Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This talk page

I'm thinking of moving or at least copying the relevant portions of the Falun Gong talk page over here so that we can discuss in the correct place and not overuse the main talk page. Thoughts? CovenantD 16:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. That page explodes every day with posts. --Yenchin 17:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I seond that approach, and agree with your edits below. Thanks for putting in those "citation needed" comments. They will help us focus on what needs to be done. --Tomananda 18:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think I got everything. Many of the concerns are being addressed with my revision, and the revisions based on it, so let's continue to look forward. CovenantD 23:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

From the main Falun Gong talk page

Text that needs to be deleted, verified or re-written

5. Unsourced material which makes claims about what actually happened during the Tianamin Square self-immolation indicent:

• The campaign of government criticism begun in 1999 was considered by most observers to be largely ineffectual until January 2001,( unsourced POV) when persons whom the government claimed were Falun Gong practitioners. And:
• Falun Gong practitioners emphatically denied that the people who set themselves on fire could have been actual practitioners, since suicide is completely against Falun Gong's principles. (unsourced POV) And:
• Falun Gong members believe that the incident is an attempt of the Chinese government to turn public opinion in China against Falun Gong to rally support for government crackdown. Falun Gong practitioenrs claim that their Master forbids suicide but have not yet provide any such statements.

This material currently appears in the page called Persecution of Falun Gong. An editor added the comments about unsourced POV) some time ago, but without a response from any of the pro-Falun Gong editors. Dilip states he can re-write this material and provide verifiable sources, and other editors have commented, but so far no alternative text has been proposed.

6. Additional unsourced or unverified material appearing in the page called Persecution of Falun Gong:

• Falun Gong practitioners have affimed that the people seen in the video were not actually practitioners.

Dilip says he can provide sources for this claim, but they all appear to be Falun Gong’s own websites. This does not meet the standard of verification that is needed.

• Falun Gong practitioners went to Tianjin College of Education, which published the magazine, and related governmental agencies and held peaceful protests.

What source, other than a Falun Gong website, verifies that the protest was peaceful? We know that 45 practitioners were arrested during this protest and it is likely that they were disrupting the normal course of business at this magazine publisher’s office, at the least.

   194.88.250.22 09:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC) This is not the cause. Even if one fails to believe Falun Gong practitioners' claims that they always try to be good people (thus leading to the automatic conclusion that the protest MUST have been peaceful), one still needs to take into account the allegations that the CCP (including police and so on) is carrying out a GROUNDLESS persecution of Falun Gong practitioners. Thus, it is not necessary that the practitioners disrupted the publishers' office affairs in order to be arrested - they could be arrested for any reason, and the government wouldn't take into account the type of the protest (peaceful or not). A deeper discussion of this point cannot be hosted here, on Wikipedia, because it would involve OR (such as practitioners saying that they have indeed practiced and felt Truthfulness, Compassion, Forbearance as well as great character improvements and that no claims can have more influence than their own experience). 194.88.250.22 09:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

7. A paragraph about the Zhongnanhai protest alleging that practitioners were beaten by the police and that the Chinese media reports of the protest were incaccurate. Material in the page called Persecution of Falun Gong is either not sourced at all, or cites one of Falun Gong's own websites:

• Some practitioners were arrested and were, according to reports, beaten by the police. Several days later, for 12 hours on April 25, about 10,000 people gathered at the Central Appeal Office at Foyou street, outside Zhongnanhai, the headquarters of Chinese Communist Government and lined up along a 2 km stretch. They held no signs and chanted no slogans. Premier Zhu Rongji met with some representatives of the practitioners and promised to resolve the situation within three days. The practitioners dispersed peacefully after they received word that Zhu had agreed to their requests. Nevertheless, it was widely reported by the Chinese media that Falun Gong practitioners organizing a protest in the heart of the Chinese Communist Party alarmed many senior leaders, particularly Jiang Zemin. According to some estimates, at this time there were more than 100,000 Falun Gong practitioners in Beijing alone. Some analysts claimed that about 70 million people practice it, which is more than the number of members in the Chinese Communist Party (about 60 million people).

This paragraph, which clearly represents a POV about what happened, does not have any source other than a Falun Gong website.

8. A subsequent paragraph in the same section which claims that 2,840 Falun Gong practitioners have died while in police or government custody in China.

• The Falun Dafa Information Center, a website which "endeavors to compile, cross-check, organize and publish" [3] reports about the government crackdown on Falun Gong, has confirmed that at least 2,840 (March 2006) Falun Gong practitioners have died while in police or government custody.

The source provided for this information is one of Falun Gong’s own websites. If this claim cannot be verified by a non-Falun Gong source, it must be deleted.

9. In a subsequent paragraph, a sentence reporting unverified practitioners’ claims that practitioners are not encouraged to avoid, by practice, most conventional medicine:

• A frequent argument made by Chinese scientists is that followers are encouraged to avoid, by practice, most conventional medicine. Falun Gong practitioners point out that no such incident has been reported outside China and that such accusations surfaced only after the persecution started.

Even if this claim of practitioners came from a verifiable source other than a Falun Gong website, it is directly contradicted by the Master’ own teachings:

Taking medication during cultivation implies that you do not believe in the disease-curing effects of cultivation. If you believed in it, why would you take medication? Falun Gong, revised edition, Chapter Five, Questions and Answers, p. 82.

10. In a subsequent paragraph, an unverified claim that the Falun Gong is not “political”

• CCP claims that the practice has deviated its focus from engaging in spiritual cultivation to engaging in politics, basing their opinions on the existence of numerous websites disparate from, yet in support of, Falun Gong (such as Friends of Falun Gong). Due to an implication derived from its core principles, the teachings of Falun Gong are said to forbid any political involvement, and practitioners claim to have little interest in power or politics, the large number of protests to the crackdown notwithstanding. Falun Gong's supporters, such as The Epoch Times, tend to be conservative and anti-communist. Kangang Xu, a Falun Gong speaker, is the Chairman of the paper's board.

This unsourced material also violates Wikipedia’s policy against original research and NPOV. Editors cannot report the views of Falun Gong practitioners in this way to refute the claim of the CCP that the Falun Gong has turned “from engaging in spiritual cultivation to engaging in politics.” The second sentence contains a non-sequitur (the stuff about the conservative nature of the Epoch Times) as well as an unverified claim concerning an alleged implication deriving from Falun Gong’s core principles that is said “to forbid any political involvement.” Actually, the exact opposite is true: Li Honghzhi demands that his practitioners do everything they can to publicly undermine the CCP, with the explicit goal of reducing membership in the party by millions of people. (These numbers are updated in the Epoch Times, the paper Li’s disciples created to validate Li’s teachings. In the name of “validating the Dafa” Falun Gong practitioners are required to pursue Li’s political objective of overthrowing the Chinese Communist Party. This is an absolute requirement for one to be considered a Dafa disciple during this “Fa-rectification period” and Li reminds his practitioners of this requirement in all his lectures.--Tomananda 21:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

My edits of June 1 consisted mainly of the following -

1) Replacing text removed by Tomananda that didn't have proper citation

2) Placing <citation needed> tags where appropriate, and rewriting where necessary to show amiguity or clarity

Rationale - It behooves us to allow time for proper citations to be found, as long as it's done in a timely manner and those bits are noted. Just like the debate of Fang & Deng, if citations are not provided in a few days then those passages can be removed or rewritten.

CovenantD 16:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Rutgers Journal source

I think this paper that appeared in the Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion can serve as a source for a most of the things which were found to be poorly sourced.

http://www-camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/new_devs/RJLR_ND_66.pdf

As for the opinion expressed by Falun Gong practitioners Falundafa websites like www.faluninfo.net can act as primary source.

Dilip rajeev 20:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually Dilip I don't think it will, at least for most of the problem areas. According to Wiki policy, the editor who has introduced material has the responsibilty of providing the sources, and just a blanket statment like this doesn't do that. You really do need to go through every "citation needed" entry and find the source. If your Rutgers Journal article has some of the material, then fine. But it's not some other editor's job to go through the work of finding what's there. --Tomananda 22:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are a few more insightful sources: http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa22579.000/hfa22579_0.HTM http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/news/bn2005/bn-2005-11-15.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilip rajeev (talk • contribs)

I think the article that the PDF link that Dilip provided is short enough (11 pages total) that being more specific isn't really needed, although I do recommend it. Dilip, since it's a PDF and has set pages, perhaps you could include which page number you're referencing when you use it. CovenantD 18:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Footnote to my last comment - I'm not judging the source itself at this point, just the way it's referenced in the article. I'm not going to challenge citations myself, from either side, but will help mediate debates about them. CovenantD 18:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Having said that, there is a conflict about to erupt. These two statements seem to contradict each other.

There being no concept of organization of membership in Falun Gong...

As for the opinion expressed by Falun Gong practitioners Falundafa websites like www.faluninfo.net can act as primary source.

If there is no formal organization, then there can be no source that speaks for all practitioners. The more accurate phrasing would be something like, "According to the website www.faluninfo.net [1]..." with a specific reference to the page that supports that claim. Thoughts? CovenantD 18:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed tag removed

Dilip, I see that you have again removed the tag from this bit - The campaign of government criticism begun in 1999 was considered by most observers to be largely ineffectual until January 2001... and I have to ask. Why? CovenantD 18:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought the source I provided at the end of the paragraph( not immediatley after) atleast indirectly alludes to that conclusion. Kindly let me know if that source will suffice.. Though it may be hard to find a source with the same wording...

Dilip rajeev 04:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Somewhere along the way it was changed to "The campaign of government criticism increased in January 2001..." I think the new wording works without a citation. Does that work? CovenantD 05:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda or incident itself?

"Observers believe that the incident is an attempt of the Chinese government to turn public opinion in China against Falun Gong to rally support for government crackdown."

According to the Rutgers paper cited:

"The propaganda capitalized on the alleged self-immolation of five Falun Gong members in Tiananmen Square on January 23, 2001 in which a mother died and her 12-year-old daughter was severely burned. “By repeatedly broadcasting images of the girl’s burning body and interviews with the others saying they believed self-immolation would lead them to paradise, the government convinced many Chinese that Falun Gong was an ‘evil cult.’”"

Note that there is no mention or allegations of the Chinese Government staging the incident itself, it just points out that the government is using the incident as an opportunity for propaganda. I'll remove the citation. --Yenchin 19:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Another possibility that is factual and allows the citation is to change it to "Observers believe that reaction to the incident is an attempt by the Chinese government to turn..."

One other thing I just noticed - it refers to observers, plural, but only includes one citation. Can another be located? CovenantD 20:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason why I didn't change the text itself was because the current citation at least supports that some people (observers?) do believe that the incident is staged to cause negative opinion.

In the citation, written by Mediachannel.org editor Daniel Schetcher, he mentions these opinions from a newsperson and an organization. He himself also expresses that he thinks similarly.

I guess the final text will be up to everyone's opinion.

--Yenchin 21:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a very well written incident involving falun Gong adherents in the third section of a book called Wild Grass by the author Ian Johnson, in case someone is curious to find out more.

