Talk:Human rights in China/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3

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)

Edits by IP editor

I have reverted the, albeit small, changes by 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)

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)

Are there other topics we should add to make the International section more complete? I looked into the North Korean immigration issue but couldn't find much. Michael (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Lijia Zhang Macleod

I notice that there is a citation to an article by "Macleod, Calum and Macleod, Lijia". "Macleod, Lijia" is better known under her maiden name, Lijia Zhang—I believe she and Calum Macleod are now divorced—and really deserves an article of her own, if anyone wants to write it. Author of, among other things, a memoir called "Socialism Is Great!" - Jmabel | Talk 05:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a first attempt at a biography:
Lijia Zhang, born in May 1964 in Nanjing, China, is a writer and journalist, living in Beijing with her two daughters, writing for South China Morning Post and the British Observer. She is (was?) married to Calum MacLeod (born 1969) from Scotland. She got a Master of Arts degree in 2004 from the University of London. She has written some books, some on her own and some with her husband, most recently the autobiographic "Socialism Is Great!" : A Worker’s Memoir of the New China (2008). Source: Her own website ( --LA2 (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "Wildasin" :
    • David Pines, Efraim Sadka, Itzhak Zilcha, ''Topics in Public Economics: Theoretical and Applied Analysis'', Cambridge University Press, 1998, p. 334.
    • "As in South Africa under ''apartheid'', households in China faced severe restrictions on mobility during the Mao period. The household registration system (''hukou'') system... specified where people could work and, in particular, classified workers as rural or urban workers. A worker seeking to move from rural agricultural employment to urban non-agricultural work would have to apply through the relevant bureaucracies, and the number of workers allowed to make such moves was tightly controlled. The enforcement of these controls was closely intertwined with state controls on essential goods and services. For instance, unauthorized workers could not qualify for grain rations, employer-provided housing, or health care." Wildasin, David E. "Factor mobility, risk, inequality, and redistribution" in David Pines, Efraim Sadka, Itzhak Zilcha, ''Topics in Public Economics: Theoretical and Applied Analysis'', Cambridge University Press, 1998, p. 334.
  • "Chan" :
    • Chan, Anita, ''China's Workers under Assault: The Exploitation of Labor in a Globalizing Economy'', Introduction chapter, M.E. Sharpe. 2001, ISBN 0-765-60358-6
    • "The permit system controls [[migrant workers]] in a similar way to the passbook system under apartheid.Most migrant workers live in crowded dormitories provided by the factories or in shanties. Their transient existence is precarious and exploitative. The discrimination against migrant workers in the Chinese case is not racial, but the control mechanisms set in place in the so-called free labor market to regulate the supply of cheap labor, the underlying economic logic of the system, and the abusive consequences suffered by the migrant workers, share many of the characteristics of the apartheid system." Chan, Anita. ''China's Workers Under Assault: The Exploitation of Labor in a Globalizing Economy'', M.E. Sharpe, 2001, p. 9.

DumZiBoT (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Tibet intro

I reworked the TIbet intro because it needed some "neutralization". Hopefully in its present state it does not contain any disputable facts. If you think it does then please, pretty please, with sugar on top, when you edit it try to include some sort of facts (with references) that make it possible to assert the edits viability. If you don´t have any facts (with references) then please, pretty and so on, stay out of the editing process! /Nick (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Nick, you have blanked a massive piece of text, including quotes with sources. If you want to discuss certain parts of it, please do so here on the talk page first. But you have not established what is wrong with the BBC, Heritage and other sources. You claim that you want facts with references and that is exactly what you removed. Accordingly I have reverted. If you would like citations for a few bits, again you can point that out here or place a tag on relevant sections. John Smith's (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"annexed" tibet VS "retook" tibet

Has anyone established that Tibet was under chinese rule before? I thought that was just a claim made by PRC government with no historical validity, made to justify using a massive army to crush the population and local religion.

