Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 32

PCPP's disruptive edits
I have started an RfC on this user's conduct. He has now again restored and deleted content that is going through tedious discussion above, even after being reverted. This kind of behaviour should not fly. More details are in the RfC. --Asdfg12345 01:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't raise the issue here if this were an isolated incident. I see that it is not exactly Falun Gong related pages alone that the user targets but material pertinent to human rights violations by the CCP. Here, for instance, the user blanks 12 paragraphs of well sourced and centrally relevant content with a sneaky comment "rv pov material." Here, again with no edit summary or talk comments, a paragraph disappears:. And in this edit dated March 1st, several paragraphs are blanked with a similar comment - "pov cleanup." I believe this edit/blanking would need more explanation than a "questionable sources removed"  comment - and, hence, am restoring the content.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I seek explanation for the following three edits: I assume the three edits were made by PCPP. I would appreciate an explanation of the changes in terminology and the deletions of some parts of the text. Thank you. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * was named "moved burgdoff comment"; the edit, while moving the Burgdoff comment, also reduced it, and deleted this: "Falun Gong claims that the Chinese government's crackdown against the group has resulted in torture; genocide; violation of the right to life; violation of the right of liberty and security of the person; arbitrary arrest and imprisonment; violation of the freedom of thought, conscience and religion; and conspiracy to commit violations of civil rights within the United States. " I note that the source was the Columbia Journal of Asian Law. I would like to know why this was deleted. I would also like to know why the edit summary only said "moved burgdoff comment," when it was more than moving the Burgdoff comment. Part of the Burgdoff quote was also deleted: "Falun Gong practitioners, like most people who participate in a religious tradition, freely pick and choose from the official teachings according to their individual inclinations... for most practitioners Falun Gong is fundamentally about individual ethical development." " If it was felt necessary to delete these two quotes, an explanation as to why would be appropriate. I would still like an explanation.
 * changed several items of terminology as they were stated in the source. For example, "propaganda" became "statements by the Chinese government" and "the regime" became "the Chinese government." In neither case did the source say "statements by the Chinese government" or "the Chinese government." The source stated "propaganda" and "the regime." I would like to know why those words were changed. In the same edit, Sima Nan was changed from "a hot commodity" and "establishment darling" to a "prominent cult critic." I would also like to know why those terms were changed.
 * I think this is good, expanding on the issue and presenting the relevant views in a fuller way.


 * The second point on the list is easily explained and justified; you guys don't know how to quote. If indeed that is the word-choice of the source, then such word-choice must be in "". If it isn't, it can and should be changed to neutral terminology. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you mean that the words "propaganda" and "regime" are not neutral, and should be placed in scare quotes on Wikipedia? --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "regime" is definitely not neutral. What I mean is that when there is a passage that could be considered controversial, it is always better to quote directly rather than re-phrase and run the risk of having people understand that these are the words you chose as an editor. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Its quite obvious to see that propaganda and regime are indeed not neutral, Sound/Fury. What do you think when I say: The United States Regime is currently using propaganda. Note the negative connotations both words have.--Edward130603 (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a short remark that the scholar who used these terms is James Tong. You can see his information here:. He is not a biased scholar or a China basher. I do not believe these terms are biased in this context; they are regularly used in academic studies to refer to the Chinese Communist Party and its media activities. U.S. propaganda is referred to as U.S. propaganda without needing to be put in quotes; see Chomsky's work, for example. These words are quite regularly used. For now allow me to do three things: the first is that I will undo the changes, because they were not explained, retaining the information that was added, but restoring the language that was used according to the sources. Next, I will put in quotes the parts that refer to "regime" and "propaganda." Finally, I will make a notice on the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard to check with the wider Wikipedia community on whether these terms are biased or not. My view is that because they are commonly used by China scholars, we should not seek to enforce our version of orthodoxy over the terminology. These people have worked in the field for decades and are the experts. Generally speaking, they should be more qualified to judge what the neutrality of bias of certain terms than we are. That is just my opinion. I will be interested to see what is the view of the wider community on this. It does raise an interesting point, though. I have another concept for minor improvement that I will outline in a moment. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I left a remark above asking for the sources for certain comments attributed to Ostergaard. I checked the pages referenced and could not find the material cited. As I brought one of those up twice, and several days ago, I think it is fair that the information now be removed until a source be found. I will make an edit to do that. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A) The Burgdoff comment was placed right under Kavan's criticism of FLG, and is used in a sense to dismiss Kavan's claims. I've placed it in a more appropriate section with other comments more supportive of FLG. The FLG statement itself is a pointless addition used as a rhetoric, when in fact FLG's position has already been made in the introduction and leading paragraphs. The quote is excessive and the previous sentence already outlined his position

B) Per words to avoid, these terminology carries negative connections, and should be replaced or rephrased with more neutral words, unless they're actually quoted from the source.

C) Ditto --PCPP (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I find the changes in "A" fairly reasonable. Regarding B and C, the words "propaganda" or "regime" don't appear among the words to avoid. That mostly appears to be reserved for other issues. I left a note on the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, and the message I get is that these words do not need to be strictly placed inside quotation marks whenever they appear, but they should not appear in the Wikipedia voice, and should be cited with a source attributed. I believe the section in question cites the relevant sources, and uses terms like "writes X" and "according to Y" when appropriate.--TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Questions by Olaf
I have some questions about the page in its current form:
 * Why is there no subsection on the persecution? It would clearly seem appropriate and in line with Wikipedia convention and policy.
 * Where does the word "proselytize" appear in the sources cited for the use of that term in the lead? What is the meaning of "Falun Gong groups have since moved abroad"?
 * Can the claim "Western academics generally describe Falun Gong as a new religious movement" be substantiated?
 * Why is the alleged self-immolation incident placed in "Continued protests and statewide suppression" rather than "Media campaign"?
 * Why does the lead suggest that the 'persecution' is a series of claims by Falun Gong practitioners and not verified or discussed by third parties?

Thanks! &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  13:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * None of these piddling issues make any sense unless you're trying to massage FG's public image, Olaph. Remember where such massaging has put you in the past and back off. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please answer my points in detail. They all make a lot of sense. Past breaches of the civility policy - if we want to put it that way - do not invalidate my arguments. I will keep insisting that all relevant points of view are covered with due weight, and that the entire article is transparent and verifiable. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  16:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I considered that some of these are quite reasonable, and I was quietly wondering about one or two of them myself. At least, these are some ideas to work off. I will make a few changes and write why here, and others can share their views. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding the changes, I made the two of them that seemed most immediately sensible: that is, to make the "persecution" its own subsection, and link out to the main article. I have found that this is quite common with Wikipedia articles, and makes sense; there is a policy called "summary style" that I read the other day. After reading this page a couple of times, I was wondering why there was no section on the persecution. This also seems to add a more harmonious balance, since "History" otherwise had seven subsections! The only other change was the Tiananmen immolation incident, I moved that up as suggested. Whether the protesters were members of the Falun Gong or not, I suppose will never be known, but it's well-known, and not very controversial that it was a media artefact. Rather than presuppose it was a protest by placing it in the protest section, I think it safer to set it in the "Media" section and let readers make up their mind. I have a few other ideas for improvement that I will seek input on later. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, TheSoundAndTheFury. It's good to have some new blood around. I recommend you take a look at the long and winding history of disputes on these pages. Mrund's seemingly abusive comment can only be understood in that context. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  00:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Abusive?--Edward130603 (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

One small item: the source cited for this statement "Within the first month of the crackdown, 300-400 articles attacking Falun Gong appeared in each of the main state-run papers, while primetime television replayed alleged exposés on the group, with no divergent views aired in the media." is actually a Falun Gong member. I looked up his profile and he has published several articles extolling Falun Gong online. I wonder whether using this as a source is appropriate. On the other hand, what he says is probably not disputed either. This may be a grey area.