Thanks, also here is a link to the book: http://www.randomhouse.com/pantheon/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780375421860 and the link from amazon with the review's http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0375421866/ref=dp_proddesc_0/105-0754959-3963607?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books --HappyInGeneral 16:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sky Net

I re-added the Sky Net bit for now, but it needs better explanation for why it's relevant. If it's not shown to have some major relevance in a few days, it needs to be removed. CovenantD 04:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It is the undercover investigation by Sky Net on organ harvesting. I think it is relevant. Fnhddzs 17:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Time quote

Somebody commented out the Time quote and inserted a note saying the info was wrong. While a rebuttal from a reliable source may be included, Time is also considered a reliable source and use of their article is acceptable. If they issued a correction that may be included, but the sentence cannot be removed because a Falun Gong site disputes it.

I urge the commentor to make a more detailed explanation over here. The Daniel Schetcher essay says that the Western media believed what China sells about the incident. It addresses nothing about the Time article, in which it directly quoted a FLG member.

Also "facts were mis-represented in western media" doesn't directly conclude to "everything they report which gives a bad image to FLG is wrong".

--Yenchin 17:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Also let me get this straight, in the notes, it is mentioned:

• To be noted that Falun Gong had been supressed since 1999 and there was no official arm in Beijing at that time.

Are we missing something here? Falun Gong has been supressed since 1999, and we are still reading reports from FLG media about people getting arrested because of their FLG related activities. Using "supressed" to say "no official arm" is like saying there are no illegal activities because they're banned.

• The Time report doesn't say official arm.

Again I find this beyond reason. It doesn't say official so it isn't? By this logic lots of the so-called "evidence" raised to support the FLG POV could be waived in a puff of smoke.

--Yenchin 18:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The book of "Poisonous Deceit"

ISBN 0-9731181-0-5 I added it back to external link. According to http://www.deep6-publishing.org/about.htm, the author has nothing to do with Falun Gong. And it is not self-published. Fnhddzs 17:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Improving this page

A lot of material that were on the article was either original research or lacking a source. The removed pictures have practitioners enacting alleged torture. The Sujiatun allegation has its own page, it is only appropriate for the info to be displayed there. --Samuel Luo 18:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Organ harvesting happens on numerous sites, not only Sujiatun. You cannot use Sujiatun to denote it. Also you tried to delete my numerous references. Also I scanned one word, you were talking about "olaf". That is really odd. This is a user name of our fellow wikipedia editor! How could you mention this name in your edits. I am sorry I cannot see any point you are improving the page. Please discuss before you made the huge change. Fnhddzs 21:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I don't understand the extra paragraph you added? We are talking about the persecution of Falun Gong. If you want to critise something, please move to the critism page. Fnhddzs 02:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Those pictures with practitioners acting in them have no place in wikipedia. You guys obviously have the whole video why not show it to people? --Yueyuen 04:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So Fnhddzs, are you conceeding the point that the so called "Sujiatun harvesting" is faked? --Yenchin 05:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yenchin Do you agree that all the material about organ harvesting should be compiled on one page? Also, are you interested in working with me to clarify the facts about "The Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident"? I can do better when there is a commitment. --Yueyuen 06:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Sujiatun does deserve a page of its own. It has been like a few months of news and a detailed page would be better. As for the Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident I can help since it is one of my interests on FLG. --Yenchin 06:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sujiatun is just one of many sites involved in organ harvesting on live Falun Gong practitioners. We may need a page on organ harvesting on live Falun Gong practitioners, not only Sujiatun. Fnhddzs 00:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC) However, you deleted numerous references on organ harvesting. I should warn you by hiding the reports, you guys are committing a sin. Fnhddzs 00:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This information below is very revealing. It should be included, however, with a neutral title. --Pirate101 04:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry I don't see its relevance with this article. In my view, it is just some point of view or misunderstanding based on one or two phrases of quotes without context. If you insist on putting somewhere, it may go to the critism article or we could address it some where related to the teachings. Fnhddzs 18:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs: Like lying and forged evidence as well as justification of such is not a sin? Yeah right. "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Richard Dawkins. --Yenchin 06:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yenchin: Sorry but what do you mean by forged evidence? The organ harvesting on living people is an evil ever to happen on this planet. What could be more cruel if you are trying to hide these reports? Let's put down personal disputes and be focused on articles. Fnhddzs 18:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs, there are many contraraian facts agsint Falun Gong's allegation:

- US State Department investigation found no evidence: http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=April&x=20060416141157uhyggep0.5443231&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html

- US Congressional investigation reported by The Australian discredits the claim also: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18669046-7583,00.html

- Malaysian government documenting prior year official visit to the open-to-public joint venture hospital accused by Falun Gong: http://crc.gov.my/clinicalTrial/documents/Proposal/TCM_Stroke%20TrialProtocol%20synopsis.pdf

- Harry Wu of Laogai Research Foundation doubts FLG's claim: http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/bc.cgi?bc/bccn/0606/07chinese

- HK newspaper Takunpao's investigation discredits FLGs claim: http://www.takungpao.com/news/06/03/31/ZM-545907.htm

- A reporter's first hand experience with Falun Gong media outlet, Epoch Times: http://holidarity.blogspot.com/2006/04/organ-harvesting-controversy.html

- 2000 ClearWisdom story on Wang Bin, without mentioning of organ harvesting: http://clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2000/11/16/6164.html (Ref. Kilgour report Appendix 12, Case 1)

- The financial connection between Falun Gong and Epoch Times found in non-profit declarations (Form 990, Page 2, Part III c):

Southern USA Falun Dafa Association. $10,350 were given to Epoch Times in 2002, $22,700 in 2003, $14,750 in 2004: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2002/760/692/2002-760692185-1-9.pdf http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2004/760/692/2003-760692185-1-9.pdf http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2004/760/692/2004-760692185-1-9.pdf

Falun Dafa Association of New England. $57,609 were spent on computer and print media, $97,755 in 2003, $116,823 in 2004: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2002/043/576/2002-043576893-1-9.pdf http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2003/043/576/2003-043576893-1-Z.pdf http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2004/043/576/2004-043576893-02038ba1-9.pdf

(These are but two examples of the hundreds of FLG non-profits in USA. IMHO who pays for Epoch Times is not a secret.) bobby fletcher 13:08, 31 July 2006

Then who payed for Epoch Times? I think most workers are volunteers. I am one of distributors. Nobody pay me. I was trying to help on translation but I was too busy so I quit. Any free newspaper would have advertisements. The advertisements are from all kind of places, such as restaurants, insurance etc. Of course, volunteers contact potential clients to generate advertisements. I helped to take photos for advertisements. For all things like flyers, the money are payed by individual practitioners who make them. But nobody is asked to pay anything. Everything is voluntary. If I have more money, I would like to make more flyers or things like that since I know saving money is not as important as saving people and clarifying truth. You know what I mean. Fnhddzs 21:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs, that doesn't mean people are free to make up "Auschwitz" story. And I don't think the fact you are not paid can disprove the financial connection between Falun Gong and Falun Gong's propaganda arm Epoch Times.

Also, Harry Wu of Laogai Research Foundation just released his investigation - guess what? he also found the claim not credible: http://www.zonaSPAMLINK--Asdfg12345 20:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)europa.com/20060806_1.htm --bobby fletcher 13:44, 10 August 2006 (PST)

That is a blog, as far as I know it's CCP controlled. Could you please find a more credible source? --HappyInGeneral 16:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The cruelty of Falun Gong leadership

In the West, practitioners are perceived as heroic and admirable for daring to demand human rights from an authoritarian government. However, these heroes are really compelled by fear or baited by the spell their Master casts. Li’s scolding of those who have failed to break away from their family (Li calls it break away from humanness) attachment reveals all:

Some of the people [practitioners]…have had their lives extended through the Fa; some of them have received all kinds of benefits, such as good health, harmony in the family, indirect benefits to their relatives and friends, a reduction of their karma, and even Master’s bearing things for them… Despite this, when Dafa is about to consummate you, you are unable to step forward from humanness, and when the evil persecutes Dafa you are unable to stand up to validate Dafa. These people who only want to take from Dafa and not give for Dafa are, in the eyes of Gods, the worst beings. Moreover, this Fa is what’s fundamental in the cosmos, so those people who are still unable to step forward today will be weeded out after this tribulation is over.”[1]

Reaching consummation is the goal of Falun Gong cultivation; practitioners are taught that they will become gods or Buddhas living in heaven. Li’s statement reveals a circumstance that the West does not see: these practitioners were not driven by their love of human rights but by Li's promises of heaven or threats of hell.

Giving up the Falun Gong under any circumstance is a sin, a disgrace according to Li: “Some students haven’t been able to endure amidst the agony of the persecution, and have done what a Dafa disciple absolutely should not and cannot do. That is a disgrace to Dafa.” He followed it up by explaining why willing to die for the Falun Gong benefits practitioners themselves:

If your righteous thoughts are truly strong, if you're able to put aside the thought of life and death, and if you're solid and unshakable like diamond, then those evil beings [Chinese authorities] won't dare to touch you, because they know that other than killing you any type of persecution will be useless. The evil will have no choice but to leave you alone. If in this scenario the evil still persecutes you, then Master will show no leniency. Master has countless Law Bodies, and on top of this, there are countless righteous Gods helping me do things, and they will directly eliminate the evil, too. Didn't I tell you before that each of you Dafa disciples has eight types of Heavenly Law-Guardians protecting you? It's all because you haven't done well enough that all these Gods are being restrained by the old cosmos’s Fa-principles and can’t do anything, despite their really wanting to help.[2]

So, when practitioners suffer they should blame themselves for not being worthy of the Master’s divine protection. Safety, not consummation is guaranteed here but only when one is willing to give up his or her life. Apparently, Li has thought of every angel to convince followers to “willingly” die for him.

Craig S. Smith from the New York Times noticed the lack of concern for the well being of practitioners from their Master. He reportes “Mr. Li's cryptic exhortations to followers on the Falun Gong Web site have grown increasingly strident, chastising those people who cannot endure torture or even death in defense of his cosmology, which holds that Falun Gong is engaged in a struggle with evil beings for the redemption or destruction of the universe. "Even if a dafa cultivator truly casts off his human skin during the persecution, what awaits him is still consummation," Mr. Li wrote a few days after the labor camp deaths. Dafa means great law or dharma, and refers to Falun Gong, which can be translated as Law Wheel Practice. Consummation is an apparently transcendent event that is the goal of all followers. "Any fear is itself a barrier that prevents you from reaching consummation," Mr. Li wrote.” [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pirate101 (talk • contribs)

Stop the persecution

No. friend. this world is not for persecuting good people. Nothing could be more cruel than hiding the facts. Think about what if your family and friends got organ harvested alive!! Speak righteously, for your own prospect! Fnhddzs 04:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Months ago, the title was persecution of Falun Gong[4]. I just restored. Fnhddzs 19:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It was moved from Persecution after much discussion, as you very well know. Many editors consider "Persecution" to be POV, as seen in archives of talk pages for the main article. CovenantD 17:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Facts are not based on some editors's subjective judgement[5]. People not persecuted in person may not know the severity. We should be conscious and responsible. Don't make a deal with the evil. Fnhddzs 02:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this article from editing, there appears to be a long-running edit war going on with no discussion. Work out your differences here on the talk page, find consensus, and then the page will be unprotected. --Cyde Weys 01:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have unprotected to ascertain the current status of any disputes. Fred Bauder 14:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion?

Samuel said his stuff is deleted. However, in his revert, he deleted a lot of stuff with credible source. Now, I will add those first and then look at other different parts between two version. Fnhddzs 01:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Is Title of "Is the Tiananmen Square Self-immolation Incident Staged?" POV?

Or "the Tiananmen Square Self-immolation Incident" POV?

