Talk:Wang Wenyi

Chinese characters

Anybody know the chinese characters of her name? I've haven't been able to find it - mainly because there hasn't been any articles in Chinese on this incident.... I'm curious.

My guess (and I can't read Chinese at all) would be 王文怡. I got it from this article about the incident. Someone should confirm this however first. Bennity 23:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

What a brave soul!

What she was speaking up against is the use of harvesting organs of prisoners of conscience in China (most of whom are people practicing Falun Gong). Caroline Yates 11:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Which happened to be false [1] You Americans need to clean up Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay before poking at other countries.--PatCheng 06:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

PatCheng, here's more on the US State Dept finding --bobby fletcher 2:30, May 22 2006 (PST)

If Kim Jong-il was visiting a foreign country and I happened to be in the vicinity, I could attempt to heckle him. Not verbally, but by throwing him a paper airplane that reads on the wings, in Korean and English, "Open up and read." There would be a lot to say in there... --Shultz IV 03:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not insult the people in China by comparing its predisent to that of North Korea. That's like comparing Teddy Roosevelt to George W.

The woman is nothing but a idiot working for a cult-associated newspaper. The paper wants to overthrow the Chinese government without any guilding ideologies, and is known to make up false stories as "news" to smear the Chinese government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.147.107.2 (talk • contribs)

Are you from the PRoC? If what they say about the PRoC authorities extracting organs out of Falun Gong practitioners while they're alive (how painful!) is true, then why won't the PRoC let international human rights and other similar groups investigate to see whether that's false? --Shultz IV 04:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Would the US ever allow any international human rights groups investigate the violation allegations against them, such as Abu Ghraib? Pseudotriton 05:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Psudo, the answer is no. According to Nowak, he's allowed to visit China but not US, see the pending request from us.

--bobby fletcher 2:30, May 22 2006 (PST)

The US government found such allegations to be false [2]. Also China is enacting legislation to ban any organ harvesting this year, I don't see what the problem is.--PatCheng 07:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that China is suppressing a human beings right to Free Religion and no one is saying or doing anything to stop it. The suppressing of Falun Gong is just the tip of the ice berg of China's horrific human rights abuses. The current of government of China is just as evil as the governments of Saddam, Stalin, Kim Jong-il or any other dictator in human history and there is no white washing of that. --The Fading Light 3:17, 22 April 2006

With all due respect, Mr. Fading Light appears to be the epitome of a victim of Western brain washing.

Nobody in China worships giant portraits of Hu or forced to plan their lives according to the party. China might have human right problems, but certainly has improved greatly from Mao's days. It is only based your persumption, a foreigner's, that China is as "evil" as such totalitarian dictators. Have you even been to China before making such persumptions? It's not like that the US is free from human right violations (Abu Ghraib, My Lai, Kent State, racial segregation comes to mind) --PatCheng 06:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

- When we talk about human rights, can someone tell me when did the U.S. abolish slavery? =)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave789 (talk • contribs)

I believe the post should be focus on the person only and how she involved in the incident, it's not a place to play the political games or to discuss whether the Falun Gong or China is "evil". =)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.183.117 (talk • contribs)

My two cents: Nobody said China is "evil". Falun Gong practitioners love China. Falun Gong origins from China and a lot of practitioners are in China. Just appeal to stop the persecution to avoid hurt to China since persecution hurt not only practitioners, also degrade China's civilization and the world's civilization if we let it be. We people are not isolated. It is sad that people mix China with some people from CCP who did the persecution. I think this messed-up concept is a main part where critism come from. Stay cool! Fnhddzs 22:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

May I remind you, Shultz, that PRC users are banned from Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.153.192 (talk • contribs)

That is, the English Wikipedia, right? What about the Chinese one? Is that censored or not? Are they banned from that too? --Shultz IV 09:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Wikipedia as a whole (including all the languages) are banned in China because wikipedia refuses to censor some of its content. The Chinese firewall bans wikipedia, not the Chinese people are banned from wikipedia. I'm sorry that statment wasn't accurate. In any case there aren't any PRC users on any part (or any language thereof) of wikipedia (unless they hack, which is never worth it since its a crime to get past the filter, horrible system, I know)75.2.153.192 22:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

anon from Texas, you obviousely are not informed on this subject. Every school boy in China knows how to get pass the swiss-cheese filter and get to porn. Try search for this thing called "Proxy Hunter" in Chinese search engine. --bobby fletcher 2:50, May 22 2006 (PST)

---

It's a shame on humanity when there are people slaughtered and nobody with power and responsibility does a thing.

