Talk:Human rights in China

message: Please clarify the progress in international monitoring of law and justice in China: Progress and defeats.
As I see it, WTO rules and all international business should demand that all lawsuits in any country of concern could be followed by external foreign and/or domestic human right jurists. It can be a prerequisite for international business. Is this practice in place in international agreements of business: China and elsewhere? Who summon the access in all court cases? I belive that transparency is an acknowledged principle.
As I understand there is in June 2019 concern of transparency of justice systems in Hongkong and China but also many other countries as an international concern. In which degree WTO rules or human right organizations + jurists  address this?  
June 2019 people in Hongkong  demonstrated: , ,  Watti Renew (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  International monitoring of law and justice 

message: User:Doanri has reverted the edit, which removed the claim that "[Human rights in China] is periodically reviewed by the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC)" (my reverted edit included explanation that the reference "does not provide HRCommittee coverage on PRC in general - just on Macau and Hong Kong").
However, the reference which User:Doanri has returned shows HRCommittee reports on Hong Kong and Macau only (see below at the right: "Human Rights Committee Concluding observations - China (Hong Kong) (2013) CCPR/C/CHN-HKG/CO/3 Concluding observations - China (Macau) (2013) CCPR/C/CHN-MAC/CO/1 "). This page (at OHCHR website - maybe someone confused OHCHR with UN HRCommittee?) includes links to documents by many other UN bodies - but only two aforementioned documents by HRCommittee. --87.226.9.22 (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review of HRiC by UN Human Rights Committee 

message: :Uyghur genocide has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Uyghur genocide]] has an [[WP:RFC|RFC]]

message: In trying to verify one of the sources to support the group of the sentences below, I read the actual FT article and found no reference to Hukou, migrant workers, or rural workers. Instead the article talks about the fact that the employer, Longmay Coal, was suffering from heavy debt loads and had to resort to selling off assets in order to repay debt. This is not a human rights issue. This is an issue of failing companies burdened by heavy debt loads.
:It is also found that rural workers have been paid under minimum wage to nothing at all. A group of coal miners in Shuangyashan were being paid little to nothing. With the families and people whom they had to care for, each and every one of the workers protested for the money that they deserved.
The link to the FT article is this -- https://www.ft.com/content/1f8519fe-e8cd-11e5-bb79-2303682345c8
Unless there are objections, this section of the article should be removed as it is not valid.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.148.176.172 (talk) 05:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hukou system - Treatment of rural workers 

message: I have removed a substantial amount of copyvio material added by an UPE sock (diff). I understand a lot of it might be due in this article, so someone might want to review the removed sources to fill any gaps (but please, do not reintroduce the removed text as-is, since it was copy-paste and close paraphrasing). MarioGom (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio removals