Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:30, 16 October 2009

	History of Falun Gong was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 21, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed November 12, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee

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

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

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 21 days

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

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

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

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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: . 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 ]. 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)

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)

• Additionally, see #Clarification for a clarification of the proposal. The term "persecution" is not the subject of debate. Colipon+(Talk) 11:41, 9 September 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)
  • Comment. I think Asdfg is correct in that the article should be filed through "normal proceedings".--Edward130603 (talk) 10:12, 1 September 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 ". 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)

• Good suggestion. I'll go with that. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:14, 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)

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, Y, and Z, 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 , , , , , 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: Misplaced Pages:RM#Requesting_potentially_controversial_moves --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Misplaced Pages:Verifiability is one of Misplaced Pages's core content policies. It states: The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Misplaced Pages is not, and Biographies of living persons."

Comment: Neutrality is a cornerstone of Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

• Support move to avoid POV. However, if this article really is about how the Falun Gong are treated in China and not simply general history, why not Treatment of Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China or Relationship between Falun Gong and the People's Republic of China or something? Staxringold _talk 13:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Yes, Treatment of Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China or Relationship between Falun Gong and the People's Republic of China it is more appropriate then History of Falun Gong, still the Treatment of Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China amounts to torture, imprisonment, labor camps, and Amnesty sais that this misstreatment is persecution , trivia: this is even their most recent document, if you search for China on their site --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:13, 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)

• Shouldn't this be decided through: Misplaced Pages:RM#Requesting_potentially_controversial_moves? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've added the required template to the top of the page for it to be listed on the requested moves page. John Carter (talk) 19:23, 6 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 _talk 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: Misplaced Pages: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)

• This is common practice at XfDs, where it is used by editors to draw attention to sockpuppetry, conflicts of interest and other potentially problematic situations. The use here is perfectly in line with this, as has been clearly argued by Simon above. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:05, 9 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 Misplaced Pages to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that the interests of Misplaced Pages remain paramount." And yes I do my best to keep the best interests of Misplaced Pages. --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 Misplaced Pages. --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".

• "Because no matter how accurate the characterization is, use of the word persecution predecides the issues for the reader. The only place I see the title as proper is for general articles like Persecution of Christians where the subject is the persecution. China doesn't see themselves as persecuting Falun Gong, no matter how crazy you think that POV is why is your POV "better"? And as soon as you try to answer that question you must recognize that you are arguing for your POV and thus for the inclusion of a particular POV in a Wiki article. I feel the same about Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire (why can't this just be Christians in the Roman Empire or Treatment of Christians in the Roman Empire?) or Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. No matter how blatently obvious the persecution is, USE of the word persecution introduces completely unnecessary POV into the very title of the article. Staxringold _talk 03:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)"

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)

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)

• I endorse semi-protection, for the reasons stated above. There is enough of a problem here with logged-in POV-pushers without assorted unidentified IPs making yet more potentially unobjective and pointy edits. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:38, 7 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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages: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?  ? Or ? ? 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: 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? , a shorter article: . 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: ). 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 Completed With Clear Consensus

The previous discussion showed clear consensus over this move, please do not undo. Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Archives

Regardless, on title, I just noticed the page moves (even the previous one), did disrupt the talk archives. Is there any quick way to recover them? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. found 2 archive-pages. (> Advanced Search>Subpages>Move)Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 13:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead sentence and section

Current sentence 1 is: "Falun Gong was founded by Li Hongzhi and introduced to the public in May 1992, in Changchun, Jilin."

WP:MOS - The 1st sentence should explain what Falun Gong is and why it is notable, if practical. I should think it would be in this case. I would like to encourage a general discussion of what the lead needs to say. I think:

P1 -

• What it is.
• Why it is notable.
• When founded, by whom.

P2 -

• VERY brief core beliefs/practices/defining characteristics (if very simple, this may have already been covered in sentence 1... probably not.

P3 -

• Current conflict/persecution globaly, with BALANCED presentation of China situation... what happened, why in condemned/opposed by FG, why done/supported by China government... VERY BRIEF.

- Sinneed 13:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

yepp, there's a lot of work to do. In addition it reads in the style of "...and theeen, and theen, and theeen." Thanks for the input. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 13:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree. The current lead section was a quick hatchet job by me, to get it away as quick as possible from the article in the previous namespace. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Contesting the legitimacy of the move to the new name

Copying this section from SilkTork talk page, where I originally posted, I think these are more relevant here.

The article Persecution of Falun Gong has met with countless attempts to rename/delete. Now Ohconfucius renamed it again, based on a hardly existent consensus on the talk page. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• I know that there is somewhere a process for renaming disputed pages, which is assessed and closed by an uninvolved administrator. As far as I know it is not done purely on self claimed consensus. Would be kind enough to point out where it is and perhaps even enforce this process?--HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• FYI, the relevant discussion is at Talk:History_of_Falun_Gong#Move. Ohconfucius. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the link Ohconfucius, that is really relevant here. Perhaps I need to take my time before editing, short bursts can lead to edit conflicts. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• I am most concerned about this, because I happened to read hundreds of reports of practitioners being tortured and killed and the methods used. I have also read the secondary sources on the Persecution of Falun Gong and the article clearly satisfies notability and verifiability, per the sources listed on page, even after the heavy trim it suffered. The aspect of WP:N and WP:V was not even challenged or answered in the move request. This is why I don't think that Ohconfucius, Colipon, Seb, John Carter etc... are NOT the right persons to decide if consensus has been reached on move or not. Don't get me wrong they are most welcome to comment, but I think they are way to involved to decide if consensus has been reached or not. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Same question different format: Regarding Talk:History_of_Falun_Gong#Move Quote: "The result of the move request was page moved. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 12:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)", what makes Seb qualified to decide this? If he did not decide, who did? Where there any uninvolved assessments regarding this decision? Why is notability completely overlooked? As far as I know notability is the single criteria to decide if a page deserves to be on wikipedia--HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• And just for context, the persecution is real. This is just one very telling source but there are hundreds available: And even though it is real the first thing on the agenda is to sanitize references to it. , , , . --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:19, 15 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) 16:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There is one conflict-of-interest SPA here ranting about why the move shouldn't take place when there has been a clearly established consensus (although not unanimity) from the discussion above. I personally would not consider this to be a dispute in "good faith". But I will leave it to the other editors to judge. Colipon+(Talk) 22:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Here a US Department of State source on the topic: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/67820.pdf --JN466 01:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that Happy himself withdrew a request to have another administrator chime in on this matter after I and others indicated that we thought there may well be grounds for such a persecution article to exist. However, in the various requests for comment, etc., the consensus was that there was a greater need and utility to having a "History" article before having a "Repression" article. It should be noted, by the way, that at the time, the editors who made the decision to make the persecution a higher priority than the basic history decision were themselves I believe almost all FG practicioners. That would place the objectivity of that decision seriously into doubt. It was even said in the discussion about the proposed move that it might make sense to create a persecution aticle if there were sufficient content directly relevant to it which could be easily spun out of the history article. But, true, the "history" in general was of greater importance than any particular incident in it. In response to the question why not just create a separate history article and leave the persecution artidle alone, I think I already answered that question above. The history takes priority. And it should be noted that the page which had been here, which was a redirect, was deleted by an uninvolved administrator prior to the move to make way for the move. On that basis, I think it reasonable to say that the move itself was of secondary importance, considering someone else had already made way for the move. I can only assume that the reason some of the others voted for a wholesale move might have included one of my own reasons, specifically, that they might have anticipated serious objections of extended duration to any attempt to place information from the persecution article into the history article, and decided to bypass such difficulties by in effect turning the tables to where they honestly probably should have been from the beginning. John Carter (talk) 01:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Less "verbose", but agree here: before you have an article on, say, liver cancer, you need an excellent article on anatomy. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• I stated my arguments in support of the move, and I executed the move following technical clearance in which an uninvolved Admin deleted the original History redirect, making way for the move. Every now and then within this family of articles, we have flurries of edit warring and other disruptive activity by single purpose accounts, and this time around I just didn't expect to be beaten over the head for it so hard by one of them dressed up as a conscientious objector, accusing all who opposed his disruption as 'vandals' and the like. I'm grateful for swift and decisive Admin intervention here, which certainly prevented escalation to WP:AE. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I do have Ownby and I think Chiang available, and will try to help place some material together for this article over the next few days as well. John Carter (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Page move history

