Jump to content

Talk:History of Falun Gong/Archive 2

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

Sources & NPOV tag

Editors who camp on this article (notably asdfg12345) continue to insist that FLG-related sources like Clearwisdom, Epoch Times, etc. are "reliable" while all Chinese government sources are branded as propaganda - even if they are used in a context to only present the Chinese government's view without making any kind of moral judgment. The selective POV-pushing is very obvious. Colipon+(T) 17:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is clearly disputed, just like every other article about Falun Gong. I will restore the NPOV tag. A wide array of users report NPOV issues and it is ridiculous that some users continue to remove the tag. Colipon+(T) 17:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you give concrete examples? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


Colipon, you've been carrying on this campaign of slander against editors and attack on pages whose highly sourced content contradicts your personal POV, under a banner of "NPOV", for a while now. Every single line here is sourced - to the most reliable of sources in the Western academia and Human Rights community. The perspectives presented are but the perspective of these sources. You work up a ruckus on these pages under a banner of "NPOV" - while your history shows you have been a strong supporter of "Samuel Luo" - the most disruptive of editors to ever visit these pages, who was banned for life, and then continued to disrupt the pages through socks. I suggest you kindly avoid personal attacks on users, refrain from presenting obviously distorted views, etc. Western academica has commented on Falun Gong human rights related sources as being reliable ( ref: Ownby ). That said, these pages do not rely on primary sources related to Falun Gong - as you may verify for yourself by going through the list of references. Dilip rajeev (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

In all honesty, that was just terribly offensive. Colipon+(T) 04:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree. User:Dilip rajeev, we are all trying to calm down a little and work together with a moderator to resolve these issues, perhaps you should join us? Irbisgreif (talk) 04:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
How funny is that the only thing you can say is that you think that what Dilip said is offensive? But then how would you characterize your own agenda pushing, which is based on nothing more then thin air and lots of POV? Anyway, the point is that the NPOV tag can not stay there indefinitely. We do welcome third party assessment on it, but after that it must come down even if you don't personally like that. At this point I would like to ask the mediator to advise us on how to proceed with this issue. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Two wrongs doesn't make a right--PCPP (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop launching personal accusations back and forth. It is not only that this topic area is on probation or that such personal comments can rewarded with sanctions, though editors in the area should bear both in mind. It is that such comments worsen the situation and destroy the chance for a calm and collaborative environment, making it impossible to follow the normal means of reaching consensus. I implore all of you to refocus your energies more productively and cooperatively. Please take the principles outlined by ArbCom to heart and do your best to avoid the common issues plaguing this topic area. If discussion does not stop going around in the same destructive and disruptive circles, no movement forward on the content will be made and the likely result is that editors on all sides of the debate will receive harsh sanctions as the administrators and community will have no other choice.

That all said, let me address the matter of the dispute over the tags. Honestly, it is a trivial matter what tags get placed on the article. Arguing over them while much more serious content issues remain in dispute is extremely counterproductive, especially when accompanied by accusatory and personal statements. It is arguing over the color of the shed in a mean-spirited fashion. Disputes obviously exist in this topic area and what particular tag is used to illustrate is meaningless in the long run. It has no real impact on reaching an agreement about the content. We need to discuss the content disagreements to reach a consensus, not debate about whether or how we should mark the disagreement.

Please take a step back and recollect your thoughts. Focus on productive and respectful discussion. Express your concerns or support regarding the current version of the article clearly, succinctly, and politely. If a disagreement cannot be resolved through some civil discussion, please seek outside input from the content noticeboards, requests for comment, or some other resolution orientated avenue. If you leave me a message on my talk page, I will be glad to help recommend the appropriate venue and craft a neutral request for feedback and assistance. --Vassyana (talk) 10:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

  • In my experience, one user in particular takes great exception when non-FG devotees edit this article. There has been a long history of unchecked edit warring by same from some time since probably before the case came before Arbcom. Reverts are usually very provocatively done - blind and wholescale, often destroying many intervening edits which have accurate and well-reasoned edit summaries - and any ensuing discussion makes clear that the user is always 'right' and anyone who opposes him 'wrong'. Anything which is sourced from sources he approves of have a right to stay and any sources he disapproves of are "CCP propaganda" or somesuch. It is not only that he is completely blindly partisan, but often expresses points of view which are unique; his style and content introduced have been frowned upon from time to time by another FG practitioner.

    I completely understand the frustration in the discussion above about the placing of tags - I believe it is highly symbolic in that the said user refuses to accept the article is a complete piece of FG propaganda unfitting of WP, and that users wishing to draw attention to this bias have few editing options because any changes they make are swiftly reverted. Up till recently, the said user has edited only FG articles, but now has broadened to include his scientific area of interest. Perhaps rather ironically, he appears to have created a considerable stir elsewhere, but this time anti-cult, at Sathya Sai Baba - he edits there as Inactive user account 001 (talk · contribs). The uncollaborative ambiance created by this one user through his intolerant ownership of this article is the reason why I stopped editing here. Until this editor is banned, I will not be returning. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

100% agree with OhConfucius. Could not have said it better myself. Vassyana, what is the correct procedure for reporting these problematic users? Colipon+(T) 05:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't frankly know. I and a few others have made a ruckus about this in the past, but despite the probation placed on the articles by Arbcom, there has never been any serious or consistent effort to police them. Any action which comes is generally too little too late. This explains why this family of articles is like what it is like, and why I am done editing here. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
That is just really, really sad. Not very encouraging. Here I was thinking that something could still be done... Colipon+(T) 02:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I would add that the said user often disappears for months on end, only to find the incremental changes to the article during the time he was away not to his liking. From my recollection, he will then find the last version he has validated and restores it. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
To me it is very clear that the only solution is to ban some users. Nothing else seems to work. Colipon+(T) 03:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

My 2 cents. Currently the article is a mess of quotes and opinions bashing the PRC government. Any asshole can have an opinion on FLG and the PRC government but that doesn't mean we should report them all. This article should focus on the reported events leading up and following the crackdown of FLG. Use avaliable media sources eg TIME, CNN, BBC etc to report facts, as well as Xinhua and Clearwisdom on the views of the PRC and FLG respectively. The views of Johnson and others remain opinions - their claims should be sourced to identify that they are views not facts. Their opinions, when needed, should be summarized and to the point. Let the reader decide please.--PCPP (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Using available media sources is no problem. However, the bulk of the article should consist of academic sources instead of newspapers. Also, please refrain from using vulgar language. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I think PCPP's suggestion is relatively reasonable. I'd agree with Olaf on the profanities part though. That said, I just don't see this whole obsession with academia to be justified. I am not opposed to using academic sources, but this does not mean that news sources should now somehow be relegated to the background or to non-existence. Colipon+(T) 12:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Whilst some may object to use of the word 'asshole' above, I believe it was entirely appropriate under the circumstances. There was no breach of WP:CIVIL in that it was not directed at any other contributor, and it was merely a rhetorical sigh of frustration of editing this family of articles which PCPP has undoubtedly experienced. To be clear, I am not referring to Olaf, with whom I have had few if any prior dealings. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The mediator said, "Reliable sources, especially academic/scholarly sources, are underused and often selectively chosen. The former is especially true of good overview sources that place Falun Gong in a broader context of new religious movements, Chinese religion, and so forth." I don't see why we shouldn't increase the proportion of such sources in all Falun Gong related articles. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think that statement was included because of the remarkable dearth of academic and scholarly sources yet used, particularly when there are so far as I remember about 100 or more articles on Falun Gong in JSTOR. We could and should add any material which can be found in those articles to the relevant articles here, but that does not mean that relevant material relating to the subject which are found in newspapers and other reliable sources shouldn't be included, particularly if that material is of compartively high importance to the article. John Carter (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Even reading through David Ownby's works, who is referenced to death in these articles, I found that the quotes and material to be extremely selective (the material selected seem to suspiciously reflect only positive things about FLG). For example, Ownby calls Falun Gong "undoubtedly controversial" right off the bat in his essay, he does a very fine job of portraying FLG in the context of other qigong forms and also highlights Li's supernatural claims as well as "scientism" - making claims related to science in order to legitimize the FLG doctrine. None of this is presented in the article at all. Colipon+(T) 17:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Review by uninvolved editor Snowded

