Talk:Human rights in the United States

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human rights in the United States article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19: 21 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 February 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

United States C‑class High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics C‑class Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights C‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Government Unassessed

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human rights in the United States article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19: 21 days

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Tip: #section links are case-sensitive on most browsers

Links from this article with broken #section links :
[[Obscenity#Non image based obscenity cases in the USA|text only erotic stories]]

You can remove this template after fixing the problems | FAQ | Report a problem

Enhanced interrogation

I notice that a lot of times the words 'enhanced interrogation' appear in quotes for no apparent reason. I think this comes across as a bit POV. Putting the words in quotes seem to suggest that the term is a euphemism for torture, which is a matter of opinion. In keeping with the Wikipedia page for Enhanced Interrogation, which only uses the words in quotes when it is specifically being quoted, I'm erasing the quotes.

I've also deleted the paragraph that only reads: "'We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history,' President Barack Obama said." Quite frankly, it lacks context, and contributes nothing to the article, and doesn't even specifically mention torture or enhanced interrogation.

Quite frankly, there's a lot of problems with the article. But I don't feel like inciting an edit war this close to finals. Joker1189 (talk)

Sexual Orientation

I will be removing the "Iowa lgbt" and "Gay is the New Black" photos because they aren't as relevant as the United States Same-sex marriage map and there isn't enough room. If anyone has any possible solutions please let me know... Prcc27 (talk) 04:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links

>> Uranium mine troubles Native American groups Lihaas (talk) 07:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mass survelliance

Why this article says nothing about PRISM (surveillance program) and similar mass survelliance programs in USA that seem to violate privacy and free speech rights?

Drone attack civilian casualties

The rationale for adding this section:

1. Those operations were authorized by the US President under US laws, both are "in the United States".

2. Human rights violations have to be somehow accounted for. Because of the unique position of the United States, with its military presence around the globe, most of these incidences, eg. killings of innocent civilians, occur outside the US territory. It would be ridiculous, for example, to report killings of civilians by US drone in Pakistan under "Human rights in Pakistan", wouldn't it?

3. With the latest technology, which allows the drones to be controlled through satellite by military personnel physically situated within the United States, according to General Atomics MQ-1 Predator, it is not unlikely that those operations also meet the strict criteria of being "in the United States".

Roamingcuriosity (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a Soapbox, so human rights abuses do not need to be "accounted for", certainly not within this article. The article is not titled Human Rights abuses by the United States; the section is not germane to the topic. Seaphoto^Talk 02:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, the article is on Human rights in the United States not by the United States, these actions took place in Pakistan, not in the US. - SantiLak (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note this article is a redirect from "United States human rights". Shall I start a new article instead of adding to this one? Roamingcuriosity (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just presenting some mere facts here and I don't see how this violates any guidelines. Per WP:SOAP, "an article can report objectively about such things" as advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment. Maybe I should go in length and report the details of the criticisms the US has drawn on this issue? And be careful when you claim "human rights abuses do not need to be 'accounted for'". Many people in the world would love to hear this. Those abusers, of course. Btw, I have the deepest respect for those on Wikipedia who devote their time to the fight against vandalism. But human rights is a sensitive issue, so I can feel that maintaining the balance is a challenge. Roamingcuriosity (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actual war crimes are a matter of the laws of war. It is generally not any kind of a human rights abuse to kill an enemy when you're in a war (and, yes, even if the enemy chooses to hide out in Pakistan or Yemen). Civilian casualties happen much more frequently when combatants and civilians are able to mingle, but in that case the failure is usually in the mingling, which means that it is American's enemies who perform human rights abuses.

There are, of course, many who don't support the laws of war, and pretend that it's still America's fault. These people are actually encouraging (and thereby supporting) war crimes. If they're notable, they should be named, referenced, and never forgotten. But the opinions of non-notable figures is a lesser matter. It's not notable if some minor-league radical opposes drones.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. Please note that the issue is not whether the US has committed any war crime. In fact, please note that the US is not at war with any of the states mentioned in my original edit — unless you can prove otherwise. In the Pakistan case, it is reported that the drones were actually flown out of a Pakistani base [1]. So the laws of war hardly apply here. Roamingcuriosity (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I said, "(and, yes, even if the enemy chooses to hide out in Pakistan or Yemen)." What matters is *who* the enemy is, not *where*.

When we're at war with Al Qaeda and their affiliates, it doesn't matter at all that their ally is hiding in Pakistan. We don't need to declare war on Pakistan to fight an Al Qaeda affiliate there.

There is nothing new about this. It's always been this way.

If you're not saying the drone attacks are illegal then I don't see the point to having that section. This is a human rights article, and you're assigning rights to the Taliban that they don't have, and don't deserve, while you're throwing away any rights that the Taliban's victims might have. And that's beside SantiLak's point that this article is about human rights in the U.S.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the article is on Human rights in the United States not Human Rights abuses by the United States, these actions took place in Pakistan, not in the US and don't fall under the scope of the article. - SantiLak (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]