Jump to content

Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 30

Rewrite plz

Ok I'm not very familiar to this whole subject, I've read some of the article (mainly in the beginning) and I didn't understand a shit about what's the problem china gov has about this falun stuff. My opinion is that the article should be rewritten. thx. 194.187.56.13 18:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree.
I thought we had sorted the problems out, Dilip? Why do you still want to report me to the Arbcom? How about we restart working from the last version by Asdfg12345? Ohconfucius 16:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I did that revert before I saw your messages and I am really sorry about it. I can only request you to be understanding. I don't think either of us is committing "vandalism". This is for the information of other editors: there was a a misunderstanding on my part on the edits made by the user:ohconfucious. I had worded the edit summaries quite harshly and I think I owe him an apology.
Dilip rajeev 04:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

As a reader it seems very evident that this article has been written with an agenda in mind. This article uses a lot of words and phrases that are intended to form specific opinions. Use of words like "claim" (leads reader to believe that it is unsubstantiated and arbitrary) vs "state". The stressing of volunteer and voluntary (put it in a section that says members are voluntary and then eliminate the rest). To simplify reading, cut down the quotes and summarize, readers can refer to bibliography for further details. In short, this article should be written in a passive voice reporting facts, not a political/religious/social essay or article. Hungc9 21:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The "Third party Views"

The third party views section currently contains only criticism, many of which come from sources that hardly conform to wiki standards. I wish to point out that the section was almost entirely written by the two users currently banned and attempting to vandalize the pages. Further "views" from sources such as "AI", "UN", "USHR" are not present while most of it is some commentary by Benjamin Penny. Another issue I feel I must point out is that while none of the articles carry subtitles in their summaries on the main page, the couple of users managed to keep the subtitles and strong POV material through persistent reverts.

I am attempting to improve the section by examining the validity of the sources used, adding information from "third parties" such as AI, scholars etc and removing the subtitles from the main page. Dilip rajeev 04:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Take it easy. There is no need to make accusations or say things like that. As for the article, I think one thing is that each section of the main page should be the same, follow the same format. I don't know what others think, but I think there should be a section on the main page for each daughter article, and simply use the respective introductions of those daughter articles. They should all conform to WP:LEAD, and would therefore serve a fine summary of the article and prompt the user to read further. This is my proposal. If there aren't any objections soon I might as well go ahead and implement that. It seems the most straightforward and consistent way to go about it, and in line with NPOV I think, not giving too much weight to any one facet. Of course, the main page should also have sections about parts of Falun Gong that are not covered in the daughter articles, like the Theoretical Background and others. For the rest that have daughter articles we should just use the introductions of those articles--what does everyone think?--Asdfg12345 08:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Dilip, one reason that the third party page is going to be mostly criticism is that most third party observers (rightly or wrongly) side with the FG. That's most human rights groups, most Westerners, etc. There's a few non-FG but not-pro FG groups: The Law and Order episode on this topic noted that there are plenty of people in Chinese expatriate communities that dislike the FG. Their opinions should be included. Also, highly opinionated or unprofessional peaces (and that page should be citing HRW, AI, UN Rapporteur, established articles from mainstream sources, etc.) can be Wiki-standard if they establish a common thread of people's opinion. ArekExcelsior 23:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Typo to be corrected

Li Hongzhi States in Falun Buddha Fa Lecture in Europe

"States" should be "states".

Revert

I have once again reverted all vandalism and POV-pushing to last clean version, which I believe is #144364262 by User:Asdfg12345. I note that Dilip has once again removed the {{verify}} tag I placed in the research section. I disagree that having a link to the publisher's site is sufficient to warrant the tag's removal. The link merely establishes that the paper has been published, not that the researchers, publishing house and research etc are credible. Ohconfucius 04:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Clarifiation

Kindly allow me make the case clear. A paper on research done by :
Quan-Zhen Li, Ph.D, M.D.
Microarray Core, Center for Immunology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX.
Ping Li, Ph.D.
Department of Medicine, Section of Nephrology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX.
Gabriela E. Garcia, M.D.
Department of Medicine, Section of Nephrology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX.
Richard J. Johnson, M.D.
Department of Medicine, Section of Nephrology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX.,
published in the peer-reviewed journal "The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine" published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. who, I believe, is among the world's leading Publishers in Biotechnology. The following sources were presented in the article:
1. The entire text of the article, the contents of which are verifiable from both offline as well as online sources.[1]
2. The Primary source that is the website of Mary Ann Liebert, Inc[2]
The paper was cited/referenced in:
1.Antibody therapy (IVIG): evaluation of the use of genomics and proteomics for the study of immunomodulation therapeutics
C. V. Sapan, H. M. Reisner, R. L. Lundblad
Vox Sanguinis. 2007, Vol. 92, No. 3: 197
2.Current awareness on comparative and functional genomics
Comparative and Functional Genomics. 2005, Vol. 6, No. 7-8: 412
The above user removed the links to the sources and added and "unreliable" tag and accused me for "POV-pushing"! Please point out which wikipedia policy allows the user to do so and label the sources being presented "POV-pushing".
"Ohconfucius", in my opinion you are pushing an extremely biased POV here. You removed/"shortened" critical and concise quotes from Amnesty International and US House of Representatives describing the situation in China in favour of self-written POV. While there is much stuff in the article, some soucred from newspaper articles, some even soured directly from the CCP, you have hardly bothered touching them or labelling them "unreliable".
I see that some people in China are so very strongly influenced by the CCP propoganda that even when concrete information is presented, to them its "unreliable". But I believe in making wikipedia edits we have to follow wikipedia policies. If a particular policy requires the sources to be removed and the tag "unreliable" put on then you may do so. Even when such a cruel persecution is raging and concrete and really shocking evidence emerging on the matter, why do you chose to work so hard to cover all that up? Do you really think there is even a bit of good or truth in the lies being spread by the CCP? WHy do choose to work to cover crimes committed by murderers?
So much has been removed up form this article in favour of self-written POV including material such as the Kilgour Matas Report on Organ Harvesting from imprisoned Falun Gong Practitioners[3][4], reports from EU Vice President. Edward McMillan-Scott, and several other sources(which I 'll be glad to present). This has been achieved by some users holding a strong POV and was achieved through a series of irrational reverts, and removal of well sourced information. These users routinely label the information they remove "POV" which further adds to the confusion.
Dilip rajeev 19:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Well Dilip rajeev, I've just about had it with you. I thought your apology was sincere, but now it's clear it was a little less so, and that my original comments about you stand. You don't own the article. Furthermore, let it be known I did nothing more on my last pass than to amalgamate the tags which were cluttering up the article, so I don't honestly know what you are talking about. But heck, the article's such a trashy mess anyway a few tags is just the least of it, so by all means revert it. I told you I'm done with making radical edits to the page as you (and only you) always reverted. Don't come now to accuse me of making POV edits, because I do not feel they were misrepresenting the source - in any case you reverted and I haven't since touched the bulk. If you don't have time to examine other people's edits, don't touch them until you do and have something constructive to say, cause it seems like what you are accusing me of now is like digging up the past, which I buried long time ago. Ohconfucius 01:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The use of this study the way it is used is 1) false 2) very dangerous. The research was a research into "qigong" and its affect on human physiology. FLG subjects were used because they practiced qigong on a regular basis. The conclusion as stated by the researchers was that "qigong" did have an affect on human physiology. This is NOT a "Research conducted into the health benefits of Falun Dafa" as stated in Wikipedia! That complete section warrants a rewrite.Hungc9 21:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources to check

Hi all. I'd like to check and verify the Hassan and Singer information. If anyone knows where the information is, please post a link or ref. Realbie 05:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Some concerns

As I mentioned before a lot of information is being held back from being presented in the pages by a few editors. These people work by trying to create a non-existent confusion..They routinely delete well sourced information and top of that label attempts to restore the information "POV edits". For instance is in the main page, I dont understand why but some users insist on information from Amnetsy International, US Congress etc is being presented under a title "group controversy"! I haven't seen any academic source characterizing the issue of persecution of Falun Gong as "controversial".

Another instance, there is a user now in the persecution page claiming the topic is too "controversial" and so the entire page must be deleted! Almost all information, for instance, those related to the Tienanmen Sq incident, Kilgour matas report etc has been deleted from that page. Further these users try their best to keep editors engaged in futile discussion by classifying editors as "pro", "anti", then requiring consensus between "pro" and "anti" etc. I believe wikipedia is about objectively presenting information from reliable source. And I feel tackling such disruptive behavior is pretty easy since they are always blatant violations of Wikipedia policies. I request the Moderators/ The Arbitration committee to kindly look into the matter. Thank you. Dilip rajeev 06:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dilip. I have had a look through the archives and there does seem to be a few things buried there that could help the article. I'll have a more thorough check before proposing anything though. Realbie 12:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I personally would be concerned with references to Tiananmen. Even if that action was unjustified [and just to be clear: I argue stridently that it is - check the arguments between me and Sam in the archives], that doesn't logically or necessarily impugn the Chinese government's actions towards the FG. The only link I could see would be to sort of acknowledge the elephant in the room and state, "External observers and FG advocates compare the crackdown to [link]".... ArekExcelsior 23:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

There seems to be scope for combining the two articles. The History of Falun Gong article contains a lot of duplication. The lead paragraph would be completely redundant, and only three paragraphs need to be copied over to complete a merge. Ohconfucius 01:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry I did not see this comment, I'll put the merge tag back on the History of Falun Gong page. --HappyInGeneral 09:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Some issues requiring urgent attention

Kindly take a look at the past few edits( Dated 13th of August 2007) by the user "Ohconfucious". To point out just a few things. while the edit summaries sounded pretty "benign"

  • The user deleted Every single statement from Amnesty International and many other reputed sources while addidng stuff from CCP controlled news agenices with statements that go like: "An essay published in the South China Morning Post characterised Falun Gong as "anti-China fronts for the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that use the human-rights stick to bash the motherland."
  • Changed the name of the article "Third Party opinions" to "Criticism of the Falun Gong Cult". To be noted the label "cult" is what has been used by the CCP to justify their brutal murders and he has expanded the section with material from several unrealiable and self-published sources, the CCP and in many cases things that are completely unsourced.
  • Changed the name of the article "Persecution of Falun Gong" to "Supression of Falun Gong"!
  • Deleted entire sections like the "Theoretical Background section". Which was among the best sourced and well written sections in the article.
  • The user "OConfucous" previously insisted on labelling research papers sourced from Mary-Ann Liebert Inc, and published in the peer reviewed journal JACM "unreiliable" and had accussed me for "POV pushing" when I introduced the links. Please see:[5]

The above is not a complete list. I also want to point out that the edit summaries sound really benign. As far as I can see, the users' agenda is pretty obvious. Kindly look into the matter.

Dilip rajeev 07:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Seconded

Look who edits nothing but FG articles! I certainly do not appreciate the groundless accusations Dilip rajeev has once again levied against me. If he feels so sure of himeslf, I would urge him to file a sockpuppet complaint against me, because a casual glance of the edit history will reveal the above accusations to be completely false on the surface, and he does not have a shred of anything which vaguely resembles solid proof that I have been doing the above. Please, I second the request for someone look into the matter. Ohconfucius 07:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I must admist I confused the edits of Use:G752 with yours. I dont understand why you chose to work on such a heavily and obviously vandalized version! My interest in this wikipedia article comes because I work during my spare time against the persecution happening in China and I feel this is an article that requires urgent attention. I have been trying to work towards a factual article here and to make sure material from reputed sources are presented objectively in the article. If my edits on the article ever violated wikipedia polices, then you may point them out. My schedule hardly allows time to work on other articles but I do plan to, once these articles are done properly, since my main interests are theoretical physics, computer science and alternative medicine.
Dilip rajeev 08:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I quite often work on the version which is there, and not bother looking into the edit history. I guess I should have checked first, knowing how polluted it can get, but still, looking at it now, version comparisons did not reveal the true extent of the vandalism because of unmatched paragraphs/sections. The revert you performed was a sledgehammer - you also reverted Benjwong's edits, not a way to go by causing collateral damage, if I might say so. I would suggest that you edited these articles only when you have serious time on your hands. Ohconfucius 08:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

I wish to point out that I confused edits of User:G752 with those of User:OhConfucious since his edits were done on the vandalized version. I missed, while going through the edit history, the single edit by User:G752 that caused majority of the changes I mentioned. I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience my coming to an abrupt conclusion may have caused other editors. Dilip rajeev 08:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD involving a FG article

I have just proposed the deletion of the article namespace Falun Gong and live organ harvesting. Ohconfucius 05:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

I note that there is an edit war raging between PCPP and Dilip Rajeev, and would ask the parties to keep cool. Firstly, I do not see that the edit by the former are all that unreasonable. The former appears to take a fairly neutral stance to presentation of the information sourced. This raging debate and insistence in using the word 'persecution' instead of "crackdown" appears to be severely overblown. There are already plenty of times the word is used, especially in the sister article Persecution of Falun Gong. In any event, I believe that "nationwide crackdown" is the accept terminology for what has been taking place, and "nationwide persecution" just sounds over the top. Ohconfucius 09:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

playing it down is as bad as playing it up. We could be calling it a genocide by the dictionary and wikipedia definition and create a lot of conflict on these pages with constant arguments and reversions. persecution serves as an accurate description of the circumstances. take out "nationwide" then if you like, though it does actually span the whole nation. every part of society has been included in this. "stop work" meetings to denounce falun gong, school entrance based on falun gong stance, etc. etc.. it's not an overblown statement to describe it as a "nationwide persecution", but if you want to take out "nationwide" and describe the extent of the persecution in some other way then go for it. oh, sorry, one thing, I think it is okay to alternate between crackdown and persecution sometimes, too. just to keep it interesting, if you know what i mean. but as a whole, for the title for example, it is a persecution. i think just use crackdown and alternative words so things don't get a bit stale. I think pcpp is not editing that badly, even though he is obviously against falun gong for one reason or another, deleting sourced stuff and doing weasely changes that require time to scrutinise and fix, that is really annoying. He hasn't done that too much, though, to be honest, and I don't dislike him.--Asdfg12345 11:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Good, at least we are agreed. In fact, I was a bit clumsy - what you said is the same as what I meant. I never like to see the same word twice when there are alternatives. Ohconfucius 01:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

ATTN:Dilip rajeev

I'm really bothered by the fact that you attacked me personally, calling me a vandal and sockpuppet, and threatening me with a checkuser. What happened to assume good faith? If you disagree with my changes with the word "persecution" why aren't you discussing the problem instead of reverting all my edits entirely? --PCPP 15:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I never attacked you "personally". I criticized your edits. I do find it hard to "discuss" when people put forward "arguments" like the word "persecution" is a POV! You can roll up this page to see a dictionary definition of the term. Please do clarify which definition exactly is a "POV". I am willing to assume good faith but find it hard to when you keep doing stuff like repeatedly changing the title "background" to " beginning of conflict", etc. Such edits, to the best of my understanding of wikipedia policies, are vandalism, which I believe, is best reverted immediately. I must admit that I still am interested in a "check user". Pleased dont take it personally, I am making the suggestion because there have been a few users who spared no trick in their attempt to vandalize these pages and remove well sourced information in favour of CCP propaganda. As you may notice the pages are still under "attack".
Dilip rajeev 23:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Dude, again, dictionary definitions alone don't rebut the arguments that FireStar and PCPP have been putting up, FireStar operating from superior experience. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck; if we know that the phrase will cause conflict, it shouldn't be used. I personally think "Crackdown" satisfies pro-FG people because it sounds very nasty and anti-FG people because it sounds proactive. ArekExcelsior 23:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Complaint lodged against Samuel Luo

I lodged another complaint against puppets of Samuel Luo yesterday. Ohconfucius 01:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Additional news items and Theoretical Background

I would think that that Falun Gong members' self-immolation at Tianmen square in 2001 (which actually has its own page on Wiki) or Falun Gong hacking Chinese Satellite should be mentioned in this article (probably in the controversies section).

I am also not sure what's up with the Theoretical Background section (I feel like it's lifted from some new age pamphlet) but that section has more to do with QiGong than with only Falun Gong. Is this section even necessary? thanks. Hzzz 01:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

yeah it's the theoretical background--most appropriate.--Asdfg12345 23:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I take it that you mean this "theoretical background" is necessary? Although I don't claim to be a good editor but I do enjoy reading good articles. If "theoretical background" is "most appropriate" then why don't every entry of this sort, let it be Kung Fu, QiGong, or Yoga, have a "theoretical background " section? Please keep in mind that wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and not your typical Falun Gong pamphlets which are being handed out at the local Chinatown. Hzzz 21:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
As i see it, the therotical background is indeed necessary. Many western people dont know what qigong or cultivation practice is, and in order to define Falun Dafa in an encyclopedic way, we have to locate the reader in the context of qigong.--Andres18 20:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Party-quitting counter

The counter at [6] is now at 25 million. Someone needs to either continuously update the counter in the article (not possible now due to protection), or change it to "As of [date], the counter stands at..." I also suggest mentioning that the CPC has 70 million registered members, as a means of number comparison. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Evil Cult to be eliminated

I think that Falun Gong faces harsh persecution by the Communist Party and that there are more than 1000 forced labor camps with mainly Falun Gong followers in them is undisputed - even by the National Congress.

Therefore 99,99 % of your debattes are related to the accusations of Falun Gong being an "evil cult". I don't understand why this issue seems to be causing so much controversy. The implications of "cult" in the context here are very clear: an exploiting, capitalistic organisation with a hirachical command structure and a single deityfied leader on top, decieving new recruits by promising them "Heaven on Earth" and than exploiting them financialy or physicly by means of forced labor at the cult's farms or facilities, and using violence and brainwashing to force their cooperation, having satanic and superstitious rituals to harm themselves and others etc.

Also the Cult's leading elite is said to have close ties to corrupt government officials and other people in power, allowing them to controll and manipulate the world's media with the goal of eventually seizing world-wide power and enslaving humanity. Also according to the Encarta such a cult ussually posses a huge arsenal of weapons or even has a private army and uses violence under the pretext of "liberating" people from earthly suffering.

I will not say if Jews can be discribed this way, but the Nazis descriped them that way.

I do not think Wikipedia is the right place to determine if or if not Falun Gong also fits into this criteria. So of course you should mention IN DETAIL all those accusations including all of their implications, but at the same time you should also make it VERY CLEAR that it is those accusations and those very implications which made the persecution possible to beginn with.

--Hoerth 13:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Basically, the term "cult" contains pejorative connotations and probably should not be used in an encyclopedia entry. If the article is to be NPOV, then the term "cult" should not be used.

Sequiturnon 04:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't think it should be removed since that is what PRC thinks and should be noted. Not like saying Falun Gongs are annoying (though there is some truth to that still) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.8.234 (talk) 09:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Commons cat

{{editprotected}} Should some sysop put it there {{Commons|Category:Falun Gong}}? Thanx --Chmee2 19:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. WODUP 03:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

should this be added to Religion in China?

should falun gong be added tp Religion in China article? many people think that it is a realigion. it should be mentioned in that article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.227.141 (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Research into health benefits

Another one presented at the San Diego International Council of Psychologists [7] Maybe interesting to include in the article? PS. I'll leave it up to the regular editors of this page to include this interesting scientific study or not... Be safe! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.195.124.140 (talk • contribs)

New template

{{editprotected}} to insert {{Falun Gong}} to replace {{chinese}}. Ohconfucius 05:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is only semiprotected. --MZMcBride 03:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge history of FG

No comments here so far since the tag was put up, but one comment from asdfg12345 in favour of merger. Can I take it as uncontrovertial? Ohconfucius 06:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh I have gone ahead and done this. I think that page can be deleted now. There wasn't much on it. I hope you are happy with the way things are set out now.

About the structure of the article generally, I have a few points:

  • I think that there should be a section for each daughter section, and that this should pretty much just be a quick rundown of that page, of the important parts in that page.
  • The 'research into health benefits' should be moved to the third party page, and only one study mentioned briefly on the main page--the one that appeared in a journal, the other maybe should not be mentioned. Does not warrant a section to itself, at any rate. (will just go ahead and do this now)
  • Take out epoch times section. It is related to Falun Gong, but it is not of the same nature as the other sections, like beliefs and teachings, falun gong overseas, persecution etc.. There can be some 'related pages' mention of it, I think that would be appropriate, but basically it is not specifically a part of the Falun Gong cycle of articles, though related to them.

that's all for now. There's plenty of work to do on all these though.--Asdfg12345 11:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  • At a quick glance, it's looking good. I'll take a more detailed look in the morning. But for now, I still don't think the Amnesty stuff (which you reinserted) belongs in the article - Not that the resolution is not relevant within the article, but not where it was removed from. I would state thr two reasons why I removed it from the FG in China section:
  1. the resolution (ie the bit which states "this house resolves...") is already properly represented in the FG outside China section
  2. the preamble to the resolution cites plenty of 'whereas' about the persection in China, how godawful the CCP is etc, but that is all preamble. The resolution is actually about the interference of practising FG in the United States, so it's in its proper place.

If you insist on keeping it, we would still need to deal with the repetition. Ohconfucius 15:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to look more closely at this stuff about the resolution but I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to. I think it is important to present the main elements of all the daughter articles on the main page. Using subheadings in all cases may be overstretching, but at least some representation. I though the Amnesty stuff would be quite important in talking about the persecution...? Mostly I just did rearranging and things. I don't know why the research into health benefits has been reinstated as its own section on the article... I think it could be represented under third party views section on main page, but I think the main part of it should appear on third party views page.--Asdfg12345 05:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Research Dilip reinserted it without a word anywhere, so you better ask him. There's nothing to suggest that he even read your comments. I happen to agree with you it would make for a better article, and would be inclined to remove again but don't want to get into another edit war right now. Ohconfucius 06:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm still unconvinced about keeping this section in this article, but Dilip just reverted my deletion, writing "I think Research into health benefits and Thirld party "views" two very different, almost mutually exclusive topics" in the edit summary. However, I decided that some of the content from the 'Persecution' article sits better within this section, so I have moved it here in the meantime whilst we reach agreement where to put the whole lot. Ohconfucius 03:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe together with the moved content, it will now fit better in Third party views. If User:Dilip rajeev still disagrees, I would like to see him create a new home for his health benefits, I'm pretty certain that the community would delete it in a flash, again. ;-) Ohconfucius 03:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Complete ABSENCE of balance

Just dropping by for a quick perusal here. How anybody can call the current version of the FG Wikipedia entry in any way 'neutral' or 'balanced', let alone 'independent', is beyond me. It reads just like the Epoch Times, and we know how "independent" that newspaper is.

I'm here mainly to express disappointment that even previously avowed neutrals and "reformed" FG members who are not doing anything to correct or edit this piece to ensure its independence and balanced stance anymore. The 'third party' sources all support Falun Gong's positive aspects. The more radical FG members like Dilip is simply turning the piece into some propaganda puff work, and the arbitrators are doing NOTHING about it. Well, as the saying goes, all this takes is for good (wo)men to do nothing. It is indeed regrettable that once some of these editors have shown their true colors once they are no longer restrained that Wikipedia's accountability standards and enforcement agents are more impotent than ever on these FG-related pages.

Show me a proper criticism section and shut me up, please. But the current version(s) is/are frankly ridiculous. Jsw663 10:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of promotional photo

Although I do not feel I am under any obligation to put another photo in the place of one which I am removing, I am doing so for the sake of goodwill. It must be remembered that wikipedia is not a soapbox. Ohconfucius 08:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I am very sorry. I honestly didn't even think it would be conceived of as a 'promotional' photo. Please, any old photo is fine as long as its good quality, clear, and demonstrates what Falun Gong exercise/meditation is in a normal straightforward way. I wrote something else before but deleted it. I have twigged to what you mean. They have obviously got all set up for that one, using it to show how sparkly Falun Gong is. I realise this just now actually. Please know that it didn't click in my mind before now. I looked through the photos and just looked for the nicest one. I agree that a photo which could be interpreted to be explicitly promoting Falun Gong or something, that it's just better to find a more neutral-looking one. I haven't seen the new photo you've dug up. I do appreciate your good will. Did you know, that if you had simply explained this concern to me I would have removed the photo myself. I didn't realise what you were on about. It's fine to take that one down and put another one up. I'll have a look now.--Asdfg12345 14:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely object to Dilip rajeev reverting to the promotional photo. This is no "I love Falun Gong" site. It must preserve some semblance of neutrality and avoid the use of promotional photos such as this one. In fact, I would object to the 'enactment' photos too, as these are equally, if not more provocative. Ohconfucius 22:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, it makes no sense not to have any photos of people doing the exercises of Falun Gong. Didn't you accuse Dilip of paranoia earlier? Just take a look on any kind of religious/mysticism/spirituality related subject and you'll find examples of the discipline or whatever. It's a rather normal thing. I see some stuff below, I'll look now.--Asdfg12345 00:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought we have already dealt with the issue of the wooly semi-levitational promotional photo, which I replaced with a neutral one of people doing FG exercises on a holiday camp? Is there still an issue? I find the 'enactment' photo is in a different category, but I am not sure you are referring to that one. Ohconfucius 02:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A Request to the arbitration Committee

I dont undersand which part of the photo is promotional!! Plase stop making these irrational allegations. Three people doing the sitting meditaiton of Falun Dafa becomes promotional? If I take photos of a group of pracitioners doing the tranquil meditation and put it up it certainly will look good - now what is the rationale behind labelling it "promotional"? I have a serious concern that the research into health effects section has been changed to health "impact" and some stuff called "qi gong psychosis" was introduced. Has any such thing ever been associated with Falun Gong by ay reputed research institute? Not once. The material implies , indirectly, practicing Falun Dafa could make people psychotic. Almost all major univertities including Yale and Harvard have practice groups with many professors and students practicing. Every person who has even once tried the exercises knows how immensely beneficial the practice is. It is no accident that 100 million people were practicing Falun Dafa in just a few years after its introduction. In China many were people holding high posts in government, military, health services etc. Government organizations throughout China had presented several awards to Falun Gong were in high praise of Falun Gong till a few people high up in the hierarchy perceived the increasing number of practitioners as a "threat" to "materialism" and "marxism" and one of the most cruel persecutions seen in history were launched against practitioners and their families. They are innocent people cultivating goodness in their own hearts. That is sole the crime for which they are being persecuted.

I urge every editor to go once through the teachings of Falun Gong. You can start with the book Zhuan Falun and the nine lecture videos. Falun Gong teaches people to be kind, true and tolerant, to value virtue, to be altruistic and to think of others before doing anything. Despite this cruel persecution that has been raging for years not one practitioner has ever resorted to violence.

The so called "psychosis" material being presented as the "health impact" of pracitcing Falun Gong!! This is the limit of absurtidity and is shamefully making use of an online encyclopeadia to spread lies and claims only made by the CCP. There is a lot of research and surveys conducted and all, without exception, have found the practice immensely beneficial.

I have been banned from editing for 48 hours trying to remove the material. A former president of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law Professor Emeritus at New York Medical College, Dr. Abraham Halpern, points out this is a propoganda tool that is extensively used by the CCP to justify the persecution. He is also a member of the Friends of Falun Gong, U.S.A ( http://www.fofg.org/about/about_halpern_bio.php?cat_id=3 )

"The statement has finally declared unambiguously and clearly a call for the admission to the PRC of an investigative mission to look into the serious allegations of abuse and misuse of psychiatry in connection with the hospitalization and other kinds of involuntarily psychiatric treatment of non-mentally ill Falun Gong practitioners and political dissidents as well. This statement is much stronger than anybody could have expected, demanding the unrestricted opportunity to visit any hospital that the investigative mission would want to go to; to have their own translators without relying on translators within China itself...I don't think that the Chinese government will ignore it."

"China Mental Health Watch," an NGO established on November 21, 2003 in New York, is composed of Chinese and western psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, lawyers, and other volunteers. They wrote a letter to WHO on January 8, 2004, reporting on the psychiatric abuse of Falun Gong practitioners, and called for international support to stop the persecution of practitioners who were also doctors and medical workers. In their letter, they expect WHO, in order to maintain the international standards of medical ethics and human rights, to play its role in preventing the inhumane persecution in China.

I request that these two CCP propaganda pushing paragraphs at the beginning of the Health impact section be immediately removed.

Last time with the visit of the Chinese president to US the articles were heavily vandalized. It is no secret that CCP has been paying so called "spies", individuals and even student groups to spread their propaganda in the US. The FBI and the US House of representatives have commented on this. The international community knows very well to what extent the CCP has gone to persecute and spread slander on Falun Gong. We cannot choose to ignore these fact and assume that the article wont be under attack or that the wikipedia article is not under the direct attention of the CCP. With the olympics games coming there will be a more intense propaganda on part of the CCP to cover up their killings with lies and slander targeted on Falun Gong and the wikipedia article will certainly be a target. A few users previously vandalizing the pages, and currently banned, were found removing data from the article on the 1989 Tianenmenn square incident. I dont think these are issues we can take lightly or just ignore.

I request the arbitration committee to kindly look into the matter. 220.226.32.123 16:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilip rajeev (talk • contribs)

Seconder to the Request to arbcom

  • I would second the request for arbcom to look into the editing behaviour in this article.
  • Dilip rajeev, you have been banned from editing for a very good reason that you have been engaged in persistent edit warring. You don't discuss, and you make blanket reverts. The fight you picked is with wikipedia and not me. Keep going at this rate and your ban will be made indefinite, you can then go and work for the causes which is dearest to your heart.
  • Dilip rajeevYou said in a previous edit summary that he thought the current photo is OK, so why can he not leave it at that? I believe my very strong objections about said photo were perfectly clear, and it appears that the editor who put it there initially sees the point I made, and was prepared to remove it himself.
  • As for the qigong psychosis text, it is well sourced, and I have been given to understand that the whole of the psychiatric abuse section in 'Persecution' from which it came was written by asdfg, I merely moved it here as I didn't see it fitting with that article. It has to be understand that what's good for the goose has to be good for the gander too, one can't pick and choose one's own biased version of facts to foist upon people.
  • That qigong induced psychosis is a recognised psychiatric condition is referenced to Time magazine article about FG, and it is odd to say that it is CCP propaganda, and also to choose to ignore it by saying FG is not qigong, after all, Dilip rajeev was the one who decided to put that POV section in against all objections and an AfD, and knowing full well (as explained by someone above) that the study you cited happened to be on FG practitioners while all the researchers wanted to study were bog standard qigong practitioners.
  • Also, against the discussion taking place here, Dilip rajeev once again began edit-warring to reinsert the "health benefits" section after it had been moved to the 'Third party' article by asdfg. If the heading remained unchanged after introducing the paragraphs about pychosis, there would clearly be something wrong.
  • Wikipedia is not the place to have your war on the government of the PRC, evil as they may be. If Dilip rajeev cannot accept that, he clearly doed not belong here editing wikipedia articles. Ohconfucius 16:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem to have that stuff about qigong psychosis under the health effects section. But it is also intimately linked to the matter of psychiatric abuses. Munro thoroughly debunked these claims, and anything mentioning qigong psychosis with relation to Falun Gong will be followed by Munro's, and others', very strong language on the deceitful nature of this claim, and its use in torturing and killing innocent lives. It should all go on the third party page, anyway. Having Health Benefits here and Qigong Psychosis on the third party page... I don't think that will work. --Asdfg12345 00:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Its alright if the section is moved to the Third Party Views Page. But I totally disagree with your view that these two things can be put under the same heading. The qigong pschosis thing must be presented with background of the propaganda and statements made on the issue by authorities in the fields such as Abraham Halpern. The Research into the Health benefits section I feel should reflect what the title says - Medical research in the field.
Dilip Rajeev
207.46.55.31 07:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Friend, I was not targeting you in person when I made the request - the content is what I disagreed with. The Time article you frequently refer to is one that was published following a period of intense propoganda by the CCP - making every possible use of state controlled media. It is not an academic study and at that time much of what was known to the international media was content supplied by the CCP. You yourself might know how strongly media is censored there. I read recently that a group of journalists were sentenced to several years in prison for merely supplying news material to foreign media. You might also have read whats been happening to the reputed Human Rights Lawyer Gao Zhisheng ( http://en.epochtimes.com/211,107,,1.html )and his family for him speaking out against the persecution of Falun Gong. We certainly will be facing a lot of vandalism on these pages as the olympic games approach and the attention of the International community falls on the Human Rights situation in China.
My genuine concern was that the material is not academic in nature and the way in which it was being presented was very misleading - and a very inapporpriate way to present things in an encyclopaedic article. My persective was that The research into Health benefits section could be used to present studies conducted on the is aspect by reputed medical institutes and also the results of large scale surveys - which I felt was relevant since practitioners feel Falun Gong has a profound effect on imporving ones mind-nature and at the same time elevating one's physical health. As for the the photograph, I feel both are ok. Was only objecting against the other one being labelled "promotional".
Dilip Rajeev
207.46.55.31 07:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The Sixth Talk of "Zhuan Falun"

The first topic in the sixth talk of "Zhuan Falun" is "Qigong Psychosis" http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/zfl_new_6.html#1

"In the cultivation world there’s this phrase, "qigong psychosis," and it has a pretty big effect on the general public, especially since some people make a huge deal out of it and they’ve caused some people to be afraid of doing qigong. When those folks hear that qigong can lead to psychosis they get too scared to practice. But actually, I’m going to tell you: there’s just no such thing as qigong psychosis. "

The above is one quote from the book "Zhuan Falun". You can find that "Qigong Psychosis" is not part of Falun Gong. So I think that part is not related to research into health impact of Falun Gong. So I took them out.

Below are more quotes from http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/zfl_new_6.html#1 "A lot of people have this idea that swaying all over the place is doing qigong, when the truth is, if somebody is in that state when he does true qigong it’ll have serious consequences. That’s not doing qigong—that comes from ordinary people’s attachments and pursuits. " .... "So now this "qigong psychosis" thing, or "going into fire like a demon," to take the old expression for it really literally, I’d say it’s definitely bunk. "

Please value what the Falun Gong said what it is. I believe the Falun gong books themselves are more self-speaking than some other people's uncounted comments even without reading Falun gong's teaching. Please consider my opinion. Thanks. Fnhddzs 22:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Terminology?