Comments moved to main Falun Gong talk page, entered here in error (sorry). Thanks for comment Mrund --Snowded TALK 21:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well done! You're exactly the kind of person the various FG articles need to get into shape. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Revert this article

A mass improvement drive is under way for all FLG-related articles. A good approach would be to revert to this revision. It is likely the closest the article ever got to conforming to WP:NPOV. I would suggest reverting soon to replace the sorry state that the article is in now. Colipon+(Talk) 04:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

now I get it. Then Ohconfucius went ahead and did so. I noticed again there was no discussion. There's no question that the article needs improvements, but I question whether large-scale reverts without any discussion is the best way to proceed. In some of these cases, dozens of kilobytes of text has actually just been deleted. In many cases this could just be cleaned up, trimmed down, and tightened... instead of simply deleted. It's quite time-consuming to pick through diffs like this in an attempt to establish what was changed and what was simply lost. --Asdfg12345 15:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW: can we make a gentleman's agreement? It's basically to, when deleting anything, do it in one step, so it's clear that something was removed. Example: you want to rearrange a section, delete some parts, rewrite some parts, move some parts up and others down. First just delete the parts you think should be deleted, then carry on as usual with the rearrangements. This way it will be clear what was actually taken from the article and what was merely changed. That's it. Hope I expressed this concept clearly.--Asdfg12345 16:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Another note: since the lede is an important part of the article, I am reverting it back to how it was before. I am of the belief that we should discuss large changes like that. I don't disagree with much of it, from what I can see (and I am pleased with the overall efforts to improve the page, and I'm not saying this sarcastically), but whoops. I only changed the start sentence I think. --Asdfg12345 17:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Final assessment, just in the interest of giving credit where credit is due: good changes, welcome changes, changes which improve the article.--Asdfg12345 17:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I took some text from a previous version which both of us had worked on, replacing some of the more pointed material which had superseded. However, looking back at the efforts yesterday, I realised that it looks a bit of a hatchet job. I have started some combing through the finer details today. I aim to take this where we left off, and get it to Featured Article level. It can be done, but probably with still quite a lot of effort. It's a complex topic, but should be less of a challenge without unproductive sniping from the sidelines. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I still don't know how to take you sometimes.--Asdfg12345 20:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OhConfucius really wants to make the article better and more neutral. That is how to take him.Simonm223 (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I do cleanups, and like you, I'm not afraid to remove large quantities of text which are not relevant or compliant with WP policies and guidelines. I believe that if there's something worth saying, it's worth being brief and to the point. We are here to write an encyclopaedia, not a novel.

There are plenty of articles out there which have grown organically, through different editors dumping text in. I take all the content, sift through it, review what the sources are and what they say, rework it, giving it structure and focus. I treat all articles alike, regardless of whether they are of controversial topics or no. I'm not only interested about Falun Gong, and I'm not interested in partisan bickering - that's the reason why I stopped editing FG articles. my record speaks for itself. That's how to take me. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

stuff to review

just putting some difs here that will be useful to take a look at later, like, to re-incorporate the info in a quicker way, or just for reference. This can be a subpage kinda thing at some point.

[1]--Asdfg12345 17:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Gao Rongrong's image

Is the issue that we are not sure of the copyright status, or the representation? Clarification: appreciated.--Asdfg12345 20:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

btw, I looked at every diff just now and somehow agree with all of them! what's going on?! (except maybe Colipon's date linking, which just isn't cool)--Asdfg12345 20:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems to coincide is better than coincides as correlation does not equate to causality. Coincide suggests causality while seems to coincide allows for greater ambiguity while not denying the possibility of correlation.Simonm223 (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The parenthetical was actually a joke. Confucius is a longtime campaigner against date linking. The 'seems to coincide' or 'coincides' is neither here nor there, for me. The best would be "seems to coincide, according to Nowak" or "coincides, according to Nowak" -- where it clarifies what the source himself has said rather than leaving that ambiguous, right? Haven't checked the source though.--Asdfg12345 21:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what it is that asdfg is trying to get across. If the question deals with why Gao Rongrong's image should not be on the page - this issue has been discussed earlier. It is very sensationalistic, POV-pushing and does not belong on an encyclopedia. Colipon+(Talk) 22:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you please direct me to the discussion? How is the image sensationalistic, and what point of view does it push?--Asdfg12345 22:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It's over at "organ harvesting" talk page. Colipon+(Talk) 22:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

610 office

The article cites Kilgour & Matas as sources about the establishment of the outfit. Seeing that they were in no position to know this, and was not even involved in FG matters at the time, they could only have known about it second, third or fourth hand. Perhaps it would be better to have more credible, direct sources. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources in Zhongnanhai

I deleted a paragraph there about the Chinese Overseas Press reporting something. The sources listed are Julia Ching, apparently writing in a single Overseas Chinese publication and some random masters student's thesis. I don't believe the latter is a notable source and I don't think Ching counts as the entirety of the Overseas Chinese Press. I can understand that if these allegations are notable their inclusion is valid but as it was the language surrounding the allegations was vague to the point that it could mislead the reader into suggesting that all Overseas Chinese publications were saying the same thing about what happened then. This is not something confirmed by two sources, one of which is highly dubious.Simonm223 (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

  • That was a very strange paragraph when I tried to unwind the citation. The article originally cited the World Journal, but I read the Porter thesis and found that that citation was verbatim from Ching quoting the Chinese overseas press. Academics often write like that, but perhaps it's a bit too convoluted for Wikipedia. Incidentally, I also found a few copyright violations, which I straightened out. Do what you must with that text. I was only going through the various sources checking the facts in this phase. There is so much superfluous detail that the culling was going to follow. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
So is Ching the only source then? Does she cite a source for her claim?Simonm223 (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Anyone have the url to the paper, or the paper itself? Ohconfucius (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The link in the references section doesn't lead to the paper.Simonm223 (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Julia Ching? I might be able to find that. Also, please see this.--Asdfg12345 18:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No actually we meant the master's student. You know what I'm going to say about yet another Kilgour link. Simonm223 (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Noah Porter (Masters thesis for the University of South Florida), Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study, 2003

Schechter

Reference 28 in the article <ref name=schechter>p. 28</ref> is not a proper nor complete citation. It would be great if someone could complete it with the url for verification purposes. I am already on record as saying Schechter is a partisan source. I would employ Dilip's argument (somewhat facetiously) that tabloid journalists are not serious academics, and argue that his writing deserves more careful evaluation and scrutiny, if not outright removal. Ohconfucius (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