I think the latter is POV. CCP said it is self-immolation. But Falun Gong teachings said "committing suicide is sinful". [6] And from the slow motion desctructs, the woman was beaten and fell down to the fire when she tried to stand up. And there are a lot of other self contradictory places. So Falun Gong website said it is staged. [7] If it is staged, then it is murder not self-immolation.

The former has a question mark, it is NPOV. I think it is fair to use this title. Fnhddzs 02:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

A short piece of Slow motion deconstucts of the video broadcasted by Xinhua News Agency

I restored the image. Click the image you will find its copy right information. It is a valid source. Whether the whole video is needed or not could not support your removing the image in the article. Fnhddzs

Minor spelling mistake

Move to "Suppression of Falun Gong"; the word "suppression" is misspelled. Peter O. (Talk) 20:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The current picture on the page

Regarding the caption of the arrest of peaceful protestors in Beijing. It would be more encyclopedic and opinion-neutral to state that they were Falun Gong protestors, not peaceful ones, as no context was given. Jsw663 08:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Does the PRC viewpoint need to be aired on this page?

The whole section may require at least a brief rebuttal by the PRC government's viewpoint as the page is filled entirely with Falun Gong's and anti-PRC-groups' viewpoints (mostly unproven allegations) only. Whilst the topic of this page inevitably means a pro-Falun Gong-bias, it would be unfair to only air one view, not to talk about contravening Wiki's policies. What are other people's views on this? Jsw663 16:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you provide the PRC point of view, like their justification for banning this cult? --Yueyuen 05:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There would be several problems - a) I'm not a CCP member and thus cannot speak for the CCP, b) It is desperately hard to find any sources translated into English that can be easily accessible, e.g. via the internet, which explain the CCP view in sufficient detail, and c) Wikipedia usually requires sourced statements to be aired as it is encyclopedic. Moreover, since I am not an expert in the field, I don't think I can adequately provide these three points as I'd hardly be in the best position to do so. Jsw663 10:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Not that while we greatly prefer English sources, Chinese language sources will do. Obviously they have a unique set of problems but they're still acceptable. Also, AFAIK altho we prefer secondary sources, primary sources of government views and claims are generally accepted Nil Einne 12:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Spelling mistake of Wiki entry

Suppression is spelt with two 'p's... can an editor move this entire article into a correctly-spelt entry? Thanks. Jsw663 16:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Added NPOV tag

This article has many statements that are clearly POV, notably "in order to peacefully protest the hate propaganda against the Falun Gong." Canthony 17:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Links

Falun Gong should have a wikilink from this page. And perhaps it's not the only wording that is missing the wikilink. --213.157.175.121 16:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

To administrators, please add Falun Gong as wikilink in the Suppression of Falun Gong page. Thx. --213.157.175.121 16:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You might want to use {{Editprotected}} Nil Einne 13:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Image warning

I've tagged the image Image:Tianamen beating.jpg as a possibly unfree image. Please check out Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#January 18 for info why. It's normal practice to add {{subst:unverifiedimage}} to the image caption, so if an admin can do that it would be great Nil Einne 13:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Done --Robdurbar 17:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

reconciliation

Hello, I just noticed the reverting happening on this page. I have not had a chance to have a good look but it looks like there are two quite different versions of everything. I would like to combine them, one section at a time. Sentence by sentence and paragraph by paragraph, and all the unfit material can be discarded, with the only thing remained sourced and neutral material. There is a lot of unsourced stuff and very biased writing which is no good. I just reverted the page back to the pro-Falun Gong version. I hope it stays that way, but if not I will not revert it again until trying this approach. I will start another page and use it for this. It is quite okay for wikipedia to provide contrasting narratives, and I think that would be an even more complete article. However, if it is biased writing and has no sources, then it is not not up to wikistandards, we can't keep it, and it doesn't belong in the article. In two days I will spend a few hours on this. I will post the link here. Just in case anyone knows - how can I start a new page, just like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong/Introduction. It is a page set up just to handle the discussion of the introduction on the Falun Gong page. I would start a new page for discussing this page, cut and paste both versions and then go through them paragraph by paragraph, come up with a new version which included both, remove the biased content. Of course, I have my own biases so if there were some other person on the opposite side who wants to see a good article they should participate. Okay, stay tuned. --Asdfg12345 17:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Suppression_of_Falun_Gong/new_version#Introduction

That is where you can find the page. I will be reviewing first the background section, trying to come up with a neutral introduction, then going through step by step. It is harder than I thought. Anyone who wants to participate please do. I think this is a better way of handling it then constant reverting. I want to emphasise what we are trying to achieve: the neutral presentation of competing narratives. Well, maybe more than that, but I think in many ways that is in essence what needs to happen for everyone to be satisfied. I hope.--Asdfg12345 01:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Pause that idea since it seems irrelevant now that reverting has stopped. Plus maybe changes and additions can go directly onto the current article, which seems better than a large amount of working coming up with a neutral article independently. I don't think anyone paid attention anyway.--Asdfg12345 14:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

New image

let's talk about her picture here. --Yueyuen 21:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Her name was Gao Rongrong. She is dead now because the CCP tortured her to death. So far, there's nothing to talk about. If you have some concrete concerns you are welcome to raise them, and I would urge you to do so because we want to improve this article, make it well-sourced, clear and neutral, because we want good, well-sourced clear and neutral articles. But right now you are blanking content without adequate explanation, breaking wikipedia rules, and you need to stop doing it.--Asdfg12345 21:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Intro 2nd paragraph

I was wondering why the following was removed. I'm not making a conclusion that its removal was wrong. I'm just wondering why.

The reasons behind the ban are inconclusive, although several theories seem to have gathered common ground in the various academic studies related to Falun Gong. The dominant theory holds that Falun Gong's religious elements and offers of salvation became a challenge to the orthodox communist ideologies on which the Communist Party of China(CPC)'s power is rested upon, and as Falun Gong's members looked to exceed the number of CPC members, the central leadership under President Jiang Zemin began to fear the extent of Falun Gong's political and social influence. Another theory puts Jiang Zemin squarely to blame as he became jealous of the popularity of Falun Gong's founder Li Hongzhi.

Colipon+(T) 04:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many one sided changes and removal of well sourced entry's. I'm making a list now. Thank you for your concern. --HappyInGeneral 04:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Who removed it anyway? Colipon+(T) 03:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Samuel Luo, see here: [8] --HappyInGeneral 10:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit Protected page 2007-02-07

see bellow 1. Reinsert image at right with coment

Gao Rongrong, was a Falun Gong practitioner, who died in custody in June after being detained in Longshan Reeducation through Labour facility in Shenyang, Liaoning province. Officials had reportedly beaten her in 2004, including by using electro-shock batons on her face and neck, which caused severe blistering and eyesight problems, after she was discovered reading Falun Gong materials. [9] [10] [11] ]]

This image is of Gao Rongrong, see here: [12]

2. Reinsert {{Fact|date=March 2008}} tags, this time with date.

Reason of removal: information blanking.

3. reinsert image [[Image:Tianamen_beating.jpg|thumb|right|250px| Arrest of Falun Gong protestors in Beijing]]

Reason of removal: information blanking (because there was no other reason provided).

4. reinsert paragraph

The reasons behind the ban are inconclusive, although several theories seem to have gathered common ground in the various academic studies related to Falun Gong. The dominant theory holds that Falun Gong's religious elements and offers of salvation became a challenge to the orthodox communist ideologies on which the Communist Party of China(CPC)'s power is rested upon, and as Falun Gong's members looked to exceed the number of CPC members, the central leadership under President Jiang Zemin began to fear the extent of Falun Gong's political and social influence. Another theory puts Jiang Zemin squarely to blame as he became jealous of the popularity of Falun Gong's founder Li Hongzhi.

Reason of removal: information blanking (because there was no other reason provided).

5. Change

“Falun Gong practitioners have claimed that the Zhongnanhai protest was their response to government suppression, but evidences show that this claim is questionable”

to

“Falun Gong practitioners have claimed that the Zhongnanhai protest was their response to government suppression, but critics allege that this claim is questionable.”

this is correct and it’s according to NPOV + revert was not justified in the first place.

6. Replace POV

Critics of the Chinese government, who are unaware of the Falun Gong's attacks against critics in China before the ban and the cultish nature of this group, has suggested it was the Zhongnanhai demonstration of April 25 that led to "fear, animosity and suppression".

with NPOV

Julia Ching from the University of Toronto, writing for the American Asian Review has suggested it was the Zhongnanhai demonstration of April 25 that led to "fear, animosity and suppression". In addition, Jiang Zemin had received a letter from the former director of the 301 Military Hospital, "a doctor with considerable standing among the political elite", endorsing Falun Gong and advising high-level cadres to start practicing it. Jiang also found out that Li's book, Zhuan Falun, had been published by People's Liberation Navy, and that possibly seven hundred thousand Communist party members were practitioners. Ching opines that "Jiang accepts the threat of Falun Gong as an ideological one: spiritual beliefs against militant atheism and historical materialism. He wishes to purge the government and the military of such beliefs." She also says that "the accusation of Falun Gong's being an "evil cult" made previous arrests and imprisonments "constitutional." Of course, the accusation was made after the government already had started to crack down on Falun Gong [practitioners]. The enumeration of features of an "evil cult" was done by political officials on political premises, not by any religious authority. It was an atheistic, Communist government, handing down an executive decision by the pronouncement of an "evil cult," without an explanation of what would be its opposite: a good cult, or a good religion." Similar theories about the fundamental reasons are also supported by Elizabeth J. Perry in Critical Asian Studies, a peer-reviewed quarterly journal.

Revert was not justified in the first place.

7. Add complete quote, or remove quote, don't quote out of context. Current quote is:

Recently, a few scoundrels from literary, scientific, and qigong circles, who have been hoping to become famous through opposing qigong, have been constantly causing trouble, as though the last thing they want to see is a peaceful world. Some newspapers, radio stations and TV stations in various parts of the country have directly resorted to these propaganda tools to harm our Dafa, having a very bad impact on the public. This was deliberately harming Dafa and cannot be ignored. Under these very special circumstances, Dafa disciples in Beijing adopted a special approach to ask those people to stop harming Dafa—this actually was not wrong. This was done when there was no other way (other regions should not copy their approach). But when students voluntarily approach those uninformed and irresponsible media agencies and explain to them our true situation, this should not be considered wrong.

the quote with the relevant context included is below:

Recently, a few scoundrels from literary, scientific, and qigong circles, who have been hoping to become famous through opposing qigong, have been constantly causing trouble, as though the last thing they want to see is a peaceful world. Some newspapers, radio stations and TV stations in various parts of the country have directly resorted to these propaganda tools to harm our Dafa, having a very bad impact on the public. This was deliberately harming Dafa and cannot be ignored. Under these very special circumstances, Dafa disciples in Beijing adopted a special approach to ask those people to stop harming Dafa—this actually was not wrong. This was done when there was no other way (other regions should not copy their approach). But when students voluntarily approach those uninformed and irresponsible media agencies and explain to them our true situation, this should not be considered wrong.

What I would like to tell you is not whether this incident itself was right or wrong. Instead, I want to point out that this event has exposed some people. They still have not fundamentally changed their human notions, and they still perceive problems with the human mentality wherein human beings protect human beings. I have said that Dafa absolutely should not get involved in politics. The purpose of this event itself was to help the media understand our actual situation and learn about us positively so that they would not drag us into politics. Speaking from another perspective, Dafa can teach the human heart to be good and it can stabilize society. But you must be clear that Dafa certainly is not taught for these purposes, but rather for cultivation practice.

