Talk:Human rights in the People's Republic of China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for Human rights in the People's Republic of China:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Resolve issues described HERE

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human rights in the People's Republic of China article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

WikiProject China     (Rated B-Class) This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (see comments) More information about this article... Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale. WikiProject Human rights (Rated B-Class) This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Project page, where you can join the Project and contribute to the discussion. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. High This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.

Human rights in the People's Republic of China has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents 1 Thank you 2 Response to Counterarguments needs some work. 3 Insertions by Cookie888 4 Regarding the intro 5 Onesource flag on Complaints of "apartheid" toward Tibetans 6 Blanking is vandalism 7 Elections 8 Internet censorship investigation? 9 Darfur 10 Change article name 11 unsourced statement 12 Organization of article- layout of topics 13 Capital Punishment (revisions) 14 Need facts on "Apartheid" toward Tibetans 15 This article sux 16 Re-jigged section 17 Article structure 18 Section on Darfur 19 Darfur does not belong here 20 Archive Talk Page 21 Religion and Careers 22 About POV tag and achieving NPOV 23 Seeking consensus on Darfur section 24 Section for Falun Gong 25 Edits by IP editor 26 International section

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for your reverts on the Human rights in the People's Republic of China. Obviously that you think that offering Dalai Lama's unsubstantiated view isn't biased or showing his glamorous picture isn't WP:COATRACK, while providing background information on him is. It must be entirely incomprehensible to think that showing that Dalai Lama's ties with CIA ^[1][2] and Nazis ^[3] would possibly hamper his credibility on human rights. After all he must be the nicest slave master in the world. One must be dying to get his bones picked out to make horns or cannibalized ^[4]. Those human skull and human skin on Tibetan artifacts (same reference) must be only from quality rotten corpses. You are right that Dalai Lama doesn't even come close to CIA and Nazis in torturing and killing, as evidenced by the torture chambers and equipments ^[5]. Where were the gas chambers and water boarding? Slaves have rights to be humanely eye gouged, or arms chopped. Thank you for pointing out that "allegations" is a trust worthy source while various books with photos etc are totally unreliable. After all, the 1959 failed coup, funded by CIA, didn't make Dalai Lama stating biased views. Thank for you for making Wikipedia a WP:POV place.

1. ^ Conboy, K.J. and Morrison, J. (2002). The CIA's secret war in Tibet. University Press of Kansas. 
2. ^ "World News Briefs; Dalai Lama Group Says It Got Money From C.I.A.", New York Times, October 2, 1998. 
3. ^ Hale, C. (2004). Himmler's Crusade: The True Story of the 1938 Nazi Expedition Into Tibet. Bantam Books. 
4. ^ Wright, A. R. (sep 1904). "Tibetan Drum and Trumpet". Folklore 15: 333-334. Folklore Enterprises, Ltd.. 
5. ^ Parenti, M. (2003). "Friendly feudalism: The Tibet myth". New Political Science 25: 579-590. Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group. 

Coconut99 99 (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Npov#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves

74.67.17.22 (talk) 05:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct. I did NOT say Dalai is evil etc, nor did I argue that Dalai's view shouldn't be quoted at all. I was arguing that the background information on him needed to be provided, if his allegations (WP:RUMOR) were to be used, and let readers to judge his WP:credibility. Otherwise, we would just go out and quote anybody, while ignoring the WP:FACT on Tibet. Coconut99 99 (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Counterarguments needs some work.

I'm not particularly knowledgeable on the subject, but the response to counterarguments has POV problems combined with no cited sources. Anyone know what the deal with that is? --DeviantCharles (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. I mean, what has graft got to do with the human rights problems listed above? No human rights problem here is even remotely related to corruption. As for the bit about "Little Emperors", it's appears to be an extended criticism about the One-Child Policy, and this would be more fitting in that particular article.--Alasdair 19:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• That section is very weird. I removed it. This section was inserted by a new user Mobystar. Not that I have anything against him or being new, but the insertion had little to do with human rights itself. For instance, what does divorce rate have anything to do with human rights? Having a reference on divorce rate doesn't help either. Coconut99 99 (talk) 05:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Insertions by Cookie888

I move the text inserted by Cookie888 (aka MobyStar) to this place. The content is questionable in terms of relevance with human rights. For two paragraphs, none of the citations are on the subject of human rights, but on corruption, divorce rate etc.

For the minor points such as legal issues and one-child policy, these has been addressed (or should be addressed) in earlier sections. Coconut99 99 (talk) 07:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (April 2008)

They insist that human rights abuses should be measured from both the perspective of the government and the people. They argued that in the West, the relatively minute abuses of human rights by governments are outweighed by the disturbing instability and the citizens own misuse of political power and the violation of human rights. However, China's own political system, despite it authoritarian control has failed to put the brakes on rampant personal misuse of political power. So much so that corruption is believed by many to be the leading challenge to China's development ^[1]

The social deterioration that China's says it is protecting for the common good and at the sacrifice of a the human rights of a few is also not supported by research. For example, in terms of social deterioration, corporate crime and graft have run rampant in China, where corporations prefer to conduct financial business in Hong Kong's safer, less corrupt legal system^[2], Furthermore personal relationships and bribery trump legal controls and judicial arbitration(see articles cited under Guanxi). On the non-commercial front families in China are also breaking down, obviating the claim that autonomous control can have positive familial reinforcement at the sacrifice of human rights. For example, divorce rates are rising, with a 20% increase from 2006 to 2007.^[3] In addition, authoritarian control has done much to destroy Asian values and culture (see the Cultural revolution). Further degradation is seen as a result of the One-child policy.

[edit] Regarding the intro

One of the original problem which I had with this page was that this page sounded very much degrading and feels POV. This is not to say there aren't issues, but rather the issues weren't presented in a neutral manner. The introduction was the primary cause of the problem. Many people seemed to agree it was very bad.

Rather than handing down the judgment, it is far better just to list the issues. This way, the page avoids taking sides on controversial policies such as capital punishment and one-child policy, and strictly listing them as a potential issue. For example, I am a firm supporter of both policies, but doesn't mean I don't recognize these two are human rights issues. But if this page makes the judgment on these two issues, it instantly becomes POV and a distraction of the other human rights issues. Coconut99 99 (talk) 10:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Onesource flag on Complaints of "apartheid" toward Tibetans

I put the onesource flag here because all the media / groups (and references) merely quote Dalai and his group without verifying the content. This effectively traces all the sources to a single one. Coconut99 99 (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the section quotes the Dalai Lama and makes it clear that this is an accusation coming from him. So it's not really a one-source issue, it's reporting what one notable individual has said. Yunfeng (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The section was not about Dalai, but about alleged "apartheid" in Tibet. His accusations were not substantiated, and there was no other source that verify his claim (others just quote him), and hence one source. Coconut99 99 (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That actually doesn't matter if we say "the Dalai Lama called it apartheid." If it's the reported speech of one person, of course it's single source. Yunfeng (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If the source is full of shit and can't be verified by a third party, then it's not encyclopedic, period. If I say the moon is made of cheese, you can quote me on it, but it doesn't mean my quote belongs in Wikipedia article Moon under a section titled "The Moon is Made of Cheese." --Naus (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with CoConut99's input on this. As I was reading this part of the article, I was looking to see if there were more articles about this and the only source of this claim are interviews with the Dalai Lama. My question is: How can the Dalai Lama know what is going on in Tibet when he is in exile? I'll try and look for other articles on the web but, as I said, I agree with this part being 'onesourced'. I think that if he's the only one who claims this then it should be explicitly stated in the article. --Madgirl 15 (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

He can know what's going on (as best as anyone can) if he has stories relayed to him. How do you know what's happening there? It is reported. The issue is who you trust. And the section already refers to it being coined by the Dalai Lama. John Smith's (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you say 'he knows what's going on as best as anyone can' is absolutely biased. It's not about who I trust or who I don't. It's the fact that for a section like this to be included in an article, it needs to have more than one source saying that "this or that" is happening. I'm not saying you shouldn't include the text because only the Dalai Lama says it, but it would look a lot more neutral, more accurate and plausible if there were sources, like news reports or any sort of article covering this issue without relying entirely on the Dalai Lama's version of the problem. Just my two cents on the issue.--Madgirl 15 (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I just verified the various sources it links and they all look fine to me. The statements it cites are in the article. Nothing seems to come from only one source. I even found an additional one. The only link that shows trouble is this one which, at least for me, shows up as a "page not found":

Goble, Paul. "China: Analysis From Washington -- A Breakthrough For Tibet", World Tibet Network News, Canada Tibet Committee, August 31, 2001.

The link can simply be removed and the article modified. I still agree that the section can be perceived as biased because it is actually the Dalai Lama the only one who claims this. Why instead of tagging, just edit the section, and make it clear that this issue is simply the Dalai Lama's view on the issue? Perhaps another source can eventually be found, maybe even one saying that the Dalai Lama is the only one who claims this.--Madgirl 15 (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The question here isn't about bias at all. Bias is a matter of presentation of facts, but this section doesn't have facts in the first place.

This section is about the alleged "apartheid", not about Dalai. Unfortunately, all the material came from a single source (other sources trace to Dalai or his organizations).