The only time the word "crackdown" is effectively used is when the statement was declared in 1999 by Beijing according to quite a number of sources. The problem is that it is known internationally as "persecution" and this is en.wikipedia after all. I feel the edits made by PCPP is trying to reduce the damages done by the Communist party. Or worse, change the historical significance. Can we discuss to see if this really is a violation of WP:WTA. Has there been a similar discussion else where? Benjwong 16:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Seconded. It's obviously not very wikipedian to keep making those changes. It was the same with Samuel. Eventually he got banned. If PCPP escalates he'll get banned too. --Asdfg12345 01:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It depends. Whilst I agree that PCPP has behaved in a disruptive fashion, I note there is a tendency of some editors to insert blanket "persecution" in articles where it has already appeared 'n' times. Equally, some editors have inserted "since the persecution of Falun Gong" all over the place. Then there are others who seek to change every appearance of this word into 'crackdown'. I have nailed down some of these to citations, but they are near impossible to follow as they are all over the place, so they are best deleted. There is usually a FG or Amnesty source in each article which is be quoted as saying that persecution has been taking place, so this first appearance is fine. My sentiment is that if there's no related source, or if it's to a FG source which has already been cited, then delete. Ohconfucius 04:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It's just a question of motive. If one's motive is really because it starts to look repetitive having "persecution" n times, and you change it to different words like "repression", "crackdown", "suppression", "genocide" etc., and that's a sincere wish to make the article more reader-friendly, I think it's fine. Unfortunately, I don't feel that that is what is motivating PCPP. He wants to make out that the persecution is somehow more cuddly than all that awful torture and organ harvesting. I don't actually know what he thinks is going on in China, in those prison cells. He may not have even considered the human element. Anyway, let's just edit in an upright way and there won't be any problems--Asdfg12345 08:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

thing with the third party/criticism

It is not at all an issue of not wanting criticism. The point is that it's presented neutrally, in context, and alongside other views. Not to mention it being referenced properly, not containing weasel words, etc. There have been a number of issues associated with this. I may not understand, but I don't see why a particular issue associated with third party views of Falun Gong be given particular prominence above others... I am not sure I understand this. If there is new information about Falun Gong being a cult then it should just be added to the current section, which discusses that issue pretty well. The reason it is called 'Third Party views on Falun Gong' is because that is a neutral title. It used to be called 'Criticism of Falun Gong' -- well should we have a section called 'Praise of Falun Gong' as well? It's obviously more rational to put them together, and have a 'Third Party' section. I think what I am saying is pretty reasonable. We can share ideas on this. So far on the main page we have not featured particular aspects of daughter articles, but just given the introduction. Obviously we could change that. If some editors felt there were particular aspects that were worth highlighting on the front page that would be fine, and we could do that. The point is that it appear natural, neutral, and encyclopedic. Changing the title of the section, then putting in two huge blocks, with no relation to the context, it just doesn't seem right. If you had made it 'Praise of Falun Gong and Third Party views', and had two blocks saying how great Falun Gong was, I would still revert it. It would be the same. I hope what I am saying makes sense. If the cult stuff is to be featured on the main page it obviously needs to go alongside the anticult stuff. Since the debate is slightly nuanced it seems to make more sense to put it on the third party page where it can be hashed out properly. I don't think it is best to make rash changes and become worked up. This is an encyclopedia, so it appear well thought out, considered, and intelligent. I may not understand your perspective fully though. If there is missing information on any aspect of the articles I think it should be included. But there are always parameters for that, and it has to make sense. What does everyone think?--Asdfg12345 03:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh and the "i wont abide" comment is not really accurate of what I think. The point is just to do things normally and neutrally. It should be logical, readable and natural. That's all I meant. Not like I want some conflict or feel so strongly. Sorry to give the wrong impression. I absolutely think if there is more relevant information it should be added to the appropriate section. That expanded analysis of Singer, for example, and if there's a ref for SPLC. --Asdfg12345 03:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Couple of articles I recently came across. I feel the material is very relevant to these pages, especially the one related to the persecution.

US Department of State Releases 2007 Annual Religious Freedom Report Condemning CCP's Repression of Falun Gong and Others

Top Chinese Attorney Kidnapped Following Letter to U.S. Congress

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/5-12-16/35876.html

207.46.55.31 08:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

yep the US state one pretty relevant at least.--Asdfg12345 11:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

CIPFG

CIPFG (Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong in China) is an organisation investigating the crimes against human rights for believers of the Falun Gong and other religions. I think this organisation definitely belongs to this wikipedia article and I am hereby suggesting to put at least the link of their website. http://www.cipfg.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonHiemstra (talk • contribs) 14:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

For the moment I added here: CIPFG, however that page should be extended and perhaps we should make a page for the Human Rights Torch Relay as well. Thank you for reminding us and don't forget, you are welcome to contribute! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Please don't be shy with the fact CIPFG is founded by the Falun Gong. This fact is mentioned in the US Congressional Research Services report on China and Falun Gong, page CRS-7, paragraph 3:
"Coalition to Investigatethe Persecution of the Falun Gong in China (CIPFG), a U.S.-based, non-profit organization founded by the Falun Dafa Association in April 2006."
Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

References 4 and 5

This is a very specific comment relating how references are used in this article. Organ harvesting is not mentioned in references 4 or 5, but is in the list of abuses in the preceding sentence. If the charge is controversial, this needs to be made clear. In that case, organ harvesting should probably be in a new sentence with a specific cross-reference to the article on Falun Gong and organ harvesting. If it is verifiably true, one or more third party-references are needed because references are provided for the other abuses. Of course if it verifiably false, it needs to be dropped. 66.31.71.233 16:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong Dharmic?

Is Falun Gong a Dharmic religion? It does have belief in Dharma... 124.185.197.226 06:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested to hear what a FLG practitioner has to say about this! Jsw663 (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so ... Although I'm not quite sure what Dharmic means in this context, plus I'm not quite sure that we should call it a religion either, since it does not have many of the usual characteristic of religions, like membership, worshiping, etc ... What there is in Falun Dafa are the exercises, 5 of them, simple ones, and study of some scriptures, which I find to be very interesting and quite good. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's a religion: Li claims divinity and the ability to teleport and levitate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bokane (talk • contribs) 23:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Religions, believe it or not, are far more complex philosophies+activities+beliefs (far more complex "things") than your definition. (Or - the definition of a religion implied by your comment, if you like it better that way) Li doesn't claim divinity and the ability to teleport and levitate, Li claims *insert several mid-sized books here*, whose main topic is MORAL VALUES/PRINCIPLES AND THE PRACTITIONERS IMPROVING THEIR CHARACTERS, as far as I can get it anyway. Mr. Hongzhi's mentioning divinity, teleportation and levitation abilities is most probably done within an appropriate context and probably explanation. --194.88.250.22 (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Archived

I just made an archive of the old period. It was long overdue. There didn't seem to be any outstanding discussions. Right now there is a lovely stasis on the pages. That's the smell of cooperation and goodwill. Congratulations, everyone!--Asdfg12345 11:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of tags?

   * Its factual accuracy is disputed.Tagged since July 2007.
   * It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications. Tagged since August 2007.
   * It may need a complete rewrite to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.Tagged since August 2007.
   * It contains too many quotations for an encyclopedic entry. Tagged since July 2007.

are these still relevant?--Asdfg12345 12:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Where it asks for 3rd party references, I think it should be removed. Try doing a count, there seems to be more 3rd party sources than FG sources. Benjwong 05:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

MfD

FYI: proposed this bunch of obsolete working drafts for deletion. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Falun Gong/Working Anti-FG Ohconfucius 04:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

American Friends Support Falun Gong

In the face of Chinese government cracking down on Falun Gong practioners, many American friends sympathize the harsh treatment of the Falun Gong practioners and express their voice against the Chinese government. Many of these American friends are Falun Gong activists and they travel to China to help out their fellow Falun Gong practioners. For example, Joseph Coughlin, a Falun Gong activist from Minneapolis, Minnesota is going to Shanghai in March, 2008 and he will welcome fellow Falun Gong practioners to contact him in JC Madarin Hotel in Shanghai. Through his work, he will be able to help Falun Gong practioners in China to fight more effectively against the Chinese government's brutal crackdown. Feb, 2008 (UTC)

Spyware?

recently i downloaded a chinese movie, its in rar form and i downloaded it from a chinese website based in china, guess wat my mcafee found, trojan and there is a new folder in my document called freeway and the nine com talk about how evil ccp is, i think fa lun gong is involved in trojan and stuff like that ,i also heard ppl complained that falun gong send spams to ppl ,so should we include it to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinoli (talk • contribs)

Surely not all spywares have to do with Falun Gong, but Falun Gong people do bundle propaganda with downloads, and they do have software that enables them to send their propaganda spams from your computer. So beware. ps. I saw some comments below saying it can't possibly be a Falun Gong website since it's in China. Well dahhhh. Of course it wouldn't be a straight forward Falun Gong website, it's probably a Falun Gong website camouflaged as a regular download site. ps2. If you are a Falun Gong spam sender, I don't give a damn about politics, but your spams sure piss me off. Stop sending those spams, it's been almost 10 years and most people already know about the Falun Gong Issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.188.172 (talk • contribs)

If you have a source, we could look at it. Ohconfucius 02:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it's good to back up things like this. I would be shocked by anyone who called themselves a practitioner and would spread spyware. If you downloaded it from a website based in China it could not be a Falun Gong website anyway. If this happened I would not be surprised if it were a CCP website or something associated. Falun Gong just wants to clarify the truth about the persecution, not spy on people's stuff. I think some Falun Gong practitioners do send unsolicited emails to people inside China. Good on them! Chinese people need to learn the truth about the evil persecution, and need to know that Dafa is good. This is absolutely not for any personal gain or selfish motivation. --Asdfg12345 09:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
A Falun Gong practitioner wouldn't spread pirated media files for a start :). 194.88.250.22 22:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

i checked the source but its removed but i found another one in the game "age of empire 3" my friend downloaded from internet, he gave it to me, wat should i do take a screenshot or upload the file to the wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinoli (talk • contribs)

Dude if you are getting trojans and stuff in your downloads it has nothing to do with Falun Gong. Falun Gong is a Chinese meditation practice with 5 exercises, based on the principles truthfulness-compassion-forbearance, have you read the article? Practitioners do exercises and read books which discuss those concepts. Falun Gong's involvement with technology/media has arisen because they are persecuted in China, and these mechanisms are being used to promote public awareness and to ultimately end the killing and torturing in China. You can check out this website: www.falundafa.org which explains what Falun Dafa is. There is a wikipedia page about the persecution. Just run a virus scanner on all the stuff you get from torrents, and be careful about which websites you visit. You should just switch to linux anyway and avoid these complications!--Asdfg12345 00:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

dude calm down, gettin trojan is common but gettin trojan with a brand new folder created in my document talkin about falungong and the 9 com is not normal, and its not deletable!

im a chinese my self and i dont hate falungong ,but wat they did make me hate them many chinese using bittorrent to share file with each but falungong ppl puttin trojans and falungong papaganda to those file damaged them and hurtin the entire bt online community! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.138.241 (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the Epoch Times, it's within morals to use such measures to spread their information inside China, which censors such info. Falun Gong practitioners has previously hacking into a Chinese satellite to spread their doctrines.--PCPP 07:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I'm a bit confused, can you just give a link to the file so we can examine what is going on. I don't even know why any practitioner would do that in the first place. Like I say, it's just about telling people about the evil persecution, not about spying on your stuff, or "spreading doctrines". It's hard to work out exactly what's going on here. Even if there were a 9ping file with a trojan in it, there's no guarantee it's from any Falun Gong practitioner, I'd say it's not, and if you got it from a Chinese website it couldn't possibly be. --Asdfg12345 08:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Lets summarize: It can't have been a Falun Gong website, since you said it was a website in China, and in China any Falun Gong website would get removed within seconds. You also made it obvious that you where downloading pirated software illegaly and that the way the alleged Falun Gong information was spread was by form of a Virus/Malware embeded therein. Since everyone knows that Falun Gong claims to uphold to strict moral prniciples i would call it unlikely at best that any Falun Gong practitioner with half a brain would do such a thing, cause it's so obvious that it will necessarily be self-incriminating.

But just for the sake of argument let's asume it really was done by a neceseraly very stupid Falun Gong practitioner who is obviously not upholding any of Falun Gong's moral principles... So what? If in a group of a couple of million people you give an example of a single case in which someone did something bad/stupid, does that mean the whole group is like that? Does that mean that the next time you see someone doing the Falun Gong exercises you look down upon him and go everywhere to tell people about how bad Falun Gong would be? Does that kinda logic make sense? Does it work if you devalue people categoraly?

--Hoerth 11:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

i generally agreed with u, one person is bad doesn't mean the entire group is bad. but there is examples of what falun gong did, such the hack into the chinese tv satellites in 2002, blamed practitioners who got robbed n attacked on chinese serect agents, callin chinese who opposite them communist, is this Strict moral principles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinoli (talk • contribs) 21:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Question:

  1. hack into the chinese tv satellites in 2002,
  2. blamed practitioners who got robbed n attacked on chinese serect agents
  3. callin chinese who opposite them communist,

is this Strict moral principles?

Reply:

  1. when your opponent is a one-party dictatorship, and there is no freedom of expression, this is a legitimate form of protest. Lying, however, would be against those principles
  2. probably not, as it may be true but will be difficult to prove. But it's OK to refer to them as suspicions.
  3. There is nothing derogatory about that label - so calling them Communist would not be wrong. 'Communist" is what the ruling party calls itself, although I don't see anything Communist in what is happening in China today. If anyone openly called them fascist, they would still be correct according to the dictionary definition. ;-) Ohconfucius 10:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • As for the assault which allegedly took place inside the Chinese embassy somewhere, which is legally deemed do be Chinese soil and under Chinese security watch, it's foreseeable, preventable, and thus pretty inexcusable on the part of consular officials (assuming, that is, they were not complicit in the assault). Ohconfucius 13:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

the place where my friend download his game and the that trojan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinoli (talk • contribs) 21:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Used to be a list but now nothing http://search3.btchina.net/btsearch.php?query=%D1%C7%D6%DE%CD%F5%B3%AF&type=0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinoli (talk • contribs) 21:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

the file is the evidence but its remove that why there is no file on that page but i have the file in rar form in my computer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinoli (talk • contribs) 12:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

OK so you downloaded a file with a Trojan in it. And you Think that this can somehow do something with Falun Gong, whose guiding principle are Truthfulness - Compassion - Forbearance. Do you have any evidence for the connection, or you have only a few things that heard? If you have only things that you heard you should consider that these things can be influenced by the biggest propaganda machine of the planet, called Xinhua news agency, which is ran by the Communist Party of China. Also to understand better what I mean you can read this Story from Ancient China: The Dangers of Believing Without Rationalisation :) Best Regards, --HappyInGeneral 16:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This is too funny. Not because of the spyware. But because there is no real intellectual property in PRC. Pirated goods are practically mainstream goods. You have as much right to take the rar file and put your own subtitle, your own name, your own everything into the file before passing it along to the next person. Since CPC don't care to stop piracy. It will eventually be a hole exploited by every person in the country. Benjwong 17:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

because it contains falungong anti communist files n the trojan within the file that make me "think" falungong have something to do with it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinoli (talk • contribs) 02:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

And you Think that this can somehow do something with Falun Gong, whose guiding principle are Truthfulness - Compassion - Forbearance.
Not only a No true Scotsman fallacy, the sycophancy and blatant lack of neutrality makes me puke. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong and live organ harvesting

There is a pretty good amount of evidence on the organ harvesting issue. There were 2 officials from Canada who did an in depth investigation into the issue. Neither one of them practices Falun Dafa. After their investigation, they compiled a report on the issue. The whole report can be found here: http://investigation.go.saveinter.net/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaJP (talk • contribs)

Inside China's 'crematorium' is a revealing report about this issue. --Majontomorrow (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

undamental== Chinese Government / Fascism ==

OK there's been quite a lot of talk above about the Chinese Government being fascist, but I really cannot agree, especially as someone studying politics. We have to know the differences between communism and fascism first, and I don't think that's quite apparent. The PRC is not like Japan or Nazi Germany because it does not seek to conquer other countries (Taiwan being under dispute here but if you look back into history, Taiwan is really a part of China) (the disputed islands are much more neutral in status on the whole). The PRC also does not seek to impose its direct rule on any other country. Its economy is too capitalistic to be called state-controlled. The only aspect of the PRC that can be called remotely 'fascist' is its authoritarianism, and even this is heavily exaggerated by the media. Last but not least, the PRC does not humiliate (passive, non-independence-seeking) minorities via symbols like the Jewish Star of David, nor are they sent to camps to be killed (re-education now being the preferred method).

