"

 Human rights section should be removed 

After reading through this section it should either be removed or renamed ""Why Chinese are dogs and Tibet deserves freedom"" section. Referenced or not it's a far cry from unbiased. I don't even see why a section like that is needed   

I have added some more references to the ‘human rights’ section. I have also removed a number of the “XYZ claims that…” phrases, because they (a) disrupt the flow/readability (b) are unnecessary; just click on the reference if you want to see who is making the claim.
I am not too surprised that this new section is upsetting some editors. Nevertheless, I absolutely disagree with claims that the information presented is biased, false, or unverified. Regarding neutral POV, what about consensus POV? Information about human rights in Tibet falls into 2 categories; in one the sole source is the Chinese Government, and in the other side is every other source (including UN, HRW, Amnesty, RSF, etc, etc….). 
I would like to see the “neutrality disputed” tag removed from this section, can we please continue the discussion here to resolve specific concerns? Provide additional sources if you disagree with the information from existing sources.   
At best this section is a place for pro-Tibet to post links to anti-China websites and vice-versa. It really doesn't contribute to the article as a whole.   

 I will say it again - if you disagree with the existing sources then add your own, otherwise quit whining. And surely you cannot be serious about removing the section. Human Rights in Tibet is a very serious issue, and this page is the right place to cover it.   
I'd agree entirely. However, some of the wording could probably made more neutral while preserving the facts. For instance: adding ""According to Human Rights Watch, a non-government organization, Tibetans are denied..."". (Which is done for several other sentences). It might also allay some concerns if sources could be found from a less-biased source. I'm not really disputing the accuracy of HRW or FreeTibet, but it's rather harder to argue that an article from the New York Times suffers from a bias. Just my $0.02.   
It is essential to state where the sources is retreated from in a particular statement.  In a controversial section like this, its important to differentiate the origin of the source, because many links cited in this section came from a particular organization.  
The user who started this section grouped a bunch of statements (with various citings) together.  Some of the statements are not supported by one reference but the other, we have to pick them out and make sure they fit the accurate reference.  
referenced or not its a far cry from unbiased. Please review WP:NPOV. Wikipedia must report viewpoints held by both Chinese and human rights organizations. A statement of fact cannot be biased, and ""X states Y"" is a statement of fact.   
I should add however, that which facts ought to be included is up for discussion under WP:UNDUE. However, since the vast majority of English press regarding Tibet deals with human rights issues, I don't think it can reasonably contested that a ""Human rights"" section ought to be part of this article. 
 I am the one who started this section. I did it in good faith, and considered it to be an initial draft for further development. I tried to group the statements together into a logical sequence, and also tried to accurately link the statements to their supporting references. I appreciate the constructive edits done by other editors since then, and before I add any more references I will help to clean up the existing text so that it faithfully ties to the existing references. 

 GimmeDanger is absolutely correct in saying that a statement of fact (ie. has evidence to support it) cannot be biased; it is a fact, end of story. However, what often happens on other Wiki pages is that the argument then moves to which references are considered reliable. This is the reason I have used a variety of different sour