Jump to content

Talk:Human rights in China

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 98.145.94.146 (talk) at 10:35, 29 January 2011 (→‎HIV/AIDS & sexual orientation in the same category.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Content Repeating

Am I the only who notices most of the content in this page is repeated at least once later down the page, nearly word for word? As an example, the word "six passes" appears in nearly identical sentences in two different sections. It's a waste of bandwidth and time to have the same paragraph copied twice, and there are several more where that one came from. --~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.177.248 (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To continue, references 33 and 37 are identical, with the same quote being made twice however only attributed as a direct quote once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.183.19 (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edited Heritage Foundation

I added in some information regarding the Heritage Foundation, so that readers will understand the organization's background. Even though the quoted line is sensationalist, anti-Chinese agitprop, I did not touch it. Huaxia (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have reverted that. The description of the Heritage Foundation there is unnecessary and POV, even if it is correct. People can read about the Heritage Foundation on their article page. John Smith's (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of Human Rights in China redirect

The paragraph at the top of this article states: ""Human Rights in China" redirects here." One would expect this to be the case, but actually "Human Rights in China" is a disambiguation page, not a redirect to "Human Rights in the People's Republic of China." I think that it would be a good idea to redirect Human Rights in China to this page, since the majority of visitors to the Human Rights in China page are most likely interested in Human Rights in the People's Republic of China. Thoughts? CordeliaNaismith (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, this seems to have changed...or maybe I was looking at something else before...Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I figured out what I was looking at before:

However,

Probably http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_China should redirect to this page also....Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of speech

Tyra is the best of all best!! I removed some parts and rewrote a bit about freedom of speech. If anyone disagrees, feel free to edit again. Personally I found parts of the section to differ from my experience. As to reference to democracy, that is not censored or blocked. The CCP considers a lot of politics in China to be democratic. References to Tibetan movements are not censored either, they are frequently refered to, though not in a positive light. Also, the CCP allows a lot of media critcizing the government to some degree, so it's not a total media blackout. What is total is references to certain religious organizations (Falun Gong) and controversial events (riots and first and foremost the Tianamen incident). Therefore I refered to those instead. Maggern (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intro problem with regard to Tibet

The third paragraph of the introduction states

Controversial human rights issues in China include policies such as capital punishment, the one-child policy, the policy of Han Chinese cultural integration towards Tibet, and lack of protections regarding freedom of press and religion.

I am looking at the phrase about Tibet in particular. Juxtaposing "the policy of Han Chinese cultural integration towards Tibet" with the one-child policy and capital punishment strongly suggests if not outright states that there is an active and stated policy that Tibet should be integrated into the "Han Chinese" ethnicity, or culture. Nothing in the later paragraph relating to Tibet says this, and I don't think there is such a policy. The official line is that Tibet is autonomous and the Tibetan people freely practice their language and culture. Obviously, the TGIE and other groups have a different theory. But it should be put neutrally, something like "the social status of Tibetans" which fits with the information in the article. Animadversio (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without objection, I am making the change above. Animadversio (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unpacking the Heritage Foundation quote

The block quotation given to the Heritage Foundation is problematic for a number of reasons. Here it is:

If the matter of Tibet's sovereignty is murky, the question about the PRC's treatment of Tibetans is all too clear. After invading Tibet in 1950, the Chinese communists killed over one million Tibetans, destroyed over 6,000 monasteries, and turned Tibet's northeastern province, Amdo, into a gulag housing, by one estimate, up to ten million people. A quarter of a million Chinese troops remain stationed in Tibet. In addition, some 7.5 million Chinese have responded to Beijing's incentives to relocate to Tibet; they now outnumber the 6 million Tibetans. Through what has been termed Chinese apartheid, ethnic Tibetans now have a lower life expectancy, literacy rate, and per capita income than Chinese inhabitants of Tibet.[1]

Look at the language. "turned into a gulag", "Chinese apartheid"? [sidenote, the word "apartheid", which has some pretty strong connotations, appears 54 times in this article] It's an abuse of quotation marks to exempt the section from the NPOV and language concerns by which ordinary statements would be tested. The claim of 7.5 million Chinese being sent to Tibet is perhaps the most loaded sentence in the whole quote. Some of the implications of the Foundation's wording of that sentence alone are (1) Tibetans can be contrasted with 'Chinese'; that Tibetans are not Chinese. (2) The government has an official policy to settle Han in Tibet. [this is demonstrably false] (3) The Han living in Tibet are recent arrivals. (4) That 'Tibet' spans far beyond the PRC government's definition of (rural, Tibetan majority) autonomous region and territories, to include the fringe urban areas where most Han live. (5) That this expansive definition of Tibet corresponds to the area invaded in 1950. [also demonstrably false]

My aim is not to instigate a debate about whether the specific claims are true or not. Stylistically, I want to replace the blockquote of claims with an indigenous Wikipedia paragraph, each sentence or claim with its own citation. Instead of a invective-filled set of rapid-fire assertions and insinuations, each specific human rights concern could be elaborated. The Foundation's claim of lower life expectancy could be counterclaimed by a demographer. The migration issue could be expanded, even, with clear parameters and neutral language (Han and not Chinese for example). The Tibetans section could be organized based on human rights, which was not the sole focus of the Heritage article.