What I've listed above is just the basics. Let's not try to mislabel the CPC or CCP as 'fascist' without clearing up the terms first. Remember, for an encyclopedia your own political views should not show, especially as Wiki also pursues objectivity. Whilst everybody has a right to their opinion, it is not appropriate to express this in the article unless, for example, the Falun Gong entry specifically states that Li Hongzhi/FG practitioners hold this view. Do not confuse opinions with facts. Thanks. Jsw663 (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I apologise for once again airing my opinion here, much as I dislike it. I believe that communism (including Chinese communism) is a contradiction. Ideologically, perfect fascism (national socialism) is probably achievable, whereas perfect communism can only be theorised. Essentially, the Communist Party is an elite with a firm grip on power with a dictator's paranoia to match. Its authoritarian traits really quite comparable in many ways a fascist Ohconfucius (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Jsw, there are hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of people in labour camps. Many of them are Falun Gong. They are there because of their beliefs. They are prisoners of conscience. They are frequently tortured and killed. You must realise this...--Asdfg12345 11:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You failed to mention forceful coercion (which often makes re-education an euphemism) and the high levels of censorship employed by the CCP in the implementation of policies. Your language is also inaccurate as you are indirectly suggesting that Japan is currently seeking to conquer other countries, if Nazi Germany had not been mentioned. Arkansaw (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
To Arkansaw, I meant Imperial Japan (WW2 Japan). Whether they are not expansionist now is a matter of opinion, so thanks for clearing that up. I am also trying to clear up emotive language as much as possible esp considering the FG page. Jsw663 (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
To Asdfg, we have been over this a thousand times at least. Wikipedia is supposed to report everything from a bystander's view. E.g. regardless of what you think about Gitmo or the Iraq War, on Wikipedia it has to be reported as is, without any opinion or judgment as to whether it's right or wrong. This also applies for the Chinese government, and relabelling them by your own criteria and political opinion is not Wikipedian for a Wiki entry. Notice I'm only saying this is for the main entry page. Moreover, on the main entry page you are allowed to say, for example, that Li Hongzhi and FG practitioners believe that the Chinese Government is fascist, but you cannot pass off opinion as fact. In sum, I'm not saying I personally disagree with you, but am saying that such labels cannot be passed off as facts on a supposedly objective encyclopedia. Can you see my point here, Asdfg? Jsw663 (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I see your point and agree with it. Though, it is not a response to what I said. I am just saying that the CCP puts people in labour camps and tortures them to death for their beliefs. You must acknowledge that.--Asdfg12345 01:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
A brief note from Olaf the idler: I agree with Jsw663 to some extent. I'd rather limit the use of the word "fascism" to a well-known period in the history of Italy. At present, China is a neocommunist dictatorship that frequently employs state terrorism to crush the perceived adversaries of the CCP. It shares some essential qualities with Mussolini's Italy, such as aestheticization of political persecutions and the military, suppression of dissidents (portrayed as necessities for "the greater good", "social stability", or whatever), centralized political power, pop nationalism, and so on, but it's definitely not corporatist like Italy was in the 1920s and 30s. I do understand why people call the CCP with such labels, though. Personally, I'd prefer something down-to-earth, such as "a bunch of rotten criminals"... OK, seriously speaking, I think "neocommunist totalitarianism" is the most usable term I can come up with. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Stereotypes again, Ohconfucius? You don't even live in mainland China. Don't let your political inclinations get the better of you when writing about the Chinese government on Wikipedia - remember Wiki is supposed to be about objectivity. Also, what makes you say that Chinese socialism only applies to the economic sphere!? Furthermore, after you said you don't want the discussion about the Chinese government to spill over onto this FG discussion page (on my talk page) you do just that yourself - hypocritical much!? Jsw663 (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
To Olaf, Asdfg - no matter how repugnant you find the Chinese government an encyclopedia cannot carry these personal judgments onto a factually-descriptive encyclopedia. As I have said before, you are fully entitled to your own opinion, but as long as we are on Wiki we need to uphold Wiki principles and place these Wiki principles in absolute priority as long as we are on Wikipedia, wouldn't you agree??? Jsw663 (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

To Jsw663, I don't know where you are from,but you are definitely ignorant of situation in China, dont you know Wikipedia is banned there?most chinese editors have to use third party software, mainly those developed by falun gong practitioners,just to enjoy free writing!and you say that is stereotype??? it seems from your words that you know better than other editors, could you tell me what will happen if you search falun gong or 6.4 with google china? I am a chinese from mainland, I am proud of my country, my culture and my history, but I would say so much of them were destroyed by nobody other than communism party.I feel sorry for my strong emotion, but I am really disappointed still someone in the democratic society will fight for such a notorious party.I am just here by coincidence, and I would like to trust you as an objective editor.however, please remember the objective attitude by no means would go beyond the fact and try to cover the evil. if you would say some editors are biased towards that political system,please make sure whether they are talking about the truth or really exaggerating.if you happened to know what happened in the justice of Nanjing Pengyu,then maybe you will understand how the social value is greatly distorted. fascism only means conquering another country?what would you say the independent war between u.s. and u.k., fascism? to my understanding, fascism is more characterized by ideology control with violence threaten,which is exactly demonstrated by that political system. I feel quite shamed by the fact that quite a lot of people including chinese regard criticizing the party the same as criticizing chinese as a nation.Forthesakeof (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Uhh pardon me Ohconfucius/Forthesakeof, when or where did I say that there was no censorship in China, or that China was the shining beacon of individualistic human freedom? And please tell me how I am fighting for the CPC/CCP by saying we should adhere to Wiki rules of NPOV and objectivity, and that we shouldn't be misnaming the CPC/CCP according to personally-determined characteristics as 'fascist' or 'evil'. As an editor says in the section below this one, we need to let the readers decide for themselves. If they think the Chinese government is evil, then let them think that; if they think it is good, then let them think that too. A temporary majority Wikipedian view does not in any way justify pre-judging for others what the Chinese government is about. This is why I constantly and consistently talk about strict adherence to Wiki rules and remove all personal opinion on government.
Regardless of where you say you are from, Forthesakeof, Wikipedia adheres to Wikipedian rules, not rules that you think that are right. Moreover, you seem to fail to understand the difference of fascism seeing the need to conquer others, and seeing the need to conquer others as fascism. Whilst the first is true, the latter (second) is not unique to fascism itself. It astounds me to note you have a very clear idea of what constitutes the Chinese people's will yet you cannot tell the difference between a characteristic and an ideology, and that they are not mutually inclusive. Jsw663 (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Jsw,so many times quite a few people keep using Wikipedia rules to justify their editions,irrespective the common sense. in fact I totally agree with rules such as unbiased view,however,as I mentioned, unbiased view would by no means cover the fact. I did not see your point with repeating conquer,if you can look at fascism on Wikipedia itself which says"Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and social interests subordinate to the interests of the state", I do think you have the capability to grasp the implication and the relating image with CCP. I acknowledged that ccp is not usually referred to fascism by mainstream media,and I dont know whether some scholars are doing so,therefore I am not trying to edit this article, I would just remind you they do share similarities in case you are not familiar, you have your choice, anyway. appreciate your great calm to ignore my somewhat aggressive words. you are right it doesn't matter where your are originated,but please don't use stereotype casually if you are not familiar as well. regarding chinese characteristic and the ideology, there is one example can illustrate how they are inclusive,you can try as well, if you talk with chinese about any issue like falun gong,or 6.4,how many would kindly remind you "they are pursuing political power backed by cold war mindset western politicians, dont get urself trapped",a typical propaganda by ccp to relate anti-ccp force with so called "western anti china force". Jsw, i hope you wont have the feeling that i am criticizing you, or actually you are full aware of the situation but just different opinions, that is totally fine. you have the rights for voice, which I just remind you is currently deprived of public by the control of ccp.Forthesakeof (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)p.s.:dont think i will come there often, no need to reply. best wishes
I'm not saying you don't have a general idea of what fascism is, Forthesakeof. However, it is clear that you cannot distinguish between fascism and communism.
I also thought Falun Gong claimed itself not to be political yet it uses events like 6.4 to justify its... teachings. Doesn't that strike you as odd?
There is also a propaganda technique called "be so afraid of your opponents that you should believe anything that is anti-your opponent". It is called fear-mongering. It is surprisingly effective for the indecisive and those who give in to their fears.
By the fact that throughout my Wiki editing I have always wanted to discuss points before editing the main entry, unlike editors such as Happy In General who edits the main entry before discussing it on here, if at all, it should show you that I am not radicalized, not off-my-head, and want to be a true Wikipedia guardian. Those who think they are upholding democratic principles by justifying an alternative dictatorship (i.e. Li Hongzhi determines your life) are no less flawed themselves than those they criticize. Jsw663 (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I've replied on your talk page too, Ohconfucius. Notice I'm still praising your overall efforts. I just have an issue with you insisting the Chinese government is fascist, much like those who call the US under Bush a dictatorship, not because I have an issue on these views on a personal level, but because they are personal (moral) judgments that cannot feature on a Wiki entry. Jsw663 (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Fundamental difference is that Bush can be removed. In fact, he is now a lame duck, but he has done so much damage to the world economy and international relations that Republicans look sure to lose the White House. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Just like the Chinese leadership changes every now and then (is it also every two terms - except the terms are five years instead of four in China?). As you know the CCP/CPC isn't under a one-person dictatorship, just like the US isn't a true multi-party democracy (two parties is hardly representative of 300 million+ people's diverse views). Jsw663 (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

JSW, don't we already know your bias, do you really need to repeat it? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the arbitration committee found that I was a neutral and constructive editor. I have a huge bias in favor of Wikipedia rules on Wikipedia. What happened to your must-follow-Wikipedia-rules phase, HiG? Did it vanish after the arbitration? After you vanquished the other side, you imposed a FG propaganda leaflet to replace any consensus on the original entry, then tried to get it included in Wikipedia 1.0. I wonder why... Jsw663 (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Point to add for HiG: Labeling the Chinese government as fascist is like labeling the Falun Gong as a cult. That is what both sides accuse each other as. If we were to listen to one side in favor of another, that would be bias. So, I wonder who's being biased here once again??? Jsw663 (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I recently added links to Critical sites and Other sites section, why are they removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majontomorrow (talk • contribs) 19:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This would be good to read through: WP:EL.--Asdfg12345 22:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I note with interest that WP:EL does say, in section 5, that entries must "Avoid undue weight on particular points of view", and that "the number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to other equal points of view". Just how much weight is 'undue weight' for FG-critical sites? And can FG critics' view be considered 'minority views'??? Jsw663 (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This article looks like a extension of falun gong/dafa website to me, there are way too many links dedicated to the pro-falun gong/dafa point of view. Thanks for creating this section, A. --Majontomorrow (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

There are now 4 links linking to Falun Gong websites, and 7 to critical websites. Can we share thoughts about whether that is an appropriate allotment for each? There were 4 of each before some anti-flg stuff was added.--Asdfg12345 03:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

So many links in References & Further reading sections are linked to either falun gong’s own websites or pro-falun gong articles. There should be more links in the critical section to provide a balance. I also believe that some links to Chinese government sites should be included, let people decide for themselves. --Majontomorrow (talk) 06:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That isn't true at all. Let's look at what is there: 

   * Ian Adams, Riley Adams and Rocco Galati, Power of the Wheel: The Falun Gong Revolution (Toronto: Stoddart Publishing, 2000) hard cover ISBN 0-7737-3270-5
   * Maria Hsia Chang, Falun Gong: The End of Days (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2004) ISBN 0-300-10227-5
   * Barend ter Haar, Falun Gong - Evaluation and Further References (incl. extensive bibliography)
   * Li Hongzhi, Falun Gong (Law Wheel qigong) (Yih Chyun, 1993)
   * Li Hongzhi, Essentials for Further Advancement (Yih Chyun, 2000?)
   * Danny Schechter, Falun Gong's Challenge to China (Akashic Books, 2000) hardback ISBN 1-888451-13-0, paperback ISBN 1-888451-27-0
   * Margaret Thaler Singer, Cults in Our Midst: The Continuing Fight Against Their Hidden Menace Revised edition. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003). ISBN 0-7879-6741-6
   * Mo Wen, Poisonous Deceit: How The Chinese Government Literally Gets Away With Murder By Lying Deceiving And Fabricating Its "evidence" Against Falun Gong: An Hbcu Story (Toronto: Deep Six, 2002) Paperback. ISBN 0-9731181-0-5

the first two are against Falun Gong, the third is neutral, there are two Dafa books, and a pro falun gong. the Singer is anti-falun gong. i just removed the wen.

Note that wikipedia is not a link dictionary. What links there are should be as good as possible. Having an amateur radio interview with Samuel Luo is not an authoritative source. I will remove that. Now there are even numbers of each critical and falun gong. and i removed the "other" entirely since only the Ottawa Citizen seemed very useful, but probably belongs more on the persecution page anyway. I think there are some goods one we could put here, such as Barend ter Haar's website on Falun Gong. The link to that is floating around somewhere.

It is unjustifiable to have more anti-falun gong links than falun gong ones. Right now there is absolutely no bias in the links.--Asdfg12345 08:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

by the way I just want to note something, partly in response to Jsw. You are going to have a tough time finding genuine academic credentials to back up any serious anti-Falun Gong stance. No China scholar I have read has taken an anti-Falun Gong line. The only true anti-Falun Gong stuff I've found are the anti cult movement and the CCP. Neither of these groups, nor their publications, are reliable sources. you can read about the history, and some critical commentary on the anti cult movement on the third party page. The charge that Falun Gong is a cult is indeed a minority view, and is definitely not endorsed by any experts. It's been thoroughly debunked. the only other anti-falun gong stuff floating around seems to come from positive scientists who attack any spiritual beliefs--see the Randi site linked there, for example. These commentaries often take a sarcastic tone, do not try to engage with the issues on their own terms, willfully distort the teachings, and mostly are a display of the writer's personal ideological paradigm. I don't say any of this should be excluded, but I am just making providing some background. The CCP site should not be linked here at all. Wikipedia doesn't promote violent political propaganda. It's a mistake to think that that would be letting the reader decide. The CCP's propaganda against Falun Gong is not considered as coming from a reliable source, and it is not repeated on wikipedia as though it were. We can provide commentary on the CCP's propaganda, but we do not become a vehicle for it. There's a very big difference. Most of the references, by the way, on this page and all the others, come from academic journals. You may not like it that they often condemn the CCP's actions against Falun Gong, and that they often don't say bad things about Falun Gong. This is a dead ringer. It will always be the minority that supports killing and torturing a group of peaceful meditators. --Asdfg12345 09:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Your claim is not true the first two books are not against Falun Gong. Maria Hsia Chang calls the crack down of the group a human rights violation how is that against falun gong? Out of seven links in Further reading section there is only one critical of falun gong. Very few people in the West support the crack down of falu gong, but many have questioned the practices and teachings of falu gong, this view has to be included in the article. The links I added all meet Wekipedia standards, you have no justification for removing them. You are preventing me from contributing to the article; you are rude. --Majontomorrow (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologise, I am really not trying to be rude. Chang's book says some appalling and awful things about Falun Gong. She attacks the teachings in that book; so does the Riley. Both of those are anti-Falun Gong. They are also against the persecution; but that goes without saying. I very much dislike getting involved in edit wars. I think that would only aggravate you further. I am sorry to have annoyed you. I have just tried to explain the situation as I see it. If you are aware of quality literature on Falun Gong that could be added to the Further Reading, that is fine. There isn't much written on Falun Gong generally, anyway. Indeed, if there is a lack of opinion on Falun Gong being so bad, that's because, as I said, it is a minority opinion. And it really is a minority opinion. I am not saying to exclude this, I am saying to treat it appropriately. At this stage I can see it is getting a bit tense, so I will back off. I really haven't meant to upset you or anything. I will request a mediation about this now.--Asdfg12345 22:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Asdfg, surely if a book attacks the crackdown of FG practitioners (anti-Chinese government) AND FG teachings (anti-FG), it should be deemed as 'balanced' or more 'neutral' rather than anti-FG? If so, you cannot count this source as being under the anti-FG section. Jsw663 (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm just skimming through WP:DR, and instead of going for mediation first, it suggests that editors discuss the problem, and get an outside opinion. There aren't that many people involved in these pages now, but from experience I know getting a consensus on who editing the pages is the 'neutral' party is near impossible. Anyway, I am going to put a request for comment thing here, to try sort this out. First though, I will point out the areas of policy I am concerned with here:

  • Nutshell: "Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article."
  • Avoid undue weight on particular points of view: "On articles with multiple points of view, the number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to other equal points of view, nor give undue weight to minority views. Add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first."
  • Links to be avoided: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research." -- note that the relevant part of the Reliable Sources page says "Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution."