Dafa has created a way of existence for the lowest level, mankind. Then, among various types of human behavior within the human form of existence at this level, which include collectively presenting facts to someone, and so forth, aren’t these one of the numerous forms of existence that Dafa gives to mankind at the lowest level? It is just that when humans do things, good and evil coexist. Thus, there are struggles and politics. Under extremely special circumstances, however, Dafa disciples adopted that approach from the Fa at the lowest level, and they completely applied their good side. Wasn’t this an act that harmonized the Fa at the level of mankind? Except under special extreme circumstances, this type of approach is not to be adopted.

Revert was not justified in the first place.

8. Complete sentence, current sentence:

The first arrest of Falun Gong practitioners occurred in April 1999. On April 11, 1999 the Science and Technology for Youth magazine in the city of Tianjin published an article containing negative remarks about the Falun Gong written by He Zuoxiu , a theoretical physicist. He also told the story of one of his colleagues who developed mental illness after practicing Falun Gong.

complete sentence:

The first arrest of Falun Gong practitioners occurred in April 1999. On April 11, 1999 the Science and Technology for Youth magazine in the city of Tianjin published an article containing negative remarks about the Falun Gong written by He Zuoxiu , a theoretical physicist who advocated against "youth practicing Qigong". He also asserted that he did not wish to see the young practice qigong, urging rather that they take up as many athletic sports as possible to help their bodies develop properly. He also told the story of one of his colleagues who, according to his claims, developed mental illness after practicing Falun Gong.

Revert was not justified in the first place.

9. add 2 links:

1. Pulitzer Prize Articles 1: A Deadly Exercise: Practicing Falun Gong Was a Right, Ms. Chen Said, to Her Last Day,
2. Pulitzer Prize Articles 10: Death Trap: How One Chinese City Resorted to Atrocities To Control Falun Dafa

Done for now, if anyone has any other change request or comment please post them here. --HappyInGeneral 05:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I request this be re-added. It was removed in the same fashion as the rest with no explanation. The writing in thesection about the incident refers to this video, this particular cut from it in particular. --Asdfg12345 16:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Not done, as that's very complex. Please create a version of the article with the changes included in a subpage (such as Suppresion of Falun Gong/scratch, then submit it here for discussion. Proto::► 15:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no way one side's views should be portrayed at the start of the article at the total expense of the other. Placing all those FG pictures at the start is pre-determining readers' opinions. Once again have you forgotten about WP:NPOV? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jsw663 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

The "False Fire" Fiasco

Beneath is the reasons for my fhttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_hr.png Horizontal line (use sparingly)uture edits once the article is unprotected.

1. "Though there are questions..." Cite the source, please.
2. Eason Jordan who was in Washington, was obviously guessing ("could not have come from"), unaware of the situation, in the original report [13] has shown:"Moments later four more people set themselves alight as military police detained the CNN crew, which had been taping the events." Emphasis mine.
3. Also, [14], "The CNN crew that attempted to film the scene was detained by police and a tape was confiscated.The producer did get a small tape out by hiding it in her clothes when police weren't watching. " Emphasis mine.
4. Not to mention we see a FLG member whining to the main reporter over here:[15], not even questioning the source of the video.
5. Upholdjustice.org is a Falun-Clone.
6. You guys are misquoting and twisting Philip Pan again.
7. On Wang Jindong: Yeah right, praising FLG is "not to be found within the teachings of FLDF". Li never calls himself the "Main/Lord Buddha", it is not mentioned in any FLG lecture, yet we see repeating examples of such praise. If FLGers still want to raise this point on WJD, then the text needs to be modified.
8. "some commentators....persecution". Then you cite Chandra Smith, where she says nothing about such an "calculated attempt", she just says that the government used this incident as a chance to accuse FLG. Please don't put words in other's mouths.
9. I'm sorry, New Tang Dynasty Television is another Falun-clone, which basically means the so-called "analysis" means nothing. Not to mention that there are no source, or mentioning of the people who are conducting this so-called "analysis".
10. Not to mention the laughable piece:Police were carrying pieces of fire-fighting equipment on the day of the self-immolations, when they were not normally known to carry fire extinguishers on duty.Source of this? Pray tell the source of policemen carrying extinguishers on duty all over the Tiananmen Square? As well as policemen not having fire-extinguishing equipment?
11. Liu Chunling's "severe blow": Speculation.
12. "surveillance cameras in Tiananmen Square are usually fixed." SOURCE? Did the FLGers found this out by using their pineal glands?
13. "His sitting position also does not reflect the full or half lotus position as in the Falun Dafa teachings." Photos from Minghui.net also show people sitting in Wang Jindong's way, LHZ also made a comment on the position showing that it wasn't uncommon.
14. "proper care of severe victims" Source?
15. "speak and sing clearly mere days" Odd? [16]
16. And IED has never released their investigations and reports. Someting worth mentioning.
17. Resolution 188 is irrelevant to the whole incident.

--Yenchin 16:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello. As for the comments about the video "False Fire", that are simply being reported in wikipedia. It says that those are comments the video makes. If that was not made clear we can make it clear. It is just reporting some points contained in "False Fire", and it is quite okay to keep it there. If police carry firefighting equipment all the time and that is in another source we can include it, too. But what the video says should still be reported. We cannot prove what the sources are saying, we can only report the sources. It is fine to make some NPOV changes and I think you have pointed out some valid suggestions. Content can be altered, and content can be added. If content is sourced and neutrally presented it should not simply be removed like that. If you want to remove some stuff there should be a bit more discussion about how valid that is, but I am all for NPOV changes. If you have a source for the things that are relevant, then include that content! It is really simple. We are just presenting the material as it is available and reporting it neutrally. I support that, and if you want to draw attention to a whole lot of the problems you see and which you have sources for then please include it. Don't delete content that is sourced and relevant. I won't response to your comments individually. I am supporting the idea behind what you are doing but not the execution of it. This statement from Resolution 188 is pretty relevant: "Propaganda from state-controlled media in the People's Republic of China has inundated the public in an attempt to breed hatred and discrimination." Put tags on the content you see as problematic. The only thing that should come of all this is a better and more neutral reporting of the situation. --Asdfg12345 18:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Yuenyin's I have 2 observations to your comments:

15. Check out the copy-right on: [17]. This was not available before 2004. "© 2004-2007 PASSY-MUIR INC. 062806". This actually proves that in 2001 there was no such system available.

17. Resolution would not exist if there would be no state terrorisms in China recognized by the United States government. Anyway this is a well sourced source so it should be present. --HappyInGeneral 10:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply to all above:

1. There is no mention of the False Fire video anywhere in the article besides a whole comment on burn treating and tracheotomy. Far from proper use of such a citation.
2. I haven't objected to the usage of posting False Fire, however, the poor credibility of the video will be shown in my edits.
3. Resolution 188 says nothing of the incident because the only relevant part is that the incident is being reported on the news. It is more like a general statement on FLG in Chinese State media. A better place for it would be in some generic portion of the "Suppression" article or a portion itself.
4. "2004". Wrong, in this case it means that the website was established on 2004, if you read the "history" portion of the website, you'll see that the company started in 1985.
5. Read "3" of my reply.

--Yenchin 16:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay res.188 is not there. take discussion to the appropriate page, and we can take up these points there. A lot of what you said is good so we should definitely incorporate it.--Asdfg12345 19:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sentence at the beginning needing a source

I think Colipon put this one in. I am stating my intention to remove it if there is no source is provided or no response to this note is given indicating that a search for a source is now in progress. I won't delete it right now. --Asdfg12345 19:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

People's Daily as a source

In reference to this edit, as many who read Chinese edit this article, there would seem to be no problem, as any mistranslation would be rapidly caught. However, poking around with the search engine on the English version will probably yield the same page in English. Regarding the People's Daily as a reliable source, sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Much depends on the subject matter and context. But the same is true of the New York Times, which at times is simply a mouthpiece for the United States government. One must be familiar with the political culture of the country to made an adequate determination. In general, the government of China, which controls the People's Daily, is biased with respect to Falun Gong. That should not have to be said, it is so obvious. Use of a biased source is usually unacceptable. That said, whether to use a particular article as a reference is a matter of editorial judgement. Opinions may differ.Fred Bauder 15:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

But can any non-Chinese government mouthpiece accurately represent the Chinese government's view in a matter which bases its whole belief system upon the destruction of the Chinese government? Jsw663 21:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

First background section - important message

Hello

In about 3 days time (70 hours or so hours), I intend to invest a lot of time on the first section. I hope editors have been keeping up with the important discussion between Olaf and Jsw on the main talk page. In light of our collective, growing recognition of the need to abide by wikipolicies and produce neutral and well-sourced articles, and also given the many tags calling for sources that have sat on quite a lot of the material in the abovementioned section for a while now, I would like to say here that I intend to remove much of this content in about 3 and a half days. Of course, I will not do this under the conditions that:

• sources meeting wikirequirements are provided;
• discussion is initiated here indicating that sources are being sought for;
• maybe some other declarations from other editors requesting that I should not proceed or indicating why it is not a good idea to proceed;

There could be other factors involved. I will remove that material and start putting sourced material in. I will probably spend upwards of 4 or 5 hours doing this. I will just put some Templates there now.--Asdfg12345 20:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Time Out

Armedblowfish: At what point does an editor get stopped in his tracks? If Asdfg's blatant announcment above, together with his repeated assertions on the main article talk page that he will delete what he considers to be "falacious" here, on the Epoch Times page, and presumably all pages don't constitute grounds for an administrative sanction of some sort, I don't know what does. We are supposed to operate by consensus and for the most part editors on both "sides" of this debate have tried to honor consensus decsions. But as Firestar has pointed out on multiple occassions, Asdfg actually demands the right to take unilateral actions which he feels are justified. Witness what he says above, and witness the series of edits he and others have done to change the Suppression of Falun Gong page into an anti-CCP propaganda piece. I am requesting that you take action now to stop Asdfg in his POV warrior campaign. --Tomananda 03:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

A message to Falun Gong practitioner editors

Asdfg12345 you have already removed sourced material. I hope you understand that your unilateral edits show no respect for other editors and Wiki policies. This page has been rewritten in the last two days by Falun Gong practitioner editors; it is troubling that these edits convey obvious pro-Falun Gong POV. What is more troubling is that the Tiananmen Square self-immolation section has been moved to a different page. To prevent future revert wars we must work together, that means when you (pro-FG-editors) want to remove existing material you must talk to editors from the other side. To show my desire for co-operation, I am not going to do any reverts and I hope you can show your good faith by restoring the Tiananmen Square Self-immolation section. --Samuel Luo 20:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Samuel. Thank you for your message. I too desire cooperation.

About the changes to the article that you have said convey an obvious pro-Falun Gong POV: All the things we added are sourced and from legitimate sources, so there are no grounds for removing them. What you should do it find sourced content that presents alternative narratives.

About moving the self-immolation section: user:Zepheus moved it. I originally put a prod on the Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident page because of content duplication, though user:Zepheus suggested the content simply be moved from the main page because of its length. He quoted 53kb, which is a lot, and there may be more to add. I think it should be on a separate page simply because of the length, too. It is also just one event, though important, in the persecution, so I don't know how instrumental it is that it be kept on the main page. We can share ideas about it and so on, of course. I am just saying that because it was so long it was thought best to move it.

