User:Eperoton/sandbox3

Criticism in country article leads
I don't normally edit country articles, but I noticed that the treatment of criticism in the lead is rather inconsistent. At a glance, it seems to reflect page-specific consensus (or lack thereof) rather than any systematic POV. This is fine in principle, except for the following concerns:

1) The phrase "any prominent controversies" in WP:LEAD gives little concrete guidance about how to measure prominence for subject like a country. Does criticism by human rights organizations create a "prominent controversy" in itself? Should prominence be measured by how often the criticism comes up in the news coverage of the country? international or only English-language press? all RSs on the contemporary politics of the country? Is frequently mentioned corruption an admissible type of "prominent controversy"? How about criticism of foreign policy, economic policy, stance on climate change, etc?

2) Country articles are a prominent feature of WP and there's a fairly standard set of issues that "countries" tend to be criticized for, so there is potential of coming up with some WP-wide points of consensus.

I wanted to start a discussion here to see if there's a potential RfC or two that could go somewhere. Here are a few examples I gathered:


 * China: no criticism
 * Cuba: no criticism
 * Iran: Organizations including Amnesty International[39][40] and Human Rights Watch[41] have strongly criticized Iran's women's rights record.
 * Israel: no criticism, unless you count the use of the word "occupied"
 * Myanmar: There is, however, continuing criticism of the government's treatment of ethnic minorities, its response to the ethnic insurgency, and religious clashes.
 * North Korea: several passages
 * Pakistan: no criticism, unless you count "challenging problems"
 * Russia: While many reforms made during the Putin presidency have been generally criticized by Western nations as undemocratic...
 * Saudi Arabia: The state has attracted criticism for a multitude of reasons including but not limited to: its archaic treatment of women, its excessive and often extrajudicial use of capital punishment, state-sponsored discrimination against religious minorities and atheists, its role in the Yemeni Civil War, sponsorship of Islamic terrorists, and its strict interpretation of Sharia Law
 * Tajikistan: has been criticised by a number of non-governmental organizations for authoritarian leadership, lack of religious freedom, corruption and widespread violations of human rights.
 * Turkmenistan: ''According to Human Rights Watch, ""Turkmenistan remains one of the world’s most repressive countries. The country is virtually closed to independent scrutiny, media and religious freedoms are subject to draconian restrictions, and human rights defenders and other activists face the constant threat of government reprisal.
 * United States: no criticism
 * Venezuela: no criticism
 * Vietnam: no criticism (I'm including it here as an example of a country whose human rights record doesn't get much press coverage, though according to HRW it "remains dire in all areas.")