How is he a tabloid journalist? You can't just remove a source cause you think the guy's a crock. People who are highly respected are not necessarily good, and good people are not necessarily highly respected. It's all related to what we can actually prove out with other reliable sources. I thought the fellow had quite a lot of credentials. The constant character assassination and source-second-guessing that happens on these pages is a little out of hand sometimes, don't you think? Anyway, maybe it's the only way when people push Rick Ross. havingwritten a book in itself bestows some kind of usefulness. I understand he also makes movies and stuff. TBH I don't see the big deal. Maybe he's overused though, I haven't read the article for a long time. I should stop commenting and edit more.--Asdfg12345 18:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

POV Tag

Several of us feel that the article has an undue POV, please leave the tag in place until the matter is resolved. There is some use of passive voice (normally it is liked by me) that seems a bit irresponsible. Make sure you don't destroy 'who' thinks something by saying "it is thought...". This is the reason for the weasel tag, and I don't suspect bad faith on the use of the passive voice. Voicing is a complex subject and I am aware of it's many implications. Finally, this /is/ a current event, is it not? As such, the current event tag seems quite appropriate, and noncontroversial, I'd think. Irbisgreif (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag has been removed again by dilip. I'm honestly surprised an editor like dilip is still able to take free rein on these articles. He looks like an SPA, has a known history of edit wars, has been banned, had nurtured sockpuppets, there's even a critical blog written about him. He's being constantly reported as a problem user. This is absurd. Colipon+(T) 04:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Get together some evidence and report the account then, I don't see why it's 'okay' to remove a tag when there /is/ a dispute. Whatever we might think about everyone involved in the dispute. Irbisgreif (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I honestly just don't have to time to keep track of all of these disruptions. Just look at this: [2]. Every time someone comes in and inserts these POV statements, removes tags etc., it takes about ten times as much energy to keep watch than it is for them to come in and do their reverts. It's tremendous stress. Colipon+(T) 04:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I've asked an admin to take a look. And after seeing this guy, I feel much more like working with Happy and Olaf, who thankfully know how to behave. Irbisgreif (talk) 04:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The request was denied. I think we'll have to bring it up on [[3]]. Would you be willing to do this? Irbisgreif (talk) 04:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I also added a notice here User_talk:Vassyana#Persecution_of_Falun_Gong.2C_NPOV_tag.2C_please_advise hope this will help. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please point out which part of this article has a POV, so it can be changed into more desirable descriptions. Many thanks! Mootros (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I looks like the neutrality of article is not discussed any longer. I have asked to establish the what alleged points of view are that infringe the neutrality of this article. However, this has NOT been possible to find out. Instead what has been possible to establish, is that this article still needs some major reworking. I therefore change the tag accordingly. Mootros (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
In case you haven't noticed, editors are starting to work on the problems. If you feel you are in a position to neutralise the article, please be bold, and do so. Otherwise, comments like yours above does not appear all that helpful in solving our problems. If, however, you have concluded after reading the article that all it now needs is a cleanup, then I apologise for having reverted your cleanup tag in favour of the NPOV tag which was there. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I thought that what it needs a cleanup. Where is the PVO? Which part is discussed? I think, it is rather messy than lacking neutrality through some POV slant. Mootros (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

'Reports of psychiatric torture' section

Reading the content of the above in context of the whole article, I contend that it is too windy and esoteric for our purposes here. The entire section is convoluted gobbledegook. I would say that it privileges two sources only. The arguments completely one-sided, and should be pared down and rewritten. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm really looking forward to when I will have time to read through everything and give it a big assessment. For now I can only say that as long as it's in good faith, you should make those changes that you see fit to improve the article. Err on the side of condensing/neutralising rather than "oh, this is badly worded, BALETED!" But the key information and claims and studies should get across in the quickest way possible, removing the bloat, but keeping the meat.--Asdfg12345 18:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at this article more carefully tomorrow, but I'm a little concerned with the use of Kavan to kick off the whole background section. She gives quite a... shall we say "unique" interpretation to Falun Gong's reception in China in the early years. I'm not saying she should not be quoted, but using a single source like that to orient the entire issue seems quite out of order. Anyway, historically on these pages we've had our fair share of undue pro-Falun Gong sentiments, so I guess I understand. Let's just try to keep it professional.--Asdfg12345 02:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I see that she was quoting Deng and Fang--that's a bit of a joke. We need to be careful and specific with this kind of thing.--Asdfg12345 03:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

  • FG argues that He Zuoxiu is an agent provocateur, yet the obverse that he was merely the red rag to the bull are merely caricatures of the persecution timeline. Well, the persecution didn't happen overnight, and the FG way of reporting how it was due only to two incidents linked to He Zuoxiu is a bit implausible or simplistic. That these hundreds of appeals occurred is not all that well known, but does not seem to be a matter of contention. Therefore, kicking off with Kavan, who sets the scene about there having been hundreds of 'appeals' over the years by practitioners for fair treatment and right of reply, and how it escalated over the years seems to make sense. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, I will have nothing to complain about when the best sources are used. Deng and Fang just aren't. I understand what you mean, of course it is more complex. Did you read Gutmann's piece, "An Occurence on Fuyou Street"? You will be able to find it online. I think the article will do better with these different narratives in there--Asdfg12345 03:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Consensus still exists for indefinite semiprotection due to the controversial nature of the subject. --TS 05:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This article has been semiprotected for a couple of years now, and I wonder if that is still necessary. I welcome opinions from regular editors, and have also tracked down the apparent protecting admin, User:YellowMonkey, and have invited him to comment here. --TS 18:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

  • My view is that all Falun Gong articles should be semi-protected indefinitely, as they are frequently a battleground between Communist Party supporters and Falun Gong activists. They have a very high potential of disruptive editing from both sides. Colipon+(Talk) 18:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Colipon here, particularly considering that the pages are also under ArbCom sanctions, which would make it more appealing to someone who really wanted his or her own way here to do a lot of edits quickly as an IP to avoid having their regular username directly tied to the edits. John Carter (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Yepp, keep it protected. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
This looks like a pretty solid consensus to keep the status quo. Thanks for your comments. --TS 02:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks like it's already been decided but I'm with you on the semi-protection; this is just too controversial. Cazort (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sourcing: mostly not independent!!!

