This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article has been
automatically rated by a
bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
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. --
BD2412talk 04:03, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Supporters need to be identified
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
Position of the U.S. Government and Department of State
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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
Modified Links (External)
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
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: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
Additional title, further "See also" links and missing links