• 11-Apr-06 19:48, Weel (talk · contribs) created copy of main article as Persecution of Falun Gong
• 22-Jun-06 22:55, CovenantD (talk · contribs) moved Persecution of Falun Gong to Suppression of Falun Gong ? (name that was consensused to in Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 8)
• 13-Aug-06 13:46, Fnhddzs (talk · contribs) moved Suppression of Falun Gong to Persecution of Falun Gong over redirect ? (it is a fact, no matter what)
• 14-Sep-06 01:19, CovenantD (talk | contribs) moved Persecution of Falun Gong to Supression of Falun Gong ? (revert)
• 02-Dec-06 15:30, Fnhddzs (talk | contribs) m (moved Supression of Falun Gong to Persecution of Falun Gong: Supression is not English. Persecution of Falun Gong exists)
• 03-Dec-06 01:42, Samuel Luo (talk · contribs) moved Persecution of Falun Gong to Supression of Falun Gong over redirect ? (Suppression of Falun Gong is neutral. You were reverted many times on this issue so why don't you stop it.)
• 12-Dec-06 15:30, Fnhddzs (talk | contribs) moved Supression of Falun Gong to Persecution of Falun Gong over redirect ? (Supression is not English. Persecution of Falun Gong exists)
• ? missing?
• 03-Jan-07 19:04, Centrx (talk · contribs) moved Supression of Falun Gong to Suppression of Falun Gong ? (Correct spelling) (revert)
• 16-May-07 01:17, Olaf Stephanos (talk · contribs) moved Suppression of Falun Gong to Crackdown on Falun Gong ? (revert)
• 16-May-07 07:19, Coelacan (talk · contribs) moved Crackdown on Falun Gong to Suppression of Falun Gong over redirect ? (no consensus for previous move)
• 06-Jun-07 15:35, Stemonitis (talk · contribs) moved Suppression of Falun Gong to Persecution of Falun Gong ? (WP:RM) (revert)
• 22-May-08 13:11, PCPP (talk · contribs) moved Persecution of Falun Gong to Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China ? (Let's avoid the persecution vs crackdown, suppression debate) (revert)
• 22-May-08 14:19, Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs) moved Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China to Persecution of Falun Gong over redirect ? (revert. This is crazy. There is absolutely no consensus for this, and your editing is being grilled now on the admin noticeboard page.)
• 22-May-08 14:58, PCPP (talk | contribs) moved Persecution of Falun Gong to Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China over redirect ?
• 22-May-08 20:19, HappyInGeneral (talk · contribs) moved Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China to Persecution of Falun Gong over redirect ? (If you would like to change the title of the page please do it according to disputed page renaming procedure.)
• 14-May-09 23:55, Sceptre (talk · contribs) moved Persecution of Falun Gong to Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China over redirect ? (per NPOV. "Persecution" is in no way neutral.)
• 15-May-09 03:28, HappyInGeneral (talk | contribs) moved Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China to Persecution of Falun Gong over redirect ? (See talk page over title, I will also dig up the archives)
• 29-Jul-09 23:53, Irbisgreif (talk · contribs) moved Persecution of Falun Gong to Falun Gong Suppression in the People's Republic of China ? (The title has several POV issues. 1 - The article is about China, not a worldwide persecution. 2 - Consensus is that Suppression, not Persecution, is the correct term in this case.)
• 30-Jul-09 00:14, HappyInGeneral (talk | contribs) moved Falun Gong Suppression in the People's Republic of China to Persecution of Falun Gong ?
• 30-Jul-09 02:05, Irbisgreif (talk | contribs) moved Persecution of Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China to Policies of the People's Republic of China concerning Falun Gong ? (NPOV is non-negotiable, you have edit-warred a lot in the past to keep this POV title, but it has to go.)
• 30-Jul-09 02:19, HappyInGeneral (talk | contribs) moved Policies of the People's Republic of China concerning Falun Gong to Persecution of Falun Gong over redirect ? (This is a disputed rename, if you feel that it needs to be done, do it by the proper channels)
• 15-Oct-09 19:43, Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) moved Persecution of Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China to History of Falun Gong ? (as determined by consensus reached on the discussion page)
• 15-Oct-09 20:04, HappyInGeneral (talk | contribs) moved History of Falun Gong to Persecution of Falun Gong over redirect ? (I'm sorry, but I see no consensus for this on the talk page)
• 15-Oct-09 20:15, Ohconfucius (talk | contribs) moved Persecution of Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China to History of Falun Gong over redirect ?

From the name changes which I was able to extract from the article history, and from edit summaries, it seems that it started life as Persecution of Falun Gong, and was most frequently under that title. However, it seems that consensus was never properly established for adopting the title in the first place. The history of reverts indicates there has been heavy opposition to this title, but that Falun Gong SPAs have furiously rebuffed all attempts to move it to a more neutral/suitable title, refusing all except Persecution of Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China.. Discussions took place, and some semblance of consensus was reached in June 2006, except that User:Fnhddzs, a FLG SPA active back then, intransigently said it should stay 'Persecution' "no matter what". The last discussion we had appears to have been the best attended discussion, with the most decisive result against that title and in favour of 'History'. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity could you please answer the questions from the #Post-move discussion, see copy paste here "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." you may answer here or above, with some else then personal attacks please. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 05:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class China-related articles
• High-importance China-related articles
• B-Class China-related articles of High-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• High-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles