Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:23, 21 December 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Persecution of Falun Gong article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: Falun Gong High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Falun Gong work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Template:Article probation

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 October 2009. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Orphaned references in Persecution of Falun Gong

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

Reference named "palmer.fever220":

• From History of Falun Gong: Palmer (2007), pp 220-2
• From Falun Gong: Palmer (2007), p 220

Reference named "ReidG":

• From Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident: Reid, Graham (29 Apr-5 May 2006) "Nothing left to lose", New Zealand Listener. Retrieved 6 July 2006.
• From History of Falun Gong: Reid, Graham (29 April-5 May 2006) "Nothing left to lose", New Zealand Listener. Retrieved 6 July 2006.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Persecution of Falun Gong

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

Reference named "pennyharrold":

• From Falun Gong: Benjamin Penny, The Past, Present, and Future of Falun Gong, 2001, accessed 16/3/08, Quote: "The best way to describe Falun Gong is as a cultivation system. Cultivation systems have been a feature of Chinese life for at least 2 500 years //"
• From Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident: Penny, Benjamin (2001). "The Past, Present, and Future of Falun Gong". Retrieved 6 October 2009. The best way to describe Falun Gong is as a cultivation system. Cultivation systems have been a feature of Chinese life for at least 2 500 years.

Reference named "Schechter":

• From History of Falun Gong: p. 66
• From Falun Gong: Danny Schechter, Falun Gong's Challenge to China: Spiritual Practice or Evil Cult?, Akashic books: New York, 2001, p. 66

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

these are now repaired. Salamurai (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment on recent and upcoming changes

I just revised the first paragraph speculating on the rationale for the persecution of Falungong. I found some of the comments in there verbose, some off topic, some unrepresentative of the sources, and some confusing. I can explain further and in detail if anyone is interested. Since the page has not been edited for a long time, I'm going to assume it won't be a problem if I take a break from Human rights in Tibet, catch up on my research for this topic, and jump in. —Zujine|talk 12:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do. You will probably uncover much of what you mention above in other parts of the article. This page was at the mercy of a group of concerted anti-Falun Gong editors for quite some time. First they tried to delete it, and when that failed, just weakened it terribly and made everything look likes "claims" from Falun Gong. That kind of behaviour makes a mockery of wikipedia. There's a wealth of good research available on the topic. It certainly needs someone who is familiar with the subject and not afraid to accurately represent what the best sources have said, rather than the diluted distortions that have prevailed so far. Good luck. Colipon seems to have taken the page off his watchlist, but I urge you not to be intimidated by his rhetoric should he return. If he tries to block anyone fixing this page, wikipedia has means to prevent that. --Asdfg12345 01:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

We must stop these obviously antiFalun Gong people. They are not helping the wikipedia.

Suggestion on expanding the lead a bit

Zujine, I see you are new to this page. A suggestion - you might want to take a look at the intro in this older version of the page, and draw from it elements you think could help improve the current intro.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

PCPP, this statement is sourced, can you please explain your removal of it as 'unattributed source'? Is anyone else confused? —Zujine|talk 15:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Simple, the source provided says nothing regarding what was written. As it stands, it's simply a rhetoric that adds nothing not already covered by the other paragraphs.--PCPP (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Another instance of blanking by User:PCPP

PCPP, You might want to see section 19 and 22 of the KM reports. The material is sourced to there. Dilip rajeev (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

And its centrally relevant content in that "International Response" section - not quite covered by other paragraphs. I quite don't see the rationale and I cant help but point out that its not an isolated incident of blanking from the user.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to start a page on KM Reports

There was some moderated discussion underway regarding creating a page on Kilgour Matas reports, and it was seen that the topic meets WP:N. As I am finding it difficult to pull out time to work on wikipedia, I request other editors who might find the topic interesting to go ahead with the creation of the namespace. The moderated discussion can be read here and there might be some relevant material here. Dilip rajeev (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Am suggesting the title "Kilgour-Matas Reports" for the page. Am interested in hearing topic-name suggestions from other editors as well. Also, if, for some reason, you believe the topic fails WP:N, kindly share your perspective here, we can use this discussion thread to reach a resolution.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Should it not be Kilgour-Matas report? There is really only one report that deals with this (even though it got updated, and also republished in book form).

I doubt there is an argument for not passing WP:N; the Washington Times - whatever you think of them - recently published a long article on the topic, for example. I would be interested in working on such an article. Homunculus (duihua) 04:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It ought to be "Kilgour-Matas report". There is a crescendo of coverage on the topic in mainstream media and it certainly meets WP:N. If it interests you enough you could go straight ahead with creation of the namespace. You might want to look into the sources here and here

Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Homunculus, I've created an article on the Kilgour-Matas report. There is a bit of clean-up to do in certain sections, a bit of expansion to do in others. There is some re-factoring to be done with the "Organ harvesting in China " page ( I plan to work on this tomorrow). Just to give you an idea of the work pending.

