This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

United States: Government High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance). Human rights 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). International relations Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future: https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/north-america/united-states-of-america/report-united-states-of-america/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/pol10/4870/2022/en/

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]

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]

I suggest using Human rights in the United Kingdom as a model for what this article should look like. Pizzigs (talk) 02:12, 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. --Rockstone^{Send 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. --Rockstone^{Send 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) buidhe 04:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Human rights violations in the United States has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 18 § Human rights violations in the United States until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@William M. Connolley: You removed the section on arbitrary arrest and detention with the rationale that it is "too biased". I think this is incorrect. The United States has been condemned by Amnesty International for its frequent human rights abuses in relation to arbitrary detention. It is not biased to say these facts. On Wikipedia, being unbiased does not mean giving all positions equal weight; per WP:NPOV, neutrality means that Wikipedia gives weight to each view in proportion to its prevalence in reliable sources. Since this article is about human rights in the US, it is neutral and relevant to include a major point of criticism towards the US from a major international human rights organization. We do not censor information just because it may be offensive. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@William M. Connolley: You have reverted the edit again instead of engaging in discussion. By continuing to push your edits instead of replying to the discussion to reach a consensus, you are engaging in disruptive editing. I'm requesting you stop. If you continue to make disruptive edits on this page and not engaging in discussion, I will go to WP:ANI. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a third opinion on this matter on WP:3O. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Good Morning, I'm here from WP:3O. I've looked through the proposed edits. I would tend to agree with @William M. Connolley: that this edit is not NPOV. The language through out the edit implies the a different picture of the frequency, the motivation, and the scope of this issue than is warranted in the sources. Given the Amnesty International report, this would, at most, deserve a single sentence (and seems to be already covered elsewhere). The bulk of the edit seems to conflate ICE detention through immigration with a civil right abuse related to unwarranted detention, but the NYT and PBS articles do not make that connection explicitly, making adding this WP:SYNTH. Overall, I would be cautious adding any of this, specifically as its own sub-topic. Squatch347 (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Squatch347: The conflation between ICE detention and civil rights abuses through unwarranted detention is not something I synthesized or created. It is stated explicitly in this Amnesty International report that ICE detention engages in widespread human rights abuses including arbitrary and unwarranted detention and the physical abuse of prisoners. I can rephrase or remove information from the NYT and PBS articles if that is an issue. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A couple of comments on the Amnesty data. The comment that it is not uncommon is unwarranted here, especially as the supporting reference is about GITMO, hardly a common thing in the US. Further, the GITMO information is covered elsewhere so should remain there.

  I'm not sure I agree with the addition of the other data since is both speculative (projected to increase to) and lacks a clear definition. Amnesty International's take that they are arbitrary shouldn't be taken as written given their lack of justification for its use. I'm not sure how we square the assessment that it is "arbitrary" when it is also in line with US law and doesn't (at least from the source) clearly violate any UN or other international legal policy. Squatch347 (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Per the source linked above: Amnesty International documented numerous cases of people [...] who were arbitrarily detained. [...] Many reported having no access to attorneys, facing prolonged detention without explanation, suffering cruel and inhumane conditions, and being transferred between facilities impacting their ability to communicate with loved ones and legal service providers. Facing prolonged detention without explanation or charge is definitionally arbitrary detention. The same source says, quote Amnesty International found that conditions at EPSPC violate both U.S. and international detention standards. So your assertion that the detention is inline with US law and does not violate international law is just blatantly incorrect. ~~ ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well no, my point was that they don't actually make that case, you're elipses are carrying a bit of a load in that reading. They are very careful to add modifiers such as "if true" and "various accounts" and "some told us." Those are not assertions in Amnesty International's voice, they are allegations that have not been adjudicated. But your edit takes them as fact, something the source does not. That they aren't fact, but allegations makes them WP:UNDUE.

  The paragraph is taking a single report and making it seem like a long standing, systematic issue, something the source does not do.

  Sorry, there isn't consensus to add this and I don't see that changing without a much larger source set. Squatch347 (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]