Even more when a courageous woman tries to speak up, it's imprisoned even in the land of freedom!

Let me ask you, what kind of freedom is that? Is that the kind of freedom you want to live in?

If we don’t do something about it today it is reasonable to believe that tomorrow will be worst. =)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.157.175.121 (talk • contribs)

So what's your point? Are you condemning both China and the US? Can you find a country that's better than them both? I would think you'd be pretty pissed off if your president were being shouted down in china, but no, it hasn't happened, because real Chinese People all have the decency to present their arguments in a peaceful manner after the other person had finished their talks, instead of shouting it in somebody elses face and interrupting their talk. Only in america, where freedom reigns supreme, do we get people who hide their manners in order to make a political statement. =)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.153.192 (talk • contribs)

I guess my point is that when people are Killed and Tortured, it’s not a tea party where everybody is nice, because it's already beyond the point of acceptable and being afraid that the truth that you say might be out of line. Actually think about it, in this case isn't out of line the one who is not saying anything. There is an old saying used in Rome: "Silence gives consent", please think about that.

You mean like when European settlers first came to N. America and cleaned out the place by exterminating Native Americans? That seems to fit your scenario quite well.

And who is proud of that?

Perhaps nobody, at least I hope hot. But the point is it did happen. But I don't see American history text books elaborating on these genocides (at least not in this sense). No one is defending the Chinese gov't on their dirty work. Chinese nationals are well aware of these dirty deeds and the propaganda the gov't tries to feed them. Nobody is perfect, hence my example of European treatment of Native Americans. Pseudotriton 18:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If we find something is not right, and if we love the day after today, we should at least speak out so action can be taken in the right way. So I guess Ms. Wenyi got it right. HappyInGeneral

There's thousands of Chinese human rights and democracy activists. None of them masquerades as journalists and heckle others based on their selfish opinions.--PatCheng 11:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Who is out of line actually here? You might ask. I believe that it’s certainly the rulers who tolerate this. Because it is their sworn responsibility to PROTECT (which is in absolute contrast to torturing and persecuting) your people. Also I would not necessarily want you to be my neighbor if you like to torture people, because then I would at least invite often an officer who is able to arrest you if you do that to anyone who is unwilling to be tortured.

In some cultures, rulers' duties are, as their title literally implies, to rule. I personally do not think it's a good thing, but that's just the fact. Pseudotriton 18:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Even if that means genocide? See Holocaust. Actually we (which is composed of many I's) are the ones who accept or not a certain rule. There must be a line where no human should decide about another, and I guess that potentially my organs are well beyond that line. HappyInGeneral

Crackdown of cultists does not equal to genocide or the Holocaust. Falun Gong likes to compare the Chinese government to Nazi Germany, portraying it in the worst ways possible. --PatCheng 11:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think President Bush is not perfect, but he’s a very good guy when you compare it to Hu Jintao's regime. If you want to protest against the fact that he (Bush) is not perfect you can do that in America. If you want to protest against Hu you can NOT do that in China. Oh and by the way please read the American constitution the thing which made America what it is today, and about which all true American’s are so proud of and you might understand the value of civil disobedience in order to make sure that the next day does not repeat yesterday’s mistakes.

Man, have you been brain washed by your gov't! It's all about the money. Money is what makes America great.

It’s not only money, because that by itself can not build a happy society. For example if your organs would be sold without your permission that would not look good in court and you could actually win the case in court.

Think about it, if the society as a whole is wealthy enough, and I do not mean only a few rich out of a zillion like China is today, would anyone still feel the need for things like selling organs? It's sort of a supply and demand thing. And to my knowledge no one so far has offered any real evidence to the alleged organ harvesting in China. Pseudotriton 18:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No evidence? Or no one dares to see it, because China has a population of 1.3 billion, plus a huge army, and anyway money flows from there for some. Even so these allegations are serious enough and they should be at least strongly investigated, even if for the moment it’s only to make a stance. Also you say that these things are done because those who do it are poor. Wrong. Because only those who have the power can do/tolerate these things, and those with power always take care of themselfs and therefore they are not poor. HappyInGeneral

Allegations from cultists and angry China-haters should be dismissed as rubbish, not investigated.--PatCheng 11:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting ... You know I will not even address the label of cultist, because I don’t really mind how you label people that are trying to behave according Truth, Compassion and Tolerance, see [3].

However when you say China hater … hmm … that’s tough. On what do you base this labeling? Compassion is opposite to hate, so as far as I know, Falun Gong practitioners try their best to not harm a soul. Also they cultivate Truth, so they believe that Truth is Really! Important. They would certainly not lie when knowing the truth. Oh and yes, by allowing a full third party investigation CCP could prove that they are lying or not. And the only logical reason for not letting in a full third party investigation is because they don’t want the outsiders to know for sure that Falun Gong practitioners actually told the truth, and maybe even just a little portion of this truth. HappyInGeneral 5:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

---

I guess US citizens have rich opportunities to protest their president. So they do not have to wait when he goes to China to do that. :) The issue (urgency of horrible live organ harvesting Falun Gong practitioners and no other channels to express opinions) here warrants its validity. When lives are threatened, can we be allowed to shout and ask for help? Fnhddzs 19:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

What's your point? I'm sure there are journalists for anti-Bush organizations, but I don't see them interupting his speeches. If Ms Wang wanted to protest, then she shouldn't masquerade as a journalist. There are rules of decency for journalists, and a journalist cannot simply do whatever she wants based on her personal beliefs.--PatCheng 14:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand this is not a happy thing. She risks her reputation as a journalist. As what she said in her interview with CNN, she think she would do it again and it is worth everything under the current circumstance. She said she tried to raise this question to China leader. But there was no chance for her. By all means, her shout is not a crime, in my POV. I wish she did not need to do that but I fully understand why she did that and I admire her courage. She is to save more lives. Fnhddzs 06:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

To save lives or advancing her own agenda? Falun Gong members like her are hijacking western sympathy for their own political advantage. Pseudotriton 05:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

And what journalist? She works for an anti-PRC propaganda paper. If the US entitles people to so much freedom of speech, why did she have the need to disguise among real journalists and heckle a formal speech instead of participating in a normal protest? It's because that was what her intention all along, to cause troubles. That was nothing more than a publicity stunt. No too long after this incident, Donald Rumsfeld was heckled in one of his speeches. Most people in the audience booed the hecklers and several tried to confiscate their banners. That's analogous to how most Chinese feel about what Wang Wenyi did at the White House. At least the Rumsfeld hecklers did not try to disguise as the press. Pseudotriton 06:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

OBVIOUSLY, Wenyi Wang VIOLATED AMERICAN LAW!!! That's ALL! and SHE WILL BE PUNISHED!!! Bush said sorry about this event to President Hu!!

Don’t forget American law requires that: “She is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law”. And she might be found innocent in the court of law because her appeal was for a large scale human rights abuse, which she could not really address in any other way directly with Hu Jintao and the investigation of which, by an independent third party, is still blocked by the CCP. --HappyInGeneral 09:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the live organ harvesting investigation

It would be very surprising to find anything if we ask the suspected or criminals-affiliated party to guide a tour for investigation. so I would be surprised if U.S. report found any evidence in the Sujiatun site three weeks or one month after the news exposure. Three weeks leave enough time to relocate or erase the evidence. That is why a Third-party, Independent investigation on a large-scale of labor camps and medical facilities affiliated with secret death camps is called for. Recently Sky TV reporters went under cover [4]. Also the first two witnesses went to public [5]. Despite China's Ministry of Foreign Affair spokeman Qin Gang's invitation, however, several members of CIPFG and reporters have been denied entry to China for investigation. [6]. Fnhddzs 19:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Another link [7]Fnhddzs 04:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of your opinions, an official publication of the US Department of State holds more weight than conspiracy theories by Falun Gong and The Epoch Times. And the CCP is not a "criminal-affiliated" organization.--PatCheng 01:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It is good that U.S. government tried to help. However, since CCP-China runs dictorship. They hold possession of the evidence and have monopoly control of them. The reversal of burden of proof applies on this situation. Three weeks of no response has proved that they are guilty. Since it is easy to relocate and erase the evidence, I would be surprised if U.S. government could find anything. Fnhddzs 04:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Why should the Chinese government waste time on an organization that's fuelled by false accusations? The Epoch Times previous reported that Jiang Zemin died in 2003 and that the CCP will be destroyed in 2005. If The Epoch Times made the accusation then they have to prove it, not the other way around. And don't act like that Falun Gong's accusations are completely innocent, as questions has been raised by non-CCP associated Chinese as well, even Harry Wu.--PatCheng 06:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