Additionally, the material / references contains no facts, but only claims / assertions. The problem is that the claims were unsubstantiated or independently verified (which by itself is a possible disputed fact flag). Coconut99 99 (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In many cases I'm not sure much can be independently verified when it comes to human rights. The more a regime attempts to control information the less able someone is to definitely say something happens.

As for a single source, I think the idea behind the Wikipedia policy/guideline is not to have one newspaper report something and then use it as a "fact" on an article. Even it is just the view of Tibetans and the Dalai Lama, if that has been reported on widely then those comments can be presented as such. We do not need the tag if the section shows that the view is an opinion of those people in question - if you don't believe me ask on the WP:CITE talk page. John Smith's (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

An unverified claim is an unverified claim. Just because it is difficult to verify doesn't mean it is okay to make up numbers or facts. The citations are accurate in quoting Dalai, doesn't mean the actual material is accurate. Particularly given the obvious POV of Dalai and his organizations, which are funded by the CIA. Again, this page is NOT about Dalai, but about the allegations. None of the citations actually provides any specific informations. It's like me saying Dalai is a devil and newspapers quote my saying. Doesn't mean Dalai is actually a devil. It only indicated that I made the statement, which has nothing to do with providing the actual proof that Dalai is a devil. Coconut99 99 (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You're moving away from the point of the tag. It is not to question whether something is "true", it is where an individual (or individuals) are concerned that something is being referenced as fact by a single source. That is not the case here if the article reflects that this is the view of just one party. If the Chinese government's view can be quoted here so can that of the Dalai Lama - but I don't see people trying to insert "one source" tags wherever the CCP throws its POV around.

And please do not use the "fact" that the Dalai Lama is currently funded by the CIA as an excuse for your views. That is an opinion, or a reference to the past - in either case not a fact about the present, or indeed relevant to whether the "one source" tag is appropriate. Now, as I said, if you have a problem with my interpretation of the tag feel free to raise it on the talk page it redirects to. Otherwise I think you should accept it being removed. John Smith's (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Just give me one FACT that is ON "apartheid" of Tibetans in this section. None. All quotes and statements. I wasn't even remotely questioning the media in this case. I was saying the sources has NOTHING to do with FACTS, they only proved Dalai made those statements. However, this section isn't about Dalai. All the quotes and statements originated from Dalai, that's all. Coconut99 99 (talk) 05:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you even understand what cultural apartherid is? It is an opinion of a situation. There is no "international committee on cultural apartheid" to verify any such claim. The fact Tibetans are prohibited from displaying pictures of the Dalai Lama is used as an example of repression in Tibet, yet the Chinese government will deny that. If there is such a prohibition, how can you decide between the two claims? John Smith's (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you even understand what apartheid is? There is no "cultural" in the title. Do you even understand verification is? If it is merely opinion and we could quote anyone, why not just quote me? Coconut99 99 (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. since this section is currently "missing", let's discuss it afterward. There are plenty of problems with your edits (like calling it invasion when Tibet has never officially break away from China. You don't invade your own territory). Coconut99 99 (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking is vandalism

121.15.134.202. Do not blank entire sections - that is vandalism. I have reverted you accordingly. If you are concerned about certain aspects, please raise the matter here on the talk page. John Smith's (talk) 09:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elections

How is the material Coconut added relevant to human rights? What exactly does having local level elections show?

Furthermore, what does the following article "prove"?

http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2007-06/19/content_6261024.htm

Xinhua is not a reliable source when it comes to human rights/freedom, as it is a carefully controlled media group. What it may say is not necessarily reflective of the whole - I think we need a more wide-reaching, English-language and independent source to affirm that "critics on specific policies and governance are becoming more prevalent." John Smith's (talk) 10:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the report listed above is a piece of factual information: that 70% percent of the community leaders are being directly elected. In this aspect, I think the credibility of the source of information should not be seriously questioned. No opinion from that article was cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.101.242.107 (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq by the US and its allies, I would have argued that empirically, democracy helps human rights, and this can be explained by the simple fact that the worst (internally) human rights abusing states are unpopular with their own people. Iraq and Afghanistan seem to present counterexamples to that view. However, it could be argued that elections in Iraq and Afghanistan are not free and fair, due to the violence in both countries, and therefore the original argument is not negated. I'm not sure if that argument holds water. In any case, I think many people would say that voting is a human right in itself.—greenrd (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Green, as I asked, what does having an election prove? I think there needs to be more development of it if it is going to stay. Great, so there is a local election. But if the candidates all have to be approved by the Police/Communist authorities, those elected can't overrule the decisions of local officials, etc is it an example of good human rights? Maybe it should be moved to the political section and developed further. John Smith's (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

John, you don't believe in Xinhua, I don't believe in any US government source (and Britain) either (as U.S. has shown in the past repeatedly trying to sabotage China's stability and uses it in trade agreements. Like Tibetan exiles even admitted paid and trained by CIA for their cold war tactics.). The difference between you and me is that I am not a sheep and believe in western media as is. While western media is pretty good at internal affairs in their country, foreign affairs are generally biased. Sometimes I wonder why you are so interested in this page and your motives.

The election material I quoted came from the Carter Center (established by Jimmy Carter, who may be incompetent as a US president, but he is a highly respectable person), which does monitoring of the village election. As for the relevancy, some sections in this page talked about political freedom. Of course, if you don't consider political freedom is part of the human rights, then remove it.

PS, Where exactly was the link you provided used? This page is not a political propaganda page, although it quotes some statements from politicians. If you can't read Chinese, let me summarize it for you. Basically it says that Web has become a place for people to express their political views, monitor corruptions, etc. It is good for the social stability because people have a way vent their angers. Although sometimes the language can be blunt, it is actually a good thing since the government can know the concern of its people. Some politicians also have found that blogs etc is a good way to communicate. Later on, this news criticizes that some politicians are still not used to the IT and still treats Web/blog/forum etc as a monster and attempt to control it. Contrary to the view that internet could destabilize the country, internet is good for the government as it provides way to dialog. It can eliminates issues that could turn little things into bigger matters when all they needed are communications. The government should learn to adjust with IT, and be more transparent. The main guy this news mostly quoted a professor at the central CCP political science school. Coconut99 99 (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Xinhua is an issue because it is a government source - it shouldn't be treated like fact. That sounds like an opinion piece, not something verifiable. I would prefer it was removed. It's ok to mention government opinion if it does that. Try to pass off State media as something else is not a good idea.

As for the elections, I didn't say the source was lying or whatever. Politics is mentioned on this page but I don't see anything on elections themselves. So you need to develop the point, as currently it has no relevance to human rights. And if you suggest someone remove something it is a good idea to say you will accept the removal. John Smith's (talk) 06:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

John, if Xinhua source cannot be used, plz go through the entire page and remove ALL things mentioned by the United States, UK etc government first. Of course, that would include any government funded groups and studies. The standard should be applied to all government sources. I am very stubborn on this no double standards thing. Besides, all facts should be taken with a grain of salt. If you ever did any research, you would understand what I mean. In this case, if you look at the article, it is stating the fact that internet has opened up a way for people to express their opinions. You may not believe CCP wants to open up the internet or the sincerity of the CCP government in terms of having more transparent government etc, but doesn't mean the fact got twisted.

And, do not take my words out of context. Please note the IF part. Coconut99 99 (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Coconut, the Xinhua source asserts a fact. The page does not say "the Chinese government argues that......." I am not saying it has to be removed, I am saying it is not sufficient evidence to be used to assert a fact in this way. It is opinion. Similarly I do not expect any sources from the US government (are there any from the UK government?) to assert something as an undeniable fact, unless it is non-controversial (e.g. the Tiananmen riots happened in Beijing). John Smith's (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

John, I couldn't find the link you mentioned in the page. So I have no clue on the text and link :( But it is always good to have more sources. Coconut99 99 (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Check citation 31. John Smith's (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that you sort-of have a case that the evidence is a bit weak, I removed that part and moved the political reform from the counter argument section to this place. Coconut99 99 (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Coconut, news in the United States does not come from the government. News in China does. That means that Chinese news about electoral reform in China, relevant though it may be to the state of democracy there, is highly suspect. The election paragraph right now does not add anything to the article, and it should either be removed or appended to note that all the candidates will be picked by the government. Yunfeng (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yunfeng, you need to get updated on how news work in the U.S. 1st, U.S. does have news censorship. 2nd, there are many ways to subtly coerce the compliance of the news media to the government's view. Ya, calling legitimate attacks on the U.S. military targets as terrorism. Consensus use of the word insurgents instead of freedom fighters or rebellions to describe Iraqis. Consensus use the term of "radical cleric" to describe al-Sadr. Ever noticed the role of the U.S. media in setting up the Iraqi Invasion? When the U.S. government set an eye on China to try to contain it, conveniently you get the Wen Ho Lee story. That "journalist" even won the Pulitzer Prize. The list can go on. 3rd, in case you didn't notice, most news produce verbatim words of the government. Essentially they are merely an outlet of the government and not much different from owing the media. In fact it is better (or worse depending on the perspective), since it gives a perception the news is neutral since the media isn't "owned" by the government. Why own the media when you can "interrupt this program and bring you the live coverage" of government's view? 4th, different opinions do get put down, you just didn't notice it.

