User talk:Pexise

The link to Bolivian Forum is unacceptable in the Evo Morales article as per wiki-guidelines

Your link to an external forum page in the article about Evo Morales has been deleted because it is in violation of Wikipedia standards (see below). A previous editor called User:Bolivianfoforum kept attempting to add the same links to several articles and was told to desist or be banned from editing, so there is much suspicion around anyone reinserting the same link to that site.

Here are the guidelines at issue:

Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.

Wikipedia:External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest Due to the rising profile of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote sites. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines. Note that since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links may not alter search engine rankings.

Please do not reinsert the link. If you would like to argue that it is the work of experts, or has some other merit that would allow its inclusion please take it up on the talk page instead of reinserting it unilaterally.

--Wowaconia 19:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"Warning" at the top of Freedom House Talk Pages

The "warning message" you have posted about me I feel is inappropriate. It is an attempt to discredit my comments based on my affiliation, despite the fact that I have not violated Wikipedia policy. Given the ample discussion on the page itself about my employment with Freedom House, users who are concerned will be able to easily recongize my IP. I politely request that it be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.81.98 (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Right - I've changed the language, but the comment should stay - the fact that you are a FH employee is very important and new editors could miss the discussion about this. Also, the fact that you were not honest about this in the first place and an editor needed to identify you using an esoteric piece of software makes this notice necessary. Pexise 12:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

I have responded to your comments on the Evo Morales page about your position on the forum, I have also placed a Barnstar on your User page as I am impressed at your perseverance and general reasonableness.--Wowaconia 02:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

FH

Hello. Are you 64.109.56.207? Ultramarine 02:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so - why do you ask? Pexise 15:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Jurisdiction

Hello there. The I-A Court has contentious/adjudicatory jurisdiction and advisory jurisdiction: only parties to the Convention that have expressly bound themselves are subject to the former, but the latter is open to all OAS member states (incl. the US). But maybe that's a subtle distinction that doesn't need to be reflected in the very short paragraph I just added to the US article. No argument from me if you'd be happier deleting the adjective 'contentious' (or changing it to adjudicatory: they seem to use the two indistinctly). Lapicero 15:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

'Adjudicatory' works. Thanks. Latin American? No. I speak a fair bit of Spanish, and it's just a part of the world I like to keep my eye on. Lapicero 16:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Nicaragua? OK, I'll endeavour to take a look. Lapicero (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Hello Pexise, we have a small issue regarding Human rights and the United States. You have just reverted text that I challenged as original research. My recollection of WP:OR and WP:NPOV suggests that you have just violated these policies multiple times. You are required to offer reliable sources for the material that lacked these BEFORE reverting, and you did not. You did not address your concerns on TALK first. Not to worry, I make errors as well, I am sure there is some way we can work this out? After all, WP:IAR says you can do this so long as you made the article better by reverting. I appreciate boldness. May I ask how ignoring all of the rules made the article better? How might we resolve our differences? Regards Raggz (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You have again reverted original research that I deleted per WP:OR. You also alleged uncivil behavior. Please do not revert text challenged as OR that lacks a reliable source without adding a reliable source. I suggest (1) that every editor needs to delete OR, even without consensus, (2) this was discussed on Talk, (3) you did not discuss your edit on Talk first, (4) that I believe that you are aware of the preceeding three points. I would appreciate knowing why you are violating policy again?

The Statute of Rome would violate American human rights, because the ICC uses judges and among the fundamental human rights of Americans is the right to trial by jury. There are many reliable sources for this. The text that you just reverted violates WP:NPOV because you did not include this contrasting opinion.Raggz (talk) 11:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Good faith

You wrote: "I would like to question whether User: Raggz is behaving in good faith with his/her edits on this page. I would like to question whether his/her intentions are to improve the article, or to attack it. His/her contributions seem to be generally negative, deleting well sourced, relevant material without reaching any consensus on the talk page. Saying you are going to delete something on the talk page and then deleting it because you disagree with is not DISCUSSING your edit. Pexise (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)"

My intentions are to improve the article. Please be reassured of this. We all need to delete "well sourced, relevant material without reaching any consensus on the talk page" when this text violates policy. If you doubt this, please say so, so we can resolve that. Consensus is not necessary to delete OR, NPOV, or other violations. Do we agree on this? We agree that I may not delete anything "because I disagree with it."