I would like to explain my views here. Majon, thank you for pointing out that I have been rude. I will really try to cultivate a more considered tone, and I really do not want to be rude. Okay, Majon:

  • The changes I made were to ensure that there were equal numbers of pro-Falun Gong and anti-Falun Gong links.
  • You are wanting to include more critical links than Falun Gong links. Further, these are minority opinions, and some of them do not constitute reliable sources according to the policy cited above.
  • You say that there should be more anti-Falun Gong links because a Falun Gong opinion is represented strongly in the "Further Reading" section.
  • I say that that is not the case, that two of those authors express anti-Falun Gong views (and acknowledge that they are also anti-persecution). I also point out that the distribution of links etc. should basically accord with the majority opinions about this whole affair. And basically all academic sources (please see refs on persecution page, for example, there are numerous), say that the persecution is wrong and Falun Gong is innocent--just trying to present the most bare-bones account. There are other issues, like some authors disagree with and make negative remarks about Falun Gong's teachings. I am just talking broadly.
  • I dispute having more links depicting anti-Falun Gong views, some of which are not reliable sources, and all of which are demonstrably minority opinions. All this violates wikipedia's policy on External Links, some parts of which I have highlighted above

I think I have pretty much addressed these issues above. Now open to comment. Also please note that I hate doing all this just for a few links, and it would have been much better if it could have been sorted out without resorting to all this. That is a bit disappointing.

  • Comment: Asdfg, surely if a book attacks the crackdown of FG practitioners (anti-Chinese government) AND FG teachings (anti-FG), it should be deemed as "third party" rather than anti-FG? If so, you cannot count this source as being under the anti-FG section. Jsw663 (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A, you were rude in deleting my material but I applaud your new method here. By the way, are you a member of falun gong/dafa? --Majontomorrow (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  • As I said earlier, I am sorry for deleting your material.
  • These pages are always tense. I think there should be some policy of discussion before making big changes, or changes that people disagree with. Can anyone advise as to how we could institute something like that? Basically it's a courtesey anyway.
  • sources that are against Falun Gong are against Falun Gong. Falun Gong and the persecution of Falun Gong are two different topics. We are talking about Falun Gong here. It is with reference to Falun Gong that the sources are being benchmarked, not with reference to the persecution of Falun Gong. If it were on the persecution page, then Chang might go in the 'for' section, and Jsw's latest treatise in the 'anti' section. These are distinctly different fields, and we are interested in their stance on Falun Gong, not on the persecution.
  • Further, the position of calling Falun Gong a cult is not supported by reliable sources. This is what is called a minority view: "...an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views..." Basically this is a bit of a bind for people who hate Falun Gong's style of meditation and beliefs. These views are not supported by the mainstream, not by China scholars, the big newspapers, and other relevant experts. They are held by the minority, those on the fringe, and those without academic tenure. Generally speaking I think this is one shortcoming of wikipedia, actually, in many ways, since wikipedia merely reinforces mainstream views, and this will be inherently limiting in many ways. Though, in this case I think the mainstream has got it right. This means that these links, as minority views, should not be given undue weight.
  • On another point, these would be more appropriate to go on the Third Party page anyway, since that's where Falun Gong is accused of being a cult. --Asdfg12345 22:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Asdfg, are you a member of falnu gong/dafa?--Majontomorrow (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Falun Dafa has no membership, nor am I required to answer any questions about my personal beliefs. But I don't want to be rude or anything--perhaps in time we will develop a friendly rapport wherein it would be appropriate for us to engage in a personal discussion about our respective spiritual, religious, metaphysical, atheistic, agnostic, or otherwise, beliefs about human life and the universe. I don't think it is relevant or appropriate here, and as editors we should just discuss these pages and the best way to edit them in terms of wikipedia policies. Let's take a leaf from Jsw's book, eh? --Asdfg12345 04:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I do not believe that counting pro- and anti-FG links is necessarily the right solution to balance. On the whole, there is only one "pro-FG" source, and that is Falun Gong itself (and I deliberately include its plethora of front organisation). I am not counting Danny Schechter, who I consider an out and out FG apologist who merely regurgitates and is a vector for FG propaganda - I don't despise his opinion, but merely his style of "me too" journalism; he picks things from different sources which tend to corroborate a certain point of view, and then says "I think so too", or words to the effect of "I doubt Falun Gong would deny being involved in the incident if it was a genuine protest". Most other western journalists on the whole are sympathetic or neutral towards FG, and I believe Ian Johnson's articles are a good resource here, together with Barend van den Haar, and these should be linked to under the neutral category. Authoritative sources which I are "critical", such as Rick Ross and Margaret Singer, should also be linked to, as they represent a significant "anti-cultist" viewpoint, but I would agree with excluding Randi, who merely rants and offers no objective evidence. Then, the CCP and Xinhua machine are the only truly "anti-FG source", and should also be represented. However, there is no central CCP repository of Anti-FG web pages that I know of, so I would not know what to link to. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I would also say that external links should be more general in nature, and are necessarily different to those linked as references. I found that there is a mish-mash of links which I do not believe belong here: for example, the article about China's crematorium is a reference for the organ harvesting article, and the link about hi-jacking the airwaves is more specific to the Persecution article and should be removed. I also have doubts about the other san francisco journals: these are articles with insufficient background to be valuable as general references. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with you on “Inside China's 'crematorium'” and “Falun Gong hijacks China city's TV airwaves-locals.” But “Supes Support “Homophobic Cult”” and “Critics and followers of Falun Gong” should stay here. They each make an important point about the falun gong. --Majontomorrow (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • If they make an important point, as you suggest, their nature and length suggests that they be better off as references to statements which you could incorporate into the article if they are not there already, if they are, you could put them in as a footnote. I do not agree that they belong as external links. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The rickross.com article was a REUTERS one, and written by a journalist (Jeremy Page). This is sufficiently 3rd-party, is it not? How is it any more 'ranty' than any other reputable journalistic article? Are you questioning the journalistic standards of Reuters? I don't think any government has done that, yet you think it is not acceptable. If this is not a sign of your political inclinations getting the better of you, Ohconfucius, please tell me what you base your argument on!!! Jsw663 (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I fear you may be getting muddled, as this has absolutely zilch to do with my disdain for our "red" comrades. As I said in the article's talk page, I removed the link to the 'Falun Gong hijacks China city's TV airwaves' article because it was not directly relevant, nor do I consider the article sufficiently broadly based to be so linked. Furthermore, the subject of the links are dealt with in much greater depth in the Persecution article. The only ones I consider ranty are Danny Schechter and James Randi - after all, why cite them at all when you can cite what they say directly to Falun Gong and Xinhua respectively? ;-)Ohconfucius (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, I am going to make two important points clear to you. First, there is an issue of conflict of interest for editing; second, the majority perception towards the nature of falun gong in the west is negative.

Wikipedia’s aim is to produce neutral articles that are encyclopedic; a biased editor is counter productive to this aim. A neutral article should provide all opinions available, in the case of falun gong that includes the views of the chiense government and those of falung gong and everything else in between. I asked you whether you are a member of falun gong because of your opinion towards falu gong critics and your editing style--you attack all sources critical of falnu gong and you remove links to critical material. Your apparent bias led me to believe that you are a member. Your declining to answer this simple question confirms my suspicion. I now suspect that you are designated by your leader to control this article, particularly by preventing the inclusion of critical material.

Wekipedia has strict policies on conflict of interest. COI editing is defined as “contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups.” Editors engage in COI editing can be blocked. I am not going to report you at this time but I will if you continue to remove critical material.

There are two main issues surrounding the Faln gong: the nature of the group and its crack down in China. In the west the majority perceive the ban as a violation of human rights. I call the ban illegal. However, when it comes to the nature of the group the majority perception has been negative. The overwhelming majority of books and reports on falun ogng teachings and practices have taken a negative tone as evidenced by books referenced in the article. Currently the article does not reflect this majority view. The article is inadequate in presenting the nature of falun gong, but worse, it actually reads like an extension of falun gong’s own website.

In order to produce neutral articles Wekipedia editors have to be neutral which means accepting all points of views. We can judge the quality and inclusion of material by Wikipedia standards. One feature of Wikipedia articles is to provide links to useful information, as it says here that “Wikipedia's articles provide links to guide the user to related pages with additional information.”

By the way, can anyone provide the link to the guide line for link adding?--Majontomorrow (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Majon, that is called an ad hominem argument. I'm not violating any COI, and I am absolutely free to edit here. I am a long term and productive editor of these pages, and I exercise great rigour in research and adherence to wikipedia policies. I explained the issue of those links with strict reference to the policies. Please do not lead this discussion off track. Please respond to the points I raised in terms of wikipedia policies. Aside from that, I think confucius's assessment is probably the most accurate anyway. (I think the link adding thing you want is this WP:EL.)--Asdfg12345 00:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the link. You said “Please respond to the points I raised in terms of wikipedia policies.” Did you raise any points? From what I see you only cited some polices. Are you trying to make the point that the links I added violate all those policies? --Majontomorrow (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I do not believe that a lowly practitioner should be barred from editing any FG article, as there is no prohibition in WP:COI, which says "Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. which suggests this is being breached." The bit cited by Majon further above is certainly inapplicable, as I see it - we are not talking about Gail Rachlin, Abraham Halpern or Li Hongzhi editing the articles in question. Insisting on barring Asdfg is like saying that someone from America should be prohibited from editing an article about the United States of America. I have worked closely enough to know that despite his bias, he is serious in creating articles which adhere to wiki's policies and guidelines. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
** Although this COI point was raised and used by FG practitioners against editors like Samuel Luo and Tomananda et. al., the very same editors now tell Majontomorrow that this argument can be used. OK, to be fair this is an ad hominem argument and isn't strong enough on its own, but doesn't make it groundless. After all, all the FG editors accuse Samuel Luo etc. of being a Chinese government puppet and attack his 'characteristics' rather than actual arguments. Doesn't this appear strange to you? Jsw663 (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I was not there at the time, but I believe that Samuel Luo was actively seeking to advance his personal agenda agains FG, thus was violating WP:COI. That agenda can be attested to by his having created an anti-FG website off his own back and at his own expense, and then included text in articles and linked these to things he wrote himself. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
** Asdfg, by your reasoning we should distinguish critics into several categories, but this does not justify including more FG links for the hell of it, nor should we only include critical sources to which the Falun Gong (i.e. Li Hongzhi) has made an official reply to. Jsw663 (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
** Majon, I think you should know as a relatively neutral editor without strong political inclinations (at least not on Wiki so far from what I can gather from your comments) that Asdfg used to be a very destructive pro-FG (yes he is a FG member - read the history of this page if you have the time) person that almost risked being banned, but suddenly changed before the pro-FG members here launched an arbitration case against the anti-FG camp (Samuel Luo, Tomananda, etc.). After he eliminated the opposition, he has returned to some of his old ways (such as 100% intolerance of anything critical of FG), but at least he does not make personal attacks or rampant violations of the 3RR rule (reverting the main entry constantly), massive sockpuppetry (no investigation conducted to prove or disprove this point yet), etc. However, Asdfg wasn't punished in the arbitration case because he was deemed to have 'turned over a new leaf'. The pro-FG camp have tried many dirty tactics such as the "Persecution of FG" page, which used to be the "Suppression of FG" entry, but took advantage of any neutrals being away after eliminating the anti-FG camp to get the resolution passed, and thus the entry changed. The word 'persecution' was under dispute before, as it was judgmental and subjective. After all, would ex-FG members who were pressured not to leave the group be labelled 'tortured'? I'd advise you to be careful as Asdfg and the pro-FG gang will hurl plenty of labels at you as being anti-FG or whatever in order for you to 'shift' your neutrality to being biased in favor of FG. Don't fall into this trap. Jsw663 (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
** As noted on the discussion page there, I also dispute that the article was properly renamed 'Persecution of FG', as there does not appear to have been a proper consensus. Yes the article is biased, as I for one tolerated quite a bit of latitude to include stuff which is in spirit mere C&P from FG material. Especially, I believe the torture bits read like the placards and leaflets put out by FG, and should be removed wholescale. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
** Once again, no matter how many times you (Asdfg and the other pro-FGers) try to label me anti-FG, or what I say as a 'tirade', my position has remained neutral and not remotely in favor of the Chinese government (i.e. not a departure from the neutral to the pro-CCP/CPC side). Requesting the Chinese government not be officially labeled as fascist is just like the UN wouldn't label the country as fascist, or the US a dictatorship, or the Falun Gong a cult. I wish there was someone to take up the Chinese government side to give arguments more balanced, but naturally it is in the interest of Falun Gong to see all these users banned rather than reason with them. Jsw663 (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
** One point to add, by Ohconfucius stating that 'lowly practitioners' should not be barred from editing FG, is he implying that there's an hierarchy within the FG, and that members above a certain 'rank' shouldn't be allowed to edit? Jsw663 (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
** Although FG claims not to be "an organisation", it clearly has an organisation AFAICT, there are many "indians" and only one "chief", but the chief does appear to have his entourage. Those persons I named would clearly be conflicted out as official representatives of FG. Then, there are all the others. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

To Jsw,it is forthesakeof here, a new name here as the previous password was lost. seems you are still arguing against the fascism name of ccp. please remember, we are not talking about communism and fascism here, which you claimed that i failed to understand the difference,but in fact we are talking fascism and ccp. few would disagree that "little remains of the Marxism of Communist China"[8], are you trying to vague two different issues? there is indeed a book "A Place in the Sun: Marxism and Fascism in China's Long Revolution" by A James Gregor, whose introduction is available in wiki. and in this book, ccp is classified as contemporary fascist. hope you will feel interested. by the way, i am not going to suspect your goodness to be wiki guardian, but from the question you put, it is quite clear you are not familiar with Falun gong at all,all your understanding about Falun Gong comes from media or other sources except from Falun Gong books themselves.I would recommend you to gain at least some genuine knowledge of Falun Gong's teaching,as I believe you also agree that the lack of genuine knowledge will hinder the competence to be a neutral editor. and thank you to remind me the so called propaganda skill "be so afraid of your opponents that you should believe anything that is anti-your opponent",and i would like to share similar tactics "under the name of neutrality to deny any sound critics ".Betrueman (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC) 22:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources about CCP & the ban vs. persecution

Regarding this revert [9] made by Ohconfucius.

  1. Could you please tell me which sources say that China banned Falun Gong? When in fact Falun Gong was banned by the Communist Party of China? The ban can not be done by country, you do need an organization to do it.
  2. Could you please tell me why are you referring to the ongoing persecution as a mere ban? [10]

--HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

  • You may feel there are great injustices done to FG, but there are rules to fair editing here on wikipedia which we are obliged to follow. If a source which is footnoted employs a generally accepted term "crackdown", then I don't expect to see "persecution" or "genocide" there. When the source uses a disputed label, I expect the label to be attributed. I have meticulously checked each occurrence against the sources, so I would appreciate it if you wouldn't introduce your subjective bias just because you feel indignant about the Chinese authorities' treatment of FG. To answer your question, the source I was looking at is this, which is in fact already an in-line reference to the article. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it could be quoted? "China today banned the Research Society of Falun Dafa and the Falun Gong organization under its control after deeming them to be illegal." I'm not sure. I agree with confucius about using what the source says--this seems to be the best approach. However, this is part of the propaganda, that "China" "banned" Falun Gong. It creates the impression that the CCP is China, and that all Chinese wanted Falun Gong banned. Of course, the opposites are true. Maybe we could use a different source, or make clear that we are explaining the government line. We can't exclude the CCP propaganda entirely, but it also has to be clear when the CCP line is being given, when the Falun Gong line is being given, and then what more-or-less neutral people like China scholars etc., are giving their line.--Asdfg12345 00:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I know China is a one-party dictatorship, so 'China' is in many ways synonymous with the Communist Party. I do have a problem with a statement to the effect that the CCP banned FG; on the other hand, I would not have a problem if the article stated the Chinese authorities banned FG, as this is technically and legally more correct construction. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow--why can't the CCP have banned Falun Gong? And isn't that what they did, as well as some other nasty things? --Asdfg12345 21:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Majontomorrow is a sockpuppet of Samuel Luo

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Samuel_Luo. He's risen from the crypt once again, we need more silver bullets! ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 14:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This should be yet another lesson for all editors of these pages.--Asdfg12345 21:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

When to use Chinese Communist Party or Chinese authorities or Chinese government?

I noticed that there are a lot of cases when Chinese Communist Party is renamed to Chinese authorities or Chinese government. I believe that this is an act of hiding the real identity of the Chinese government which in the context of the pages of Falun Gong is the one who persecutes the practice. From this point of view I believe that it is important to show who the real culprit is. In China the government is run by a single entity and that is Chinese Communist Party.

When we say Chinese Communist Party for many people is already clear that this is a Communist rule, which explains a lot about the extent and validity of the propaganda used by it, the values of Human Rights under it's rule and the persecution of Falun Gong itself.

I noticed that the Chinese propaganda is trying to hide the fact that the current government is Communist. And the edits of PCPP for example resemble the same thing.

I think we should have a discussion to decide some guidelines on where to use Chinese Communist Party or Chinese authorities or Chinese government.

For example I would feel important to have at least the first time specify that it is the Chinese Communist Party who is doing all this. Then we can refer to it as Chinese authorities or Chinese government to avoid repetition. What do you think?

