Debate:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?
Although I also posted below, in general I feel that one standard should be applied, especially in articles an a "trustworthy encyclopedia". Emphasizing human rights abuses in countries friendly to American values while downplaying or ignoring human rights abuses which are hundreds of times greater, only serves the enemy. --Ed Poor 08:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
- MLK: 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere'. Any human rights abuse is wrong and should be criticised. That's a standard that we should consistently hold to. Wikinterpretertalk?
- I've noticed no dearth of references here to the atrocities committed by Stalin, or Pol Pot, or Mao. Rest assured, Ed, if I saw an article here about Stalin that was as eager to soft-pedal his crimes as the article here about Pinochet, I would feel compelled to add a few unpleasant details. --PF Fox 13:20, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
America should be held to a higher standard, because of the special claim of the American Dream. This is easy to do, because America is hundreds of times better than the barbaric totalitarian regimes which murdered over 100 million people in the 20th century. --Ed Poor 14:29, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
- Quite a few of those "barbaric totalitarian regimes" of the 20th century, like Rios Montt's Guatemala and Pinochet's Chile and the Shah's Iran and even, for some years, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, were supported and in some places even installed and propped up by the United States. --PF Fox 14:45, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
- Why Do You Hate America?(tm) --Gulik2 13:44, 10 May 2007 (EDT)