Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Introduction

Here I am hoping we can work through these sections and discuss them and come up with something neutral and well-sourced, which also takes into accounts the competing narratives and well-expresses them in clear, simple language, with no attempt to obfuscate, undermine, or downplay anything. The information, that coming from legitimate sources, should simply be presented here. The best would be to have just one "Background" section, then media war, organ harvesting. We will add some more sections later, too. I have just called them "1" and "2", to avoid the primitive division of pro and con. That is how it stands now but I hope we can overcome that and just make a simple article that reports things clearly. Okay. I will just go one paragraph at a time. right now I'll just do first paragraph. --Asdfg12345 00:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow this is a huge job. I am just realising. First I think we need a section that is an introduction. It should be brief, and just say what Falun Gong is and some basic things. Then it should go the sections like background etc.--Asdfg12345 01:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Background of 1

Falun Gong’s founder, Li Hongzhi, introduced the practice to the public in May 1992. For the first few years after introducing Falun Gong to the world, Li Hongzhi was granted several awards by Chinese governmental organizations to encourage him to continue promoting what was then considered by them to be a wholesome practice. Invited by Qigong organizations from each area in China, during the period from 1992 to the end of 1994, Li traveled to almost all major Chinese cities to teach the practice. In the later part of that period, there were four to five thousand people attending each seminar. Its scale was unprecedented at that time. Since 1995, Li has been teaching outside China. The practice was popularized in mainland China for seven years, mainly by word of mouth and through the Internet.

At the end of May 1998, a Chinese physicist from the Chinese Academy of Science, He Zuoxiu, denounced Falun Gong in an interview on Beijing Television. The program, after showing a video of one of the practice sites, called it a "feudalistic superstition". The TV station was swamped by protest letters from Falun Gong practitioners, and practitioners were also protesting in front of its offices.

On April 11, 1999, He Zuoxiu published an article in the Tianjin College of Education’s Youth Reader magazine entitled "I Do Not Agree with Youth Practicing Qigong". From April 18 to April 24, Falun Gong practitioners went to Tianjin College of Education, which published the magazine, and related governmental agencies and held protests.

Some practitioners were arrested and were beaten by the police according to at least one report. Several days later, for 12 hours on April 25 1999, about 10,000 people lined up, in silence, along a 2 km stretch at the Central Appeal Office outside Zhongnanhai, the headquarters of Chinese government, in order to protest peacefully the hate propaganda against Falun Gong and the arrests. 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 reported that Falun Gong practitioners organizing a protest 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.

Julie Ching (2001) has stated: "The overseas Chinese-language press has suggested that the Zhongnanhai demonstrations were actually organized in part by the government, to help trump up charges against the Falun Gong, which it had observed and monitored for years through its infiltrators. It even gives the name of a high official, [Luo] Gan, as being the chief Communist organizer of the Zhongnanhai gathering. As secretary general of the State Council, [Luo] had been investigating Falun Gong and had wanted it banned since 1996 but could not find any legal basis for transgression. In that case, it is not certain where the Falun followers intended first to make their petition, but [Luo] had the police direct them to Zhongnanhai, in order to create an incident with which they afterwards could be charged."

On June 10, 1999, the government established the "6-10" office, an extra-constitutional body, to facilitate the crackdown. Most political analysts believe that this was the direct result of events that occurred in April 1999. (See paragraph above beginning "On April 11, 1999, He Zuoxiu published an article...")

In July 1999, the government declared the practice of Falun Gong illegal. The government had become especially concerned by reports that significant numbers of government officials, as well as military and police personnel, were practitioners. Another influence in the change in policy was the cultural memory of the 19th century Taiping Rebellion, when a religious cult had caused a civil war.

"By unleashing a Mao-style movement [against Falun Gong], Jiang is forcing senior cadres to pledge allegiance to his line," a Communist Party veteran later told CNN's Willy Lam. "This will boost Jiang's authority-and may give him enough momentum to enable him to dictate events at the pivotal 16th Communist Party congress next year."

The Falun Dafa Information Center claims that over 2300 Falun Gong practitioners have died while in police or government custody.

He Zuoxiu has also accused some Falun Gong practitioners of harassment because of the articles he wrote, and published a book entitled How Falun Gong Harassed Me and My Family. He Zuoxiu is a relative of Luo Gan, one of the chief perpetrators of the persecution, and he is said to have "become a national hero" for opposing Falun Gong. [1] Therefore, some sources have suspected him of politically motivated careerism (e.g. [2], p99).

The CPC has burned and destroyed books and other materials about Falun Gong, and blocked access to internet resources about the topic. Treatment of Falun Gong practitioners has been regarded by some in the West as a major international human rights issue affecting freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Background of 2

Falun Gong, officially known as the Falun Dafa, is a spiritual movement based on the teachings of Li Hongzhi from the People's Republic of China. Since 1999 the Chinese government, alleging Falun Gong to be a fraudulent, commercial cult organization, had suppressed and banned the movement inside China, using the mass media to discredit Falun Gong and employing various measures to "rehabilitate" Falun Gong practitioners who are reluctant to renounce their faith. The suppression has generated controversy and raises many human rights concerns about the Chinese government. 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 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.

Background of Conflict

On the morning of April 25 1999, ten thousand plus Falun Gong practitioners surrounded Zhongnanhai, where top Chinese leaders both live and work. This protest immediately made the Falun Gong and its leader, Li Hongzhi an instant hit around the world. Just three months later, on July 22 1999 the Falun Gong was officially banned by the government, again bringing the Falun Gong and its leader to the attention of the world.

Falun Gong practitioners have claimed that the Zhongnanhai protest was their response to government suppression but evidence shows that this claim is questionable. As late as November 10 1998 one major newspaper in southern China, Yangcheng Evening News, published a favorable report of the Falun Gong titled “The Old and the Young All Practice Falun Gong.” [3] On March 4 1999, just one and a half months before the Zhongnanhai protest, the public safety bureau of Harbin City, the largest provincial capital in China, presented an award to the Falun Gong general assistant center in the city.[4] Examples like these, and others found on Falun Gong’s own website reveal an environment friendly to the Falun Gong.

The conflict between the Falun Gong and the Chinese government began in earnest when the Falun Gong escalated its suppression towards journalists and critics. Hundreds--and in some cases, thousands--of practitioners literally encircled media organizations demanding that they apologize and retract their reports. Master Li castigated critics as scoundrels and as early as 1996 encouraged his followers to confront them. But by July, 1998, Li felt the need for state support. He wanted state approval for his campaign to silence critics; he wanted encouragement for his obedient followers, who were intimidating critics through the use of public—and illegal—protests. In an important directive entitled “Digging Out the Roots,” Falun Gong Founder Li Hongzhi began by saying:

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 directive was written one month after the group had held a protest against a Beijing TV station; the “special approach” refers to the protest. On May 27, 1998—twelve days after the China Central TV, China's largest network, had aired a positive coverage of the group—the local Beijing TV station broadcast a critical report of the group. More than a thousand practitioners besieged the station for days until “the TV station's chief fired the 24-year-old reporter involved and broadcast a favorable report about the group a few days later.”

The Falun Gong’s intolerance of critics has been reported by the media long before the ban. One Asiaweek article reported: “What Falungong [sic] does do is besiege opponents, literally. Li Hongzhi's demand that followers "promote the law" and "protect the law" seems to foster intolerance of criticism. Believers encircled media organizations in China 77 times over the past few years (and once in Hong Kong) over what they said was unfair coverage.”

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". Dr. He told the story of one of his colleagues who developed mental illness after practicing the Falun Gong. Starting on April 19, practitioners who were deeply offended by what they called an “extremely irresponsible article” besieged the magazine’s office. Three demands were made:

1. publicly apologize to the Falun Gong,
2. retrieve and destroy all magazines containing the article,
3. publish an announcement to stop anyone from reprinting the article.

