Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:29, 4 November 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template:Article probation

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

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 October 2009. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Orphaned references in Persecution of Falun Gong

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Persecution of Falun Gong's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "dangerous":

• From Falun Gong: Mickey Spiegel, "Dangerous Meditation: China's Campaign Against Falungong", Human Rights Watch, 2002, accessed Sept 28, 2007
• From Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident: Spiegel, Mickey (2002). Dangerous Meditation: China's Campaign Against Falungong. Human Rights Watch. ISBN 1-56432-270-X. Retrieved 28 September 2007.
• From Re-education through labor: Spiegel, Mickey (January 2002). "Reeducation through Labor; Transformation Centers". Dangerous Meditation: China's Campaign Against Falun Gong. Retrieved 28 October 2008. {{cite web}}: External link in |work= (help); Unknown parameter |dateformat= ignored (help)

Reference named "wildgrass":

• From Teachings of Falun Gong: p 212
• From Qigong: Johnson, Ian (2004), Wild Grass: Three Stories of Change in Modern China, Pantheon Books, ISBN 9780375421860
• From Falun Gong: Johnson, Ian, Wild Grass: three portraits of change in modern china, Vintage (8 March 2005)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Persecution_of_Falun_Gong

This was not needed, there is a link to that page in the tag you kept removing. Irbisgreif (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No interest?

This needs sources. I have flagged bits that I see as needing sourcing, and there seem to be no interested editors at all. I also support the construction flag removal.- Sinneed 06:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm working here /sources. Ups, letting it known to the public, sorry, I thought I already done that. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

WP does not use subpages in article space.- Sinneed 15:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a sources sub page now

Hello, there is a sources subpage, where I think we can list all relevant /sources contributions are welcome. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

WP does not use subpages in article space. That link does not go anywhere from this article, for me.- Sinneed 15:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Article talk placed on my talk page will be very generally deleted immediately. Article talk belongs, very generally, on article talk pages.- Sinneed 16:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources subpage

copied from Sinneed user talk page

Hi Sinneed, I'm not quite sure what you mean here could you please elaborate? My point in creating the sources subpage, was to have a place where we can all collect sources on this subject. What do you think? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sinneed seems to suggest that it doesn't belong in mainspace. I have therefore moved it to User:HappyInGeneral/Persecution of Falun Gong sources Ohconfucius 15:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I see, I would love to see the policy on that, also as an alternative, shouldn't it rather go as a sub-page here? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Five pillars - WP doesn't have rock-solid rules. Our rules/policies/guidelines describe what we DO. We put, very generally, article talk, such as discussions of possible sources, on article talk pages. It is very possible that this entire article would have been best served by being placed in a user space and worked until ready.- Sinneed 17:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Requesting Move

Banning of Falun Gong in China - Alternate suggestion - Suppression of Falun Gong - note spelling - Sinneed 22:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It has been proposed in this section that Persecution of Falun Gong be renamed and moved to Supression of Falun Gong. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Persecution of Falun Gong → Suppression of Falun Gong — Three reasons. Firstly, it is evident that the subject covered in the article deal with both the media campaign and the alleged torture, mistreatment etc. Much of this article does not describe "persecution" in and of itself, but rather what the Chinese regime did to suppress the movement; the 'persecution' of the practitioners was one of the means. Secondly, the title is not grammatically sound. Falun Gong practitioners are the subjects of persecution, not Falun Gong; people get persecuted, not movements. Movements are suppressed. Concerns for neutrality of the title is also worth note. --Colipon+(Talk) 22:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This requested move is a continuation of the discussion found at the article's deletion nomination, which ended in "trainwreck". Editors should do their best to not repeat arguments, and keep their comments brief and to-the-point. The discussions should follow a spirit of compromise. Colipon+(Talk) 22:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Suppression and persecution is pretty much the same to me. But I would like to point out that "suppression" is spelled with two Ps. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• I cannot support the request that previously-used arguments not be made here. Full discussion is appropriate.
• "Falun Gong" refers to the movement... which is a group of people. This is usage that has become quite common, though it is different than what I was taught. For example, a sports franchise is plural... refering to its people... or singular referring to its name, image, etc.
• It seems clear that the article creator intends this to be about persecution. I see a great deal of junk thrown in that isn't persecution and I have my editorial hatchet sharpened.
• All that being said, I see the (current "Persecution") title as POVish. Since the Chinese government says it has banned the organization, and clearly has done so, and all the rest follows on (for good or ill) from that, why not "Banning of Falun Gong in China". I don't oppose the Suppression name (spelled correctly, as noted by Martin) at this time. I look forward to seeing other views. I have no strong opinion at this time.- Sinneed 22:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: Ban, suppression, repression, crackdown, genocide, persecution, they are all really somewhat similar, right? Can we use the one that is most used in the media per WP:COMMONNAME? The persecution of Falun Gong is quite real, see here the sources (and the list is growing), so I really oppose the rename. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Now I would question, what is to be gained from the rename? If you ask me this whole debate on how to name the article is yet another attempt to make the gross violations less visible. As I see it ban, suppression, repression, crackdown, all these can be legal. There are cases where there are perfectly justified ban, suppression, repression, crackdown's. There is not one single case where there is a perfectly justified genocide or persecution. This is why I think this rename/move/deletion is always so vehemently asked for, even though, it is clear as day what is happening. Still are we even a bit thinking about human dignity here? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Colipon's reasoning makes it very clear. Support the move. I think Banning would be the best title.--Edward130603 (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose the move. Suppression and persecution are more or less the same. We should use the terms most commonly used by the English-speaking media. Flamarande (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, they are not the same thing. The suppression of the movement is driven by persecution, media campaigns, and educational campaigns. This article aims to give the bigger picture, and should be titled as such. Colipon+(Talk) 14:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
    • With all due respect, a modern persecution is driven by political suppresion, media campaigns, and educational campaigns. Flamarande (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose the move. Persecution and ban are very different things. Would we be changing an article on the "Persecution of Christians in ancient Rome" to the "Ban of Christians in Rome"? Even what the articles are about would be different - they are not equivalent namespaces even.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support the move. It pisses me off no end how these Falun Gong types go around saying: "look, the nasty CCP is doing all these horrible thing to practitioners - just read clearwisdom. Li Hongzhi says not to lie, so all Falun Gong practitioners tell the truth, so what you read there must be true. And if you don't believe us, look also at Amnesty and Human Rights Watch - all these sources say 'Persecution', therefore we must be persecuted. And oh, don't be so naive to believe it's just suppression, or a crackdown. No term other than Persecution is correct, so no other term will do". It's already been demonstrated that most people search for 'Falun Gong' on its own. Other variants, such as 'Persecution of..', 'Suppression of..', 'Repression of..' are not even in the same order of magnitude. We just need to develop an article under sane conditions, but it seems like the usual controversy and disruption are set to continue well after the train crash. It should be moved once and for all, and salted for good measure. Ohconfucius 11:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • If in face of the /sources you still want to salt it, then I guess you should not edit this Encyclopedia. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed, o honorable comrade of the venerable communist party. I also propose that we put everybody else in the gulag for the crime of defamation of the PRC. Flamarande (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC) (this is a joke)
    • LMAO....i propose we not _{同志们，我们一定要奋战到底，为了国家，为了党，我们要铲除右派！！！} your corrosive language gives light to a dark situation, ah, just as our leader chairman mao was like the sun that gave hope to the world...hehe...PRC doesn't have a good human rights record, but it doesn't mean that everything bad said about them is true. --Edward130603 (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
      • "PRC doesn't have a good human rights record, but it doesn't mean that everything bad said about them is true" => I've heard that line before plenty of times, and I think it's only meant to plant doubt, still here on Misplaced Pages we stick to the /sources. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
      • What Edward says. I'm not done criticising the PRC yet, so please check talk archives and my talk page. Ohconfucius 01:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Look, to move the title from 'Persecution of Falun Gong' to 'Suppression of Falun Gong' is simple hair-splitting (and the diffrence is minimal - so minimal that it is stupid to make at all). Perhaps we could follow the examples found at Category:Scientology by country? Move it towards 'Falun Gong in China'. Flamarande (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with Falun Gong in China or Falun Gong ban in China, or anything along those lines. Colipon+(Talk) 23:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Although I would agree that we would be splitting hairs with 'suppression' in the title instead of 'persecution', I think the idea is to find a compromise which would find consensus, noting that it was immediately recreated after the page was moved to 'history' per consensus. Ohconfucius 01:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Same as Colipon, I would be fine with Flamarande's suggestion or Banning of FLG in China.Edward130603 (talk) 02:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we have a vote to see who thinks that the treatment of Falun Gong in China is in acordance with the International Human Rights laws? My point being that as long as Human Rights are respected, we can talk about ban, suppression, repression, crackdown. Otherwise it is unlawful thus it is a persecution. Also feel free to consult the collection of /sources. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I rest my case, M'lud. Ohconfucius 09:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually this is an article about:

• 3.1 Forced labor
• 3.2 Torture
• 3.3 Organ harvesting
• 3.4 Psychiatric

So the article is called Persecution of Falun Gong and not something else like, history, Falun Gong in China, ban, crackdown, etc. It is a genocide, because the PRC aims to eradicate Falun Gong, and you must know this, because you read enough reports from all the sources, and you can not seriously claim that Amnesty International, Human rights watch, etc.. (see more here) all of them lie just to make the PRC look bad. Yet you still try to rephrase it as much as you can get away with to make it sound nice and legal. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:ADVOCACY/WP:COI. I refuse to engage. Colipon+(Talk) 10:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

What I listed is common sense and /sources, yet you claim WP:COI so you can justify WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder how the articles Scientology in Germany and Scientology in France managed to avoid becoming 'Suppression/Persecution of Scientology in Germany' and 'Suppression/Persecution of Scientology in France'? Let me guess, "the media doesn't use such beautiful titles" and from the little we know Scientology truly is a dangerous cult which deserves to be suppressed. On the other hand "Falung Gong is a innocent community of peaceful believers which are being hunted down by an oppressive and evil government".

But if you care to read Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident you will find that a mother felt herself justified to immolate herself and her 12 year-old daughter. So much for innocent and peaceful. I'm an atheist and I'm admittedly afraid of Scientology but why should I trust Falung Gong? Just because the Chinese government is "evil and oppressive"? Perhaps we should treat Scientology and Falung Gong with equal detachment and objectivity (ie: same objective titles) instead of playing politics. Flamarande (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you know for a fact that a Falun Gong practitioner set her daughter on fire? Or is this your perception created after Ohconfucius neutralized the Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident article? I would suggest you take a look on the source on this revert this revert and that is why I think that the article breaches NPOV. There are sources, including Falun Gong sources, saying that this was an act of state terrorism. There is nothing in Falun Gong that would drive people toward suicide, much less homicide, and much less to give a free propaganda tool to the PRC by setting a 12 year old daughter on fire. On the other hand, the PRC is capable for doing all that. Scientology and Falun Gong are clearly not the same thing. When you say that Scientology is persecuted in Germany, you mean like this? Does the United Nation special investigator on torture, reported that Scientology members are tortured in Germany's labor camps (see /sources)? Don't you think it is a bit far fetched to compare the Falun Gong to Scientology? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm just sorry this article's content doesn't fit into your narrow Falun Gong view of the world, but you know true well that the 'Self-immolation' article has been heavily edited not just by me, but by other editors with strong detachments and, apparently, with sufficient objectivity for the article to become a featured article. So if you want to blame me, you might care to blame all the collected editors who blessed the article, including the other major contributors at the final stage, notably Jayen466 and SilkTork, who you continually canvas. Ohconfucius 04:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No I don't know for a fact what happened (I wasn't in Tiananmen Square at the time, I never have been in China at all, and I never can be absolutely sure of anything which I didn't see with my own eyes - and even then, we can be never truly be sure of anything - see the Matrix films :). That's the reason we should use objective titles: 'Falong Gong in China' and 'Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident' (the content of the articles themselves are another matter - find credible sources). You see that's just the problem: we simply don't know for sure. Falung Gong sources say that the immolation goes against their teachings and accuse the Chinese government of state terrorism (these are very serious accusations which should be presented before a court of law). The government says the contrary. Who are we to decide who is right? To argue that the PRC is capable for doing all that is playing politics: all governments are capable of doing anything they wish in their own country (as the recent torture scandals at the hands of officials of certain democratic governments painfully showed yet again). The main issue is: why would they do it? Would they get away with it? Are there any witnesses? What are the statements of the witnesses?

The German and the French governments say that Scientology is a dangerous brain-washing cult. Scientology says that's it is merely a innocent religion persecuted by Nazi governments (the Nazi argument is so mind-narrowing, that's why Scientology and everybody else use it all the time :). My own personal opinion in these matters (The entire Scientology should be investigated from top to bottom, and in case of credible evidence brought before a fair and open trial with the preventive arrest of all its leaders) is simply irrelevant: use credible sources and objective titles. Flamarande (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you consider the following sources, credible and objective?

User:HappyInGeneral/Persecution of Falun Gong sources --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Article move proposal:Random break for easy editing - please continue below

Please, we can discuss comparisons between Scientology and Falun Gong on another day. Right now we only need to know if we should move this article. And I am of the impression that everyone here feels (save for one COI user) that "Persecution of Falun Gong" is not the best title. Can we then compromise and just agree on "Falun Gong in China"? Or "Ban of Falun Gong in China"? Please lend your thoughts. Colipon+(Talk) 13:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• That isn't a compromise.
• I see a neutral and 2 3 opposes on a quick view. I think discussion of whether the move needs to take place at all is not ready for a consensus. I don't think we are ready to !vote... this is full, open discussion.
• I too ask that unrelated subjects be avoided.
• There are many wp:RS that refer to the banning/destruction/suppression of the FG in China as persecution. That is great, they can be used to cite that in the article, and they are; I think that is adequately cited. I don't see anyone attempting to remove it from the content, though there was a lot of what I saw as overly-aggressive deletion of content as unsourced that had not been flagged as unsourced or had not been flagged for more than hours.

Those "oppose"s that you are talking about are opposed to "Suppression of Falun Gong", but are also opposed to "Persecution of Falun Gong". I do not see anyone except for one user who unequivocally pushes for the exclusive use of "persecution" above all else. Colipon+(Talk) 16:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I see your reasoning. We are in the discussion phase, not the "done with discussing, time to decide" phase, and I still don't think we are ready to say it has been discussed enough. Several days, I should think, should be allowed for open discussion (even though it may bring in a lot of chaff, we need more wheat).- Sinneed 17:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Banning of Falun Gong; sounds altogether too harmless. I could support, and indeed would favour, Repression of Falun Gong or Repression of Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China. That would set the article scope wide enough to cover both the direct persecution that is happening and the repressive measures surrounding this which do not in themselves rise to the level of persecution. --JN466 18:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Persecution of Falun Gong is the appropriate name under Misplaced Pages naming policy and common sense given that the most common term used to describe the topic of the article is "Persecution of Falun Gong" - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. However, it appears that guidelines and common sense do not apply here - what may prevail is the determination of those most interested in having their way rather than well presented arguments. I do not wish to get drawn into this. I do hope that when this discussion ends ingloriously in another no consensus, that there will be no more attempts at renaming the topic. SilkTork * 20:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

  

• Weak oppose: of course, the question is, "is it a suppression campaign or is it a persecution campaign?". The answer is both. It is clear that this is a suppression, but it is also clear that, unlike Christian America's homophobia or the Scientology fraud convictions, this is also a persecution campaign. So the question is, what is the best title? I think the status quo is less problematic, if only because moving it would entail another discussion that we'd never hear the end of. However, I'd support "Suppression and persecution of..." and/or suffixing "in the People's Republic of China" in the title too. Sceptre 21:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: "Suppression" is too general; it also does not convey well the notion of systematically not "allowing" something. "Banning" is inappropriate as this article is not primarily about the fact that something is/ was not allowed, but about what has happened surrounding the infringement of this ban. Mootros (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If we do the move

I suspect that, if we do the move, yet another "Persecution of Falun Gong" article will be created, and we will go through this whole thing again. It might be that after we reach consensus, we need to open an RfC, suggesting that this article name be locked as a redirect to the "Banning" (or whatever) article to discourage PoV-forking. If at a later time, an editor desired to recreate the article, it could be created in user space, then presented through the talk page with an RfC for community opinion.- Sinneed 15:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that this very spin-out article was not completely in line with Wiki policy to begin with, as it was very rushed and completed without any sign of consensus, not to mention it was done immediately after the page was just moved to "history". As such I would hesitate to consider the 'status quo' as legitimate. Colipon+(Talk) 16:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Since we don't have consensus to kill it (or anything else) from the AfD, it is legitimate.