BTW A Massive army was used, if tibet was under the boot of a "cruel theocracy" beforehand, why would such an army be necessary? I have big problems with the "history" written by the hand of an occupying force. Dragonnas (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

History is always written by the winners. The relationship between Tibet and China is complicated and has evolved over time. A debate on the language used to describe the current association of Tibet and China took place here. Check the archive for more tedious detail. --Gimme danger (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter whether Tibet was under Chinese rule "for centuries", as pro-PRC sources like to claim. Think about it like this. Let's say the UK decided it wanted to take Ireland. Ireland had been part of the UK for centuries, but would we say that they were merely retaking Ireland? China says that their occupation of Tibet is justified, but their reason is that the Chinese had been doing it before, and Tibet was not part of China when China "retook" it. Now I know that what I am saying is about whether or not what China did was justified, which is of course POV, but we have to decide which term to use, which is going to seem POV for one side. I vote annex.Gtbob12 (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

China invaded Tibet in the 17th century, Tibet has always been independent before. Tibet got more or less independant after this, but its been invaded again 60 years ago, so I dont think that "retook" is the right word. Tibet has been a part of China in consequence of a agressive war, so there is no reason for saying that the Chinese occupation has been legal and that Tibet is a part of China. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 07:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In fairness to China, Truth and the world.

The polarization (yes some of this is OR) of truth, can be magnified with the use of half-truths.

In fairness to a country, including China, we must appreicate that no country is perfect, nor can any leader be held responsible for all social and political programs that are in existance. Anything can be corrupted.

So in fairness to China I suggest a post Human Rights in Canada or any other country. A thread relative to time, that isolates key concerns.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You forget, that China violates human rights in many cases. Canada doesnt. It is quite problematic if some people want to deny the issue of humkan rights violations in China. I dont know out of wich reason, but this is one of the articles the wikipedia cant handle. Throw yourpersonal views away and try to write neutral. If you try to0 bring in your personal views you will ruin the wikipedia.

PS: Do you know [page]? --08:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Half of the people who speak English as their first language still don't believe in evolution and think something human created created human. What do you expect from them? Fairness?--Haofangjia (talk) 03:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I cant see the relation between the violation of human rights in china and the "debate" about evolution. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 13:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Google-censorship.png

The image Image:Google-censorship.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that I've dealt with this by adding a rationale on the picture for this article. John Smith's (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits by anon IP

I have reverted most of them because they were an unexplained blanking of cited material. However, I have qualified some of the existing material and tried to keep some of the sentiments about Beijing suppressing local populations, etc. It's important not to take Chinese initiatives at face value and show that it's their argument, not proven fact. John Smith's (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Check

Since the IP editor has declined to open a discussion, here it is. If you have any neutrality issues to bring up, please list them here and we, as a community, will go through each one and decide how to resolve it. If nothing is brought up within one week (until October 30), I will remove the tag. --Gimme danger (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The editor who placed the tag is correct. There are indeed neutrality issues. An article as controversial as this must be impeccably sourced; text in the article must be verified against the relevant source; opinions must be stated as such and not surreptitiously turned into fact; the use of weasel words and passive speech should be avoided. I will try fixing some of these [numerous] issues. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The section on Darfur/Sudan is a foreign policy matter at best. It has nowt to do with HR in China, and ought to be removed. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps move/merge the material to Sino-Sudanese relations? --Gimme danger (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, thank you for taking on this project. --Gimme danger (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I think I've made enough changes for today. I'll sit back and let these changes be digested for a few days. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

So, what are the remaining neutrality issues? It doesn't help when people tag the article and then disappear. Like GD I would remove the tag unless someone can come up with a list of things that need resolving. John Smith's (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Whilst I would agree that it doesn't help when people tag the article and then disappear, I noted the problems in my comment above. I am not done with the NPOV and general cleanup of this article. You can review my edits of 24 October, and see what my concerns were. There are more where those came from, but I've just stopped to give everyone here some breathing space, so I'd appreciate it if the tag was not removed for now. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
So they've been identified. The tag requests a check, not to say that there are issues. I have changed the tag accordingly.
If you remove unsourced text (I stress the word "if"), please differentiate between very controversial, rarely made comments and those which are more common but do not yet have a source. With the latter we can make an effort to find sources. John Smith's (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't grasp the subtlety of the tag. Your point about unsourced material is noted. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Freedom of movement

