that the U.S. doesn't care about human rights. Someone should write something about the things he did as President and afterwards. Maybe you can do this.

Richard 07:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute: The Human Rights Section is Much Too Long

The Human Rights section has been extended to a ridiculously long extent. It is now 9 percent of the entire article by word count, overemphasizing the issue. No other country article has anything close to the size of the discussion of human rights on this page. While it is proper the mention some of the problems and criticisms, the article now makes it appear that the US is unique in the abusing human rights. In the context of this page, the section on human rights should be no longer than one paragraph. Cutting this section down to its proper size would not be vandalism. Nicholas F 05:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I've placed a NPOV dispute tag on this article. The long list of charges reads more as a bill of indictment than a summary of the state of human rights in the United States. The amount of space in this article taken up by these allegations gives, particularly when compared to what appears in the articles on other questions, gives the false impression that the United States is largest violator of human rights. Nicholas F 22:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur with you on this one. We already have an article on Anti-Americanism, so we do not need to recap all the criticism already articulated there in this article. --Coolcaesar 04:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. This section is just ridiculous. It jumps from topic to topic. It's in the "Government" section for some reason. It is part historical narrative, part list of indictments. No other country article that I can find has anything like this in the main article. --JW1805 (Talk) 05:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Good lord. So now Guantanamo Bay is a "concentration camp"? I'm deleting this section again. --JW1805 (Talk) 16:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the "Human Rights" section in this article was too long. I also agree that it had become very POV "anti-American". However, any attempt to simply wish away the controversy by deleting the section is likely to just invite people with that POV to reinsert their POV resulting in edit wars.
I am annoyed that JW1805 committed a wholesale deletion of the "overly long" section without attempting to save the NPOV work that I did. It is my opinion that the text, while long, was closer to NPOV than previous versions of the section. By throwing out that text, JW1805 left open the possibility that someone else would come in and introduce text that was less NPOV than what he deleted.
I was going to move the "overly long" section to the Human rights in the United States article but hesitated because that article has been nominated for deletion (although the votes are running overwhelmingly in favor of keeping it).
After moving the "overly long" section, I was going to leave behind an NPOV summary. This is what JW1805 should have done instead of committing a wholesale deletion.
If you read the old "Human Rights" section [1] and the current Human rights in the United States article, you will see that the text in both locations makes an effort to provide an NPOV balance by mentioning the positive aspect to Human Rights in the U.S. We Americans have a lot to be proud of in the human rights arena. We should focus on presenting the positive to counterbalance the negative rather than just deleting the negative. There is truth to the negative criticism. Ignoring it won't make it go away and violates WP:NPOV.
If the text is POV, then make it NPOV rather than deleting it. They have their POV, you have your POV. WP:NPOV requires that both POVs be mentioned and sourced.
If the text is too long, then move it somewhere else and summarize it.
JW1805's deletion of the "overly long" section was overly bold and violated WP:NPOV.
Please don't do it again. I will be trying to fix the current Human Rights section to be more NPOV (see my most recent edit).
BTW, this is a quibble but inserting a POV-section tag is not a "minor edit". See Help:Minor edit.
Richard 17:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I just don't think the section is necessary, certainly not in the form that I deleted, which was a ridiculous rambling rant. Does any other country's article have a "human rights" section? I agree totally with Nicholas F's comments below. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, OK, touche. It turns out there are a bunch of articles similar to Human rights in the United States (see List of human rights articles by country). However, a quick sampling of country articles (Brazil,Argentina,China) indicates that these three countries with poor records on human rights do not have sections on human rights.
We should probably put out a request for comment and then make a decision. I'm happy to get rid of the section on the grounds that no other country has such a section and that human rights is usually discussed in a separate article. However, doing this doesn't actually solve the problem, it just moves it elsewhere. Check out the article Human rights in the United States, the "AfD" discussion and the Talk:Human rights in the United States, page to see what I mean.

I also agree that the stuff in both this article and the Human rights in the United States article have been overly POV (anti-US). I do think we need to address the points raised rather than try to eliminate them.

Richard 05:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This section is still needs to be further shortened. It should only be a summary of the CURRENT state of human rights in the US, not a list of all of the complaints throughout US history.