Also remind you one thing, I grew up in China and know what propaganda is. To me, there wasn't any less propaganda in the U.S. than in China, if not more. I would suggest you to read some insightful writings by Noam Chomsky and his book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media.

Here is a video proof of deliberate manipulation by western media: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSQnK5FcKas . If you still believe the western media is neutral, think again. Free? ya, free to lie.

Besides, the quote on village election was from the Carter Center web page, which was established by Jimmy Carter. Coconut99 99 (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Coconut, a youtube video means absolutely nothing. And all media make mistakes - that they make them is not proof of manipulation.

Furthermore I think you're bringing up somewhat irrelevant examples. No one is saying the US media is perfect, but you see direct criticism of the Bush administration there amongst other things. You do not find that in the Chinese media in regards to the Chinese government - the most you would see is generic criticism of corrupt, local politicians or gentle urging of more senior politicians to keep poor people in mind. You cannot compare the way the US media describes armed combatants/clerics/etc with the sort of media manipulation that goes on in China. Be honest about this. John Smith's (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

lol, it's okay to smear another country and then after getting caught say oops sorry, a minor mistake. Of course, you and your country were not the victims so you don't care. Now you were saying that I was criticizing the Bush administration when all I did was citing examples of the choice of words used in the media. Let me again remind you the Wen Ho Lee story by Jeff Gerth was a complete B.S. and he won the Pulitzer Prize. That tells you how great the western media really is. Minor mistake too? Wen Ho Lee has suffered tremendously from this smearing, discriminatory treatment, harassments and imprisonments etc by the U.S. government.

Here is a good link with detailed list of manipulations by the western media on the recent Olympic Torch relay: http://www.anti-cnn.com . The list of media includes CNN, Fox News, Washington Post, Times (UK), UK BBC, a number of German TV/news, etc.

And talk about corruption, what about Halliburton, Blackwater Worldwide, Fife Symington III, Tom DeLay, Monetary influence of Jack Abramoff? Tell me about it! Corruption is a problem for every single country. Chinese news media does publish matters on these. But I guess you can't read Chinese and just dream up some "facts".

John, every time when I argue, I list facts and facts. And you? List none. Coconut99 99 (talk) 04:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a debate, and I would say that any "facts" you list are not proof of a wider bias amongst all of the non-Chinese media. Furthermore I have repeatedly stated a very simple fact that you have ignored - criticism of one's own central governments and their leaders. You get that all the time in the US, UK, Europe, etc but hardly ever in the Chinese media. Please stop misrepresenting matters between us - that is not mature.

anti-cnn.com is far from an honest representation of all of CNN's reporting, let alone the entire non-Chinese media. Read the following from Roland Soong:

Having discussed some of the details, I would like to step back and look at the big picture: A SMALL NUMBER OF SELECTED EXAMPLES ARE PRESENTED AND THIS IS SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT THE TRUE FACE OF WESTERN MEDIA AS A WHOLE.
First of all, this is a small number of examples that were screened and selected for good reason. So they represent the worst of the worst. Let me stipulate that THIS CANNOT REPRESENT THE TRUE FACE OF WESTERN MEDIA AS A WHOLE. Therefore I respectfully decline to pronounce judgment on the western media as whole on the basis of these selected examples alone. Somewhere out there, there are very good (and also very bad) western media not included within this set.

This guy criticises media (either inside China or out) for misreporting, so he is hardly the sort of person to make excuses for the non-Chinese media.

As for examples of corruption outside China, what is your point? This article isn't about corruption in China, it's about human rights in China. There is a difference. Corruption can often be explained away as the actions of an individual, whereas human rights violations are more usually down to the system itself. Don't try to fudge matters, please. John Smith's (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

John, here comes your tactics again, evading the original point. We were talking about the trustworthiness of the western media, comparing to the Xinhua, weren't we? Also you uses the same tactic attacking the person compiling the list, rather than facts he presented. Coconut99 99 (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You're the one evading, not me. I've made the point about comparing the two media on political criticism which you have still ignored. And of course I am going to criticise you for bringing up issues that do not support your point. You say that the non-Chinese media is flawed/biased/whatever and cite something like anti-cnn.com. I produce a widely respected blog that is not-pro US that still indicates you can't make generalisations based on what has happened. You do know who Roland Soong is, right? John Smith's (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What does his OPINION prove? Nothing. It's like the often cited thing that Newton was a believer of God, a usual tactics employed in arguing against evolution. In fact, he agreed that the evidences were there. A VERY SMALL SAMPLE and WORST OF THE WORST indeed when this sample includes prominent sources like CNN, Fox News, Washington Post, Times (UK), BBC, etc. These influential media get their materials broad casted / printed on other TV's and newspapers a lot. Tell me that reporters didn't know where the images / videos came from. Well in that case, those agencies' capabilities of doing any journalism are in question.

I've never said that the Chinese media wasn't biased. And you kept ignoring the argument that western media was no better. I've proved my points. In fact, who are responsible for all these "mistakes" of western media? This is the "beauty" of the western media (ps, not just US media), you couldn't pin the blame and they are free to lie. Coconut99 99 (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's good opinion and establishes the point that critics are nit-picking. And the non-Chinese media is a lot better than the Chinese media. Again, explain why the Chinese media is so reserved in its criticism of its national government and leaders when foreign media regularly criticises their own. You can't, because the only explanation is that the foreign media is a lot less likely to do what their governments say than the Chinese media. You have proved nothing, only recycled complaints that do not demonstrate any universal bias. Really you're not being credible. I don't know, maybe this is because you're angry about China being embarrassed over the Torch protests and unrest in Tibet, because previously Chinese believed the world would universally celebrate the Torch relay and that all Tibetans were happy - recent events have proved otherwise. Is it that the foreign media is a good whipping boy to distract away from your disappointment at what has happened? Now be fair. Whilst the foreign media may have given more focus to the pro-Tibetan side, they also detailed what happened to Chinese in Tibet and didn't cover up when pro-Tibetans caused trouble. On the other hand the Chinese media was totally one sided and biased. You don't need a website to establish that. John Smith's (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Man, you just don't talk in any sense. I am tired your blindness (I promise, this is my last reply for this section). The Chinese government and Chinese people are NOT embarrassed but outraged with the western media reports. How do you think when NOT A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCES was presented, western media accused the Chinese government of killing Tibetans without verifying the claims, and with so many videos / images western media used that were either doctored or using footages from a different country. There were lots of foreigners in Tibet when the riot happened, NOT A SINGLE image / video of Chinese police killing Tibetans, but there were plenty of footage of Tibetan rioters hurting non-Tibetan Chinese. The western media were not even biased in this case (biased is a too nice of a word to describe such actions), they were slandering the PRC government. The simple fact that Chinese students overseas who get their news from multiple sources support the Chinese government is very telling. Just compare it with 1989, when the cause of the students received tremendous support from oversea Chinese community. This event (among others) has legitimated the PRC claim that the western media is irresponsible and only serves foreign interests. Coconut99 99 (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If the Chinese government kicks foreign journalists out of China and then they hear from exile groups that people have died, they are not likely to trust the Chinese government especially given how they've been pushed around by the Chinese authorities in the past. If the Chinese government wanted balanced media coverage it should have not tried to shut the region down.

Yes, compare it with 1989 when the victims were.... oh, yes, Chinese. But when it's ethnic minorities being abused, hey it's their fault. Four legs good, two legs bad..... John Smith's (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

And again for good measure, I note that you are silent on respective media criticism of their governments - that the Chinese media will never criticise Hu Jintao or call for a change of administration, whilst the foreign media can and does do that towards their own leaders. I suppose by your silence that you concede that and prove my point. John Smith's (talk) 10:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Internet censorship investigation?

I'm reading and writing this from Guangdong province, China, so I'm not sure if the censorship rules have changed lately or what. I think that warrants investigation, but I don't know how better to test it. --218.17.223.57 (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

They have. It was in the news recently. I understand the English Wikipedia is unblocked but the Chinese-language Wikipedia is still blocked. Allegedly this was due to pressure from the IOC.—greenrd (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Darfur

There should be some discussion of China's culpability in the Darfur genocide. I will work on it when I'm able. Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If Darfur is part of China, sure. But it is not and should be restricted to the Darfur's own human rights page. If there isn't one, go create one.

Also, I would caution you from making a judgment (blaming China in this case). 1st it is against the Wikipedia policy (since that would be WP:OR). You can cite western media blames (biased in this case), that's all. 2nd, it is a complicated issue. Good intentions can do bad deeds. For instance, embargo for Iraqi ultimately only made common Iraqi people suffer. 3rd, interfering another country's internal affair is a bully action that alienates not just people being affected, but also bystanders who closely watch such action. Maybe the U.S. is so used to it, but Chinese government respects the sovereign rights of other countries and mainly focuses on doing businesses with them.