The section so headed is basically a two-page essay about Whitehouse and Chan's comparison of the Hukou system to South African apartheid, without opposing viewpoints. It is a relic of the deleted article 'China and the apartheid analogy' which was in need of a home. This text is totally uninviting and is much longer than the whole Hukou article. I intend to attack that section shortly with a machete. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


There should be some discussion of China's culpability in the Darfur genocide. I will work on it when I'm able. Michael (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 (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)
The Darfur issue is about direct actions of the Chinese government affecting human rights, and thusly belongs in this article whether or not the humans whose rights are affected are within the borders of China per se. That being said, as Coconut99 99 has pointed out, this is hardly a form of behavior that's unique to China, and sections in some other articles (see Human_rights_in_the_United_States_of_America#Alleged_violations_of_national_sovereignty for an example) could definitely use a bit of expansion on this particular count (doesn't mention the Iraq sanctions or the rather alarming Cold War-era U.S. habit of giving money and weapons to any dictator willing to "fight communism")--very few nations have clean hands with regard to the human rights of foreigners, and my two cents is that anything sourceable should be in Wikipedia. evildeathmath 03:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

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 (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 (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 (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 (talk) 08:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about 'Human rights in the People's Republic of China'. Darfur is a foreign policy matter - an external issue, and is therefore alien to this topic. I have reverted the IP editor's reinsertion of this text. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Logical. But could there be a link or a one-liner somewhere in an appropriate place, just to signify that the usual critics, along with the internal madness, also like to have a dig about Beijing's disregard for the Darfur genocide? Since the criticisms are often found together, i.e., often enough associated with one another, it seems to be fitting to include a note here connecting the topics, for the reader's knowledge and convenience? Maybe it's already in there. --Asdfg12345 13:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. A brief mention is fair enough. John Smith's (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Ohconfucius - It may not have been your intent, but your summary of the past discussions is entirely misleading. There is no issue with the title. Here is the most recent discussion [1] and the vote establishing consensus to include the section [2]. Currently the word "Darfur" does not appear in the article. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 06:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the image depicting censorship on

