This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
How can the "criticism" section even exist without references?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.234.168 ( talk) 23:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
What is the original Chinese language title of this report? Would help the article. Nesnad ( talk) 17:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Is there some way we could make these edits more congruent with Wikipedia policy? V7-sport ( talk) 04:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
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.
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.
Minimize the number of links.
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)
I'll be suggesting to add the most recent name of the report here, "The Report on Human Rights Violations in the United States" (the title used in reports from 2019), and further links at "See also" to other relevant articles: whataboutism, propaganda in China, anti-American sentiment in China, wolf warrior diplomacy and And you are lynching Negroes. Looks like the only other page linking here is China–United States relations; looking into have links to this article at the China section of whataboutism (particularly relevant). TagaSanPedroAko ( talk) 01:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
How can the "criticism" section even exist without references?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.234.168 ( talk) 23:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
What is the original Chinese language title of this report? Would help the article. Nesnad ( talk) 17:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Is there some way we could make these edits more congruent with Wikipedia policy? V7-sport ( talk) 04:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
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.
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.
Minimize the number of links.
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)
I'll be suggesting to add the most recent name of the report here, "The Report on Human Rights Violations in the United States" (the title used in reports from 2019), and further links at "See also" to other relevant articles: whataboutism, propaganda in China, anti-American sentiment in China, wolf warrior diplomacy and And you are lynching Negroes. Looks like the only other page linking here is China–United States relations; looking into have links to this article at the China section of whataboutism (particularly relevant). TagaSanPedroAko ( talk) 01:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)