User talk:Homunculus/Archive 1

Request for Usurpation
Hello, Homunculus. A request has been made at Changing username/Usurpations to usurp, or "take over", your username because you have not used it to edit, and another user would like to use it to edit. Changing username/Usurpations says that any unused username may be usurped if the user is given seven days notice to object and does not do so.

If you have an email set in your preferences, you should be getting an email from a bureaucrat or changing username clerk explaining how to consent or object to this process.

If you do not object to being renamed to a new username in order for another user to use the name you currently have, please log in and post a reply here saying so (you may also tell us what username you would like to be renamed to, or we will provide you with a generic one).

If you do nothing : the request will be filled after seven days, and your account will be moved to a generic username. You may request that it be moved to a new username of your choice at any time.

If you object to being renamed : please log in and make an edit to this page clearly stating that you object to usurpation.

Please note that even if your current username is usurped, you can still edit and your data will not be lost; your preferences, watchlist, and other user settings will be transferred to a new username.

Thank you for your time. Homunculus (duihua) 06:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please write to me here
Hello Homunculus,

Re: "List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll"--The Falun Gong numbers have been revised downward to reflect changing estimates of the overall Laogai System by the Laogai Research Foundation. In short: Low: 9000. High: 120,000. Median: 65,000. All the numbers should be rounded off--to do otherwise is to give an illusion of precision in an investigation which is still in the early stages. Please see a discussion of the revised figures at: http://eastofethan.com/2011/03/10/how-many-harvested-revisited/

"Kilgour-Matas report" accurately reflects the revision: "Ethan Gutmann, adjunct fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, calculates that the number of practitioners killed for organs could be as high as 120,000, with a low estimate of 9,000, and 65,000 being the median. Estimates have been revised downwards from earlier numbers to reflect changing estimates of the overall Laogai System by the Laogai Research Foundation.[11][70][11][71]" Washtenaw (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry I didn't see this until now; I have been on an extended vacation from civilization. I'm still rather tied up for the next week or two, so given that you have access to these sources,  I suggest you go ahead and make the adjustment.  My recommendation is to use the revised median estimate which, as Gutmann notes, is more or less in line with the estimate from Kilgour-Matas.  It still seems unrealistically high to me (and I hope I'm right), but it's nice to see that Gutmann is not too far off in left field. Homunculus (duihua) 03:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thought reform
I noticed you are editing the Yan'an rectification article. I created Thought reform in the People's Republic of China, which needs more work, research, etc. Yan'an was when the CCP settled all these manipulation and brainwashing techniques, so it's important. You may want to have a go of that one above as well. --Asdfg12345 05:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, everyone's read Lifton. I might take a look later. Will add to my list, at least. Homunculus (duihua) 10:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Dukie
You may be right in your edit summary], but they are at Duke, and possibly very tenured. Take care, Drmies (talk) 04:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hah hah. One of my pet peeves are these Brave New World academics and their nihilistic language games. Homunculus (duihua) 05:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Perhaps, but at what cost? To write like that, you have to think like that. Homunculus (duihua) 23:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wish I could talk or write like one, since that would be very beneficial to my career. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyediting
If it interests you at any point, would you mind taking a look at Sichuan schools corruption scandal and give it a readthrough? I just stumbled upon the article a few days ago, and gave it a facelift, but much work still needs to be done. Colipon+ (Talk) 02:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notice. I was out of town for the last week; I will certainly read it and make changes as I go. Homunculus (duihua) 13:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You might also be interested in Futian incident and Anti-Bolshevik League incident. There's a large amount of untranslated sources and POV that needs to be assessed.--PCPP (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I wish I could split my body; life is full. Homunculus (duihua) 09:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Text of the Straight Goods article
Here's the full text FYI. Forgive the messy formatting. --Asdfg12345 02:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Dateline: Monday, May 31, 2010 Judge rules that Falun Gong newspaper acted in the public interest. by John Gordon Miller, Ryerson University An important victory for investigative journalism has been won in Quebec, but most journalists probably overlooked it. That's too bad, because it demonstrates that good journalism can sometimes be found in unlikely places and that "public interest" and "responsible journalism" are increasingly being recognized by the courts in Canada.

Although publisher Crescent Chau denied being an agent of Beijing, the court found his explanations for how he funded his special editions were "to say the least, nebulous."

Quebec Superior Court Justice Catherine Mandeville sided with the Montreal publisher of The Epoch Times, a small newspaper serving the Chinese community, which was sued for defamation by the publisher of a rival paper, La Presse Chinoise. A series of Epoch Times stories examined La Presse Chinoise's publisher, Crescent Chau, and how he managed to publish 100,000 copies of four special editions of his newspaper and distribute them free of charge in Chinese communities across Canada. La Presse Chinoise usually circulates a mere 4,000 copies, sells them for 60 cents each, and limits distribution to Montreal and a few copies to Ottawa. The special editions carried no advertising or news, just articles denouncing and calling for the elimination of Falun Gong, a spiritual group that has been violently suppressed in China since being outlawed in 1999. The articles repeated the Chinese regime's most malicious, unsubstantiated charges against Falun Gong practitioners ¡ª that they engage in bestiality, vampirism, murder and suicide. Chau sued The Epoch Times for libel, asking for nearly a quarter million dollars in damages. The Epoch Times, founded in 2000 by practitioners of Falun Gong, examined Chau and his business and wrote a series of investigative articles that suggested he was acting on behalf of Beijing. The articles appear to be thoroughly and professionally reported, which isn't always the case in the often under-resourced ethnocultural press. Epoch Times reporters interviewed a former Chinese diplomat who offered insight into Beijing's influence over overseas media, and reviewed Chau's own public statements and testimony made before the European Parliament and US House of Representatives. Justice Mandeville ruled that the paper acted in the public interest and its articles expressed "legitimate concerns and constitute an opinion which is drawn from a factual premise and not made for the purpose of abusively attacking the reputation of Mr. Chau." She said it's "a case of the biter complaining about being bitten." Although Chau denied being an agent of Beijing, the court found his explanations for how he funded his special editions were "to say the least, nebulous." Under Quebec law, Chau bore the burden of convincing the court that The Epoch Times failed to exercise a standard of care, and he clearly did not do that. This case is a significant victory for a publisher that has come under some suspicion because of its ties to the Falun Gong ideology. In 2006, the paper's credibility was damaged when one of its journalists hurled insults at Chinese President Hu Jintao at a White House briefing. President George W Bush apologized to the Chinese for the incident. In turn, The Epoch Times apologized to the US president, although it denied any direct ties to, or funding from, Falun Gong. But in the Quebec case, the paper's reporting stood up to the court's scrutiny, and we should all be grateful for their careful scrutiny. Beijing has used similar lawsuits to silence critics, but they weren't allowed to get away with it this time. John Gordon Miller has been an award-winning reporter, a senior news executive, chair of a journalism school, an author, a teacher, a researcher and a consultant. He’s been professor of journalism at Ryerson for 21 years, following a 20-year career as an editor and reporter. Most of that was spent at the Toronto Star, where he was foreign editor, founding editor of the Sunday Star, weekend editor, deputy managing editor, and acting managing editor. eMail: jmiller@ryerson.ca  Website: http://www.ryerson.ca/journalism/facultydirectory/emeritus/miller.html http://www.straightgoods.ca/2010/ViewArticle.cfm?Ref=554

Okay, thanks, though I think this has already been looked at by another editor. I see there is some conflict on the page now, in fact. Homunculus (duihua) 14:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Political Education in the PRC
Good article topic. Here are a few points:


 * Shouldn't the title be "Political education in the People's Republic of China" (given the articles like this, and Thought reform in the People's Republic of China, Censorship in the People's Republic of China, Media in the People's Republic of China, etc. I think they should adopt a consistent name.
 * Use the ref name function when referring multiple times to the same source. See this edit for an example. And if it's multiple pages from the same book, I recommend this: ; though you're free to choose your own way. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I moved it. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Phaedo, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you.  RJC  TalkContribs 19:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Shoot, good catch, and thanks.Homunculus (duihua) 19:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Organ harvesting of Falun Gong
FYI, whether that page should be deleted or not is being discussed here. The background is that a couple of anti-Falun Gong activists got it deleted, then some rational editors rebuilt it and now it's being discussed again whether it should be deleted. You can make your comment, if you like. I commend you to edit these articles more actively: they need the input from non-partisan people who know the facts. I mostly refrain from major edits these days, despite the gross inadequacies on the pages. Asdfg12345 04:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Create/Appoint
Please see the meanings of "create" in the dictionary... "Appoint" is actually the wrong word since "appointments" have durations, whereas "creations" do not. --Nlu (talk) 03:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks NIu. I've seen the two used interchangeable (ie., "Henry was appointed Constable of Dover Castle and Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports. In 1494, he was created Duke of York. He was subsequently appointed Earl Marshal of England and Lord Lieutenant of Ireland"). In some cases, however, the context in which the term 'created' is used is not entirely clear, and I changed to 'appoint' because it seemed less likely to be misinterpreted. 'Appointed' does not necessarily imply a limited duration; it can simply mean to "name officially to a position." Moreover, when a person is appointed as emperor (for instance), is that not a temporary position, one which will subsequently be assumed by someone else? Please let me know if I'm missing some degree of nuance in the difference between positions to which people are created vs. appointed. If I'm wrong in my thinking on this, I'll be happy to concede the point. Homunculus (duihua) 04:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As you can see above, "appoint" generally refers to an office, whereas "create" generally refers to a noble title. --Nlu (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough Homunculus (duihua) 05:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you plan to keep up the strong work you began on the main Falun Gong page? There are several other articles related to the topic, all in need of attention. If you planned to work on those, I can certainly pitch in. — Zujine |talk 13:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope to keep it up, though I have a couple other things in my sights as well...Homunculus (duihua) 03:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Your input is sought
If you feel so inclined, you may want to weigh in here. An edit war is brewing, and I would like to find a reasonable solution before much time is wasted. Homunculus (duihua) 19:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Use one of these sources, and if anyone reverts you again, let me know and I'll talk to them.  SilkTork  *YES! 19:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

A modest proposal
Hi Homunculus. Well done on persevering in what is a rather difficult editing environment, even now, on Falun Gong-related pages. I want to suggest something, and please let me know if you are interested. It is to see whether you want to proceed with submitting an arbitration enforcement case against PCPP. I posted it here, but was informed that that was the wrong place. The right place is at AE. When I went there to inspect what was expected, I noticed the line "Anyone requesting enforcement who comes with unclean hands runs the risk of their request being summarily denied or being sanctioned themselves." Now, to be quite honest, I do not think my hands are dirty in this case. However, I think that PCPP could easily claim that because of my history, not always glorious, of editing the pages, he may turn that around and try to have me disqualified from making the complaint.

So, I am first checking with you to see if you want to run with the complaint. Of course, you can do what you want with the text I have assembled. I am sure you have your own way of writing and putting things. I just wrote it up quickly. You can take it as a reference for your own complaint. But I want to see first whether you have a wish to do that. I'm told by ResidentApologist that one doesn't have to be a saint to make a complaint. But I believe it will be more straightforward if PCPP is not able to so quickly divert attention onto the messenger; my faith in the Archimedean neutrality of Wikipedia sanctioning processes never recovered after what happened last year. If I don't hear back from you within 24 hours, I'll do it myself, no problem. --Asdfg12345 20:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll think about it. It's not the type of thing I'm eager to get involved in. Homunculus (duihua) 20:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm just going to do it now then. Feel free to state your views in support or opposition when the post goes public. --Asdfg12345 20:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No, you shouldn't imperil yourself over this. I'll do it. Homunculus (duihua) 20:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * okay. Fine. I was procrastinating so I hadn't really begun. The information is all there, you just have to put it into the specified format, delete my hopelessly partisan language, and post it. If you change your mind I'll do it later. I'm going now. --Asdfg12345 21:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestions / edits are welcome
Homunculus, when you are ready to reemerge, I suggest you head over to History of Falun Gong, where I have implemented the sweeping changes previously discussed. I imagine you may have some good ideas on how to make the timeline there more complete and well balanced.— Zujine |talk 05:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my absence. I've been back for a while, but have been reluctant to get back into editing; I'm working on a conference paper, and the deadline approaches. In any case, I'll take a look now.Homunculus (duihua) 03:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Good to see you're back. What are you researching these days? — Zujine |talk 04:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been looking at Chinese protest and dissident movement, and focusing on the intersection of religion and dissent. It's forced me to become somewhat better acquainted with Christian Weiquan lawyers and Falun Gong. Homunculus (duihua) 21:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Rightful resistance
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Rightful resistance, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://polisci.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/OBrienK/WP1996.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you robot. I took one sentence from the abstract of the article. It was in quotations, and was cited, and therefore I can't imagine that it would be in contravention of copyright policies. In any case, I'm happy to paraphrase. Homunculus (duihua) 03:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Edits to Propaganda in PRC
Why did you remove the section on non-political propaganda? I was the one that contributed to the material and it was fully sourced. It provided link to the monthly agenda to a local propaganda department. The website is in Chinese but does not invalidate it being a legit source. In fact, it is authoritative, because it came directly from the government on a subject matter that involves the conduct of a government.

The use of specific example is very important to this article because it help the viewers understand how the propaganda is system works in practice. And it is also a process not very well understood by many English readers. 70.50.203.5 (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I hope I didn't offend you with that edit, and I'm not going to assert that mine was necessarily the right decision. But I'll explain my rationale, and if you don't find it compelling, you can add the content back in and I will not fight you on it.  As I read through the article, I noticed some redundancies between the section on 'terminology' and 'non-political promotions.'  I consolidated the repetitive content into the 'terminology' section, and also added there that there are some propaganda functions related to mundane public service issues.  After doing this consolidation, the section on 'non-political promotions' ceased to serve much of a distinct purpose. It consisted of two examples of local-level websites which contained information on weather, job postings, etc.,  followed by a (sorry to say) rather poorly written, unsourced summary paragraph.  I felt that the latter did not add much at this point.  Now, as to the two examples provided,  they seemed to be unrelated to the purpose of the article.  Information on weather is not propaganda; it is not what a user expects to find on this page, nor is the dissemination of weather-related information part of the propaganda system (if you can find directives from the central propaganda department on how to report the weather, I will retract that statement, and laugh bemusedly).  If you wish to argue that the CPC's propaganda department executes these functions (ie. carrying information on geography, weather, job postings, and the like),  you might want to try to make your case on the page Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China.Homunculus (duihua) 21:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

RE: Your contribution to 'List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll'
Hello Homunculus. Thanks for the feedback. I will research for a reliable source regarding the subject and, as soon as I find it, I will let you know. Best regards, Aerolitz —Preceding undated comment added 21:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC).

Falun Gong practitioner?
Dear Homonculus, your recent edits to the Tuidang movement article suggest that you are a Falun Gong practitioner or sympathiser. If so, then please do not edit the articles related to that movement further. We have had endless edit wars involving Falun Gong's practitioners and enemies, with the former showing a frankly tiresome tendency to describe FG's persecution in graphic & verbose detail at every opportunity here on Wikipedia. Best, Martin Rundkvist (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * My recent edits involved turning a page that had hitherto consisted of no references, and that made unqualified, unverifiable statements into one that at is well sourced, at least modestly well written, and that synthesizes virtually all the available scholarly and journalistic research on the topic in a coherent, concise manner. I am well aware of the edit wars that have plagued Falun Gong-related pages in the past, and claim no allegiance to the pro- or anti-Falun Gong camps and reject the notion that edits should be evaluated against an erroneous pro- or anti-Falun Gong dichotomy, rather than on their objective merit (indeed, the childish tendency to reduce everything to pro- or anti-FG seems to be the source of much of the problem on these pages). I suggest you review my latest edit more carefully, for it was neither graphic or verbose. I was seeking to correct another editor's rather odd decision to describe the suppression in China as being merely the allegation of Falun Gong, which it is not.Homunculus (duihua) 22:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * An addendum: you partially reverted my most recent edit, writing in your edit summary that it consisted of "florid pro-FG prose." The florid prose you're referring to was 1) an account of how many people practiced FG in the 1990s, and 2) a short and rather sterilized description of the nature of the suppression. Both of these points had references, and both are very well established facts. Now, if the inclusion of a single sentence that is factual, well sourced, and relevant counts as "pro-FG," what do you propose the solution is? Is it to introduce ambiguity, as your edit suggests? That is not, in my view, much of a contribution. I suggest you read up on the principles of False balance and Argument to moderation. Respectfully, Homunculus (duihua) 22:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "rather odd decision"?? One such instance is that you replaced an objective fact – that it was banned in the PRC in July 1999 – with an unattributed assertion of persecution, torture and propaganda. Fair enough if you attribute it, but to leave it hanging simply with a reference implying that it is objective fact falls foul of WP:NPOV. --  Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 11:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you viewing the right diff? See this one:. You will notice that I did not remove anything, and kept in place the July 1999 date. Are objecting because I removed the word "banned"? It's an ambiguous term, and given the questions concerning the legality of this ban and the chain of command used in enacting it, it's possible that it obscures more than it illuminates. In any case, it's a trivial change. I added a characterization of the persecution that was attributed to two sources—one recent, and one historical. I could add dozens more, but that would seem like overkill. The references given provide numerous examples of the use of propaganda, extralegal detention, and coercive methods, including torture, so I am not sure why you would say it was unattributed. Would you care to account for your edit?  Perhaps I am misreading it, but it seemed as though you went out of your way to make a change that is implicitly misleading. That is odd indeed, in my opinion.Homunculus (duihua) 14:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are indeed talking about the same edit; my comment stands. It is fairly well documented that human rights organisations' reports rely on Falun Gong as a primary source. And yes, I did "go out of my way", considering my vow of not ever editing a Falun Gong article. You could consider my edits there a one-off visit. I dare not look at the state of other FLG articles, for the ambience seems to have hardly changed. I shan't be back to any FLG article in a hurry. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 15:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not too interested in debating with either of you, and I don't expect or seek a response, but for posterity's sake I felt it was important to address your notion that all allegations of persecution come from Falun Gong sources. Many (though not all) accounts of torture and death in custody do come from Falun Gong victims or their families, because in most cases they are the only witnesses, aside from their torturers. The reason some organizations rely on these sources is because their claims, though not always verifiable, are consistent with all other information that can be gleaned from official literature, other prisoners, legal records, etc. In a lot of the early journalistic coverage of the persecution, such as John Pomfret’s "Torture is Breaking Falun Gong" or Ian Johnson’s Pulitzer Prize winning "A Deadly Exercise," the reporters did depend largely on the testimonies of Falun Gong practitioners and their families. They interviewed multiple people independently of each other, and sometimes in geographically disparate regions, yet the stories told by the Falun Gong victims were consistent. This led the reporters to the conclusion that they were telling the truth, and there is no reason to believe otherwise. For all other forms of abuse — the use of propaganda, clear infringements on religious liberty, hermetic censorship, extralegal detention in prisons, labor camps, psychiatric facilities and brainwashing facilities, and the denial of fair and open trials — all these allegations are supported in abundance by official Communist Party or government literature.


 * Consider, as one example among thousands, this collection of official Chinese documents from 2010 describing a three-year campaign to use brainwashing centers and forced labor camps to "transform" up to 75 % of known Falun Gong practitioners, through coercion if necessary. The documents compel authorities in different locales to forcefully bring Falun Gong practitioners — no matter how old or infirm, no matter if they have children or other family to support — into brainwashing sessions. If they fail to renounce their beliefs, they are to be sent to forced labor camps.


 * The CECC's annual reports employ a great deal of research like this. Their reports, which are more extensive than other human rights organizations, rely overwhelmingly on the CCP’s own documents as evidence of a persecution that they characterize as being "unrivaled" in scope and intensity. The Duihua Foundation, like the CECC, also relies almost exclusively on Chinese government literature, and they have documented hundreds of Falun Gong practitioners being sentenced in show trials in the span of a day or two, in a single city. Now, we know these are show trials because official Communist Party documents say they are. For instance, some official directives stipulates that courts must defer to Communist Party authorities for decisions in Falun Gong cases, and others preclude lawyers from representing Falun Gong defendants. According to Amnesty International: "The official documents issued for the crackdown in themselves show that the judicial process was biassed from the outset against the [Falun Gong] defendants. This violates international standards in several respects, notably the right of detainees to be presumed innocent until proven guilty through a fair and open trial by an independent tribunal."


 * Chinese human rights lawyers would also back up these claims. These lawyers (a couple dozen have tried to defend Falun Gong) report being denied access to clients, barred from courtrooms, intimidated by security agents, disbarred, detained, sentenced, and tortured for their advocacy on behalf of Falun Gong. Gao Zhisheng, most notably, told of being stripped and brutally tortured with electric shock batons. His torturers told him that it was the same treatment they meted out to Falun Gong practitioners. Other prisoners in labor camps and detention facilities also back up Falun Gong practitioners' claims. In the 2005 Human Rights Watch report, several prisoners said that the Falun Gong practitioners in their labor camps received the longest sentences and the worst treatment; in some camps, Falun Gong comprised the majority population.


 * Finally, defectors from this system corroborate the claims. Hao Fengjun is the most prominent, but not the only one. He belonged to the 610 Office in Tianjin, and while he was on the job, he encountered an elderly woman who had been beaten brutally by one of his colleagues with a screw-tipped pipe, simply because she wouldn't renounce Falun Gong.


 * I do not know how a reasonable person could look at the mountain of evidence and still come away thinking that Falun Gong has invented the persecution against them. Moreover, if someone believes in such obvious nonsense, how could he ever imagine to come across as a neutral, impartial editor? &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  14:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone actually believes the persecution is imagined. I'm happy to call this an aberration, and resume editing in good faith.Homunculus (duihua) 21:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Weiquan movement/GA1
Please note I've started the review of this article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 01:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * GAs are suffering from a 2-3 months backlog. Feel free and even encouraged to review some other articles to relive it :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 01:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Once I've become more familiar with GA criteria and review processes, I may be able to help.Homunculus (duihua) 17:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Falun Gong RfC
I responded to your edit/suggestion at the RfC on Falun Gong. I think it's headed in the right direction. There are a number of other questionable things that have been recently added to the page. In addition, there are a few outstanding edits I had wanted to make a long time ago to have the page read less like a literature review and more like an article. When it comes time to review those changes, can I solicit your opinion again? Homunculus (duihua) 16:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have responded and expanded on my edit to include the source you mention. Yes, you can solicit my opinion. I am aware that the Falun Gong topic is problematic, and not enough neutral people are involved, so I do make myself (reluctantly!) available.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  17:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Falun Gong material
The majority of the information I have is from the various databanks quickly available to me, like NewsBank (newspapers), ProQuest and Gale, and JSTOR, which, unfortunately, has comparatively little at this point. Another public library in the region here contains additional databanks as well, and probably, on that basis, other articles not in the databanks mentioned above. I don't actually have a full list of the articles, but I suppose it might be possible to generate one.

I should also mention that I am referring basically to separate articles. I have found, particularly in news sources, that the same article is reproduced, sometimes with slight variations, in several papers. For the most part, I am only counting one of those, generally the longest one, in the 1000 or so separate articles.

Regarding the specific article you mention, "FG outside mainland China," there is at least one article in the journal Nova Religio by Susan Palmer (I think) about FG in North America, specifically Canada. However, regarding such things as the recent radio hijacking in Vietnam, I have some reason to think that some sources, like maybe country overviews, statistics, or other matters, might be sufficient to turn such into single articles themselves.

I do still have the rather massive collection of print-outs, and will over the next day or two try to group together the articles on the basic subject, and, where possible, provide indicators as to which might be sufficiently notable for a separate article. John Carter (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)