Hi! Regarding the image File:Google-censorship.png used in the section "Civil liberties": The problem is that the search word ("tiananmen") used in the search according to the screenshots is in English on both the and However Google China have most of its search results in Chinese. The person who took these screenshots must not have a Chinese operating system because of the incorrect renderings of the Chinese characters, nevertheless, on the screenshot, you can clearly see "您是不是要找: 天安门" (Are you searching for: Tian'anmen). If you type in the Chinese word 天安门 on the international, you will get picturesque shots of the gate of heavenly peace as well, but it does not mean that the international version is also censored, does it now? This is because in Chinese, what's commonly referred to as "the Tian'anmen Square Protests" in English is called "六四事件" (the June Fourth Incident) or variations of "六四..." (the June Fourth ...), not "天安门..." (Tian'anmen ...). In Chinese "天安门" (or as the filename of an image, e.g., "tiananmen.jpg") is used almost exclusively to refer to the gate. I do not think this is a good illustration of the censorship on at all and I'd recommend its removal. --Shibo77 (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sine you are "recommend[ing] its removal", please wait for others to chime in before removing the image. --ZimZalaBim talk 16:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that it should be removed. Does the Chinese google censor images of the Tiananmen massacres or does it not? If it does then the image should only be removed if it can be replaced with something "more appropriate". If it does not then I will need to see evidence of that. John Smith's (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Why do I have to wait for consensus to remove something which is incorrect? I have already given the reason why the image and the caption incorrectly illustrates the censorship. I am not disputing/removing information which states that censors content related to the Tian'anmen Square incident, I am disputing the use of the aforementioned illustration to illustrate that censors. If it is incorrect, it should be removed, if you would like to replace it with another illustration which correctly illustrates the censorship, please do. Is there a rule on the English Wikipedia that limits the removal of incorrect content until a correct one could be replaced? Since my wording in the original paragraph said "recommend", I will now state that "I will now remove this incorrect illustration from the article".
Now on the topic of replacing this image. I understand what the editor who originally took the screenshots tried to illustrate, however I think it would be rather difficult to recreate it today (31 Decmber 2008). One, is actually the United States' version, not actually the international version, the results will skew in favour of more .com results mainly based in the United States; While China's version ( will skew in favour of .cn results. In other words, there will be a fundamental difference even before you involve the language of the search string. Two, the language of the search string would probably work better if both are in simplified Chinese, (I'd recommend "六四"), and not the ASCII string "tiananmen", nor should one search be in one language and another for the other. Three, the way the censor works changes. For Firefox at this time, it gives me a timeout should I enter any sensitive keywords. In the past, it temporarily blocked my access to the Internet from a web browser for 60 seconds. In the last few months, sometimes one could actually get image results on the Tiananmen Square protests. In any event, we haven't a time machine to travel back to 15 February 2006 to recreate the experiment with more controlled keywords. Personally, I'd think such a screenshot-by-screenshot comparison will almost be inherently flawed, at best you could have's showing a timeout, while the other with the search string "六四", showing results from .com websites. Thanks for reading! --Shibo77 (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
While there is little doubt that the topic is heavily censored, the image is not "proof of censorship", but original research because it is user generated and not something which was specifically taken from a reliable secondary source. What's more, I believe Shibo77 has a point, because the premise for the comparison is flawed - it's not a 'like for like' comparison anyhow. I feel the screen grab should be removed for the above reasons. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
We do not have to go back in time, or anything like that. The comparison is still OR regardless of when it is performed. China still censors the topic as heavily as it did back when the screen shots were taken, so I imagine it could be reperformed and would give the same or very similar results. However, a comparison only becomes admissible if reported on by reliable third party sources, so the only possible 'replacement' which satisfies WP policies is a third party (maybe a journalist) reporting the results of searches he/she performed. Such a report will be on the record, and should be cited. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The image represents original research and should be removed, preferably to be replaced by one from a third party. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If it helps I've come across this website, which clearly contains third-party images. John Smith's (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Good find, but unfortunately that site licenses its content under a non-commercial creative commons license, which won't work here. --ZimZalaBim talk 19:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
But if that site's analysis gets us around the original research problem, can't we simply duplicate the search queries and results and then use as an example, citing that website for the actual analysis? --ZimZalaBim talk 19:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, or perhaps we could use the current image? I think they use the same search terms. John Smith's (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I think so, but will need to examine more closely. Hopefully we can keep the existing image, and then simply cite that website in the caption? --ZimZalaBim talk 19:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi! This is becoming tiresome, the original discussion was to discuss the removal of the original image, not its replacement. As the English Wikipedia does not have a rule of only allowing the removal of something when it is replaceable with something new, I have removed it from this article again. If you would like to replace this image, please open a new discussion section with a new "time limit" for a replacement consensus. The discussion for the original image's removal had only one disagreement which was voiced by User:John Smith's, and stated that he believed that the image may only be removed when a new replacement is found. Unless there is indeed such a rule on the English Wikipedia, then that would be correct, otherwise, this user's argument does not hold. I reiterate, my action is the removal of an illustration and its captions, not what could be used as a replacement, nor the removal of a statement stating that censors certain search results. I beg you to stop reverting the image's removal. Should you like a replacement, open up a new section and discuss. If you disagree with the image's removal, please give a reason why the image should not be removed in this section. Thanks! --Shibo77 (talk) 06:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, not understanding why you seem so single-minded towards removing this image from Wikipedia, many other editors like to try to find solutions that allow informative content to remain. That is why we are examining ways to properly source the image and its implications. We're trying to inform readers. --ZimZalaBim talk 13:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not in a hurry to remove the image, but I share Shibo77's view that the two issues are unrelated. Of course it is desirable that a replacement be found, but we should be mindful of WP:IUP that non-compatible images should be removed unconditionally. Furthermore, could anyone verify Philipp Lenssen's (apparent author of Blogoscoped) credentials as an authority in the domain? Ohconfucius (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think that they are any "authorities" in this area. Most of the work is done by bloggers, not people with "status" - they're too busy doing work that generates money for themselves. Though there are people who have written published articles on the censorship of results - just google some results and you'll see them. John Smith's (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It's quite unfortunate, then. I hoped it to be the case, so at least we could cite the comparison done (even without publishing the image) but since Lenssen's not a recognised authority, then his blog would appear to fall short of the evidential standard set forth in WP:RS. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry if I seemed to be hurried! The English Wikipedia is heavily read and mirrored, a quick search on, and you can see that exact same image is being used on other websites to illustrate the censorship. Misinformation travels just as quickly. When I first saw the image it seemed obviously incorrect to me since I am a Chinese-speaker, and removed it, but I suppose it's not as obvious if one doesn't understand the language. I agree with User:John Smith's recommendation of blogoscoped, because the keyword "falun dafa" when entered as a query on the Google search engine should yield as one of its top results the official Falun Dafa website (, however it gives results of websites with condemnatory articles just as the BBC described here (the notable exception being the English Wikipedia, although it seems at the time the blogoscoped screenshot was taken, it was also blocked, which is different today). That screenshot comparison picture would be perfect for this article, Censorship by Google#China, Censorship in the People's Republic of China, and related articles. As for licensing, are not all screenshots of copyrighted websites (Google included) deemed to be copyrighted as well under United States law? Since the original image had a Fair Use license, why not simply upload the blogoscoped image here with the same license? On a side note, does blogoscoped have a right to license copyrighted screenshots under a CC-by-nc 3.0 license? Sorry for the troubles I've caused! --Shibo77 (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