I disagree only in that the history is relevant to our current state. Current racial tensions are a legacy from our history of slavery. We don't have to trace the entire history of slavery and civil rights but discussing a few key events is valuable.
Richard 05:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Multiple subheadings, each which is itself a charge against the US, pushes this well into the POV realm. Here are my more specific complaints against the current section:

Traditionally, the U.S. has been a staunch proponent and leader in the development of the Western ideology of democracy, civil rights and civil liberties. This tradition dates back to the inception of the republic starting with the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Despite the noble ideals espoused in these documents and the pronouncements of its political and civic leaders, the United States has had to struggle to achieve those ideals, succeeding at times yet failing miserably at other times.
Yes the US has struggled, and at times, failed to meet its own ideals, it is a nation of men after all, not saints. Nonetheless, the US has generally been at the forefront of advancing human rights. The idea that a country should have protecting the rights of its citizens as its raison d'etre was radical at the time of the founding of the US and is still radical today. It could be pointed out that the US has been seen by many people around the world as a sanctuary against even worse failures in their own countries. If world migration patterns can be viewed as people voting with their feet, then the US appears to have much more in the positive column than the negative one.
I wrote the text that you are objecting to. My intent in writing it was to counterbalance the previous text which was extremely one-sided in focusing only on the human rights violations. I agree 100% with what you have written above and would be happy if those points were incorporated into the introduction of the human rights section. I just didn't have time and energy to write everything all in one sitting.
Richard 05:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
The U.S. is currently criticized for violations of children's rights, death penalty, torture, discrimination against sexual minorities, immigration and treatment of non-citizens, worker's rights, police brutality, prison conditions, racial persecution/discrimation and women's rights.
This list is comes down as an anti-US POV in that either assumes that the US position on these issues are violations of human rights or gives no context for the degree of the problem, suggesting any failure at all is a gross violation of human rights. A similiar list of charges could be made for every country.
Well, yes a similar list could be made for every country but that doesn't mean that the list of charges against the U.S. isn't valid. The problem is one of degree and comparison. Is our treatment of immigrants and non-citizens worse than other countries? Better than most, worse than some. Perhaps the problem is the fact that this is a summary section rather than a full article. Of course, the current state of the Human rights in the United States article isn't much better. sigh....
Richard 05:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Slavery and racial discrimination
Several states maintained slavery until 1865, and various forms of ethnic and other discrimination were not prohibited until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The effects of this history are still apparent in the social structure.
This sentence is about history, not the current state of human rights, and should be removed. Its a truism that the past affects the present. When discussing German human rights, should we note the prior existence of Nazi concentration camps? What about the Reign of Terror or the Dreyfus Affair when discussing French human rights? or the the Inquistion for Spain? Should the Bataan Death March be included in a discussion of Japanese human rights?
This is sophistry. The relationship of slavery to present-day racism is more relevant than any of the above comparisons. It is valid to reference WWII when discussing Japan's relations with the rest of Asia. Similarly, it is valid to reference Russia's Communist history when discussing Putin's movement away from democracy.
Richard 05:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Interventionist policies
The United States is sometimes criticized for interventionist policies in Latin America, Middle-East, South-East Asia and elsewhere, and for aid (financial, military and otherwise) given to repressive governments and warlords. During the Cold War period, aid policies were considered a counterweight to the aid the Soviet Union was giving. Critics of U.S. foreign policy charge that U.S. foreign aid has been driven by profit motives and self-interest. Examples offered by critics include support given to South Vietnam, South Korea, Ferdinand Marcos, Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iran, Suharto, Saudi Arabian dictators, as well as a number of dictatorships in Latin America.
This subsection is not even discussing human rights, its a critique of foreign policy. What nation does not conduct its foreign policy in its own self interest? On the other hand, have there no pro-human right elements in US foreign policy? There was no idealistic element in the Monroe Doctrine? Wilson's Fourteen Points and his push to found the League of Nations? Would the United Nations have been founded without the US? What about the US opposition to the continuation of the European colonial empires after WWII? The Marshall Plan? The Berlin Airlfit? The dispatch of the US armed forces and relief aid to just about every natural disaster around the world? I could come up with more, but do we want this to become a battle of competing lists?
I worked on the paragraph you are criticizing. I can't prove it right now but I think my version was more balanced. I specifically tried to raise good points about our foreign policy such as the points you raised.
For example, I think an early version of my text did mention the Marshall plan and hinted at the other points made above. Once again, I heartily support inclusion of the above points to counter-balance the POV (anti-US) charges made.
I also agree that there is room for debate about whether foreign intervention is relevant in a section on human rights. I guess the argument is that we have worked against the "self-determination of peoples" at times.
Richard 05:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this section has nothing to do with "human rights". --JW1805 (Talk) 02:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Military tactics
At times, the military tactics of the U.S. have been questioned, such as in the Vietnam war in which U.S. explosives and chemical weapons left much of the region uninhabitable to the locals. Recently, civilian devastation caused by U.S. military use of banned chemical weapons in Iraq operations, secret prisons and detention camps like Guantanamo Bay, torture and restrictions on access of the press to detainees have been among the criticisms posed by the international human rights community.
Again, another long list of charges. The Vietnam War was over 30 years ago.
I didn't put the Vietnam War in there but I think it is an example of a long period during which our foreign policy was oriented more towards stability than democracy. In fact, my text said as much. It has since been deleted.
Mentioning that the US policy in Iraq has been critiqued is legit, but listing multiple charges without giving the other side introduces a POV. But laying out the full debate would be inappropriate here, a simple mention that there is a dispute over US policy in Iraq would be sufficient.
No, I disagree. I think there is clear room for charging the U.S. with human rights abuses in Iraq, Afghanistan and Gitmo. We should at least acknowledge the charges and, if anyone wants to mount a full debate, we should move that to a separate article.
Richard 05:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Civil liberties
Traditionally, the U.S. has been committed to the Western ideology to pursue civil liberties. In the early 21st century, following the September 11, 2001 attacks and the ensuing War on Terror, issues regarding intrusions upon privacy, invasive inspections, detentions under the USA PATRIOT Act, and restrictions on freedom of expression are currently debated questions. While opponents see them as a dangerous decline in human rights and democracy, supporters see them as positive and necessary actions for 'security'.
Yet another list of charges!
I agree that there is only a single sentence to talk about our commitment to civil liberties when, in fact, as you point out above, we have been at the forefront of civil liberties for much of our history as a country.
I do think that the points raised in the rest of the paragraph are serious issues and that it is not POV to say that these are "currently debated questions".
Richard 05:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
See also: List of United States foreign interventions since 1945, Propaganda in the United States, and Censorship in the United States
Links only to articles that support the US as a human rights violator. Need I say more.
I agree. I noticed the same thing.
Richard 05:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