Coconut99 99 (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You make a valid point that Darfur is not actually "in" China per the title. However, I think the topic is very relevant to China's human rights record and might be included anyway. As for your other comments, those also are valid points that should be included if and when content is added. Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are sincerely interested in the Darfur issue, and serious about making contributions, you need to put it in the appropriate page, but not this page. Otherwise, it's a waste of your time doing the research, and waste of my time removing it. It takes much less efforts to do it the right way than wrestling with me over the "appropriateness" of the material. Besides, the space here is not enough to discuss the Darfur issue in any depth and can easily lead to shallow understandings and misinterpretations. Coconut99 99 (talk) 06:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Change article name

I propose that this article be renamed as Human rights and the People's Republic of China. The word "in" restricts the article to only internal affairs, which I am sure was not the intent. The intent of this article is to cover the entire human rights record of China. And certainly China has been criticized for external human rights activities - their connections with the Darfur crisis and the oppressive Burmese government. This style of naming is also used in Human rights and the United States. Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, such issues as China's influences on Darfur still relate to the doings of the Chinese government, which is in the PRC. The external human rights affairs related to China are still tied into what goes on inside the PRC itself. DY (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I like that interpretation. Does anyone disagree? Otherwise, I will start adding content of this type. Thanks! Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I simply don't see how Darfur situation has anything to do with the PRC government. Also, the United States human rights page is the only one with 'and'. Coconut99 99 (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the article is named Human rights in the United States. Human rights and the United States simply redirects into 'Human rights in the United States'. So I see no point in changing the title.--Madgirl 15 (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the US article was just renamed. According to the editor who renamed that article, "all human rights related articles follow the format 'Human rights in X country'." I think this naming convention should not be interpreted as limiting the subject, though. For example, the US article still has material on Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse and Extraordinary rendition.

Thus, I believe the subject of this article ought to be China's entire record related to human rights. Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the article China's entire record of related to human rights? I think it is. It could be argued that perhaps it does not include every aspect of it as of yet. All human rights articles simply follow a certain format. It does not mean that the subjects are limited at all.--Madgirl 15 (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Abu Ghraib was literally run by the U.S. As far as I can see, the only involvement the PRC government with Sudan was pure business. It's like questioning the U.S. etc for doing business (including arms sale and oil) with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia for their human rights abuses. Like I said, you are wasting time wrestling this "appropriateness" with me, when there is already a more appropriate place for the material. I just don't see why you can't go to Human rights in Sudan and enter your content there. War in Darfur also mentioned Chinese role in detail. Coconut99 99 (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why the article name needs to be changed. Seems fine to me. John Smith's (talk) 06:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses! I am no longer supporting a name change. The name is simply part of a naming convention, and is not limiting the article's scope. For anyone who was confused by my suggestion, see the previous section.

I also agree with the comment that Darfur is less important to this article because China is only indirectly involved. It may still merit a quick mention, though. Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 08:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] unsourced statement

...it is widely believed by citizens and foreigners alike that Chinese Socialism died with Mao.

A source please?

Good point. Added the citation request tag. That sentence was weird and really should be removed. This page isn't about economics. Coconut99 99 (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with it being removed. The section is about religious freedom, not about politics. At least I don't believe that religious freedom is relevant with the fact of whether or not 'Chinese Socialism died with Mao'. Anyone disagree?--Madgirl 15 (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know when that got in there. No point waiting for a source, that sort of thing needs to be removed on sight. John Smith's (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Organization of article- layout of topics

After doing a quick sweep of other human rights articles, I believe that this article is in need of some organization. I've proposed a layout:

Civil liberties
-freedom of speech
-freedom of movement
-religious freedom
-political freedom
-Other human rights issues (privacy)

Discrimination
-ethnic minorities
-Treatment of rural workers
-"Pass System" treatment of migrant workers

Legislation
-one-child policy
-capital punishment
-legal system
-Counterarguments (reform)
-Special administrative regions (result of one country, two systems policy)

Other human rights issues
-Organ harvesting and extra-judicial execution
-Other human rights issues (Korea)
-Other human rights issues (torture and intimidation)

International
-Protection from the United States government

Other ways to improve the article would be to add a section about history of human rights in China which is something I noticed included in a couple of other articles about human rights but this one lacks and would be quite appropriate.

The introduction sentence seems to need some work. As for the quote for example, while it fits very well in the introduction, I believe it should be placed within the introduction rather than at the beginning of the article.--Madgirl 15 (talk) 06:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

In terms of layout, be aware of using too many sub-sections. FA promotions generally discourage the use of them.

I suggest you make a sandbox and try to impliment your changes there. Then we can sort something out. John Smith's (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That layout looks really good! Thanks, this article needs it. I would just suggest including Religious freedom under Discrimination. Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't include Religious freedom in Discrimination is because religious freedom is a civil liberty even though discrimination may be present. I'm not sure how to do the sandbox thing here but this is as best as I could lay it out. I included the title of each section and where I suggest it could go:

1 The Legal System
2 Civil Liberties
2.1 Freedom of speech
2.2 Freedom of movement
2.3 Religious freedom
2.4 Political Freedom
3 Legislation
3.1 One-Child Policy
3.2 Capital punishment
4 Discrimination
4.1 Ethnic minorities
4.2 Tibet
4.3 Treatment of rural workers
4.4 "Pass System" treatment of migrant workers
5 Other human rights issues
5.1 Falun Gong
5.2 Organ harvesting and extrajudicial execution
5.3 Worker's rights and privacy
6 Counterarguments
6.1 Reform
7 Protection from the United States government
8 Further reading
9 Notes
10 References
11 See also
12 External links

--Madgirl 15 (talk) 05:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have seen no responses on this issue for quite a few days. Does anyone have any comments or suggestions for it? Please add them below. Otherwise, I will proceed to rearrange the page so that it is more organized. --Madgirl 15 (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Capital Punishment (revisions)

With hopes to improve the content of the article, I propose a revision of the Capital Punishment section. Changes are mostly made in the third paragraph.

Between 1994 and 1999, according to the United Nations Secretary-General, China, which has the world's largest population of 1.3 billion people, was ranked seventh in executions per capita, behind Singapore, Saudi Arabia, Belarus, Sierra Leone, Kyrgyzstan, and Jordan.^[4] Amnesty International claims that official figures are much smaller than the real number, stating that in China the statistics are considered State secrets. Amnesty stated that according to various reports, in 2005 3,400 people were executed. In March of that year, a senior member of the National People's Congress announced that China executes around 10,000 people per year.^[5]

A total of 68 crimes are punishable by death; capital offenses include non-violent, white-collar crimes such as embezzlement and tax fraud. The inconsistent and sometimes corrupt nature of the legal system in mainland China bring into question the fair application of capital punishment there.^[6]

Amnesty International reports state that, in recent years, China has had the highest number of executions than any other country. In 2005, it lead the list with 1,770 people executed.^[7]. Figures from 2006 and 2007 are reported to have been 1,010 and 470 executions, respectively.^[8][9][10] In January 2007, China's state media announced that all death penalty cases will be reviewed by the Supreme People's Court. Since 1983, China's highest court did not review all cases. This marks a return to China's pre-1983 policy.^[11] In light of these changes, figures from 2007 display a substantial reduction in executions with only 470 reported executions compared with figures from previous years. However, Amnesty International analysts argue that this drop is only temporary since the figure includes only confirmed executions.^[12]

--Madgirl 15 (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you use the following instead:

According to the United Nations Secretary-General, between 1994 and 1999 China was ranked seventh in executions per capita, behind Singapore, Saudi Arabia, Belarus, Sierra Leone, Kyrgyzstan, and Jordan. Amnesty International claims that official figures are much smaller than the real number, stating that in China the statistics are considered State secrets. Amnesty stated that according to various reports, in 2005 3,400 people were executed. In March of that year, a senior member of the National People's Congress announced that China executes around 10,000 people per year.[5]

A total of 68 crimes are punishable by death; capital offenses include non-violent, white-collar crimes such as embezzlement and tax fraud. The inconsistent and sometimes corrupt nature of the legal system in mainland China bring into question the fair application of capital punishment there.[6]

Amnesty International reports that, in recent years, China has had the highest number of executions than any other country. In 2005, it lead the list with 1,770 people executed.[7]. Figures from 2006 and 2007 are reported to have been 1,010 and 470 executions, respectively.[8][9][10] In January 2007, China's state media announced that all death penalty cases will be reviewed by the Supreme People's Court. Since 1983, China's highest court did not review all cases. This marks a return to China's pre-1983 policy.[11] In light of these changes, figures from 2007 display a substantial reduction in executions with only 470 reported executions compared with figures from previous years. However, Amnesty International analysts argue that this drop is only temporary since the figure includes only confirmed executions.

Reads better in my opinion. I'm not sure why we need to state China's population in regards to per capita deaths. But I would like to see some updated sources - leading with data from a decade ago isn't sufficient in my view. Maybe you could look into that? A cosmetic change is helpful, but the material is getting older - I think more information is needed on more recent per capita rankings. John Smith's (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not add that part so I'm not sure why it was there. I merely added some information mostly in the last paragraph. Perhaps it's there in regards to China's population being larger than those other countries? I'll also try and look into older data, but its improbable that I'll find anything concrete since the controversy in itself lies in the fact of how China records its executions. Its a pretty big country at any rate. I'll add the edits to the article then.--Madgirl 15 (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need facts on "Apartheid" toward Tibetans

To resolve the disputed flag on "Apartheid" toward Tibetans, please list plain facts in this section. Only verified facts. You can argue under a specific "fact". Note, the fact must be directly on the subject of "apartheid". Coconut99 99 (talk) 05:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The Canada Tibet Committee, a manifest from Tibet Vigil, a UK based group, two articles from BBC and another from the Heritage Foundation all mention the Dalai Lama as the one claiming the apartheir and a Jampal Chosang as the head of a Tibetan coalition. All these, I think, are included in article.

