Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong/Archive 3

A new lead
Well, am adding on the lead below:

Falun Gong was introduced to the general public by Li Hongzhi(李洪志) in Changchun, China, in 1992. For the next few years, Falun Gong was the fastest growing qigong practice in Chinese history and, by 1999, there were between 70 and 100 million people practicing Falun Gong in China. Following the seven years of wide-spread popularity, on July 20, 1999, the government of the People's Republic of China began a nationwide persecution campaign against Falun Gong practitioners, except in the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau. In late 1999, legislation was created to outlaw "heterodox religions" and retroactively applied to Falun Gong. Amnesty International states that the persecution is politically motivated with "legislation being used retroactively to convict people on politically-driven charges, and new regulations introduced to further restrict fundamental freedoms."

The nature of Chinese Communist Party rule is considered a central cause of the persecution. According to David Ownby, Falun Gong's popularity, traditional roots, and distinction from marxist-atheist ideology were perceived as a challenge by the Chinese government. Reports suggest that certain high-level Communist Party officials had wanted to crackdown on the practice for some years, but lacked pretext or support--until a number of appeals and petitions to the authorities in 1999, in particular, a 10,000 person silent protest at Zhongnanhai on April 25th. Reportedly many high-ranking members of the politburo were opposed to the persecution, and some analysts consider Jiang Zemin personally responsible for the final decision and the ensuing "Mao-style political campaign." Suspected motives include personal jealousy of Li Hongzhi's popularity, and a manufactured ideological struggle to enforce allegiance of both the populace and the party members to himself and the leadership.

The persecution is considered a major violation of human rights, and international human rights groups have called on the Chinese government to end the persecution and release practitioners sentenced to detention for peaceful activities. Reports state that every aspect of society was used by the Party to persecute Falun Gong, including the media apparatus, police force, army, education system, families, and workplaces. An extra-constitutional body, the 6-10 Office was created to "oversee the terror campaign," driven by a large-scale propaganda through television, newspaper, radio and internet. Propaganda urged families and workplaces to actively assist in the campaign, and practitioners were subject to severe torture to have them recant. There are acute concerns over reports of torture, illegal imprisonment, forced labour, and psychiatric abuses. Falun Gong practitioners comprise 66% of all reported torture cases in China, and at least half of the labour camp population, according to the United Nations and US State Department respectively. In July 2006, an investigative report by Canadian ex-Secretary of State David Kilgour and Human Rights Lawyer David Matas concluded that there exists an ongoing practice of systematic organ harvesting from living Falun Gong practitioners in China. This has been met with concern from the United Nations Committee on Torture, who called for China to schedule an independent investigation and prosecute those guilty of such crimes.

Falun Gong practitioners around the world continue to protest against the persecution, and have initiated lawsuits against Chinese officials alleged to be chiefly responsible, in particular Jiang Zemin and Luo Gan.

All sentences are sourced to the best sources available on the topic.

The current lead, which am replacing with the above, runs:

Persecution of Falun Gong refers to claims by Falun Gong it has been persecuted by the government of China. The qigong-based movement was founded by Li Hongzhi who introduced it to the public in May 1992, in Changchun, Jilin. Falun Gong was banned by the government of China on 22 July 1999. The movement has been called an "evil cult" by the official Chinese press.

Needless to say, there is no real info in it. The persecution is made to sound as a mere claim made by Falun Gong practitioners. I dont think anybody other than those seeking to cover up the real info would want a lead like this. I'll point out section by section - such cover up of material exists in all sections of the article. Dilip rajeev (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

[this part moved to subsection]

Also. I have expanded the "International Response" section with the below info:


 * Human rights organizations, including Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, have raised acute concerns over reports of torture and ill-treatment of practitioners in China and have also urged the UN and international governments to intervene to bring an end to the persecution. David Ownby notes that human rights organizations "have unanimously condemned China's brutal campaign against the Falungong, and many governments around the world, including Canada's, have expressed their concern."


 * Governments around the world, including United States and Canada have called upon the Chinese government to bring a complete end to the persecution. The United States Congress has passed five resolutions - House Concurrent Resolution 304, House Resolution 530,House Concurrent Resolution 188, House Concurrent Resolution 218 andHouse Concurrent Resolution 217- where Congress expresses that oppression of Falun Gong by the Government of the People's Republic of China in the United States and in China should be ceased. . The first, Concurrent Resolution 217, was passed in November, 1999.


 * Con. Resolution 188, passed unanimously (420-0) by the US Congress states: "Falun Gong is a peaceful and nonviolent form of personal belief and practice with millions of adherents in the People's Republic of China has forbidden Falun Gong practitioners to practice their beliefs, and has systematically attempted to eradicate the practice and those who follow it....this policy violates the Constitution of the People's Republic of China as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights... propaganda from state-controlled media in the People's Republic of China has inundated the public in an attempt to breed hatred and discrimination;... official measures have been taken to conceal all atrocities, such as the immediate cremation of victims, the blocking of autopsies, and the false labeling of deaths as from suicide or natural causes'... several United States citizens and permanent resident aliens have been subjected to arbitrary detention, imprisoned, and tortured."

The existing section had but a single sentence:


 * The United States House of Representatives has considered resolutions  condemning treatment of Falun Gong by the Government of the People's Republic of China.

Needless to say, an intentional/un-intentional distortion of the sources. Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

NOTE that this is not a new intro at all. All Dilip has done was resurrect one of his old edits from a year ago: --PCPP (talk) 11:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, but the International response section could indeed do with expanding. In addition to what is above, there have also been resolutions by EU governments, e.g. Germany (the link is to a google translation). -- JN 466  20:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the material, Jayen. I look forward for your help in incorporating it to the article. The section is rather limited in content now. That is what had led me to add the above material. I understand your concern with the older page, but there is indeed a lot of material in it which could be central and encyclopedic contributions to the page. If you could help me compile them and add them to the page, I'd be much obliged for it.
 * Dilip rajeev (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I had attempted to fully explain the change I made here on talk - it was two sections in specific, and not a blanket revert to an older version. Kindly compare the content. I sincerely apologize if it came across as me assuming bad faith.
 * Dilip rajeev (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Images
(moved here to keep it separate)
 * Alright. Now please give those who know more about this a chance to respond. Personally, I was more concerned about the pictures you were trying to add; if you throw those in again, you'll hear from me. As far as words go, let others speak. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you kindly let me know what your concerns on the images are? And which images you happen to have a problem with?

Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * All of them. They are propaganda. Before you complain, I don't use propaganda as "not true," "lie," or "fake." I do not hold any stance on whether or not they are genuine. However, they are tabloid(ish), their main purpose is to evoke emotions, and I do not see their serving any purpose other than that. It is true that you will find similar pictures on other articles such as the Holocaust or the Nanking Massacre, but these events are in the past. For an ongoing conflict (or whatever word you choose), they are not appropriate. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This article version, in its general layout and tone, looks like an activist's leaflet, rather than an encyclopedia article. Sorry. -- JN 466  16:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's because it's a blanket revert to a July 2009 version, with little regards for the changes that has came since.--PCPP (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PCPP, my last edit involved only two sections - the lead and the international response section. Could you kindly explain what you find wrong with it. You cannot label the edit, whose rationale I present above, a blanket revert to a July 2009 version. It might have drawn upon content in the version, but it is, by no means, a blanket revert. I also fullt present and compare the material, the two paragrpahs, here on talk.
 * Dilip rajeev (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know who are you trying to fool, but intro in your in your third revert is exactly the same as your previous two reverts. You were trying to revert to your preferred version piece by piece instead of all in one go.--PCPP (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The edits yesterday, I repeat, involved just two section, and I point them out above on talk. Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Why should pictures not be allowed because it's ongoing? I don't understand that reasoning. I disagree, and don't think that should have anything to do with whether pictures are appropriate, and which ones. Homunculus (duihua) 16:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes on the article
Going through the old Persecution article and comparing it with the current ones (History & Persecution), I saw that several important high-quality references had been completely removed. They include at least the following: In my view, this is by no means justifiable with encyclopedic concerns. I have restored some of these references and encourage others to evaluate them. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  21:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ken Hausman, Chinese Psychiatrists Agree on Psychiatry Abuse Charges', Psychiatric News, WPA, August 6, 2004
 * Sunny Y. Lu, MD, PhD, and Viviana B. Galli, MD, “Psychiatric Abuse of Falun Gong Practitioners in China”, J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, 30:126–30, 2002
 * Smith, Chrandra D. (11 March 2003) "Chinese Persecution of Falun Gong", Rutgers Journal of Law & Religion, New Dev.66
 * Judith Sunderland. From the Household to the Factory: China's campaign against Falungong. Human Rights Watch, 2002. ISBN 1564322696
 * Press release statement by United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, 53rd session, 14 August 2001
 * Asma Jahangir, "Civil and Political Rights, Including the Question of Disappearances and Summary Executions", Report of the Special Rapporteur, United Nations, 2003
 * Joseph Kahn, "Sane Chinese Put in Asylum, Doctors Find", New York Times, 17 March 2006


 * A fairly trifling issue, I'd say. It's no evidence of a conspiracy; probably just that those sources were felt unnecessary or verbose at the time. Recently I have ported much of the information about the persecution from the History page over to here. The purpose is to give the topic greater cohesion. I also reduced the size and expanded the size of different sections. One was the immolation incident, which I reduced because it has a page on it, and people can read that if they want to know more about it. Stating the purpose it served in the persecution as a whole is enough here. The rest of the changes were fairly mechanical, as it's said. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the lead sentences a bit, so they actually say something about the subject. I drew the information from this page, the main page, and what I remember of the research I had to do for a paper a long time ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homunculus (talk • contribs) 16:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good. Simple and clear. — Zujine |talk 04:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Reference named "palmer.fever220": From History of Falun Gong: Palmer (2007), pp 220-2 From Falun Gong: Palmer (2007), p 220 

Reference named "ReidG": From Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident: Reid, Graham (29 Apr-5 May 2006) "Nothing left to lose", New Zealand Listener. Retrieved 6 July 2006. From History of Falun Gong: Reid, Graham (29 April-5 May 2006) "Nothing left to lose", New Zealand Listener. Retrieved 6 July 2006. 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Reference named "pennyharrold": From Falun Gong: Benjamin Penny, The Past, Present, and Future of Falun Gong, 2001, accessed 16/3/08, Quote: "The best way to describe Falun Gong is as a cultivation system. Cultivation systems have been a feature of Chinese life for at least 2 500 years //" From Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident: </li> </ul>

Reference named "Schechter":<ul> <li>From History of Falun Gong: p. 66</li> <li>From Falun Gong: Danny Schechter, Falun Gong's Challenge to China: Spiritual Practice or Evil Cult?, Akashic books: New York, 2001, p. 66</li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * these are now repaired. Salamurai (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment on recent and upcoming changes
I just revised the first paragraph speculating on the rationale for the persecution of Falungong. I found some of the comments in there verbose, some off topic, some unrepresentative of the sources, and some confusing. I can explain further and in detail if anyone is interested. Since the page has not been edited for a long time, I'm going to assume it won't be a problem if I take a break from Human rights in Tibet, catch up on my research for this topic, and jump in. — Zujine |talk 12:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do. You will probably uncover much of what you mention above in other parts of the article. This page was at the mercy of a group of concerted anti-Falun Gong editors for quite some time. First they tried to delete it, and when that failed, just weakened it terribly and made everything look likes "claims" from Falun Gong. That kind of behaviour makes a mockery of wikipedia. There's a wealth of good research available on the topic. It certainly needs someone who is familiar with the subject and not afraid to accurately represent what the best sources have said, rather than the diluted distortions that have prevailed so far. Good luck. Colipon seems to have taken the page off his watchlist, but I urge you not to be intimidated by his rhetoric should he return. If he tries to block anyone fixing this page, wikipedia has means to prevent that. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 01:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

We must stop these obviously antiFalun Gong people. They are not helping the wikipedia.