Cognizant of the fact that some of my edits, for which explanations have been given in edit summaries, have been reverted simply with the summary "re-adding removed information", I am listing the specific human rights issues from the Heritage quote that should be addressed in the succeeding paragraph. Included would be: deaths 1950-1962 ("1 million"), destruction of monasteries, Han migration, life expectancy, literacy, per capita income. Excluded: number of military personnel (does not assert why this a human rights issue?), assertion that Tibet is a giant gulag (not really specific). The Tibetan section has a lot of potential for improvement in comprehensiveness and neutrality. Comments are appreciated! Splittist (talk) 04:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quote doesn't say there was an official policy to move Han people to Tibet - it uses the word "incentives". I don't see why it's so bad, it summarises some of the primary allegations against China in a useful nutshell. John Smith's (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The usage of "Tibetan" and "Chinese" in the quote is simply common English usage, amongst scholars and laypeople alike. Using "Han" in place of "Chinese" is inferior because the non-English term is going to confuse readers. Be that as it may, I'm not a big fan of blockquotes, and I think it would be reasonable to paraphrase or summarize the Heritage Foundation quote inline, and put the entire quote in a footnote. Bertport (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that it is common English usage, except by those who are most ignorant about the issue and think China an ethnically homogeneous nation-state. It is most definitely not the use amongst scholars. On the other articles that deal with similar issues of language, such as the featured July 2009 Ürümqi riots, Han Chinese (which is an English term by the way, like ninja or schadenfreude) is linked once, and then the ethnicity in question is referred to as "Han" later on. This has the extra benefit of being extremely clear that "Chinese" refers to the state or its citizens.
I reformed the Tibetans section based on the main article, Human rights in Tibet. The new section focuses mostly on the alleged violations of Tibetan culture; freedom of speech and religion are already covered in earlier sections, and territorial disputes are out of the scope of human rights. I have also integrated PRC counterarguments into the section, which should eventually be done all over the article, instead of being tucked away in a "criticism section". Splittist (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly common English usage, including amongst the experts. Pick up any book by Melvyn Goldstein, for example. Take page 33 of The Snow Lion and the Dragon: "The Tibetan and Chinese plenipotentiaries at Simla..." You will find that most books on Sino-Tibetan relations and history use "Tibetan" and "Chinese" in this sense, and rarely say "Han Chinese". Bertport (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that instance, he was using "Chinese" and "Tibetan" correctly, because as plenipotentiaries, they were representatives of the respective Chinese and Tibetan sovereign states. An incorrect usage would be to contrast "Chinese" and "Tibetan" in describing peoples' ethnicities, because Chinese is not an ethnicity.
And even if it were common usage, Wikipedia policy on neutrality would demand that we not use the terms in such a way. Look for example at the title of this very article, "Human rights in the People's Republic of China". Is common usage just "China"? Overwhelmingly yes. But we can't say China because that would imply that Taiwan—err.. the "Republic of China" is not part of China. For a case where a bunch of high profile admins defend this principle, look at Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy, which should be renamed "Climategate" if we were to always go by common usage, but isn't because we don't. Splittist (talk) 05:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just keep reading. Page 43: "...in Tibet there was not even a single Chinese." Page 44: "...not only were there no Chinese living there..." Page 49: "...launch a guerrilla war against the Chinese living in Tibet..." your personal sense of "Chinese" does not jibe with actual English usage and does not carry the point of view you attribute to it. Bertport (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In those passages it is still conceivable that the author was referring to Chinese nationals, not Chinese ethnics. The English language is ambiguous in that regard—but only in vulgar use. The Chinese language has two distinct terms: Han Chinese and Zhonghua minzu (a multiethnic nationality and civilization—the Tibetans are not the first or only foreigners Chinese have interacted with or assimilated in their history). This is what is used by China scholars, and indeed on the relevant articles on Wikipedia. In many of the English language news reports of the communal violence in Tibet and Xinjiang, journalists who weren't sloppy used the proper terms. A NYT article on July 24 of this year: [1]: note ethnic Han. So it's not my "personal sense", it's the precise terminology, and I don't see the objection, since with a wikilink and one-time use of Han Chinese, no readers will be confused, especially if it is contrasted to "Tibetans". Splittist (talk) 06:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HIV/AIDS & sexual orientation in the same category.

This seems a little stereotypical. It would be like africa's view of fried chicken. I think someone with skills should change it.

  1. ^ Lasater, Martin L. & Conboy, Kenneth J. "Why the World Is Watching Beijing's Treatment of Tibet", Heritage Foundation, 9 October 1987.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_rights_in_China&oldid=410734892"