There is also this article which shows a different perspective on the issue of a student newspaper from Emory University. http://www.emorywheel.com/detail.php?n=25294

Other websites also make mention of apartheid in Tibet in an article of some sort but never actually explain it or provide any citations of texts or otherwise to back their statements up. I talk about sites such as the International Campaign For Tibet, The Government of Tibet in Exile and Students For A Free Tibet. The more reliable source could be the International Campaign For Tibet, but the document I browsed spoke of racial discrimination, not apartheid.

In my view, the issue should not be labeled "apartheid". As far as the word goes, it refers to an event that happened in South Africa. It was a sort of legal racial segregation system openly enforced by the government. No one has actually seen anything at all that says that the Chinese government does this. The Chinese government actually openly enforces the opposite (see http://www.china.org.cn/e-white/tibet/ or http://www.tibetinfor.com.cn/tibetzt/tibet50-en/index.htm) . So how it can be stated as "apartheid" in the article if the government doesn't enforce it but only some people claim that it happens?

If no sources can be found, then I believe discrimination is much more appropiate (I believe that perhaps more information and reliable sources might come up if the section is expanded in this direction). As for the several quotations in the section, I believe they are unneeded as long as you state the fact that the Dalai Lama says Tibetians struggle against apartheid and place the several sources that corroborate that he has said it. Seems quite neutral. Does anyone disgree?--Madgirl 15 (talk) 07:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article sux

This article is a piece of crap and needs to be completely rewritten. But we all know Wikipedia is for looking up Pokemon characters and not serious subjects. --Catch you (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Care to be more specific? Do you have any constructive criticisms to make?—greenrd (talk) 09:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is a pile of droppings accumulated from random people over the years. It needs to be organized into a comprehensive overview without undue weight given to any one area. I think Madgirl 15 (talk · contribs) is on the right track. Unfortunately I am not an expert in the subject so I cannot help.

I am quite serious that this is the kind of article Wikipedia cannot handle. Articles covering broad subjects require both broad knowledge and good judgement about which details to include, which is pretty rare. --Catch you (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because you are not an expert on the subject, does not mean you cannot edit an article. I'm only a Wikipedia reader that has taken an interest in this article. I'm no expert. In my opinion, this should be an article anyone can edit, but since it's been tagged with not being neutral and it is of course a controversial topic, then consensus needs to be made here in the talk page before the article is edited. Unfortunately, many do not dare to edit this because its a delicate subject that needs to be carefully handled. There are several people who constantly comment on this talk page and try to contribute as best they can to the article. If you want to join in, feel free. Of course you may or may not be asked for reliable sources to back statements up, among many other things. If your additions, revisions, etc. are denied or no consensus is reached, simply try, try again. That's what one has to do if we really want this article to improve.--Madgirl 15 (talk) 05:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re-jigged section

I've reworded the title of the Tibet section simply because the title was too tightly focused. I don't think that views should be censored on cultural apartheid, but there are other issues as well on Tibet that should be addressed in the same section, so I've made it a full section rather than just a sub-section.

The original wording was wrong - the PRC couldn't have reclaimed Tibet because it was never a part of the PRC prior to that. As for the tags, they're no-longer appropriate. "One source" is where a single source is quoted that something happened - e.g. that the Dalai Lama said something. We know he made these comments so we need to move on. Again, "totally disputed" is used where the text itself is disputed - again the people quoted did say what they did. If you don't agree with what they said, editors are free to find some official rejoinders, etc.

However the section needs expansion as at the moment it is limited to cultural apartheid, even if other issues are raised as to why the term is used. John Smith's (talk) 09:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the section needs expansion. Rather, this off topic section needs elimination. Racism in the People's Republic of China is where it belongs. Focusing on a subtopic of a sub topic is off topic writing, pushes the article off balance and promotes POV.--Skyfiler (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Erm, why did you do that? It isn't racism, it's a breach of their human rights. Are you telling me that killing over a million Tibetans (in theory) would be racism? Can you put it back please and we can adjust it where necessary. And clearly Tibet is not a sub-topic of a sub-topic - the amount of attention it gets and indeed China itself puts on it shows that it is worthy of discussion. John Smith's (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Your attitude is exactly described in Wikipedia:Recentism. I am aware about the attention toward the Tibet. But your evidence is disputable (see Contemporary Tibet: Politics, Development, and Society in a Disputed Page 239) and should not be used as facts to justify a direct relationship. Besides your adding "their" human rights means the your accusation is not ubiquitous but seems to be focused on an ethic group. That adds a middle man "an ethic group" into your logic and your undue_weight on this ethic group means other ethic groups, who suffered a greater population loss are ignored. To balance your addition probably means including whole Racism in the People's Republic of China article but that means including other human rights subtopics become necessary. And that is against Wikipedia's content forking.--Skyfiler (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It has got nothing to do with "recentism" - the subject has been around for decades. There has been more attention on it recently, but Tibet has always been one of the most well-known human rights issues regarding China.

If you had carefully read my post you would have seen that I said "in theory" - I was not saying that 1 million have certainly died. But just because that point is disputed does not mean that it cannot be included as an opinion. The section did not say 1 million had died, it had a quotation from the Heritage Foundation.

Your argument about the topic having undue weight is ludicrous if international opinion from leading governments is brought to China on it as a result of things that go on there. I don't see the logic in your arguments at all. You can't censor an entire topic. John Smith's (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said, just because something is important does not mean its relationship is significant to any topic. Anytime you add a middle man in the relationship chain the significance is weakened. For example, to link a death toll to unequal social and economic status, you need to prove other people in the same condition survived better. According to the Great Chinese Famine article, in the nearby Sichuan province, the government reported 11 million deaths during 1958-1961. That's one out of 6. So how significant is the unequal social and economic status?

This is just my original research, but the material you put together does not convince me how significant China's Human Rights is related to Tibetans' social and economic status. The sources you cited do not explicitly state that Tibetans' human right record is much worse than ethic groups and human rights that deserves emphasizing in a much broader topic. If you want to prove it is significant, find a reliable source that emphasizes Tibet in such a broad context. From what I see, the point you tried to advance is either under economic, cultural and social rights section and in an ethic minorities subsection on par with the women, the immigrants, the old and the disabled, or in the religious freedom section on par with other religious groups.--Skyfiler (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand this middle man argument. All material is added by a "middle man" on this project. And what point are you trying to make on the Great Leap Forward famine? People died in a neighbouring province - so what?

I have not cited any sources - they were introduced by other parties. The problem I have is not that the material is all great, but that you removed the entire section without trying to get consensus on the matter and/or improve it. You're acting as if you have a right of veto. How will I know that you won't just spin out the same argument if I come up with other material? Are you suggesting that you cannot find a single source out there that would make a section on Tibet useful? If so then how can I find anything to meet with your approval? If not, how can I know that you will be happy with it? You're not really giving me a lot to go on. John Smith's (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, if your problem was having a separate section on Tibet because the information should be combined elsewhere, why did you remove it completely? John Smith's (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I moved to another article because I think it belongs to the article. I don't ask a consensus because I think I am following an official English Wikipedia policy, specifically Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, which I assume is a community consensus. You don't need my approval to do anything, just need take a look at the policy to see why I am not convinced of the section's place in this article. I am not saying the content is not noteworthy, what I am asking is a reliable source to prove the significance of the content in the context of the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyfiler (talk • contribs)

I think that you have a point. The "apartheid" of Tibet is not there (at least not a policy I could see). The book reference you provided made it perfectly clear that a lot of claims were simply made up. It also contradicts with the affirmative action policies mentioned earlier in the page. Then what's left are discriminations due to culture, which should go to the racism page. Coconut99 99 (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Apartheid does not need to be an official policy to exist. And if it contradicts affirmative action policies mentioned earlier in the page then that is a reason to include it as a contrast - I am not insisting that cultural apartheid have its own section which is why I renamed it to be part of a larger piece. John Smith's (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, do not change the spelling in someone else's post - it's not polite. And if you had looked at my profile you'd see I'm from the UK and thus don't spell like an American.

So you removed the material because of the policy? Is that because the material was against the policy, the idea of having a Tibet section was against the policy, or both? If the people that work on that page do not agree it was against policy will you restore it? John Smith's (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, for the spell checking. I will restore it if a reliable source is found to support your point.--Skyfiler (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not an answer. You made a specific point on policy, so I asked if you would restore it if there was no consensus on the policy talk page that it was not against policy. Again, I ask do you agree to that? You surely must if you are insisting policy allows you to remove an entire section without consensus. Also, again - is any section on Tibet against policy, is the material against policy, or both?

