Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) at 07:53, 8 March 2010 (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 60d) to Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong/Archive 2.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

New section - Political Motivation

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Self-immolation incident

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

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

Unacceptable. WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:COI. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some raw material for editors to use

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changes from Alleged abuses to Reported abuses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please explain the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dilip's recent additions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A new lead

Well, am adding on the lead below:

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

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

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

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

All sentences are sourced to the best sources available on the topic.

The current lead, which am replacing with the above, runs:

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

Needless to say, there is no real info in it. The persecution is made to sound as a mere claim made by Falun Gong practitioners. I dont think anybody other than those seeking to cover up the real info would want a lead like this. I'll point out section by section - such cover up of material exists in all sections of the article. Dilip rajeev (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Also. I have expanded the "International Response" section with the below info:

Human rights organizations, including Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, have raised acute concerns over reports of torture and ill-treatment of practitioners in China and have also urged the UN and international governments to intervene to bring an end to the persecution. David Ownby notes that human rights organizations "have unanimously condemned China's brutal campaign against the Falungong, and many governments around the world, including Canada's, have expressed their concern."

Governments around the world, including United States and Canada have called upon the Chinese government to bring a complete end to the persecution. The United States Congress has passed five resolutions - House Concurrent Resolution 304, House Resolution 530,House Concurrent Resolution 188, House Concurrent Resolution 218 andHouse Concurrent Resolution 217- where Congress expresses that oppression of Falun Gong by the Government of the People's Republic of China in the United States and in China should be ceased.. The first, Concurrent Resolution 217, was passed in November, 1999.

Con. Resolution 188, passed unanimously (420-0) by the US Congress states: "Falun Gong is a peaceful and nonviolent form of personal belief and practice with millions of adherents in the People's Republic of China has forbidden Falun Gong practitioners to practice their beliefs, and has systematically attempted to eradicate the practice and those who follow it....this policy violates the Constitution of the People's Republic of China as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights... propaganda from state-controlled media in the People's Republic of China has inundated the public in an attempt to breed hatred and discrimination;... official measures have been taken to conceal all atrocities, such as the immediate cremation of victims, the blocking of autopsies, and the false labeling of deaths as from suicide or natural causes'... several United States citizens and permanent resident aliens have been subjected to arbitrary detention, imprisoned, and tortured."

The existing section had but a single sentence:

The United States House of Representatives has considered resolutions condemning treatment of Falun Gong by the Government of the People's Republic of China.

Needless to say, an intentional/un-intentional distortion of the sources. Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

NOTE that this is not a new intro at all. All Dilip has done was resurrect one of his old edits from a year ago: --PCPP (talk) 11:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but the International response section could indeed do with expanding. In addition to what is above, there have also been resolutions by EU governments, e.g. Germany (the link is to a google translation). --JN466 20:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the material, Jayen. I look forward for your help in incorporating it to the article. The section is rather limited in content now. That is what had led me to add the above material. I understand your concern with the older page, but there is indeed a lot of material in it which could be central and encyclopedic contributions to the page. If you could help me compile them and add them to the page, I'd be much obliged for it.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I had attempted to fully explain the change I made here on talk - it was two sections in specific, and not a blanket revert to an older version. Kindly compare the content. I sincerely apologize if it came across as me assuming bad faith.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Images

(moved here to keep it separate)

Alright. Now please give those who know more about this a chance to respond. Personally, I was more concerned about the pictures you were trying to add; if you throw those in again, you'll hear from me. As far as words go, let others speak. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you kindly let me know what your concerns on the images are? And which images you happen to have a problem with?

Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

All of them. They are propaganda. Before you complain, I don't use propaganda as "not true," "lie," or "fake." I do not hold any stance on whether or not they are genuine. However, they are tabloid(ish), their main purpose is to evoke emotions, and I do not see their serving any purpose other than that. It is true that you will find similar pictures on other articles such as the Holocaust or the Nanking Massacre, but these events are in the past. For an ongoing conflict (or whatever word you choose), they are not appropriate. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This article version, in its general layout and tone, looks like an activist's leaflet, rather than an encyclopedia article. Sorry. --JN466 16:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That's because it's a blanket revert to a July 2009 version , with little regards for the changes that has came since.--PCPP (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

PCPP, my last edit involved only two sections - the lead and the international response section. Could you kindly explain what you find wrong with it. You cannot label the edit, whose rationale I present above, a blanket revert to a July 2009 version. It might have drawn upon content in the version, but it is, by no means, a blanket revert. I also fullt present and compare the material, the two paragrpahs, here on talk.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who are you trying to fool, but intro in your in your third revert is exactly the same as your previous two reverts. You were trying to revert to your preferred version piece by piece instead of all in one go.--PCPP (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The edits yesterday, I repeat, involved just two section, and I point them out above on talk. Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Page protected

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding the intro

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

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

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

The intro I sought to replace the above with is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal of sourced edits made in a neutral narrative is disruptive
2. ^ Source of Statistical Information, Number of Falun Gong practitioners in China in 1999: at least 70 million, Falun Dafa Information Center, accessed 01/01/08
3. Faison, Seth (April 27, 1999) "In Beijing: A Roar of Silent Protesters" New York Times, retrieved June 10, 2006
4. Kahn, Joseph (April 27, 1999) "Notoriety Now for Exiled Leader of Chinese Movement" New York Times, retrieved June 14, 2006
5. ^ Leung, Beatrice (2002) 'China and Falun Gong: Party and society relations in the modern era', Journal of Contemporary China, 11:33, 761 – 784
6. ^ The crackdown on Falun Gong and other so-called heretical organizations , The Amnesty International Cite error: The named reference "Amnesty1" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
7. ^ David Ownby, "The Falun Gong in the New World," European Journal of East Asian Studies, Sep2003, Vol. 2 Issue 2, p 306
8. ^ Ownby, David, "A History for Falun Gong: Popular Religion and the Chinese State Since the Ming Dynasty", Nova Religio, Vol. ,pp. 223-243
9. Barend ter Haar, Falun Gong - Evaluation and Further References
10. ^ Michael Lestz, Why Smash the Falun Gong?, Religion in the News, Fall 1999, Vol. 2, No. 3, Trinity College, Massachusetts
11. ^ Julia Ching, "The Falun Gong: Religious and Political Implications," American Asian Review, Vol. XIX, no. 4, Winter 2001, p. 12
12. ^ Cite error: The named reference lamsupp was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
13. ^ Tony Saich, Governance and Politics in China, Palgrave Macmillan; 2nd Ed edition (27 Feb 2004)
14. ^ Dean Peerman, China syndrome: the persecution of Falun Gong, Christian Century, August 10, 2004
15. ^ China's Campaign Against Falungong, Human Rights Watch
16. ^ China uses Rule of Law to Crackdown on Falun Gong, Human Rights Watch
17. ^ Johnson, Ian, Wild Grass: three portraits of change in modern china, Vintage (March 8, 2005)
18. ^ Morais, Richard C."China's Fight With Falun Gong", Forbes, February 9, 2006, retrieved July 7 2006
19. ^ Mickey Spiegel, "Dangerous Meditation: China's Campaign Against Falungong", Human Rights Watch, 2002, accessed Sept 28, 2007
20. ^ (23 March 2000) The crackdown on Falun Gong and other so-called heretical organizations, Amnesty International
21. United Nations (February 4, 2004) Press Release HR/CN/1073, retrieved September 12, 2006
22. ^ Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment: MISSION TO CHINA, Manfred Nowak, United Nations, Table 1: Victims of alleged torture, p. 13, 2006, accessed October 12 2007
23. ^ International Religious Freedom Report 2007, US Department of State, Sept 14, 2007, accessed 28th Sept 2007
24. ^ Revised Report into Allegations of Organ Harvesting of Falun Gong Practitioners in China by David Matas, Esq. and Hon. David Kilgour, Esq.
25. ^ Amnesty International,Gong Persecution Factsheet,
26. ^ MARKET WIRE via COMTEX, China's Organ Harvesting Questioned Again by UN Special Rapporteurs: FalunHR Reports, May 8, 2008, accessed 16/6/08
27. Lum, Thomas (May 25, 2006 (updated)). "Congressional Research Service-The Library of Congress: Report for Congress: China and Falun Gong" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 2009-10-16. In the 109th Congress, H.Res. 608, introduced on December 14, 2005, would condemn the "escalating levels of religious persecution" in China, including the "brutal campaign to eradicate Falun Gong." H.Res. 794, introduced on May 3, 2006, would call upon the PRC to end its most egregious human rights abuses, including the persecution of Falun Gong. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
28. "A Chronicle of Major Historic Events during the Introduction of Falun Dafa to the Public". Clearwisdom.net. Retrieved 2009-10-31.
29. Cite error: The named reference PDO990730 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
30. "China Bans Falun Gong: Law Sure to Beat Cults: Article". People's Daily Online. December 29, 1999. Retrieved 2009-10-16.
31. US Congress Resolutions expressing the sense of COngress that Persecution of Falun Gong must be ceased
32. http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/download/infopack/res_218.html House Concurrent Resolution 217
33. "House Resolution 304EH". Thomas.loc.gov. Retrieved 2009-11-17.
34. "House Resolution 188EH". Thomas.loc.gov. 2002-07-24. Retrieved 2009-11-17.
35. "House Resolution 218EH". Thomas.loc.gov. 1999-11-18. Retrieved 2009-11-17.
36. "US Congress Resolutions expressing the sense of COngress that Persecution of Falun Gong must be ceased". Specialtribunal.org. Retrieved 2009-10-31.
37. Faison, Seth (April 27, 1999) "In Beijing: A Roar of Silent Protesters" New York Times, retrieved June 10, 2006
38. Kahn, Joseph (April 27, 1999) "Notoriety Now for Exiled Leader of Chinese Movement" New York Times, retrieved June 14, 2006
39. Barend ter Haar, Falun Gong - Evaluation and Further References
40. United Nations (February 4, 2004) Press Release HR/CN/1073, retrieved September 12, 2006

• 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