Thank You. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I basically see this as a weasel change, intentionally or unintentionally. Mainly we should go with what the source says, in the end, though, to avoid difficulties. In the end, it is clearly the communist party that is being referred to, and that definitely shouldn't be avoided. I don't think we should be using "CCP" because it implies various things about its style of rule re human rights and values. I think we should be using it because it's the most accurate. I think it's good to mix it up though, too. Mostly, saying 'the party', or 'the regime' or whatever seems to work. I'm really wary of this kind of apologism that seeks to hide things about the key actor, using terms like 'China' or 'PRC government'. It is not a 'government' in the way that term is generally understood. It's essentially a dictatorship. There's no rule of law, no enshrinement of any individual rights, property rights, human rights, basically there's no law except the CCP's law, and the CCP is accountable to no one in China. And I'm not just being negative on the CCP, as far as I understand that's simply the objective state of affairs. We shouldn't use terms that cover this up. But if a source says one thing, we should mostly stikc with that i think, and we should also mix it up sometimes. These are just my thoughts--Asdfg12345 10:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

C&P of my comments from above: "I know China is a one-party dictatorship, so 'China' is in many ways synonymous with the Communist Party. I do have a problem with a statement to the effect that the CCP banned FG; on the other hand, I would not have a problem if the article stated the Chinese authorities banned FG, as this is technically and legally more correct construction." We should just stick to the sources and try and leave aside any personal feelings about the matter. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Ohconfucius here. From a NPOV, the Chinese Communist Party holds a monopoly on political power in China and is thus commonly treated as synonymous with "the Chinese authorities" or "the Chinese government" or "Beijing." This does not constitute an apology for the CCP, unless one considers the term "Communist" or the CCP to be pejorative in and of itself. Loungecreature (talk) 05:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, the CCP is considered to be the legitimate government of China, according to thr rules of state sovereignity and the UN. Referring to the Chinese government as the CCP implies that they're not the legitimate government, which is a weasel word used by Epoch Times and their ilk.--PCPP (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that a so-called dictatorship must still be supported by the people, and China is not such a massive concentration camp that so many portray as. Remember, Hitler and Mussolini were elected. I agree with Ohconfucius here. The Chinese authorities is the correct term, at least in general cases. Basically, I don't really see how using "authorities" instead of "CCP" would conceal anything, and I would urge other users not to be so hasty to make such accusations. Would you call the United States the "Republican Party" before 2006, since they hold a majority and thus makes major government decisions? Yes, it is probably correct, but it is definitely unnecessary and, frankly, sounds stupid. Herunar (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Christmas Day edits

I strongly disagree with the edits which you practitioners have been making of late. Firstly, totally disagree with Dilip rajeev's removal of the direct quote of the enunciation of the ban, which i believe is pretty central to the whole FG story. It certainly is not in the summary section, nor is it undue. I'm just going to revert that. As far as the lead section is concerned, I have a mild problem with referring to K&M as "high profile Canadian lawyers". They enjoy a higher profile than ordinary Canadian lawyers by being parliamentarians, and elevated that profile by launching and publicising Bloody Harvest, so I believe the initial description is more appropriate. As for removing "Since that time, Falun Gong has made itself the focus of international attention by lobbying Governments, and international human rights organizations. Some of these, including scholars, consider the ban a human rights violation:" and replacing it with "Within mainland China, in an attempt by the Party to eradicate their beliefs, practitioners are publicly vilified, fired from their jobs, and subject to widespread torture in custody, beatings, illegal imprisonment, psychiatric abuses, and forced labor terms" in the lead section, it takes two big paces away from WP:NPOV, IMHO. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It's fine to just call them Canadian lawyers. I wasn't trying to make a fuss of their status. It was wrong in the first place though, calling them parliamentarians. Kilgour was a former parliamentarian, and that's it. I thought this attempted to give them greater cred, and that I was being more neutral. I haven't tried to do anything dodgy. I didn't like the "brought attention to themselves" or whatever, since the persecution is pretty darn noteworthy in and of itself. I don't think there's an issue mentioning that Falun Gong lobbies governments and things. I deleted the 'considers the ban a human rights violation', I mean, it's just wasted words. It's noteworthy that Falun Gong stages protests and pickets embassies and the works, but of course the 'ban' is considered a human rights violation; nor is the simple ban what the whole fuss is about. If falun gong were merely 'banned', I really don't think all this would have happened. Practitioners are intensively persecuted in China. The CCP has spent billions upon billions paying people to rat on Falun Gong, building labour camps, giving bonuses, employing more cops, you name it. The whole society was turned on these people. The description of the persecution is accurate, and importantly, reflects what third party sources have said about it. It is an attempt to wipe our the practice, that is widely known, and the methods employed to do so are also widely known and reported. That isn't biased. If we wrote "the persecution is evil and Falun Gong is really handling it well", that could be considered biased. Simply describing the objective events without giving value judgements is fine. I don't mind the Xinhua quote being there in its entirety, now that you explain it. I didn't actually get it. You are right, that it is precisely an important piece of information, and something of a centrepiece to the campaign. My initial objection came from the thought that it is giving too much weight (a whole block quote, where none exist from Falun Gong) to one viewpoint. Incidentally, it may be useful to provide some commentary on the persecution from the famous Li Hongzhi, since at the beginning he said some things about it. However, this really can't go into a falun gong vs CCP display, so this may need to be handled carefully. There is also the issue that all viewpoints be represented, and the fact the Li Hongzhi said on several ocassions that flg isn't against the government, has no political agenda, and that if he or practitioners have done anything wrong, dialogue is welcomed to figure out how flg can improve. It's very transparent. I also don't think there is much value in saying "you practitioners" like that. I would like to empathise with any possible frustration though. I'm not here saying "you non-practitioners", or drawing attention to any other facet of your personal life. I think that AGF rule is a profound one, we should try to apply it, I reckon.--Asdfg12345 00:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think either lawyer or former parliamentarian would be OK, I just didn't like the "high-profile" tag, which I think is a bit non-NPOV. Oh, why isn't FG an illegal organisation, as categorised? There's nothing inaccurate about it, as it is indeed proscribed at home. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not an organisation, for starters. Also, I think this editor is a CCP agent--no joke. I expect in the leadup to the Olympics we'll face this kind of thing more. With 30 000 cyberagents, surely they can spare a couple to go stir up trouble on the english wiki, no doubt about it.--Asdfg12345 15:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Who did u think is a CCP agent? I added the category. I was looking for a suitable category, and the best i could find was Category:Illegal organizations. Ya, maybe FG doesnt accurately fit into that cat. But i just thought that there should be a cat listing orgs or sect or anything like FG that has been outlawed the host country or any other country. hmm. kawaputratorque 17:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

There might be a category like "persecuted minority groups" or "persecuted religious groups" or something, which would be more appropriate. If there isn't the should be, come to think of it. Look at this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&diff=next&oldid=180254401, "This is, of course, akin to the disgraceful Dalai Lama, himself a torturer and a liar, using human rights slogans in order to regain his throne of death." -- this is a very peculiar way to edit. You might read this about Chen Yonglin who defected from the Chinese consulate in Sydney. His job was to monitor Falun Gong activities, and he came out with bundles of documents of the overseas persecution of Falun Gong, and info about 1000 spies operating in Australia, spying on FLG and other dissident groups. The Chinese govt is not normal.--Asdfg12345 22:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I found Category:Religious persecution. The Chinese govt reminds me abit of my govt, but maybe they're not as aggresive as CCP. However i dont think we are in any position to conclude that FG is totally innocent. Or painting a picture that FG is a harmless group that has been outlawed by the govt for no valid reason. This sounds a bit POV. Unless we know this for sure. But how can we know this for sure? kawaputratorque 04:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a big topic, I would recommend you read through the persecution of Falun Gong page to get an idea of what has happened to Falun Gong in China, and the reasons behind it. There are certainly reasons for it. That is a balanced account of what has happened, nearly all of that info comes from third party sources like human rights groups and China scholars. Falun Gong is a qigong practice with some spiritual beliefs. If you read that page and would like to discuss further I would be welcome to chat on talk page or something.--Asdfg12345 05:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Will read that page soon. Looks pretty brutal. Thanks. kawaputratorque 10:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't need any FLG soapboxing here, currently the articles are disgustingly pro-FLG. We have sources which guesses Jiang Zemin's "nature"; if this happened to Li Hongzhi, it would probably have been removed straight away by FLG editors. Practising FLG doesn't automatically makes you a China expert.--PCPP (talk) 07:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean the opposite. If you are from the PRC, a place that trains people to avoid this subject like taboo. Then the article will appear very pro-FG. However, by international standard this article is extremely fair. Benjwong (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see where you draw your international standards from. Personally I have read at least fifty thousand articles in Wikipedia since I started editing two years ago, and this appears to me to be one of the most biased articles I have ever read (which I remember). Basically, the whole article makes a faulty attempt to become neutral, and I congratulate users for that, but it is so hopeless flawed that it doesn't take much logic to see the problems here. And before improvements could be made, I must urge and warn regular contributors to conform to Wikipedia policies in this aspect, though it may be difficult. Don't ATTEMPT to be neutral, make yourself neutral as well, or it'll just sound like a whole self-argument essay. And no, before you make your accusations, I'm not employed by the CCP, and I'm from Hong Kong, a democratic special economic zone within the PRC (and people here generally hate the Central Government as we call it). Herunar (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is about as balanced as can be unless you are trying to present anti-fG materials. It really isn't worth the time. You are better off going to the Economy of the People's Republic of China and show how the party has been at least trying to do something positive. Very few people will argue with you there. Benjwong (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • What the &^$# ? Just because many "normal" wikipedia editors have been either chased off, or consider harassment and edit-warring (from FG practitioners and government apologists alike) too stressful, and prefer working on the millions of other more worthy articles instead to maximise their enjoyment quotient. Your statement just about sums it up. Yeah, it's about as neutral as you can get, under the circumstances ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
It sounds silly. Yes. The group is obviously against the party. Is like trying to make the group sound less anti-communist party from some spiritual/political standpoint. Is a difficult thing to do. You can gather up things said by the people living in or near the PRC, and conclude their opinions. But at the end you are left with more un-notable material again. There are some territories still uncovered like anti-FG exhibits coverage. I am hopefully throwing some hints out to anyone trying to balance the article. Benjwong (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Falun Dafa fundraising and influence abroad

The New York free daily paper The Epoch Times is related to the Falun Dafa movement, possibly owned by it. Allthough Falun Gong is a personal discipline, clearly some overarching organization of Falun Dafa disciples exists. Falun Dafa is also involved in the production of cultural performances, and outdoor events in public spaces aimed at getting income for their cause. Spqrxxi (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It's no secret that many Epoch Times employees are practitioners, but the Epoch Times is first and foremost a professional media outlet that focuses on the persecution of dissidents in China - among other things. Is it very surprising to you that persecuted, innocent people are prone to become quite outspoken? Moreover, how could "the Falun Dafa movement" - which is essentially a network of private individuals without any overarching financial or organizational backbone - own something like a newspaper? What we're seeing here are loosely intertwined groups of people who share a similar interest (they practice Falun Dafa and want to stop the persecution in China). They usually work locally, even though the network of practitioners is multinational and extends around the world. But person A in Taiwan might not have anything to do with person B in Romania. You simply cannot find an organizational link between them; you can't go up any kind of hierarchy to find their superior, because everybody's working out of their own initiative, and there are no leaders or subordinates. Anti-torture exhibitions and whatnot are merely imitations of how similar activities are handled in other countries. Sure, there are mailing lists and all that stuff, as you could expect. But that's how Internet-based communities work. Things just start manifesting when communication is easy, people are motivated and have something in common. Frankly, even the scout movement is more centralized than Falun Dafa! Oh, and one more thing: what kind of Falun Dafa outdoor events are aimed at getting income? Such things don't exist at all. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 01:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Financial sources of Falun Gong affiliated media

A. Epoch Times association with Falun Gong is a documented fact:

1) Per Thomas Lum's CRS report "China and Falun Gong" http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/RL33437.pdf (section CRS-8, paragraph 3):

"FLG followers are affiliated withseveral mass media outlets, including Internet sites; the Epoch Times"

2) Funding from various Falun Dafa Associations to Epoch Times can be found in non-profit disclosures: (example Southern USA Falun Dafa Association, 02-06 Form 990, part III):

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2002/760/692/2002-760692185-1-9.pdf
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2003/760/692/2003-760692185-1-9.pdf
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2004/760/692/2004-760692185-1-9.pdf
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2005/760/692/2005-760692185-024eee8e-9.pdf
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2006/760/692/2006-760692185-031af764-9.pdf

There are further evidence of Epoch Times financial connection with various Falun Gong Associations on www.guidestar.org, a clearinghouse of non-profit information.

B. Falun Gong affaliated media not only receieve funding from various Falun Dafa Associations, they have also received financial support indirectly from US Congress.

Most notably The Friends of Falun Gong, a quasi-government organization started by Congressman Tom Lanto's wife, Annette Lantos, and operated by Ambassador Mark Palmer, one of the co-founders of NED:

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2001/134/145/2001-134145670-1-9.pdf (page 4, list of directors)

FoF's non-profit filings over the years show that millions were given to various Falun Gong media outlets including NTDTV:

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2005/134/145/2005-134145670-028e40ed-9.pdf
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2004/134/145/2004-134145670-01d39938-9.pdf
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2003/134/145/2003-134145670-1-9.pdf
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2002/134/145/2002-134145670-1-9.pdf

Bobby fletcher (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

white lotus reference and others

Looking here: [11], it's clear that Ownby views White Lotus as a controversial description, one mostly used to marginalize. It's also clear that he does not subscribe to labeling Falun Gong as such, and is actually explaining the historical context of this description, not using it directly. I hope the other changes are not going to pose too many difficulties. Deleting information about the organ harvesting report from the introduction, another paragraph about Falun Gong outside China, and adding in a CCP description of the teachings as 'cultic'--none of this seems very appropriate.--Asdfg12345 01:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's completly appropriate— you just don't like the source, which is irrelevant.
If you were being fair & not trying to assert a POV, you would have simply added a few words to explain the historical context of the white lotus connection, as there are obvious historical parallels. As for the organ harvesting, it is repeated elsewhere in the article anyway. And several other citations for Falun Gong being described as a cult can be found, it is not simply a "CCP description ".
Finally, putting the whole paragraph about focusing on what the U.S. House of Representatives thinks is giving undue weight to one country's opinion, it belongs elsewhere in the article.
I understand you may have strong feelings on this subject, but wikipedia is not a soapbox(WP:SOAPBOX) for what you think. If I come back to find you still trying to assert an obvious POV, I will contact an admin regarding it— lets not have it come to that. ʄ!•¿talk? 14:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way I added that the protest was non-violent when I readded the relevant information about it, just in case you thought that it was being portrayed in a negative light. Anyway the fact of the matter is it did happen, and deleting key details regarding it is not necessary. ʄ!•¿talk? 14:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for your note. It's tricky sometimes, but I think in essence wikipedia policies about WP:NPA and WP:AGF are really noble and basically the foundation of sound human interaction. I am going to reread those when I get a moment, and I hope we can really try to stick to them in discussing these issues. Obviously the content policies WP:NPOV, WP:V also really important.

There seems to be about three issues by my estimate:

  • Comparing Falun Gong with the White Lotus;
  • Describing Falun Gong as a 'cult' or 'cultic', or the teachings as 'cultic'; and
  • Describing April 25 as a 'mass protest' and that practitioners 'surround[ed] Zhongnanhai'.

As far as I can tell, the first two are highly disputed, and are only held by a very small minority. These views should certainly be discussed and aired, but this needs to follow WP:UNDUE. We do not repeat the label the CCP has used to persecute Falun Gong as a way of describing Falun Gong in the introduction--this is elementary. In the link I provided, Ownby clearly explains White Lotus is a description used to marginalise. Other commentators reject the comparison with Falun Gong also--from memory there is at least Ian Johnson. I am not sure if you are aware, but this label was also used on Falun Gong directly, by Jiang Zemin, as a way of justifying the persecution. It's a hot button, because it connotes a great deal in terms of Chinese history. When it is not at all agreed in the literature that it's fair to compare Falun Gong to White Lotus, and even that it is claimed that it has been used as a technique in persecuting the practice, this should all be explained. Using the term in the introduction as a way of describing Falun Gong doesn't seem to really allow space for this. (In terms of WP:Lead by the way, the intro should be a small summary of the whole article, so it needs a few lines on third party views section somewhere). As far as I am aware, this comparison is not really the prevailing paradigm for understanding Falun Gong. I will seek out the Ownby work you site. I will be interested if it is vastly different from the link I have provided. Note that there he explains some scholarly comparisons that can be made, and at the same times makes clear that this term has always been misused. I don't feel it would do if we fell into the same simplistic language on such contentious an issue. Okay on this point, sorry if this has been longwinded, I would say that the term is very much disputed, ambiguous, claimed to be something actually used to persecute the practice, and therefore not a suitable way of neutrally describing/comparing Falun Gong. The idea is important though, and should be thrashed out in the relevant section.

The other is 'cultic' in describing the teachings of Falun Gong. I didn't think this would be an issue. There is a section dedicated to Falun Gong and the anti-cult movement on the third party views page. This is a distinct minority view of Falun Gong, and should also be explained, but it is by no means an accepted way of describing Falun Gong or the teachings.

The other is 'mass protest' and 'surrounding Zhongnanhai'.