And what is a "reliable source" and what "point" are you alleging I am trying to make? John Smith's (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

My point is, a Tibet section should not outweigh other ethic groups, and the ethic equality section should not outweigh other human rights. If you think equality of Tibetans is dominant in human right talks, prove it using reliable sources. The Chinese government (at least the State Council's Information Office does not talk about the Tibetan ethic group in detail in its view of human rights[4], nor does CNN[5]. EU mostly talks about 1989[6]. I found one primary source, the Human Rights Watch's World Report 2007[7], does talk Tibet in great detail, so I won't object you restore the section anymore. You may find the report useful when adding material to the article.--Skyfiler (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much. I was only trying to get as far to say that a section was permissable - I wasn't insisting on a word-for-word restore, though I think a restore is necessary to start improving it. I will have a think about how to expand/improve, but if I don't have the time will simply restore at the weekend or something. John Smith's (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article structure

I think the current structure needs a lot of work on balancing and reorganization. I am proposing a structure of

• Overview
• Legislations and Treaties
  • Constitution
  • Treaties
• Equality
  • Gender
  • Age
  • Ethic Group
  • Place of Origin
  • Accused
    • Assumption of innocence
    • Capital punishment
• Freedom
  • Region
  • Expression
  • Gathering
  • Privacy
  • One-Child Policy
  • Labor
• Evaluation and response
  • Countries
    • China
    • USA
  • Organizations
    • UN
    • EU
    • Other human rights groups

And since the article limits the scope of the article. I think it needs to be renamed to "Human rights and the People's Republic of China" before the Darfur issue is mentioned here. --Skyfiler (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Not agreed. There is already another thread on this - you should not run a parallel proposal. John Smith's (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section on Darfur

I have reverted the edits made by 134.84.96.142. Firstly, new sections (ones dealing with controversial issues) should be first reviewed on the talk page and then added to the article if deemed appropriate. Secondly, although the edits are good intentioned, I believe that it should have a different layout. The Darfur article mentions China but does not have a single section mentioning "China" and I don't believe this one should either. It just doesn't look appropriate to have this section sorted out like this because it really seems singled out. Perhaps if other aspects of the article are first resolved, such as having one single International section (that does not divide each topic into different sections); this section should be drafted first and the Darfur section included afterwards in it. Also, the Save Darfur http://www.savedarfur.org page, and http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2004/0805africa_cohen.aspx and http://www2.nysun.com/article/54555 are not reliable sources in my opinion. The first is a site devoted entirely to the issue and the other two are more opinions rather than a report about it. Although these sources are do not make the statements less valid, since many other reliable ones were provided, the section should still be modified.

Regarding the Darfur-China issue, the connection between the two seems to be merely that the Sudanese government sells or has sold oil to China and China in turn has apparently sold an undisclosed amount of weapons and arms. The ones actually doing the criticizing seem to be critics of the Sudanese regime and/or Darfur activists (especially celebrities). So stating that China has faced "intense international criticism" seems quite exaggerated, at least from what I read in the articles provided. Perhaps simply stating that Darfur activists criticize China's actions (or non-actions) on Darfur would be more appropriate. Also the statement that reads "China has threatened to veto UN Security Council actions to combat the Darfur crisis" also seems exaggerated. I will say that I am not for or against this being added to the article. The issue is that for it to be added to the article it simply needs to be re-written.

I have included the section removed below.

China has faced intense international criticism for its supportive relationship with the government of Sudan, which is committing mass killings in Darfur.^[1][2] China is Sudan's largest economic partner, with a 40% share in their oil,^[3] and also sells Sudan small arms.^[4] China has threatened to veto UN Security Council actions to combat the Darfur crisis.^[5]

China has responded to these criticisms by arguing that, "As the Darfur issue is not an internal affair of China, nor was it caused by China, to link the two together is utterly unreasonable, irresponsible and unfair."^[6]

1. ^ [1]
2. ^ [2]
3. ^ [3]
4. ^ SINGAPORE The death penalty: A hidden toll of executions.
5. ^ Amnesty International's report on China.
6. ^ The Death Penalty in 2005.
7. ^ "China, Iran Lead In Executions In 2005" http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/04/e9e4f63e-6ff6-43ef-8468-14af5b2e86ac.html
8. ^ China leads world in executions, report finds.
9. ^ Report: China Leads World In Executions.
10. ^ China 'outstrips world' on executions.
11. ^ Jakes, Susan. China's Message on Executions. Time.com.
12. ^ "Death Penalty: World trend down but secrecy surrounds China execution figures- new report" http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17724

--Madgirl 15 (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, was it really so bad that it had to be removed from the article? Okay, well we can strike the word "intense" from the first sentence. And here are new sources in order: [8] [9] [10] Let me know if you need anything else.

Also, I did discuss this topic in the talk page earlier and consensus seemed to be, "Why would there be a problem with including that?" (excluding Coconut99 99) Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 07:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not say it was bad. I already stated the issues the section has above. I will look into these new sources and get back to you in a while. Also, I did read the earlier part and the only two people discussing the issue were you and Coconut99. As far as I see it, no consensus was reached between the two of you. I'm merely commenting on the section you added, which I do not think has been drafted appropriate to be placed on the article. Again, I will read these new articles and, if you want, even help you out with it. But to be clear, the articles I have read so far only mention critics and activists calling on China to do something about their relationship with Sudan, so this is why I said that the entire phrase "intense international criticism" was inappropriate.--Madgirl 15 (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the sources. The first two simply mentioned the fact that the Sudanese government purchases weapons from China and other countries and that China's oil revenues in Sudan. The last one I think is the most informative (Titled "The United Nations and Darfur" from the Human Rights Watch http://www.hrw.org/wr2k5/darfur/3.htm). I did read the entire article and the main statements in makes on China deal with a Resolution it did not support and along with a few other countries did not vote in support of this Resolution. It also adds that even if China had vetoed such Resolution, it is doubtful it would've passed. I will add a quote to that part below. Again, the section added doesn't really add much to the Human Right issue in China. Perhaps if one was to assume that a country could be held accountable for another countries crimes for doing business with them then sure; but then this would be more of an opinion. Not everyone thinks this way and but some do. Perhaps to reach a happy medium, what should be done is to state the fact that China has received some criticism from Darfur activists and as well pressure from them to do more on Sudan . Other than this, I don't see anyone else (at least to justify the phrase I mentioned before) directly criticizing China for their involvement in Sudan. Maybe more people should comment on this issue to see their outlook on the section. But this is 2 cents on this.--Madgirl 15 (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition, the veto power of the permanent members of the Security Council gives those five countries—the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China—a unique power to protect and promote their national interests at the expense of global interests. In the case of Darfur, the main impediment to stronger action by the Security Council has been China, which owns a 40 percent share of Sudan’s main oil producing field. At the council’s special November 2004 session in Nairobi, China, and possibly Russia, which is thought to be the main arms supplier to the Sudanese government, used the threat of a veto to pressure other members to water down Resolution 1574. But, as discussed below, even without the threat of a Chinese veto, it is doubtful that the council would have passed a resolution containing a serious threat of sanctions against Khartoum.

Feel free to reword the phrase "intense international criticism." I wasn't trying to imply that this is coming from governments. Perhaps "external criticism" or "criticism from human rights organizations" would be better. But notable criticism does exist, and it is coming from external places. (The sources should back that up.)

Also, the previous discussion I was referring to was about the article title, and whether it was appropriate to cover external topics such as Darfur. Here are some quotes (including one of your own):

• "The external human rights affairs related to China are still tied into what goes on inside the PRC itself."

• "All human rights articles simply follow a certain format. It does not mean that the subjects are limited at all."

Of course, this can certainly be discussed more. I should mention also that I do not wish to debate the validity of the Dafrur criticism here, only to report it.

Finally, do you have any concerns aside from the "intense international criticism" phrase? Thanks for helping improve this! Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I never argued that the section should not be included at all. Just not in the way it is written. Here is my suggestion for a section on Darfur for this article. Perhaps a link to the section of the "Criticism of international response"[11] in the Darfur article should be added.

Human rights advocates of the Darfur conflict and critics of the Sudanese government have criticized China for its oil ties to the Sudanese regime and its resistance to U.N. Security Council resolutions. They have also supported campaigns to pressure China against the selling small weapons to Sudan. The Chinese government, along with other organizations, have argued that China cannot be linked or be held accountable for the Darfur conflict.

The following can be included as references for the statements above [12], [13], [14], [15].--Madgirl 15 (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have updated my version per our discussion and posted it below. I think at this point perhaps we can get other people's opinions. Personally I feel your version makes it too vague ("oil ties" instead of the 40% figure, "resistance" in the UN instead of the veto threat, lack an argument in China's defense.)