I would like to raise the concern that, while this article appears to be well-sourced, many of the sources are not independent--i.e. they rely on sites like faluninfo.net or clearwisdom.net which have a clear interest in promoting Falun Gong. For example, the first sentence reads "Falun Gong...had between 70 and 100 million followers by 1999." but the only source is faluninfo.net; if this source alone is to be used as a citation, the text must be written as something like "the group reports to have between..." or "...was reported by the Falun Dafa Information Center to have between..." etc. What would be better, however, would be to find indepent sources. For example, this article in the LA Times says that the claim of 100 million followers may be overstated. This is just one example of many. Some of the sourcing in the article is good but I think the article still relies too heavily on non-independent sources. Let's get on this. Cazort (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a good suggestion. However, it's not actually the sourcing that is the primary problem. The larger issue is the way the subject is presented in and of itself. A large amount of re-organization and re-writing is currently happening in all Falun Gong related articles to clear them of the POV-ridden agenda platforms that have evolved over the last two years, and more and more editors are jumping on board. The worst POV abuses have already been addressed. I would say this very article is probably now the most serious POV bruise to the Falun Gong family on Wikipedia, and have thus suggested that it be moved per reasons given above. Colipon+(Talk) 19:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I would love to work on content, but so far everything is sidetracked by the number of page mergers and renames. And unfortunately I do have a limited amount of time that I can allocate to these articles daily. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the appropriate way to deal with the issue of moving / renaming is to take individual material that is NOT about persecution, and remove it from this page and move it to the appropriate page. If, after that has been done, there is not enough material to warrant a standalone page, then maybe the page could be merged. But I am highly doubtful that this topic is not notable...it seems very solidly notable based on coverage I have seen. Cazort (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Presumably, you mean the initial 'background' section up to 'the ban'. We tried in the past to prune it down, but the FG editors always argue that the background is necessary to supply context to the persecution. It is back to the size (and more) than before I trimmed it. From this, I judge the most appropriate manner of treating this material is if this was actually part of the 'history of FG' article. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you about the background section being problematic--my concern would be that it reads like a monolithic narrative--something that is to be strongly avoided on controversial pages--that is, the individual facts may be well-sourced but the overall structure represents a particular POV. It also sounds like you're describing editing by editors with a conflict of interest, which would be a serious concern of mine. I am potentially very concerned about COI's relating both to those with an interest in Falun Gong, and those with an interest in the Chinese Government. Ideally, both of these parties should exercise great restraint when editing (or engaging in discussions) on this article. Cazort (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that that's exactly what's been tried over the past two years (to no or hardly any avail). Stick around, and you'll see how frustrating things can get here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 16:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Welcome, indeed! The good news is that there were once four Falun Gong SPAs defending the article and a maybe three or four overtly pro-CCPs. The CCP guys largely lost patience with the FG filibuster and made errors which got them banned. The tide has turned definitively. Now, the CCP supporters are background chatter. and I am optimistic that the whinging and whining from Falun Gong SPAs will go that way soon. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
If there are problematic SPA's here, it's going to be a problem until they are banned from editing certain topics or banned outright. I don't see how a move, page deletion, or even deleting certain material is going to fix the problem. If your narrative is true, then I'm confident that a ban of these accounts editing related topics would be warranted. Engaging in a "filibuster" until the "opposing side" makes mistakes that gets them banned is a clear example of Wikipedia:Gaming the system, and in my opinion, enough to warrant a ban. But I want to be cautious here...I just came into this debate and I'm not entirely convinced I agree 100% with your analysis of things. Cazort (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
It appears you may have grasped the wrong end of the stick. The filibustering is actually mainly coming from pro-FLG editors. The rest of us have made large efforts to keep moving on towards a properly referenced, neutral, set of articles on this controversial religion. As this means treating propaganda of both sides of the conflict (CCP and FLG) with equal skepticism and as the FLG editors have become accustomed to people assuming communism bad, FLG good this has invariably led to tensions.Simonm223 (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
That's very amusing: there is a FLG banner I frequently see which says "Falun Dafa good/法輪大法好" Ohconfucius (talk) 05:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Let's have this discussion between mature editors with more than about 8 FLG articles on our watchlist. I may be overstating or simplifying the problem, but that's how I genuinely perceive it. In that sense, perception is reality. I am of the view that this discussion would happen because there appears to be a WP:NPOV issue to be resolved based on the disposition and structure of the family of articles. I feel it would be taking place whether or not there are FLG SPAs in the picture. I believe the cause and effect in your hypothesis may be incorrect - I don't think the FLG disciples' necessarily filibuster to get others into trouble, but the Consensus WP works by fails to function when a 'minority of one' refuses to shut up; FLG disciples seem to be obstinate people by nature, and discussions therefore often end up going around in circles or are inconclusive. Being without the FLG SPAs merely depolarises the whole effort, eliminates the filibustering, moralising and takes the stress out. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Psychiatric abuse

I have been going through the section, and have read the academic papers written. Only Munro and Kleinman seem to be worth using. Lu and Galli is only valid to a very limited extent; Munro is overused, and Kleinman (critical of Munro) only makes a cameo appearance. It seems clear that L&G is an essay on politics which stray well outside the expertise of L&G. What is more, the sources named are predominantly Falun Gong. Therefore, I have cut back on reliance on the said source for this überbloated section. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on cutting back on relying exclusively on the Munro source and I also find that other articles are critical of it. I would want to keep the section though: there seem to be enough sources out there for a big section and it's an interesting and important topic, at least I think. Most importantly, it has context and relates to other topics. What about this perspective? [4] ? Or [5]? [6]? There are a great deal of sources here...particularly because China has a long history of using psychiatry for political purposes. For example, this source: [7] puts the treatment of Falun Gong in a historical context that begins in the cultural revolution. Cazort (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Kleinman and Stone were once cited in this article (see here, for example). Somewhere along the line, Munro, and that rather low-grade source (my opinion) Lu & Galli got front billing. Stone disappeared altogether, and Kleinman got hacked down so that all that was left was "He responds to Lee and Kleinman's doubts by saying..." I tend to agree with it all having its roots in the Cultural Revolution. FLG and the CCP are a double act, and are often mirror images of each other. They have the same paranoid mindset, the same tactics and behaviour. The Cultural Revolution shaped them both. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it's important to source statements such as "FLG and CCP are a double act"...do you have any authoritative statements drawing this analogy? Otherwise it's original research, and I think it's important to keep original research even out of talk page discussions. Colipon has also made a number of rather bold statements about Falun Gong, such as "Falun Gong's insistence...(long comment)...never gets mentioned in these articles." If these opinions are an accurate representation of reality, then I would be concerned and want to have them be represented here on the page. But where are the sources and authorities? If these are legitimate criticisms, surely there are numerous reliable sources that echo them. Cazort (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Having read upwards of fifteen academic papers on Falun Gong and having been involved extensively with editing this article for two months now I would not go around and arbitrarily utter nonsense from my mouth if it didn't have a reliable source backing it up. Colipon+(Talk) 21:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I think Cazort might be well advised to go through the archives and get up to speed on the history of this two-month long debate.Simonm223 (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The debate's actually been going since the archaic epoch of Samuel Luo. That would be a better place to start: somewhere in early 2006. But in the interest of Cazort's time, yes, the archives of this discussion would be sufficient. I think Cazort is contributing in good faith, but does lack a bit of understanding in terms of where the issue has come and where it is going. But I encourage him to offer his view. Colipon+(Talk) 22:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I have spent a great deal of time reading the archives and haven't even gotten through this whole thing...honestly, it does not look as clear-cut to me as you make it out to be. I've also done some searching on my own for sources, and turned up criticism of the organization...what do you think of the narrative contained in this article? [8], a shorter article: [9]. Yes, it starts looking like a rather loopy new-agey cult...and it also seems tied to the Epoch Times, which seem to be very biased, and also has some questionable ties (such as the reporter who unfurled a banner at the white house: [10]). But I still haven't turned up a single source (a) drawing an analogy between CCP and and Falun Gong, or (b) backing up the other bold claims about the strategy to gain sympathy in the west. Is it possible you all were exaggerating somewhat? Please if you have sources to back, do share, it's not fair to expect me to sift through the entire archives to find these myself. Thanks. Cazort (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Well there is the Kazan paper, the ombudsman's report from the CBC, certain commentary from the (usually FLG sympathetic) Ownby. All these have been mentioned, and referenced, and those are just the good sources. Borderline and unacceptable sources (Singer, Ross, etc.) make simmilar claims but have been ruled out as RSes.Simonm223 (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
What "Kazan paper"? I see nothing containing the word "Kazan" (1) cited as a source on this article or (2) on the main Falun Gong article, or (3) on this talk page or (4) in archives 1 or 2. A search for "Kazun falun gong" in google and google scholar didn't turn it up. I am asking for explicit references. I also don't know what this "ombudsman's report" is; the only CBC reference on this page is a broken link and Falun Gong doesn't contain a single source from CBC...please give me a reference so I can read it. I have already gone above and beyond digging through discussions looking for things that aren't there. This is starting to border on absurd. The claims being made are very bold and need explicit references. It is never sufficient to assert that "this has already been discussed" or assert that the sources are out there without showing them, because that can always be used to mask a fallacious argument. Show me. Cazort (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

