Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article eschews the Wikilinking of dates.

"Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic."

Source: WP:DATE

Persecution of Falun Gong was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

^{Reviewed version: October 21, 2007}

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (see comments)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Requested move

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Why is that 'factual accuracy' tag on the main page?--Asdfg12345 05:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

someone else put it there, and I don't feel as if I should be the one to remove it because of my involvement with this series. Ohconfucius 05:53, 13 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Failed GA

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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

BetacommandBot 05:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.wikipedia.org/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]

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Resources to add to page

Appendix 7. Statements of the Government of China, this part shows some official documents issued by the Communist Party in China, proving that the persecution is state sanctioned and very much real.

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)

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2217 about: "Door-to-door Arrests" and "Rewards for Identifying Falun Gong Adherents" article dated: March 12, 2008 --HappyInGeneral (talk) 01:36, 15 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)

Lawyer’s (Gao Zhisheng's) 3rd open letter urge China to stop the Brutality(1) http://chinaview.wordpress.com/2006/07/21/lawyers-3rd-open-letter-urge-china-to-stop-the-brutality1/ --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Collection from Amnesty International: [12]
Collection from Human Rights Watch: [13] --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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]

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Your problem, is that you only read what you want to read. I believe I have dealt with the points you raised in the above comment and earlier. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:25, 11 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

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

[edit] Lead section

[edit] Scraping the barrel

[edit] Where will it end?

[edit] Falun Gong's "sexual torture" claim in question

[edit] Requested move

[edit] 3O template

[edit] Distillation

[edit] Psychiatric abuse

[edit] retroactive legislation

[edit] Failed GA

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

[edit] not yet been refuted

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

[edit] Rewrite contemplated for lead section

[edit] UN thing

[edit] Resources to add to page

[edit] Article is a POV mess

[edit] Sections on torture

[edit] Chrandra D. Smith

[edit] Jay Nordinger

[edit] Kindly explain the reason for the edit(s)

[edit] "Falun Gong is a cult"

[edit] Ideas for improvement

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search

Archives
1