Suggestion on expanding the lead a bit
Zujine, I see you are new to this page. A suggestion - you might want to take a look at the intro in this older version of the page, and draw from it elements you think could help improve the current intro.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * PCPP, this statement is sourced, can you please explain your removal of it as 'unattributed source'? Is anyone else confused? — Zujine |talk 15:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Simple, the source provided says nothing regarding what was written. As it stands, it's simply a rhetoric that adds nothing not already covered by the other paragraphs.--PCPP (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Another instance of blanking by User:PCPP

 * PCPP, You might want to see section 19 and 22 of the KM reports. The material is sourced to there. Dilip rajeev (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And its centrally relevant content in that "International Response" section - not quite covered by other paragraphs. I quite don't see the rationale and I cant help but point out that its not an isolated incident of blanking from  the user.


 * Dilip rajeev (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to start a page on KM Reports
There was some moderated discussion underway regarding creating a page on Kilgour Matas reports, and it was seen that the topic meets WP:N. As I am finding it difficult to pull out time to work on wikipedia, I request other editors who might find the topic interesting to go ahead with the creation of the namespace. The moderated discussion can be read here and there might be some relevant material here. Dilip rajeev (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Am suggesting the title "Kilgour-Matas Reports" for the page. Am interested in hearing topic-name suggestions from other editors as well. Also, if, for some reason, you believe the topic fails WP:N, kindly share your perspective here, we can use this discussion thread to reach a resolution.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Should it not be Kilgour-Matas report? There is really only one report that deals with this (even though it got updated, and also republished in book form). I doubt there is an argument for not passing WP:N; the Washington Times - whatever you think of them - recently published a long article on the topic, for example. I would be interested in working on such an article. Homunculus (duihua) 04:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It ought to be "Kilgour-Matas report". There is a crescendo of coverage on the topic in mainstream media and it certainly meets WP:N. If it interests you enough you could go straight ahead with creation of the namespace. You might want to look into the sources here and here

Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Homunculus, I've created an article on the Kilgour-Matas report. There is a bit of clean-up to do in certain sections, a bit of expansion to do in others. There is some re-factoring to be done with the "Organ harvesting in China " page ( I plan to work on this tomorrow). Just to give you an idea of the work pending.

I've attemtpted to sumamrize the evidence presented by the report. I'd be thankful if you could help improve it. I'd like to hear from you suggestions on improving it.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC

Note there was a prior consensus on the material to be cut down and merged. Dilip simply disregarded the consensus  and copy + pasted large chunks of deleted material.--PCPP (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is over mostly newly written and the section of the KM Reports as such is completely newly written. Its surprising how any material exposing CCP's human rights abuses unsettles User:PCPP. Articles are not to be judged by their quality, WP:NPOV, WP:N, etc. PCPP's pattern is whole scale blanking of contributions behind a screen created by lawering and personal attacks, completely deviating attention from the content, in the process.

I request editors to not let their focus dragged away from the content, by the ruckus PCPP creates. Please judge the article on objective factors such as whether the topic meets WP:N, the sourcing and relevance of the content, etc.

It would be worthwhile to note that the above user has been constantly covering up this and related material, through reverts, blanking, and attacks on editors attempting to contribute.

A lot of recent evidence of such blanking by the user can be found on these and related article.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You're wasting your time. You're specifically disregarding your Arbcom case and the terms of the moderated discussion .--PCPP (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I had mentioned the reasons and my decision to start a page on SilkTork's talk as well as with Jayen. Neither had raised objections. The article I created is here and other editors are welcome to review. I'll leave your reverts there for now, for other editors to review, and act on as found appropriate.

Its a 50 Cent Party attitude you are taking on wikipedia. And I am not the only editor to have had concern along those lines. Above you blank out a paragraph in this article with a pseudo rationale. Here you again attempt to divert focus from content to personal attacks and non-existent issues.