  • 'mass protest' seems to play the inverse role as 'peaceful display' or something equally fluffy. The language should simply describe the event, not play it one way or another. According to many sources which can easily be found to back this up, the practitioners were silent, had appointed some people to keep order and make sure people weren't acting up or mouthing off, picked up the police's cigarettes butts and other rubbish, and just kind of, kept to themselves. After they met with Zhu Rongji (or a representative), they left. Calling it a 'mass protest' has distinct connotations of yelling and placards etc., and April 25 was far from this. Particularly when the goal was to get illegally beaten and arrested practitioners released and legal protection for that kind of thing not to happen again.
  • 'surrounding Zhongnanhai' is also contentious. According also to sources which can be found, they were directed by police to 'surround' Zhongnanhai under orders from Luo Gan, and as a way of using it against them to start the persecution. (I assume you know who he is, the main hatchetman in the persecution, 610 guy). So saying that they 'surrounded Zhongnanhai' in 'mass protest' creates an impression far removed from the reality as reported in a number of reliable sources. If you need me to I can copy these here for you, or if you just read the persecution of Falun Gong page, this information is all there, along with the sources.

Okay, these are the three issues I saw and my thoughts. I hope I have given you a civil and reasoned response. You are right when you mention strong feelings on the subject. Though this was preemptive to our engaging in this discussion, I do feel strongly that beating, torturing, executing and psychiatric abuses of large numbers of innocent people solely for their beliefs is truly ghastly, horrific and tragic. However, I would hope that most people feel the same way, so I hope I am not out of line on this point for having human feelings. In this context however, I know wikipedia well, I know its policies, abide by them, and can pretty much just carry on the discussion in a more-or-less disinterested way with strict reference to sources and policy. At least I always try to do this, and if I stray I welcome comment. Thanks.--Asdfg12345 16:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I forgot the most important thing I had to say, and this would apply if my concerns were half as acute and the changes half as controversial. Editing wikipedia is done on consensus. There is no consensus to the changes we are now discussing. Since they are disputed, the standard procedure is to hold off, discuss them, and gain consensus. There are others who edit these pages and pop up once in a while, so I am sure they will input. So I would ask that you please hold off on reverting, and that we thrash out the issues and figure out the best way to approach the issues. This is seems kind of implicit/expected on WP:CON. Thanks.--Asdfg12345 16:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Content policies over-ride concensus. I don't want to have to get into a long-winded disscusion regarding just that, as seems to be the case alot of times on wikipedia. I'll keep this brief and to the point:
1. I'm fine with white lotus not being in the intro but it should be at least mentined somewhere in the rest of the article.
2.The fact that Falun Gong has been described as a cult has to be in the "The teachings have been variously described as..." sentence. It is ridiculous & dishonest to claim that it hasn't been described in this way. And, believe in or not, the government of the PRC is a legitimate source. You don't have to go by wether someone simply "likes" or "dislikes" the source of a reference.
3. You just changed the wording of the paragraph regarding foreign condemnation. That citation is American & mentions nothing about any other country's view on this matter. Relating to this, I'm going to go ahead and change reference to the RPC trying to "eradicate" Falun Gong. Thats the exact same word used by the U.S. House of Representatives! ʄ!•¿talk? 14:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Fennessy here. I see no reason why any of these changes are inappropritate - except that you simply don't like them. Personally, I'm suspicious of most of the claims made in this article about "torture" and especially "organ harvesting", but since they ARE sourced and they ARE notable and the claims ARE made, I'm not going to remove them unless the sources contradict what is being said. Whatever your opinions on the white lotus and cult references, I must remind you of the policy which I pretty hate myself, sometimes: WP:No Original Research. Herunar (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And, no, no consensus is formed, but no anti-consensus is formed either. Unless the anti-opinion forms a consensus, there simply isn't anything to cite consensus from. And if me, Fennessy as well as several other contributors are not enough of a "consensus", we won't have to edit this article. And personally, I don't feel such a major problem with the White Lotus reference. Sure, saying that they do have the same motives as the White Lotus is obviously POV, but comparison is not. It's actually a very sensible comparison since the fear of the Falun Gong overthrowing the Chinese Government is one of the commonly cited motives, no matter what is the actual fact. That's what the White Lotus and Red Turbans did or attempt to do.Herunar (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I did some minor rewordings on the persecution part where the POV simply defies logic. No major changes are made. Herunar (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention about the protest before the ban on Falun Gong. I changed the wording, so no one can reasonably claim that it is presenting any one view. This event was the main catalist for the ban, Falun Gong had been disparaged but tolerated up until that point, and it is crucial to show this in the article. ʄ!•¿talk? 15:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My concerns weren't really addressed. I wrote a fairly lengthy explanation about the three issues in the introduction, and the points I made haven't been responded to here at all. If necessary I can repeat them again, but otherwise I would request that both go back and read carefully the argument presented there. What you are saying is fine, about Falun Gong being called a cult, and being compared with White Lotus--this should appear in these pages. My problem is with presenting these as descriptions of Falun Gong without the corresponding controversy associated with using these terms--and both terms have been rejected by many parties. Putting them in the introduction as earlier doesn't take into account the wider situation. Just because it's sourced, doesn't mean it should go in there as a description. This is what I wrote earlier. Herunar, about you doubting the persecution, there is as much objective evidence for this as whatever other crime against humanity you can think of--independent eyewitness testimony, photos, official documentation, video footage, most importantly of all I guess, dead and smashed up bodies of practitioners, and so on and so on. It's pretty silly to think it's not happening. It's actually widely recognised and well documented by lawyers, governments, human rights groups, NGOs. The CCP doesn't just do this to Falun Gong, either, but internet dissidents, democracy activists, Tibetans, Uighurs, Christians, even peasants who riot. Have you read about the Shanwei Massacre? Just type these words into google and read the New York Times report. Please do your homework on this one, it's kind of important. Fennessy please indicate to me whether you have read the persecution of Falun Gong article.--Asdfg12345 21:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me give an example to back up what I mean. It would be like my going to the Chinese Communist Party article and putting in the introduction that the jiuping describes the CCP as an evil cult, anti-universe force, etc.. That's the equivalent. Does that sound appropriate? I could think of a similar but milder example to correspond to White Lotus. These are issues that should be thrashed out in the body of the article, not characterisations. Please think about it.--Asdfg12345 21:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Poltics & religion(I know Falun Gong doesn't classify itself as a religion, adding to the confusion) are two different things. Why do you keep editing out the fact that the protest centered on the Chinese Communist Party headquaters? Do you really dispute that or do you just not like how it sounds? Yes I've read the persecution of Falun Gong article. And? ʄ!•¿talk? 14:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Correction

  • In this edit [12] it is stated that the PRC 'made the distinction between "ordinary core members" and the leaders'. This is incorrect, because the mere statement that a person believes in Falun Gong can get him into detention. See for example this source here: [13].
  • In this edit [14] you changed what the "Christian Science Monitor states" with a remark that "However, this is not true." referring to the report. On Wikipedia, we must say that there are more then 1 point of views on this, you should not define a version of the truth. If you want however to dispute personally with me if there is evidence or not, I'm happy to do so on my talk page. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It is true that the CCP attempted to make that distinction, and that is in Xinhua anyway I think. They always operate this way, anyway, with everything, not just Falun Gong. If there is some large scale protest against local corruption, land seizures, CCP brutality, etc., they will strike hard at the organisers to put fear into the rest. This is a documented tactic. Currently there are hundreds of thousands of large-scale protests per year. People have huge grievances against the CCP. Their policies and style of ruling has created an intractable situation in Chinese society, and they are on the edge of a volcano. Many are fed up with getting the raw end of the stick. Since the powerbase of the CCP relies on precisely this kind of systemic corruption, these problems cannot ever be legitimately addressed within the current autocratic framework. They need to brutalise the organisers of protests, since they can't brutalise everyone, and they need to quell the protests. It's the same with Falun Gong. It's reported in Xinhua anyway. Of course Falun Gong has no hierarchy or structure like they say, but it is the same model for dealing with dissidence. A real classic. Anyone apologising for the CCP these days either must be totally devoid of compassion, upright thoughts, and human conscience, or simply be far too ignorant to understand the current crisis in China. Defectors are coming out of the woodwork like beetles out of a log in the fire. Just give it a couple more years. The clothes on the outside are very glamorous, but it's all rotten inside. The bubble will burst pretty soon--people should know this by now.--Asdfg12345 21:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

k/m as "high profile"

I will now insist on this as it is an important element of the credibility of the report and one of the main reasons it received as much publicity. It's clear that they are high profile individuals, due to their histories and reputations. Even if this weren't true, there's a Canadian news report saying exactly this, so it's referenced. I'm insisting now because of the repeated attempts to downplay the importance of the report. This is a completely legitimate insertion, so I hope no one tries to remove it. --Asdfg12345 21:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the organ harvesting info

I want to bring attention to a couple of changes here and request that Herunar explain himself. This kind of thing looks terrible for someone wanting to engage in a serious discussion about the contents of these pages. In particular, for someone wanting to dispute the organ harvesting stuff. There are two deceptive edits I will highlight:

  • One is changing the sentence "The Christian Science Monitor states that the report's evidence is circumstantial but persuasive." to "The Christian Science Monitor states that the report's evidence is circumstantial."
  • The other is changing "A Congressional Research Service report says that the reports’s key allegations appear to be inconsistent with the findings of other investigations." to "Many notable agencies, including the Congressional Research Service of the United States Congress, concluded the key allegations to be inconsistent."

I don't need to point out what is wrong with doing this, do I? This is very poor form. Care to explain yourself, Herunar?--Asdfg12345 22:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Circumstantial evidence - this is oversimplification. I agree that the comment that it is persuasive is important. The original should stand.
  • CRS report - I believe CRS is not the only party to point to inconsistencies, and I believe it can be backed up or otherwise qualified. It is no more "sneaky" than some of the pro-FG edits which have taken place in the past trying to put undue emphasis on very minor opinions, and no more acceptable if not reliably sourced. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I find your insistence that the mass rally at Zhongnanhai was "an appeal" somewhat eccentric. Perhaps the word "protest" connotes to you something a bit nosier, more radical and more negative, but that is what it is indeed according to almost every known definition of the word. If a small group (perhaps under 20 people) go with petitions, it could be called an appeal. It was a peaceful protest. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Asdfg12345,
You can point out what is exactly wrong with my edits. Your accusations of pro-CCP biases at every user who attempts to be reasonable is pretty tiring, and your accusation of biases only further expose your own reluctance for any discussion. For me, I did both of the edits out of pure logic and sense, as I have always did. Circumstantial evidence is the only definite conclusion I find from the report; I really don't see it how the report notably points out its "persuasive" in any concrete manner, but since both users disagree, I'm fine with the original. For the CRS report, your quote was taken out of context. I changed the format of the paragraph and moved some pieces, and thus the wording is necessary to make sense. I can't see how a CCP-bias can be concluded from that. Thanks.
I did read the full article about its Persecution, as well as reasonable amounts of other sources, Chinese or international, approving or disapproving. Please don't make such hasty attacks on my knowledge of this subject before you even state your opinions. You are missing the whole point. I said I am suspicious of the persecution claims on this article AND that I'm not going to remove them without discussion, so as to show that I believe research and sense is far more important than personal opinions and original research, something you should follow. Your immense enthusiasm at targetting my reference of personal opinion with your own personal opinions and calling me "silly" is absolutely off the target. I am not supporting using any personal opinions in this matter. I support judgement and discussion without attacks such as "totally devoid of... human conscience" or original research such as "obviously..". Is that made very clear? Because I'm not really into engaging tit-for-tat discussions with users who can't follow simple policies, and I'll have to ask or force you to stop contributing to Wikipedia if this sort of "devoid of human conscience" talk continues. Herunar (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
A further personal note: I just spent some time taking a look at the various disputes surrounding this article and I'm honestly quite shocked at how badly some very simple matters were handled. Users from both "camps" engaged in edit wars, pure blanking, personal attacks and are not hesistant to put personal opinions above cited sources - all at the same time citing Wikipedia policies and then stating their intentions to get others banned just for the sake of it? If Asdfg12345 and Ohconfucius remember, we have been previously engaged in discussions in several articles (with my former account Aranherunar) and Asdfg12345 had struck me as a quite reasonable editor who was able to put his feelings behind him. Why it doesn't seem to be possible in this article, I'm not certain, but I certainly hope that Asdfg12345 can change his ways of handling disputes or no sensible discussion could ever be made.Herunar (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Herunar,

Persecution of Falun Gong is a fact and is happening in China right now. If you doubt it in anyway you can experimentally verify it by going to china and declaring yourself a Falun Gong Practitioner. Falun Gong is an ancient, extremely high level practice for mind body cultivation. I'd sincerely urge you go through the teachings of Falun Dafa, all of which are available for download online on http://www.falundafa.org and then decide for yourself. Kindly go through this lecture: ( Google Video link to Lecture 1 of the Falun Dafa 9 Lecture seminar in Guangzhou) at least - that way you can independently, free of the opinions of others, understand what Falun Dafa is. Falun Dafa is based on principles of Truthfulness, Kindness and Tolerance and teaches practitioners to value virtue and to be altruistic and kind at all times - even to those who harm them.

If you believe the persecution is not fact, see what has been happening to Gao Zhisheng a renowned Human Rights Lawyer and his family for him speaking out against the persecution. http://en.epochtimes.com/211,107,,1.html . If the CCP dares to do such things to someone with such high reputation, think what it would dare do to an everyday person. Thousands have lost their families, thier lives and everything because of this mad persecution.

I have removed that term 'cultic' from the intro since it is absolutely non factual - kindly discuss on the talk page before making such changes. The CCP coined the term 'cult' to justify their persecution of millions of innocent people like you and me. There is no concept of membership or anything of that sort in Falun Dafa. If today you learn the exercises from the website, practice the exercises and study the teachings to improve yourself both mentally and physically - you are a practitioner - it is as simple as that and there is nothing more to it.

Please put in some time to go through the material here - you'll certainly find them informative: http://www.faluninfo.net/Compassion5/Compassion5-v35-screen.pdf http://www.faluninfo.net/Compassion6/Compassion_Edition6.pdf http://faluninfo.net http://www.clearwisdom.net

Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Dilip, are you able to leave your personal opinions and mine out of this discussion? I did not claim to doubt the persecution of Falun Gong; nor do I claim to believe in everything that is being said about the persecution. I simply wish to read, write, and contribute. Three things. Is that okay with you? If it's not, and if you cannot leave your personal feelings out of the discussion, I will have to appeal for you to leave Wikipedia as I have done for many users. Do you understand?
I did not add the term "cultic". That is not my edit, that has been thoroughly discussed and the discussion is still going on. I reverted your edit because you are disputing two other editors' well-meant attempts at discussion. I myself has yet to express my opinions on this matter. Herunar (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As it stands right now this section is misleading, in that it projects an idea that the US government believes the organ harvesting did in fact happen, while providing a source link to a document stating that the claims were investigated by the U.S. Embassy in Beijing and the U.S. Consulate in Shenyang and the facility and "found no evidence that the side is being used for any function other than a normal public hospital." This should be fixed immediately 72.149.155.83 (talk)

Cool down & Discuss changes

Hey guys, how about cooling down and discussing point by point to the point the edits, based on what sources and wikipedia policies have to say. How about that?

For example doing an absolute revert like this: [15] would only lead to revert wars. Do you agree Herunar? At least Asdfg12345 made some adjustment to suit your objections [16].

Anyway, I would rather propose a change on the disputed section and then everyone of you can come discuss it, come with more suggestions for change, then reach consensus and edit. How about that?

So let’s start with this change [17] which for the moment I guess contains all the objections:

  1. “The teachings have been variously described as spiritual, religious, metaphysical and cultic.[1]”. I believe that having only one reference here from the PRC who is right now engaged in a genocide (see the definition of the word) against Falun Gong is not quite OK. So, until a more balanced source can be found which includes all the descriptions I would suggest changing it back to “The teachings have been variously described as spiritual, religious or metaphysical.”
  2. “3 months after a large-scale demonstration by some 10,000 Falun Gong followers focusing”. I guess it would important to mention that the demonstration or protest, however you like to call it was: quiet, peaceful and very orderly.
  3. “disparage” see here what it means [18] I doubt that you can find any source that would say this. The original word eradicate is more appropriate and it's a word that you don't have to look it up in the dictionary to understand it, see [19].
  4. Saying that the K/M report is “However, this is not true.” is false, because in Wikipedia we report sources, and in this case sources say different things about K/M report. The most correct description if you ask me is that the evidences are circumstantial but persuasive. Also you might note that nobody proved that the report is false, and can not because the report itself is based on many well known facts and even on a lot of documentation which comes directly from the PRC.
  5. "but several notable agencies have disputed this claim, including the United States Congress.[2]" Well when using the http://www.embassymag.ca/ as a source it would not hurt to say that it also published a lot of positive articles as well after the article you mentioned, which would rather seem as trying to make up for their mistake, just go in and search for Falun Gong, also some examples: [20] [21] [22] [23]
  6. I did explain above that it is not correct to use the absolute term of 'made the distinction between "ordinary core members" and the leaders' but it is more correct to say that it tried to do so and merely 'attempted to make the distinction between ...' see this source: http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/RL33437.pdf, chapter "The 1999 FLG Demonstrations and PRC Government Crackdown"
  7. Why is it not OK to use "two high-profile Canadian" but OK to use "several notable agencies" when this statement is boosting the claim against Falun Gong?
  8. Any reason why would anyone object when it is said that the series from Xinhua are "anti-Falun Gong articles as part of the media campaign"?
  9. Why is this entry which is sourced: "Xinhua also affirmed that "the so-called 'truth, kindness and forbearance' principle preached by Li has nothing in common with the socialist ethical and cultural progress we are striving to achieve."[3]" considered not relevant?

