The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
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.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
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.
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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There have been a series of edits recently in the History section, beginning with this one on 22 December and culminating with one I just made. The edits probably deserve to be gone through in sequence, but their overall effect after that most recent one amounts to this. I think the current version is an improvement which addresses POV concerns behind the individual edits in the series. In the spirit of WP:BRD, I suggest that further improvements be discussed here rather than in an exchange of edit summaries. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Is the article from a neutral point of view?
The article seems to mostly have a neutral point of view, using both liberal and conservative voices to measure the US' marks on human rights and potential violations. However, some sections may have a liberal bias. For example, the section on “coverage of violations in the media” seems to be biased; it only includes a critique of the New York Times coverage of human rights abuses, claiming it to be biased, but does not include opposing viewpoints or any more explanation of coverage violations in the media. The liberal viewpoint seems to be overrepresented in some sections, such as the section on Guantánamo Bay, which includes several liberal viewpoints and only one statement from a Republican senator.SarahD12345678910 (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Without looking at the details of this case, I'll comment that the focus here ought to be on dueness of weight rather than on neutrality as perceived by individual editors. Please don't take this as an argument against your points, I just want to point that up here. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Project which address discrimination and human rights violation
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Another editor continues to remove information, noted in this diff, which is cited information, because they think it's cherry picked. I don't want to revert again should they continue to remove, but thought it would be useful to start a discussion here. Can anyone take a look and see if this warrants being removed? To me, it looks relevant, but other opinions would be helpful. Thanks! SPF121188(talk this way)(contribs)16:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 months ago6 comments4 people in discussion
This article is the definition of WP:UNDUE, with some editors having turned it into a forum for airing their grievances. WP:BALANCE is urgently needed, as an outsized proportion of the article's content is criticism, both sourced and unsourced. Specifically, parts like these are unencyclopedic: "While the US has maintained that it will "bring to justice those who commit genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes," even though the U.S.A. has supported many genocides, for example the Indonesian genocide in the 1960s;"Pizzigs (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
There's clearly a soft anti-US bias of some sort in this article which has been noted to happen from time to time on Wikipedia in general. I do support using "Human rights in the United Kingdom" as a model for rewrite. Lone Internaut (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I have cleaned up the lead and tried to reduce statements that aren't relevant to an encyclopedic article. The article still has a bit of a "kitchen sink" feel, but at least it's not a giant list of every conceivable grievance about the United States that has ever existed in the history of humankind. --RockstoneSend me a message!06:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I made some more changes, but clearly more is needed. I'll try to make a draft version closer to Human Rightsi n the United Kingdom and go from there. The thing that's frustrating is that most of what's described in this article really should be described in the main articles for each point. This article should be a high-level overview that gives the reader a good idea of where the US lies, both good and bad... not an laundry list airing of grievances. --RockstoneSend me a message!10:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
The article's length indicates excessive detail and its content, for example the "enhanced interrogation" section (this should be covered in a section broadly covering torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment) focuses far to much on different opinions about the topic, rather than verifiable facts.
That said, I'm not sure it has an anti-US bias. I think you would really have to look at reliable, independent sources and see what they say in order to make a determination. In the example you cite, many informed, reliable sources (such as this one) highlight a number of facts that undermine the United States' stated commitment to the prevention and punishment of atrocity crimes. (t · c) buidhe04:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
.svg)