To make this section NPOV while keeping all of these lists would require both the counter to each point and another list of what the US has done to advance human rights. Even then this would be inadequate for the very size of the discussion of the debate over US human rights would suggest that the US has a human rights problem that is significantly worse than other nations. Nicholas F 01:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The section should be short and acknowledge that there are human rights charges that are arguably valid but that these should be taken in the context of our overall record on human rights and civil liberties. Any detailed discussion of specific charges should be put in the Human rights in the United States article.
Richard 05:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this is very factual and NPOV, and belongs in the article simply because these points are facts. If you are worrying about how this would make the US appear in relation to other countries, feel free to edit the respective articles. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be about promoting.

Sfacets 03:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, as much as we may hate to think of it as such, Gitmo sure bears strong resemblances to the Soviet gulags. It's not for nothing that we have been practicing "extraordinary rendition" of prisoners to secret locations in Eastern Europe.
Hey, let's not get so wrapped up in defending America's good name that we can't see that there are some pretty evil things being done in the name of Homeland Security.
Those who would give up a little freedom for a little security wind up having neither.
Richard 05:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Guantanamo Bay is not part of the prison system of the United States. It is not located in the United States. US citizens convicted of crimes under civil or common law are not sent there. It is a military facility that houses military prisoners, prisoners of war, or unlawfal combatants (whatever you want to call them). Blanket comparisons to gulags or concentrations camps have no place in an encyclopedia. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
While it is true that the US has been charged with these violations of human rights are facts, whether the US is actually guilty of all of these violations or whether the actions in and of themselves are violations of human rights are not facts, just opinions. If you want to write an article on all of the allegations made against the US, feel free, but they don't belong here. Nicholas F 04:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. If the charges can be sourced to Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch, they belong in Wikipedia (though not necessarily in this article). If the charges can't be sourced, then it's OR>
Richard 05:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the human rights section is an important section to be included in this article. Although many countries might not have a human rights section, many people criticize the US on the issue of human rights and feel strongly about it. Some historical examples of human rights abuse might not be included, such as with the Vietnam War, etc, it is important to include the issue of slavery and the struggle for civil rights. Also, it will be better to talk a bit more about the present human rights issue. The following is an earlier edition of the Human rights section that downplays some of the issues, so maybe this could replace the current version:

The internal struggle to define the nature of human rights in the context of the U.S. Constitution began at the very inception of that document and continues to this day, with people of good conscience on both sides of many controversial issues. The U.S. has often been criticized for seemingly contradictory stances, on the one hand supporting the human rights laid out in its Constitution and Declaration of Independence, while not always living up to these ideals in practice.

For example, the compromise to maintain slavery was made at the drafting of the Constitution to secure the ratification of Southern states whose economy was thought to depend on this practice, even though this was a clear violation of the principle, laid out in the Declaration of Independence, that "all men are created equal". Several states maintained slavery until 1865, and various forms of ethnic and other discrimination were not prohibited until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, a bloody civil war and a long struggle for civil rights were prime examples of the internal concern with the definition of human rights in the U.S. Some of the effects of this history are still apparent in the social structure.

This is about history, and is mostly covered in the History section. No need to repeat it here. --JW1805 (Talk) 16:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

At times, the United States has been criticized for interventionist policies in places like Latin America, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, as well as for its support of repressive governments and warlords, particularly during the Cold War, when many of these decisions were based upon a calculation of the greater good as a counterweight to the influence of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was seen by many in the U.S. as the world's greatest threat; to be opposed with methods that might not otherwise be considered ethical.

This is about foreign policy. It is also POV. Where is the counter argument? Where are the foreign policy interventions that are applauded by the world (what about the Marshall Plan, for example? --JW1805 (Talk) 16:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Following the September 11, 2001, attacks and the ensuing War on Terror, the continuation of this debate has surrounded the USA PATRIOT Act and other measures which proponents say are necessary to preserve the country's security. However, opponents criticize the policies as unnecessary and see it as a potential danger to traditional civil rights, citing the policy of extraordinary rendition as proof that their fears are not without justification.

At least this is a valid paragraph, mostly. I'm not sure it belongs in the main article. But it could go somewhere. Actually, it should probably just go in History, since there is a Sept 11 mention there. --JW1805 (Talk) 16:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

--Ryz05 04:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

In conclusion, I must state again that this whole "human rights" section is not necessary. No other country has such a section. It is a dumping ground for various Anti-American charges, and just be deleted. --JW1805 (Talk) 16:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with you that the "human rights" section is unnecessary, because it is a very important aspect of the American society and how the world percieves the country. All that is stated are facts, and of course counter arguments can be added to create some balance, like what's being said in the beginning of the introduction to this section about the US constitution. So the section is not about anti-american or anything, and other articles have a human rights section too, like the PRC article, which is featured. Often the US states problems with human rights abuse in other countries, and the human rights section just highlights some of the problems facing this country. Plus, there's a whole separate article on "human rights in the United States," which makes the section all that more valid.
There are two counter-arguments in the section. The first one states about the US constitution having all those freedoms and rights, the second counter-argument is how following 9/11, the US is creating controversial laws like the PATRIOT ACT to safeguard the country against terrorists. If you can think up more counter-points to the one about Vietnam war or support for appressive regimes during the Cold War, then that would be great. On the other hand, how the US supported oppressive regimes could be moved to the foreign relations section, which is probably more suitable. But again, do not remove the human rights section entirely, as it reflects the nature of the country.--Ryz05 20:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


The rights of children

Maybe it should be mentioned in the human rights section that the US is the only country (except from Somalia) that has not ratified the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. Not trying to bash the country or so but it is a rather glaring controversy.

--Torsken 20:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It should be mentioned briefly, but with a comment on why the US did not ratify it. Thank you for pointing that out.--Ryz05 23:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

HR section

It's unfortunate that People's Republic of China and Iran, for example, have entire Human Rights sections fairly while the US article doesn't have one so prominent because of POV issues. Dan Carkner 16:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States/Human_Rights&oldid=1049996194"