See also: Darfur Conflict#Criticism of international response

Human rights organizations have criticized China for its supportive relationship with the government of Sudan, which is committing mass killings in Darfur.^[7][8] China is Sudan's largest economic partner, with a 40% share in their oil,^[9] and also sells Sudan small arms.^[10] China has threatened to veto UN Security Council actions to combat the Darfur crisis.^[11]

China has responded to these criticisms by arguing that, "As the Darfur issue is not an internal affair of China, nor was it caused by China, to link the two together is utterly unreasonable, irresponsible and unfair."^[12]

1. ^ [1]
2. ^ [2]
3. ^ [3]
4. ^ SINGAPORE The death penalty: A hidden toll of executions.
5. ^ Amnesty International's report on China.
6. ^ The Death Penalty in 2005.
7. ^ "China, Iran Lead In Executions In 2005" http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/04/e9e4f63e-6ff6-43ef-8468-14af5b2e86ac.html
8. ^ China leads world in executions, report finds.
9. ^ Report: China Leads World In Executions.
10. ^ China 'outstrips world' on executions.
11. ^ Jakes, Susan. China's Message on Executions. Time.com.
12. ^ "Death Penalty: World trend down but secrecy surrounds China execution figures- new report" http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17724

Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

On the first sentence, I wrote "oil ties" and "resistance" because that's what the articles also called it. I also specifically wrote Human rights advocates of the Darfur conflict and critics of the Sudanese government because they ARE the ones doing the criticism, not just all or any human rights organizations. Using "supportive relationship" doesn't seem impartial either. Saying that the Sudanese government is committing mass killings is also not quite complete since (according to the Darfur conflict article) the killings are not just by the government. So this is why stating Darfur conflict or Darfur crisis is much more clearer and people will know what is being referred to. Also, the sources which do not seem reliable are still cited. As I said before, the Save Darfur [16] page is a subjective site (like citing any articles in, for example, savetibet.com sites). The other two ([17] and [18]) are opinions rather than a reports about the situation. The website after the "China has threatened to veto UN Security Coincil actions to combat the Darfur crisis" statement does not say anything about China threatening to veto anything [19]. Also, I didn't opt for writing "China does this", "China sells that" to show more clearly what is being criticized. Those groups are criticizing this and that and are pressuring China to do that or this. I made the last sentence about China's response that way to include the point of view of two articles (one quoted an organization saying that China cannot be held accountable [20] and the other has the government directly stating what you wrote). As I said before, the trouble with this section is also that the way the article is set up at the moment makes it so that a new section will have to be opened since a complete international section does not yet exist. Adding a separately titled section on Darfur will make the issue isolated or singled out.--Madgirl 15 (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it's showing the old sources, I did enter the new ones... well, it's right in the code anyway. Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you bring up a number of issues so I will make a list:

• On the first sentence, I wrote "oil ties" and "resistance" because that's what the articles also called it. That's fine, but you should also include the 40% figure so it is somewhat specific.

• I also specifically wrote Human rights advocates of the Darfur conflict and critics of the Sudanese government because they ARE the ones doing the criticism, not just all or any human rights organizations. To me it seems more important when an organization make a criticism than when an individual does. Of course, this does not mean all organizations.

• Using "supportive relationship" doesn't seem impartial either. This phrase is explaining the criticism being made. The critics see the arms trade and the oil trade as a type of support.

• Saying that the Sudanese government is committing mass killings is also not quite complete since (according to the Darfur conflict article) the killings are not just by the government. It is completely accurate to say that the Sudanese government is responsible for mass killings. Of course there is more to the conflict than that, but this is not the place to explain it. The summary I use is supported by a source.

• I didn't opt for writing "China does this", "China sells that" to show more clearly what is being criticized. Those groups are criticizing this and that and are pressuring China to do that or this. The clearest way to show what is being criticized is to state it factually. If you want more information about the specific groups are making criticisms, you should add it.

• I made the last sentence about China's response that way to include the point of view of two articles (one quoted an organization saying that China cannot be held accountable [35] and the other has the government directly stating what you wrote). Your wording says, "China cannot be linked or be held accountable for the Darfur conflict". Mine explains WHY China can't be linked - not an internal affair, not caused by China.

• As I said before, the trouble with this section is also that the way the article is set up at the moment makes it so that a new section will have to be opened since a complete international section does not yet exist. Adding a separately titled section on Darfur will make the issue isolated or singled out. I see a section called "International" under which this would fit. And it is Wikipedia's job to cover notable issues, isolated or not.

Sorry that's so long, and please don't be offended by my usage of bold! Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 05:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well were not going to get anywhere because I really do think we need the input of more people on this issue rather than just the two of us. Perhaps the comment made by slashem below is a sign that the section should be posponed until we have others view on this section. However, two people (slashem and coconut99) have already disapproved it. I'm all for expanding the article, but I understand the point these two other users bring and this article is not really the place to bring up the Darfur conflict. Perhaps the time when this can be added is when a complete and appropriate international section can be drafted (right now it's some weird section on "protection from the US") and the criticism China has received on the Darfur issue can be added. Right now, I do not think the section merits a place in the article. At least not at the moment.--Madgirl 15 (talk) 05:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree that we need input on this from other people.

I think including this section would be a step towards a better "international" section... but remember that wikipedia is a work in progress, and only gradually can we expect a section to become "complete." Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Darfur does not belong here

This article is titled Human rights in the PRC and that is what it should talk about. The subject is already vast and it will be hard to keep it to a reasonable length. This is hypertext and read on a computer screen, articles should be short and link to each other. There is nothing wrong with creating a new article Criticism of Chinese response to Darfur and linking to it, and furthermore from the Darfur article and not from here.

Although this is an interesting subject and this information does need to be in Wikipedia somewhere it most emphatically does not belong here. In my opinion this entire discussion is misplaced. --slashem (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The article's title (and possibly altering it) was discussed above. Essentially, it is only part of a naming convention, and is does not limit the article's scope. This article is about China's entire human rights record.

I agree that the article is quite long, but this section is short and notable. I guess a separate article on the topic would also work, but it would be extremely short. Perhaps separating off the section about rural and migrant workers would have a greater impact if you're worried about length. Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

My response on this section is above.--Madgirl 15 (talk) 05:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Many Chinese believe that the U.S. is meddling in the internal affairs of other countries. From this perspective Darfur is not related. Apparently from the perspective of Western human rights organizations they are related. This then would be a difference of world-views and I don't know how to resolve it here. --slashem (talk) 07:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right that there is a significant controversy about whether Darfur is China's concern. I think the best way to deal with that is to simply address it in the text. My draft section sort of addresses the issue by including a Chinese counterargument, but more could be added to that.

Our standard to include material should be notability; and rightly or wrongly, this topic is notable. Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not dispute the notability of this topic. I explicitly stated that this material belongs on Wikipedia, just not here in this article. The choice of which topics go together in an article is not neutral, it is called "framing" and it is a very effective way to advance your POV. I think you are not thinking about how subtle propaganda can be, probably because in this case it suits your purpose. --slashem (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess article choice seemed obvious to me. I mean, the issue is about how China's actions affect human rights. But if you don't feel this is the right article, what article would be more appropriate?

(Also, I would be remiss not to point out that excluding relevant content can also be a form of POV.) Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct that the position I am advocating is also POV, which is why I said I don't know how to resolve it here.

I made some suggestions above. You seem to want to write an article framed by Western human rights advocates, which would mostly overlap with an article framed by the Chinese. You could try to write both articles in Wikipedia:Summary style (which should be done anyway) and link to shared daughter articles. However, some may object to this as a WP:POVFORK.

You could separate the Darfur material into a short article (again, short is an advantage for hypertext articles read on a computer) and leave a one-sentence note here that Western human rights advocates consider the issue related while the Chinese do not.

Wikipedia has the ideal that no one "owns" an article, but this approach has not been tried for writing an encyclopedia before. It is often impossible to resolve disputes when no one "owns" an article. Someone most make a decision and these decisions are usually yes or no. In fact all the best articles on Wikipedia have a de facto "owner" who has earned enough respect from other interested parties (if there are any) so that their decisions are accepted. General articles are harder to write because there tend to be many interested parties.

Since Madgirl 15 (talk · contribs) has taken the lead in rewriting this article I nominate her as the de facto "owner" of this article. I will abide by any decisions she makes. --slashem (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a tough issue. I think your idea to include a one-sentence note with a link to a separate article might be the best way to balance Chinese POV and Western POV. Madgirl 15, would you support that? Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure how that would work. I mean the Darfur article already includes all the information about the criticism China has received on the issue. Making a new article would seem sort of redundant. Maybe you could explain this a bit further? Is there an article you could point out that has this?--Madgirl 15 (talk) 07:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If all this information is already in Darfur, you can create a link to that specific section in that article instead of creating a new article. Although sometimes people accidentally break these links by renaming section headers, so it would help to leave a comment in Darfur that a link to that section exists. --slashem (talk) 10:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe something like this, under "international":

Western human rights organizations have criticized China for having a supportive relationship with the government of Sudan while it is committing mass killings in Darfur;^[13][14] however, China considers this criticism unfair because the conflict is "not an internal affair of China, nor was it caused by China".^[15]

See also: Darfur Conflict#Criticism of international response

Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds whiney to me. Surely China has made better comments like that. I think it could be longer as well. For example, specific issues have been made about China giving arms to Sudan, which critics have said were used against civilians in Darfur. John Smith's (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the most recent discussion? I would agree that this should be longer and more detailed (see the next box above that one), but for the sake of compromise I'm trying to limit it about one sentence. Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I think one sentence is too much of a compromise - it needs to be longer, otherwise it might as well not be there. Indeed that's a common tactic of people who want to veto something - reduce it to almost nothing and then remove it later when people aren't looking, in the hope that anyone watching the page won't mind the removal of a little text. John Smith's (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It has been suggested that this be part of the International section but that section is not quite there yet (Only what seems to me a very weird paragraph without sources called "Protection from the US"). Wouldn't adding the Darfur part now also isolate this specific issue without mentioning other types of criticism China has received on other issues?--Madgirl 15 (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It could be used to start a section on that. John Smith's (talk) 09:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a work in progress. Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archive Talk Page

Is it too early to request that someone archive this page? Many previous conversations conflicts that have already been solved dating as far back as 2005.--Madgirl 15 (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You can do it youself - no need to ask for permission. :) John Smith's (talk) 09:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I read the tutorial page on archiving, but I don't think I'm qualified to do it because I didn't quite understand every aspect of it. So that's why I asked. I'll look into it again and try to do it.--Madgirl 15 (talk) 04:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religion and Careers

"Another problem is that members of the Communist Party have to be atheists according to the Party's constitution. As Party membership is required for many high level careers, being openly religious can limit one's economic prospects."