I can see no other reason why someone would go around blanking content of centrally relevance, clearly meeting WP:N, in such a manner. Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion/plans for fixing this
I recently looked at this page... and I think it could be improved. Let's put it that way. There is a 100kb version here, and basically, I think it may make sense to simply move everything from there here, and then decide what to delete if it's too long. That page represents an enormous amount of research over a long period of time. The current page badly conceals the real conditions of the persecution and most of the good sources on it. If anyone has a care for the persecution of Falun Gong, please note your thoughts and we could work together. Not that I'm hopeful. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 05:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hell no. That version was rejected by numerous editors for a reason - it's simply pro-FLG POV pushing--PCPP (talk) 08:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think you could be a little more specific, such as explaining exactly which parts of it are "simply pro-FLG POV pushing"? I am going to copy in some information now, some well-sourced information, to fill out the article a bit. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 14:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made some additions just now. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 15:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Let us take this at one step at a time; 1) I do not have a conflict of interest in editing this page. Either prove it and get consensus on it from other editors, or stop saying it and trying to use it to degrade my contributions. This happened previously with Dilip. The fact that I practice Falun Gong does not mean that I have a conflict of interest; this has already been established. 2) You cannot simply say "don't have consensus" and then revert something. Please see WP:DRNC, which states: If the only thing you have to say about a contribution to the encyclopedia is that it lacks consensus, it's best not to revert it. 3) Please explain clearly why you have reverted each paragraph that you have. I have responded to your two core "arguments", that I have a COI and that there is no consensus, now I'm suggesting we get beyond the sniping and discuss the content. I will not revert again. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 00:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your COI issue is well explored in your arbitration cases - it goes well beyond the territory for activism. And you cannot just resurface after several months and attempt to revert everything to a version that you prefer. Your "additions" were excessive duplicates that has already existed elsewhere in this article.--PCPP (talk) 03:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * PCPP, you recently deleted stuff from the lead], citing WP:LEDE; can you please explain? That page says the lede should be about 4 paragraphs, and cover the main information in the article. It is unclear to me how your changes were made in the spirit of that policy... to put it tactfully. Thanks. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 18:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed it because it is excessively detailed and one sided. The lede should explain what FLG is, and the basic events and mechanisms that occurred. The organ harvesting allegations do not belong there.--PCPP (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you not suggest that they are highly notable, and that a lede should introduce the most notable attributes of something? --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 03:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Reconfig
To the original suggestion that we consider reviving the previous version of the article, I agree that it was more complete. It strikes me as highly problematic that, for instance, the current article seems to have less to say about the imprisonment and torture of Falungong members—arguably the defining characteristic of the persecution—than the main Falun Gong page. That said, while we may be able to pull in some content from them, I advise against the wholesale adoption of previous versions of the article. I think we can do better, frankly. In particular, I would hope that edits we make going forward can move toward giving due weight to each section, and can also be more representative of recent developments in the campaign. I may spend some time on this. I'd also like to suggest a minor reorganization of the page, something along these lines: Homunculus (duihua) 06:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. Background (should deal with more than Tianjin and Zhongnanhai; there were more factors at play that led to the crackdown than a single series of protests in April 99)
 * 2. Statewide suppression / The ban and crackdown (including rationale)
 * 3. Legal and political mechanisms/framework
 * 4. Media campaign (section should be more condensed overall, but I also suggest doing more with internet and media restrictions)
 * 5. Torture and Abuse
 * Arbitrary arrests and imprisonment (this is more appropriate as a title than "forced labor.")
 * Torture in custody (section should be longer, I would argue. This is the issue that defines the suppression of Falun Gong)
 * Psychiatric abuse (section is too long)
 * Organ Harvesting
 * Deaths (better name?)
 * Societal Discrimination
 * 6. Outside China
 * 7. Recent campaigns (ie. Olympics)
 * 8. Response
 * These are welcome suggestions, please go ahead on the reconfiguration. I can help draft some new information, if you like. I think the structure you propose is fine, except I would suggest perhaps shifting out "societal discrimination" into either its own section, or including it in one of the other sections, such as legal and political mechanisms, or ban and crackdown. The reason I suggest this is because all the preceeding elements of the "torture and abuse" section relate to treatment in custody, but the societal discrimination is clearly not in custody. I would suggest making it a subsection of the "legal and political mechanisms", since the institutional discrimination preventing, for example, a Falun Gong practitioner from attending school, and the attendant stigmas associated with Falun Gong, etc., are in the end "legal" issues that stem from the Party's campaign. Hope you follow me here. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 18:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Added a section on "outside China": NOTE: This may be a bit long for now, and we can move this out later, but for now, the page is going some restructuring, so I hope we can do this peacefully and not have some bad warefare with deletions and etc. OK? Thanks. Please let me know if you agree with this, Homunculus (I imagine you know what I am concerned about). --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 03:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What the hell was that? Not only it was excessively long - it was excessively one sided. Please look at Falun Gong outside mainland China and how it was written there.--PCPP (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Please explain revert, PCPP
[edit conflict] PCPP, I'll await your reasoning on these two points. Does everything need to be reviewed by you? That is basically the same as saying "no consensus", but you changed the wording. Secondly, how is the information "point of view"? It is a series of facts about what the CCP does to Falun Gong outside China, documented to reliable sources. Please explain the actual problem with the content, if there are any. I hope some other editors will see this ridiculous behaviour and express their views. It's crazy that whenever I make a move, you come along to tear my edits apart. It's unfair and wrong and I hope other people are seeing it and say something, because I am obviously powerless. I'm not going to get into a revert war, that's for sure. [Update: I explained the length, above; the page is going to be restructured, as I understand, so I just put the information there, where it could be reconfigured later; it is one part of Falun Gong outside China, the persecution part; this page is about the persecution, so of course it belongs here.] --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 03:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This is indeed inappropriate, and badly confounding. I like giving people the benefit of the doubt, but I simply don't understand PCPP's insistence that well sourced facts are "excessively one sided." What, do you propose, is the "other side" of this story?  Is it that Falun Gong is not being suppressed?  Or that they deserve it?  Is it that their claims of harassment outside China are not credible?  Please explain yourself. If you do not want to explain yourself, then please revert yourself.
 * I looked at Falun Gong outside mainland China, and in particular the section on allegations of interference from Chinese authorities. While Asdfg's contribution may not have been perfect, I would argue that it was actually better than what is provided on that page; he uses better sources (a unanimous congressional resolution, a Canadian newspaper of record, an American newspaper of record, a state department official), and discusses cases that are both more recent and more illustrative of the nature of the Chinese government's interference with Falun Gong overseas. I would like to see Asdfg contribute more research along these lines (though I agree that we should be mindful of length, so maybe he should make the majority of these contributions directly to the Falun Gong outside China page). PCPP, if you were directing us to that page  for other reasons (ie. for its discussion of how Falun Gong has been received in the West), I would remind you that we are dealing here with the persecution of Falun Gong by the Chinese party-state, and the other information found on that page is not germane to this topic.Homunculus (duihua) 04:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll have more time for this later--a lot more time--but for now let me just express my agreement with Homunculus. I find PCPP's editing behaviour to be erratic and harmful. Anyway, that should not be a block to getting real work done on the pages. I'm very interested with Homunculus' suggestion for a restructure, and have recently begun catching up on my reading on this topic. I will be back with more to add later, and I hope some thoughtful edits. — Zujine |talk 00:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think that to ask that vested editors submit big changes to very controversial articles on the talk page for review before going live is asking too much. This is common practice on many articles, and is even written explicitly on the talk pages of some. Asdfg12345's edit is riddled with biased wording: "harassment", "abet", "discriminate", etc. and triumphalist language ("it was clear that Falun Gong’s efforts for Internet freedom is China were not subsiding"). More importantly than that, nearly all of the examples of supposed persecution are unsupported accusations and insinuation (two protesters against visiting dignitaries were supposedly shot at, must be religious persecution!) linguistic stretches (withdrawal of explicit resolutions of support? persecution!), and badly sourced (most going back to Falun Gong websites, one paragraph is an extensive quote of a U.S. Congress resolution!). Most incredibly, Asdfg12345's edit on this page claims that emails criticizing Shen Yun and NTDTV are persecution of Falun Gong, while he denies or downplays such a connection between those organizations and Falun Gong on their own articles. Since the premise of this page is "persecution", a loaded and presumptuous word, I suppose that the degeneration that this push represents can't be helped. Quigley (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps your last line says it all. If you have to put scare quotes around such a simple word, we're in trouble. I'll wait for Asdfg to defend himself on the specifics--they are not precisely what concern me, but more the manner in which the discussion is carried out. It appeared to me legitimate information that was simply reverted by PCPP because he and Asdfg have a longstanding ideological grudge. Asdfg first made a remark above, and the polite thing to do would have been to raise issues with the material (as you have). PCPP has not yet raised issue with the material, which is what I would have liked to have seen. In any case. — Zujine |talk 22:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of edits
As per the earlier discussion on a proposed reorganization of the page, I have added a couple new sections (or, in some cases, the beginnings of new sections). Explanation of changes follows:


 * 1. Trimmed down a little bit of content on psychiatric abuse and torture. The former was far too long, so I removed a paragraph citing Amnesty International on a particular case of abuse.  The torture section is not too long, but neither is it very well done.  I removed a rather weak piece of evidence, though I hope that this section can be improved upon in the future.
 * 2. I reinserted the section added previously by Asdfg, but made it a small fraction its original size. As I mentioned before, I would like to see this section built out with solid research (not unconfirmed allegations), and we do need to be mindful of the length and tone.
 * 3. Added a section on ‘deaths.’ A morbid header, I know, but it is certainly notable. I provided three examples, which is plenty, and they span the chronological period of 2000 – 2008.
 * 4. Added a section on ‘recent campaigns.’ One of my enduring complaints with the Falun Gong articles is that they seem to stop around 2002 (with the exception of the 2006 allegations of organ harvesting).  The suppression has continued, and I believe the more recent strike-hard campaigns are relevant.  I included only one example, though I can do more research to build this out a little more (unless someone wants to get to it first).
 * 5. Added more in the way of background to the persecution. The crackdown was not the result of a single series of protests in April 1999; it had its roots in the ideological orientation of Falun Gong, its independence from the state, its size, etc. These factors are now alluded to in the article.
 * 6. I differentiated internet restrictions from restrictions on foreign press.

I hope these edits are not too brash; this page has been mostly dormant for some time, and however inadequate they may be, I think these edits are a step in the right direction and provide a platform for the inclusion of more research.

There is still much work to be done, however, and I’m convinced that a number of sections (ie. media campaign, and legal and bureaucratic measures) can and should be made to say more in far fewer words. Other sections, including torture in custody, should simply be revised to be include better-sourced and more representative examples.

As a quick note going forward, I hope that we can maintain open channels of communication, and more importantly, make earnest efforts to present the facts as they are.Homunculus (duihua) 06:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the changes are fine; the article may be a little too removed from what happens to people who are targeted, though. I would appreciate a few choice excerpts from survivor memoirs, and a gallery of video and photographs of the atrocities. Kudos to you for working on it. It's hard enough to get things done on human rights topics. — Zujine |talk 06:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In the spirit of discussion, let me just state that I added a couple of paragraphs of information, and changed the lead to more accuraetly reflect the nature of the labelling of Falun Gong in China. There are good sources on this on the main page, and I have largely just followed what they said. The version of it that we had here was not quite precise, or accurate, in its explanation--no one's fault, but hopefully I have helped. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 17:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No problems here. — Zujine |talk 23:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * PCPP, how are Asdfg's changes here 'pov'? They are 'point of view', or biased, or what is wrong with them? Please explain if this is not an accurate summary of the campaign against FLG. — Zujine |talk 23:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This seems to have stalled. I'm partly at fault, but it's no surprise that the interests of others also peter out. I'm going to replace the lead and add material to different parts of the article. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 21:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Genocide?
Genocide? Really? And some Argentinian judge's opinion is really not that significant. --Edward130603 (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you able to explain why you think it is not significant? He studied the matter for five years. I hope your view of its significance does not relate to the fact that the judge is from Argentina, or something. I await an explanation on why this judgement is not that significant. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 23:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Just add more sources if you want to include it. They are out there, as you know from the goings on earlier today. Homunculus (duihua) 23:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The question is really whether it's a notable claim. Is it? If we are talking about only a single judgment in one country (and I think that yes, it would be more notable if it was the United States rather than Argentina) and the scope is not very great, then perhaps it does not belong in the lede. What's the reasoning? We can't include every claim about the topic in the lede. — Zujine |talk 01:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Reference named "Ownbyfuture":<ul> <li>From History of Falun Gong: David Ownby, Falun Gong and the Future of China (2008) Oxford University Press, p 89.</li> <li>From Falun Gong: David Ownby, Falun Gong and the Future of China, (Oxford University Press, 2008), ISBN 978-0-19-532905-6.</li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Reference named "Ownby":<ul> <li>From 610 Office: </li> <li>From Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident: David Ownby, "Falun Gong and the Future of China" Oxford University Press (2008)</li> <li>From Teachings of Falun Gong: "Falungong as a Cultural Revitalization Movement: An Historian Looks at Contemporary China." Professor David Ownby, Department of History, University of Montreal, accessed 2007-12-31</li> <li>From Qigong: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Reference named "BHbook":<ul> <li>From Kilgour–Matas report: </li> <li>From David Kilgour: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The references above are effectively identical. I adjusted Kilgour–Matas report and they should be identical now. I can't see any need for changes, but I could be wrong.Aaabbb11 (talk) 10:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Pictures updated
I would like to know what's the matter with the following picture.

Aaabbb11, I disagree your removal of this picture. In the text, there's mention of even more severe tortures, but yet you think it's just too violent to show a picture that carry basically the same information.


 * Sure more severe torture is talked about in the article. But I think seeing pictures of torture, is more unpleasant than reading about it. Pictures can be hard or impossible to erase from your memory. In my experience, many adults find the persecution of falun gong, too unpleasant to read or talk about. Children read wikipedia. Children have a far lower tolerance for unpleasant things than adults. In my opinion, the bamboo picture is very unpleasant to look at, so will discourage people from reading this article, which contains many things that are unpleasant to read about. A friend of mine who was persecuted read about something that happened in China and couldn't eat for 3 days afterwards. The more I find out about the persecution of Falun Gong, the more unpleasant I find it is. I think its best to show mild pictures of violence, along with the picture of Gao Rongrong. If the picture is to remain it should be in the torture section.
 * I think it is VERY important, that as many people as possible, learn about the persecution of Falun Gong, or at least just a few basic facts. Having too many unpleasant pictures in an article is counterproductive. The first thing you see when you look at a page are the pictures not the words. Have you handed out information about the persecution of Falun Gong, and seen how people react?Aaabbb11 (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Then, I would like to know why the following picture that was originally in top page was removed, and get a POV from Epicgenius.

The current top page picture is quite the same to me than the previous one.

I won't undo all this changes, but it's hard for me to get the point.

Thank both of you. Davives (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think that picturing a nonviolent arrest (as pictured in the lead currently) is preferable to picturing a violent arrest (which was what I replaced with File:2004-6-6-bamboo stick.jpg). Violence is POV, as there have been nonviolent forms of Falun Gong persecution, as I understand it. The bamboo stick picture was supposed to give an example of such persecution, and is better than either arrest picture because it not only shows persecution, but also is more specific, whereas the arrest pictures can be interpreted as an arrest for anything other than Falun Gong. However, if you have differing opinions, I am fine with that. Epicgenius (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In hindsight your reversion of 8 edits should have been reverted (in my opinion) because you didn't provide a clear explanation of why you reverted the edits. Was not clear to Davives or me, anyway. In my opinion the bamboo stick picture is most violent picture in this article and unnecessary as it will discourage some people from reading the article. In my opinion there is no need for a violent picture on the first page. "Woman arrested in Tiananmen Square" seems to be appropriate as practitioners being arrested is very common.Aaabbb11 (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with the current image, though the bamboo torture image should probably be placed further down. Epicgenius (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Torture section is the logical place for a torture pic.Aaabbb11 (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅. Epicgenius (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed
This article was not written in a neutral manner. For example, even the use of the word persecution in the title of this article is a loaded word that carries a negative connotation. Naming the article Prohibition of Falun Gong would be neutral and reflect the various opinions on this subject. Most of the complaints in this article are accusations, but this article names the sections and phrases the sentences as though they are facts proven in a court of law. This article also uses a lot of weasel words and is written in WikiVoice. It's best to attribute the idea to the author you are citing to avoid using weasel words or WikiVoice. Waters.Justin (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. The article's title should be renamed, and its content should be rewritten in a neutral tone as per WP:NPOV. STSC (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The title of this article is consistent with other, similar articles on Wikipedia (Persecution of Jews, Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Copts, Persecution of Muslims, Persecution of Zoroastrians, Persecution of Bahá'ís,

style="color:black">Canoe ''']] 14:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Persecution of Buddhists, etc.).
 * ::*Your proposed title "Prohibition of Falun Gong," is very limited in scope. The large-scale imprisonment, torture, and extrajudicial killing of Falun Gong adherents is a persecution, not a prohibition.
 * ::*I'm not sure what weasel words you're referring to. Give us some examples.
 * ::*Facts need not be proven in a court of law. When numerous reliable sources report on events as facts, then we can treat them as such.[[User:TheBlueCanoe|''' The Blue <span


 * In order to be precise and concise, a broad subject should have a broad title and a narrow subject should have a narrow title. Persecution is a broad word that refers to everything from illegal harassment by bigoted citizens to a state policy of discrimination; however, the word prohibition is more narrow and only refers to the state policy of prohibiting the practice. I believe the subject of this article falls into the latter category because the lead sentence specifically says the following: "The persecution of Falun Gong refers to the campaign initiated in 1999 by the Chinese Communist Party to eliminate the spiritual practice of Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China." This lead sounds like an article about prohibition.  The articles about persecution you listed above are not limited to a specific country, policy, or time period but broadly refer to any negative treatment throughout history against that religion. Unlike those articles, this article is about a specific government policy of prohibition by a specific country at a specific time. The narrowness of this topic requires a title that accurately reflects the narrowness of the topic. Wikipedia requires neutrality, precision, and conciseness when naming a title. See Article_titles.  Criticism articles are allowed but only if it is necessary "to avoid confusion." See Criticism.  Applying this rule to the current article, the article should be titled Prohibition of Falun Gong because it is the precise subject of the article and creating a more POV title like "persecution" is not necessary in order to avoid confusion, and may only create confusion.
 * If you want the article to keep the current title and follow Wikipedia's best practices then the topic should be broadened to include more cases of persecution than China's prohibition policy. There is an "Outside china" section, but even this section only refers to China's prohibition policy. Waters.Justin (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your point about concision and clarity, but "prohibition" does not achieve that. Prohibition refers to the act of forbidding something, usually by law, and often (but not exclusively) in reference to alcohol or controlled substances. What we are dealing with here is not merely the initial act of Chinese authorities prohibiting Falun Gong on July 22 1999, but rather a 16-year campaign aimed at the group's elimination. You won't find reliable sources describing said campaign, in all its varied manifestations, as a "prohibition." It just wouldn't make sense. Try replacing the word 'persecution' with 'prohibition' in the following passage, and you'll see what I mean:


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


 * Change this to prohibition and the sentence would cease to be accurate.


 * I'm not personally wedded to the term "persecution" either, but it is a more or less accurate descriptive of the nature of the campaign and it is in keeping with naming conventions elsewhere on this encyclopedia. And to answer your contention about those other articles, there is nothing in the definition of persecution that says it must span a certain time period or geographic expanse. Persecutions can be confined in time and place. They can be driven by societal prejudices, government policy, or some combination of the two. Refer to Persecution of Christians by ISIL, Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire, Persecution of Croats in Serbia during the Croatian War of Independence, Catholic Persecution of 1801, Persecution of Christians in the Eastern Bloc, Diocletianic Persecution, Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany, among others. The Blue Canoe  11:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Following those naming conventions, it would be more precise to name the article Persecution of the Falun Gong by China unless the subject of this article is made broader than China.Waters.Justin (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Prohibition should not be understood as a legal prohibition. In the US, the law is the same for all. But in China, the suppression of Falun Gong obeys no law. Chinese law allows freedom of expression and belief (see the report tabled in the European Parliament). The Office 610, entirely created for the suppression of Falun Gong, is based only on orders emanating from the Chinese Communist Party officers; the very existence of this office is not officially recognized. Some lawyers defended Falun Gong practitioners incarcerated on the basis of Chinese law, some have been successful, others are persecuted (see here).
 * Given the history of the Communist Party, a "campaign to eliminate" means turning Chinese people against each other by the way of propaganda (cultural revolution great leap forward,...). As for the Falun Gong, Tiananmen of students in 1989 have not received any ban on demonstrations, they also had support within the government. It ended with violent repression and propaganda. The Falun Gong is unilateraly suppressed by the Chinese Communist Party with violent means. In that case, "elimination" also means a desire for destruction. Edward McMillan-Scott and other public figure the term "genocide" to describe this persecution. This  also match with some of the above examples quoted by  The Blue Canoe  I suggest we keep the title of this page as it is. Please forgive my poor English! Davives (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Persecution of the Falun Gong by China is closer to the mark. But I wouldn't want to imply that the entire nation of China is culpable for the actions taken by governing party. Since, as you said, most of the article is centered on China, would Persecution of Falun Gong in China work? The Blue Canoe  01:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest the title as Exclusion of Falun Gong from China. STSC (talk)

