Talk:610 Office

Old commentary
There is no reliable source of information provided here; Interviews cannot be taken as de facto reliable; Just as nobody treats Comical Ali's spiel as reliable, even though it was given substantial press coverage. In this case, interviewee could be POV, there has been no established research on the existence of the 6-10 Office, and the "Uphold Justice" and its affiliate sites publicly states that their reports are for the sole purpose of presenting a one-sided view of affairs. No affirmatory research to support the stance of either the interviews or the "General Report" exists. --Miborovsky 03:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I added a cleanup-verify tag because of above, howeever that means we now have box-creep because of "cleanup", "cleanup-mportance" and "cleanup-verify". Why do we have cleanup-importance?RJFJR 18:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm currently working on a better version of this article. If anyone has any sources other than ABC's Lateline, or the Sydney Morning Herald, let me know. I'm not using The Epoch Times becsasue of their Falun Gong links. Kevin 07:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Please use the latest sources to update this article
The latest available material on the topic present a lot more information on the 6-10 office than is currently touched upon by this article. See, for instance, the Congressional-Executive commission on China, Annual Report 2008.

Congressional-Executive commission on China, Annual Report 2008:

“An extrajudicial security apparatus called the 6-10 Office monitors and leads the suppression of groups that the government deems to be `cult organizations,' including groups that self-identify as Christian. ”

"On June 10, 1999, former President Jiang Zemin and Politburo member Luo Gan established an extrajudicial security apparatus called the '6-10 Office.' This entity was charged with the mission of enforcing a ban on Falun Gong and carrying out a crackdown against its practitioners, which commenced on July 22, 1999, when the government formally outlawed the movement. Falun Gong practitioners describe it as a `traditional Chinese spiritual discipline that is Buddhist in nature,' which consists of `moral teachings, a meditation, and four gentle exercises that resemble tai-chi and are known in Chinese culture as `qigong.' '  Tens of millions of Chinese citizens practiced Falun Gong in the 1990s.. "

"Publicly available government documents detail the central role of the 6-10 Office in the persecution of Falun Gong..."

"6-10 Offices throughout China maintain extrajudicial 'transformation through reeducation' facilities that are used specifically to detain Falun Gong practitioners who have completed terms in reeducation through labor (RTL) camps but whom authorities refuse to release. The term `transformation through reeducation' (jiaoyu zhuanhua) describes a process of ideological reprogramming whereby practitioners are subjected to various methods of physical and psychological coercion until they recant their belief in Falun Gong."

Gao Zhisheng, a lawyer who has defended various Chinese activists, exposed numerous forms of torture and violence employed by the 6-10 Office against Falun Gong practitioners. Gao describes the 6-10 Office as a "Gestapo-like organization" with "powers that no civilized state in the world would even consider trying to obtain." He further notes that "of all the true accounts of incredible violence that I have heard, of all the records of the government's inhuman torture of its own people, what has shaken me most is the routine practice on the part of the 6-10 Office and the police of assaulting women's genitals." Gao went missing in September 2007 following the public release of a letter he sent to the U.S. Congress and remains in detention at an undisclosed location.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I also see that a significant portion of the article is not sourced. I'll attempt to fix this and add in the above information. Dilip rajeev (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Reason for deletions and restructuring lead?
Hello my friend. If it is not too much trouble, I would really be super curious as to why you made this edit, which included deleting several paragraphs of sourced and relevant content. I don't mean to put any pressure on you, and I know that "delete first, ask questions later" is just "your way," but I would just really like to understand how that material could be made acceptable to your tastes. I'm sorry to have been harsh before, it's just that I didn't understand. But please, explain why that information, mostly sourced to the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, which is probably one of the best sources available on the topic of Falun Gong, should be deleted from the page. Just for your kind information, below are a few excerpts from the CECC document (you're not expected to have read the relevant parts of it, and I know it's all just U.S. propaganda against China, but just for your information):

Publicly available government documents detail the central role of the 6–10 Office in the persecution of Falun Gong. Since its inception, the 6–10 Office has also expanded its targets to include other religious and qigong groups that the central government deems ‘‘harmful.’

An April 2008 notice posted on the Gutian county government Web site in Fujian province describes the central government’s ‘‘basic policy’’ outlawing the practice of Falun Gong and outlines five primary tasks to implement: (1) ‘‘explicitly order the dissemination of information regarding the ban [on Falun Gong],’’ (2) ‘‘carry out comprehensive administration [of the policy],’’ (3) ‘‘fully utilize all legal weapons, sternly punish the criminal activities of cult ringleaders and key members,’’ (4) ‘‘do a good job at transformation through reeducation for the great majority of practitioners,’’ and (5) ‘‘prevent external cults from seeping into the area, reduce the conditions that allow cults to propagate.’’

Aggressive surveillance is a key aspect of the 6–10 Office’s work. The Wuling Party Political-Legal Committee describes having implemented a set of three ‘‘responsibility measures’’ to ensure that ‘‘more than 600 Falun Gong practitioners’’ are closely monitored by the district police, neighborhood committee, and their own relatives. The Committee also instructs security officials to organize an ‘‘inspect and control’’ system whereby local police are to conduct home ‘‘visits’’ of Falun Gong practitioners three times per day.In order to monitor more ‘‘die-hard’’ practitioners, public security forces are to form an ‘‘inspection and control small group’’ to carry out ‘‘24-hour surveillance.’’

6–10 Offices throughout China maintain extrajudicial ‘‘transformation through reeducation’’ facilities that are used specifically to detain Falun Gong practitioners who have completed terms in reeducation through labor (RTL) camps but whom authorities refuse to release. The term ‘‘transformation through reeducation’’ (jiaoyu zhuanhua) describes a process of ideological reprogramming whereby practitioners are subjected to various methods of physical and psychological coercion until they recant their belief in Falun Gong.

Sorry to use your time like this--just when you get a minute, please take a quick look at the above, and leave a note here about whether it's acceptable. Thanks! --Asdfg12345 00:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Since when did I remove the CECC references in this page? And there was in fact no discussion on Dilip's additions in the first place so why aren't you discussing with him? In fact he has removed all existance of the PRC response from the second paragraph, while the intro was changed and replaced all references to its supposed functions with rhetorics that was not supported by the source. --PCPP (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You removed two paragraphs from the CECC report:

"The name of the body draws from of its date of formation: June, 10, 1999 . According to the 2008 Congressional Executive Commission Report on China, 'Publicly available government documents detail the central role of the 6-10 Office in the persecution of Falun Gong.' The report states: ''6-10 Offices throughout China maintain extrajudicial 'transformation through reeducation' facilities that are used specifically to detain Falun Gong practitioners who have completed terms in reeducation through labor (RTL) camps but whom authorities refuse to release. The term `transformation through reeducation' (jiaoyu zhuanhua) describes a process of ideological reprogramming whereby practitioners are subjected to various methods of physical and psychological coercion until they recant their belief in Falun Gong.'"

"[part of a graf]He further notes that 'of all the true accounts of incredible violence that I have heard, of all the records of the government's inhuman torture of its own people, what has shaken me most is the routine practice on the part of the 6-10 Office and the police of assaulting women's genitals.' Gao went missing in September 2007 following the public release of a letter he sent to the U.S. Congress and remains in detention at an undisclosed location."

[edited] And the sources cited did support the lead that Dilip introduced, as evidenced above. In fact, the lead you changed it to had no sources. Of course the CCP's official view should be noted; that is, official view according to both the highly trained propaganda officials and also according to the internal information referenced by the CECC report. And since when does someone have to get permission to make additions to pages? That's a nonsensical argument, and does not reflect the wiki editing dynamic at all. Editors are encouraged to improve pages as they see fit, and engage in discussion about the best way to do so. Deleting someone's contributions and claiming they didn't seek your permission first is not in the spirit of wikipedia. I'm going to make that revert myself. Note that I am also restoring some information, not just directly reverting. Finally, can I ask where this came from: "It is responsible for monitoring, studying and analyzing matters relating to Falun Gong, and recommending policy measures for against Falun Gong, and also what the government calls "heretical cults" and "harmful qigong organisations"; and for promptly notifying municipal party committees of trends and developments within "cults"" --Asdfg12345 02:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, so you just wound back all my edits? It took about 15 minutes to do all that. And the only thing I changed, in the end, was ridding the lead of a verbose description, and adding in the deleted material. Let me borrow some language from Ohconfucius's now notorious rant: "foot-soldiers do come in and out, consistently using the undo button, reminding all that any good work not meeting their own criteria are easily rejected and reverted". And this is a page about an internal CCP agency, not about Falun Gong. My restriction extends to Falun Gong articles. I would appreciate an explanation for why you undid all my changes and again deleted that material. --Asdfg12345 02:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The quotes added are pointless and are used to bloat the article, and the lead should be used to describe its "official" functions, not what some US report states. And highly trained propaganda officials? Oh please, you obviously have no concept of NPOV. I have every right to revert edits from someone that's serial POV pusher.--PCPP (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree that they are pointless and add bloat to the article. The article is already very small. How can such simple and focused, sourced information, add bloat? I agree that both the CCP and other views be noted, but I'll repeat again that the description you provided had no source whatsoever. The CECC report is among the most reliable sources available on a topic like this. It is super unclear what the real problem is. Regarding "highly trained propaganda officials," yes. Please read a text called Marketing Dictatorship by Anne-Marie Brady. I won't respond to the personal attacks. --Asdfg12345 03:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The current article already outlined the claims of the CECC and Gao etc, and the quotes are nothing but a blalant attempt to appeal to emotions. And wow, one book said that they were propaganda. I'm so convinced.--PCPP (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Depending on the outcome of the RfC, I will pursue some other dispute resolution measures, perhaps mediation, as long as you edit any page I am editing. Simply deleting information because it's "nothing but a blalant attempt to appeal to emotions," particularly when from such good sources, is really inappropriate, in my view. I can simply not imagine myself or others who have been labelled pro-Falun Gong contributors making similar deletions and forms of argumentation. I find it out of order and highly unusual. Brady's book took a decade of research, including interviews, primary source documents, and so on. Her's is perhaps the latest and most comprehensive, but the CCP's apparatus of indoctrination and propaganda has been studied extensively. Another page you may want to check is Thought reform in the People's Republic of China. I will make no further changes until the outcome of the RfC is clear or some other method for resolving this is found. Maybe an AE case would be in order. --Asdfg12345 03:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

6-10 or 610?
Could we vote or decide which to use? I personally prefer the latter, though the former gets many more ghits. But in scholar, the latter is more prominent. In the latest book on the persecution by Tong, "610 Office" is used. If no one disagrees, then I would suggest "610." --Asdfg12345 02:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Note to editors of this article
Asdfg has just stated on my talkpage that this office/organization does not exclusively relate to Falun Gong. Assuming good faith and taking his word for it I am going to tag it as unbalanced.

Asdfg, I think you are in limbo now. Either this is mainly about Falun Gong, and you violated your topic-ban, or it is not mainly about Falun Gong, then that aspect is given undue weight in the article. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are the words of the block: "[Asdfg12345] is hereby banned from editing Falun Gong and related article or template content (such as about beliefs of, or persons, groups and events related to Falun Gong) for six months." I do not believe that an agency initially set up to persecute Falun Gong counts as a "beliefs of, or persons, groups and events related to Falun Gong." I assume Sandstein will clarify this. I do not intend to make any further changes as long as PCPP's behaviour is unaddressed. Finally, I note that you take a proactive approach to me but ignore PCPP's conduct. You're not required to do anything, but information is conveyed when some things are silently condoned, and others spoken out against.--Asdfg12345 03:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think an agency initially set up to persecute Falun Gong does count as a "group or event related to Falun Gong" (or could reasonably be interpreted to mean that). I didn't remember the precise words, and when I look at them now, it appears obvious. I considered that a CCP agency would not be within the purview of the block, since I've been also editing the propaganda and thought reform pages; they are related, but not as directly related as this. Someone will have to clarify. If I've violated the terms of the ban then I will have whatever punishment is coming for me, I suppose. I wish I had thought of this more clearly earlier. --Asdfg12345 03:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that the 610 does not exclusively relate to Falun Gong. Its mission was expanded some years after the persecution to target other underground religious groups. But it is clearly mainly related to Falun Gong, or at least was when it was established. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 03:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Distortion of sources and removal of material
I have to say that I am beginning to see a pattern of systematic removal of material and distortion of sources on articles related to violation of human rights by the CCP. In this article, I would bring the editor's attention to this edit. The lead is distorted to white-wash the 6-10 office, ad an entire paragraph, sourced to Congressional Executive Reports, 2008: . The report states: ""6-10 Offices throughout China maintain extrajudicial 'transformation through reeducation' facilities that are used specifically to detain Falun Gong practitioners who have completed terms in reeducation through labor (RTL) camps but whom authorities refuse to release. The term `transformation through reeducation' (jiaoyu zhuanhua) describes a process of ideological reprogramming whereby practitioners are subjected to various methods of physical and psychological coercion until they recant their belief in Falun Gong." blanked with no explanation. By no means an isolated incident. You see the same editor blank 12 paragraphs from Propaganda in the PRC page here. I think a systematic analysis would reveal a lot more evidence of this.

This, I believe, is a concern worth looking deeper into. I am collecting systematic evidence of this. If other editors have similar concerns, or have noticed such patterns of blanking, and are interested in throwing light on it, kindly do share.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In fact, I haven't deleted anything. The paragraph was summarized to:

The name of the body draws from of its date of formation: June 10, 1999. According to the 2008 Congressional Executive Commission Report on China, the 6-10 Offices maintain extrajudicial 'transformation through reeducation' (jiaoyu zhuanhua) facilities, where Falun Gong practitioners are subjected to various methods of physical and psychological coercion until they recant their belief in Falun Gong."

--PCPP (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

To Dilip or other editors interested in this topic, I suggest going directly to the CECC 2009 report, or checking some of the information above. All you need to do is rewrite that info a bit and chuck it in the article with a reference tag. It's very simple. PCPP cannot play this strategy indefinitely. These things will be documented. I believe the 2008 version also covers the 610 Office and its dirty work. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 06:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

My point would be this: when he deletes something, just document it. When he rewrites a passage to take out key words, document it on the talk page and ask for an explanation. An editor like this is contributing nothing to the project and should be expelled. Once the evidence accumulates, that will probably happen. But a number of people have to do it, not just one. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 06:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If the information in the article matches the tone of the sources available and the content is all well sourced there's no need to "take out key words" per or give undue weight to one side of the story. If the majority of the sources on a topic are critical of said topic then it's perfectly acceptable to write the article in such a manner and not violate WP:NPOV.  The critical issue is that us editors don't pass judgment or insert POV and only write the articles in accordance with the sources.  Nefariousski (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You wouldn't believe how long such a basic restatement of common sense and wiki policy has been lacking on these pages. And since you don't have a dirty label on you, other editors should actually listen. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 02:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Miscellany
According to modern definition a large portion of historical documents are defined based upon personal experiences. There are currently many individuals who have removed themselves from this evil office and exposed the truth of the matter, many remain anonymous for personal safety. It was specifically created to persecute Falun Dafa, there are internal documents from the Chinese Communist Party that have surfaced speaking directly on the topic of persecuting Falun Gong practitioners. To disregard The Epoch Times on this subject is to saboteur the discussion and truth. Throughout the world Falun Gong has been embraced by every democratic nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resolutedefinition (talk • contribs) 12:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision
When this page was created, there was a fairly serious dearth of reliable, secondary-source information available on the 610 Office. Consequently, the page was very limited, and contained quite a lot of dubious information (ie. the claim that the 610 Office itself runs over 1000 spies overseas), and mischaracterizations (ie. of 610 being run under the administration of the Ministry of Public Security). In the last couple years, however, several new sources have become available that offer real insights—typically based on an analysis of official documents—on the history, structure, and mandates of 610 Offices at the central and local levels, including James Tong's latest book, the report on the 610 office published by the Jamestown Foundation, and various CECC reports. I've attempted to summarize all the sources I could find in the article, and restructured it in a more systematic way. Hopefully it's an improvement. Homunculus (duihua) 23:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think you could have written a more clinical article on the 610 Office (I mean that as a compliment). I've expanded a couple sections a little bit, but not sure what else I could add to it. The only thing that comes to mind is whether any of falungong's lawsuits abroad have targeted this office, but I don't think that's imperative. Well done.— Zujine |talk 18:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Page move
Someone moved the page to "Central Leading Group on Dealing with Heretical Religions." I have moved back for two reasons:
 * The WP:COMMONNAME policy says that we should use the name most frequently used. 610 Office is by far the common name, including in the reliable sources.
 * 610 Office and the CLGDF are not quite the same thing. The central leading group only exists in the Politburo Standing Committee. The 610 offices operate at every administrative level, and this article is as much about its activities at local levels as anything else. So 610 office is a more accurate title, and it encompasses more. — Zujine |talk 14:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Basic function
In response to this edit, I think the HRW source was used to cite the fact that the 610 Office was named for the date of its creation. The other statement (about how the 610 office was established to oversee the suppression of Falun Gong) is the defining feature of this office, as noted by numerous sources. It should therefore be the opening sentence in accordance with Wikipedia's style guide. Here is how reliable sources have described the 610 Office:


 * "At its core, the 610 Office is a plainclothes CCP-based extra-ministerial security force focused on suppressing the Falun Gong spiritual group."


 * "the government outlawed [Falun Gong] and launched a long-term campaign of intimidation and persecution, directed by a special organization called the 610 Office."


 * "the central-level 6-10 Office [is] an extralegal, Party-run security apparatus created in June 1999 to implement the Party's ban against Falun Gong."


 * "...The "610 office" (named for the date of its founding), which reportedly had been directing the crackdown [on Falun Gong] since June 10, 1999"


 * "Publicly available government documents detail the central role of the 6–10 Office in the persecution of Falun Gong."

 The Blue Canoe  18:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Sean brought up a good point on a possible neutrality issue on his talk page. When this page was undergoing GA review I tried looking for conflicting points of view or some kind of defence of the 610 Office. It turns out there is very little divergence in the way reliable sources discuss this office. Academic and journalistic sources use the same types of language as human rights sources, writing that the 610 Office's mandate is to crush, eliminate, suppress or crack down on Falungong (and to a lesser extent other religious and qigong groups, though that came later). The Party itself says the mission of the 610 Office is to "disintegrate" and "struggle" against Falungong. Most of the secondary sources in this article actually relied heavily on Chinese government documents for information on the propaganda and reeducation work.— Zujine |talk 06:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If the CCP do not say that the 610 Office was established for the purpose of coordinating and executing the persecution of Falun Gong, how is the current unattributed statement of fact in the narrative voice of the encyclopedia consistent with the mandatory requirements of NPOV, to represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" ? Clearly the CCP's view is significant and has been published by sources that are reliable sources for that view. The article body covers that in some depth. The views of prominent human rights groups, scholars etc are significant too of course. The lead should present both, as views, attributed to the sources of those views or at least not in the voice of the encyclopedia, and it already does that to some extent in the paragraph that starts with "The main functions...". Regardless of diversity of terminology (which as I said I will try to look at when I have time) and the undocumented transformations of alternative terms to become "persecution" in the voice of the encyclopedia, I don't see how the statement "it was established for the purpose of coordinating and executing the persecution of Falun Gong" can possibly be anything other than a policy violation. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The CCP's view is that the 610 Office was set up to eradicate Falun Gong. They actually use that term in government documents and news articles. The CCP is colorful like that. A lot of news sources and scholars also use this word, so it's an option. Persecution is fine to me, and it's probably more descriptive and encompasses more than some of the other words used by reliable sources (like "crackdown". Crackdowns usually don't last 15 years). But I'm happy to entertaining other options/suggestions. By the way, Sean, is it your position that "persecution" should never be used in Wikipedia's voice? The Blue Canoe  22:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Heretical Religions vs cults
I noticed this recent change by another editor and sources do mention cults, so I'm not sure what to make of this. I'll leave it as cults for now, — Paleo Neonate  – 08:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Forced abortions
The source used didn't mention sterilization or abortion and the sources about the activist do mention it as being his claims. I attempted to reword and also removed the image since it also contained a sensationalist caption not directly supported by the sources. Reading it suggested systematic forced abortion for women of religious minorities is taking place or something similar. — Paleo Neonate  – 08:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

To add to article
To add to this article: information about Peng Bo and his recent prosecution by Xi Jinping. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 08:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)