Talk:One-child policy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the One-child policy article.
	This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2

WikiProject China     (Rated B-Class)
	This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article... High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WPMEDmedicine articles	WikiProject Medicine / Reproductive medicine	(Rated B-Class, Low-importance)
	Medicine portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctors' mess.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This page is supported by Reproductive medicine task force.

It is requested that an image or photograph of billboard advertising be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in China may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Archives
1, 2

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 60 days are automatically archived.

Contents 1 Human rights abuses? 2 Source problem 3 Surrogate mothers 4 Neutrality 5 Citation Update Needed

[edit] Human rights abuses?

Why the article is included within Category:Human rights abuses? If population control is human rights abuse, then we have to redefine "human rights" and "abuse". It is a blatant anti-China propaganda. The purpose of one-child policy is not political, it not targeted against any political group, the purpose of one-child policy is to control the population explosion and it is a social policy aimed to alleviate social, economic, and environmental problems. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Also while there are some human rights concerns regarding the effects of this policy, it is not the policy itself. Every government policy may have some side-effects, that does not mean we will put all that policies under human rights abuses category. Arguments by economic right wingers like Stephen Moore that One child policy is "an ongoing genocide" is a misleading fringe view. Even USA PATRIOT Act is not included in human rights abuses category. Hugo Chávez has described Israeli actions against Palestine as a "new Holocaust", does that mean we will put Israel Defense Forces in genocide category? Keep it neutral. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand the point, but many, many people think of the One-Child Policy in this context. I guess I would want to know more about the list of articles in the Human rights abuses. Does the list include only uncontroversial claims (and therefore is exceedingly short) or does it include articles for which there is a large group of people believe the subject of the article is defined thus (in which case this article would obviously be included). Seeing as "REligiously motivated violence in the US", "Capital punishment in ____", "Human rights abuse by the US", "Persecution of Christians in Mexico" and so on are included, I don't see the problem with this controversial topic being in there. While I am in favor of the policy, it's not hard to argue that it is worse than capital punishment for hardcore convicted criminals.LedRush (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, aim of the policy is not human rights abuse or political repression, its aim is alleviation of social problems. It may has some side-effects as all government policies may have, but calling it as a whole "human rights abuse" is not neutral. It is also not hard to argue that the situation of the uninsured in the United States are worse than capital punishment for hardcore convicted criminals where the only saviors of the uninsured are charitable organizations. We do not call something which is really controversial, the USA PATRIOT Act, human rights abuse. One-child policy may have certain human rights concerns as a side-effect, but categorizing the entire policy article as "human rights abuse" is naked cold war-style propaganda against China. The policy is not created with the motivation to repress a particular political group. After all the policy has support from majority of China's population. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I think your statements are over-the-top and inaccurate. It is possible to believe that the One Child Policy itself as the denial of the basic human right to have children. The intended goal of the policy (or more accurately, the only means of achieving the goal) is to limit people to one child and this practice itself is considered by many, many people to be a human rights abuse. To call criticism of the policy "naked cold war-style propaganda against China" is just absurd, though obviously some groups and countries may use this policy as a pre-text for anti-China sentiments. However, the simple fact remains that you can love China, be pro-China, and still abhor this policy and consider it a human rights abuse.LedRush (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Source problem

• Chen Wei (2005). "Sex Ratios at Birth in China". Proceedings of CEPED-CICRED-INED Seminar on Female Deficit in Asia. http://www.cicred.org/Eng/Seminars/Details/Seminars/FDA/papers/18_ChenWei.pdf. Retrieved on 2 March 2009. 

This source specifically says it's only a draft and shouldn't be cited. Can someone track down the final version of it so we can cite that instead? I'm not familiar with this literature so I'm hoping maybe someone else will have an easier time finding it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: When somebody presents a paper at a public conference, they cannot demand that the paper not be cited. They can request that it not be QUOTED, since they want to reserve the right to revise or improve the writing. So yes, you can cite, just don't quote it.--Mack2 (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Surrogate mothers

Just found this interesting article, somewhat relevant to one-child policy:

• Pomfret, James (30 April 2009). "Forced abortions shake up China wombs-for-rent industry". Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE53T04D20090430. Retrieved on 4 May 2009. 

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

The"criticism" section looks like "personnal resarch" to me. This article should just describe one-child policy. This is a goddamn encyclopedia not some anti-chinese rallyMitch1981 (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Citation Update Needed

The link in reference 49 (should link to an article on the State Department website) is dead. It should probably be removed or updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.71.156.233 (talk) 06:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the notice. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)