"Persecution of Falun Gong" is the most rational title to me. It is also widely used, see for instance: Nibbler869 (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's see if we can resolve this then. So far we have two editors proposing to retain the current title, and one vote each for "Persecution of Falun Gong by China," "Persecution of Falun Gong in China," and "Exclusion of Falun Gong from China." Only the last one is clearly unworkable from where I stand, as Falungong has neither been ejected from nor blocked from entering China. If there aren't any other counter-proposals or a clearer consensus, we can move to wrap this up. — Zujine |talk 22:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok for Persecution of Falun Gong in China. Davives (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * In my opinion when someone suggests a name change to Prohibition of Falun Gong it indicates they are unfamiliar with the topic, as the three key organ harvesting investigators (Kilgour, Matas and Gutmann) estimate tens of thousands of FG have been killed for their organs, which is just one part of the persecution. In October 2014, in an interview with The Toronto Star Gutmann didn't limit the time frame to 2000 to 2008 and stated, "the number of casualties is close to 100,000". Part of the problem could be that the 2nd sentence in the article is too weak, "sometimes resulting in death". It probably should be stated that 3 books have been published about organ harvesting to make it clear to readers that publishers have taken this subject seriously. Aaabbb11 (talk) 13:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok for Persecution of Falun Gong in China, but expanding the article to include persecutions outside of China is another option if you want to keep the same title. Regarding Aaabbb11's opinion, the allegations of organ harvesting seem suspicious, for example, in the link you provided the author of the book even states that his witnesses may not be credible. "You can’t always confirm these things perfectly. That’s why I spend so much time talking to people and getting to know them. It becomes much easier to assess their credibility. People who’ve gone through terrible trauma often have distortions in what happened. We do what we can to establish credibility. In many cases I threw perfectly good interviews out because I felt that the person was too interested in giving me the story they thought I wanted to hear rather than what had happened." I'm not saying the allegations shouldn't be in the article. They just need to be stated as allegations. Waters.Justin (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * @Waters.Justin. Gutmann is saying he doesn't use information from witnesses he doesn't feel are credible. So it adds to the credibility of his work. Have you talked to Falun Gong from China in a city near you?
 * When hospitals and other institutions across China admit they are using Falun Gong organs its more than an allegation. Its a confession. Aaabbb11 (talk) 10:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I for one would plump for the wording "Suppression of Falun Gong". It is factual, neutral, without religious overtones, unlike "Persecution of Falun Gong" which is for obvious reasons the preferred choice of advocates of Falun Gong. --Elnon (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * @Elnon. Persecution vs Suppression was raised as an issue on the Falun Gong talk page Talk:Falun_Gong on 1 March 2015. There was no debate and it is now in Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_39. Aaabbb11 (talk) 10:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I have further suggestions on the title: STSC (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Purge of Falun Gong in China
 * China's crackdown on Falun Gong


 * 1. Defn purge = physically remove (something) completely. That hasn't happened. Its possible the number of FG in China has increased since the persecution began in 1999, so not a good title.
 * 2. Defn crackdown = a series of severe measures to restrict undesirable or illegal people or behaviour. Killing a minimum of tens of thousands of people is more than a severe measure. FG practice truth, compassion and forbearance - not undesirable or illegal. Its the CPC persecuting FG not China. Aaabbb11 (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "Suppression" could work, and I might even prefer it when writing articles. But in terms of article titles, it would raise the question of why we're treating Falun Gong differently than other persecuted minority groups, where "Persecution of x" is the accepted convention. This is an age-old discussion, and each time the Wikipedia convention has been provided as the main reason. I'm not sure we're going to reach any other consensus on a new title here. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Unlike the main religious groups - Christianity or Islam, Falun Gong is just a cult as classified in China. What the Chinese government did was crackdown on a cult inside China. "Persecution" is not a suitable word to describe the government's operations on the illegal activities within its own country. STSC (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Virtually every persecuted religious minority has been classified as a 'cult' (or an equivalent pejorative) by the government that seeks to eliminate them. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not every cult is harmful. Falun Gong was considered as posing a danger to Chinese society and therefore must be eliminated from China; such process should not be described as "persecution" as if the elimination is undesirable. Wikipedia is neutral and should not make judgement on the Chinese internal policy for the good of its society. STSC (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you believe the persecuting governments have considered the persecuted minorities as "non-harmful" in other instances, which would then justify a different convention for naming their respective articles? TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow. So, eliminating people based on their religious creed isn't undesirable? That's really twisted. Grotesque apologia aside, there seems to be general agreement among most editors that the current title, or a slight variation on it, is preferred. Recognizing that there are some other valid considerations, I agree with TheSoundAndTheFury, and see no compelling reason to break from the naming convention used for other articles.  The Blue Canoe  21:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The Chinese operation against Falun Gong is not a religious persecution. The government decided to step in because Falun Gong had become a mass fanatic movement threatening the stability of the society, just like any other countries that would take actions to deal with any fanatic and extremist movement in their countries. My main point is Wikipedia must not take sides on this. STSC (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources would disagree. Maybe you should read the article. You might learn something. The Blue Canoe  04:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we're done here. If I may summarise, there's recognition that some editors will always struggle with this title (some for valid reasons), but it is in keeping with Wikipedia naming convention, and no good reasons have been put forward to defy that convention in this case. The point was raised that for clarity and specificity, "Persecution of Falun Gong in/by China" may be preferred, but the uptake on that seems a bit lukewarm. — Zujine |talk 13:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Practitioner vs Adherent
practitioner - a person actively engaged in an art, discipline, or profession, especially medicine

adherent - someone who supports a particular party, person, or set of ideas

For me these are totally different terms and the term adherent is inappropriate. Aaabbb11 (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Genocide
The most accurate term to refer to the persecution of FG is genocide. By the CCP's own admission, the purpose is to eradicate a religious creed.