ref for the surveillance thing

Willy Lam, "The Crackdown to Come," The Wall Street Journal Asia, August 22, 2008 "These [security] units have used their extra budgets to hire tens of thousands of new staff, in addition to acquiring hardware that includes state-of-the-art antiriot gear and hundreds of thousands of surveillance cameras and related equipment. It is in the vested interests of this fast-expanding law-and-order establishment to play up the imperative of eradicating "enemies of the party," whether real or imagined." -- can't be bothered right now figuring out where this goes in, there was an edit conflict, that text deleted from the image caption. It's obviously relevant though, and shouldbesomwehere, i guess. --Asdfg12345 15:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

read this article with a critical eye

At first at seems that this is a rather well-written article. Then one examines the sources and realizes that opinion is being portrayed as fact; quite often the opinion of one or an organization that has history of political bias (HRW). I found this to be an extremely ideologically-biased article, in terms of extreme anti-Communist rhetoric in sources that are cited as factual. Sources accept moving away from socialism to capitalism as being some sort of a relief, as though it were a boon to the Chinese people. There have been incredible improvements in the overall well-being of the Chinese people in the last few decades; and in terms of the Tibetans, well, the Dalai Lama and the religious caste there were oppressing the Tibetan people for a long time before they were driven out. Great advancements in Tibetan literacy and longevity have occurred since the Communists kicked the Lama out, and they've built over 44,000km of roads in Tibet. What I'm saying is - when you're reading Wikipedia - use a critical eye. please. Nigh70wl (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Execution photo

I have reverted an edit that moved the execution photo from the "capital punishment" section back into the intro. It seems clear to me that the picture is better kept in the section it is directly relevant to rather than used as an attempt to symbolize the whole article. Using it in the intro inherently introduces bias into the article - it makes it appear the article is here to dump on China's human rights record rather than give a reasoned, balanced overview of it. Further, capital punishment itself is usually not considered a human rights issue. I don't think a picture of a guy in an electric chair would last very long in the intro of human rights in the United States article. Please feel free to dispute my reasoning here, but please do not put that picture back in the intro until some kind of consensus is reached here. TastyCakes (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