OK, this list is not exhaustive, so please come and discuss and contribute to it. Feel free to open a section for each point if you need more space to discuss it.

To Asdfg12345: I think it's quite enough if you let each editors actions speak for themselves, I don't think you need to make any additional labeling, because everything is quite obvious anyway.

--HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

All of these changes are not made by me. As I have said above, I made several very minor changes to the sentence and structuring, which is not among these points you listed and which I have explained. I am in no way endorsing either side, and there is no need to repeat this accusation. Is that first and foremost clear?
I made an "absolute revert" simply because most of those points are already being discussed. Keep in mind that I did not make any of those changes you listed and thus I can call myself a neutral contributor here. I also have few opinions to offer at this moment at the various points made - I'm not an active contributor to this article. The first thing I want in this dispute is reasonable discussion, and that's what Asdfg didn't do when he made all his edits. He simply filled in the talk page with accusations of being CCP agents and "totally devoid of...human conscience" as I have quoted before. These are not attempts at discussion, and there is no reason I should treat it as such while Asdfg absolutely ignores the discussion. If Asdfg or any of the users agreeing with him revert again, however, I will not revert again, simply to prevent a revert war. If that happens, I, with good will, asks for you to revert his edits yourself while the discussion goes on - again, for the sake of discussion. Is that possible? Herunar (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Note - I just realized I added the fourth point. Okay, I'll explain that. That statement was directly against the claim that his evidence "has not been refuted", so this is not a statement against the claim of organ harvesting, but against the claim that the evidence has not been refuted. That is, if there is any one agency who disagreed with the report, even if there are a hundred agencies who agreed with it, its evidence has still "been refuted" - not that its true, but there are those who disagree with it. I'm quite sure some disagree with his evidence; the wording is not clear so a definite judgment could not be made, but I'm positive that the CRG report could be said to have refuted at least some of the claims - thus discrediting the evidence, which is the same thing. I feel this has to be explained. If anything could bring up a more accurate wording, fine. For the fifth point, there was no change made regarding your concern. I simply changed the wording, and the source and claim was there from the start. By the way, your conclusion based on your simple speculation that they are "trying to make up for their mistake" is completely, completely unacceptable speculation to me. Do you understand that? Herunar (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer.
  • Please take a look to the definition of the word refuted: [24], you will notice that refuted actually means that they have proven that it is incorrect. This never did actually occur. For example could you provide a source where they proven that any of the evidence is false? There are 33 points of circumstantial evidence[25], which when all of them are considered are becoming extremely compelling. So you said: ‘but I'm positive that the CRG report could be said to have refuted at least some of the claims - thus discrediting the evidence’ well we need to see which claims were refuted, but then again even if parts of the claims where refuted it does not mean that all of the claims/evidences where refuted. Which means that we can not make a statement like the allegations of organ harvesting are false. Such an attempt was made by PRC which stated that the name of 2 provinces were misplaced so the whole report must be false. That is just pushing an agenda, that is not logic, I hope you can see that.
  • When I said "trying to make up for their mistake" I meant it as a personal opinion, I would not dream to put this in the article. Still, I do believe that we need to report a compilation of what they said, not just take one article as their official view, when infact there are many articles, which show's in the least that they are not definitive about this thing either.
  • Please let me know which one of the 9 points you think we have an agreement, so we can put those in the article, and also we then know which one's we still need to talk about.
Thank You --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the dictionary you cited gives a second definition - "To deny the accuracy or truth of". I'm positive that when they made that claim, they meant that nobody had argued to the contrary, not that nobody have proven them to be wrong. If somebody had proven them to be wrong, their whole report is discredited and thus there is no point in making that claim anyway, i.e. they make that claim to highlight the fact that no one had even tried to dispute their evidence. However, the wording is unclear, so again you may be right. Perhaps we can change the wording to something like "However, there have been disputes over the consistency of the report", etc.
Yes, you meant it as a personal opinion, and you used it to make a conclusion that you eventually believes could led to changes in the article - which is not acceptable. There must be no personal opinions or speculation whatsoever in whichever part of your analysis process.
My edits did not concern the other seven points, so I'll wait for the other two users to comment on them. Herunar (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
For the seventh point, I made part of that edit. Well, the fact is that the United States Congress has one of the most powerful and renowned research group in the whole world. Do you dispute that? No, the United States Congress is notable. It represents the United States and thus the view of a whole country. The notability is not disputed and obvious. The case for the two Canadian lawyers are otherwise - some have disputed their importance, some have asserted it. I'm not part of that discussion but it is clear which's notability is obvious and which isn't. There's a very, very large difference. Herunar (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
ASDFG just reverted again. This is tiring. HappyInGeneral, may I ask you to show your goodwill by reverting that edit? This is going nowhere. I won't revert but I cannot prevent others from doing so. Herunar (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
And what's even more, he actually used TW to revert that edit.Herunar (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify something. I never said you were devoid of conscience, Herunar. This was the sentence: "Anyone apologising for the CCP these days either must be totally devoid of compassion, upright thoughts, and human conscience, or simply be far too ignorant to understand the current crisis in China." And I didn't even say the word "agent" once. It's also very unfair to do blank reverts like you did earlier. For the current version of the page, that is this: [26], can you please put in point form the things you would like changed on it. This is about the base page that was like this before the cultic stuff got added. Um, also, I will try to not make any kind of even remotely personal remarks from now on. In these situations I feel concerned for people who apologise for the brutality going on in China, so I will make some remarks directed toward that person. My purpose is good, and I am trying to do a good thing, but maybe because of some impure thoughts the result will not always be excellent. I apologise for this, and I will not make any more remarks not directly related to the content of the pages, sources, and policy. I also resent distortion of secondary sources, and I found those modifications of the secondary material very disappointing, so my comments reflected my frustration. Moving forward, please list the problems with the above version so we can discuss, form consensus, and institute the appropriate changes.--Asdfg12345 14:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You claimed that anyone apologising for the CCP must be totally devoid of conscience - I don't actually understand why you made this statement as all. Even if it wasn't an attack on me or any other user, it is completely unnecessary. I understand that users all have frustrations editing in Wikipedia, but keep in mind that this is a collaborative project - we are all contributors here, and there is no you or me. This must be very clear to all users.
I reverted simply because I am a neutral contributor for most of the points made. I have no opinions for most of them - except for the parts that I have already explained above - and I don't see how these edits are helping a discussion. Both you and other users have made quite a lot of edits that are already being discussed - this is not necessary. I do not claim to disagree with those edits, I simply wish for a discussion to be made. Herunar (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh I hadn't seen this one. I'm just about to close wiki and not reopen for a while. Umm, the reason I made this statement was because I think it is true, and for those people who are not clear on what is going on in China but who sympathise with the CCP, I thought it might help to hear some strong words like this. Then they might think "well, I have conscience", and then want to check out what is happening in more depth. I don't think there are many people who, if understanding the extremely nasty and brutal way the CCP treats people, who would feel that is normal and be happy with it. Not many people are like that. I say to be like that means you have no conscience. Anyway, you are right that it is beside the point and unnecessary. Efforts to help someone who may not fully understand the current situation in China may be better made on talk page with some links to topical issues. --Asdfg12345 15:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes because there were deletions of relevant, sourced material (Li Hongzhi quote, Xinhua quote), plus the cultism stuff and the blatant distortions of secondary sources (CS monitor and CRS). I simply won't cooperate with this kind of editing from you guys. I've always played along with this when I've edited the pages, but at this point I know I am in the right for not putting up with it, and I won't put up with it. What you are doing clearly violates wikipedia content policies, and it's wrong.--Asdfg12345 14:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

First - calm down. Temper never helps in decisions. I stress that I did not make that edit, and that we are not "we guys", we are all contributors with different opinions, and, I hope, none of us have an agenda here. A point here - what makes a source a distortion, and what makes a source relevant? Is that not entirely your own opinion? I don't see how this clearly violates Wikipedia's policies, but since these are not my edits I won't engage in this discussion. Herunar (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Like I predicted, two users are now engaged in a revert war. Herunar (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I havn't lost my temper. I have written in a firm tone, but there's nothing wrong with that. Also, you are responsible for the distortion of secondary sources I refer to. I will copy what I wrote above, but now with the sources actual text:

  • One is changing the sentence "The Christian Science Monitor states that the report's evidence is circumstantial but persuasive." to "The Christian Science Monitor states that the report's evidence is circumstantial." -- the actual source says: "The report's evidence is circumstantial, but persuasive."[27]
  • The other is changing "A Congressional Research Service report says that the reports’s key allegations appear to be inconsistent with the findings of other investigations." to "Many notable agencies, including the Congressional Research Service of the United States Congress, concluded the key allegations to be inconsistent." -- the source says: "Although many claims and arguments in the Kilgour-Matas report are widely accepted by international human rights experts, some of the reports’s key allegations appear to be inconsistent with the findings of other investigations"

This is what I mean. It's a problem to selectively delete words from something cited to a source in order to change the meaning.--Asdfg12345 14:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This is disruptive editing, by the way, what Fennessy is doing. I really dont' have time to deal with this right now. --Asdfg12345 14:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You have gone over the 3RR, and you could get blocked right at this moment if an admin decides to intervene. Do you understand that? I'm trying to persuade other users not to take action but frankly this is none of my business. If you continue to do what you are doing now, you will get blocked and if you continue after the block, I'll have to appeal to the community for the sake of Wikipedia and other users here, and there is a significant possibility, in my assessment, that you will get banned from editing this article. This is honestly what I see in this situation, no matter what you believe. And I would like to ask you to listen, right now, very clearly, to what I am going to say.
This dispute has far exceeded the original content dispute, which is a tricky matter but which is not that difficult to solve. Your decision to attack and label other users in extremely bad faith is accelerating this content dispute into a significant case that requires admin attention - and bythe way, you did label another user as a "CCP agent" - search for the word in the talk page, you will find it. I quote a famous Classical Chinese text - "Calm your heart and measure yourself, is there really no fault at all?" I do not agree with the actions of Fennessy in this matter, but what you are doing is far exceeding his faults.
I do not say this because I am involved in this dispute. I say this because I am a contributor, I want to make this article something cool, something that can be read. If you are still willing to listen to me, I advise you to go out, wherever you are, sit down somewhere and take a deep breath. Think about it. Herunar (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
What? All I did was make one revert on the article, that was my only edit today. Meanwhile you have thrown caution(& reason) to the wind & gone way over the 3 revert rule to project a POV. ʄ!•¿talk? 15:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh I see the "CCP agent" accusation. I wonder if you saw the edit it referred to. That was a while ago, I don't think referring to anyone here. I haven't attacked or labeled anyone here. All I've done actually is revert a lot of unreasonable edits to the page. These have been totally disputed, and instead of seeking discussion they were pushed through. So I reverted them. They contain spelling errors also, deletion of sourced material, distortion of secondary sources, etc.. I don't have time to go through and review this dif: [28], and point out all the problems and violations of editorial conduct--deleting the Xinhua and Li Hongzhi stuff for example, what reason is there for that? The only thing I have done wrong is exceed 3RR apparently, though I didn't noticed this, or would not have done it. I attempted discussion on the dispute I reverted, but my arguments weren't really responded to. Anyway, I only saw your note just now, so this time I really got to go. By the way, thanks for that quote! This is very good. I really agree. I get flustered by this kind of thing too easily. Maybe I should take a more measured approach and let the rubbish disputed content stay on the page for a day or something, and only if no explanation is forthcoming delete it before reverting. One thing I might point out is that in the past, this kind of thing has happened frequently, and bad edits, distortion of secondary material, deleting sourced content and so on, so it's a frustrating process to have to deal with this kind of thing. One tends to adopt a more rough and ready response. Anyway, thanks. --Asdfg12345 15:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad that you're willing to make some amends, but your attitude is still troubling, at best. Sure, you didn't accuse any of us of being a "CCP agent" - does that make it right to do so against other users? No. It's absolutely, absolutely wrong. I don't give a damn whether or not anyone called me a CCP agent, but I have to point this out to you as its very offending and definitely unnecessary.
Back to the content, then - What I saw in the edit history was a series of edits, both by you and by Fennessy (and some minor ones by me). You two then proceeded to counterrevert each other, while Ohconfucius made some attempts at discussion in this talk page over those issues. Now, I'm not here to judge whoever began the edits and the edit war, but it is absolutely important to keep in mind that other users can think the same way about you. What prevents other users from seeing your materials as distorted, as rubbish, as ridiculous? You really can't make a judgement until the issue has been peacefully discussed, without using your own personal opinions as the bases of your judgement. If you want my opinion, I personally support Fennessy's edits over yours. I believe he has made his point more via logic, while you based yours more on personal feelings despite a will to follow Wikipedia policies. But again, I'm not going to take sides in these content dispute yet, except the minor edits made by me - which you claim to be "distorted". I have explained them above and I really don't see a problem. It's midnight here, so I'll be off. Thanks. Herunar (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That's just my mistake then, calling another user a CCP agent. I would apologise to that person if the opportunity presented itself. As for everything else, I would hope that an objective scrutiny of the changes in question would pretty much explain everything. I don't like this accusatory role I have adopted right now--I was just about to point a big finger at you and ask how you see no problem with those modifications to the secondary sources--*sigh*. My day is more-or-less just starting, set back too long by this, so I'll be off to join it now too. Thanks for your time.--Asdfg12345 15:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a mistake here. A personal attack is rarely a mistake. A series of personal attacks, extreme bad faith and lack of goodwill to other users is never a mistake. This is a serious problem which needs to be fixed. And no, it's not a single incident, nor is it simply a dispute over content. Throughout your recent comments you have, intentionally or not, labelled other users as "ignorant" and "devoid of human conscience". The archives reveal further personal attacks and discussion on users based not on their edits but on their person, and accusations of sockpuppets based on no evidence. With this behavior you and others have caused at least three very constructive users I know to give up on the page after hours of fruitless discussion. Personally, I know you are a pleasant character. But let me just make it clear - your behavior in Wikipedia is making a large number of constructive users uncomfortable, and if you don't change it right from the roots, it gives me a necessity to bring this into a community case. Is that understood? Herunar (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I notice, if I may, that you find extreme pleasure in intimidating people (because you react as if to void air to apologizes and the show of good will). At the same time you are preaching about wikipedia policies and code of conduct ... Perhaps you should read them again. :) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not intimidate. I speak the facts. So before you accuse me of speaking to void air, let me tell you something: If I want to get you banned, I could do so right now. No admin would allow such behavior, and it is I who persuaded two admins not to take action against Asdfg. Yes, Asdfg has shown wills to make amends, but he has not done so and that is very far from enough. Apologies are useless in the face of increased attacks. I repeat that I am not the sort who likes playing tit-for-tat with other users. I am concerned in this situation, more than ever before, and I would like you not to doubt for one second that the community will agree with me. Herunar (talk) 09:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
"I do not intimidate." really, how many times do you need to tell somebody that "If I want to get you banned, I could do so right now." before it counts as a threat, aka. intimidation? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your input, Herunar. I appreciate that. I did not realise that I was creating an ill impression or behaving in a negative or off-putting way. It is important for me to know this kind of thing, and I will try to take what you are saying on board. I would not want to be that kind of person. I have good intentions in what I do. The context for these pages is a little dense. Recently one new editor (user:Majontomorrow) was found to have been a sockpuppet of user:Samuel Luo, who has constantly harassed these pages, both before and after he was banned by ArbCom. Even when the checkuser was being run, he still wrote "This is ridiculous! ... " and denied it etc., so getting down to do normal editing has sometimes been difficult. I did not even suspect that user of being a sock of Samuel, which I now see was quite naive of me. Anyway, there is a lot of truth in the things you say. This is the final thing then: 向內找。I have good ideas to engage with what I perceive as difficult editing, and strategies to avoid revert wars, so I will stick to this in future when faced with these cases, and I will be more measured in what I directly or indirectly say about other editors. This is important also. Happy editing.--Asdfg12345 22:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Exposing the Lies of "Falun Gong" Cult". Embassy of the People's Republic of China in the United States. Retrieved 12 January. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Brian Abeda, How Falun Gong Reached the Media Over Organ Harvesting, Embassy, July 12 2006, accessed 31/12/07.
  3. ^ Gayle M.B. Hanson, China Shaken by Mass Meditation - meditation movement Falun Gong, Insight on the News, August 23 1999, accessed 31/12/07
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_24&oldid=1278580639"