Definition - the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group. Aaabbb11 (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Some definitions of genocide include the eradication of religious groups, but to avoid arguments over a disputed term and allegations of original research it may be best to describe the persecution as genocide only if you can find a supporting reference and the content is written so it is clear who made the claim, to avoid weasel words. Waters.Justin (talk) 11:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Anyone is free to make up their definitions. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court would seem to be significant.
 * from http://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/ea9aeff7-5752-4f84-be94-0a655eb30e16/0/rome_statute_english.pdf For the purpose of this Statute, ‘genocide’ means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
 * (a) Killing members of the group;
 * (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
 * (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
 * (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
 * (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Aaabbb11 (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Be that as it may, it's not clear what you're proposing. Waters.Justin is right that if you wanted to include something about this, it can only be done by attributing it as the opinion or interpretation of a reliable source. Since the CCP's campaign is not widely and commonly referred to as a genocide (not yet, anyway. Genocides often only get recognized long after the fact--see Armenia/Turkey), we can't refer to it as such in Wikipedia's voice wherever we please. The Blue Canoe  12:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * If most accurate term to refer to the persecution of FG is genocide, then the title of the article should be changed to Genocide of FG for starters.
 * Edward McMillan-Scott described it as genocide http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/call-to-un-to-probe-falun-gong-genocide-claims/2006/08/15/1155407814508.html Aaabbb11 (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You could add one sentence to the lede to the effect of 'some observers have described the campaign as a genocide', but you'll have no luck getting the title of the article changed unless and until there is widespread recognition among reliable sources (and international organizations?) of this event as a genocide. The Blue Canoe  21:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Edward McMillan-Scott who described it as genocide in the link above, was elected four times as European Parliament Vice-President 2004–2014, main portfolio was Human Rights and Democracy.
 * More pages with Genocide of Falun Gong
 * Ethan Gutmann, China watcher (expert) wrote 2 books on china http://eastofethan.com/category/falun-gong/
 * David Matas, international human rights lawyer and author http://www.david-kilgour.com/2009/Jun_15_2009_07.php Title "Persecution of Falun Gong in China: A new face of genocide"
 * Josh Gelernter, weekly columnist for National Review Online; frequent contributor to The Weekly Standard and 2 times for wsj.com in 2014 http://www.nationalreview.com/article/393632/obama-genocide-josh-gelernter
 * Peter Westmore national president of the National Civic Council (Australia). Title of article was "Persecution of Falun Gong is genocide" http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=56301


 * But mainstream newspapers struggle to report on Falun Gong, as demonstrated by the Gao Rongrong case and explained by China expert Gutmann Ethan Gutmann. So many mainstream newspapers are not reliable sources when it comes to Falun Gong because they fail to cover it, so we have to rely on other sources. Aaabbb11 (talk) 11:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * At this time it seems the majority of writers do not refer to the persecution as genocide, and I don't think any countries have recognized the persecution as genocide. You could create a section in this article called "Falun Gong Genocide Recognition" and include references that refer to the persecution as genocide. When the section is large enough split the section off (See Splitting) and create its own article titled Falun Gong Genocide recognition.  This is how recognition of the Armenian Genocide was written about in Armenian Genocide recognition.  At this time changing the title of the article to genocide is not backed enough by the international dialogue, but beginning a new section or article on Falun Gong Genocide recognition may be most possible. Waters.Justin (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * There is objective info about Organ Harvesting of FG and as of 23 June 2015‎ even a comprehensive article on wiki - Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China.
 * The 3 key organ harvesting investigators (and authors) are David Matas, David Kilgour and Ethan Gutmann. On Kilgour's website http://www.david-kilgour.com/2009/Jun_15_2009_07.php the title of Matas's article is "Persecution of Falun Gong in China: A new face of genocide". If Kilgour disagreed with the title of that article it would seem unlikely that he would allow it on his website. Gutmann states Genocide on http://eastofethan.com/category/falun-gong
 * So if the key organ harvesting investigators and authors say that organ harvesting of FG is Genocide then the Persecution of FG must be Genocide as organ harvesting is only part of the persecution.


 * I think its telling that the CCP seemed to have stop denying Organ Harvesting was happening many years ago on their websites. Falun Gong isn't even listed as a topic on http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/ (Embassy of China in the US), but Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang are listed.


 * If many politicians and governments and around the world don't have the moral character to say that a genocide happening to FG in China (and even assist the genocide in the case of New Zealand, by denying independent evidence of organ harvesting in china) then their behavior reflects on them and not the reality of what has happened. Aaabbb11 (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

why were these pictures removed?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Falun_Gong&curid=23789917&diff=690567159&oldid=690506474

if there's no explanation I'll revert. if stsc reverts again then i'll initiate a request for punitive action. I see no reason for randomly deleting pictures from articles. Happy  monsoon  day   01:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Countries denying the Genocide of Falun Gong
I think there should be a section in the article titled "Countries denying the Genocide of Falun Gong". New Zealand makes the list. David Kilgour talks about New Zealand in this interview. http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday/audio/201754689/david-kilgour-forced-organ-harvesting.


 * No.  The Blue Canoe  20:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 1. If you are a citizen of NZ I think you should be able to find out what your government's position is and take the action you feel is appropriate.
 * 2. There is an article titled Holocaust denial which is 165,369 bytes long and more than half the length of the Holocaust article. So it would seem appropriate that there is some information about governments who are denying (and effectively supporting) the Genocide of Falun Gong. Governments should be accountable for their actions. Aaabbb11 (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 3. The Genocide of Falun Gong is a very serious matter. I think if you disagree with something you should provide a reason. Aaabbb11 (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Gao Rongrong was tortured
If you look at the pictures on the Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2187771/Does-Chinas-superb-tolerance-religious-diversity-extend-imprisoned-tortured-Falun-Gong-practitioners.html its pretty obvious that Gao Rongrong was tortured. So we can drop the word allegedly. Aaabbb11 (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)