First off, as far as being "kept in the section it is directly relevant to" -- that would prevent any photo from being used in the intro. Personally, I think the article looks better with an intro picture. And this photo does a good job portraying, in a neutral manner, a common issue in the debate. It is not biased to show a photo of people being executed in China. It's just a factual photograph. It would only be biased if the photo or caption had some sort of biased commentary in them. They don't. They just describe the picture in a neutral manner, and state why it is relevant to the article.
As far as the statement that "capital punishment itself is usually not considered a human rights issue". That is true, but mass executions where dozens or hundreds people at a time are lined up against a dirt berm and shot in the back of the head with a machine gun are considered a human rights issue. And so is the fact that China executes such a large number of people each year compared to the rest of the world. So it is definitely relevant to this article.
Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I somewhat agree with what you say about it preventing any photo being used in the intro. If no single picture can sum up an article, why should one be used in the intro? The US human rights page has a picture of the statue of liberty. That is clearly a picture than encompasses the abstract concept of liberty and innate human rights (although I think it is biased to use that image in the intro and would probably remove it as well). There is clearly a lot more to the human rights issue in China than just large scale executions. I agree it is significant, and it deserves a section in the article as it has. But in no way does it represent the bulk of the article: civil liberties, religious freedom, discrimination, workers rights, the one child policy etc. Further, while you say it is being put in the intro as a neutral observation of the situation, I think the real intention with putting it there is its shock value. And as I argued above regarding the Falun Gong members, pictures shouldn't be inserted with the intention of swaying the reader's opinion with a highly charged, emotional image such as this one. Add to that we don't really know what's going on here - we can't tell where this is, how many people are involved or what their supposed crimes are, and, critically, whether or not they're being executed for reasons we would find an affront to human rights. TastyCakes (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I need to clear up some facts

Please don't put anything about this in the article unless we can source it reliably and we don't have some pro-PRC vandal undoing it somehow. I have heard the PRC have recently taken tissue and organs from political prisoners. Is this correct? For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

14 year old report from NYT [3]:
8 year old report from NYT [4]:
2 year old USA Today article [5].
Previously common, Google news search results dry up a couple of years ago . Hohum (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I just happened to be reading a bit of World War Z and ended up coming here to confirm my suspicions. Thanks for taking the time to find these sources. For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 11:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

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 (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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 (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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


Probably should redirect to this page also....Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Just keep reading. Page 43: " 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)
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: [6]: 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)
Now we actually have people who want to discard criticisms of the Chinese over semantics? Seriously, you can't make this stuff up. Why is it when a particularly oppressive tyranny is also communist, you get people coming out of the wood work to defend the actions of those tyrannies? Getting rid of a quote because you claim the word "Chinese" is misused, despite the fact anyone with an IQ over 7 knows what you mean, is quite possibly the most ludicrous thing I have ever seen on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and remove the section altogether, retaining only the see also links. Reason: a) It is unsourced; b) I failed to find any known human right problems related to AIDS/Sexuality that the PRC regime has, thus do not know any info that can be added; c) The section in its current form carries loaded statements and/or statements of dubious truthfulness, such as "although homosexuality is not defined as a crime by national law (obviously loaded - implying homosexuality is somehow forbidden despite not being illegal), the police has a tendency to conceal it(Sorry but it isn't making sense to me - exactly what is concealed?) and movies describing homosexuality are still prohibited(prohibited from showing in cinemas - but otherwise not illegal/forbidden, widely available on the Internet)." Blodance the Seeker 11:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
There are no human rights problems in regards to homosexuality in China? Hahahahahahahahahahahahah, you have got to be kidding me. Why is it whenever someone writes up a section on human rights, usually the complete lack thereof, in communist countries, you get people crawling out from under their rocks to defend communist tyrannies? According to an article in the NY Times (oops, looks like you can no longer state that poor treatment of homosexuals is "unsourced") from June 2009:
   "Gay publications and plays are banned, gay Web sites are occasionally blocked and those who
try to advocate for greater legal protections for lesbians and gay men sometimes face harassment
from the police. For years, movie buffs in Beijing have tried, and failed, to get permission for a
gay film festival."  

