Talk:Civil liberties in the People's Republic of China
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The article is accurate about the Constitution, as is e.g. Civil liberties of the United States. What's the NPOV dispute about?
- It might be what the Chinese Constitution says. If it were true the massacre at Tiananmen would never have happened, Falun Gong wouldn't be persecuted, etc etc etc. --Trovatore 14:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- Shall we then cover civil liberties from the executive point of view (i.e. include violations), also in civil liberties and civil liberties in the United States? Or leave these articles to cover the legal point of view and cover the actual execution of protections elsewhere? --80.186.4.246 15:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- Certainly, divergence between what's promised and what's delivered should be mentioned in the US article as well. My POV of course is that there's nothing close to an equivalence here--the guarantees in the US Constitution are meaningful though not perfectly upheld, whereas the PRC ones are a sick joke in a basically fascist country. But I wouldn't say that in an article because it would be POV, just as it's POV to claim that the personal liberty of PRC citizens is inviolable when that's so at odds with the facts. --Trovatore 15:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- True. This page could be considered a stub also, and a complete page would the Chinese Constitution claims versus the PRC's practices, such as the continuous hunt for subversive use of internet. nihil 09:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- Certainly, divergence between what's promised and what's delivered should be mentioned in the US article as well. My POV of course is that there's nothing close to an equivalence here--the guarantees in the US Constitution are meaningful though not perfectly upheld, whereas the PRC ones are a sick joke in a basically fascist country. But I wouldn't say that in an article because it would be POV, just as it's POV to claim that the personal liberty of PRC citizens is inviolable when that's so at odds with the facts. --Trovatore 15:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- Shall we then cover civil liberties from the executive point of view (i.e. include violations), also in civil liberties and civil liberties in the United States? Or leave these articles to cover the legal point of view and cover the actual execution of protections elsewhere? --80.186.4.246 15:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Reality vs. Constitution
"The article is accurate about the Constitution"
Then it should be titled "Civil liberties in the constitution of the People's Republic of China." If the article is "Civil liberties in the People's Republic of China" it needs to describe the realities of civil liberties in the PRC. That is, that people in the PRC have very limited civil liberties and are not granted freedom of religion or freedom of speech.
- As many of you know the Constitution of the U.S.S.R. also declared free speech but this was clearly not allowed for the majority of the soviet system.Tjb891 00:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Include two sections?
Why not have two sections, one dealing with the rights as laid out in the constitution, and the other dealing with the actual situation? Putting both in the same article allows one to compare and contrast the actual situation with what is laid out in the constitution. If the article grows two large, it can be split into two. --Aveek 17:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
