Cookie888

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You repeated insertion of irrelavant material on Human rights in the People's Republic of China

Remember, WP:Vandalism is not just about deletion, but also insertion of irrelevant material. What does corruption and divorce rates (and references on these two) have anything to do with human rights? If you want to elaborate on the legal issues, there is a section in the very beginning of the page that deals with the subject. If you want to deal with one-child policy, there was a dedicated section as well.

Please, read the article first before you make irrelevant insertions. And even the minor stuff you touched was already dealt in other sections. Coconut99 99 (talk) 07:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to Coconut99

The Counterarguments section calls forth China's record of social harmony, familial strength and general values. As such, a response to the Chinese government's track record in providing such values at the sacrifice of Human Rights is material to the discussion of Human rights in China. If you want to eliminate a response to material already introduced into the article, then you must remove the material it responds to. However, I believe this is ill-advised, since China often points to decreased corruption of government, higher social values at the sacrifice of human rights. This is, in fact, China's argument and it deserves attention. Additionally, without arguing the quantity of benefits on both sides, you cannot arrive at a true decision as a reader as to the claims validity. In other words, has China's trade-off of "Asian Values" for the common good versus human rights actually worked? We often make the same claim in the U.S. and advocacy groups need to be on the watch for empty claims where what is sacrificed was not worth what was gained. Loss of rights of a select few must be weighed with the gains of the group diligently to assure both social harmony and economic gain no matter what the system of government. This is an appropriate section to address the validity of the claims of the CCP in regards to Human Rights.

In addition, I have continually tried to engage you on this topic and you have not responded to my comments. Rather than continaully blanking content, which is your habit based on reading your talk page, perhaps you should engage and respond with facts, citations and your own text rather than elimination of others well-cited, well-referenced work. --Cookie888 (talk) 07:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess you never even tried to read my replies, as you always add message at random places of my talk page instead of adding them at the end.

1. I have repeatedly pointed out that subject such as legal issues and one-child policies have their appropriate sections.
2. Matters such as corruption and divorce rate have nothing to do with human rights and that's all the references are on. The rest are all opinions without facts.
3. You yourself noted that your material (all the original text coming from you) lacks facts, then why in the world inserting them in when you don't have facts?

PS, I do appreciate the fact you tried to contact me although it seemed you were not quite used to the wiki system yet. I think that you can contribute some material under "The Legal System" section, provided you have the relevant facts. Also, if you could find some facts that counter PRC government's point (and not just some refs on corruption and divorce rates), you could add one-liner (afterall, its about PRC argument) such as "However, such argument was rejected by some prominent scholars (name ...) that ... points ...[ref][ref].

Coconut99 99 (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)