Olaf, I have read some of the conflict surrounding this. It's too banal to read too much. You are no angel yourself, from what I can tell. I think our focus now should be on energetic discussion of the article rather than derogatory or other remarks about individuals. Wikipedia seems to have a latent tendency for the latter, whereas we should strive for the former. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Things got a little heated in the past, I know that. But let me assure you that I am committed to making this a featured article. If all editors truly respect Wikipedia's core policies, a cooperative environment will naturally flourish. (One friendly note: talking about Falun Gong 'members' implies that the practitioners would have formally joined the movement, which is not the case, as there is no official membership.) &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  00:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, unofficial membership still counts.--Edward130603 (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have renamed the "The 'cult' label" section to "Categorisation" and rewritten some parts of it. My reasons for doing so are to allow the debate to be more inclusive and broader. I have also noted some of the previous discussion above which appears to demonstrate how that label does not have currency among scholars dealing with Falun Gong (Ownby's also gives this impression). Rather than having a section devoted to debating something that is only one part of the wider issue of how Falun Gong is to be categorised, I thought it would be wise to simply expand the potential of that section. The variety of ways that Falun Gong has been categorised would then have a chance to be discussed. It is also an attempt to get away from the CCP/Falun Gong polemics of "cult/not-cult," and perhaps provide a more informed and meaningful discussion to the reader, rather than only directly competing views. Different things can be true at the same time. I was somewhat inspired by the essay on being bold:; so I decided to try my hand. I would be very pleased to discuss how this section could be improved further, or to know if I have made a grave error. Olaf Stephanos, thank you for the note on "practitioners," I will consider adopting this term (I concede that Ownby and Tong seem to). Might you be too sensitive with regard to the word "proseltyzing," though? It may not have a specific source, but is this not what Falun Gong practitioners do? --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * TheSoundAndTheFury, you go to great lengths to prove out a doctrinal issue above, about whether and precisely how the Buddhist Association criticised Falun Gong in this or that way, but when it comes to a contentious word that has no source you are a bit more blase? It also doesn't matter if it's true (I assume Falun Gong practitioners would dispute it; they would probably argue that they are attempting to raise awareness of the persecution rather than promote their belief system. And, indeed, their intentions should surely one of the defining factors in how their behaviour should be characterised)-- but it still needs a source. Further, even if it has one source, that doesn't mean it's common or should be in the lead. Same for "generally describe as an NRM." Needs a source, or a long list of academics that call Falun Gong an NRM. Putting this all in the section categorising Falun Gong, as you have done, makes sense though. I would just suggest maintaining high sourcing standards on all fronts. In fact, there was already a lead before Colipon unilaterally rewrote it into this. Please take a look. It's also ironic to note that Colipon having a problem with an unsourced statement of "many academics" is fine, but Olaf having that problem is a "piddling issue." I can only sigh. --Asdfg12345 07:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Moving on from minor language issues, I noticed that an important section was missing: the coercive measures that have been applied to the Falun Gong flock in China to have them recant their beliefs. James Tong, among others, provides an in-depth analysis of it, with some remarks about the veracity of the information. I considered all this appropriate, and introduced a condensed version of the chief claims. I also moved some of the other paragraphs in that section around in an attempt to get a better sequence of information. There are many other reports on all these aspects, but Tong seems to transmit the principle elements. Better to get to the point quickly with something like this. The other change I made was to delineate "Inside China" and "Outside China" in the Organisation section; it seemed an obvious division. Then there was just putting the word "reportedly" about a death in custody. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In light of the section I introduced, I had another thought. It is not touched on explicitly in the article - and I do not know that there are sources for this - but it may be relevant to show how the Falun Gong denominations outside China have incorporated those reports of abuse into their public representations as a persecuted group. The issue of how the persecution has been taken up to create positive representation for Falun Gong, and the rhetorical strategies at play behind that, would be interesting for a reader new to the subject.--TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agree with TheSoundAndTheFury on both coercive measures and Falun Gong's 'use' of these reports. Human Rights Watch chronicles this as well, in addition to James Tong, who is a good source. Colipon+ (Talk) 03:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Resistance
What was the policy based reasoning behind using the word 'Resistance' as a section heading to describe Falun Gong's response to the actions of the gov of China ? This strikes me as an unusual approach in a wiki article. We don't normally accept one sides narrative and label things as resistance do we ? I'm thinking of other situations where an organization has been declared illegal by one or more governments and 'resists' according to their own narrative e.g. many terrorist groups. Would 'Response' be more neutral ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't comment on the rationale, but the term has some support from the sources at least (just did some quick searching). Sorry for the messy referencing, just want to make this post quickly and do other stuff.

Since the ban was issued in July, 1999, falun gong has kept up an underground campaign of resistance. Some followers have used the Internet to distribute messages protesting against the ban and trumpeting the virtues of their movement, which preaches ethical living and good health through meditation and breathing exercises.
 * Beijing v. falun gong 01/26/2001 The Globe and Mail

The young Murdoch -- a college dropout, now CEO of his father's Hong Kong-based Star TV company -- gave an impressive, almost balletic, performance of the genuflectory arts last week at the Milken Institute. In words that astonished those gathered for the institute's annual business conference, James Murdoch, all of 28 years, lit into the Falun Gong religious resistance movement in China, describing it as a "dangerous" and "apocalyptic cult," which "clearly does not have the success of China at heart."
 * Bowing Low to China By Tunku Varadarajan 03/27/2001The Wall Street Journal

It leads one academic source to state that he wishes to examine Falun Gong in terms of a religious movement: that the "fanaticism" of practitioners is a resilient and resisting expression of faith inherent to the type of movement. "Its public expression reflects the urban and text based nature of the movement, which more or less prescribes this form of visible resistance.
 * REVOLUTION OF THE WHEEL - THE FALUN GONG IN CHINA AND IN EXILE A report derived from the CIPU China Country Assessment

In sum, Falun Gong represents not only a mass revolt against governmental control in the PRC, but also a resistance "with Chinese characteristics" against the dominant Western mode of "religious freedom." The Falun Gong debate calls into question international standards and the human-rights based ideology. Until the tension between religious belief and its manifestation can be satisfactorily resolved, we will continue to witness state manipulation of freedom of religion in order to subvert religious groups.
 * The Falun Gong, Religious and political implications Julia Ching American Asian Review; Winter 2001; 19, 4; Academic Research Library

I think the term is explanatory, since it is a response of resistance. Could be wrong. --Asdfg12345 03:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't respond on the resistance issue because I wasn't quite sure how to respond. A search for the term resistance in sources will find the term resistance in those sources. Those same sources will use other terms in addition to the term resistance to describe the actions of Falun Gong such as popular dissent, protests, martyrdom, forbearance, demonstrations, orchestrated media events to use some terms from the CIPU China Country Assessment as an example. An objective reason for sampling the term resistance from this set of terms and related terms like response isn't clear. At face value it looks non-neutral. It looks like Wikipedia's narrative voice taking sides in a political dispute.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 14:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how "resistance" is taking sides in a political dispute. Is it disputed that they are resisting the persecution? Does that give them undue credit for their efforts? I don't understand how resistance is slanted one way or another. My only issue with "response" is that it's a little bland. But maybe it's better. PCPP, regarding the sub-section, the PAGE is called "Persecution of Falun Gong." If you want to get that changed, you'll have to worry about that separately. Until that's changed, there's no sense going around everywhere else inserting euphemisms. This is more a technical issue than a content/judgement issue. The page is called that, so basically there's no reason the subsection should not be called that. --Asdfg12345 04:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the source cited for the sentence "Within the first month of the crackdown, 300-400 articles attacking Falun Gong appeared in each of the main state-run papers..." decidedly uses the term "persecution" rather than "crackdown." It's fine to make sure the terminology accords with the source, as you did in the Amnesty case. But changing it from what the source said is not okay. I'm going to tell that other who changed it earlier. --Asdfg12345 04:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Without an objective reason for sampling the term resistance from a set of all terms that sources (including the Chinese government) use to describe the actions of the movement there is no reason to consider this term anymore suitable than other terms. In that statistical sense, the term is highly disputed because it is one of many. The term resistance, as the Wiki article about resistance movements correctly points out, is generally used to designate something that is considered legitimate from the speaker's point of view. It's not a neutral term by any means. Bland terms are better simply because this is an encyclopedia.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with Sean.hoyland's assessment on this. If there is a general idea that the term 'resistance' connotes legitimacy to the Falun Gong's efforts, where the body of reliable sources do not, then the term would be a breach of neutrality. But I must then pose the rejoinder: if it could be shown that the Falun Gong's efforts in China are seen as legitimate by many reliable sources, then would the term be appropriate? I'm not about to spend time on finding that out, but as an intellectual exercise I am curious about whether it swings both ways. The secondary question is what would count as 'enough sources' to be able to assert that the Falun Gong's efforts were seen in this or that way. But it may be easier to just go with 'response.' The Sound and the Fury (talk) 09:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, some recent news here. I'd suggest this is relevant for the page. --Asdfg12345 05:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

'persecution' or 'statewide suppression' WP:V compliance
The following section has poor WP:V compliance as far as I can tell. I've fixed the "dangerous" ref and replaced the redundant "human" ref so that they both point at the same thing and to allow readers to access the HRW report and read it for themselves.