By April 23, with “nearly 10,000 practitioners” encircling its office and harassing its staff, the company called in the police. At 5PM that afternoon, the chief of police ordered the practitioners who held the protest without a permit to leave the premises of the magazine offices. He also advised the leading practitioner representing the group that the lawful approach to deal with the magazine company was to “file a lawsuit.” At 8PM that evening four hundred policemen had to force an evacuation and forty-five practitioners who refused to obey the order were arrested.

The arrest turned the municipal government of Tianjin into the new target for the practitioners. They continued protesting into night and onto the next day. The Tianjin government was presented with a threatening open letter with the signatory of “a few hundred thousand Falun Gong practitioners in Tianjin.” The letter, addressed directly to Tianjin Party Secretary Zhang Lichang and Mayor Li Shenglin declared: “We strongly protest the police brutality,… we demand that you uphold justice, release all innocent practitioners… to prevent the stability and unity of Tianjin city from being damaged.” The Municipal government subsequently rejected the demands. the Falun Gong organized its famous Zhongnanhai, Beijing protest on April 25, directly putting pressure on the central government until it ordered the release of the incarcerated practitioners. This protest, challenging the government to accept the Falun Gong's attacks on critics, began ringing alarm bells for China's central leadership and began the conflict between the Chinese government and Falun Gong.

Background

For 12 hours on April 25 1999, about 10,000 people lined up, in silence, along a 2 km stretch at the Central Appeal Office outside Zhongnanhai, the headquarters of Chinese government, in order to protest peacefully the hate propaganda against Falun Gong and the arrests. 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 reported that Falun Gong practitioners organizing a protest 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.

On June 10, 1999, the government established the "6-10" office, an extra-constitutional body, to facilitate the crackdown. Most political analysts believe that this was the direct result of events that occurred in April 1999. (See paragraph above beginning "On April 11, 1999, He Zuoxiu published an article...")

In July 1999, the government declared the practice of Falun Gong illegal. The government had become especially concerned by reports that significant numbers of government officials, as well as military and police personnel, were practitioners. Another influence in the change in policy was the cultural memory of the 19th century Taiping Rebellion, when a religious cult had caused a civil war.

"By unleashing a Mao-style movement [against Falun Gong], Jiang is forcing senior cadres to pledge allegiance to his line," a Communist Party veteran later told CNN's Willy Lam. "This will boost Jiang's authority-and may give him enough momentum to enable him to dictate events at the pivotal 16th Communist Party congress next year."

The Falun Dafa Information Center claims that over 2300 Falun Gong practitioners have died while in police or government custody.

He Zuoxiu has also accused some Falun Gong practitioners of harassment because of the articles he wrote, and published a book entitled How Falun Gong Harassed Me and My Family. He Zuoxiu is a relative of Luo Gan, one of the chief perpetrators of the persecution, and he is said to have "become a national hero" for opposing Falun Gong. [5] Therefore, some sources have suspected him of politically motivated careerism (e.g. [6], p99).

The CPC has burned and destroyed books and other materials about Falun Gong, and blocked access to internet resources about the topic. Treatment of Falun Gong practitioners has been regarded by some in the West as a major international human rights issue affecting freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Orphaned references in Persecution of Falun Gong

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Persecution of Falun Gong's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "dangerous":

• From Falun Gong: Mickey Spiegel, "Dangerous Meditation: China's Campaign Against Falungong", Human Rights Watch, 2002, accessed Sept 28, 2007
• From Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident: Spiegel, Mickey (2002). Dangerous Meditation: China's Campaign Against Falungong. Human Rights Watch. ISBN 1-56432-270-X. Retrieved 28 September 2007.
• From Re-education through labor: Spiegel, Mickey (January 2002). "Reeducation through Labor; Transformation Centers". Dangerous Meditation: China's Campaign Against Falun Gong. Retrieved 28 October 2008. {{cite web}}: External link in |work= (help)

Reference named "wildgrass":

• From Teachings of Falun Gong: p 212
• From Qigong: Johnson, Ian (2004), Wild Grass: Three Stories of Change in Modern China, Pantheon Books, ISBN 9780375421860
• From Falun Gong: Johnson, Ian, Wild Grass: three portraits of change in modern china, Vintage (8 March 2005)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Persecution_of_Falun_Gong

This was not needed, there is a link to that page in the tag you kept removing. Irbisgreif (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No interest?

This needs sources. I have flagged bits that I see as needing sourcing, and there seem to be no interested editors at all. I also support the construction flag removal.- Sinneed 06:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm working here /sources. Ups, letting it known to the public, sorry, I thought I already done that. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

WP does not use subpages in article space.- Sinneed 15:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a sources sub page now

Hello, there is a sources subpage, where I think we can list all relevant /sources contributions are welcome. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

WP does not use subpages in article space. That link does not go anywhere from this article, for me.- Sinneed 15:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Article talk placed on my talk page will be very generally deleted immediately. Article talk belongs, very generally, on article talk pages.- Sinneed 16:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources subpage

copied from Sinneed user talk page

Hi Sinneed, I'm not quite sure what you mean here could you please elaborate? My point in creating the sources subpage, was to have a place where we can all collect sources on this subject. What do you think? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sinneed seems to suggest that it doesn't belong in mainspace. I have therefore moved it to User:HappyInGeneral/Persecution of Falun Gong sources Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I see, I would love to see the policy on that, also as an alternative, shouldn't it rather go as a sub-page here? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Five pillars - WP doesn't have rock-solid rules. Our rules/policies/guidelines describe what we DO. We put, very generally, article talk, such as discussions of possible sources, on article talk pages. It is very possible that this entire article would have been best served by being placed in a user space and worked until ready.- Sinneed 17:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Banning of Falun Gong in China - Alternate suggestion - Suppression of Falun Gong - note spelling - Sinneed 22:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Please be sure to restore the chopped sources.

Some are simply broken, and some were cut. Please be sure to restore them.- Sinneed 00:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Shocked

I find myself shocked. Irrelevant - I urgently request that be restored, or an explanation of why it does not belong. I find my assumption of good faith strained.- Sinneed 00:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. The edit summary was not the best. But in my view, it was utterly out of place in that section. So someone wants this to be investigated, someone else calls upon other actions. It doesn't really fit into the greater context. Like I said above, if you see that a section needs to be restored, please do so. You don't have to even discuss it really, and I will not edit war. I'm just trying to do my best here with such a messy article. Colipon+(Talk) 00:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I cannot revert it (3RR). Please do. If you feel the call for investigation of torture does not belong in the torture section, where would you suggest? Then: wp:SOFIXIT. Clearly a call for investigation of torture would belong in the article. The details of the torture certainly would. The sources certainly belonged.- Sinneed 00:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I am always open to compromise. I find your reason sound so for now I will restore it by self-revert. Thanks for bringing it up. Colipon+(Talk) 00:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, very much. :) - Sinneed 00:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Requesting Move

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.

---

Persecution of Falun Gong → Suppression of Falun Gong — Three reasons. Firstly, it is evident that the subject covered in the article deal with both the media campaign and the alleged torture, mistreatment etc. Much of this article does not describe "persecution" in and of itself, but rather what the Chinese regime did to suppress the movement; the 'persecution' of the practitioners was one of the means. Secondly, the title is not grammatically sound. Falun Gong practitioners are the subjects of persecution, not Falun Gong; people get persecuted, not movements. Movements are suppressed. Concerns for neutrality of the title is also worth note. --Colipon+(Talk) 22:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This requested move is a continuation of the discussion found at the article's deletion nomination, which ended in "trainwreck". Editors should do their best to not repeat arguments, and keep their comments brief and to-the-point. The discussions should follow a spirit of compromise. Colipon+(Talk) 22:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Suppression and persecution is pretty much the same to me. But I would like to point out that "suppression" is spelled with two Ps. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• I cannot support the request that previously-used arguments not be made here. Full discussion is appropriate.
• "Falun Gong" refers to the movement... which is a group of people. This is usage that has become quite common, though it is different than what I was taught. For example, a sports franchise is plural... refering to its people... or singular referring to its name, image, etc.
• It seems clear that the article creator intends this to be about persecution. I see a great deal of junk thrown in that isn't persecution and I have my editorial hatchet sharpened.
• All that being said, I see the (current "Persecution") title as POVish. Since the Chinese government says it has banned the organization, and clearly has done so, and all the rest follows on (for good or ill) from that, why not "Banning of Falun Gong in China". I don't oppose the Suppression name (spelled correctly, as noted by Martin) at this time. I look forward to seeing other views. I have no strong opinion at this time.- Sinneed 22:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: Ban, suppression, repression, crackdown, genocide, persecution, they are all really somewhat similar, right? Can we use the one that is most used in the media per WP:COMMONNAME? The persecution of Falun Gong is quite real, see here the sources (and the list is growing), so I really oppose the rename. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Now I would question, what is to be gained from the rename? If you ask me this whole debate on how to name the article is yet another attempt to make the gross violations less visible. As I see it ban, suppression, repression, crackdown, all these can be legal. There are cases where there are perfectly justified ban, suppression, repression, crackdown's. There is not one single case where there is a perfectly justified genocide or persecution. This is why I think this rename/move/deletion is always so vehemently asked for, even though, it is clear as day what is happening. Still are we even a bit thinking about human dignity here? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Colipon's reasoning makes it very clear. Support the move. I think Banning would be the best title.--Edward130603 (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose the move. Suppression and persecution are more or less the same. We should use the terms most commonly used by the English-speaking media. Flamarande (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, they are not the same thing. The suppression of the movement is driven by persecution, media campaigns, and educational campaigns. This article aims to give the bigger picture, and should be titled as such. Colipon+(Talk) 14:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
    • With all due respect, a modern persecution is driven by political suppresion, media campaigns, and educational campaigns. Flamarande (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support the move. It pisses me off no end how these Falun Gong types go around saying: "look, the nasty CCP is doing all these horrible thing to practitioners - just read clearwisdom. Li Hongzhi says not to lie, so all Falun Gong practitioners tell the truth, so what you read there must be true. And if you don't believe us, look also at Amnesty and Human Rights Watch - all these sources say 'Persecution', therefore we must be persecuted. And oh, don't be so naive to believe it's just suppression, or a crackdown. No term other than Persecution is correct, so no other term will do". It's already been demonstrated that most people search for 'Falun Gong' on its own. Other variants, such as 'Persecution of..', 'Suppression of..', 'Repression of..' are not even in the same order of magnitude. We just need to develop an article under sane conditions, but it seems like the usual controversy and disruption are set to continue well after the train crash. It should be moved once and for all, and salted for good measure. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • If in face of the /sources you still want to salt it, then I guess you should not edit this Encyclopedia. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed, o honorable comrade of the venerable communist party. I also propose that we put everybody else in the gulag for the crime of defamation of the PRC. Flamarande (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC) (this is a joke)
    • LMAO....i propose we not _{同志们，我们一定要奋战到底，为了国家，为了党，我们要铲除右派！！！} your corrosive language gives light to a dark situation, ah, just as our leader chairman mao was like the sun that gave hope to the world...hehe...PRC doesn't have a good human rights record, but it doesn't mean that everything bad said about them is true. --Edward130603 (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
      • "PRC doesn't have a good human rights record, but it doesn't mean that everything bad said about them is true" => I've heard that line before plenty of times, and I think it's only meant to plant doubt, still here on Wikipedia we stick to the /sources. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
      • What Edward says. I'm not done criticising the PRC yet, so please check talk archives and my talk page. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Look, to move the title from 'Persecution of Falun Gong' to 'Suppression of Falun Gong' is simple hair-splitting (and the diffrence is minimal - so minimal that it is stupid to make at all). Perhaps we could follow the examples found at Category:Scientology by country? Move it towards 'Falun Gong in China'. Flamarande (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with Falun Gong in China or Falun Gong ban in China, or anything along those lines. Colipon+(Talk) 23:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Although I would agree that we would be splitting hairs with 'suppression' in the title instead of 'persecution', I think the idea is to find a compromise which would find consensus, noting that it was immediately recreated after the page was moved to 'history' per consensus. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Same as Colipon, I would be fine with Flamarande's suggestion or Banning of FLG in China.Edward130603 (talk) 02:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we have a vote to see who thinks that the treatment of Falun Gong in China is in acordance with the International Human Rights laws? My point being that as long as Human Rights are respected, we can talk about ban, suppression, repression, crackdown. Otherwise it is unlawful thus it is a persecution. Also feel free to consult the collection of /sources. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I rest my case, M'lud. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually this is an article about:

• 3.1 Forced labor
• 3.2 Torture
• 3.3 Organ harvesting
• 3.4 Psychiatric

So the article is called Persecution of Falun Gong and not something else like, history, Falun Gong in China, ban, crackdown, etc. It is a genocide, because the PRC aims to eradicate Falun Gong, and you must know this, because you read enough reports from all the sources, and you can not seriously claim that Amnesty International, Human rights watch, etc.. (see more here) all of them lie just to make the PRC look bad. Yet you still try to rephrase it as much as you can get away with to make it sound nice and legal. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:ADVOCACY/WP:COI. I refuse to engage. Colipon+(Talk) 10:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

What I listed is common sense and /sources, yet you claim WP:COI so you can justify WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder how the articles Scientology in Germany and Scientology in France managed to avoid becoming 'Suppression/Persecution of Scientology in Germany' and 'Suppression/Persecution of Scientology in France'? Let me guess, "the media doesn't use such beautiful titles" and from the little we know Scientology truly is a dangerous cult which deserves to be suppressed. On the other hand "Falung Gong is a innocent community of peaceful believers which are being hunted down by an oppressive and evil government".

But if you care to read Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident you will find that a mother felt herself justified to immolate herself and her 12 year-old daughter. So much for innocent and peaceful. I'm an atheist and I'm admittedly afraid of Scientology but why should I trust Falung Gong? Just because the Chinese government is "evil and oppressive"? Perhaps we should treat Scientology and Falung Gong with equal detachment and objectivity (ie: same objective titles) instead of playing politics. Flamarande (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you know for a fact that a Falun Gong practitioner set her daughter on fire? Or is this your perception created after Ohconfucius neutralized the Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident article? I would suggest you take a look on the source on this revert this revert and that is why I think that the article breaches NPOV. There are sources, including Falun Gong sources, saying that this was an act of state terrorism. There is nothing in Falun Gong that would drive people toward suicide, much less homicide, and much less to give a free propaganda tool to the PRC by setting a 12 year old daughter on fire. On the other hand, the PRC is capable for doing all that. Scientology and Falun Gong are clearly not the same thing. When you say that Scientology is persecuted in Germany, you mean like this? Does the United Nation special investigator on torture, reported that Scientology members are tortured in Germany's labor camps (see /sources)? Don't you think it is a bit far fetched to compare the Falun Gong to Scientology? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm just sorry this article's content doesn't fit into your narrow Falun Gong view of the world, but you know true well that the 'Self-immolation' article has been heavily edited not just by me, but by other editors with strong detachments and, apparently, with sufficient objectivity for the article to become a featured article. So if you want to blame me, you might care to blame all the collected editors who blessed the article, including the other major contributors at the final stage, notably Jayen466 and SilkTork, who you continually canvas. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No I don't know for a fact what happened (I wasn't in Tiananmen Square at the time, I never have been in China at all, and I never can be absolutely sure of anything which I didn't see with my own eyes - and even then, we can be never truly be sure of anything - see the Matrix films :). That's the reason we should use objective titles: 'Falong Gong in China' and 'Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident' (the content of the articles themselves are another matter - find credible sources). You see that's just the problem: we simply don't know for sure. Falung Gong sources say that the immolation goes against their teachings and accuse the Chinese government of state terrorism (these are very serious accusations which should be presented before a court of law). The government says the contrary. Who are we to decide who is right? To argue that the PRC is capable for doing all that is playing politics: all governments are capable of doing anything they wish in their own country (as the recent torture scandals at the hands of officials of certain democratic governments painfully showed yet again). The main issue is: why would they do it? Would they get away with it? Are there any witnesses? What are the statements of the witnesses?

The German and the French governments say that Scientology is a dangerous brain-washing cult. Scientology says that's it is merely a innocent religion persecuted by Nazi governments (the Nazi argument is so mind-narrowing, that's why Scientology and everybody else use it all the time :). My own personal opinion in these matters (The entire Scientology should be investigated from top to bottom, and in case of credible evidence brought before a fair and open trial with the preventive arrest of all its leaders) is simply irrelevant: use credible sources and objective titles. Flamarande (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you consider the following sources, credible and objective?

User:HappyInGeneral/Persecution of Falun Gong sources --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

'Strongly Oppose the move. Persecution and ban are very different things. Would we be changing an article on the "Persecution of Christians in ancient Rome" to the "Ban of Christians"? Even what the articles are about would be different - they are not equivalent namespaces even.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Article move proposal:Random break for easy editing - please continue below

Please, we can discuss comparisons between Scientology and Falun Gong on another day. Right now we only need to know if we should move this article. And I am of the impression that everyone here feels (save for one COI user) that "Persecution of Falun Gong" is not the best title. Can we then compromise and just agree on "Falun Gong in China"? Or "Ban of Falun Gong in China"? Please lend your thoughts. Colipon+(Talk) 13:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• That isn't a compromise.
• I see a neutral and 2 3 opposes on a quick view. I think discussion of whether the move needs to take place at all is not ready for a consensus. I don't think we are ready to !vote... this is full, open discussion.
• I too ask that unrelated subjects be avoided.
• There are many wp:RS that refer to the banning/destruction/suppression of the FG in China as persecution. That is great, they can be used to cite that in the article, and they are; I think that is adequately cited. I don't see anyone attempting to remove it from the content, though there was a lot of what I saw as overly-aggressive deletion of content as unsourced that had not been flagged as unsourced or had not been flagged for more than hours.

Those "oppose"s that you are talking about are opposed to "Suppression of Falun Gong", but are also opposed to "Persecution of Falun Gong". I do not see anyone except for one user who unequivocally pushes for the exclusive use of "persecution" above all else. Colipon+(Talk) 16:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I see your reasoning. We are in the discussion phase, not the "done with discussing, time to decide" phase, and I still don't think we are ready to say it has been discussed enough. Several days, I should think, should be allowed for open discussion (even though it may bring in a lot of chaff, we need more wheat).- Sinneed 17:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Banning of Falun Gong; sounds altogether too harmless. I could support, and indeed would favour, Repression of Falun Gong or Repression of Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China. That would set the article scope wide enough to cover both the direct persecution that is happening and the repressive measures surrounding this which do not in themselves rise to the level of persecution. --JN466 18:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Persecution of Falun Gong is the appropriate name under Wikipedia naming policy and common sense given that the most common term used to describe the topic of the article is "Persecution of Falun Gong" - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. However, it appears that guidelines and common sense do not apply here - what may prevail is the determination of those most interested in having their way rather than well presented arguments. I do not wish to get drawn into this. I do hope that when this discussion ends ingloriously in another no consensus, that there will be no more attempts at renaming the topic. SilkTork *^YES! 20:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

  

  The beauty of the question was that it kept going round in circles so everyone involved could have their say over and over again.

• Weak oppose: of course, the question is, "is it a suppression campaign or is it a persecution campaign?". The answer is both. It is clear that this is a suppression, but it is also clear that, unlike Christian America's homophobia or the Scientology fraud convictions, this is also a persecution campaign. So the question is, what is the best title? I think the status quo is less problematic, if only because moving it would entail another discussion that we'd never hear the end of. However, I'd support "Suppression and persecution of..." and/or suffixing "in the People's Republic of China" in the title too. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: "Suppression" is too general; it also does not convey well the notion of systematically not "allowing" something. "Banning" is inappropriate as this article is not primarily about the fact that something is/ was not allowed, but about what has happened surrounding the infringement of this ban. Mootros (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support: I do think that it should be changed from "Persecution", because WP's job is to be as objective as possible and about the verifiable facts or nothing. "Persecution" is a very emotive term which influences how people think about what they're about to read (or skim), IMO. However, I'm not sure that either "Suppression" or "Banning" is appropriate either. To say that FG is simply banned by the PRC would be an understatement for sure; there is certainly enough evidence to suggest that more "active" measures are being taken to stamp out the practice. I would be happier with "suppression" than "persecution", but all of these words kind of sum up the whole argument into a prepackaged opinion which is suggested to the reader. Can we not have something more neutral and non-committal like "Treatment of Falun Gong (in China)", and allow the readers to read the whole article and make up their own minds? Destynova (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  Regarding: "I do think that it should be changed from "Persecution", because WP's job is to be as objective as possible and about the verifiable facts or nothing." ==> verification is done by sources, so see here. There are enough highly reputable verifiable source on this. To highlight perhaps one of them see here what Amnesty reports about the persecution of Falun Gong. --HappyInGeneral (talk)

  HappyInGeneral, I didn't mean to give the impression that the claims of persecution carried out by the PRC are false or exaggerated (actually I've so far refrained from visiting friends in China due to discomfort with the lack of freedom there); just that this title in particular is too emotive. As I said, I'd prefer a more conservatively-worded title that encourages readers to digest the article before making blanket conclusions (even if those conclusions were similar). Destynova (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  Regarding: "just that this title in particular is too emotive" => can you please define in what sense it is emotive? As I see it per definition: "Persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another group.". I think this is actually to soft because what is actually happening per a correct synthesis on the bases of the open directives of the PRC, like this statement "Destroy their reputation, bankrupt them financially and annihilate them physically.", it would make more sense to call it: Genocide which per definition "is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.". Yet per WP:DUE of WP:RS and per WP:NCCN the term more commonly used is persecution. For more info on this, see /sources. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  Mind you this is not a place to engage in your personal FLG POV-pushing --PCPP (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

  I provided facts: 2 definitions and one source. Did you find anything incorrect in what I said? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I have familiarized myself with the article and the article's title reflects the subject matter. I see no need for a title change. No offence intended but I think time could have been spent on something more productive. Regards Sir Floyd (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Whist I may agree with you on the productivity issue, and referring to Happy above, I would say that it's not that irrational to ask for a appropriate name for the article, bearing in mind that there is at least one article I know whose name is inconsistent with the public perception, but I don't want to make a WP:POINT by attempting to change it: The article entitled Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, while the subject is most widely known by the name "Tiananmen Massacre" — which also happens to be the most widely used search term on Google. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose move. Perhaps the title is not the best title but it is satisfactory to me. It seems to me that it does describe what is happening in China, not only with Falun Gong, but with other less well known groups, as well. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCCN.--Staberinde (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose: It definitely seems like persecution, and I don't see any topic here that couldn't fit. Dan (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: what's the difference? once something gets banned, persecution and suppression follow. It is all self explanatory and it doesn't make any difference what the article is called in that respect.--Termer (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Strong support Per WP:WTA - "Some words may be used to label a group from an outside perspective, even though these words are used in accordance with a dictionary definition. Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint: that of an outsider looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral." We don't directly call al-Qaeda a terrorist organization, despite the wide use of the label, but an Islamist designated as a terrorist group by source XXX and YYY.

Thus the term "persecution" should not be used directly in the title, as it implies a viewpoint, disregarding its acceptance, and wikipedia should not endorce particular viewpoints over others. The term should not be used as a direct label regarding FLG's ordeal, and the term should only be used via attribution eg "The banning of FLG by the Chinese government is described as a human rights violation and religious persecution by XXX and YYY [insert sources]".

As demonstrated by the vocal debates, the label "persecution" is controversial, and should not be used in the article heading. I suggest the article be simple named Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China, so that the different views on FLG's ban can be discussed in length in there while remaining NPOV--PCPP (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I think there is enough information here to put into two articles, and the concepts are distinct enough to warrant this. IN any case, considering the Falun Gong has been persecuted, I would be dubious about the motivations of parties that wish to diminish their presence on Wikipedia. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy close. Let's close this whole discussion. This is clearly a 'no consensus', and it's been going on long enough. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• We have not even identified the results of the open discussion and have not begun to discuss the possible names, much less tried pick among them. But I don't oppose abandoning the effort, clearly. There has been no substantial discussion recently.- Sinneed 15:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• As the nominator of this move request, I now ask for it to be closed. There is clearly no consensus and I respect the opinions offered by the community. I leave open the possibility of returning to the issue in the future. Colipon+(Talk) 00:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If we do the move

I suspect that, if we do the move, yet another "Persecution of Falun Gong" article will be created, and we will go through this whole thing again. It might be that after we reach consensus, we need to open an RfC, suggesting that this article name be locked as a redirect to the "Banning" (or whatever) article to discourage PoV-forking. If at a later time, an editor desired to recreate the article, it could be created in user space, then presented through the talk page with an RfC for community opinion.- Sinneed 15:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that this very spin-out article was not completely in line with Wiki policy to begin with, as it was very rushed and completed without any sign of consensus, not to mention it was done immediately after the page was just moved to "history". As such I would hesitate to consider the 'status quo' as legitimate. Colipon+(Talk) 16:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Since we don't have consensus to kill it (or anything else) from the AfD, it is legitimate.

Since the AfD didn't even come out with consensus to move, I am a bit dubious of finding consensus now... we get many more eyes on AfDs than on talk pages alone, usually.- Sinneed 16:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Sinneed. If it is agreed to move it, as I suggested above, the 'Persecution of Falun Gong', 'Persecution of Falun Gong in China' and 'Persecution of Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China' namespaces will need to be redirected to the new namespace, and then well seasoned for good preservation. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:41, 3 November 2009 (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.

"Political abuse of psychiatry" section

This name seems fundamentally incorrect... and POVish. I expect that those ordering the usage don't see it as abuse (though that is just opinion, this is a talk page, it is for opinion on content). I also think that he content falls into 3 categories: "doesn't belong", "education", "torture". I don't think this section is where I want to spend my Wikipedia time, and I hope some interested editor will spend some time on it.- Sinneed 22:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I am going to give this section a facelift. But be forewarned that a lot of the material will be removed. Please restore it if you believe I have gone too far. Colipon+(Talk) 23:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I considered simply highlighting the section and clicking delete.- Sinneed 00:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I did too, but I think the material is worth mention. I think the current re-organized version gives it a much more neutral feel. Colipon+(Talk) 00:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Concur. Most of the stuff in this immensely problematic article warrants outright removal. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This section title is confusing. Also should there be a distinction between physical and psychological torture? This separate section makes only sense if there is a focus on the instrumentalisation of the medical profession and healthcare infrastructure. Mootros (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square Self-immolation

A bit unsure where this belongs. It's somewhat awkward just lying there by itself. Under "media", perhaps? Colipon+(Talk) 00:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Since it is a huge and defining event, I don't see how it standing on its own is awkward. This one event so shocked China that support for even extreme actions became acceptable to many, as reported by the international press.- Sinneed 00:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely a notable and defining event. I am merely asking where to place it in relation to the rest of the content on the article. Colipon+(Talk) 00:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Bottom, top, or middle. I don't think the layout matters all that much.- Sinneed 00:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

As you may well know, the incident played a huge role in the media campaign against Falun Gong. This is why I am suggesting it be moved under "Media". But I am open to other opinions as well. Colipon+(Talk) 00:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda?

"Firmly support the decision of the Central Committee to deal with the illegal organization of Falun Gong" - How? It would work as NPOV content in WP "The government called for firm support of the decision of the Central Committee to deal with the illegal organization of Falun Gong" - The government banned it, it is illegal. NPOV-the propaganda claim does not belong... or the translation is wrong, and needs to be corrected.- Sinneed 00:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I quite understand what you mean. Do you disagree that the poster is a form of propaganda? Or is there something else I'm missing? Colipon+(Talk) 00:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a bit interesting how that is the only image that survived, see here for example. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I disapprove of characterizing it. The reader can look at the poster, read the caption, and decide if it is propaganda, or not. It is a poster. We say what it says in English. The reader can draw own conclusions. If we are going to say it is propaganda, we need a wp:RS that says it is. - Sinneed 15:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That is fine with me. Colipon+(Talk) 16:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Improve the references?

This article has a {{Refimprove|date=October 2009}} tag, and it has 55 inline citations. Although it is a fairly long article, it seems to me that 55 inline citations should be sufficient, even though the subject matter and even the title is seen as controversial by some editors. If editors think the tag is justified, please comment here. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe the concerns were with the verifiability of the sources, not the number of sources. Editors raised the concern that many sources are self-published Falun Gong sources, or sources commissioned to speak for Falun Gong. I don't know if this is still a major problem, but number of sources was never the issue. Previously, Falun Gong editors firebombed all Falun Gong-related articles with "sources" to prove a point, but most of it has been cleaned up. Colipon+(Talk) 13:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. Meanwhile, I learned from AWB that there are dead links in this article. Perhaps other editors, of whatever persuasion on the merits, might want to either fix or delete these dead links. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Link cleaner seems to like the links that are left at the moment.- Sinneed 17:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

New section - Political Motivation

Hi,

I've compiled some findings from previous edits and added this section at the beginning. The primary reason Falun Gong claims the persecution is happening is due to the directive of certain high level government officials, therefore I put it as the first section of the page.

--Mavlo (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

And I am dropping it again promptly. It is strongly wp:POV and simply does not belong.- Sinneed 04:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV says: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. Therefore, material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV", although it may be shortened and moved to a new article if it gives undue weight to a minor point of view, as explained below."

It's again quite unclear why this section should be removed. It's a section about what reliable sources have said about the motivations of Chinese leaders in persecuting Falun Gong, how does it violate the neutral point of view policy, and how could it be made to conform to the neutral point of view? Rather than simply deleting it, perhaps additions could be made to include viewpoints that were not currently there.--Asdfg12345 03:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Mavlo would be within his rights at this point to restore the material if Sinneed does not see cause to disagree with my above reference to the policy he quoted. It's seems clear that the information should not simply be deleted for that reason. I'm not sure if I'm missing something. At the very least, I'd encourage Sinneed to make constructive improvements to this user's edits, rather than delete it all (and leave not exactly friendly remarks, one might add).--Asdfg12345 14:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the reference I cited. I *don't* agree with "It's a section about what reliable sources have said about the motivations of Chinese leaders in persecuting Falun Gong" - It is carefully-selected words supporting a specific point of view. Certainly, a section "Motivation", with speculation about different possible motivations... guessing the intentions and motivations of China's leaders keeps a large group of diplomats, spies, and analysts in government, banking, the press, and industry very busy indeed... might very well belong. This is not it.- Sinneed 16:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok that seems fair. Could you not have just removed the word "Political" in the section title and edit according to how you see fit, rather than completely deleting it? Though the persecution it is still considered politically motivated by a majority of people, right or wrong, I am all for pushing a more neutral POV. --Mavlo (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think whether it's "carefully-selected words supporting a specific point of view" or not actually depends on what those sources themselves say. If the sources all say roughly the same thing, then more-or-less that is what reliable sources say about the matter. I repeat that it does not matter whether those things are all one point of view, that is not a reason for deleting it. It's a reason for adding in more information from other points of view, which should happen. There should be a nuanced and variegated set of reasons for the persecution (if reliable sources provide that). But that whole thing doesn't need to be perfect and finalised before any info can be added. I'd suggest restoring the section that (apparently) represents one point of view, then going through and collecting information that supports other points of view for the motivations behind the persecution, such as that of the Chinese Communist Party or its supporters. Of course, the relative weight of these different points of view should be represented per WP:DUE. Final point: what we need is improvement and added value, not deletions and terse admonishments.--Asdfg12345 06:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Self-immolation incident

The self-immolation incident is only a part of the FG persecution story and it is mostly related to media and propaganda. At the moment the section takes a bit too much focus and can really be condensed to just one paragraph. There is already a page dedicated to this topic. Also, the current version is not very neutral. Thus, I have taken a short excerpt from the main FG page to replace it.

--Mavlo (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Unacceptable. WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:COI. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please explain. --Mavlo (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Read them, then understand. This won't stay long. You are presenting an extreme, opinion-based set of arguments with weak or non-existant sourcing. I tagged a few bit.- Sinneed 04:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Opinion-based? Perhaps, but hardly extreme. Which part of the section was weak and where was there non-existent sourcing? I was able to trace each source. Patiently explain this to me please. In fact, every source used is currently also used in the latest edit EXCEPT the FG sources which basically state that killing is strictly forbidden in the practice. I would disagree that these sources are weak though as they are simply a justifiable defense of the accusation at hand. It's akin to accusing someone of a crime, then not allowing them to defend themselves, guilty or not. As for the wiki policies, which I admit I am relatively new to, again please patiently explain what or how I have violated them.

WP:RS < every part is reliably sourced as mentioned above.

WP:NPOV < the view presented is significantly and sufficiently explained.

WP:COI < again, I believe it is a neutral and reliably sourced addition to the topic.

If I am misunderstanding something, clarification is much appreciated. --Mavlo (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It's super unclear how this editor's conduct is a conflict of interest: COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. I have a feeling that this may not be the right term. As for it being an "extreme, opinion-based set of arguments" -- is that the case? He said he replaced the current section with the one on the Falun Gong main page. That page is probably buffeted most from strong opinions and disputes. I would suggest that the summarised version of the incident there is more appropriate. just 2 cents.--Asdfg12345 02:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, part of the reason why I think that is because this stuff is so hard to get right. There are strong opinions on both sides. Having one version of the text makes sense, since it means the disputes can be focused to just that piece, rather than playing out across three or four places. Another simple point is keeping it short here is because there's a whole page on it already, and this is about the persecution of Falun Gong. Whether the incident is seen as a way of discrediting Falun Gong, or seen as an example of the CCP's ability to fabricate news and brainwash the Chinese public, it's not a huge part of the persecution itself.

Besides these issues of convenience, the most major point is that at the moment it takes up a disproportionately large part of this page, which is explicitly about the persecution. To explain what I mean: a simple test would be to take a sampling of reports or pieces of news about the persecution of Falun Gong, and see how much space is devoted to the immolation incident. I think you'd find that it's very little, or even none, in many cases. Wikipedia should be a reflection of the reliable sources available on the topic; that's a theoretical test to resolve the question of WP:UNDUE. If there is some other proposal for a metric for how the dispute over how much this should take up would best be resolved, let's hear it. Just by looking at a few CECC, USDOS, Amnesty, and HRW reports, however, it becomes obvious that this is either not mentioned at all, or moved over fairly quickly. Then, the large space it takes up here seems hard to explain. So, I think it should simply be replaced with the summary of the incident that this editor put. Thoughts?--Asdfg12345 03:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Some raw material for editors to use

Here I'm going to simply put some material from reliable sources about this issue, including a full reference, and the direct quotes and link. Editors can use them how they see fit. Thanks.--Asdfg12345 03:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Porter, Noah. Falun Gong in the United States An Ethnographic Study. Dissertation. University of South Florida, 2003, pp. 104-105

January 23, 2001, was when the infamous self-immolation incident happened. Five people showed up Tiananmen Square and set themselves on fire. Falun Gong practitioners have pointed out many suspicious aspects of the event, suggesting the Chinese government was behind it. The Chinese Government was reported by practitioners to have fabricated such a report earlier (Clearwisdom.net 2000a). Since suicide is a traditional gesture of protest in China (Chang 1991: 89, 134; Rahn 2001b; Lindsey 2001: 2; ter Haar 2001: sec. 1; Li Cheng 1997: 168-169), it may seem reasonable to think Falun Gong members might protest in this way. However, Falun Gong beliefs prohibit killing, which includes suicide (see Li Hongzhi 1999c: 27); therefore, I think that even if there were people who lit themselves on fire and considered themselves Falun Gong practitioners, they would not be representative of Falun Gong practitioners any more than Christianity as a whole is represented by people who shoot and bomb abortion clinics. While some have said that “the event was a public relations disaster for both Beijing and Falun Gong” (Lindsey 2001) and that “the [Chinese] state was quite angry at the Western media for publishing it as evidence of Falun Gong martyrdom” (ter Haar 2001: sec. 1), it should also be pointed out that there is some evidence that the Chinese government is divided on the issue of Falun Gong (Edelman and Richardson 2003: 320), and that “Public sentiment within China was decidedly opposed to the government campaign, at least until several [supposed] Falun Gong adherents—including a mother and daughter—immolated themselves in a January 2001 protest in Tiananmen Square” (Kindopp 2002: 261). Therefore, those the anger directed at Western media portrayal of the self-immolation may reflect divisions within the Chinese government; and, in any case, it is clear that Falun Gong took a much more damaging PR blow from the incident than the Chinese government did. In addition, convincing evidence has been provided that the events described by the Chinese media are at least deceptive, if not a complete hoax (Schechter 2000; Schechter 2001: 20-23; FalunInfo.net n.d.c).

Rowe, Peter. "Beyond the Red Wall: The Persecution of Falun Gong," Canadian Broadcast Corporation: 2008. link, starting 16:00.

Clive Ainsley: The Chinese media was used as a tool against them, and for a long period of time accusations of great evil against them Falun Gong appeared every day in the Chinese language press, both the print media and on television.

...

Narrator: One of the most powerful images used in the media war between the Chinese State and Falun Gong, is the so-called self-immolation of practitioners in Tiananmen Square on January 23, 2001, five people set themselves on fire near the People's Hero monument. This infamous footage has been repeatedly shown on Chinese state television to underscore the government's claim of the suicidal nature of Falun Gong. A number of unexplained inconsistencies in the broadcast have led many people to believe that it was actually a hoax designed by the government to discredit the movement.

Clive Ainsley: You've got Falun Gong people in this country, they've been oppressed over and over again, they've not been allowed to speak, they're not allowed to assert their rights as citizens, and the level of frustration must be terribly, terribly high, so I can understand people doing that. That doesn't mean the teachings of Li Hongzhi, the movement is evil, but ironically, we ultimately found out that it was a fraud anyway. It wasn't real, the people involved were not Falun Gong members, it was completely staged by the government.