About deleting sourced content: actually, the only sourced content I removed was from Chinese websites. This is permitted under wikipedia guidelines. I am sorry I did not state this more clearly before I removed the content. I think it was in the end only one or two paragraphs. I can find the relevant section if you wish. --Asdfg12345 21:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

These pictures are useless

they do not help people to understand the conflict. --Pirate101 02:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It portrays the methods of the conflict.Which are way to violent, for more information on this check out: [18] [19] [20], also I can provide you a lot more, just ask. --HappyInGeneral 07:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What troubles me the most is that Fgers are adding more and more pictures to the page.--Yueyuen 21:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

Julia Ching's comment is not appropriate for the lead section since it provides a one-sied view. --Samuel Luo 23:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Samuel, I would just like to let you know that I intend to carefully scrutinize your recent series of edits when I get some time. There seem to be quite a few, and they look rather substantial. I would also like to warn you: If you have either 1)deleted properly sourced and legitimate material; 2)added unsourced material, especially in a biased way; 3)made weasel changes to words (I have seen you do this before); 4) made any other obvious and wilful violation of core wikipedia policies like violations of NOR all over the place, etc., etc., -- if you have done those things (actually, I notice you have done all four and what looks like more, plus deleting all the pictures) - I request, please, that you fix it. I am not going to fight about this one. I think you have a lot to answer for.--Asdfg12345 01:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just reading my note again I may not have been clear enough. This has gone on for a while now. The evidence is stacking up really high. You have a chance to self-correct, now. I am not going to do it for you. The page can stand for a couple of weeks while we gather evidence for an ArbCom decision.--Asdfg12345 01:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

'Analysis' v. 'criticism'

I've replaced the section titled 'analysis' with 'criticism' under the Tiananmen self-immolation incident. If pure criticism is merely 'analysis', then are FGers saying that Samuel's and Tomananda's efforts are merely 'analyzing' the FG??

As for the 'some commentators' and 'some NGOs' point - the use of the word 'some' should be avoided in encyclopedic entries. They are used primarily to enforce an insufficiently sourced POV. Despite possible bias in content, I have not touched it. I have merely re-labeled these as 'human rights' people, as all the people quoted are noted for their work in being pro-HR. Notice I'm not passing judgment on their work; I'm merely saying that that is their job, much like Matas'.

Regarding the K/M section, there is no need to put the 'Mr.' titles before their surname. It is not as if their views are suddenly worthy of a distinctive title - and this is clearly not the practice on Wikipedia overall (esp on non-biographical pages). There is also no need to place every single title Kilgour held previously, especially as he has a separate Wiki entry already. Placing more titles in an attempt to boost his credibility is a weak one, if outrightly unencylcopedic, to say the least. Jsw663 13:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Changes have been made to this page

I have added arguments from both sides regarding the conflict while removed and reduced Comments from third parties in order to shorten the article. The media war section is deleted and its material can be added back to the body of this article. Asylum cases section is removed because Chen Yonglin is not a practitioner and he has nothing to do with the conflict. Falun Gong practitioners have flooded the page with their pictures again, since the authenticity of these pictures can not be verified and many editors have rejected to adding them, I have remove these pictures. --Samuel Luo 02:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to establish a pattern here. When talking about an incident like “The Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident” we should first present the eyewitness accounts of the incident, follow up by statements from the Chinese government and the Falun Gong and then add third party comments. Developing a pattern makes easier for the reader. When adding third party comments please find the best one (not many) that represents a point of view, so the article would not be stretched too long. --Samuel Luo 02:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see comment above. We won't push a case if you correct your disruptive editing, or even if you are seen to make an effort to correct it. I am becoming more fully aware of my rights with regards to using wikipedia, and it is clear that I no longer need to battle with you about this. It's a big waste of time for everyone involved, and I would prefer to make positive changes to these articles in accordance with the actual wikipedia policies and guidelines rather than engage in revert wars with you. I've been reading through the ArbCom pages, so I am fairly sure about how this is going to turn out.--Asdfg12345 03:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted this edit at the spot when I saw all the images removed, which are well sourced and very contextual, removing this is Blanking aka Vandalism. Anyway the evidence is still present since all the history is kept. --HappyInGeneral 10:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

new version Vs old version, my response to critics

This new version is written with the intention to provide basic information on the conflict. The old version, written by Falun-Gong-practitioner-editors, was biased and insufficient. When adding new material please first check to see whether such material exists and please just add the best material you have, not everything you can find online.

Since Falun-Gong-practitioner-editors have complained about this new version, I feel the need to explain the changes I made.

1) Introduction The old version contains original research like this statement: “As a result, the suppression of the movement has gained more attention in the Western media than the movement itself, whose legitimacy (independent of the Chinese government's claims) has been seriously questioned upon by academics and religious experts.” The second paragraph, the longest one, provides a strong personal opinion from Julia Ching.

The new version now contains only the arguments from both sides with citation. It is as neutral as it can be. Julia Ching’s material can be added to the body of the article.

2) Beginning of the Conflict

This section was previously called “Background of Conflict.” This title implies that it provides background information, but in fact it only talks about the positive and negative coverage the group received in China before the ban and Li’s complaints towards his critics. The new title fits this material better. I also removed some weasel words like “allege.”

3) Demonstration against Science and Technology for Youth magazine in Tianjin city

Falun gong’s demonstration against a report published by this magazine company later escalated into the famous protest on the door steps of China’s top leaders. This incident deserves it own section.

4) Zhongnanhai Demonstration

This famous demonstration was what made the Falun Gong famous worldwide. And it was this protest that put the falun gong in direct confrontation with the Chinese central government.

The new version includes eyewitness accounts as well as statements from Chinese officials and Li.

5) The Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

The old version, in the lead, had this incorrect statement: “The Chinese government and media claimed the people to be Falun Gong practitioners.” The fact is that western journalists and human rights activists have also said that these people were Falun Gong practitioners.

The old version had two sub-sections, “Analysis” and “Third party responses.” Material in “Analysis” was from a Falun Gong media, I summarized the argument and moved it to the paragraph where other Falun Gong material is. Material in the other sub-section was combined into one paragraph placed at the end of the section.

6) Psychiatry abuse accusation

The old version contained only pro-Falun Gong third party accusations against Beijing and it did not even include Falun Gong’s own report which initiated the accusation.

The new version includes material from the Chinese government, the Falun gong, western human rights activists and western psychiatrists.

7) Allegations of organ harvesting

The old version had redundancies and its material was not organized. I deleted repeated material and put the rest in chronological order.

I have removed these sections: The media war, Torture Methods and Asylum cases from the old version. Media controlled by Beijing and the Falun Gong have blasted each other, but this material does not warranted a whole section and instead it should be placed in the body of the article. Whether China has tortured practitioners is debatable. Also, material in this section comes exclusively from the Falun Gong and it is not verifiable. The Asylum cases section contains only Chen Yonglin’s story. Chen is not a practitioner and his story has nothing to do with the conflict between Beijing and Falun Gong.

I have also removed pictures from the old version. These pictures are contended and other editors have removed them repeatedly. Falun-Gong-practitioner-editors like to include them to promote their point of view, but the authenticity of these pictures can not be verified and there are just too many.

The new version is inadequate to help readers understand the conflict but it is more informative and much less biased than the old one.--Samuel Luo 07:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Samuel, if you remove sourced material, that is blanking:

Blanking

Removing all or significant parts of pages or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus both constitute vandalism. Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary. An example of blanking edits that could be legitimate would be edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person. Wikipedia is especially concerned about providing accurate and non-biased information on the living, and this may be effort to remove inaccurate or biased material. Due to the possibility of unexplained good-faith content removal, template:test1a or template:blank, as appropriate, should normally be used as initial warnings for ordinary content removals not involving any circumstances that would merit stronger warnings.

This is from WP:VANDAL page. --HappyInGeneral 13:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The anti-FG group can justify their edits under the second sentence of that paragraph. Thus, both groups can accuse each other based on the same Wiki policy and have a case, and due to the controversial nature of the content, reversion by either camp means both are equally guilty of vandalism. Such occurrences is precisely why imposing rules based on Wiki policies can cause controversy, and why Olaf's 15 rules cannot be adopted. Will both groups quit reverting unless you want this page also locked down on a biased version (either pro or anti FG). Such a shame that the pro-FG group won't engage in a discussion and just reverts wholly despite the content being controversial, still. Note to the pro-FG camp - your sources may be valid, but may be guilty of POV-pushing. Airing one view at the total expense of the other in the intro violates WP:NPOV. Jsw663 13:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say that neither party is guilty of vandalism. The intro of that policy says, "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Trying to edit the article to make it "better" in your view (whether better means more in line with your interpretation of a policy or policies, or simply more accurate, in your view) counts as a good-faith effort, in my opinion. That said, I am sure that you can find other policies and guidelines to accuse each other of violating, though I do not think that would be very productive.

Following content policies and guidelines such as WP:RS and WP:NPOV are group responsibilities, not individual ones. Assuming a reasonable balance of editors representing all major points of view, which you seem to have, what better way to ensure neutrality than by reaching a consensus? Other policies and guidelines, like WP:RS, can help you do that.

Anyways, I don't know if it helps, but I would be happy to write a rough draft on Conflict between Falun Gong and the Chinese government, which I think a number of you agreed would be a better title. There really isn't much risk, since if you all don't like it, you don't have to use it. However, help would be appreciated, both in the form of suggestions on content and references, and discussion.

Thanks,

Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 14:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Armedblowfish, once again we differ on the interpretation of 'good faith', but I respect your view. And I totally agree with your phrase "... I am sure that you can find other policies and guidelines to accuse each other of violating, though I do not think that would be very productive." This is why I object to Olaf + HiG's "legalistic" approach. After all, what do they have to gain besides outlawing two vocal anti-FGers on this board? I also agree on the need for consensus, and advocate it, as I'm sure you saw by my original 8 rules proposal.