Since the AfD didn't even come out with consensus to move, I am a bit dubious of finding consensus now... we get many more eyes on AfDs than on talk pages alone, usually.- Sinneed 16:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Sinneed. If it is agreed to move it, as I suggested above, the 'Persecution of Falun Gong', 'Persecution of Falun Gong in China' and 'Persecution of Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China' namespaces will need to be redirected to the new namespace, and then well seasoned for good preservation. Ohconfucius 04:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"Political abuse of psychiatry" section

This name seems fundamentally incorrect... and POVish. I expect that those ordering the usage don't see it as abuse (though that is just opinion, this is a talk page, it is for opinion on content). I also think that he content falls into 3 categories: "doesn't belong", "education", "torture". I don't think this section is where I want to spend my Misplaced Pages time, and I hope some interested editor will spend some time on it.- Sinneed 22:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I am going to give this section a facelift. But be forewarned that a lot of the material will be removed. Please restore it if you believe I have gone too far. Colipon+(Talk) 23:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I considered simply highlighting the section and clicking delete.- Sinneed 00:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I did too, but I think the material is worth mention. I think the current re-organized version gives it a much more neutral feel. Colipon+(Talk) 00:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Concur. Most of the stuff in this immensely problematic article warrants outright removal. Ohconfucius 11:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This section title is confusing. Also should there be a distinction between physical and psychological torture? This separate section makes only sense if there is a focus on the instrumentalisation of the medical profession and healthcare infrastructure. Mootros (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Please be sure to restore the chopped sources.

Some are simply broken, and some were cut. Please be sure to restore them.- Sinneed 00:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square Self-immolation

A bit unsure where this belongs. It's somewhat awkward just lying there by itself. Under "media", perhaps? Colipon+(Talk) 00:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Since it is a huge and defining event, I don't see how it standing on its own is awkward. This one event so shocked China that support for even extreme actions became acceptable to many, as reported by the international press.- Sinneed 00:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely a notable and defining event. I am merely asking where to place it in relation to the rest of the content on the article. Colipon+(Talk) 00:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Bottom, top, or middle. I don't think the layout matters all that much.- Sinneed 00:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

As you may well know, the incident played a huge role in the media campaign against Falun Gong. This is why I am suggesting it be moved under "Media". But I am open to other opinions as well. Colipon+(Talk) 00:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Ohconfucius 11:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Shocked

I find myself shocked. Irrelevant - I urgently request that be restored, or an explanation of why it does not belong. I find my assumption of good faith strained.- Sinneed 00:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. The edit summary was not the best. But in my view, it was utterly out of place in that section. So someone wants this to be investigated, someone else calls upon other actions. It doesn't really fit into the greater context. Like I said above, if you see that a section needs to be restored, please do so. You don't have to even discuss it really, and I will not edit war. I'm just trying to do my best here with such a messy article. Colipon+(Talk) 00:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I cannot revert it (3RR). Please do. If you feel the call for investigation of torture does not belong in the torture section, where would you suggest? Then: wp:SOFIXIT. Clearly a call for investigation of torture would belong in the article. The details of the torture certainly would. The sources certainly belonged.- Sinneed 00:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I am always open to compromise. I find your reason sound so for now I will restore it by self-revert. Thanks for bringing it up. Colipon+(Talk) 00:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, very much. :) - Sinneed 00:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda?

"Firmly support the decision of the Central Committee to deal with the illegal organization of Falun Gong" - How? It would work as NPOV content in WP "The government called for firm support of the decision of the Central Committee to deal with the illegal organization of Falun Gong" - The government banned it, it is illegal. NPOV-the propaganda claim does not belong... or the translation is wrong, and needs to be corrected.- Sinneed 00:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I quite understand what you mean. Do you disagree that the poster is a form of propaganda? Or is there something else I'm missing? Colipon+(Talk) 00:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a bit interesting how that is the only image that survived, see here for example. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I disapprove of characterizing it. The reader can look at the poster, read the caption, and decide if it is propaganda, or not. It is a poster. We say what it says in English. The reader can draw own conclusions. If we are going to say it is propaganda, we need a wp:RS that says it is. - Sinneed 15:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That is fine with me. Colipon+(Talk) 16:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class China-related articles
• High-importance China-related articles
• B-Class China-related articles of High-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• High-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Requested moves