![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Well, am adding on the lead below:
Falun Gong was introduced to the general public by Li Hongzhi(李洪志) in Changchun, China, in 1992. For the next few years, Falun Gong was the fastest growing qigong practice in Chinese history and, by 1999, there were between 70 and 100 million people practicing Falun Gong in China. [1] Following the seven years of wide-spread popularity, on July 20, 1999, the government of the People's Republic of China began a nationwide persecution campaign against Falun Gong practitioners, except in the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau. [2] [3] In late 1999, legislation was created to outlaw "heterodox religions" and retroactively applied to Falun Gong. [4] Amnesty International states that the persecution is politically motivated with "legislation being used retroactively to convict people on politically-driven charges, and new regulations introduced to further restrict fundamental freedoms." [4] [5]
The nature of Chinese Communist Party rule is considered a central cause of the persecution. According to David Ownby, Falun Gong's popularity, [6] traditional roots, [7] [8] and distinction from marxist-atheist ideology were perceived as a challenge by the Chinese government. [9] Reports suggest that certain high-level Communist Party officials had wanted to crackdown on the practice for some years, [10] but lacked pretext or support--until a number of appeals and petitions to the authorities in 1999, in particular, a 10,000 person silent protest at Zhongnanhai on April 25th. [10] [5] Reportedly many high-ranking members of the politburo were opposed to the persecution, and some analysts consider Jiang Zemin personally responsible for the final decision and the ensuing "Mao-style political campaign." [11] [12] Suspected motives include personal jealousy of Li Hongzhi's popularity, [13] and a manufactured ideological struggle to enforce allegiance of both the populace and the party members to himself and the leadership. [10] [13]
The persecution is considered a major violation of human rights, and international human rights groups have called on the Chinese government to end the persecution [14] and release practitioners sentenced to detention for peaceful activities. [15] Reports state that every aspect of society was used by the Party to persecute Falun Gong, including the media apparatus, police force, army, education system, families, and workplaces. [16] An extra-constitutional body, the 6-10 Office was created to "oversee the terror campaign," [17] driven by a large-scale propaganda through television, newspaper, radio and internet. [4] Propaganda urged families and workplaces to actively assist in the campaign, and practitioners were subject to severe torture to have them recant. [18] There are acute concerns over reports of torture, [19] illegal imprisonment, forced labour, and psychiatric abuses. [20] Falun Gong practitioners comprise 66% of all reported torture cases in China, [21] and at least half of the labour camp population, according to the United Nations and US State Department respectively. [22] In July 2006, an investigative report by Canadian ex-Secretary of State David Kilgour and Human Rights Lawyer David Matas concluded that there exists an ongoing practice of systematic organ harvesting from living Falun Gong practitioners in China. [23] This has been met with concern from the United Nations Committee on Torture, who called for China to schedule an independent investigation and prosecute those guilty of such crimes. [24] [25]
Falun Gong practitioners around the world continue to protest against the persecution, and have initiated lawsuits against Chinese officials alleged to be chiefly responsible, in particular Jiang Zemin and Luo Gan. [14]
All sentences are sourced to the best sources available on the topic.
The current lead, which am replacing with the above, runs:
Persecution of Falun Gong [26] refers to claims by Falun Gong it has been persecuted by the government of China. The qigong-based movement was founded by Li Hongzhi who introduced it to the public in May 1992, in Changchun, Jilin. [27] Falun Gong was banned by the government of China on 22 July 1999. [28] The movement has been called an "evil cult" [29] by the official Chinese press.
Needless to say, there is no real info in it. The persecution is made to sound as a mere claim made by Falun Gong practitioners. I dont think anybody other than those seeking to cover up the real info would want a lead like this. I'll point out section by section - such cover up of material exists in all sections of the article. Dilip rajeev ( talk) 09:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
[this part moved to subsection]
Also. I have expanded the "International Response" section with the below info:
The existing section had but a single sentence:
Needless to say, an intentional/un-intentional distortion of the sources. Dilip rajeev ( talk) 11:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
NOTE that this is not a new intro at all. All Dilip has done was resurrect one of his old edits from a year ago:
[1]--
PCPP (
talk)
11:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
(moved here to keep it separate)
Could you kindly let me know what your concerns on the images are? And which images you happen to have a problem with?
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 11:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The edits yesterday, I repeat, involved just two section, and I point them out above on talk. Dilip rajeev ( talk) 07:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Going through the old Persecution article and comparing it with the current ones (History & Persecution), I saw that several important high-quality references had been completely removed. They include at least the following:
In my view, this is by no means justifiable with encyclopedic concerns. I have restored some of these references and encourage others to evaluate them. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
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 "palmer.fever220":
Reference named "ReidG":
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 ⚡ 16:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
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 "pennyharrold":
The best way to describe Falun Gong is as a cultivation system. Cultivation systems have been a feature of Chinese life for at least 2 500 years.
Reference named "Schechter":
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 ⚡ 16:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I just revised the first paragraph speculating on the rationale for the persecution of Falungong. I found some of the comments in there verbose, some off topic, some unrepresentative of the sources, and some confusing. I can explain further and in detail if anyone is interested. Since the page has not been edited for a long time, I'm going to assume it won't be a problem if I take a break from Human rights in Tibet, catch up on my research for this topic, and jump in. —Zujine| talk 12:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
We must stop these obviously antiFalun Gong people. They are not helping the wikipedia.
Zujine, I see you are new to this page. A suggestion - you might want to take a look at the intro in this older version of the page, and draw from it elements you think could help improve the current intro.
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 08:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Simple, the source provided says nothing regarding what was written. As it stands, it's simply a rhetoric that adds nothing not already covered by the other paragraphs.-- PCPP ( talk) 16:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
There was some moderated discussion underway regarding creating a page on Kilgour Matas reports, and it was seen that the topic meets WP:N. As I am finding it difficult to pull out time to work on wikipedia, I request other editors who might find the topic interesting to go ahead with the creation of the namespace. The moderated discussion can be read here and there might be some relevant material here. Dilip rajeev ( talk) 12:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Am suggesting the title " Kilgour-Matas Reports" for the page. Am interested in hearing topic-name suggestions from other editors as well. Also, if, for some reason, you believe the topic fails WP:N, kindly share your perspective here, we can use this discussion thread to reach a resolution.
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 03:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I doubt there is an argument for not passing WP:N; the Washington Times - whatever you think of them - recently published a long article on the topic, for example. I would be interested in working on such an article. Homunculus ( duihua) 04:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree. It ought to be "Kilgour-Matas report". There is a crescendo of coverage on the topic in mainstream media and it certainly meets WP:N. If it interests you enough you could go straight ahead with creation of the namespace. You might want to look into the sources here [3] and here [4]
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 05:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Homunculus, I've created an article on the Kilgour-Matas report. There is a bit of clean-up to do in certain sections, a bit of expansion to do in others. There is some re-factoring to be done with the "Organ harvesting in China " page ( I plan to work on this tomorrow). Just to give you an idea of the work pending.
I've attemtpted to sumamrize the evidence presented by the report. I'd be thankful if you could help improve it. I'd like to hear from you suggestions on improving it.
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 15:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC
Note there was a prior consensus on the material to be cut down and merged. Dilip simply disregarded the consensus [5] and copy + pasted large chunks of deleted material [6].-- PCPP ( talk) 14:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The article is over mostly newly written and the section of the KM Reports as such is completely newly written. Its surprising how any material exposing CCP's human rights abuses unsettles User:PCPP. Articles are not to be judged by their quality, WP:NPOV, WP:N, etc. PCPP's pattern is whole scale blanking of contributions behind a screen created by lawering and personal attacks, completely deviating attention from the content, in the process.
I request editors to not let their focus dragged away from the content, by the ruckus PCPP creates. Please judge the article on objective factors such as whether the topic meets WP:N, the sourcing and relevance of the content, etc.
It would be worthwhile to note that the above user has been constantly covering up this and related material, through reverts, blanking, and attacks on editors attempting to contribute.
A lot of recent evidence of such blanking by the user can be found on these and related article.
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 14:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I had mentioned the reasons and my decision to start a page on SilkTork's talk as well as with Jayen. Neither had raised objections. The article I created is here and other editors are welcome to review. I'll leave your reverts there for now, for other editors to review, and act on as found appropriate.
Its a 50 Cent Party attitude you are taking on wikipedia. And I am not the only editor to have had concern along those lines. Above you blank out a paragraph in this article with a pseudo rationale. Here you again attempt to divert focus from content to personal attacks and non-existent issues.
I can see no other reason why someone would go around blanking content of centrally relevance, clearly meeting WP:N, in such a manner. Dilip rajeev ( talk) 15:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I recently looked at this page... and I think it could be improved. Let's put it that way. There is a 100kb version here, and basically, I think it may make sense to simply move everything from there here, and then decide what to delete if it's too long. That page represents an enormous amount of research over a long period of time. The current page badly conceals the real conditions of the persecution and most of the good sources on it. If anyone has a care for the persecution of Falun Gong, please note your thoughts and we could work together. Not that I'm hopeful. -- Asdfg 12345 05:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
To the original suggestion that we consider reviving the previous version of the article, I agree that it was more complete. It strikes me as highly problematic that, for instance, the current article seems to have less to say about the imprisonment and torture of Falungong members—arguably the defining characteristic of the persecution—than the main Falun Gong page. That said, while we may be able to pull in some content from them, I advise against the wholesale adoption of previous versions of the article. I think we can do better, frankly. In particular, I would hope that edits we make going forward can move toward giving due weight to each section, and can also be more representative of recent developments in the campaign. I may spend some time on this. I'd also like to suggest a minor reorganization of the page, something along these lines:
Homunculus ( duihua) 06:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
[edit conflict] PCPP, I'll await your reasoning on these two points. Does everything need to be reviewed by you? That is basically the same as saying "no consensus", but you changed the wording. Secondly, how is the information "point of view"? It is a series of facts about what the CCP does to Falun Gong outside China, documented to reliable sources. Please explain the actual problem with the content, if there are any. I hope some other editors will see this ridiculous behaviour and express their views. It's crazy that whenever I make a move, you come along to tear my edits apart. It's unfair and wrong and I hope other people are seeing it and say something, because I am obviously powerless. I'm not going to get into a revert war, that's for sure. [Update: I explained the length, above; the page is going to be restructured, as I understand, so I just put the information there, where it could be reconfigured later; it is one part of Falun Gong outside China, the persecution part; this page is about the persecution, so of course it belongs here.] -- Asdfg 12345 03:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
As per the earlier discussion on a proposed reorganization of the page, I have added a couple new sections (or, in some cases, the beginnings of new sections). Explanation of changes follows:
I hope these edits are not too brash; this page has been mostly dormant for some time, and however inadequate they may be, I think these edits are a step in the right direction and provide a platform for the inclusion of more research.
There is still much work to be done, however, and I’m convinced that a number of sections (ie. media campaign, and legal and bureaucratic measures) can and should be made to say more in far fewer words. Other sections, including torture in custody, should simply be revised to be include better-sourced and more representative examples.
As a quick note going forward, I hope that we can maintain open channels of communication, and more importantly, make earnest efforts to present the facts as they are. Homunculus ( duihua) 06:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
No problems here. —Zujine| talk 23:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
This seems to have stalled. I'm partly at fault, but it's no surprise that the interests of others also peter out. I'm going to replace the lead and add material to different parts of the article. -- Asdfg 12345 21:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Genocide? Really? And some Argentinian judge's opinion is really not that significant. -- Edward130603 ( talk) 21:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:Persecutionofzhangzhong.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
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 "Ownbyfuture":
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 ⚡ 08:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
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 "Ownby":
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 ⚡ 08:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
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 "BHbook":
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 ⚡ 20:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm interested in trying to build this article to be more complete and proportional in its coverage of different aspects of the persecution, but want to make sure I've read all the most relevant books and articles on the topic beforehand. I've started compiling a list of the most significant sources on this topic, and invite anyone with knowledge of other good sources to add to this.
I've read (or at least skimmed) all of these. What am I missing? TheBlueCanoe 03:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I would mention the Kilgour Matas reports, Ethan Gutmann, the resolutions passed by the U.S. congress, and other governments, a lot material from various sources are on faluninfo.net
Wiki Chymyst
12:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Make sure to use Amnesty International's report, “CHANGING THE SOUP BUT NOT THE MEDICINE?”. It discusses the shutdown of the RTL system and includes a great deal of information on the persecution of Falun Gong within RTL. —Zujine| talk 20:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
The sections on legal instruments, media/censorship and arbitrary detention are all updated. There's probably more information that should be added under prisons/RTL. A few other things I identified when reading through:
Also, sourcing is a total hodgepodge, and the index might be too long. There's more I'm sure, but this is enough for one night. TheBlueCanoe 04:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I would like to know what's the matter with the following picture.
Aaabbb11, I disagree your removal of this picture. In the text, there's mention of even more severe tortures, but yet you think it's just too violent to show a picture that carry basically the same information.
Then, I would like to know why the following picture that was originally in top page was removed, and get a POV from Epicgenius.
The current top page picture is quite the same to me than the previous one.
I won't undo all this changes, but it's hard for me to get the point.
Thank both of you. Davives ( talk) 14:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
This article was not written in a neutral manner. For example, even the use of the word persecution in the title of this article is a loaded word that carries a negative connotation. Naming the article Prohibition of Falun Gong would be neutral and reflect the various opinions on this subject. Most of the complaints in this article are accusations, but this article names the sections and phrases the sentences as though they are facts proven in a court of law. This article also uses a lot of weasel words and is written in Wikipedia:WikiVoice. It's best to attribute the idea to the author you are citing to avoid using weasel words or WikiVoice. Waters.Justin ( talk) 02:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Persecution of the Falun Gong by China is closer to the mark. But I wouldn't want to imply that the entire nation of China is culpable for the actions taken by governing party. Since, as you said, most of the article is centered on China, would Persecution of Falun Gong in China work? TheBlueCanoe 01:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest the title as Exclusion of Falun Gong from China. STSC ( talk)
"Persecution of Falun Gong" is the most rational title to me. It is also widely used, see for instance:
Nibbler869 ( talk) 16:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I have further suggestions on the title:
STSC (
talk)
16:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Wow. So, eliminating people based on their religious creed isn't undesirable? That's really twisted. Grotesque apologia aside, there seems to be general agreement among most editors that the current title, or a slight variation on it, is preferred. Recognizing that there are some other valid considerations, I agree with TheSoundAndTheFury, and see no compelling reason to break from the naming convention used for other articles. TheBlueCanoe 21:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
practitioner - a person actively engaged in an art, discipline, or profession, especially medicine
adherent - someone who supports a particular party, person, or set of ideas
For me these are totally different terms and the term adherent is inappropriate. Aaabbb11 ( talk) 12:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The most accurate term to refer to the persecution of FG is genocide. By the CCP's own admission, the purpose is to eradicate a religious creed.
Definition - the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group. Aaabbb11 ( talk) 21:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
if there's no explanation I'll revert. if stsc reverts again then i'll initiate a request for punitive action. I see no reason for randomly deleting pictures from articles. Happy monsoon day 01:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I think there should be a section in the article titled "Countries denying the Genocide of Falun Gong". New Zealand makes the list. David Kilgour talks about New Zealand in this interview. http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday/audio/201754689/david-kilgour-forced-organ-harvesting.
If you look at the pictures on the Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2187771/Does-Chinas-superb-tolerance-religious-diversity-extend-imprisoned-tortured-Falun-Gong-practitioners.html its pretty obvious that Gao Rongrong was tortured. So we can drop the word allegedly. Aaabbb11 ( talk) 16:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
lamsupp
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).In the 109th Congress, H.Res. 608, introduced on December 14, 2005, would condemn the "escalating levels of religious persecution" in China, including the "brutal campaign to eradicate Falun Gong." H.Res. 794, introduced on May 3, 2006, would call upon the PRC to end its most egregious human rights abuses, including the persecution of Falun Gong.
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
PDO990730
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Well, am adding on the lead below:
Falun Gong was introduced to the general public by Li Hongzhi(李洪志) in Changchun, China, in 1992. For the next few years, Falun Gong was the fastest growing qigong practice in Chinese history and, by 1999, there were between 70 and 100 million people practicing Falun Gong in China. [1] Following the seven years of wide-spread popularity, on July 20, 1999, the government of the People's Republic of China began a nationwide persecution campaign against Falun Gong practitioners, except in the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau. [2] [3] In late 1999, legislation was created to outlaw "heterodox religions" and retroactively applied to Falun Gong. [4] Amnesty International states that the persecution is politically motivated with "legislation being used retroactively to convict people on politically-driven charges, and new regulations introduced to further restrict fundamental freedoms." [4] [5]
The nature of Chinese Communist Party rule is considered a central cause of the persecution. According to David Ownby, Falun Gong's popularity, [6] traditional roots, [7] [8] and distinction from marxist-atheist ideology were perceived as a challenge by the Chinese government. [9] Reports suggest that certain high-level Communist Party officials had wanted to crackdown on the practice for some years, [10] but lacked pretext or support--until a number of appeals and petitions to the authorities in 1999, in particular, a 10,000 person silent protest at Zhongnanhai on April 25th. [10] [5] Reportedly many high-ranking members of the politburo were opposed to the persecution, and some analysts consider Jiang Zemin personally responsible for the final decision and the ensuing "Mao-style political campaign." [11] [12] Suspected motives include personal jealousy of Li Hongzhi's popularity, [13] and a manufactured ideological struggle to enforce allegiance of both the populace and the party members to himself and the leadership. [10] [13]
The persecution is considered a major violation of human rights, and international human rights groups have called on the Chinese government to end the persecution [14] and release practitioners sentenced to detention for peaceful activities. [15] Reports state that every aspect of society was used by the Party to persecute Falun Gong, including the media apparatus, police force, army, education system, families, and workplaces. [16] An extra-constitutional body, the 6-10 Office was created to "oversee the terror campaign," [17] driven by a large-scale propaganda through television, newspaper, radio and internet. [4] Propaganda urged families and workplaces to actively assist in the campaign, and practitioners were subject to severe torture to have them recant. [18] There are acute concerns over reports of torture, [19] illegal imprisonment, forced labour, and psychiatric abuses. [20] Falun Gong practitioners comprise 66% of all reported torture cases in China, [21] and at least half of the labour camp population, according to the United Nations and US State Department respectively. [22] In July 2006, an investigative report by Canadian ex-Secretary of State David Kilgour and Human Rights Lawyer David Matas concluded that there exists an ongoing practice of systematic organ harvesting from living Falun Gong practitioners in China. [23] This has been met with concern from the United Nations Committee on Torture, who called for China to schedule an independent investigation and prosecute those guilty of such crimes. [24] [25]
Falun Gong practitioners around the world continue to protest against the persecution, and have initiated lawsuits against Chinese officials alleged to be chiefly responsible, in particular Jiang Zemin and Luo Gan. [14]
All sentences are sourced to the best sources available on the topic.
The current lead, which am replacing with the above, runs:
Persecution of Falun Gong [26] refers to claims by Falun Gong it has been persecuted by the government of China. The qigong-based movement was founded by Li Hongzhi who introduced it to the public in May 1992, in Changchun, Jilin. [27] Falun Gong was banned by the government of China on 22 July 1999. [28] The movement has been called an "evil cult" [29] by the official Chinese press.
Needless to say, there is no real info in it. The persecution is made to sound as a mere claim made by Falun Gong practitioners. I dont think anybody other than those seeking to cover up the real info would want a lead like this. I'll point out section by section - such cover up of material exists in all sections of the article. Dilip rajeev ( talk) 09:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
[this part moved to subsection]
Also. I have expanded the "International Response" section with the below info:
The existing section had but a single sentence:
Needless to say, an intentional/un-intentional distortion of the sources. Dilip rajeev ( talk) 11:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
NOTE that this is not a new intro at all. All Dilip has done was resurrect one of his old edits from a year ago:
[1]--
PCPP (
talk)
11:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
(moved here to keep it separate)
Could you kindly let me know what your concerns on the images are? And which images you happen to have a problem with?
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 11:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The edits yesterday, I repeat, involved just two section, and I point them out above on talk. Dilip rajeev ( talk) 07:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Going through the old Persecution article and comparing it with the current ones (History & Persecution), I saw that several important high-quality references had been completely removed. They include at least the following:
In my view, this is by no means justifiable with encyclopedic concerns. I have restored some of these references and encourage others to evaluate them. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
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 "palmer.fever220":
Reference named "ReidG":
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 ⚡ 16:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
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 "pennyharrold":
The best way to describe Falun Gong is as a cultivation system. Cultivation systems have been a feature of Chinese life for at least 2 500 years.
Reference named "Schechter":
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 ⚡ 16:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I just revised the first paragraph speculating on the rationale for the persecution of Falungong. I found some of the comments in there verbose, some off topic, some unrepresentative of the sources, and some confusing. I can explain further and in detail if anyone is interested. Since the page has not been edited for a long time, I'm going to assume it won't be a problem if I take a break from Human rights in Tibet, catch up on my research for this topic, and jump in. —Zujine| talk 12:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
We must stop these obviously antiFalun Gong people. They are not helping the wikipedia.
Zujine, I see you are new to this page. A suggestion - you might want to take a look at the intro in this older version of the page, and draw from it elements you think could help improve the current intro.
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 08:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Simple, the source provided says nothing regarding what was written. As it stands, it's simply a rhetoric that adds nothing not already covered by the other paragraphs.-- PCPP ( talk) 16:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
There was some moderated discussion underway regarding creating a page on Kilgour Matas reports, and it was seen that the topic meets WP:N. As I am finding it difficult to pull out time to work on wikipedia, I request other editors who might find the topic interesting to go ahead with the creation of the namespace. The moderated discussion can be read here and there might be some relevant material here. Dilip rajeev ( talk) 12:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Am suggesting the title " Kilgour-Matas Reports" for the page. Am interested in hearing topic-name suggestions from other editors as well. Also, if, for some reason, you believe the topic fails WP:N, kindly share your perspective here, we can use this discussion thread to reach a resolution.
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 03:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I doubt there is an argument for not passing WP:N; the Washington Times - whatever you think of them - recently published a long article on the topic, for example. I would be interested in working on such an article. Homunculus ( duihua) 04:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree. It ought to be "Kilgour-Matas report". There is a crescendo of coverage on the topic in mainstream media and it certainly meets WP:N. If it interests you enough you could go straight ahead with creation of the namespace. You might want to look into the sources here [3] and here [4]
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 05:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Homunculus, I've created an article on the Kilgour-Matas report. There is a bit of clean-up to do in certain sections, a bit of expansion to do in others. There is some re-factoring to be done with the "Organ harvesting in China " page ( I plan to work on this tomorrow). Just to give you an idea of the work pending.
I've attemtpted to sumamrize the evidence presented by the report. I'd be thankful if you could help improve it. I'd like to hear from you suggestions on improving it.
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 15:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC
Note there was a prior consensus on the material to be cut down and merged. Dilip simply disregarded the consensus [5] and copy + pasted large chunks of deleted material [6].-- PCPP ( talk) 14:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The article is over mostly newly written and the section of the KM Reports as such is completely newly written. Its surprising how any material exposing CCP's human rights abuses unsettles User:PCPP. Articles are not to be judged by their quality, WP:NPOV, WP:N, etc. PCPP's pattern is whole scale blanking of contributions behind a screen created by lawering and personal attacks, completely deviating attention from the content, in the process.
I request editors to not let their focus dragged away from the content, by the ruckus PCPP creates. Please judge the article on objective factors such as whether the topic meets WP:N, the sourcing and relevance of the content, etc.
It would be worthwhile to note that the above user has been constantly covering up this and related material, through reverts, blanking, and attacks on editors attempting to contribute.
A lot of recent evidence of such blanking by the user can be found on these and related article.
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 14:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I had mentioned the reasons and my decision to start a page on SilkTork's talk as well as with Jayen. Neither had raised objections. The article I created is here and other editors are welcome to review. I'll leave your reverts there for now, for other editors to review, and act on as found appropriate.
Its a 50 Cent Party attitude you are taking on wikipedia. And I am not the only editor to have had concern along those lines. Above you blank out a paragraph in this article with a pseudo rationale. Here you again attempt to divert focus from content to personal attacks and non-existent issues.
I can see no other reason why someone would go around blanking content of centrally relevance, clearly meeting WP:N, in such a manner. Dilip rajeev ( talk) 15:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I recently looked at this page... and I think it could be improved. Let's put it that way. There is a 100kb version here, and basically, I think it may make sense to simply move everything from there here, and then decide what to delete if it's too long. That page represents an enormous amount of research over a long period of time. The current page badly conceals the real conditions of the persecution and most of the good sources on it. If anyone has a care for the persecution of Falun Gong, please note your thoughts and we could work together. Not that I'm hopeful. -- Asdfg 12345 05:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
To the original suggestion that we consider reviving the previous version of the article, I agree that it was more complete. It strikes me as highly problematic that, for instance, the current article seems to have less to say about the imprisonment and torture of Falungong members—arguably the defining characteristic of the persecution—than the main Falun Gong page. That said, while we may be able to pull in some content from them, I advise against the wholesale adoption of previous versions of the article. I think we can do better, frankly. In particular, I would hope that edits we make going forward can move toward giving due weight to each section, and can also be more representative of recent developments in the campaign. I may spend some time on this. I'd also like to suggest a minor reorganization of the page, something along these lines:
Homunculus ( duihua) 06:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
[edit conflict] PCPP, I'll await your reasoning on these two points. Does everything need to be reviewed by you? That is basically the same as saying "no consensus", but you changed the wording. Secondly, how is the information "point of view"? It is a series of facts about what the CCP does to Falun Gong outside China, documented to reliable sources. Please explain the actual problem with the content, if there are any. I hope some other editors will see this ridiculous behaviour and express their views. It's crazy that whenever I make a move, you come along to tear my edits apart. It's unfair and wrong and I hope other people are seeing it and say something, because I am obviously powerless. I'm not going to get into a revert war, that's for sure. [Update: I explained the length, above; the page is going to be restructured, as I understand, so I just put the information there, where it could be reconfigured later; it is one part of Falun Gong outside China, the persecution part; this page is about the persecution, so of course it belongs here.] -- Asdfg 12345 03:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
As per the earlier discussion on a proposed reorganization of the page, I have added a couple new sections (or, in some cases, the beginnings of new sections). Explanation of changes follows:
I hope these edits are not too brash; this page has been mostly dormant for some time, and however inadequate they may be, I think these edits are a step in the right direction and provide a platform for the inclusion of more research.
There is still much work to be done, however, and I’m convinced that a number of sections (ie. media campaign, and legal and bureaucratic measures) can and should be made to say more in far fewer words. Other sections, including torture in custody, should simply be revised to be include better-sourced and more representative examples.
As a quick note going forward, I hope that we can maintain open channels of communication, and more importantly, make earnest efforts to present the facts as they are. Homunculus ( duihua) 06:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
No problems here. —Zujine| talk 23:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
This seems to have stalled. I'm partly at fault, but it's no surprise that the interests of others also peter out. I'm going to replace the lead and add material to different parts of the article. -- Asdfg 12345 21:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Genocide? Really? And some Argentinian judge's opinion is really not that significant. -- Edward130603 ( talk) 21:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:Persecutionofzhangzhong.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
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 "Ownbyfuture":
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 ⚡ 08:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
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 "Ownby":
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 ⚡ 08:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
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 "BHbook":
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 ⚡ 20:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm interested in trying to build this article to be more complete and proportional in its coverage of different aspects of the persecution, but want to make sure I've read all the most relevant books and articles on the topic beforehand. I've started compiling a list of the most significant sources on this topic, and invite anyone with knowledge of other good sources to add to this.
I've read (or at least skimmed) all of these. What am I missing? TheBlueCanoe 03:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I would mention the Kilgour Matas reports, Ethan Gutmann, the resolutions passed by the U.S. congress, and other governments, a lot material from various sources are on faluninfo.net
Wiki Chymyst
12:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Make sure to use Amnesty International's report, “CHANGING THE SOUP BUT NOT THE MEDICINE?”. It discusses the shutdown of the RTL system and includes a great deal of information on the persecution of Falun Gong within RTL. —Zujine| talk 20:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
The sections on legal instruments, media/censorship and arbitrary detention are all updated. There's probably more information that should be added under prisons/RTL. A few other things I identified when reading through:
Also, sourcing is a total hodgepodge, and the index might be too long. There's more I'm sure, but this is enough for one night. TheBlueCanoe 04:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I would like to know what's the matter with the following picture.
Aaabbb11, I disagree your removal of this picture. In the text, there's mention of even more severe tortures, but yet you think it's just too violent to show a picture that carry basically the same information.
Then, I would like to know why the following picture that was originally in top page was removed, and get a POV from Epicgenius.
The current top page picture is quite the same to me than the previous one.
I won't undo all this changes, but it's hard for me to get the point.
Thank both of you. Davives ( talk) 14:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
This article was not written in a neutral manner. For example, even the use of the word persecution in the title of this article is a loaded word that carries a negative connotation. Naming the article Prohibition of Falun Gong would be neutral and reflect the various opinions on this subject. Most of the complaints in this article are accusations, but this article names the sections and phrases the sentences as though they are facts proven in a court of law. This article also uses a lot of weasel words and is written in Wikipedia:WikiVoice. It's best to attribute the idea to the author you are citing to avoid using weasel words or WikiVoice. Waters.Justin ( talk) 02:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Persecution of the Falun Gong by China is closer to the mark. But I wouldn't want to imply that the entire nation of China is culpable for the actions taken by governing party. Since, as you said, most of the article is centered on China, would Persecution of Falun Gong in China work? TheBlueCanoe 01:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest the title as Exclusion of Falun Gong from China. STSC ( talk)
"Persecution of Falun Gong" is the most rational title to me. It is also widely used, see for instance:
Nibbler869 ( talk) 16:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I have further suggestions on the title:
STSC (
talk)
16:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Wow. So, eliminating people based on their religious creed isn't undesirable? That's really twisted. Grotesque apologia aside, there seems to be general agreement among most editors that the current title, or a slight variation on it, is preferred. Recognizing that there are some other valid considerations, I agree with TheSoundAndTheFury, and see no compelling reason to break from the naming convention used for other articles. TheBlueCanoe 21:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
practitioner - a person actively engaged in an art, discipline, or profession, especially medicine
adherent - someone who supports a particular party, person, or set of ideas
For me these are totally different terms and the term adherent is inappropriate. Aaabbb11 ( talk) 12:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The most accurate term to refer to the persecution of FG is genocide. By the CCP's own admission, the purpose is to eradicate a religious creed.
Definition - the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group. Aaabbb11 ( talk) 21:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
if there's no explanation I'll revert. if stsc reverts again then i'll initiate a request for punitive action. I see no reason for randomly deleting pictures from articles. Happy monsoon day 01:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I think there should be a section in the article titled "Countries denying the Genocide of Falun Gong". New Zealand makes the list. David Kilgour talks about New Zealand in this interview. http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday/audio/201754689/david-kilgour-forced-organ-harvesting.
If you look at the pictures on the Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2187771/Does-Chinas-superb-tolerance-religious-diversity-extend-imprisoned-tortured-Falun-Gong-practitioners.html its pretty obvious that Gao Rongrong was tortured. So we can drop the word allegedly. Aaabbb11 ( talk) 16:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
lamsupp
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).In the 109th Congress, H.Res. 608, introduced on December 14, 2005, would condemn the "escalating levels of religious persecution" in China, including the "brutal campaign to eradicate Falun Gong." H.Res. 794, introduced on May 3, 2006, would call upon the PRC to end its most egregious human rights abuses, including the persecution of Falun Gong.
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
PDO990730
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).