I've attemtpted to sumamrize the evidence presented by the report. I'd be thankful if you could help improve it. I'd like to hear from you suggestions on improving it.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC

Note there was a prior consensus on the material to be cut down and merged. Dilip simply disregarded the consensus and copy + pasted large chunks of deleted material.--PCPP (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is over mostly newly written and the section of the KM Reports as such is completely newly written. Its surprising how any material exposing CCP's human rights abuses unsettles User:PCPP. Articles are not to be judged by their quality, WP:NPOV, WP:N, etc. PCPP's pattern is whole scale blanking of contributions behind a screen created by lawering and personal attacks, completely deviating attention from the content, in the process.

I request editors to not let their focus dragged away from the content, by the ruckus PCPP creates. Please judge the article on objective factors such as whether the topic meets WP:N, the sourcing and relevance of the content, etc.

It would be worthwhile to note that the above user has been constantly covering up this and related material, through reverts, blanking, and attacks on editors attempting to contribute.

A lot of recent evidence of such blanking by the user can be found on these and related article.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You're wasting your time. You're specifically disregarding your Arbcom case and the terms of the moderated discussion .--PCPP (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I had mentioned the reasons and my decision to start a page on SilkTork's talk as well as with Jayen. Neither had raised objections. The article I created is here and other editors are welcome to review. I'll leave your reverts there for now, for other editors to review, and act on as found appropriate.

Its a 50 Cent Party attitude you are taking on wikipedia. And I am not the only editor to have had concern along those lines. Above you blank out a paragraph in this article with a pseudo rationale. Here you again attempt to divert focus from content to personal attacks and non-existent issues.

I can see no other reason why someone would go around blanking content of centrally relevance, clearly meeting WP:N, in such a manner. Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion/plans for fixing this

I recently looked at this page... and I think it could be improved. Let's put it that way. There is a 100kb version here, and basically, I think it may make sense to simply move everything from there here, and then decide what to delete if it's too long. That page represents an enormous amount of research over a long period of time. The current page badly conceals the real conditions of the persecution and most of the good sources on it. If anyone has a care for the persecution of Falun Gong, please note your thoughts and we could work together. Not that I'm hopeful. --Asdfg12345 05:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hell no. That version was rejected by numerous editors for a reason - it's simply pro-FLG POV pushing--PCPP (talk) 08:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you think you could be a little more specific, such as explaining exactly which parts of it are "simply pro-FLG POV pushing"? I am going to copy in some information now, some well-sourced information, to fill out the article a bit. --Asdfg12345 14:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I've made some additions just now. --Asdfg12345 15:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Let us take this at one step at a time; 1) I do not have a conflict of interest in editing this page. Either prove it and get consensus on it from other editors, or stop saying it and trying to use it to degrade my contributions. This happened previously with Dilip. The fact that I practice Falun Gong does not mean that I have a conflict of interest; this has already been established. 2) You cannot simply say "don't have consensus" and then revert something. Please see WP:DRNC, which states: If the only thing you have to say about a contribution to the encyclopedia is that it lacks consensus, it's best not to revert it. 3) Please explain clearly why you have reverted each paragraph that you have. I have responded to your two core "arguments", that I have a COI and that there is no consensus, now I'm suggesting we get beyond the sniping and discuss the content. I will not revert again. --Asdfg12345 00:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

To the original suggestion that we consider reviving the previous version of the article, I agree that it was more complete. It strikes me as highly problematic that, for instance, the current article seems to have less to say about the imprisonment and torture of Falungong members—arguably the defining characteristic of the persecution—than the main Falun Gong page. That said, while we may be able to pull in some content from them, I advise against the wholesale adoption of previous versions of the article. I think we can do better, frankly. In particular, I would hope that edits we make going forward can move toward giving due weight to each section, and can also be more representative of recent developments in the campaign. I may spend some time on this. I'd also like to suggest a minor reorganization of the page, something along these lines:

• 1. Background (should deal with more than Tianjin and Zhongnanhai; there were more factors at play that led to the crackdown than a single series of protests in April 99)
• 2. Statewide suppression / The ban and crackdown (including rationale)
• 3. Legal and political mechanisms/framework
• 4. Media campaign (section should be more condensed overall, but I also suggest doing more with internet and media restrictions)
• 5. Torture and Abuse
  • Arbitrary arrests and imprisonment (this is more appropriate as a title than "forced labor.")
  • Torture in custody (section should be longer, I would argue. This is the issue that defines the suppression of Falun Gong)
  • Psychiatric abuse (section is too long)
  • Organ Harvesting
  • Deaths (better name?)
  • Societal Discrimination
• 6. Outside China
• 7. Recent campaigns (ie. Olympics)
• 8. Response

Homunculus (duihua) 06:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

These are welcome suggestions, please go ahead on the reconfiguration. I can help draft some new information, if you like. I think the structure you propose is fine, except I would suggest perhaps shifting out "societal discrimination" into either its own section, or including it in one of the other sections, such as legal and political mechanisms, or ban and crackdown. The reason I suggest this is because all the preceeding elements of the "torture and abuse" section relate to treatment in custody, but the societal discrimination is clearly not in custody. I would suggest making it a subsection of the "legal and political mechanisms", since the institutional discrimination preventing, for example, a Falun Gong practitioner from attending school, and the attendant stigmas associated with Falun Gong, etc., are in the end "legal" issues that stem from the Party's campaign. Hope you follow me here. --Asdfg12345 18:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class China-related articles
• High-importance China-related articles
• B-Class China-related articles of High-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• High-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics