User talk:A20120312

August 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Falun Gong. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. ''Please read the WP:NPOV policy. State propaganda is not a reliable source. If you feel there is missing information characterizing the Chinese state's views of Falun Gong, or its stated reasons for the prosecution of its adherents, please take your views to the talk page and use reliable sources to back them up. Thanks. '' TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You should read WP:RS. There has also been a lot of discussion about this in the past on the Wikipedia page. You can also check the archive. The best way to represent the views of the Chinese government is to quote what scholars have written about the matter. We are not here for promoting the views of either party, the FLG or the CCP. We describe their perspectives, we do not re-enact the propaganda or arguments of either side. There is a big difference. This is about scholarship and research here, not advocacy. Thank you. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Falun Gong, you may be blocked from editing. ''I have investigated and found that you've done the same thing as on the zh.wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a site for propaganda or advocacy. Please discuss your changes on the talk page and refer to policy and reliable sources; other editors may have input into this. '' TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Why do you cancel my edit? The material is from Xinhua News Agency, the official media of Chinese government. Obviously, it's not promotional material. If this is so called "promotional material". I don't know what material is available. --A20120312 (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I know. I come from Chinese Wikipedia and I didn't be aware of that the rules between Chinese Wiki and English Wiki are so different. Thank you for your reminding and I have changed the source but I don't know why do you still cancel my edit? --A20120312 (talk) 03:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This sort of editing is not permitted on any language Wikipedia. Further, you say you are aware, but you then edit warred with me. There is a professionally written page there, with very high quality references and a complete, comprehensive, neutral history of the dispute between the FLG and the CCP and an explanation of Falun Gong. You added to the article one-sided propaganda from the Chinese state, much of which has been discredited and serves no other purpose than slander of a targeted political group (i.e. suicide etc. - none of this is credible.) The appropriate place for discussion of the Chinese government's view is in the section Falun_Gong, which discusses the material you attempted to insert. This is not factual, but rhetorical material. It should not be added to the lead of the article, which has been the subject of much discussion, in such a haphazard manner without proper discussion and argumentation. I suggest you stop disruptive editing and open a discussion on the main page, with reference to content policies and reliable sources. See what other editors think. If you keep edit warring with me you will be blocked. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I did no propaganda in Wikipedia! Is the article from BBC are propaganda?! I know the rule may be different between zh and en, but in English Wiki, the news from media like BBC is still available. PS: I think I needn't start a discussion before editing.--A20120312 (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * [I have moved the discussion. Let's keep it here.] To discuss your edits, go to the Talk:Falun gong page and open a discussion. Yes, you should discuss them, otherwise you will be reverted. The short BBC article you cited, from a decade ago, is not nearly a sufficient enough source for what you intend. There are half a dozen books produced by scholars which discuss this matter in proper detail. You cannot find one press report and seek to make the article represent those opinions, when they have been thoroughly discredited. See WP:UNDUE. Indeed, you need to learn the policies, start a discussions on the Talk page, and immediately stop edit warring. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 04:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I should also clarify that the pages are under ArbCom sanction, and edit warring is disruptive. The first time you didn't know, and that's OK. But if you repeatedly add problematic material, that becomes a problem. Let's get more editors involved so we can discuss the matter properly. The proper place for content discussion is the Talk:Falun Gong page. That's all I'll say here. Take it to the Talk page for a full discussion with other editors. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 04:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

So you mean I have to start a discussion before edit the top of an article and can only use scolar article instead of news report. Otherwise the edit would be cancelled and be considered as disrupt? --A20120312 (talk) 04:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what I meant. I recommended you discuss your edits to the lead of the article, because that is the standard practice around here. The page as it is currently was the result of years of work by many people, and a lot of discussion. Anyone who had a better idea about how it could be worded would raise that issue for discussion - that is best practice, especially for such a controversial article like this.


 * Secondly, material about contentious, disputed claims needs high quality sources. Have you heard of the phrase "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence"? If you were adding to the article material that was in an appropriate section, presented neutrally, and on some simple matter of the topic, that would not be a problem. But you added anti-FLG propaganda to the lead of the article first based on Chinese state sources, then on some very thin BBC reports. Do you see the difference? Think about it: there have been a number of books written which discuss in depth the Chinese government's campaign against FLG, providing extensive analysis of the issues in question, where they examine hundreds of press reports. That is the kind of material that is appropriate to provide a macroscopic introduction to the subject. The introduction is not for detailed claims, it's for an introduction.


 * As a practical matter, because English is not your native language, to make sure that the wording of the edit is professionally written, I think it might help to discuss it first. But that is not a really big deal.


 * Finally, the material you added doesn't even really make sense, to be honest. It says: According to the report from Chinese government, the reason why CPC stoped Fulun Gong in China was that Falun Gong along with its adherents did some serious crimes in China like announcing some anti-science speece such as "People don't neet to have medicine after being sick" and this caused many people's sickness became even worse, breaking the transmission of Satellite TV signal and encouraging people to commit suicide and self-immolation . 


 * However, the source you cited about the reasons for the crackdown never even refers to the quote you provided. Secondly, the television hacking took place in 2001, after the crackdown started. So how could the CCP say that is the reason for the crackdown? It is the same with the immolation incident. It took place after the crackdown. So your edit is historically inaccurate, not supported by the sources it cites, and doesn't really make sense. That is why I'm saying you should open a discussion and explain your thinking, so we can help correct any issues with the article and help you contribute positively to the page. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 04:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, finally, there is a lot of discussion of the material you brought up in the article. See the media section I referred you to:

Leung remarked that the effort was driven by large-scale propaganda through television, newspapers, radio and internet.[143] According to Amnesty International, the Chinese government banned Falun Gong on 22 July 1999 and launched a massive propaganda campaign. For instance, Ye Xiaowen, Director of the Bureau of Religious Affairs of the State Council (government), said at a news conference on 4 November 1999 "Falun Gong had brainwashed and bilked [double-crossed] followers, caused more than 1,400 deaths, and threatened both social and political stability". Most of the deaths were alleged to have resulted from people refusing medical treatment because of their Falun Gong beliefs. Additionally the government published statements, whose authenticity can not be verified, from people identified as former Falun Gong practitioners who denounce the movement and its leader. The government promised not to hurt those who would leave xiéjiào (邪教), translated as an "evil cult/religion" or a "heretical organization."[178]

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.[179] The "massive propaganda campaign" focused on allegations that Falun Gong jeopardized social stability, was deceiving and dangerous, was "anti-science" and threatened progress, and argued that Falun Gong's moral philosophy was incompatible with a Marxist social ethic.

State propaganda initially used the appeal of scientific rationalism to argue that Falun Gong's worldview was in "complete opposition to science" and communism.[180][181] The People's Daily asserted on 27 July 1999, that it "was a struggle between theism and atheism, superstition and science, idealism and materialism." A polarized depiction was created where the scientific worldview represented by Marxist-Leninism was legitimized as "moral and truthful," while the Falun Gong discourse was "evil and deceptive."[181] In a society where virtue is defined by scientific progress, obedience, and unquestioning allegiance to the government, Falun Gong was juxtaposed with Marxist-Leninist thought, depicted as scientifically incorrect, superstitious without basis in reality, and the opposite of communism.


 * So there already extensive discussion and analysis of precisely the material you sought to include. You need to carefully read that section and think about what is missing and what you would like to add in there. Then I can help you find some good sources to back it up. What do you think? I suggest writing about your thoughts, after reading that section, on the talk page, then other people can join in and help, too. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 04:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a wonderful idea to avoid possible edit conflict. I will try it after a tasty lunch, thank you! --A20120312 (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident FAR
Hi A20120312 - I have placed your FAR nomination of Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident on hold. Step one of the FAR process involves initiating a talk page discussion about potential improvements. Although you did begin a section on the talk page, it was six minutes before you initiated the FAR. This is not enough time for discussion to take place. The review will be on hold while the discussion progresses. Dana boomer (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The FAR review may be restarted, if necessary, once discussion has taken place, if it is agreed that it would be useful for the article to go to FAR. Note that FAR is not the place to continue a content dispute. So, if agreement cannot be reached over specific aspects of content or sourcing, bringing the article to the appropriate dispute resolution or sourcing noticeboard would be best. FAR's purpose is to see featured articles improved to the point that they meet the featured article criteria, not a place for summary delisting. Therefore, the talk page option needs to be exhausted before FAR is considered. Also, please note that you must give specifics (i.e., specific places where you think text should be changed, new sources you think should be present, existent sources you believe are unreliable, etc.) at both the talk page discussion and the FAR review, if that re-commences. It looks like another editor has already responded to your post on the talk page, so hopefully a FAR will not be necessary! Dana boomer (talk) 01:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A very conscientious and courteous explanation to this user, Dana boomer. Well done. Yes, we are discussing the issues at the moment and I expect we'll be able to figure it out through regular discussion. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)