Pan, Philip P. "Human Fire Ignites Chinese Mystery; Motive for Public Burning Intensifies Fight Over Falun Gong." Washington Post Foreign Service, 02/04/2001

The state media have said little about why the five who set themselves on fire might have joined Falun Gong. Beijing denied requests to interview Liu Siying and the three other survivors, who are all hospitalized with serious burns. A Kaifeng official said only China Central Television and the official New China News Agency were permitted to speak to their relatives or their colleagues. A man who answered the door at the Liu home referred questions to the government. But Liu Chunling's Apple Orchard neighbors described her as a woman who led a troubled life and suffered from psychological problems. State media identified 78-year-old Hao Xiuzhen as her adoptive mother. Neighbors said they quarreled often before Liu drove the woman from their home last year.

"There was something wrong with her," said neighbor Liu Min, 51. "She hit her mother, and her mother was crying and yelling. She hit her daughter, too." There were also questions about how Liu supported herself and about the whereabouts of her daughter's father. Neighbors said Liu was not a native of Kaifeng, and that a man in southern Guangdong province paid her rent. Others, including neighbor Wen Jian, 22, said Liu worked in a local nightclub and was paid to dine with and dance with customers. None ever saw her practice Falun Gong.

Brady, Anne-Marie. Marketing Dictatorship: Propaganda and Thought Work in Contemporary China. Rowman and Littlefield: 2008, p. 86

The horrific and graphic scenes of the self-immolations have been repeatedly shown on Chinese television as a justification for why Falungong should be banned in China. The images have been extremely effective in turning public opinion in China--which was initially relatively sympathetic to the group and its followers--against the spiritual movement. According to Falungong, the incident itself never happened, and was a cruel (but clever) piece of stunt-work worthy of Hollywood.

- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdfg12345 (talk • contribs) February 4 2010

Changes from Alleged abuses to Reported abuses

Firstly "alleged" is a misleading and inaccurate word. There are 3rd party sources such as Amnesty and the United Nations Committee Against Torture that have well documented the abuses of FG practitioners.

Also, the source in the torture section misquotes the Amnesty representative. The high death toll was not "overstated" but "seemed high...because the deaths are not the result of formal executions but take place in hard-to-monitor labor camps, where poor treatment and torture lead to the deaths."

Another misquote is in the Psychiatric section. Again the source indicates that "family members who felt threatened by the authorities" brought FG practitioners to these psychiatric wards, not because they were "worried" for their mental well-being as is insinuated.

--Mavlo (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Alleged is appropriate.- Sinneed 04:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll find some sources on this. Alleged would be appropriate if that's what reliable sources most commonly used; reported would be appropriate if that's what reliable sources most commonly used.--Asdfg12345 03:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No. Alleged would be appropriate if these are allegations.- Sinneed 13:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It is a perversion of language to call the abuses being suffered by the Falun Gong--ABUSES FOR WHICH THERE ARE REAMS OF EVIDENCE--"alleged"MarturetCR (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sinneed, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Wikipedia should say what reliable sources on the matter say. To extend your argument, the Holocaust article should start with, regardless of what sources have said about it, "The Holocaust ... is the term generally used to describe the alleged genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II... (added the term "alleged" in there). The reason it doesn't and shouldn't have the word alleged is because the reliable sources on the matter say that it is real. When reliable sources say that it is real, then wikipedia should not say it is alleged. If reliable sources say that it is alleged (or "reported"), then wikipedia should say "alleged" or "reported." Please let me know if I'm wrong in this calculation. It seems pretty simple. Maybe I'm not seeing something, though. Please share.--Asdfg12345 14:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You are talking about removing a single word: "alleged". I only commented that "Alleged would be appropriate if these are allegations." If the wp:RS say it is fact, and are not simply reporting the allegations, then that would be appropriate.- Sinneed 15:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As I read the sources, there are a combination of reports and reports of allegations and allegations. Proposed a new section heading.- Sinneed 15:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Please explain the following:

Why was "Amnesty believes the death toll is impossible to independently verify because they are not the result of formal executions, but take place in hard-to-monitor labor camps." removed and replaced by "Amnesty believes Falun Gong overstate the toll." (from the same source). Could we find some middle-ground and state something along the line of "Corinna-Barbara Francis of Amnesty says Falun Gong's (death toll) figures seem a little high because they are not the result of formal executions."?

Also, "Some were taken at or on their way to protests in Beijing and brought in groups to psychiatric hospitals, others were brought by worried family members." was replaced by "Some were taken at or on their way to protests in Beijing and brought in groups to psychiatric hospitals, others were brought by family members who felt threatened by the authorities." As previously stated, this is a misquote from the source while the latter is a direct quote. --Mavlo (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The quote mentioned above for the Psychiatric section does not seem to follow WP:NPOV as outlined here, specifically the point stating While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased..--Mavlo (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Falun Gong practitioners have a highly organized effort to edit Wikipedia articles in order to present FG in a favorable light. --Reef Bonanza (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

And the user, "Reef Bonananza" who makes the statement above turns out to be a sock of one of wikipedia's worst vandals.[7]

Dilip rajeev (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Dilip's recent additions

Hi, I had added in a lot of info, all directly sourced to academic, human rights and main stream media. Invovled addition of around 50 additional sources. "Seb", you may wnat to raise specific issues about the material added, which is a superset of the info currently present in the article, than just revert the addition of around 50 additional sources.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 02:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Around 50 additional sources and centrally relevant material added. The previous article did not directly cite a single a human rights source for the persecution it was being made to seem as if it were but a claim made by practitioners. Am sure all legitimate editors will see the difference between the two articles. This kind of centrally pertinent information cannot be kept out of the article. Dilip rajeev (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope. various editors have been working on this, debating this, and talking about this since at least November last year. This is the result. You cannot simply pull one of your drive-by stunts. The ball is in your court to explain to every- and anyone who worked on this. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Seb. Colipon+(Talk) 06:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

this should be easy to resolve: just paste things in one paragraph at a time. It's not that Dilip has to justify every inclusion. Once he adds content referenced to reliable sources, the burden is really on those wanting to delete it. In fact, one of the characteristics of tendentious editing--a fact that may surprise you both--is that "You delete the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not discuss their edits first." Here's the rest of it:

: There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict Wikipedia:Be bold. There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption. Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information.

So I suggest Dilip just takes his sweet time on this. There was no legitimate reason this page should have been so badly decimated. The majority of the information he seeks to include is well sourced, notable, and perfectly fine. Everything is up for discussion. I think referencing a November chat among an in-group of editors as a reason 60kb of legit info should be blanked is a bit of a stretch. Really, the key is to see which information is extraneous, and then just not re-include that. But I don't think anyone could support the exclusion of vast amounts of sourced content because it shows what the persecution is about. Let's go delete half the info on the holocaust because it's "POV" then. It's the same bizarre logic. So let me reiterate: I think Dilip should go forward one step at a time, and if the editors who seek to keep this information out can't justify why it should not be added--and I mean in terms of wikipedia policy--but keep deleting it, then dispute resolutions measures can be adopted.--Asdfg12345 08:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I very much support the idea that editors explain and discuss things. In this case, the utility of the information should be self-evident, however. I mean, it's just information about the subject. How many ways can you explain that? When all that is in question is whether information may or may not be added to the page, this seems odd. Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia, and contributions should not really be deleted. They can be moved into subpages and so on. That's the idea of the growing tree of knowledge. it's not about pushing out certain well known facts, but accommodating all relevant views. Since this page is about the persecution of Falun Gong, it would be hard to argue that the inclusions constituted undue weight. And as I said, I don't know how many ways you can justify simply adding more info on the subject in question. What counts as a legitimate explanation? --Asdfg12345 08:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You mean the same user whose editing behavior has warranted a final warning [8] and has been noted in an arbcom case [9]? Considering that the FLG articles are under article probation [10], encouraging his behavior just because you agree with his position is highly contradictory to the concept of NPOV.--PCPP (talk) 05:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Page protected

Just saw this exchange[11][12], it's time for this page to be protected for a while. I'm not in any position to sort out who's "right" and who's "wrong"—both Dilip and PCPP have reverted each other several times, although Dilip has been reverted by people other than just PCPP here, and even though there are messages at the talk page I see no real attempt at discussion (and, more importantly, I see no one showing a willingness to wait for consensus to emerge before barging ahead with their edits). I'm sure both of you will descend on me soon with long explanations of why you're right and the other is wrong, but the truth is that when edit-warring of this scale happens no one is right.