--- Really. Could you please find the citation? By the way, The Epoch Times has information more than Falun Gong. I think what you refer is another newspaper (renminbao, right? I think that one describes somebody's seeing by celestial eyes. I think they mentioned that it was by celestial eyes. not a news.). As to when CCP will be destroyed, I guess that was a guess or something like prophet. How could they report something in the future? Fnhddzs 20:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs, here's the reference you are looking for. Wu also questioned the veracity of Falun Gong's claim:

"Some China-watchers are also skeptical. Harry Wu, executive director of the Washington-based Laogai Research Foundation, which investigates abuses in the Chinese gulag, pointed out their "evidence" is just hearsay. "No pictures, no witnesses, no paperwork, no detailed information at all," he said. "Nothing."

Also, given the sheer volumes alleged -- the thousands of people transported and murdered, organs harvested and exported, and transplants performed -- Wu wondered how all this could occur without one actual eyewitness coming forward.

Wu added: "The Falun Gong practitioners say, 'We believe this is true because Chinese Communism is a barbaric, evil system. They will do anything.' So the conclusion is -- they did it. The evidence? Today, not enough." --bobby fletcher 12:30, 23 May 2006 (PST)

Indeed. The organ harvest is not new. It was since 20 years ago on executed prisoners. And later on they harvest live organs so they make the executed person not die before their organs are harvested. [8] Falun Gong practitioners in labor camps in China without any trials are no exception. They have no human rights in China. Fnhddzs 21:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Is that why Chinese democracy groups [9] and even Harry Wu himself dispute FLG's assertions? Is that why Reminbao called Mr Wu a butcher on 4/8 then removed the article on 4/10? I'm sure a credible newspaper would use phrases like "the evils of the Communist Cult will be punished by God at Judgment Day" on their front page, and "news articles" such as natural phenomenons predicting the end of CCP, or this. --PatCheng 04:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No human rights in China? The Human rights in the United States article has more evidences of human right violations, so you can safely claim "no human rights in USA"?

BTW, read a document from the Clinical Research Centre of the Ministry of Health Malaysia[10]. The Liaoning Thrombus Medical Treatment Center, or so called state concentration camp is invested by a Malaysian company (Country Heights Health Sanctuary), and has hosted Honorable Minister of Health Malaysia. Sounds like CIA flights?--Skyfiler 22:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Innocent until proven guilty. You should remember that. =)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.153.192 (talk • contribs)

Hi, Skyfiler. Thanks for reply. The medical facility is not labeled as a labor camp. It was alleged to ever have secretly harvest organs of Falun Gong practitioners [11][12]. There is no contradition with its function as a medical facility. Fnhddzs 03:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The "centration camp" is coined by the Epoch Times[13], not me. --Skyfiler 02:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Reversal of Burden of Proof. When the evidence is in monopoly control or possession of the accused party, the reversal of burden of proof could apply. Fnhddzs 03:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Argument should not base on the lack of information or the credibility of the opponent but should base on credibile evidence. Speculation should not be reported as fact.--Skyfiler 02:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said, the evidence is in monopoly control of CCP. Live organ harvesting on people to be executed is nothing new in CCP-led China. Falun Gong is no exception since it is being persecuted now. If we give permission to such inhuman things, the next victims may be ourselves with no exception. Isn't true that some patient's marrow are stolen during surgery? The patients are neither to be executed or practitioners of Falun Gong. Together, let's stopping atrocities. Defending other's human rights is defending ourselves. Fnhddzs 20:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you aruging that getting information from non-CCP sources is impossible, so CCP must prove its innocence for any charge?--Skyfiler 20:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I mean, considering the evidence could be easily transferred or erased, the reveral of burden of proof could apply. The reversal of burden of proof has been applied in civilized socities to prevent effects of unfair situations. The cases could include medical incident, employment discrimination, intellectual property etc.[14]. In the situations that applicable, no full evidence is required and maybe only partial evidence or inference could warrant. I heard CCP prisons could raise deers, goldenfishes to beautify the prison for reporters to interview, but the tortures could still happen without letting reporters see. The Sujiatun site is a hospital. It is alleged to involve the organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners since 2001. [15] The woman witness's ex-husband was doing cornea-removal and he is currently receiving chemotherapy for his terminal cancer. The witness tries to help to reduce her ex-husband's sin by exposing the information out. Her ex-husband was majoring brain surgery. But in China a cosmetic surgeon could do kidney transplantation [16](there is a Chinese video). Where will our own safety go if hospitals get permission to kill lives? For years, with the one child policy, hospitals have been used to kill newborns without a blink although hospitals did save a lot of people. The issue is: who deserve to be killed? Even the people to be executed have human rights and do not deserve to remove organs when they are alive. I am really concerned about the situation. Some day we maybe suddenly become the targets that deserved to be killed. At that time, nobody could speak for us since we gave that permission. Fnhddzs 22:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