If you are happy to write a rough draft of the page, I'm sure all camps will be eager to read it! It's much more than what a mediator is required to do, although you must be aware that by doing so you can no longer count yourself as 'non-involved'. Jsw663 12:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I have been strictly uninvolved since I started listening to views from the various parties. But if you mean the risk of writing something non-neutral, I hope to alleviate the risk of that by involving all of you as much as possible. Mainly, however, I am not sure how else to proceed at the moment. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 22:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand your predicament, blowfish. One thing I would urge you, and I have stated this in another post: please take the wikipedia policies as your guidance and yardstick in dealing with this case, NOT "Pro" and "Anti" Falun Gong. I think there are some major misunderstandings of the actual meanings of some of wikipedia's core policies among editors here, and it would not help if you drifted with the tide. I think you should be something of an anchor for us here, and not just attempt to not be seen as taking a side, placating even very egregious violations of wikipedia's core principles. Opposing views and information should be represented in a neutral way. This does not mean that in representing opposing views and information one's aim is to make it appear that two opposing views are equally reasonable. That is not the task of an encyclopedia. As far as I understand, the only objection Jsw has had to the changes on this page, apart from some minor NPOV corrections, is that it made it seem like there was an unjust persecution against Falun Gong. Please, Jsw, correct me if I have misunderstood. That is my interpretation of Jsw and Samuel's comments. If the problem is not with any specific violation of wikipedia policies, then there is not really a problem. In the end this will be carried out one way or another, the editors who obstruct the process will be removed, and the article will neutrally present the various reliable sources who have commented on the conflict. The outcome, whether regular people come to the conclusion that there is in fact an unjust persecution of Falun Gong, is not the concern. We should simply present the information and opposing arguments in a neutral way in accordance with wikipedia policies; we are reporters, not advocates. --Asdfg12345 01:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Asdfg, I thought it was known that my view is not the same as Samuel's, even if Falun Gongers have the unfortunate practice of lumping everyone who does not agree with their views into the same camp, in an "us against them" fashion - something you decry yourself above. It's easier for me to take the personal (emotional) element out of contributing to a FG article because I have no personal involvement in whatever FG is, nor do I have any relations or even friends who are involved in FG one way or another, nor have strong opinions about it. As I also said before, Wiki policies can be used as well as abused. Adhering to Wiki policies has been a feature by constructive Wiki editors always; it is nothing new to them and was an assumption. The sudden 'renaissance' of 'strict adherence' to such policies by FGers simply make me wonder why this is the case. But once again the devil is in the detail and execution of such policies, so we shall see if the previous "pro" and "anti" FG camps can come together to form an "encyclopedic" camp. "Encyclopedic" means to remove POV including excessive suggestion or implication towards one view. In other words, to take out the emotion out of a controversial issue. If we can all do that, then Wiki's FG-related entries should be a less vandalized section for sure. This is what I mean by pre-assuming everyone already adheres to Wiki policies. The focus is on the result of the article, after all, NOT to get everyone banned from Wikipedia. Jsw663 11:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

jsw as far as i know, the only content that was removed from the page prior to Samuel's blanking was either unsourced or from Chinese sources. You can check that out to be sure, but as far as I know that is what happened. I certainly did not blank any properly sourced content, you can be sure on that. Samuel blanked just about everything we had added, all of it well-sourced and neutrally presented. --Asdfg12345 21:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Asdfg, once again it must be stressed that properly-sourced material is NOT the only criterion for including material on Wiki pages. Jsw663 12:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Going point by point on what Samuel proposed, hope I have time to go through all of it today:

1) Introduction The old version contains original research like this statement: “As a result, the suppression of the movement has gained more attention in the Western media than the movement itself, whose legitimacy (independent of the Chinese government's claims) has been seriously questioned upon by academics and religious experts.” The second paragraph, the longest one, provides a strong personal opinion from Julia Ching.

The new version now contains only the arguments from both sides with citation. It is as neutral as it can be. Julia Ching’s material can be added to the body of the article.

Can you provide a diff or an exact quote to the old and the new version so we can actually see what is it that you are proposing, right now the pages when compared to one another the diff is too big and not very useful.

2) Beginning of the Conflict

This section was previously called “Background of Conflict.” This title implies that it provides background information, but in fact it only talks about the positive and negative coverage the group received in China before the ban and Li’s complaints towards his critics. The new title fits this material better. I also removed some weasel words like “allege.”

You want to change the title from “Background of Conflict.” to "Beginning of the Conflict", these are synonyms as far as I can tell. However if you want to change this, it's fine by me and I don't think that anyone else would argue on this.

You want to remove some weasel words of "allege"? I don't see any problem there either, could you however point out which?

3) Demonstration against Science and Technology for Youth magazine in Tianjin city

Falun gong’s demonstration against a report published by this magazine company later escalated into the famous protest on the door steps of China’s top leaders. This incident deserves it own section.

True, include it. Or I will do it, today if I have time if not tomorrow.

4) Zhongnanhai Demonstration

This famous demonstration was what made the Falun Gong famous worldwide. And it was this protest that put the falun gong in direct confrontation with the Chinese central government.

The new version includes eyewitness accounts as well as statements from Chinese officials and Li.

OK, if you have sourced material, regarding this, include it.

5) The Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

The old version, in the lead, had this incorrect statement: “The Chinese government and media claimed the people to be Falun Gong practitioners.” The fact is that western journalists and human rights activists have also said that these people were Falun Gong practitioners.

Really? Do you have a source to back that up? Then include it, and I can tell you that we will also include sourced material showing that they were not Falun Gong practitioners.

The old version had two sub-sections, “Analysis” and “Third party responses.” Material in “Analysis” was from a Falun Gong media, I summarized the argument and moved it to the paragraph where other Falun Gong material is. Material in the other sub-section was combined into one paragraph placed at the end of the section.

Could we try to get a consensus on this? If you summarize it then insist in having it in, that is POV pushing. We should better work on a consensus on this.

6) Psychiatry abuse accusation

The old version contained only pro-Falun Gong third party accusations against Beijing and it did not even include Falun Gong’s own report which initiated the accusation.

The new version includes material from the Chinese government, the Falun Gong, western human rights activists and western psychiatrists.

Again if you have sourced material and you want to include it, do it. For this you don't need to delete any other material.

7) Allegations of organ harvesting

The old version had redundancies and its material was not organized. I deleted repeated material and put the rest in chronological order.

I have removed these sections: The media war, Torture Methods and Asylum cases from the old version. Media controlled by Beijing and the Falun Gong have blasted each other, but this material does not warranted a whole section and instead it should be placed in the body of the article. Whether China has tortured practitioners is debatable. Also, material in this section comes exclusively from the Falun Gong and it is not verifiable. The Asylum cases section contains only Chen Yonglin’s story. Chen is not a practitioner and his story has nothing to do with the conflict between Beijing and Falun Gong.

If something is debatable but still relevant then both version should be in. If you want to delete something we can discuss on the talk page. We do not agree on simply reverting to your preferred version which has blanked a lot of sourced material without any discussion on the talk page.

I have also removed pictures from the old version. These pictures are contended and other editors have removed them repeatedly. Falun-Gong-practitioner-editors like to include them to promote their point of view, but the authenticity of these pictures can not be verified and there are just too many.

Can you point out a Wikipedia policy on how many pictures are allowed to be on the page? Actually I doubt that there are more then the policies allow. --HappyInGeneral 16:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we talk?

I would like to initiate a discussion with Falun-gong-practitioner-eidtors to improve this article.

Falun-gong-practitioner-eidtors have complained about this new version, yet none of them have pointed out what is it in this version that they reject. Some material from the old version was removed, explanation is given above. If you believe some (or all) of these material should be restored, Can you talk about it here? --Samuel Luo 05:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No more tricks, Samuel. If you restore all the blanked material and constructively add your edits, that will be counted as your doing the right thing. This is your opportunity: we won't play games with you. Those are the terms. Restore the blanked material, do not do any more blanking, and we will forgive you.--Asdfg12345 11:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, you are the one who has rountinely removed sourced material. You should be the one begging for forgiveness. --Yueyuen 20:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

How about this: if somebody wants to do bigger changes, which include removal of sourced material, a good idea would be to do it on the draft proposed by Armedblowfish, until consensus is gained on it. This is a direct invitation to Samuel. Please let me know what you think. --HappyInGeneral 15:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You guys did not talk to anyone before making big changes. Samuel's version is closer to the one existed before you guys rewrote the article. this version is also more informative. Unless the mediator write one version, if I have to choose one from your version and Samuel's version, I will choose Samuel's. --Yueyuen 03:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Editors do not have to discuss before adding sourced content. Editors are not allowed to blank sourced content like that. It is really clear that almost your whole edit history is a history of these kind of reverts, following up Samuel, as well as adding your own weasel words, blanking, leaving misleading edit summaries, etc. etc. -- there is an ArbCom case about this right now, and you should know that this kind of thing will no longer be tolerated.--Asdfg12345 04:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Both sides are equally guilty of editing the main page without much discussion, or at least not discussing BEFORE editing. Since we shall not resolve which version will be 'authoritative', how about setting up a discussion group? Work to and for a compromise, not engage in more unhelpful edit wars. Please. Jsw663 12:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Jsw663, it sound extremely noble to stop edit wars, and you know what, I'm all for it and ready to talk as always. Still can you tell me what to do when sourced facts are just removed without any real and serious attempt for discussion? How long should it stay like that? What policy is it breached by having the images in (along with the rest of the sourced content)? I understand that by adding sourced information to this page we can actually show to the reader that the persecution is real and serious. Now I understand that this is a picture of which some like perhaps yourself, but definitely Samuel Luo, Yueyuen, Mr. He, are uncomfortable, but then again I ask which wikipedia policy is broken by this. After all we are on Wikipedia. --HappyInGeneral 22:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

HiG, with the current ArbCom case pending, it probably would not be wise of me to comment on specific content now. I have urged them to provide further guidelines specific to FG-related articles, precisely to stop these ridiculous edit wars. The problem is that I understand both POVs here, because after one understands the assumptions both sides make, one can understand why they see their POV as true and unbiased. So all I can say now is please can everyone resist the urge to "correct" what they feel is wrong on the main entry? There will never be a "correct" one until one compromises. However, it has been clear to me that when I tried to make a balanced version that contained a bit of both sides, that it was rejected by both sides. So it's up to ArbCom first. Jsw663 16:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Working drafts for pro- and anti- FG

You can write draft versions of the Supression of Falun Gong article in the following places:

• Talk:Suppression of Falun Gong/Working Pro-FG
• Talk:Suppression of Falun Gong/Working Anti-FG

I can then, assuming you all agree this is a good idea, merge them into Conflict between Falun Gong and the Chinese government and try to reword things to avoid saying whether or not disputed things are true or not. It would be very helpful to me if you included reliable sources in both. Hopefully, this will also help you all reach some sort of truce on the edit conflicts on this page. Thanks!
— Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 21:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Note: cross-posting to Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Falun Gong/Suppression, persecution, genocide or other#Mockup_for_Conflict_between_Falun_Gong_and_the_Chinese_government.3F

Oh, in order the avoid confusion of parallel discussions, it would be great if you responded on the mediation subpage. I mostly posted here to get the attention of interested editors. Thank you, Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 21:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, so if somebody wants to do bigger changes, which include removal of sourced material, a good idea would be to do it on the draft proposed by Armedblowfish, until consensus is gained on it. This is a direct invitation to Samuel. Please let me know what you think. --HappyInGeneral 16:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Superseded below. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 17:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation on hold pending Arbitration

Based on this Arbitration this Arbitration, I am officially putting the mediation on hold. Sorry for failing you all, ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 01:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Cross-posting elsewhere

Samuel: Please Stop Blanking Sourced Material

Samuel, what is your justification from deleting sourced images from the talk page? See here: [21] [22] [23]

Also I placed the image of Gao Ronrong to the intro because is highly relevant there. The title of this page is Suppression of Falun Gong. I agree that at some point we might reach consensus and clean up the article, but until then, please stop blanking sourced material. --HappyInGeneral 17:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, you can discuss FG articles on a private MediationWiki

I still do not feel it is possible to continue mediation during the Arbitration, but since some of you are trying to build a consensus, I would like to offer the private MediationWiki as an option. If it is possible to continue the mediation after the Arbitration, I would like to continue there anyway. If you'd like an account on the MediationWiki, please send me an email, with "Falun Gong" somewhere in the subject. If for some reason you would like a username other than the one you use here, be sure to note that. If email is a problem for you, let me know on my talk page an we'll work something out. Thanks, Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Cross-posting elsewhere

OK, very good, let's continue the mediation, but why on Media southportbeekeepers.co.uk? Any reason for that? Less downtime perhaps? --HappyInGeneral 11:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

too many pictures

Falun Gong editors have a tendency of inserting many pictures to push their POV. Interestingly, while they insert pictures of their choosing they also delete pictures that they want to hide from the public, example can be seem on Li Hongzhi page. Some pictures are need for FAlun gong articles, pictures like Li's portrait and the Falun gong emblem is needed but not just any pictures. --Pirate101 23:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a wikipedia guideline to back up you claim. You can start by reading Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset and Wikipedia:Five pillars.

Also please consider Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism which at some points sais:

<quote>

Talk page vandalism

Removing the comments of other users from talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. ...

</quote>

Thank You. --HappyInGeneral 12:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a better compromise between the inclusion/exclusion extremes would be to have the picture of GRR under one of the allegations section. Placing it at the beginning to pre-determine the reader's mindset is the principal objection here, I think. So if FGers want to keep the picture, then perhaps they should place it in the appropriate section. We shouldn't confuse facts with allegations, right? Jsw663 13:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

PS Since you are such a fan of policies and guidelines, let me quote from Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles, under Section 1.1.4 titled Images: "If the article can be illustrated with pictures, find an appropriate place to position these images, where they relate closely to text they illustrate. If there might be doubt, draw attention to the image in the text (illustration right). For more information on using pictures, see Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Images and Wikipedia:Picture tutorial." Jsw663 14:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for point out this guideline Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Images. The position of the image is appropriate, considering that the page is named Suppression of Falun Gong.

And as a plus torture section [24] was abusively removed. Which points that there is a group of people who are using every trick possible to hide the fact, not allegation, that torture is happening in China. But then again if you read the http://ninecommentaries.com/, this behavior is what we should expect.

For the moment let's keep it like this and work it out in the mediation. Which as you pointed out will happen after the ArbCom's ruling. And I'm not even asking much, the only thing I'm asking is that sourced information should not be blanked. --HappyInGeneral 17:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think its necessary to put it in the introduction, and I think it belongs in one of the sections, like the Torture Methods section or something. By the way, since this is obviously a problem we are going to run into, tell me Jsw, what exactly in your opinion is the difference between a fact and an allegation? Is the photo of Gao Ronrong a fact or an allegation? I mean, is it alleged that she was tortured by police, or does the photo make it a fact? Do you consider World War II a fact or an allegation? What is the threshold? Who decides? Asdfg12345 15:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't want this to sink into another FG discussion so I'll keep this brief, especially as I've already replied to the above question before (or maybe that was to HiG direct). Allegation = accusation made by one side at another without sufficient verification, or can leave a person beyond doubt that that in fact took place. Fact = Independently verified not just by one party or one side's parties, but acknowledged by all, or at least put beyond reasonable doubt. All the allegations of torture have been made by FG websites and human rights orgs (including the Kilgour/Matas report). As you remember I did a critical analysis of the research methods + how much of it was suspect because it was not independently (that doesn't just mean 3rd party, it means unconcerned parties) verifiable. As photos nowadays are subject to photoshop editing, and how evidence can be falsified, and worse of all, this is EXACTLY the type of accusation FGers level at the CCP (doctoring records, falsifying pictures, etc.), one has to wonder if the accuser is merely trying to divert attention. Nevertheless, from the many FG documents, websites, etc. sent, there is an insufficient level / burden of proof to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that such torture and persecution took place. (Moreover, remember that court judgment I quoted by Scotland's highest law court?) As such, all that can be said is that what the FG accuse PROBABLY happened, but that does NOT equate to being 'more likely than not' or 'less likely than not' happened. It merely places a question mark above the allegations. And since these accusations remain doubtful, they cannot be passed off as facts yet, at least not in a NPOV piece.

I really don't want to elaborate anymore on this. After all, this is FG discussion, and as you said, should be saved for AFTER ArbCom's decision / guidance forward. Jsw663 04:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[

You will consider something a fact only after is "Acknowledged by all" including CCP propaganda and the circle of interest that it has created, by selling slave labor? You want to ignore Photos and Video's [25] [26], because we are in the electronic age and it's possible (with much effort) to falsify them? Then perhaps you are suggesting that the whole internet thing is not useful? Anyway the source of this information is quite clear, there is no reason validated by a wiki policy for it's removal.

"I did a critical analysis of the research methods ... " yes and I remember that you did. If I remember correctly you also agreed that it was Original Research. I did not reply in length so this page would not get as big as this: [27].

About Kilgour&Matas report Verifiable: you know that much of their evidence is coming from information that was made available on the internet by the Chinese hospitals and government. And even now this information is available in the internet archives.

OK to keep it short, the image with Gao Ronrong is a well sourced and relevant information and as far as I can tell from your previous post you did not object to it. I only answered here because Samuel reverted again the main page, and pointed to the talk page. --HappyInGeneral 08:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

]

Semi-reply: By the fact that Harry Wu, an anti-Chinese government democracy activist, also doubted the K/M report and allegations of abuses, IN CONJUNCTION WITH all these 'sources' coming from one set of sources, raises suspicions. The lack of verifiability of these accusations was the most disturbing. The accuser always must meet a higher burden of proof in proving their accusations, unless you don't believe in the presumption of innocence first. However, I'm not denying the FG accusations here even if I personally disagree with it; since it is a belief held by all its practitioners, it should be aired. However, it should not be passed off as fact, since it hasn't met with that standard or burden of proof yet. I've said this so many times before on ICQ with you and on FG pages, yet none of this sinks in, does it? That's all the arguments have been about between myself and you, HiG - FG practitioners who cannot accept other non-CCP people may not totally agree with their accusations. This is also why I am not objecting to having the GRR pic on this entry's main page either. The dispute now is about the placement of it. Unless you have a new point, let's not waste Wiki's space by repeating arguments ad nauseum - it doesn't give anybody's arguments any more credibility than it already has. Jsw663 05:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This picture is not appropriate because its inclusion has no consensus and it is placed in a wrong place. Also after this one FLG editors will place more and more pictures to push their pov; they have done that. Finally, there is also the copy right issue. FLG editors, don’t forget how you guys repeatedly delete pictures sourced back to Falun gong websites. There is no need for any pictures on the talk page. --Pirate101 19:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This is only an opinion, can you show a wikipedia guideline or policy to back up this opinion? --HappyInGeneral 19:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Article needs fixing, not more bias

This is the sort of article that gives Wikipedia a bad name. Here I am, trying to do some research, and I find a vehemently POV page. This page seems to be violently anti-FLG. We need to fix this page, not point fingers and accuse everyone except ourselves. Alethiophile¹2₃ 16:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, how do you suggest we do that? --HappyInGeneral 05:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop using blatantly POV stuff. Take out that image at the top--use a more appropriate one, like the symbol of FLG or something like that. Take out all the "counterexamples" that, for instance, seek to prove that the environment was very friendly to FLG. Unfortunately, this article is so hotly contested that any change is likely to spark an edit war. Alethiophile¹2₃ 16:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That image is very important. This page is about the Suppression of Falun Gong in Mainland China. I agree that at some point the whole article should be written from a Neutral Point of View, just as it should be. Right now the whole article is basically owned by Samuel Luo and his group, if we want to revert to a version which was work in progress, where both POV was presented, and then work from that to agree to get it in a balanced NPOV version, that will be immediately reverted. Even having in this well sourced image is hard[28]. So my suggestion is to keep this image at the top, until we get a better version through mediation, and not revet wars. Also this article should contain a lot more. For example here http://OrganHarvestInvestigation.net/ in the revised independent report they have 33 elements of proof[29] which are independently verifiable that even large scale unconsented organ harvesting is happening from Falun Gong practitioners in mainland China, which means that this right now is one of the worst things humanity has ever seen. --HappyInGeneral 20:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break Happyingeneral, no one is stopping you or anyone from editing this page. I notice that Samuel Luo has invited you guys to contribute, he even created a section call “abuses against practitioners.” It is you who refuse to make any compromises; you even deleted the new section that Samuel Luo created. [30]--Pirate101 17:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You might remember this version of the page [31] which was deleted: [32]. Abusively and repeatedly [33]. --HappyInGeneral 14:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

1. I don't think the image is appropriate. It's inflammatory and seems POV, even if the intentions are good. Even if it is appropriate, I would support removing it as part of a compromise, because it's one of the main sticking points of the debate.
2. I think that this article should be submitted to something like Project of the Month, because there's too much controversy within this group to get anything done.

Somebody Else's Problem^Cat_Dog(aka Alethiophile) 00:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent Idea! What is the procedure to submit this project as the project of the month? --HappyInGeneral 16:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Happyingeneral, so many editors have spoken against the inclusion of this picture, why can't you show some respect for their opinion? why don't you stop pushing this POV?--Pirate101 23:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you also asked the people who are being persecuted, tortured and murdered? Why have you contributed to delete this version of the page: [34]? [35]. Abusively and repeatedly [36]. The information presented here is well sourced and relevant, no one is disputing that. The only dispute is that the whole page right now is highly POV and nobody is fixing it in general. But for that to happen ArbCom must reach a decision, and mediation should go forward. Also you might notice that I want to have many neutral people working on this page. So how about talking on how can we submit this project as the project of the month? --HappyInGeneral 03:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Until the article is balanced please allow for NPOV

Tomananda states on this page [37] while quoting "Proposed principle Number 7" from [38] that:

"

Proposed principle Number 7 states:

7) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a subject.

Since many of the editing disputes on these Falun Gong pages have revolved around the inclusion of well-sourced and relevant Li Hongzhi quotes, I propose that the arbitrators consider forumulating a procedural approach on how to resolve these types of conflicts when they arise. Specifically, I am referring to a situation where Li Hongzhi has said X about subject Y, but when that information is posted in an edit the FG practitioners delete that quote, or others like it, on the grounds that they are taken out of context or in some way "misrepresent" what Falun Gong teachings and goals are all about. By way of example, Li Hongzhi has made many notable statements about the demonic nature of homosexuality, which he considers not meeting the standard of being human. While struggling to get this information reported in Wikipedia last year, one of the administrators enunciated a principle similar to proposed principle Number 7...that an editor should not edit at the expense of another editor's work. If an edit reports notable, important and well-sourced information, it should be allowed to stand, with the understanding that additional information or another POV can be inserted to accompany that edit, when appropriate.

"

I think this is a good proposal and highly relevant not only for the Epoch Times page, but also here. --HappyInGeneral 10:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with this page? I just read through the whole thing and didn't notice any systematic problem. Titanium Dragon 21:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you read WP:A and WP:NPOV, WP:Weasel? If you compare this article to those standards you may realise what is wrong with it. It seriously violates all of them. This article is a result of large scale blanking by Samuel Luo of a prior version. When everything is neutral and following wikipolicies again, and you take a look at this article in a few months, you will see what the difference is. This article is way below par for wiki standards. You may find it beneficial to go to www.organharvestinginvestigation.net and check out what is going on right now with this.--Asdfg12345 23:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Asdfg The article is incomplete not pov.

So you should not remove well sourced and relevant information, right Pirate? --HappyInGeneral 20:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Drafts

As Pirate101 pointed out, we really start to make contributions. Well there is not really possible to make contribution on the main page where there is a revert war going on so I'll set up these draft pages:

• Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong/Draft PRO FalunDafa
• Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong/Draft ANTI FalunDafa
• Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong/Working Towards Consensus SectionBySection

PS: Hope this will work out for everybody --HappyInGeneral 16:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you found one piece of my advice useful.  : ) Armed Blowfish (mail) 17:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I think this will really help, I'm only sad that I did not realize this before. So, many thanks. --HappyInGeneral 17:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad to be of service, Armed Blowfish (mail) 19:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank You :) --HappyInGeneral 21:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

So far, I haven't seen any work in the "Working Towards Consensus" piece. Nonetheless, I have made one edit to the "Pro" draft and one edit to the "Anti" draft. (Personally, I am neutral, and frankly, this isn't really my fight. Pro-Falun Gong sentiment dominates the Internet as far as I can tell.) — Rickyrab | Talk 20:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Due to recent changes in the overall situation, I don't think that working on the drafts is very topical at the moment. Just my two cents. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me guess. Exit - Stage Left for User:Samuel Luo and his sockpuppets, eh? — Rickyrab | Talk 11:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I just updated the draft:

• Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong/Draft PRO FalunDafa

Also there I removed most of the tags, which for that version I think it's OK. --HappyInGeneral 13:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody take a look to what Samuel is doing? [39]

Could somebody take a look at the blanking that Samuel, Yueyen and Pirate101 is doing [40]? I would really want to concentrate on the drafts, but removing even the tags from the main page, not to mention the other well sourced informations, it's really something that is against Wikipedia's spirit and rules. I already did a lot of reverts and even reported to the arbitrators as evidence [41]. I would like to take a break from this for a little while. So can somebody, anybody, overview these changes and if he or she thinks that they should be reverted, to keep these and perhaps even other materials, then do so? Thank You. --HappyInGeneral 21:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Why was this image removed?

Picture of Tan Yongjie [42]

Yueyuen, could you please point a wikipedia policy for this removal? The source of this image is mentions so this makes it a well sourced material. --HappyInGeneral 04:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The torture of Tan Yongjie is also documented here [43]. Also these article points that [44] [45] Associated Press reported the story of Tan Yongjie on July 29, 2001. --HappyInGeneral 04:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This image is from a unreliable source. Falun Gong is a party of the conflict, citing evidence from its own website causes a conflict of interest. --Yueyuen 02:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope you realise that you will face a ban too if you keep up this behaviour.--Asdfg12345 21:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation update

The Mediation Committee is currently discussing whether or not it is possible for mediation of Falun Gong articles to continue. We appreciate your patience and any input you have to offer here. For the Mediation Committee, Martinp23 20:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Title

I would like to propose the title, "Crackdown on Falun Gong" for this page. Any pro/contra/alternatives for this? Thanks. --HappyInGeneral 00:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favour of this change. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 03:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be a good change for sure. Besides, the word is used widely in the main Falun Gong article. Emanuil Tolev 15:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read: note on working methods

I have just noticed an unconstructive revert struggle and wanted to say something. In editing these articles editors should simply follow wikipedia policies. This will make editing much quicker, comfortable and friendly. No one should be whole-sale deleting sourced content, and I think this is a basic thing we can all agree on. I don't think anyone should be introducing content that is not sourced or is fraught with weasel words and everything, and if they do it can simply be deleted. Some of the stuff Dilip fit that category. This is counterproductive for all parties. However, some of the stuff he deleted was relevant, neutrally written and sourced, so it should not have been deleted.

We should just watch this. There may be a tendency to simply revert an edit that contains both bias and neutrality, rather than scanning the editing and only removing the biased parts. In fact, Dilip, the bias does not belong on wikipedia at all and you should not put it back. But for Jsw, why did you revert a large edit and not examine which parts should be kept and which should not? Wouldn't that have been even better? It will take personal time and care to work on these articles, one that one should be willing to invest. It is not enough to do things in a very slapdash way, in the process creating more work for other editors. This is also a sign of respect towards other editors, and importantly, it will save a large amount of time if we ensure that all edits conform to policy, just that they are more or less neutral, always, always cited to a reliable source, and do not contain weasel words. It is not really hard, after all.--Asdfg12345 13:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I just restored the introduction. This is really laborious kind of work. Someone needs to read through both sets of material and more or less combine them, cutting out the bias from each section and coming up with a bland and neutral description of the events leading up to the persecution. All weasel words like in "...at the end of the protest the practitioners dispersed peacefully..." or "after days of the practitioners harrassing their critics...", as well as the others, will all need to be cleaned out. Some of this is hard to do and requires time, care and dedication, but some of it is quite obvious. Why delete the media war section, for example, Jsw? Dilip, why simply replace some material that was there with other material? This is not a productive way to work, and that is not a productive way to respond Jsw. Whoever works on this will need to put in time and care and make sure they do it well please. I still cannot put in time to this yet.--Asdfg12345 13:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Improve requirement: Beginning of conflict

TODO: this section should start with an earlier date like when the books about the teachings were banned, and even before that if there is sourced material for it. I'm also looking into how to make a todo list as on the Falun Dafa discussion page. --HappyInGeneral 09:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

it's a work in progress now, please feel free to contribute. --HappyInGeneral 16:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Suppression -> Persecution

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following articles are found from Wikipedia, among others: Persecution of Jews, Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Muslims, Persecution_of_Bahá'ís, Persecution of Hindus, Persecution of Atheists, Persecution of Zoroastrians, Persecution of Rastafari, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses, Persecution of Germanic Pagans, Persecution of Buddhists, and Persecution of Wiccans. Unless somebody provides a good reason why we should stray from this naming policy, I will rename the article in a couple of days. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 10:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Question How do the independent third party source refer to the topic? Suppression or Persection? 205.157.110.11 23:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Amnesty International uses "persecution": [46]. The same applies to U.S. Government's Congressional-Executive Commission on China: [47]. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 00:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a valid move. --HappyInGeneral 15:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The UN refers to it as "Persecution" too.--Asdfg12345 16:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from Suppression of Falun Gong to Persecution of Falun Gong as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 07:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You should have reached a concensus amongst other Wikipedia editors, as the move seemed controversial. Had I known earlier, I'd have contested the move. WP:NPOV stands above all outside views.--PCPP 03:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing tags

Please check out:

• Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong/Draft PRO FalunDafa

which is the same as the main article only that it does not have so many disputed and weasel tags.

Here is the diff for what I am proposing: [48]

Basically I would still leave in the ActiveDiscuss tags, but the rest I think it would be fine to remove for this version. Please let me know what do you think. Thank You. --HappyInGeneral 14:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well since it looks like nobody has anything to say, well then let's say that in 1 week I'll remove these tags. If there is some objections please let me know. --HappyInGeneral 08:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Improve requirement: Statements of the Government of China

In the Kilgour and Matas report they made some extensive research, because one of the points needed for a state sanctioned harvest from a group of people is that the government is stating that, that group of people is the enemy. So in Apendix 7 [49] of their report they collected a lot of statements from the Chinese Communist ruling Party which shows that the persecution is very real. Now these are very well sourced because they cite directly Chinese Official websites (which they can not remove, because the directives are still in place because the persecution is ongoing). Now it would be nice to summarize these and include in a separate section of the persecution page. Any help is welcomed. --HappyInGeneral 11:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

PS: for the footnotes, check out the pdf[50] file, the HTML version seems to have a problem.--HappyInGeneral 11:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Beginning of the Conflict

Please do not just delete the whole section as done here [51] because that part contains the background information of what happened before 1999, like the books where baned in 1996, what kind of publications appeared, etc ... This information is quite important. --HappyInGeneral 14:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that while this background info is important, and that it is nicer to discuss things rather than delete large amounts, basically that all has to go anyway because Clearwisdom is not the best source for a wikipedia article, and especially copy-pasting large amounts of it, this would probably be copyvio. I don't know if those parts were re-worded from Clearwisdom or what, but PCPP is right to bring this up. There is a UN 2004 report which has a fairly comprehensive background section which addresses the leadup to the persecution, and some of this could be used. We are talking about the ban of the books and some motivations and things inside the party, maybe an analysis from different sources and some informational pieces. So we need that section, but it should come from a variety of sources, not only clearwisdom. For now I don't mind if the section goes or stays, but it is obviously something that needs to be fixed properly at some point. Also, one important thing here is to keep away from edit struggles at all costs. These pages have seen enough of that and deserve some proper attention and care, with a mature and cooperate approach to editing.--Asdfg12345 15:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As long as the critical info is present for this section, finding a better source for it it's always a good thing, and also I'm sure it's out there somewhere, so I'm all for it! --HappyInGeneral 13:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Simply not possible

It is simply not possible at this stage for anyone to REASONABLY write this article. WAY TOO much disputes are in place and so many things are so fishy about the entire situation, including the Chinese government's motive AND Li Hongzhi's motive. It is possible, as suggested by falun, that the Chinese government have done much they shouldn't in handling the situation; it is too very possible that Li, as claimed by the government, used many CRUEL ways to manipulate followers to do his bidding for various reasons. Much of this is too foggy to know now, in fact, many things, because they are spread verbally only, may never be known.

THE ONLY FAIR AND CIVIL WAY to protect the integrity of WIKIPEDIA is NOT to debate about falun gong here; this is an encyclopedia w/ESTABLISHED TRUTH, not personal belief, one-sided story, or rootless claims and speculation. I WHOLEHEARTEDLY BELIEVE THAT IT IS THE BEST TO SIGNIFICANTLY CUT THE CONTENTS OF THIS PAGE IF NOT TO DELIETE IT ALL TOGETHER, BECAUSE WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PLACE FOR DEBATE ABOUT THE RIGHT OR WRONG OF A POLITICAL STRUGGLE. -- Unsigned comment by Harrygao

To do that you will first have to point out which part is not according to wikipedia spirit and policies. --HappyInGeneral 15:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no confusion here. There is more than enough material from academic sources of the high repute. Governments and Human Rights organizations around the world agree on the situation in China. The only problem is that some users are routinely deleting well sources information. For instance the staged fire incident so much well sourced information presented has all been deleted! Other examples include The kigour Matas Report or statements from EU, US HR etc. It is not too surprising that such a thing would happen on a public encyclopedia, given the methods CCP uses to cover up critical information from the public. There are people who chose to work to cover up for criminals! The confusion is merely created by these people, working through irrational edits and reverts to cover up very well sourced information. That is not a big issue, their edits all violate wikipedia policies and can be dealt with accordingly

Dilip rajeev 16:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV, WP:RS. Sources from third parties should be used to give balance to the article, not making it an one-sided slant against the Chinese government. FLG-associated websites should only be used to give FLG's side on the conflict, not used as factual evidence. A lot of editors here are FLG activists, but an editor should notice the difference between personal opinion and factual evidence.--PCPP 06:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issues

Some time ago, I tagged the article {{quotefarm}}. Unfortunately, the huge chunks of block quotes which caused me to tag it are still in the article. So please fellow editors do not be surprised when I will shortly delete the entire mass of block quotes, substitute a {{copyvio}} template in the interim. Shortly thereafter, I will attempt to reinsert concise carefully reconsidered and non-POV text extracted therefrom, paying attention to WP:UNDUE, a policy which certainly does not seem to be at all adhered to here within the group of FG articles. Ohconfucius 07:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article really needs to be examined for subjective language and insubstantial claims. Most of their articles come from highly suspect sources. For instance, "The Epoch Times" is well known inside the asian community to be a Falun Gong mouth piece and all of the eye-witness claims of death camps and organ removals come directly from Falun Gong members. The Hospital in Shenyang where the supposed organ removals took place is a PUBLIC hospital. Shenyang is also very densely populated: over 7 MILLION residents. It would be like trying to hide a concentration camp in Seattle. Why didn't the non-falun-gong citizens find out about it? The story is ridiculous.

Last edited at 21:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 21:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.