Talk:Human Rights Record of the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See: Talk:China's Human Rights Record of the United States


  • Shouldn't the China's article be here, and an {{otheruses}} disambig be used instead? 02:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • China's article originally was here, but some found that confusing, so it was moved to its current location for clarification. This page was then made into a redirect, but the current use is no less useful. -- BD2412 talk 04:03, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Supporters need to be identified[edit]

The article says, "Supporters say that just as the USA is free to criticise the PRC, the PRC should also be free to criticise the USA..."
I have no doubt that this document has its supporters but we need to know who they are. The critics need to be on the record now so it's never forgotten where they stood.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How can the "criticism" section even exist without references?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chinese title?[edit]

What is the original Chinese language title of this report? Would help the article. Nesnad (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citation needed clean-up[edit]

If the tag is citation needed and it's over a year old, it will be deleted. Now is your chance to find the citation.

Id447 (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Position of the U.S. Government and Department of State[edit]

I can't find anything in this section that is relevant to this page. How are these statement of no comment help the reader to understand the human rights record of the U.S.? Needs clean-up.

Id447 (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article isn't supposed to be about the human rights record of the U.S. That's what Human rights in the United States is for.
It's supposed to be about China's human rights report. A lot of the references are about various human rights issues but have no apparent connection to China's report. They either need to be tied to China's report or removed.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is interesting that in Human rights in the United States#See_also is 'Criticism of the US Human rights record' followed by a link to this article. The Human rights in the United States shows a different perspective than this article. Perhaps the perspective is a western point of view. An article titled "Human Rights Record of the United States" obviously concerns the human rights of the U.S. regardless of the intentions of the authors. However I will add links to the Chinese report. By the way, thank you for your ultimatum.
Id447 (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When adding material it has to reference the subject of the article, the China Human Rights Report ( the annual publication on the human rights record in the United States of America, published by the Information Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China). Otherwise the article could run contrary to WP:Syn and WP:coatrack. V7-sport (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please clarify your thoughts and then state them. Please explain why you deleted material which was neither original nor coat rack. Are you opposed to allowing the article to contain a summary of the Chinese Human Rights Report? If so why?
Id447 (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry if it was unclear. No, I am not opposed to the article containing a summary of the China Human Rights Report, however that as to be done by secondary reliable sources, not us, the wikipedia editors. In other words, when we quote someone else who is a reliable source summarizing or commenting on the Chinese Human Rights Report, that's OK. When we do it it is considered original research. The material deleted didn't reference the China Human Rights Report at all, which it needs to in order to be included in the article. Otherwise it's WP:OR. V7-sport (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Primary sources.[edit]

It would be great if we could get some secondary sources that address the China Human Rights Report. As the article stands it relies on primary sources almost exclusively. That runs afoul of Wiki policy. V7-sport (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I Added some. V7-sport (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added a ton of secondary sources and tertiary sources but they got deleted. Please re-check the definition of these terms.
Id447 (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The sources you added made no reference to the China Human Rights Report, which is the subject of the article.V7-sport (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re Id447 edits.[edit]

  • RE."This section has been truncated to remove facts that an editor finds uncomfortable."
Please dear friend, assuming good faith is a requirement for editing here. I'm not sure which words are "weasel" as it consists of a quote from a secondary source.
  • RE. "At least 15 military interventions have been justified using references to the country's human rights record":
That goes back to this link Examples of humanitarian intervention which is to a Wikipedia page and is not considered a reliable source. (WP:RS) further, it doesn't reference the "China Human Rights Report" and most of the examples are not US interventions. (IE. "Russian, British and French Anti-Ottoman Intervention in the Greek War of Independence (1824)"
  • RE."The conception and practices of human rights differs in various cultures."
The first reference goes back to "List of human rights articles by country" which is a wikipedia page and therefore not a reliable source. It also doesn't say what you are saying it says. it's a list of articles.
The second source is an essay that doesn't mention the China Human Rights Report or even China or the USA.

Is there some way we could make these edits more congruent with Wikipedia policy? V7-sport (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Id447, please do not delete comments by other users. bd2412 T 23:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inappropriate Report for 2014[edit]

The section on the 2014 report is given MASSIVELY undue weight in comparison to other reports. It is also repeated. The first part of the section is simply repeated in the second part (indented paragraphs). I have no problem with the content, only the huge amount of it, the duplication of that huge amount, and what appears to me to be WP:NPOV problems. I know very little about this subject, and I have very little time for editing these days, so I would appreciate it if someone else who understands WP policies and guidelines as well as having at least a passing knowledge of the subject looks this over. Is the 2014 report so incredibly important that it should make up most of the article? The page can't stand the way it is. Dcs002 (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Modified Links (External)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Human Rights Record of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links[edit]

There are twenty-three entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
  • ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
  • LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
  • WP:ELMIN: Minimize the number of links.
  • WP:ELCITE: access dates are not appropriate in the external links section. Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section. -- Otr500 (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]