So far, three CIPFG members' visa applications to enter China to do investigation got refused, despite Qin Gang's invitation. Fnhddzs 23:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

And your point is? The US State Department found no evidence, so the burden of proof lies upon Epoch Times.--PatCheng 04:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

After the allegation, China should respond immediately as it does usually to any allegations out of China instead of after three weeks. Three weeks allow enough time to relocate and/or erase the evidence (so no wonder US Embassy found no evidence in the site tour). The Epoch Times have telephone recordings to China hospitals, clearly indicating the organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners. The two witnesses of The Epoch Times also appeared in public. All reporters (Sound of Hope radio, New Tang Dynasty TV etc.) responding to Qin, Gang's invitation to investigate are refused entry visas to China so far. Fnhddzs 04:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Your claims are only "verified" by the Epoch Times, no other media has. And does Epoch Times have any identification of such alleged conversation, or is this another one of their sensationalised claims? The Epoch Times is not even regarded as a legitimate news source by many, and their evident bias is no better than CCP-controled news sources. There isn't a law that forces China to respond in time, and in Epoch Times' eyes China is already guilty whether they respond or not.--PatCheng 08:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi, I understand your meaning. The Epoch Times is a free newspaper having both print and web versions, with more than 10 languages in the world. It tries to report all kind of things including China and Falun Gong. I know some Falun Gong practitioners do volunteer work. CCP is a party with power, army and money, it controls the China media monopoly. But The Epoch Times does not have either power, army or money, it cannot control anything unreasonably. The birth of The Epoch Times is out of consideration of the severe censorship in CCP-led China. There are no freedom of expression, news. Reporters are often sentenced to prison [17].

Personally I love China, but CCP does not love its people. CCP killed innocent people arbitrarily. I don't wish to make China look bad at all. China's beautiful culture and historical moral standard are being destroyed by CCP. Falun Gong teaches people to have Truthfulness, Compassion and Forbearance, teaches people to be good. More good people are good to China, but CCP does not like it and Jiang started the persecution [18].

CCP have done a lot of bad things in the name of China. If you don't believe the organ harvesting, then you may believe this news that patients' marrow are extracted (stolen) secretly during surgery [19][20] (can I assume you speak Chinese? If not, here is an English version [21]).

I think the bad things should be stopped. Today we may think we are lucky and are not the victims so we may be silent or even indulge the bad things, tommorrow we may be the next victims with no exception. To defend others' human rights is also to defend ourselves.

If you have confusion on Falun Gong, please feel free to discuss. All Falun Gong teachings are freely online [22]. That's the best way to learn what the Falun Gong is. But please put down our personal bias when some groups are hurted. At the current circumstance, even there is 1% evidence, we should urge Independent Third-Party investigation instead of urging to muffle the voice calling for help. This world we are connected.

"Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free." --- Speech at the Berlin Wall, by John F. Kennedy, June 26, 1963

Thank you and have a nice day! Fnhddzs 16:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

---

The hospital Falun Gong fingered is a joint venture with a Malaysian company affiliated with the Malaysian government. Malay officials have visited the clinic in previous years:

http://crc.gov.my/clinicalTrial/documents/Proposal/TCM_Stroke%20TrialProtocol%20synopsis.pdf

I've never heard of death camp advertising for foreign investment and official tour.

If we in the West can not be precise with the facts, only resort to nefarious indictment, why should the Chinese take what we say seriously?

bobby fletcher 5/17/2006

Hmm. I guess no medical facility would be proud to say they are death camps or be involved with. They are medical facilities involving harvesting live organs. They may not even label themselves as even prison or labor camp! Those death camps are secret. Maybe in basement, in caves. China in history digged a lot underground infrastructure in the anti-Japan war or other wars. Now that they are exposed by informants, the online maps of Jilin province (alleged to have at least a death camp in Songyuan) are even modified by the government. They are trying to cover. They are so afraid of being exposed.