 * According to Human Rights Watch, China's leaders and ruling elite were far from unified in their support for the crackdown;[67] though James Tong suggests there was no real resistance from the Politburo. Some leaders suggested that the group be brought under bureaucratic control of the party, like other religious institutions. Many managers of enterprises and bureau chiefs were also not enthusiastic about the crackdown. They treated "recantations" of practitioners under their jurisdiction as a mere formality and turned a blind eye to continued practice of Falun Gong.

I'm not sure the report supports the first sentence. HRW don't use terminology like 'ruling elite' in their reports. There is a sentence on page 12 that says "According to a Falungong spokesman, until then “the government had been mostly supportive of us... Many top leaders seemed to support us.” That is not HRW speaking. The rest of the section has no refs. This seems like a problem.

 Sean.hoyland  - talk 11:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That report was one of the best pieces I've read on Falun Gong, and one of the most balanced. Any serious Falun Gong researcher should be reading it, in addition to Ownby, Palmer, and Chinese scholars. Colipon+ (Talk) 12:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Subheading 'persecution' or 'statewide suppression'
I added a source for the 'most persecuted' statement. I have left the other changes except one, because this isn't a subject I want to get into. I notice above that nothing was said in response to Asdfg12345's list of sources which use the term 'resistance'. The only other change I made was to rename the subheading 'persecution'. After looking at the background and RfC of the user who changed it, and noting there is an article titled 'Persecution of Falun Gong', I don't expect this to be problematic. If the individual in question disputes 'persecution' as a subheading, he or she should note such below. Zujine (talk) 12:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The section was called "statewide suppression" until recently . The "persecution" label itself was subject to a lengthy AFD debate with no consensus --PCPP (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Briefly, my view is that what that page is called is a matter for the editors of that page. As a subheading of this page, it appears to me simplest to go with the existing name. There may have been no consensus on an AfD, but the page is still called 'persecution.' If it was called something else, and someone wanted to make it say 'persecution' here, I would oppose that too. This isn't the appropriate place for that content/neutrality debate. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I still think that term should be avoided per WP:LABEL, as it should be either attributed to the source or replaced with more neutral wording. In fact the term "persecution" is seldomly used in the article, so I don't think the heading is appropriate.--PCPP (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not what the policy on labels meant. Please try that on over at Rwandan Genocide, about how "labelling" the genocide is bad. I totally agree with the two eds above that as long as the article on the persecution stands, the section should be called that here. and it's very ironic that you point out that the word is not overly used in the article: it has been repeatedly deleted by you, Mrund, Colipon, ohconfucius and co! So it's a wonder it's in the article at all. Just as a point of basic logic, it shouldn't be continually sanitised. These high jinks should stop. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 23:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This will be my last input for now. No clear reason has been raised for why 'persecution' as a subheading is inadequate. Zujine (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My confidence that Wikipedia does not bow to political influences regarding 'sensitive' subjects was enhanced after reading this article. The current case is not much different; a spade should be called a spade. Zujine (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with the word "persecution" in and of itself being used. I see serious WP:DUE and WP:NPOV issues if we constantly harp on that same label over and over again, especially when we use it as a descriptive noun "the persecution" to refer to all suppression of Falun Gong in China to arouse sympathy and lend legitimacy to the movement. Falun Gong has zoomed in on this idea of "The Persecution" as a central point of their protracted PR campaign, and you find that most searches of "Persecution of Falun Gong" turns up Falun Gong-sponsored websites. Indeed, even Human Rights Watch avoids using this term to describe the campaign in their reports. Mainstream media also avoids the label "persecution", except for the Epoch Times. I direct you, for example, to David Ownby's treatment of the term: and you will see what I mean. Ownby, who is (relatively speaking) quite sympathetic to Falun Gong, only uses the word "persecution" 27 times in the body of his entire book - not to mention that most of these instances are to describe Falun Gong's own claims or to describe what has been happening specifically to the practitioners. Saying the practitioners of the movement has been the targets of persecution is accurate, saying that the movement is under "The Persecution" (as Falun Gong claims) is inappropriate for an encyclopedia, unless almost all sources universally describe the crackdown of Falun Gong as "The Persecution". As such, I would not be opposed to having a section on "persecution of Falun Gong Practitioners", but I do think when more appropriate alternatives such as "Coercive measures" are available, they are more appropriate. We should give the most neutral treatment of the issue whenever we can. Colipon+ (Talk) 01:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not clear whether there is a reason to assume that it isn't already bowing to political influences by using the term persecution rather than another term. It is clear that the term persecution is one of the widely used terms to describe the Chinese government's response to Falun Gong (especially by Falun Gong themselves) but I haven't seen any evidence presented that demonstrates that it's the most policy compliant term. Clearly the Chinese government doesn't regard it as persecution so we already know that the term is potentially problematic from the non-negotiable WP:NPOV compliance perspective since their view is without doubt a very significant view. Does the term persecution summarise 'fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources' ? I don't think it does because it ignores a significant view which it's difficult to dismiss as a fringe view. On the other hand when sources like HRW and numerous other reliable sources use phrases like 'aggressive and often violent crackdown' it's clear that the term persecution isn't exactly misleading and if it's biased it isn't very biased. I think this is a case where it's better to go for generic, factual, non-emotive, encyclopedic terminology like 'Chinese government response' to avoid narrative wars. I don't think a 'Persecution' section heading would be seen as appropriate or last very long in other articles that describe extensively reported human rights violations by a state for what they regard as legitimate security reasons against a set of people e.g. in the Israel-Palestine conflict for instance. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 02:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Other contributors may be able to respond more thoroughly than myself, but the issue of the Chinese Communist party versus Falun Gong isn't narrated in the same way as the example you give of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Only in the official view are there 'legitimate security reasons' for the detention and torture of FLG adherents. While the view of the Chinese government as the Chinese government's view is significant, human rights researchers and other scholars put little stock in it. The CCP is obviously not a reliable source on its own treatment of Falun Gong. The case of Gao Zhisheng may be a good case study in this. The rationale is also troubling, because, if extended, it would mean the Abu Ghraib page name would also need to be changed to something entirely uninformative.<P>My view is that the term is not controversial, and nor does it bow to political sensibilities; it merely reflects a common usage among scholars and HR researchers on this issue. It is clearly not the only term used, but there is currently a page of that title. Attempting to skirt around that fact with euphemistic expressions seems unnecessary. <P> I suspect this debate has been had a number of times before. Regarding the prevalence of the term, I would leave it to some other editors to assert. The real issue is a matter of what that page is called. While it's called 'persecution' I will support this article reflecting that. Apart from that, I mostly agree with Colipon's remarks. Zujine (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The CCP is however an impeccably reliable source for their own views on the nature of their response to Falun Gong. We don't have the option to ignore it because it isn't a view that can be dismissed using the word 'only'. Compliance with NPOV is a mandatory requirement so choices are constrained. It's not an attempt to skirt around facts with euphemistic expressions because 'Persecution' isn't a fact, it's an opinion. Opinions can't be asserted as if they are facts using Wikipedia's narrative voice (see Npov). The real issue is demonstrable policy compliance. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * While the CCP is obviously an RS for its views, its views themselves are not reliable. Or we would have different articles for The Holocaust, Rwandan Genocide, and as an editor above put a different spin on it, the Abu Ghraib abuse story. Of course the group perpetrating the crimes does not recognise them as such. Or all those articles are now "Nazi Germany's response to Jewish people," and "Hutu's response to Tutsi's," and "US army personnels' response to Iraqi prisoners." Persecution is as much a fact as the above mentioned cases of murder and abuse. All the same documentary evidence is available, and a large amount of secondary support discussing the "cruelty," "brutality," "viciousness," "ruthlessness" etc. of the persecution (in the words of secondary sources who I can dig up later). It's actually silly that these expressions find no place in the article, when Falun Gong is happily described with a string of cherrypicked criticisms. I will find the sources for those expressions and someone may wish to include them in the article, as a brief survey of what noted sources have said. In any case, persecution is not an opinion, it is fact, and discussed as such by reliable sources. The CCP is a tiny majority in its view that its actions against Falun Gong are legitimate, and the majority views sees it as persecution (or other language of similar meaning). It does not respect the policy on parity of sources to posit that the CCP's views kind of "cancel out" that of HR orgs, scholars, US Congress, governments around the world, and a mountain of documentary evidence. That's setting a tiny minority against supermajority, because the fact that the persecution exists is not disputed except by the CCP (as far as I know. But in any case, there are a huge number reliable sources documenting and discussing the persecution). I'm even surprised we're having the discussion about whether the persecution is real or not. That is widely corroborated. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 06:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, I have to slap my forehead when I see this. Turns the whole process of discussion into a farce when it's all ignored like that. Words to Avoid is not related to this at all. The real issue is with the actual page itself; if there's a problem with the title it needs to be fixed there. It's already named "Persecution". The beef with that word is elsewhere. PCPP, you are being disruptive again. I'll note this on the RfC, and I encourage the other editors who have unwittingly wandered into this mess to do so as well. Including the ones that disagree with me. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 06:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * According to who is the Chinese government unreliable? You? Falun Gong? The naming of the Holocaust, Rwandan Genocide, and Abu Ghraib has been widely reported by the media and academic sources, whereas you couldn't even prove that the academic community have a consensus on that label. The only source that uses "persecution" exclusively are Falun Gong themselves and its umbrella media groups like Epoch Times.--PCPP (talk) 06:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * are you saying the CCP is a reliable source on its treatment of Falun Gong? Let me get this straight. I'll respond to the other question once you answer that. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 06:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And are you saying that FLG is a reliable source when commenting on the Chinese government? LMAO--PCPP (talk) 07:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well done for ignoring discussion, subverting the consensus-building process, and generally turning things into another polemic and farce, PCPP. Great work. You should forward the link of this discussion to your minder and ask for a payrise. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 07:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Says the Epoch Times "journalist". A search on google scholar on Falun Gong + persecution/crackdown/suppression etc yielded similar results.--PCPP (talk) 07:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wta is directly relevant to this kind of issue. "Article and section titles should be chosen, where possible, to avoid implying a viewpoint." <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why the 'Human rights in ' series of articles aren't called 'Human rights abuses in '. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe some questions and remarks would help to keep the discussion going. Sean.hoyland, could you please respond to Asdfg12345's rhetorical point about why the same naming standard isn't applied to other articles like 'Genocide of...' and the many 'Persecution of...' (Jews, Christians etc.) articles? The treatment of Falun Gong is as much a fact in the literature as any of these other crimes, and the point you are making would presumably not only be applied to one subheading of one article. PCPP, I am going to change the heading back to 'Statewide suppression,' which is how it was before this fracas - and I do not think you should have changed it while discussion was ongoing. Asdfg12345 complains about how discussion broke down, but his later input is itself not conducive to intelligent debate. I hope this note is helpful to get things back on track. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 08:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're asking me to comment on the inconsistent and heterogeneous application of policies across the project. There isn't really much I can say about that other than the obvious point that it shouldn't happen. I guess the 'Persecution of...' series of articles are about subjects which, for the most part, have the benefit of a historical perspective where consensus has emerged that there is such a thing as the 'Persecution of...' using that terminology. If there is consensus that there is such a thing as the Persecution of the Falun Gong then it will be obvious from the sources in the same way that it is obvious from the sources that what happened in Rwanda was a genocide and that what happened in the Abu Ghraib prison was torture and prisoner abuse. Is there a consensus that the Chinese government's actions towards this group can neutrally be described as persecution or is it a viewpoint on a spectrum of viewpoints ? Yes, there is a set of facts that detail the actions of the Chinese government but even if there were a one to one mapping between those facts and the facts in another time and place about another government and another group it doesn't follow that the descriptive term of the set of facts such as persecution should be the same in both cases. The descriptive term has to come from the sources rather than being derived from the collective property of the facts in the eyes of wiki editors i.e. we can't say 'situation A is similar to situation B therefore...' because it's synthesis. We can't synthesize the term persecution from the set of facts ourselves. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is in the sources as persecution, including terms like "vicious persecution" etc. It's also called other things. The facts of what the CCP has done to Falun Gong is not disputed. "Persecution" is one word used to describe it. So are "crackdown," "suppression," "genocide," etc. "Is there a consensus that the Chinese government's actions towards this group can neutrally be described as persecution..."? Many sources use this term, just like other terms, and the overall facts are not disputed. Since the page is called "persecution of Falun Gong", it seems that should just echo throughout the encyclopedia as it might, and if there's a problem, go change it there. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 06:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, so let's look at a high quality source. HRW can reasonably be considered to be extremely biased in favour of human rights. Word frequency indexing of the source 'DANGEROUS MEDITATION China’s Campaign Against Falungong' indicates that 'crackdown' is used 75 times and 'persecution' is used 9 times. It's this kind of objective analysis that can validate statements about terminology....and 4 of those instances of 'persecution' in the report are from Falun Gong sources and one is about Tibet. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The term 'crackdown' is also used more frequently than 'persecution' in the source that is used to support the term 'persecution' in the title of the main 'Persecution of Falun Gong' article, i.e. "Congressional Research Service-The Library of Congress: Report for Congress: China and Falun Gong". Word frequency indexing shows that 'crackdown' is used 14 times and 'persecution' is used 6 times. So, picking the term 'persecution' is beginning to look inconsistent with sources. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 14:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't believe how many times this issue's been discussed. Like I said, the Human Rights Watch source is actually quite balanced. I've tried to advance use of that source but been blocked by users like asdfg for a series of bogus reasons. I opt not to edit war so I have not tried since. Colipon+ (Talk) 15:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sean, this naming issue has a fraught and troubled history. There have been dozens of arguments and analyses and discussions. Any source mining exercise would need to be done on a larger scale to be useful. Check this out. There are numbers there. And that is only the most recent blow-up. Searching through the archives would turn up many more similar sets of arguments. My basic point here would not be to prove or argue that the word "persecution" is the most used--there is, however, no real problem with it, since it's often used interchangeably with other terms--but that there is an article with this title now, so for reasons of consistency, I would suggest that other pages referring to it just adopt that name. That's my basic point. "persecution" may not be the best word. I think it's suitable. But about this subheading, I don't think it's worth any more time. "Statewide suppression" accurately described the situation. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 23:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The Controversies Section: Notable problems
I have a few remarks regarding the Controversies section. For starters, the sentence "The principal controversies are its views on homosexuality and inter-racial children, and its claims of superpowers" was referenced to and. However, neither of these sources say that those are the "principal controversies". The first gives some quotes from Li Hongzhi's teachings; the second talks about how some people perceived parts of Falun Gong's teachings as "homophobic". Neither explain how those beliefs fit into the corpus of teachings as whole, how relevant they are, or how significant they are.

The next paragraph begins "Quoting Li, the New York Times said...". Li, however, does not state this in that lecture. Rather than getting into the absurdities of matching sources, representing the view that Craig Smith's view is disputed, and all that jazz, this can be fixed by simply finding another source. Ownby can be used to represent Falun Gong's teachings on interraciality. This cuts right to the best source on the subject, while maintaining mention of it (which seems to have become highly important for certain editors). In that sense, I don't seek to delete it, but merely make it respectable and put it in context. The reader should be presented with something that actually explains what practitioners believe, rather than something that is aimed at playing to the reader's stereotypes and that deliberately makes use of inaccurate referencing.

Given that the sentence "The principal controversies..." is a synthesis, I will simply remove it. I don't think any meaning is lost by doing so, because the "controversies" are still represented, and it is implicit that they are controversial.

Secondly, I have replaced Craig Smith's assessment with Ownby's. David Ownby is a much better source, avoids the obvious inaccuracy, fixes the undue weight issue (Ownby devotes a single line to the interracial issue in a book of over 200 pages), and provides the context that was otherwise missing.

I'm looking forward to some constructive discussion. Thanks. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  23:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I looked at the changes and the sources. A discussion of interraciality is indeed missing from the lecture in question, so the source is inaccurate. A similar thing happened with Ostergaard, above. The new formulation reads neutrally, and I think it's an improvement. Generally, however, that section reads like a pastiche of voices rather than an intelligent exploration of Falun Gong's controversial teachings. Further, it fails to explain how, exactly, those teachings are controversial, and to whom they are controversial. At the same time, I'm not sure where an introduction to this side of things is available in the literature. But I think the above is an improvement for now. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You may want to check out Richard Madsen's treatment in Current History, he discusses this. If I think of more I'll note it here. Ethan Gutmann notes a few points to consider, too. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 06:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding material from several sources
I added some information from three different reputable sources: Patricia Thornton, Mark Palmer, and Fewsmith & Wright. I'm looking forward to a good encyclopedic rewrite of these sections; I urge other editors to take part in it. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  00:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest you take a closer look at the sections to which you added information. Some of it is poorly sourced, some totally unsourced, some of it is thinly disguised anti-Falun Gong propaganda (without a source). It needs a fine-tooth comb. Please consider putting some time into that, Olaf (or anyone else who cares for proper research). --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 06:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed a lot of the additions. Olaph, stop swelling the article with unnecessarily detailed propaganda. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I, too, found some of Olaf's additions excessive. In my view, the problem has always been one of undue weight. This is the main Falun Gong article - everything should be in summary form. Colipon+ (Talk) 12:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems like the only thing that was deleted was some detail about the media campaign ("thirty-minute evening news program aired practically nothing but anti-Falun Gong rhetoric in which academics, former followers, and ordinary citizens spoke about how the cult cheats its followers, separates families, damages health, and hurts social stability, according to China scholars Daniel Wright and Joseph Fewsmith. "The government operation has been a study in all-out demonization."") and "Another 1,200 government officials were detained and required to study Communist party documents and to renounce any allegiance to the movement." Fewsmith has been in the China studies game for a looong time, so he's a damn good source. I haven't read much of Wright, but I checked out a bibliography in a book and he has obvious credentials. Compared to some stuff in this document that has no sources at all, the above seems warranted - to me at least. But after reading through this article and a few of the others, I think Colipon is spot on: there's too much detail on minor issues here already. But I don't agree that the insertions currently under discussion are about minor issues, or are too detailed. And Wright and Fewsmith are certainly not a "propaganda" source as Martin Rundvist says. Homunculus (duihua) 15:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Colipon and Runkvist seem to imply that they'd like to have the articles cleaned up. I agree, they don't seem very encyclopaedic at the moment. It's good to know that the kind of details that were brought forth in my edits are just unnecessarily swelling up the article. I'll take a look at some other extraneous details later tonight. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  15:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like Martin Rundkvist has a very particular taste for relevant details. Olaf has a point. The articles need careful inspection and possibly rewriting. I am lamentably busy at the moment, but I seek to devote some time to this topic area in the near future. I used the PRC's anti-Falungong discourse as an example in my Master's Thesis on symbolic violence. I am not going to take part in your personal grudges, though. — Zujine |talk 00:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Is anyone prepared to explain why the stuff copied above that was deleted should actually stay deleted? Calling it propaganda and saying it swells up the article really doesn't cut the mustard, particularly when looking at the credentials of the people referred to, current WP:V noncompliance, and vast existing extraneities (yes, I made that word up I think. it's meant to be the noun for "extraneous"). --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 05:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, many of Olaf's additions were extremely verbose and needed some serious trimming. I agree with Homunculus on the quality of the Wright and Fewsmith source, but there's nothing wrong with the expectation that contributors paraphrase and quote from their material more carefully. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Three issues in the lead are sticking out like a sore thumb
I tried to initiate discussion about these matters before, but nobody seemed to take it seriously enough. Any comments? &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  16:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Where does the word "proselytize" appear in the sources cited for the use of that term in the lead? What is the meaning of "Falun Gong groups have since moved abroad"?
 * Can the claim "Western academics generally describe Falun Gong as a new religious movement" be substantiated?
 * Why does the lead suggest that the 'persecution' is a series of claims by Falun Gong practitioners and not verified or discussed by third parties?
 * This is something to take into consideration. Proselytize is a loaded word carrying connotations of religious pushing. And of course we know that foreign Falungong groups have existed well before the start of the persecution, and that most Chinese adherents are still in China. Per WP:WEASEL, "generally" may be a weasel word that aims at increasing the perceived credibility of the statement. Moreover, in light of research, postulating the persecution as nothing but a series of claims by practitioners seems appalling. Still I cannot propose a decent alternative just now. Do you have any suggestions? — Zujine |talk 01:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's wait for the individuals who added the material to explain, rather than jump the gun. It's a trivial matter to recast disputed terminology anyway. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know why this stuff is being handled with kid gloves. It seems like everyone is afraid of offending the anti-Falun Gong guys. Unsourced or just vague stuff like this wouldn't last 5 minutes if it was positive on Falun Gong. But if it's negative and cynical, it stays around until someone does a bunch of research and writes long analyses about why it's unsourced, poorly researched, or whatever. And when reasonable issues are brought forward by Olaf, people like Mrund dismiss them out of hand. It's just a poor environment. I just hope the editors who are newly taking an interest in this subject won't be intimidated. Be bold in cleaning all this up, I tell you. Pussyfooting around the issues will not help. The anti-Falun Gong agenda pushing, use of sub-par sources (or no sources) to support that agenda, and marginalisation of those who complain, has been going on to varying degrees for quite a while. Anyway, recent developments inspire me to resuscitate the Ethan Gutmann-Luo Gan/He Zuoxiu issue. It might actually get a fair audience, instead of random dismissals and claims that I'm trying to bait people. Sheesh. First stop: the RS noticeboard.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 05:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For anyone who cares, here's the RS noticeboard thing. I just repeated the only claims that were made against the reliability of the sources in question. Once it's established that they're reliable, and I am confident it will be, I will make a post explaining why I think the material is relevant and should be included. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 05:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Asdfg12345, you are coming across as a little militant. I suggest you have more faith in your fellow contributors. I didn't touch those issues above, but I did do an overall pruning and clean up. There were parts I didn't touch, but most of what was on the page got a haircut. I look forward to finding out whether these were helpful changes or not. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Since nobody had anything more to say about this, I fixed these issues in the lead and added a few words from a source that was already being used. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  20:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I made some minor revisions. Overall I think cleaning up those issues identified above is fine. I also deleted the last sentence, which seemed a bit of a stretch, and a bit like Falungong peacocking. I also introduced some remarks from a communications professor, some of the text that had previously been deleted because it was too wordy, and made a number of other changes. — Zujine |talk 23:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All improvements, to my mind. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent big changes
This is a placeholder for any and all discussion related to all the removals and summaries I just made. This had been discussed on a few of the related pages (like the history page), and I thought I'd just go ahead and do it. Sometimes I simply removed things for later use elsewhere; other times I just trimmed, summarised, or combined. Previously I have provided tedious explanations for each change, but in this case will opt for a less structured one: I just thought it would help. There was a lot of specific information about issues that aren't very important, and a great deal of verbosity, elaboration, and repetition. If the page is too long it becomes unhelpful to readers. If anyone misses anything let's discuss the value of it here. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * My first impression is that the changes seem pretty reasonable. I didn't have time to take a detailed look, though. Will get back to this ASAP. — Zujine |talk 14:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I appreciate the condensation. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sad to see go the details about the torture methods practitioners are subjected to. Apart from that the general tidy-up was a long time coming. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 23:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That can be elaborated as appropriate on the page dedicated to that topic. It's not appropriate to give overly detailed descriptions of these practices, however ghastly, on the main page. As Colipon rightly observes, information here should mostly be in summary form. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The changes by User:PCPP
I object to some of the recent changes by PCPP. Here's why: &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  22:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The source (Penny & Harrold) that is used in the lead explicitly says that Falun Gong belongs to the tradition of cultivation practices with at least 2500 years of history in China. This immediately sets the right context and is mandatory for a good understanding.
 * The protests in China were not only silent, but peaceful. There was absolutely no violence involved on the practitioners' side. Falun Gong's non-violence is a well-documented fact in research, and that is why "peaceful protests" is a more appropriate wording.
 * It is by no means only Falun Gong practitioners who are "alleging" that they are tortured, mistreated and killed in the PRC.
 * This is the same stuff over and over again. PCPP should be banned. 95% of his edits are destructive. All the recent ones here should be reverted. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 22:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You probably mean 'disruptive'. There is a difference. I didn't like these recent changes though. They seem deliberately slanted and distortive, and I have undone them. I get the impression that this editor is pushing an agenda, and all his edits on these pages are about that agenda. Someone should do something about that. — Zujine |talk 12:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It comes from only one source, so I have shortened "traditional cultivation system". This is no need to give undue weight to a single source.
 * "Silent protest" conveys the same meaning as "peaceful protest"
 * The sentence refers specifically to Falun Gong protesters

To Zujine, I find it pretty hypoccritical for my edits to be singled out when I only changed several wordings. You seemed to have no problem with Olaf himself adding the material in the first place, especially this edit, where he claimed to have "fixed" the leads's "partisan wording", amongst others. --PCPP (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not referring to merely the recent changes. I checked your history and the RfC. I didn't like what I saw. There was discussion about Olaf's suggested changes, and a number of editors gave broad agreement. You changed wording in a misleading way with no hint at discussion or observance of previous consensus. If 'silent protest' is the same as 'peaceful protest', why change it? The fact is that many sources use peaceful, and it's clearly an important point. David Ownby takes some time out to elaborate on just how peaceful the protests were. Is this what it's like editing Falungong pages? I may tire of this quickly. — Zujine |talk 15:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And why change back "silent protest" to "peaceful protest", unless you have an axe to grind? Your reflex reverts doesn't do any favors either, and reverted entire changes just because you don't like one or two additions.
 * A) Please tell me where has Olaf's additions has been discussed and "have broad agreement"?
 * B) Why was "Chinese government" changed to "Chinese Communist Party"?
 * C) What's wrong with adding "Since then" to "human rights" groups and give it context?
 * D) Why was the term "persecution" used, when they were disputes in this very page regarding the term?
 * E) And why was the term "alleged" removed?
 * What you're doing is exactly trying to claim ownership of the article and systematically revert every one of my edits, while ignoring the edits by FLG single purpose accounts that were banned for POV pushing.--PCPP (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is funny. Now you are being challenged by others, and resorting to the same tactics. Let me respond according to my understanding.