From WP:NPOV: Balance- When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner.

Fairness of tone- If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization. We should write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least worthy of unbiased representation, bearing in mind that views which are in the extreme minority do not belong in Wikipedia at all. We should present all significant, competing views impartially.

• Take the ICC for one example, does the article offer both sides? Among the fundamental human rights of Americans is the right to never be tried by any judge, only by juries. This is among the very most important of human rights. The US Constitution probably denies the Government authority to ratify the ICC treaty if it wanted to, and if it did, one very important human right would be lost. (There are many reliable sources for this.) The article does not mention this but implies strongly that US opposition to the ICC inside the US, denies human rights. Does the article comply with NPOV if it leaves this out?

I have respect for you, I know that you will understand that leaving this out is an inadvertant NPOV violation. Working for NPOV is working for the article in a positive way, it really is. Raggz (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:CON WP:BOLD and WP:IAR.

MedCab despair

Hi Pexise,

I realize you have been a bit above the fray at Human rights and the United States, but my energies for argument are all but spent. Would you mind taking a look over at the mediation cabal case here? I don't like the direction things are going there. The mediator has, effectively, taken up Raggz's rather nebulous attitude that (1) "we need to agree what are facts and what are opinions" (as if that were ever in doubt from the text), and (2) that we then must cover both sides of the debate. By "we", I presume the second point means "me", since Raggz is not in the business of providing reliable sources or any of that good stuff that goes into writing an encyclopedia article. Finally, still more distressing, is the mediators assertion that we are "stuck in the second step because editors claim that their opinions are facts, so they do not need to cover both sides." He has clearly been befuddled by Raggz's nonsense. This gem really clearly indicates to me that Raggz is unwilling to compromise in his/her push to gut the section:[1]

“ To this point: There is no reliable source that universal health care is a human right within the US. This absence makes the entire Universal Health Care section a SYN policy violation, and consensus is not required for removal. An effort for consensus was made, and considerable efforts expended, but in the end policy violations require deletion even without consensus. ”

I have to go right now, but let me know what you think, please. Silly rabbit (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. See also my post here

New Section for Sandinistas page

Allegations of human rights violations committed by the Sandinistas

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) in a 1981 report found evidence for mass executions in the period following the revolution. It stated "In the Commission’s view, while the government of Nicaragua clearly intended to respect the lives of all those defeated in the civil war. During the weeks immediately subsequent to the Revolutionary triumph, when the government was not in effective control, illegal executions took place which violated the right to life, and these acts have not been investigated and the persons responsible have not been punished." The IACHR also stated that: "The Commission is of the view that the new regime did not have, and does not now have, a policy of violating the right to life of political enemies, including among the latter the former guardsmen of the Government of General Somoza, whom a large sector of the population of Nicaragua held responsible for serious human rights violations during the former regime; proof of the foregoing is the abolition of the death penalty and the high number of former guardsmen who were prisoners and brought to trial for crimes that constituted violations of human rights."

A 1983 report from the same source documented allegations of human rights violations against the Miskito Indians, which were alleged to have taken place after opposition forces (the Contras) infiltrated a Miskito village in order to launch attacks against government soldiers, and as part of a subsequent forced relocation program. Allegations included arbitrary imprisonment without trial, "disappearances" of such prisoners, forced relocations, and destruction of property.

In its 1991 annual report the Inter-American Commission stated that "In September 1990, the Commission was informed of the discovery of common graves in Nicaragua, especially in areas where fighting had occurred. The information was provided by the Nicaraguan Pro Human Rights Association, which had received its first complaint in June 1990. By December 1991, that Association had received reports of 60 common graves and had investigated 15 of them. While most of the graves seem to be the result of summary executions by members of the Sandinista People's Army or the State Security, some contain the bodies of individuals executed by the Nicaraguan Resistance."[2]

The 1992 annual report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights contains details of mass graves and investigations which suggest that mass executions had been carried out. One such grave contained 75 corpses of peasants who were believed to have been executed in 1984 by government security forces pretending to be members of the contras. Another grave was also found in the town of Quininowas which contained six corpses, believed to be an entire family killed by government forces when the town was invaded. A further 72 graves were reported as being found, containing bodies of people, the majority of whom were believed to have been executed by agents of the state and some also by the contras. However, the report does not state that these executions were part of government policy.[3]

Politicization of human rights

The issue of human rights also became highly politicised at this time as human rights is claimed to be a key component of propaganda created by the Reagan administration to help legitimise its policies in the region. The Inter-Church Committee on Human Rights in Latin America (ICCHRLA) in its Newsletter stated in 1985 that: "The hostility with which the Nicaraguan government is viewed by the Reagan administration is an unfortunate development. Even more unfortunate is the expression of that hostility in the destabilization campaign developed by the US administration... An important aspect of this campaign is misinformation and frequent allegations of serious human rights violations by the Nicaraguan authorities."

Human Rights Watch also stated in its 1989 report on Nicaragua that: "Under the Reagan administration, U.S. policy toward Nicaragua's Sandinista government was marked by constant hostility. This hostility yielded, among other things, an inordinate amount of publicity about human rights issues. Almost invariably, U.S. pronouncements on human rights exaggerated and distorted the real human rights violations of the Sandinista regime, and exculpated those of the U.S.-supported insurgents, known as the contras."

In 1987 a report was published by the UK based NGO Catholic Institute for International Relations (CIIR, now known as "Progressio"). The report, "Right to Survive - Human Rights in Nicaragua", discussed the politicisation of the human rights issue: "The Reagan administration, with scant regard for the truth, has made a concerted effort to paint as evil a picture as possible of Nicaragua, describing it as a 'totalitarian dungeon'. Supporters of the Sandinistas ... have argued that Nicaragua has a good record of human rights compared with other Central American countries and have compared Nicaragua with other countries at war." The CIIR report refers to estimates made by the NGO Americas Watch which count the number of non-battle related deaths and disappearances for which the government was responsible up to the year 1986 as "close to 300".

According to the CIIR report, Amnesty International and Americas Watch stated that there is no evidence that the use of torture was sanctioned by the Nicaraguan authorities, although prisoners reported the use of conditions of detention and interrogation techniques that could be described as psychological torture. The Red Cross made repeated requests to be given access to prisoners held in state security detention centers, but were refused.

US human rights propaganda

TIME magazine in 1983 published allegations of human rights violations in an article which stated that "According to Nicaragua's Permanent Commission on Human Rights, the regime detains several hundred people a month; about half of them are eventually released, but the rest simply disappear." TIME also interviewed a former deputy chief of Nicaraguan military counterintelligence, who stated that he had fled Nicaragua after being ordered to eliminate 800 Miskito prisoners and make it look like as if they had died in combat.

Also using the Permanent Commission on Human Rights (CPDH) as one of its sources, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative U.S. think tank, in a 1983 report alleged various human rights violations, including censorship, creating a neighborhood system which encouraged spying and reporting by neighbors, torture by state security forces, thousands of political prisoners, assassinations both inside and outside Nicaragua, and that a former Sandinista Intelligence officer has stated that 5,000 were killed in the early months of Sandinsta rule.

R. J. Rummel in his book Statistics of Democide lists many sources and estimates regarding how many were killed during the Sandinista government. Rummel's own estimate, based on those sources, is that the Sandinistas were responsible for 5,000 non-battle related deaths. More than a third of Rummel's sources for these estimates use the Permanent Commission on Human Rights and reports produced by the US State Department during the 1980s.

A 2004 article in the Washington-based peer-reviewed academic journal Demokratizatsiya describes many human rights violations, both during and after their period in power, like that Sandinista security forces assassinated more than two hundred resistance commanders who had accepted the terms of the United Nations-brokered peace accords and had laid down their arms to join the democratic process. Among other sources (29 out of 103), the article uses interviews with Lino Hernández, director of the Permanent Commission on Human Rights, leading opposition politicians, reports produced by the US State Department during the 1980s and the conservative Washington Times.

Among the accusations in the Heritage Foundation report and the Demokratizatsiya article are references to alleged policies of religious persecution, particularly anti-semitism. The ICCHRLA in its newsletter stated that: "From time to time the current U.S. administration, and private organizations sympathetic to it, have made serious and extensive allegations of religious persecution in Nicaragua. Colleague churches in the United States undertook onsite investigation of these charges in 1984. In their report, the delegation organized by the Division of Overseas Ministries of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States concluded that there is 'no basis for the charge of systematic religious persecution'. The delegation 'considers this issue to be a device being used to justify aggressive opposition to the present Nicaraguan government.'" On the other hand, some elements of the Catholic Church in Nicaragua, among them Archbishop Miguel Obando y Bravo, strongly criticized the Sandinistas. The Archbishop stated "The government wants a church that is aligned with the Marxist-Leninist regime."[4] The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights states that: "Although it is true that much of the friction between the Government and the churches arises from positions that are directly or indirectly linked to the political situation of the country, it is also true that statements by high government officials, official press statements, and the actions of groups under the control of the Government have gone beyond the limits within which political discussions should take place and have become obstacles to certain specifically religious activities."[5]

The CIIR was critical of the Permanent Commission on Human Rights (PCHR or CPDH in Spanish), claiming that the organisation had a tendency to immediately publish accusations against the government without first establishing a factual basis for the allegations. The CIIR report also questioned the independence of the Permanent Commission on Human Rights, referring to an article in the Washington Post which claims that the National Endowment for Democracy, an organization funded by the US government, allocated a concession of US$50,000 for assistance in the translation and distribution outside Nicaragua of its monthly report, and that these funds were administrated by Prodemca, a US-based organization which later published full-page adverisments in the Washington Post and New York Times supporting military aid to the Contras. The Permanent Commission denies that it received any money which it claims was instead used by others for translating and distributing their monthly reports in other nations.[6]

The Nicaraguan based magazine Revista Envio, which describes its stance as one of "critical support for the Sandinistas", refers to the report: "The CPDH: Can It Be Trusted?" written by Scottish lawyer Paul Laverty. In the report, Laverty observes that: "The entire board of directors [of the Permanent Commission], are members of or closely identify with the 'Nicaraguan Democratic Coordinating Committee' (Coordinadora), an alliance of the more rightwing parties and COSEP, the business organization." He goes on to express concern about CPDH's alleged tendency to provide relatively few names and other details in connection with alleged violations. "According to the 11 monthly bulletins of 1987 (July being the only month without an issue), the CPDH claims to have received information on 1,236 abuses of all types. However, of those cases, only 144 names are provided. The majority of those 144 cases give dates and places of alleged incidents, but not all. This means that only in 11.65% of its cases is there the minimal detail provided to identify the person, place, date, incident and perpetrator of the abuse."

The Heritage Foundation report appears to play-down human rights abuses committed by the US-backed Somoza regime, stating that: "While elements of the Somoza National Guard tortured political opponents, they did not employ psychological torture." The International Commission of Jurists stated that under the Somoza regime cruel physical torture was regularly used in the interrogation of political prisoners.

3RR

Please read WP:3RR. If you continue to revert, I will report you.Ultramarine (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Edit warring: on Human rights and the United States. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

—slakr^\ talk / 00:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Pexise (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The reverts I made were done so after User:Ultramarine persistently deleted material without first discussing on the talk page. The Human rights and the United States page is a controversial page that is often the victim of undiscussed deletions such as this one.

Decline reason:

This does not entitle you to edit war. — Yamla (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

remove block

No, it's not, I'm afraid; you might be able to get it by hitting the back button on your browser, but that doesn't always work. By the way, the block was not directed at you; you got hit by an autoblock, placed by the software against another blocked user. Since you happened to be on the same IP address at the time, you were affected as well. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Human rights in the United States, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Rockstone35 (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama article probation

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Barack Obama, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.