I've protected the page for 2 weeks. Please use this time to sort out your issues, invite outside opinions, get fresh blood into the discussion, and reach a decision on what to do with the intro so there is no more edit-warring when the protection expires. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but how do you explain Dilip's attempts to revert the entire article to a July 2009 version [13] three times with no regards of the changes that has came between?--PCPP (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What I had done earlier was add material that had gone missing and was present in the 2009 version. In my recent edit, I had only added the content I point out in talk above. It is misleading to claim I reverted to a july 2009 version three times, with no discussion. Kindly see my discussions and the rationale for adding in the material I present above. Dilip rajeev (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Snapshot of Persecution of FLG on July 18 2009, now retitled History of FLG [14]
• Snapshot yor changes March 5, 2010 [15]

Even a quick glance can demonstrate that your first two edits were blalant attempts to revert to the 2009 version, and the third revert consists of the exact intro. The content were removed for a reason per consensus [16] amongst the countless other editors, and the FLG mediation case [17]. You can't simply decide to disappear for 6 month, resurface, revert to an earlier version and disregard to all that has came between.--PCPP (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

By an in-group consensus, the material was removed. Consensus does not lie in numbers, remember. This is an encyclopedia and notable, well sourced and centrally relevant content has its place in the article. That is centrally relevant content. I present and compare the two paragraphs above. Any neutral-minded editor can see for clear that the material is a significant contribution to this page, all of whose content has been either watered down or removed. A material doesnt automatically warrant removal just because it appears on an earlier version of the page. This is the kind of blanking I have repreatedly raised concerns about and continue to . If even such foused centrally relevant content cannot be kept in the article, I wonder what will. I urge anyone who wished to udnertand the nature of dispute to merely compare the two leads alone. Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"in group-consensus"? What sort of newspeak is that? If you mean cabal, then say it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

By in-group consensus I mean an in-group consensus among editors with a particular view-point. What I seek to do is draw attention to the content that has disappeared and my concerns are compeletely rooted in the disappearance of all such centrally sourced stuff speaking of the persecution, throughout these pages . We could start with discussion on the lead. What we ought to do now is focus on the content rather than assume bad-faith.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

O, IC! You did mean cabal. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the intro

Let me clarify this. What my edit seeks to do is not revert the intro to an old version or anything - but present solid, encyclopaedic material in it. Anybody familiar with teh topic can see that the current intro is not just lacking in substance but is factually inaccurate. It runs:

Persecution of Falun Gong[1] refers to claims by Falun Gong it has been persecuted by the government of China. The qigong-based movement was founded by Li Hongzhi who introduced it to the public in May 1992, in Changchun, Jilin.[2] Falun Gong was banned by the government of China on 22 July 1999.[3] The movement has been called an "evil cult"[4] by the official Chinese press.

1. The persecution is not about "claims" made by Falun Gong. Reports verified by Amnesty, HRW, coverage from western journalists in China, academic sources, all discuss the persecution. How could one have the impudence to use an encyclopaedia lead to make it seem as if it were a claim made by practitioners? Isn't it almost perverted to make a major international crisis as this seem a mere claim? Owmby, for instance, writes the number of those persecuted could be in the hundreds of thousands.

The intro I sought to replace the above with is:

Falun Gong was introduced to the general public by Li Hongzhi(李洪志) in Changchun, China, in 1992. For the next few years, Falun Gong was the fastest growing qigong practice in Chinese history and, by 1999, there were between 70 and 100 million people practicing Falun Gong in China. Following the seven years of wide-spread popularity, on July 20, 1999, the government of the People's Republic of China began a nationwide persecution campaign against Falun Gong practitioners, except in the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau. In late 1999, legislation was created to outlaw "heterodox religions" and retroactively applied to Falun Gong.Amnesty International states that the persecution is politically motivated with "legislation being used retroactively to convict people on politically-driven charges, and new regulations introduced to further restrict fundamental freedoms."

The nature of Chinese Communist Party rule is considered a central cause of the persecution. According to David Ownby, Falun Gong's popularity, traditional roots, and distinction from marxist-atheist ideology were perceived as a challenge by the Chinese government. Reports suggest that certain high-level Communist Party officials had wanted to crackdown on the practice for some years, but lacked pretext or support--until a number of appeals and petitions to the authorities in 1999, in particular, a 10,000 person silent protest at Zhongnanhai on April 25th. Reportedly many high-ranking members of the politburo were opposed to the persecution, and some analysts consider Jiang Zemin personally responsible for the final decision and the ensuing "Mao-style political campaign." Suspected motives include personal jealousy of Li Hongzhi's popularity, and a manufactured ideological struggle to enforce allegiance of both the populace and the party members to himself and the leadership.

The persecution is considered a major violation of human rights, and international human rights groups have called on the Chinese government to end the persecution and release practitioners sentenced to detention for peaceful activities. Reports state that every aspect of society was used by the Party to persecute Falun Gong, including the media apparatus, police force, army, education system, families, and workplaces. An extra-constitutional body, the 6-10 Office was created to "oversee the terror campaign," driven by a large-scale propaganda through television, newspaper, radio and internet. Propaganda urged families and workplaces to actively assist in the campaign, and practitioners were subject to severe torture to have them recant. There are acute concerns over reports of torture, illegal imprisonment, forced labour, and psychiatric abuses. Falun Gong practitioners comprise 66% of all reported torture cases in China, and at least half of the labour camp population, according to the United Nations and US State Department respectively. In July 2006, an investigative report by Canadian ex-Secretary of State David Kilgour and Human Rights Lawyer David Matas concluded that there exists an ongoing practice of systematic organ harvesting from living Falun Gong practitioners in China. This has been met with concern from the United Nations Committee on Torture, who called for China to schedule an independent investigation and prosecute those guilty of such crimes.

Falun Gong practitioners around the world continue to protest against the persecution, and have initiated lawsuits against Chinese officials alleged to be chiefly responsible, in particular Jiang Zemin and Luo Gan.

Whether old or new, 2009 or 2010 version, there is centrally relevant material here. Every sentence is sourced ( to Amnesty, HRW, UN, etc.) If you do not agree with the phrasing, etc. kindly do share your perspective.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Major. inter. national. crisis. ?. --

It seems we're not living on the same planet. With respect to that particular region, I had heard of Tibet, the Uyghurs, jailed political dissidents, and occasionally Taiwan... but before August last year when Ohconfucius asked me to give my comments, I didn't even know Falun Gong existed -- and I watch the news daily, and read newspapers in 3 different languages. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Amnesty, UN, HRW, Ownby, Kilgour Matas, US Congress reports, UN CAT reports etc. Mainstream news does not cover it in detail, unfortunately - the countries/ the news agencies financial interests in China

okok, but on the actual text, what are some improvements? Let's not get bogged down again --Asdfg12345 05:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear god. There is so much drama here it pains me to even read a single paragraph. I have now removed this page from my watchlist. Until these Falun Gong POV-pushers have been banned I will not be returning to this article. Alas, they now have free reign to do as much of a disservice to the wiki-world as they can. Goodbye. Colipon+(Talk) 07:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Bye colipon. About the text, I think there are some problems with wording bias. It is a bit overblown. I will make some suggested changes some maybe tomorrow or a bit later. I think now is a good time to hash out all the issues here, so when the pages are unlocked there can be productive (and not obstructive) editing. I will copy/paste some of the paragraphs that were removed. We can discuss how they could be improved, excluded entirely, or included as is. --Asdfg12345 02:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)