 * A) Olaf discussed his changes just above, in the section called "Three issues in the lead are sticking out like a sore thumb." You must not have read it.


 * B) It is the CCP that persecuted Falun Gong. The "Chinese government" is just another friendly euphemism to draw attention away from the fact that it's a communist regime. Academics use CCP, not Chinese government. There's no reason to bow to your political sensibilities.


 * C, D, E) I don't think adding "since then" matters or not, but saying "alleging" is the real problem here. These are not merely Falun Gong allegations, as you claim, PCPP. That's the deceptive part. They are testified to by numerous reliable sources. Trying to pretend that there is no persecution, that the persecution is somehow still a matter of dispute, or that the abuses against Falun Gong practitioners are merely "alleged" -- it's just another example of your POV pushing. Reliable sources say it's real, and call it a persecution. The page is called persecution of Falun Gong. Please stop trying to distort things.


 * It's very funny that you say Zujine is trying to claim ownership of the article, too. This is one of the first times he has edited it (judging by contributions), and he maintained several of your edits. Meanwhile, Olaf actually discussed his ideas and made changes accordingly. Your comment is a combination of misleading remarks and outright falsehoods. Regarding "peaceful," I totally agree; dozens of sources use this term, including in brief characterisations. It's the simplest, most accurate, and most telling single word to describe Falun Gong demonstrations. I know why you don't like it! --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 16:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Trying to pretend that there is no persecution, that the persecution is somehow still a matter of dispute, or that the abuses against Falun Gong practitioners are merely "alleged" -- it's just another example of your POV pushing." The term persecution is a matter of dispute. I am disputing it. I have provided empirical data demonstrating non compliance with mandatory policy. It's usage is inconsistent with sources. It's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of mandatory compliance with WP:NPOV by using the terminology used most commonly by sources. That word isn't persecution. A good way to reduce the fighting on this page and in the article is simply to comply with policy. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Haha, it's funny to see asdfg abandoning his so called principals on "truth forberance tolerance" and and conduct an all out attack. A) Yes I have read it, and nowhere he discussed anything relation to his edits. B) There is a very paragraph on this talk page on the terminology, which you self admitted to that "persecution may not be the best word". C) The paragraph specifically says FLG practitioners doing the talking, thus their allegations, not of third parties. And you even admitted yourself that the term is used pretty much interchangedbly. I'm going to ignore the rest of your trolling.--PCPP (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sean, just replace the word "persecution" with your word of choice, whether suppression or repression, or genocide, or "campaign", if you really like. It doesn't matter. The place to discuss the name of the persecution is not here. The dispute here is whether the actions of the CCP against Falun Gong should only be described as Falun Gong allegations. I am saying that they obviously should not, since they are corroborated by third parties. PCPP, and Colipon before him, are seeking to misleadingly say that they are only allegations from Falun Gong, whereas there is a large body of third party use of this term and acceptance of the facts of the CCP's actions (call them persecution, suppression, or whatever). The term "persecution" is about as compliant as the term "suppression" or whichever other term. It is used. It may not be the most used term, but its usage obviously isn't contradicted by major sources. I hope we do not need to do another evidence marathon. That has been done over here, as I said. If we want to have another ho-down on the name, we can do that separately. For now though, that's not the locus of dispute. For the record, my view is that whatever term is used, there is no pretending the persecution is not happening. And if a group of neutral editors did a thorough look at the sources and decided "suppression" is more accurate, I wouldn't mind. But it should be done by the book, not tendentiously. I would never seek to use the word "persecution" if the article was called "Crackdown on Falun Gong", for example. Regarding your C), it's perfectly logical that Falun Gong practitioners can be doing the talking about a persecution confirmed by third parties. That's precisely what they're doing, in fact. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 08:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, Chinese government is more neutral than Chinese Communist Party. It is also more accurate.--Edward130603 (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand why it may be attractive to think that, but fortunately wiki editors don't decide what is neutral and what isn't, most of the time. we leave that to the experts. I have not encountered one book that consistently uses the term "Chinese government" instead of CCP. I think nearly every scholarly work I've read uses CCP. It is not more accurate, either. The Party is the entity calling the shots over what happens to Falun Gong. One refers to the administrative and bureaucratic organs of the state, one refers to the actual party itself, which controls them. CCP is both more accurate and the term used by scholars. Anyone who has read half a dozen scholarly works on China can tell you that. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 14:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * China and the world: Chinese foreign policy faces the new millennium By Samuel S. Kim This book doesn't seem to use Chinese Communist Party much. It uses words such as: PRC, China's leaders, Chinese government, or simply just China. Would you recommend saying: "While China has declared Falun Gong to be an "evil cult"..."? I don't really see Communist Party/CCP.--Edward130603 (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that "Chinese government" is a far more neutral term, and the CCP should only be when specifically referred to. The Epoch Times and other FLG media exclusively refers to Chinese government as the "Zhonggong/Chinese Communist Party" to imply that CCP is an illegitimate government of China. And I think "silent protest" describe the situation far better than "peaceful protest". The latter is too vague and can mean anything, including vocal protests with loudspeakers, when the FLG protest is described by one source as "very quietly and politely".--PCPP (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Peaceful and silent convey more or less the same meaning. If the protest was quiet/polite, then I would assume that "silent protest" could be used as well.--Edward130603 (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This requires an objective analysis of sources. When the protest is described, how is it most commonly described? peaceful? silent? Or perhaps without an adjective. There may be other factors. Assertions without basis may bring trouble, as Sean_hoyland notes.

David Palmer uses 'peaceful' three times to describe Falungong protests in his book:
 * "Falungong thus systematically held peaceful demonstrations against newspapers and government offices that 'attacked' Falungong and 'hurt the feelings' of its followers..." (one can't help but notice the same 'hurt the feelings of the Chinese people' the CCP uses now and then;
 * "Some people even had their wills written before going to Zhongnanhai to express peacefully their opinions."
 * "Another statement issued three days later explains, 'as a last resort, 10,000 Falun Dafa practitioners gathered peacefully at Zhongnanhai to present facts to the Chinese leaders..."

David Ownby uses it four times:
 * "It was also after Li's departure from China that Falun Gong practitioners developed their penchant for peaceful protest (later dubbed "civil disobedience")..."
 * "And indeed, when a peaceful Falun Gong protest in mid-April 1999 in the northern city of Tianjin, in response to a critical article appearing in a limited-circulation journal, was met with police brutality..."
 * "Thus, on 25 April 1999, some 10,000 Falun Gong practitioners staged a peaceful demonstration outside the gates of Zhongnanhai, the guarded compound..."
 * "As in the case of other Falun Gong protests, this one was completely peaceful and nonviolent; the thousands of practitioners collectively limited their consumption of food and drink over the course of the sixteen or so hours of their protest, so as not to overwhelm the capacity of the public toilets, an act of civic conscience rarely witnessed in China—or elsewhere, for that matter..."

David Palmer uses "silent" once to describe the protest:
 * "The demonstrators waited patiently outside the compound, forming three or four rows on the sidewalk. Some stood, others sat down, some read. The crowd remained silent, there were no shouts or slogans."

David Ownby uses "silent" three times: This brief search of two sources indicates that 'peaceful' is used more commonly than 'silent' to characterise Falungong's Zhongnanhai protest. For a more definitive answer further research would be required. Based on the above I would suggest the word on Wikipedia be 'peaceful.'
 * "...some 10,000 Falun Gong practitioners in the capital "spontaneously" gathered outside one of the western gates to Zhongnanhai in an impressive and largely silent demonstration..."
 * "Everyone remained standing on the sidewalk on the west side of the street, waiting silently to be able to explain the relevant facts..."
 * "...on 25 April 1999, some 10,000 Falun Gong practitioners, including many "old ladies in tennis shoes," ... demonstrated outside Communist Party headquarters in Beijing in a stunning silent protest against media attacks—backed up by police truncheons—on Falun Gong in the neighboring city of Tianjin."

Regarding CCP/Chinese government, David Palmer uses 'CCP' 78 times, 'party' 176 times, 'regime' 22 times, and 'Chinese government' 4 times. Surprisingly, David Ownby uses 'Chinese government' 43 times, 'regime' 20 times, 'party' (as in 'Chinese Communist Party') 102 times, and the acronym 'CCP' only once. From this, I would suggest using CCP or 'Party'. I would also note that I have read dozens of books on Chinese politics, and CCP is the default term. Homunculus (duihua) 13:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Human Rights in Contemporary China By R. Randle Edwards, Louis Henkin, Andrew J. Nathan

CCP: 11

Communist party: 40

Party: 75

Government: over 100

People's republic of china: 27

PRC: 42

A search for the term "China" would not be possible here because of the false positives.

The discourse of human rights in China: historical and ideological perspectives By Robert Weatherley

Chinese government: 55

Communist party: 11

Party: 46

PRC: 32

CCP: 21

China, the United Nations, and human rights: the limits of compliance By Ann E. Kent

Communist party: 15

Party: 55

CCP: 9

PRC: 17

people's republic of china: 46

Chinese government: over 100

Bridging the global divide on human rights: a Canada-China dialogue By Errol Mendes, Anik Lalonde-Roussy

communist party: 35

CCP:2

PRC:5

people's republic of china: 13

Chinese government: 57

Party: 71

Falun Gong's challenge to China: spiritual practice or "evil cult"? : a ... By Danny Schechter

Chinese government: over 100 times

CCP:22

Communist party: 59

Party: 88

PRC: 9

people's republic of china: 19

"Party" alone would reasonably generate a good amount of false positives, as would "governement" by itself. It appears that CCP is not the default. Per above, I would strongly recommend Chinese government or China.--Edward130603 (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The use of statistical arguments may not reap the most accurate result, simply because the Party and the government are, strictly speaking, different things; there's a distinction between 'The Party' (or Communist Party/Chinese Communist Party/CCP/regime) and the 'Chinese government'. The CCP refers to the group that controls the Central Propaganda Department, the Organisation Department, etc., and makes decisions through the Standing Committee of the Politburo, etc. That is, it performs the executive functions of the party-state. The government can be said to refer more to the apparatus that runs the country, including the regular bureaucracy etc. The two terms are sometimes used interchangeably, too. But if we wanted to be precise, and I think we do want that, it would be more precise to say that the Party, or the CCP, made the decision to persecute Falun Gong. The propaganda campaign at the beginning of the persecution also makes it clear that this was a very 'personal' issue for the CCP, if it could be put that way. Falun Gong was said to have explicitly challenged the CCP, and it received a clear and sharp response ("Falun Gong is a political force opposed to the Communist Party of China and the central government") . In the CCP's own lexicon, often the persecution is referred to as a struggle between the Party and Falun Gong. I think that Edward130603 and PCPP's concern is that by using CCP it may seem somehow biased, or delegitimising to the CCP. I don't think that is the case.  The distinction between the party/government is partly borne out by, for example, the notes of Ken Lieberthal, who writes (p. 158 of the first edition of 'Governing China': "...the Chinese system is divided into three nationwide bureaucratic hierarchies--the party, the government, and the military.")  In Saich's 2003 'Governance and Politics of China', p. 112, we are told: "The reforms have changed the role of the CCP in significant ways even as it retains its all-powerful role in the system and is willing to crush any potential opposition. This was shown most clearly in the crushing of the student-led demonstrations of 1989..." It is this same impetus of challenge and response behind the crushing of Falun Gong. That is an attitude particular to the Chinese Communist Party, and using the term 'government' would be quite diffuse.  Another example is David Shambaugh's book 'China's Communist Party: atrophy and adaptation'. This is among the most recent scholarship from among the most distinguished of China scholars. From what I can tell, the term 'Chinese government' appears 45 times, and CCP appears 100 times . Shambaugh is also quite explicit in addressing the fact that the CCP is a Leninist party that penetrates and dominates society (p. 127). Thus, the aspect that states this, without overstating it, is important for newcomers to the whole discussion of contemporary China and its political rifts. Using a term like 'China' or 'Chinese government' obscures the fact that China is still very much run by a Communist Party, adopting a Leninist organisational structure, that makes all the important decisions. And in particular, when it comes to something of such political sensitivity and significance as the repression of the Falun Gong, the CCP was firmly in charge, the decision coming directly from the Standing Committee. The government then carried out those executive orders, through the education system, the policing system, in state-owned enterprises, and everywhere else that Falun Gong was to be rooted out.  Thus, I think CCP/the Party is more precise language, and more suitable to addressing the decision to defame and persecute Falun Gong. In other places, it may be more appropriate to use 'Chinese government', depending on what was being discussed.  I might also note that I think the level of disputation happening here is surprising to me. Simple terms like persecution, regime, propaganda, Party etc. are routinely challenged, even though they are routinely (though, indeed, not singularly) used by scholars of Chinese politics and of the Chinese Communist Party. On the one hand, I suppose it's good to make sure Wikipedia is carrying forward the highest standards of scholarship. On the other, in some of these disputes one must wonder whether it's a waste of time to wring hands over these issues, and precisely whose interest is being served by changing these commonly accepted terms into ones considered more palatable by some - not that of the readers, in my estimate. But changing the discussion from 'the CCP persecuting Falun Gong' to 'the Chinese government banning Falun Gong' is a significant one, so I have given my input on why I think it is important that the debate stay centered on the proper terminology and mode of discourse to refer to the actors and actions in this conflagration.  The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * TheSound, this is a clearly reasoned and well-argued stance. I agree with it because of the precision it gives to each of the terms; the decision came from the upper levels of the Chinese Communist Party, not the general government apparatus. Some imprecision does not matter much in the body of the article, where speaking of the 'Chinese government' doing this or that would be permissible, at least to give the text some variety. But I agree that it is important to be truthful and precise in use of terminology when it comes to the key issues. — Zujine |talk 04:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding 'peaceful', I don't think this needs to be emphasised too much. Making clear they were peaceful is sufficient, but over-emphasising it is similar to the allergic avoidance of 'CCP' in place of 'government'. The lead now describes the many protests launched by Falungong as 'peaceful', and immediately afterwards the Zhongnanhai protest as 'silent'. The meaning is clear. Similarly, the lead alternates between 'government' and CCP. I have to concur with both TheSound and Homunculus that in my experience, in academia, 'CCP' is a standard term to refer to the central decision making apparatus of the PRC (i.e., the Chinese Communist Party). Oh, and TheSound could not have been more spot on about the degree of disputation on things that in normal academic contexts (like writing an MA thesis) would not be disputed; it's incredible. — Zujine |talk 04:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I have read TheSound's greatly informative piece on how to distinguish the CCP and the government. Strictly speaking in a Communist state, there is not that much difference. Most party organs have parallel bodies in the state. Thus the term "party-state". However, I am not certain that in the intro "The CCP banned..." is appropriate. The ban came on orders from Jiang, apparently, and was undoubtedly carried out by legislative and executive government authorities - i.e. the State Council, the NPC, etc. The suppression afterwards was more or less carried out through the party apparatus - as party members had to "Pledge" to get rid of Falun Gong - while ordinary members of government (who were not party members) did not have this requirement (to my knowledge). Thus I have modified one reference to the CCP in the lead. I am not certain that the "CCP declared Falun Gong to be a cult" to be appropriate either. Again, this 'declaration', to my knowledge, came out of government documents, not CCP documents. Colipon+ (Talk) 14:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the key point to this whole thing is that it was the central committee of the CCP that decided this. Someone needs to check Tong's book about the precise mechanics of decision etc., but TheSound makes the most salient point: this is a Leninist regime that hands down decisions by fiat. This is well-known to all, and articulated in the sources. By changing it to some more vague words like "Chinese government", this whole idea is lost, and it becomes like a regular civil government making a bureaucratic decision. That's obviously far from the truth. The idea of using CCP is simple, supported by scholars (like others have pointed out, I have not found one item of recent scholarship that does not regularly use CCP), and in accordance with the logic behind the crackdown and how it was carried out. It's certainly not controversial. And I fear the reason for wanting to see it changed to something else is, broadly speaking, the same as that behind wanting to see the picture of Gao Rongrong's disfigured face excluded. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 02:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of the word "persecution"
I'm just going to copy some instances here to show that this is not inconsistent with sources, as claimed. I just want to tackle that claim head on. My overall point has been that it is one of the words used, and it's the word that has been chosen by the wikipedia community to describe it, as shown by the page with that name, named that way for years. And here's some evidence from the sources (some are just randomly taken from that other page, a lot from JN466). The following is presented messily, and I apologise for that. This isn't a scientific analysis, but I just need to quickly dispel the idea that the word is inconsistent with the sources. It is one of a number of acceptable terms. It has been the word used for the page for a long time. The persecution is acknowledged and regarded as such by third parties, and is not a mere set of allegations from Falun Gong. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 08:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

There are literally hundreds of third-party news sources using the term. Examples:
 * "China syndrome: the persecution of Falun Gong" in The Christian Century, an American mainstream Protestant source.
 * US Department of State source containing multiple references to the "persecution of Falun Gong": http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/67820.pdf
 * San Francisco Chronicle: "SF supes vote to condemn persecution of Falun Gong"
 * June 2009 Boston Globe article: Perhaps nothing today so exemplifies the totalitarian implacability of China's rulers as their ruthless persecution of Falun Gong, a quasi-religious discipline of meditation and breathing exercises, combined with moral teachings about truth, compassion, and forbearance. By civilized standards, it is incomprehensible that anything so innocuous and peaceable could provoke bloody repression.
 * Academic publication by Ashgate Publishing:
 * Colipon wrote, No major media outlets explicitly refer to it as "persecution". That statement is not quite true, either. Here are some mainstream news organizations using the word "persecution":
 * MSNBC: The persecution of Falun Gong members also has strained relations with the United States, which granted residency to Li and refused to extradite him to China to face trial.
 * Opinion piece in the New York Times: The persecution of Falun Gong has caused China to carry huge political costs without any conceivable benefits.
 * Boston Globe: Perhaps nothing today so exemplifies the totalitarian implacability of China's rulers as their ruthless persecution of Falun Gong
 * San Francisco Chronicle: There is no question that China is persecuting Falun Gong members. In 2004, the U.S. State Department reported that, "tens of thousands of practitioners remained incarcerated in prisons, extrajudicial re-education-through-labor camps and psychiatric facilities. Several hundred Falun Gong adherents reportedly have died in detention due to torture, abuse and neglect since the crackdown on the Falun Gong began in 1999."


 * Here is an interview in Deutsche Welle (the German equivalent of the BBC World Service) with a Professor specialising in Asian Politics... the headline is "Ten years of persecution of Falun Gong": google translation
 * Here an article in Der Standard, a major Austrian daily, speaking of "brutal persecution" etc.: google translation
 * Here an article in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, saying it is undeniable, even taking into account the massive Falun Gong public relations effort, that there is "massive persecution" of Falun Gong in China: google translation
 * I wonder though: if, as many of these reports say, people are tortured, arrested and put in labour camps without a trial, and not a few end up dying in prison, all because of their adherence to Falun Gong, what would be the difference between what is happening and religious persecution? '''


 * Our main book references on Falun Gong—Ownby, academic, Porter, academic, Schechter, journalist, Lewis, academic, Gallagher/Ashcraft, academic, Davis, academic—all say that there is persecution, using that word, even as they say that Li Hongzhi and his followers are media savvy and highly manipulative of the media in their survival of the persecution '''<


 * parliaments of major countries like the US and Germany have called what is happening "persecution" and have condemned it,
 * as have human-rights organisations like amnesty international and Human Rights Watch,
 * as has practically every scholar who has written about Falun Gong (Ownby, Porter, Schechter, Lewis, Gallagher/Ashcraft, Davis).
 * Further to what I said earlier about the BBC mostly speaking about "alleged" persecution, I have since noted a few occurrence of the unqualified term even on BBC websites (e.g., ).

A Google scholar search:

Persecution yielded 1250 results

Crackdown yielded 1360 results

Suppression yielded 1350 results

Repression yielded 1740 words

So there is no definite concensus on the usage of the term. Falun Gong and its umbrella organizations such as the WOIPFG and CIPFG uses the term "persecution" exclusively, while the Chinese government refers to it as "取缔" which means ban.--PCPP (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, there is no definitive best term. That's what I have said. But it's the term that has been used on wiki through the natural process of editing, consensus (or lack of) etc., and it clearly has some support from the community. In any case, the point is that there's nothing particularly wrong with the term. I just needed to address Sean on that. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 11:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Um no. According to WP:LABEL,

"Some words may be used to label a group from an outside perspective, even though these words are used in accordance with a dictionary definition...Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint: that of outsiders looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted 'outside' but not 'inside' is a good indicator that it may not be neutral...There are at least three ways to deal with this: attribute the term to reliable sources; replace the label with information; or use a more neutral term." --PCPP (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see how that would be applicable for not labelling Falun Gong a cult, but how is it applicable for describing the persecution? Is the persecution "a group"? This policy obviously has nothing to do with the present case. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 13:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, where does it say that's it's limited to groups? Pedophilia is mentioned as an example, and it's not a group--PCPP (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, you are turning this into a joke. The label policy is obviously not referring to this, or there would be no articles called "persecution of..." and no articles called "genocide of..." It's just fundamentally nonsensical and illogical to apply a policy about not labelling people and groups to a description of a set of actions taken by a state against its people. Go to the page on Abu grhaib abuse, or the US's use of torture on prisoners and try telling them that would be "labelling." You would be laughed at, because it's obviously just silly wikilawyering. I'm not going to waste any more time on this. You know what you're saying is just tendentious nonsense. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 14:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Abu Ghraib article has a poll on the naming of the article, proper sourcing on the lead, and the case has received large media attention and has concluded. Per policy, Wikipedia name human rights articles "human rights in XXX", not "human rights abuses in XXX".--PCPP (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For the majority of reliable sources, 'persecution' is not a problem. To scholars and researchers, this is not a contentious or sensitive word to use. It describes in a simple way the actions taken by the Chinese Communist Party against followers of Falun Gong in China. The word 'persecution' is not related to the labelling of a minority group. The point of that policy is to stop stigmatising labels being slapped on non-mainstream groups; using a term like 'persecution' to describe a state persecution isn't the same thing by any means. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Persecution and "Allegations"
Some of the abuses that Falun Gong practitioners have been subject to in Mainland China are widely documented by third-party groups, especially human rights organizations. These should be presented in the article and given its due weight. I am curious to know, however, that since the initial crackdown of Falun Gong, how much more of this "persecution" is actually directed against Falun Gong in specific, and how much of it is directed against all qigong groups, all the groups that are considered 'heretical sects', or all the groups that oppose the Chinese gov't in general. Organ Harvesting is a case in point. You had two clueless Canadian politicians commissioned by Falun Gong going to "investigate" the allegations, and then Falun Gong jumping on it as a "third party corroboration" that the organ harvesting is occurring on a grand scale, and targeted specifically to Falun Gong. If this is not an "allegation", I don't know what is. Even Harry Wu, an expert on organ harvesting, and the first one to bring light to the issue and lambaste the Chinese government, severely criticized the Kilgour-Matas Reports. <P>Heather Kavan has a good piece detailing Falun Gong's deception tactics in its media outlets - outlining how it has managed its public relations war against the Chinese government. One of Kavan's points, which is echoed by Human Rights Watch, is that there is no doubt Falun Gong practitioners are being treated badly by the Chinese government, and subject to a wide range of abuses. But the scale and the magnitude of these abuses have been vastly exaggerated or twisted by Falun Gong to earn itself legitimacy amongst Western governments and people. Another reason for the Falun Gong 'counter-propaganda' is because the group has been slandered badly by the Chinese government, and, because it belongs to a similar culture of discourse, attacks the Chinese government back with even more slander. Both Kavan and HRW are careful in saying that they endorse neither Falun Gong nor the Chinese government's story, but conclude that regardless of what kind of deceptive products have come out of these media wars, people should not be persecuted just because they have a different belief system. These views of Kavan and Human Rights Watch sum up my position as well. Colipon+ (Talk) 14:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I will comment on this when I have more time; for now, I'm interested in knowing where Harry Wu has "severely criticized the Kilgour-Matas Reports". I know he criticized the initial news on Sujiatun, but this was before the publication of Bloody Harvest. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  23:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate substantiation of the statement: "the scale and the magnitude of these abuses have been vastly exaggerated or twisted by Falun Gong to earn itself legitimacy amongst Western governments and people." I was not aware of this, and had not found indication of it in my reading. Ownby notes on a number of occasions the credibility of Falun Gong-run human rights investigation groups. I did not know the Falun Gong had twisted or vastly exaggerated its reports of abuses by CCP authorities. Where can I get the full scoop on that? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Appreciate the feedback. Once I get the time and resolve some of the other disputes that are on my hands, I'll get back to you with the exact sources. A good place to start is to read the HRW report on Falun Gong. Colipon+ (Talk) 04:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)