Is this still true, or only for political positions within the government? I doubt high level careers in the corporate sector (especially with foreign companies) have to conform to the standards of the party - thus theoritically freeing their economic prospects within society. XRedcomet 09:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The CCP is based on a form of Marxist ideology (if that's the proper way to say it) and so you do have to be atheist to be a party member. Perhaps what's mostly wrong with these statements is their wording. First, wouldn't stating that it is a "problem" be biased since not everyone believes that having to be an atheist to join a political party is wrong? Also, it is irrelevant what your career is, joining the Communist Party in China is not required. The truth in this statement perhaps lies in that fact that most government officials or workers (or maybe even all of them?) are party members. Being openly religious can only affect you, if you are a party member due to the party's requirements. So yes... this is true in relation with individuals holding political positions but not those with high level careers. It should simply state: "For party members, being openly religious can limit one's economic prospects."--Madgirl 15 (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I edited this part and added sources; feel free to change it more. Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About POV tag and achieving NPOV

I noticed that the tag reads "nominated to be checked for its neutrality". After reviewing the past conversations about this, it was established that it was not neutral. Perhaps it can be labeled as such by using a "the neutrality of this article is disputed" tag instead of this nomination tag?

Also, I believe all the areas where there is a lack of NPOV need to be discussed and in the following weeks I am willing contribute to the article and review the issues related with POV in this section of the talk page. But before this is done, is there anyone actively working on editing or re-writing the article or sections of it to solve this problem or willing to?--Madgirl 15 (talk) 09:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is more accurate to say that some people complained of a lack of neutrality - to say "established" suggests that it was universally accepted (which I don't think it was).

I think that the check tag needs to be removed. If people want a tag about disputed neutrality it would help if they could list the issues clearly so everyone can be clear what needs to be worked on. Saying "it is biased against China" is not helpful, and some people will argue it is biased unless it becomes a propaganda piece for Beijing so such comments should not be taken too seriously.

I was not planning any major work on it. I can help with suggestions, but I might ask that someone else get things moving. You might want to create a sandbox that we can chip in with - it makes it easier when trying to improve text. John Smith's (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the major problem is people thinking it's biased for China. (^^;) 余^(姚七) 20:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have begun pointing out the problems I believe are present in the article HERE. I'm looking however to improve the article in itself rather than just keep pointing out the problem areas. Is anyone interested in co-editing the areas I've included in THAT page or has suggestions or comments?--Madgirl 15 (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice job with the list! I will try to work on these issues as I have time. Michael 207.69.137.24 (talk) 05:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Very good starting point. I'll look into it. 余^(姚七) 20:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seeking consensus on Darfur section

There has been some disagreement regarding how fully the criticisms of China's relationship with Sudan should be covered. Here are the main options; let's see if we can reach a decision.

Version A:

See also: Darfur Conflict#Criticism of international response

Human rights organizations have criticized China for its supportive relationship with the government of Sudan, which is committing mass killings in Darfur.^[16][17] China is Sudan's largest economic partner, with a 40% share in their oil,^[18] and also sells Sudan small arms.^[19] China has threatened to veto UN Security Council actions to combat the Darfur crisis.^[20]

China has responded to these criticisms by arguing that, "As the Darfur issue is not an internal affair of China, nor was it caused by China, to link the two together is utterly unreasonable, irresponsible and unfair."^[21]

Version B:

Western human rights organizations have criticized China for having a supportive relationship with the government of Sudan while it is committing mass killings in Darfur;^[22][23] however, China considers this criticism unfair because the conflict is "not an internal affair of China, nor was it caused by China".^[24]

See also: Darfur Conflict#Criticism of international response

Version C:

Do not include

• Version A - We keep the article balanced by explaining the controversy and fully covering the topic. Michael 207.69.137.29 (talk) 03:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Version A (caveat) - I support inclusion of the topic, but I think we need to make sure it fits nicely into the article. We need to add it to the "international" section. We could also, for example, have something on the deportation of North Koreans back to North Korea there. I think it would not flow well to have Darfur by itself. John Smith's (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Either version is fine and I agree with what John says about including it in the International section.--Madgirl 15 (talk) 03:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Since it was determined that version A was the most appropriate, I don't see why it should not be added to the International version of the article. If there's any comments or more suggestions about this, feel free to add them here.--Madgirl 15 (talk) 04:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section for Falun Gong

Suggest that Falun Gong have its own section, simply because it is the biggest single human rights abuse in China. A few informational points to support this:

• At least 70million Chinese citizens are targeted (this is the number reported by the New York Times, a figure from the Sports Administration in 1998 as the total no. of practitioners in China)
• UN Special Rapporteur documents that 66% of reported torture cases in China are Falun Gong; the next group down I believe is Uighur muslims, at around 7%
• US State Department says according to sources that over half the labour camp population (which they put at about 250,000, the Laogai foundation puts at a couple of million) are Falun Gong practitioners
• That it's the single biggest human rights abuse in China in terms of breadth and scale, using the most resources, etc. (i.e. all the media, the army, all the police force, a reported extra-constitutional body to supervise and orchestrate the construction of labour camps, torture methods, propaganda campaigns etc.)

There are a few other points but these are the key ones--I can find the links for the ones above if necessary. Essentially this is an issue in itself, the single biggest human rights issue in China. I suggest not that more text be spent on it here, but that it not be listed in "other human rights abuses" but have its own section, probably alphabetically. Good to hear rational thoughts of others on this.--Asdfg12345 13:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• China does have more than its fair share or human rights abuses, and Falun Gong may claim that abuses against their practitioners put them in the largest proportion of the abused. However, I think there are already quite a sufficient number of articles where Falun Gong practitioners use as a soapbox to tirade against their sworn enemy, the Chinese Communist Party I believe that the subject has already been dealt with at great depth elsewhere. A few lines and a links to those articles may appear warranted, but a whole section is probably overdone. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Let's be clear. I understand that you have brought this argument up several times, but not directly with regard to my editing. I think it's a serious accusation--you seem to be implying that I'm here attempting to subvert the principles of wikipedia. Do you think that? I have always felt like we have worked cooperatively together. I have always been willing to discuss and compromise, I have never accused you of editing in bad faith, and I have generally listened to your ideas and been respectful of your opinions. I don't think I have made personal attacks, or questioned your motives. This is the impression I have got, over the last 9 or so months. Please let me know if I am mistaken. I have never edited in bad faith, or tried to deliberately subvert wikipedia. I know the rules well enough, and I feel personally committed to being responsible to this environment. There are always going to be different opinions, but what is important is for editors to discuss things respectfully and if possible, even in a friendly way, ultimately considering what is best for a high quality encyclopedia. If you do not feel that has been my overall approach, I would appreciate if you indicated that, and I will consider what you say. I feel like this kind of continual sideswiping is a bit unfriendly, and unproductive. That's all I'll say on this point.

I've actually thought about it a bit more and in the end I don't think my suggestion is appropriate (I just deleted the long train of thought on that for the readers' benefit). Now the only changes I think are: a lede that sums up the content of the article better; a shorten the religious freedom part. --Asdfg12345 10:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• It was not a personal dig at you, or your style of editing. Indeed, I very much value our cooperation, and regret having upset you. I therefore apologise for my comment, and withdraw it. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue already has its own section. This is not an article JUST about Falun Gong and since it is a big issue, as you said, in China then I see that it's been given its due with the additional section under Other Human Rights. As far as I have read, the issue cannot be readily classified in the section of Freedom of Religion since apparently Falun Gong is not considered a religion by some. So that's why I understood the logic in having an individual section of it seems fine.

As for the lead, it does need to be expanded. However, it would need to be done the help of other individuals because, at least in my case, I am unavailable to work on this article for some time.--Madgirl 15 (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by IP editor

I have reverted the, albeit small, changes by 124.181.158.116 because "penalise" is vague and could mean several things. Imprison is more specific and I believe that it is correct. On the media point, I also believe that to be correct but if someone wants a source I suggest they look for one or reinstate the fact tag. But the earlier change should stay in my view. John Smith's (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] International section

I added the Darfur section as it reached a consensus that Version A should be added to the International section. I removed this sentence from the section:

China has signed some international human rights agreements. The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights has been signed and ratified, while the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has only been signed.

It rather seems placed in the wrong area. Yes, China has signed agreements but isn't the International section about criticisms China has received about issues outside China or about other issues on the International scope. I also added the citation tag as I feel the statement needs to be backed up by perhaps an article or two on the subject.--Madgirl 15 (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)