If you did not hear of death camp advertising, you may hear hospitals advertise for organ transplantation! They do not have to tell you they are death camps. Fnhddzs 20:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that the death camp is not only ONE! The evidence is easily relocated and/or erased! Help and wake up!!!! People still with conscience! Fnhddzs 20:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Since when did FLG owns a monopoly on "conscience"? Are you saying that people who doesn't support FLG doesn't have conscience?--PatCheng 06:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tags

I'm sorry to say the article is in a rather messy state right now. Things to do include:

• citing sources correctly, preferably using the <ref>...</ref> tags (see WP:FN)
• copyedit (complete sentences, clearer English)
• Add sections and present the material in a comprehensible, chronological manner

Sandstein 19:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the first one, as I've converted them all. Jude (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment

Errm, I don't think this a place to discuss what people think of FLG, China, CCP, USA, GOP, what people think of this person, but what should or should not go into the Wenyi Wang article.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think the veracity of her claim is important and should be mentioned. From available evidence the "Auschwitz" story she helped Epoch Times develop is not credible.

Please check here for organ harvesting [23][24][25] Fnhddzs 00:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Concentration Camps in China

The alleged camps that the US invistigated were found empty because they CCP was given several weeks notice before inviting investigators. It is known that a patient can find a liver in less than a couple weeks in China whereas in America, where the most transplants occur, one is usually on a wait list for several years. The organs in China are not just coming from ordinary prisoners, they are coming from peaceful Falun Gong practitioners who are illegal improsined. It is truly sad that such good people are the victims of certain peoples' greed!

Wenyi Wang is not an idot. She is a compassionate mother, wise physician, and assimilates herself to Truth-Compassion-Tolerance under the principles of Falun Gong. People who cultivate these principles do not speak outlandishly or ignorantly, they are the most wise people.

Do not use these Wiki pages for FLG propagandistic purposes. Pseudotriton 03:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Especially when the "several weeks notice" thing isn't even true. The Thomas Lum CRS report clearly stated US embassy staff conducted two visits, first time unannounced to the Chinese. The official visit happened on 3/21/2006, a week to 10 days after the undercover investigation.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Links

From User:Ohconfucius:

<!--===========================({{NoMoreLinks}})===============================-->
<!--| DO NOT ADD MORE LINKS TO THIS ARTICLE. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A COLLECTION OF |-->
<!--| LINKS. If you think that your link might be useful, do not add it here, |-->
<!--| but put it on this article's discussion page first or submit your link  |-->
<!--| to the appropriate category at the Open Directory Project (www.dmoz.org)|-->
<!--| and link back to that category using the {{dmoz}} template.             |-->
<!--|                                                                         |-->
<!--|           Links that have not been verified WILL BE DELETED.            |-->
<!--|  See [[Wikipedia:External links]] and [[Wikipedia:Spam]] for details    |-->
<!--===========================({{NoMoreLinks}})===============================-->

See Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Spam for details --HappyInGeneral 15:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:External links: "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.". So I revert the links and please remove those and only those that are not "meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article.". --HappyInGeneral 15:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• The article already appears to be well referenced. So why do we need 25 loose external links at the bottom of the article? I don't see how any one can say this is "keeping links to a minimum" - making me believe that there is a violation of WP:EL, as quoted. Ohconfucius 09:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a biography, it's not very long nor very complete. The links on the bottom of the page try to be of service to the reader by completing that gap. I would call a link redundant when it does not offer new information. --HappyInGeneral 10:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• There is no requirement for biography to be "complete". It just has to be encyclopaedic. Important though she is in the FG/Epoch Times scheme of things, in wikipedia world, she is only a borderline notable who committed a misdemeanor; as a journalist, she acted in a manner considered unprofessional because she got too emotionally involved. What we need to write is based on reliable published information, not from any source which might be dug up, however trivial. I have today completely re-written the article, using a large number of small edits which have been described in detail in the edit summary. Most of the links have been removed because they are no longer valid, or because they only mentioned in passing that Wang Wenyi protested outside on the white house lawn (basically adding no value per your definition). Some were already, or have been (by me) incorporated into the article. They are still contained within the article only visible in edit mode. Ohconfucius 04:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• I would also mention that a number of the referenced sentences were factually incorrect or out of line with the reference, and had to be replaced or amended. Ohconfucius 04:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Spontaneous demonstration or premeditated act?

Draw your own conclusions. Ohconfucius 06:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ottawa Citizen article

User:Bobby Fletcher has been persistently reinserting the mention of "Sujiatun Concentration Camp" being discredited, and linking to the Ottawa Citizen article. Wang was merely a researcher for some of the articles, and did not even get credited with the by-line. Wang is not all that notable, and the only time she has been mentioned in the press is in connection with her heckling Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao. In addition, she is not mentioned in the OC article. I objected to the appearance of this not as a question of the assertion of the reports being discredited being sourced, but on gruonds that it is simply not relevant. I have therefore removed it, again. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please look into the facts. Wang Wenyi was the lead researcher in the Sujiatun live organ harvesting story, and was a reporter for Epoch Times NY when it started googlebombing the story in March 2006.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What you are doing is actually called tendentious editing, and if you don't stop it there are ways of dealing with that. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:V, and there will be some more links in there which direct you to more policy issues about how articles should be written and what information they should include and how.--Asdfg12345 20:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Asdfg, I have repeatedly ask you to stop blanking out the fact Epoch Times is related to Falun Gong when it is sourced appropriately mentioned in relavant articles, and you have time and again blanked out the fact, to the point an article is void of it. That is against WP:DE and WP:TE.

Please compare your behavior with what I have done here. I have not changed the article since the RfC. Oh started the RfC, and I will observe the consensus agreed on.

As to the neutural fact Wang Wenyi is the lead researcher for the Sujiatun story, I will only add it to the article when I find the Epoch Times story; it is only for discusstion here, in case other editors have source for it. That's what talk page is for, what is wrong with it? Bobby fletcher (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Passport refusal removed

I have removed the paragraph regarding her passport refusal as she is an US citizen, and China does not recognise multiple citizenship, so she has effectively gave up her Chinese citizenship when she became an US citizen. Why should China give out a passport to a non-Chinese citizen? This is the same for all Chinese emigrants, including myself. Inclusion of this to "demonstrate" that China refuses her entrance is blatantly wrong and biased. --antilived^{T | C | G} 08:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Why would China refuse any passport? Isn't that itself very telling? Restoring sourced info. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

To visit China when you have a foreign passport is to apply for a Visa, not to apply for renewal for your void passport. The source never said that her visa application was refused, merely that the consulate refused to renew her passport, which is the right action to do as she has given up her Chinese citizenship by becoming a US citizen. This applies to EVERYONE, why is it so hard to understand? --antilived^{T | C | G} 09:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

By source I mean [26]. The other source does say something about refusal of visa but my point still stands that the refused passport has got nothing to do with her being a FLG practitioner. --antilived^{T | C | G} 09:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that is a very good point which I never connected with. Of course it's perfectly reasonable that she cannot get her Chinese passport renewed. Same for my wife who is also a naturalised foreign national, so there is no victimisation here. But the existence of the paragraph would seem to imply there was. Also, each country has absolute discretion to issue visas or not to foreign visitors. No victimisation can be proven, so if such appears, would violate WP:NPOV. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough. Two things though: is she an American citizen? If so, did they also refuse to give her a visa to go to China, which some source said was discriminatory?--Asdfg12345 10:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well the article says she's a naturalised citizen so I assume she is (unless naturalisation doesn't mean naturalisation). They did refuse to give her a visa to go to China but as China is a sovereign country they have the right to decide who to let in and who not to let in, and you cannot prove the refusal is discrimination. --antilived^{T | C | G} 06:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

But it can be reported that x source said it was discrimination, of course.--Asdfg12345 08:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

For some reason I have a bad feeling about that. Quick! Whip up an article on her visa discrimination and put it up on clearwisdom! --antilived^{T | C | G} 12:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to say that I am disappointed with your attitude, incivility, and personal attacks.--Asdfg12345 12:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack? Incivility? Ohconfucius had already established that "No victimisation can be proven, so if such appears, would violate WP:NPOV.", and as self-published sources are rampant in the FLG circle it is perfectly reasonable to assume that eventually this alleged discrimination will be first published in FLG-sponsored media, then perhaps cited by mainstream media and then cited on here. How is that a personal attack, how is that incivil? --antilived^{T | C | G} 12:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I would prefer to simply say that I have no wish to make an argument on this, and to express that I hope we can work cooperatively, broad-mindedly, and with a sense of professionalism on these and any other articles now and into the future.--Asdfg12345 13:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)