{undent} My appologies, typo, It's Kavan. And here's a reference for you to read it:

  • Kavan, Heather (July 2008). "Falun Gong in the media: What can we believe?" (PDF). E. Tilley (Ed.) Power and Place: Refereed Proceedings of the Australian & New Zealand Communication Association Conference, Wellington. {{cite journal}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help); More than one of |work= and |journal= specified (help)Simonm223 (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I would just like to remind User:Cazort that if there is a specific phrase in the article that s/he is skeptical about, it is okay to bring it here and challenge the source's reliability, and present ideas for possible rewrites or modifications. If the doubts are purely about user comments and claims on this talk page, then it would not be particularly useful to start an RS ruckus if it is not going to directly affect the article. For example, OhConfucius' statement about CCP and FLG being a double act is not written explicitly into the article and therefore there is no need for him to produce an RS for that particular statement. Provided he is acting in good faith, he can say whatever he wants. The same applies for WP:OR. That is a policy for article content, not talk page content. Users are not levied a burden of proof to voice their opinions, so long as they do not transfer this POV to editing the article itself. Colipon+(Talk) 19:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Simon, the Kavan article was an interesting read; it provides a compelling narrative...whether or not it's an accurate analysis, I'm not 100% sure. I understand that I must seem unusually adamant here about asking for sources. My issue is not that I think people are "not allowed" to say what they want--merely that I don't find arguments with bold, unsourced assertions to be at all convincing (or constructive--because they can stir up controversy, whereas, providing sources usually calms controversy and focuses debate on key points by delineating who is advocating which POV). Cazort (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Because of the intensity of the propaganda war on both sides of this issue it is sometimes hard finding good references that aren't just PoV pieces. Kavan is about the best I've found and, coming - as I do - from a sociological background I have no issue with a participant observation research methodology.Simonm223 (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note: Kavan's analysis is most unique among all the academic analyses of this phenomenon you will find. She is, for example, the first academic I have seen which accepts the CCP's language and definitions for referring to Falun Gong. She's also one of the very few I've read which attempt to seriously downplay the persecution of the practice in China. I think a genuinely neutral analysis is Zhao's, and some of Ownby's are also great. This topic is so bizarre and complex though, I guess I ultimately recommend reading everything. When you read a couple of dozen of these 'academic X's take on Falun Gong and the CCP', though, you realise that Kavan is standing out there somewhere, between Margaret Singer and the CCP, and there are miles between she and researchers like Ownby, Zhao, and others (and they're not really pro-Falun Gong people, I just think there's far more rigour in how they support their arguments.)--Asdfg12345 08:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 12:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


Persecution of Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China → History of Falun Gong — Reading through this article two things are apparent:

  1. It is an attack article against the PRC government.
  2. It actually discusses the History of Falun Gong, but only does so from Falun Gong's perspective.

The best option right now is to neutralize the article's content, and move it to History of Falun Gong, an article that doesn't exist. If we choose to keep the article a large chunk of it actually belongs to an article titled "history", not "persecution" - a loaded term no less justifiable than the term "cult" to describe the movement. Colipon+(Talk) 12:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


  • Support Move Good idea.Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. History of FLG is a neccessary article. This article could provide a good basis for it.--Edward130603 (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, and to be honest, I am actually surprised you would suggest it. Please file something through the normal proceedings, so it gets wider community input. There are hundreds, or perhaps even thousands of sources discussing the persecution of Falun Gong. There are journal articles and newspaper articles dedicated to it, people have won journalism awards for writing about it, and there is quite a body of literature, just on this topic. A lot of it is even referenced in the article. In this context, I do not understand the reasons proposed for moving it: can you please explain how the article is an attack on the PRC govt., and how the article discusses the History of Falun Gong from only Falun Gong's perspective? Can you cite any relevant policy? I understood that notability was the standard by which articles are to be titled and made--how does what you state above fit into that?--Asdfg12345 03:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • asdfg, persecution is notable, but does not necessarily warrant to be presented only in such a way that Falun Gong wants it to be. The word "persecution" is used particularly by Falun Gong to make their plight similar to that of Jews or Baha'i, but thus far has not been nearly as successful in their cause. It is in no way more notable than an article about "History of Falun Gong", which doesn't even exist. This page serves as a good skeleton. Colipon+(Talk) 08:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I want to point out that "Persecution of Falung gong" gets 1610 google news archive hits as of today, but "history of falun gong" only gets 13. Also in google scholar persecutoin gets, history gets 180 hits, and 11 hits. This supports the argument that the Persecution of Falun Gong as a topic may actually more notable than the more general history. Cazort (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:WTA - "Some words may be used to label a group from an outside perspective, even though these words are used in accordance with a dictionary definition. Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint: that of an outsider looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral."

    I suggest writing it like this - "The banning of FLG by the Chinese government is described as a human rights violation and religious persecution by XXX and YYY [insert sources]". We should attribute the parties that use the term, but not use it as a direct label.--PCPP (talk) 08:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Then this still takes "ban" as the most accurate term. The word "ban" and the word "persecution" are very different, they have quite different meanings. The proposal isn't neutral since it still seeks to make "ban" the default term. We are basically again having the discussion about whether there is a persecution or not, and whether this is in reliable sources or not. Deja vu. This seems so silly at this point. It's not biased to say there is a persecution, it's not biased to say that Falun Gong is persecuted by the CCP. This is clear, it's evidence-based, and it's all throughout reliable sources. Do I need to dig up the sources to make this point clear? What would be considered a few definitive sources on the topic, of the (probably) hundreds that exist?--Asdfg12345 21:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I see this only happened last month. This whole conversation was had and it was shot to pieces. I feel like these discussions are wasting our time and are just getting in the way of actual editing. This person's comment was interesting:

*Strong Disagree on the grounds that an overwhelming number of articles in highly reputable sources refer to it as persecution. There appears to be a virtual consensus in mainstream media and scholarly literature that it is persecution, and I think the extremeness of the treatment makes it self-evident that it is persecution; the only sources I've ever found that have suggested otherwise have been somehow tied to the official mainland China's position. See: google news source on "Persecution of Falun Gong" with 1,340 hits, and google scholar search with 169 hits. Although some of these sources do originate with Falun Gong, the vast majority do not, and they include articles in mainstream news outlets as well as some in peer-reviewed journals. I agree with Olaf Stephanos's assessment "call a spade a spade"; I think the proposal is a very thinly-veiled attempt at sanitizing and even censoring the article, and would move the article very far away from NPOV. Cazort (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

--Asdfg12345 21:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
CommentA note, both of the oppose statements in this discussion come from Asdfg12345. If Cazort wishes to participate in this discussion he or she can do so.
  • I thought that would have been clear. The suggestion was not that he made a statement in support or opposition here, I was merely referring to a previous remark. This is just a continuance of the farce, as far as I'm concerned. We can "neutralise" the content just fine now, as long as it's according to reliable sources. Just start editing the article, or point out problems, or discuss them, or whatever.--Asdfg12345 22:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note that the news search results largely comes from the FLG mouthpice Epoch Times, and what mainstream media uses might not always be neutral according to wikipedia. And as said per WP:WTA:

"The Peoples Temple is a cult, which...", "The Ku Klux Klan is a racist organization.", "Pedophilia is a sexual perversion..." These are valid labels of the articles in question according to google and the mainstream media, but does not necessarily confirm with WP:WTA. Methods to deal with this issue include: attribute the term to reliable sources, replace the label with information, or use a more neutral term: "The Peoples Temple is an organization, described as a 'cult' by X,[1] Y,[2] and Z,[3] which...", "The Ku Klux Klan is an organization that has advocated white supremacy and anti-Semitism.","Pedophilia is a paraphilia..."--PCPP (talk) 06:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Support move - I have already indicated that I believe that this article is, effectively, a POV fork. This is not to say that the subject may not be deserving of a separate article, Also, it has been pointed out before in this thread that the article and title seem to carry a rather pronounced bias, and such bias is something we in general try to avoid. I have stated before that the primary source of material for this article may well be deserving of its own article. I also point out that this subject is, effectively, a subtopic of History of Falun Gong, and have yet, to the best of my knowledge, seen a real response to that. History of Falun Gong is the more logical immediate daughter article, and I believe that it makes sense to develop that content and title first, possibly with material from this article as required. If there remains sufficient content after all the appropriate material is placed in the logical parent articles, like, perhaps, five good paragraphs of encyclopedic material not included elsewhere, there would not necessarily, at least from me, be any objections to spinning it out. But I also have to believe that it makes more sense to develop the main topic of "history" in general first. John Carter (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Support move. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose renaming the article because this page is Notable as the persecution of Falun Gong [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], there is no need to "Neutralize" (aka destroy) it (as it was referred above), and since this is a controversial move, please take it to it's official channel see: Wikipedia:RM#Requesting_potentially_controversial_moves --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment since we are on Wikipedia here is the relevant policy:

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. It states: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

WP:Notability states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.". ... "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons."

Comment: Neutrality is a cornerstone of Wikipedia. I do not believe moving the article would destroy it and I am not advocating the deletion of the content but I wanted to point out that any article that would be destroyed through the use of neutral language has no place on wikipedia. --unsigned by Simon
I know your Point of View, and I have mine, but these are not relevant here. Can you please quote the policy where it states that something established by WP:RS is not neutral? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority.

In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. " cite of WP:UNDUE Ohconfucius (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct. And still the guideline for a title is notability. What you cite is a content policy. Do we have a content debate here that I'm not aware of? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
There's also the fact that WP:NPOV is one of the Five Pillars of WIkipedia. WP:N is not one of them, thus demonstrating the primacy of the former. I would appear that you continue to talk past me... Ohconfucius (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Again how is the "persecution" word WP:NPOV since that is how most likely the majority of WP:RS calls it, as discussed here? Also WP:V is the main policy for an article to be included. And this article is not meant to be History of Falun Gong. Again if you disagree turn to Wikipedia:RM#Requesting_potentially_controversial_moves. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Note that WP:RS states that the term should be attributed to the sources, not directly labelled as such. The al-Qaeda doesn't even directly call it a terrorist organization, but an Islamist organization labelled as terrorist by XXX and YYY.--PCPP (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

{undent} I agree with Ohconfucius but have nothing further to contribute to his argument which is solid.Simonm223 (talk) 12:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with above. No one is denying that persecution is happening and there is reliable sources to back it up, but as of now this article is mainly a platform for Falun Gong advocacy and does not have a shred of neutrality. Moving the article is not only the first step to neutralizing this content but will also be useful to give readers the greater context for the history of the movement. Colipon+(Talk) 13:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Amnesty's claims should be sourced to them, not used as a term to label the PRC government.--PCPP (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The current title clearly has significant WP:NPOV issues, but nobody's trying to deny the existence of a link of 'Persecution of Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China' to the eventual article. Human rights groups wouldn't be doing their job properly if it did not use explosive terms like 'persecution'; newspapers often use jingositical terms because they are in business to sell newspapers, but none of that means the title given here complies with NPOV. To give a very obvious example, despite widespread use of the term 'Tiananmen massacre', the article is now named 'Tiananmen Square protests of 1989'. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed with Ohconfucious that moving the article to a more neutral title does not rule out having the current title continue as a redirect to the article wherever it is, and, as has been stated before by several people now, the current title is very problematic. John Carter (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Seems to me like the title "persecution" is a lot more controversial than the neutral alternative that I now propose. And judging by the response from other members of the community, the vast majority favour such a move and present very good reasons for doing so. I do not consider this to be "controversial" in the spirit of that policy. Colipon+(Talk) 02:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

QUESTION: What is the new title proposed for Persecution of Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Colipon indicated in the first comment in this thread that the article was to be renamed History of Falun Gong, which is currently a redirect. I'm presuming that other material relevant to the subject would be added upon the renaming, and I also fixed the template at the top of the section so that it should now appear on the requested moves page. I hope. John Carter (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Colipon, "controversial" doesn't refer to how reasonable a move is considered, it's just about whether it would be disputed. This is obviously disputed. Please list it so it gets wide community input and we can thrash the issues out in an open forum. Keep in mind the standard here is what reliable sources say about the issue, and nothing to do with political sensitivities. Wikipedia is not censored etc.--Asdfg12345 21:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Funny you raise that point, asdfg. John Carter has already inserted the template onto this page so that we can get a wider range of input, so there is no need to harp incessantly on procedures. Besides which, to my understanding none of the previous moves of this page were completed with "proper procedures" that you now advocate. Where were these procedures when the page was moved to "Persecution" in the first place? If there were proper procedures then we shouldn't even be having this discussion. Colipon+(Talk) 21:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

QUESTION: Aren't Persecution of Falun Gong and History of Falun Gong two different topics? For example the persecution is ongoing so it really can not be considered history. Now since there are two different topics, I guess a new page called History of Falun Gong should be fine, and you could use for example A Chronicle of Major Events of Falun Dafa as source. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

No, they are rather closely related, because basically the persecution is only one aspect of the history of FG. Like I said elsewhere, maybe more than once, the persecution is a part of the history of FG in China, which is the largest part of the history of FG overall. As such, the content of this page which is not specifically relevant to the main source document for this article, which as I also said is probably notable enough for an article of its own, could probably reasonably be added to a history of FG article, which would also discuss the events prior to the persecution, what changes occurred to bring about the persecution, and any other recent developments. If the encyclopedic content directly relevant to this subject were of sufficient length in that article to merit spinout, then there might be reasonable cause to do so, but it would probably make sense to build the most basic articles, of which history is one, first, before trying to lay emphasis on what are, basically, subtopics within that history. John Carter (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually the persecution of Falun Gong is notable and already long enough to be a topic of its own. Feel free to build the History of Falun Gong page and link to this article as the main article. Sounds good? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
This appears another attempt to ignore the wikipedia policies on notability on the claim that the subject does not meet a neutral point of view. WP:N is the policy that determines which subject should have its own article. It's very clear. It's crystal clear. The meat of the allegation appears to be, like the fiasco with the organ harvesting page, that an article about the persecution of Falun Gong is itself somehow biased. Can someone please quote some relevant parts of NPOV in support of this? --Asdfg12345 03:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Disagree with move, on the same grounds I gave in this earlier discussion; it looks like my comment was copied into the discussion above. My same comments hold here. This page is about persecution, not a general history page--and the persecution is notable, as sources show. In my opinion, this is a very thinly-veiled attempt to sanitize the material for pushing a certain POV. I also think it is highly out-of-line to suggest this move after there was no consensus to move/rename the article. Is the hope that eventually people will get away with it? Cazort (talk) 04:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

I would just like to clarify that this move is markedly different from previous attempts to move the article (and seems to be gathering more support as well). Previous attempts to move the article mainly zoomed in on the NPOV status of the word "persecution", whereas what I am currently suggesting actually focuses on the bigger picture. I am certainly not proposing for Wikipedia to ignore the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners or avoid the use of the term "persecution" (although its sensationalistic use should be reduced). I am saying that in the spirit of balanced and due coverage on the subject of Falun Gong, bigger pieces of the puzzle (such as history) should be completed before smaller pieces (such as persecution). As this article offers a coherent skeleton of a large part of the general history of Falun Gong, it is the best article to act as a starting point for a larger "history" article, rather than starting from scratch. This is by no means meant to censor the persecution, but in fact places it in a much greater and more appropriate context for the average Wikipedia reader. In light of this I would urge other editors to read all the arguments presented above and see to the interest of WP that this article be moved and reorganized. Colipon+(Talk) 19:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If you think that the History of Falun Gong got bigger attention in WP:RS then the persecution of Falun Gong, as I understand that it is suggested in a way above, then by all means start building that page, you don't need to cripple this one for that. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Uh yeha, pleaes respond here. Why on earth would it be necessary to delete this page just to see if it should be opened up again? Makes no sense. Colipon, I think it's clear what is going on here. It's obviously about trying to sweep the persecution thing under the rug "in the interest of WP." I so wish we could just play a straight ball game rather than this constant (what I see as) attempts at obfuscating the issues. --Asdfg12345 16:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Because this page is a content fork of the history of the Falun Gong. Simonm223 (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
By the same logic, wouldn't History of Falun Gong be a content fork of "Falun Gong", the main page? How not?--Asdfg12345 16:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
No. Because unlike "persecution of FLG", "History of FLG" is not a spin-off designed to reinforce a POV - namely that the FLG is persecuted.Simonm223 (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I thought that the persecution is not being questioned here. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding internal consistency among stances

I'd also like to point something else out, and ask. In the acrimonious discussion regarding "Academic views on Falun Gong" and what that page should be titled, the argument was repeatedly presented that titles should follow existing, apparent "unspoken conventions." Since that argument was promoted for that page, and when there are pages like: Persecution of Jews, Persecution of Jews in the First Crusade, Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union, Persecution of Copts, Persecution of Ahmadiyya, Persecution of Muslims, Persecution of Shia Muslims, Persecution of Bahá'ís, Persecution of Hindus, Persecution of Zoroastrians, Persecution of Rastafari, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses, Persecution of Germanic Pagans, Persecution of Buddhists, Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution, World War II persecution of Serbs, Persecution of albinism--would somewhere care to explain how the same logic (if you adopted it in the first place) does not apply here? I'd like to know that what I'm seeing is some internally consistent logical processes at work here, and that you guys are applying the same rules in identical situations. Failure to adhere to your own logic bodes ill, in my view. So I expect an explanation of how these situations are so different, for all those people than ran that 'naming convention' argument the last time. Of course, there are other problems, but I just want to get some responses on this point.--Asdfg12345 03:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A few points to raise in response. How many of those subjects already have a "History of" article, which this one does not? As I believe I have said repeatedly now, with no direct response that I can remember, the "History of" article is more generally considered a "basic" article, and, if there is sufficient content regarding this subject to merit spinout from that article once that more central article exists, certainly, then there would be no objections to creating it. But that article, not this one, is probably more of a priority. I also once again mention that most of the content of this article is derived from a single report, which is itself, based on all the information, probably notable enough for an article on it and the subsequent developments after its publication. Also, I wonder how many of those other articles cited are really only in reference to persecution by one government, as this article is. If there are reliable sources to indicate that a specific group has been subject to discrimaination in multiple circumstances, certainly, that is an entirely different case than a group being targeted by a single government over a comparatively short time. John Carter (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
@John: Let me give you my version to a direct response regarding: "I have said repeatedly now, with no direct response that I can remember, the "History of" article is more generally considered a "basic" article, and, if there is sufficient content regarding this subject to merit spinout from that article once that more central article exists, certainly, then there would be no objections to creating it."
Consider the following points:
  1. Falun Gong was introduced in 1992, History of Falun Gong has not generated as much WP:RS as the persecution of Falun Gong, moving the page in that article would be undue
  2. As Cazort mentioned below, why don't you start building the history page, leaving on this page things that are related to the persecution, then see if this article still has enough content to warrant its existence?
--HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Falun Gong's insistence that their plight is similar to that of the persecution of Jews (and daringly, the Holocaust) is part of a brilliant PR strategy that attempts to arouse emotion and sympathy within Western powers. People in the West know much less about Falun Gong's teachings and background and therefore are much more likely to favour Falun Gong. This is the reason we do not see nearly as much sympathy coming from cultures based on Eastern traditions such as Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan, even though all of these places are more-or-less democratic societies where freedom of speech is not limited like in China. Many WP:RS, even David Ownby himself, make references to this "Western-oriented" strategy, but due to endemic selective quoting, this never gets mentioned in these articles. The subject is one that needs great critical examination, and the best way to do this is to place it in a greater context. Colipon+(Talk) 22:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
@Colipon: Unfortunately right now we are not discussing the content of the article. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

colipon, it sounds like you are saying you are here to right great wrongs, and it appears that attempting to change this irksome page title is another example of it. I wish I had another way of understanding this, because I'm stumped. Did I raise WP:N here? I forgot. --Asdfg12345 16:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Two more things: I just realized how extremely irrelevant Colipon's remark above about Falun Gong's apparent "PR strategy" is to this discussion. It just turns it more into looking like an anti-FLG propaganda move to censor "persecution" from the page title. These kind of arguments are constantly brought up, with reference to the Epoch Times as well, for example. Even if this were the case, why on earth would it matter? Should wikipedia change how it does things because of a religious group's human rights campaigns?

The other thing is that I've drawn attention to what I see as a logical inconsistency between proponents of this page change with respect to the previous attempt to create "Criticism of Falun Gong" based largely on the idea that there is a 'consensus' for this form of names. I need a response to this. Everyone who supports that change and this change: you need to explain how this is not a logically inconsistent stance. Failing to respond leaves the impression that it is, but that you don't care. That would be horrible. Can we get some responses; I wouldn't want that.--Asdfg12345 17:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Lie of the land

Let me summarise as follows:

Support
  1. Colipon+(Talk) 12:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  2. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  3. Edward130603 (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  4. PCPP (talk) 08:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  5. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  6. John Carter (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  7. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  8. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  9. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    (I did not explicitly comment, since I didn' want to simply regurgitate arguments, but followed the discussion)
Oppose
  1. Asdfg12345 03:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  2. HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    please note that the two editors above are single-purpose accounts with few or no edits outside of Falun Gong articles.
  3. Cazort (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC) (??? why was my "vote" moved into this section? see this edit...I hope this was an innocent mistake.)
Notes:
  1. Colipon, please sign when you make a contribution to the talk page if you don't sign in, he won't have to do that, either (see edit before this one)
  2. See: Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion
  3. How is branding me as an WP:SPA relevant here?
  4. Why is there no mentioning of Cazort input? ok now it is mentioned.
Thanks, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Why call you a WP:SPA? Take a look and then reference WP:SPADE.Simonm223 (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
How is it relevant? I seem to dimly recall something named conflict of interest... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 17:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore when there is extensive debate and when the majority of users have reached consensus with the exception of two users, one of whom is a clear WP:SPA and the other who is borderline for that mark, that speaks towards the quality of the consensus. Remember that although polling is not substitute for debate consensus does not equal unanimity.Simonm223 (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Could you please point out what do you mean by XfDs. Thank you!
  • Regarding WP:COI, quote: "This page in a nutshell: Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount." And yes I do my best to keep the best interests of Wikipedia. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Rather than asking you could just read WP:XFD. Now dividing line between WP:NPOV and WP:COI can sometimes be vague however Ohconfucius was not saying "you have a COI" he simply pointed out that conflicts of interest are sometimes indicated by single purpose accounts such as yours. Considering you self identify as a member of this religion and considering the religion's tendency to propaghandize through it's membership you could be seen as having a conflict of interest; you certainly are not neutral with regard to the FLG and the fact that you are a single-purpose user exacerbates that somewhat. Thus people suggesting you broaden your Wiki-interests a bit and, perhaps, learn what wikipedia is and how it works.Simonm223 (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Happy's been here for a few years now. That was plenty of time for him/her to learn Wiki policy then. The evidence for COI and SPA is staggering, really. Unlike Olaf, who does not explicitly mention his connection to Falun Gong on his userpage, Happy directly advocates for Falun Gong in every way on hers. Colipon+(Talk) 19:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
No human being is neutral. And this discussion is pointless, bordering WP:Attack unless you can show me in which edit did I not consider the best interest of Wikipedia. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Favor? Either quit whining or quit labeling almost everybody else as Pro-PRC POV-pushers as you've done numerous times. You can't have it both ways. You cannot serve borderline-attacks to the audience at random intervals and then cry foul when it comes back to you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 20:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Could we just keep the Encyclopedia's interest at hart? I think here, nothing else matters. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think the appended note is a cheap shot, and would have thought most people would see it that way.--Asdfg12345 16:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sub-discussion

Here is a brief post I made to Asdfg's talk page in response to his questions on why I object to the use of the word "Persecution".

It seems to me that the majority of countries view the Chinese governments ban of Falun Gong as a persecution. In fact most of these countries have issued law suits towards these "supposed" perpetrators, such as CCP Politburo member Luo Gan, former vice-premier Lanqing Li, and former president Jiang Zemin. It is very surprising to me that a persecution (or even the term 'persecution') is even in question. Mavlo (talk) 07:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the term "Persecution" was never really in question, as no one here is trying to deny that some kind of Falun Gong-specific persecution exists. By moving the article to "History" and then adding new content and neutralizing the old, we are not proposing to whitewash the article from the term "persecution" and deny that persecution exists. The real issue here is the severe POV slant of this article and the fact that it chronicles much of the history of Falun Gong, thus the move. Once the parent article has been perfected, then we can come back to seeing if persecution in and of itself needs a spin-off article. Similar agreements were reached over at "Organ Harvesting". Also, see discussion above. Colipon+(Talk) 07:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
On a point of information, it is not countries which have launched court cases against certain CHinese officials for their roles in the persecution of FG. These were launched by FG practitioners using the legal systems in their respective countries. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting points. Thanks. Though I'd think that the judicial systems within the respective countries support these case claims, otherwise why would they even entertain the idea? Just a thought, I'd have to spend time verifying each case. Anyways, we'll just have to see how this discussion plays out. Mavlo (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-move discussion

Caveat: I support the move.

However, it is clear that there needs to be a home for further discussion, and also that the previous discussion is in fact concluded, there had been no updates for some time. I am going to mark the discussion closed, so that new editors won't have their posts lost in the old discussion. This does NOT mean that the ISSUE is closed, only that trying to discuss a new proposed move (the other one is done) in the midst of the old !vote discussion would be a gigantic mess.- Sinneed 13:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Edit - Sinneed 14:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope we can agree that this is a time for open discussion of the issue, not to !Vote, so please consider all options and thoughts about a possible article move. I want to thank everyone in advance for their open and courteous discussion of the issues.- Sinneed 14:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why I can't see my previous comment now but I wanted to say that the move was done with a clear consensus and I strongly support it. Simonm223 (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I would agree with this conclusion. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Having observed the recent discussion and action, it appears to me that there are strong sentiments to rename the article Persecution of Falun Gong. However, I cannot see that there is a general agreement among the commentators that it should be called History of Falun Gong. I personally think that this title is inappropriate, if not deliberately misleading. It is playing fast and lose with the term history that implies the study of the human past. Not only is there no historiographical method deployed by most of the authors on the subject, but also because of the existing controversy whether events have happened like this and if so whether they have ceased now. Those who advocate such a name (i.e. History of Falun Gong) will have to ask themselves whether they are taking a specific position in that existing controversy rather than merely describing it. Mootros (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I offer some rationale behind the move in the #Clarification section above, as well as at the beginning of the moves section. It wasn't simply that we decided "Persecution of Falun Gong" was a bad name, and therefore we should move it to a better one. It was because there were larger considerations that dealt with the bigger picture surrounding all Falun Gong-related content on this encyclopedia, and this will be quite clear after reading exhaustive archives on this matter. I also think that the discussion above provides very sound logic to move the page. Colipon+(Talk) 17:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Which part is logic? Mootros (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree, to a degree, that this title is perhaps not the best title for some of the content. However, the discussion of the previous page seemed o imply, in a sense, that the "History" was a subtopic of the "Persecution" which struck me then and still strikes me now as backwards thinking. I agree that there probably is a basis for a separate Persecution article in addition to this one, but that, as the Persecution is a subsection of the broader history, it makes more sense to work out how much coverage to give the persecution within the history as opposed to the opposite. So, in effect, in response to the implicit request that some of this material be moved, I tend to agree. I should note that the leading authority on Falun Gong in the west,Ownby, states that both he and the "international community" or whatever you want to call it take Falun Gong's word for the numbers of persecuted, So, while much of this content doesn't belong here, this topic is itself sufficiently notable to exist, and much of the material in it will be moved to an article on "Persecution" or whatever as soon as we decide how much coverage to give the persecution in the broader history article. John Carter (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree with John. Lots of work needs to be done and eventually we may decide that 'persecution' should be spun out into its own article under History. But we need to work on the "history" part first. Colipon+(Talk) 17:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy to see that you want to recreate the Persecution of Falun Gong, however I'm still not clear when, or why was it even necessary to "loose" it in the first place? Wouldn't it be more natural just to create the History article then move out everything not related to persecution from the persecution page to the History page? That is why I see no sense for the rename. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
You are putting words into his mouth. He merely said that we need time to properly develop a 'History' article properly, and that there may come a time when a 'Persecution' article is justified in terms of the availability of material, and its disposition compared with the material in other Falun Gong articles as a whole. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Falun_Gong/Archive_2&oldid=1136796928"