Per your discussion on the talk page, I notice that you had inadvertently overlooked some earlier discussion on a particular edit. As the template says, please take this as a friendly reminder and not any kind of judgment about your edits. Almost anyone who frequently edits the page has been notified of article probation so that we can keep things orderly. Wikidemon (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Bias

Your bias against the United States will no longer be tolerated. As per your revisions on Barack Obama and Human_rights_in_the_United_States, your agenda is obvious. Stop making articles that have bias against the United States, or at least work towards a compromise with everyone. Please stop now, or I will report you to the aberration committee. --Rockstone35 (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "hiding from the truth". All Nations have committed Atrocities, including the United States. But when you say that Eastern Europe has forbidden torture, or state that Obama has already signed bombing runs, it disturbs me. And when you back up your claims with references, you should make sure the claims are not sources that only push for one side. Nonetheless, I look forward to working with you in the future! --Rockstone35 (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Human rights in the United States

An article that you have been involved in editing, Human rights in the United States, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human rights in the United States (2nd nomination). Thank you. Rockstone35 (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Football hooliganism

Further to your restoring a firm to the above stating that there was no reason to delete it, I thought it best to explain why it was removed as it isn't anything to do with whether they have existed or denying their existence. There is though, a message on the article which states not to add any other firms, as it is not a list of firms, and mentions the List of hooligan firms where correctly sourced firms are added. By all means add them on that list, correctly sourced. Thank you and I hope that explains why it was removed.--♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Libel of human rights defenders

You are ignoring WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL guidelines in the Human Rights Foundation entry. Should you continue I shall refer the matter to Wikipedia authorities.Proofknow (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Enhanced Interrogation Techniques

Hello Pexise,

I followed your engagement with the Human rights in the US article, so I would like to point you to the article Enhanced Interrogation Techniques where some help would be needed. You will meet there an editor that you already know Randy2063, so you have an idea of what to expect. Your help would be appreciated.

Best regards, Larkusix (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Notification of request for mediation due to libellous statement.

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Human Rights Foundation, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Proofknow (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Human Rights Foundation. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 15:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Libel policy acusations, credible reason to believe soapboxing policy violations

I wanted to notify you that claims have been made that you are using Wikipedia as a soapbox for extreme left wing central america topics in violation of WP:SOAP and that you have violated our policies on defamatory content WP:LIBEL as well.

I have been investigating your contributions over the last hour and am extremely concerned regarding your Human Rights Watch edits, specifically, as well as overall demeanor and attitude to Wikipedia. You seem to be trying to promote an agenda here.

As one of Wikipedia's many volunteer administrators, we strive to keep the encyclopedia neutral and not allow it to be used as a platform for advocacy or attack by any side. Additionally, we most specifically do not allow it to be used to launch attacks or defamation in real life.

I am still reviewing the situation, however, I would like to request that you significantly moderate any discussions you are involved in for the time being. What's already happened is on the record and can't be undone, but what response is taken will depend on your actions going forwards in part.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for cleaning up your comments. Please be careful not to make unsupported accusations about organizations ("XYZ magazine reported they are doing..." rather than "They are doing!"), even in talk pages. Claiming that someone or a group have hired mercenaries and are trying to overturn a government is not generally a good approach on Wikipedia, unless you have some reliable sources that explicitly say that.

I am still somewhat concerned about your expressed agenda, but we only expect editors to work towards neutral point of view articles, not to be blandly opinionless themselves. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Harvard Human Rights Journal

You may be interested in some of these articles. Viriditas (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, useful references. Pexise (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's try to work things out

We're not helping by arguing back and forth on the talk page so can we try to settle things here? I'll be concise: 1) The Rome Statute statement was rmved b/c nothing qualified it for inclusion in the lede. Perhaps instead of just picking that one bill you could find a source that refers to the trend you spoke of? 2) The biggest reason I object to the list is that it lists many treaties w/o even hinting to the reader why they were rejected. A little explanation on motivation and citations supporting each bill's significance would satisfy me. Soxwon (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've found it's easier to just bring up issues (and avoid other editors obscuring and skewing statements) on individual talk pages. Are my reservations acceptable? Soxwon (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding me on the Rome Statute. I just meant that it would be better to use it as an example of the "trend" you were talking about (and to cite a source supporting that "trend"). Soxwon (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights Foundation

Perhaps you would like to readd to your watchlist as there is currently a problem with a mendacious IP and paratrouper73. It is presently semi protected.89.127.174.186 (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)