From the same article:

    "Last month, China issued a directive requiring that all new computers include filtering
software to block pornographic images as well as Web sites with words like GAY, LESBIAN and
HOMOSEXUALITY." (emphasis mine).

Yeah, what a lovely example of tolerance, right? Are those quotes "loaded" too? If treatment of homosexuals were anywhere near as bad in the US, I can guarantee the above poster would be screaming to the heavens about it. But a communist regime? Hey, let's just ignore that.

"...although homosexuality is not defined as a crime by national law (obviously loaded - implying homosexuality is somehow forbidden despite not being illegal)..." You have got to be kidding me. That is not a loaded statement. The Chinese Constitution guarantees freedom speech, but we all know how that is working out don't we; well, perhaps you don't. Is mentioning China's record on speech-related issues, after detailing that the Constitution supposedly protects free speech, "loaded"? It seems that once again, when it comes to communism, we have people doing everything in their power to whitewash the human rights record of a communist tyranny (excuse the redundance). You see it with the entry on Cuba and you see it in this entry as well. Frankly I am surprised some of the commenters here aren't using the notorious "you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet" defense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I understand the reasons of why BlodancetheSeeker would want to delete the section, but the commentor above does have a point. However, it would be great if you could provide the link to that and any other articles you have. I will try to look back on that section and see what he erased and see if a revised sourced section can be added. Madgirl 15 (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Section in article - "Political abuse of psychiatry"

I used to work on this article a few years ago and I kinda landed on it today. I see that much of it has changed but one of the sections that confounds me the most is the new section titled: "Political abuse of psychiatry". While the section seems interesting it's largely based on one source (a book and a review of said book) and while Human Rights Watch (HRW) is a valid source, there's shouldn't be a single source for this type of claim. I will add the tag of "single source" for that section accordingly. If there's anyone who could contribute to this section, you're very much welcomed. If there's additional articles in newspapers or another book about it that's not by HRW, then you can also post it here and I can work on it. If you're the author, feel free to also reply here so that we can improve that section. Madgirl 15 (talk) 07:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Organization of article- layout of topics

A fear years back I proposed a re-organization of the topics to make this article more reader-friendly. Some of the changes were made but other sections stayed the same and others have been added since I proposed the change.

In light of this I have proposed once again a new layout. I mostly based this on other articles on human rights and updated it accordingly. In bold are where the changes that I am proposing will take place.

  • Legal system
  • Civil rights and liberties
freedom of speech
freedom of press
freedom of movement
treatment of rural workers
religious freedom
Tibetan Buddhism
Falun Gong
political freedom
economic and property rights
  • Discrimination
ethnic minorities
HIV/AIDS and rights on sexuality
  • Legislation
one-child policy
capital punishment
  • Other human rights issues
Political abuse of psychiatry
Other human rights issues (worker's rights and privacy)
Other human rights issues (Korea)
  • Counterarguments

Since I proposed this a long time ago, and no one had any rejections to it I will only wait for a few days to see if I get any responses regarding this. If not, then I will change the layout as proposed. Madgirl 15 (talk) 07:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Fine by me. You could add "extrajudicial detention" (Ai Weiwei and Gao Zhisheng) under 'Other human rights issues'. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Human rights in China/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The entire section of "Views from the United States government" is although fairly important, but is uterly bias to be placed in there. It is well known that the U.S. is the single influencial country in the world, however, if that its opinion is the only one present in an discussion, it would prove the encyclopedia it is present in to be fairly, if not extremely bias.

Last edited at 00:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC).

Substituted at 20:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Lasater, Martin L. & Conboy, Kenneth J. "Why the World Is Watching Beijing's Treatment of Tibet", Heritage Foundation, 9 October 1987.