User talk:Jayen466/Archives/2010/March

Talkback
Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

T-square
Yo. I responded on the talk page. I hadn't seen your note. Thanks for the trouble. --Asdfg12345 06:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Excerpts
... started at User:SandyGeorgia/Silence and the Scorpion. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I couldn't do excerpts; it's too painful to read. The author intersperses personal stories of the victims' lives with historical facts about the events, making it a very personal account of the repression and suffering that day.  It's sickening to me, to remember the slaughter. Reading it has also reminded me of how many very crucial factors have been whitewashed out of our articles.  We may want higher quality sources for restoring our articles, but this book gives a very good sense of everything that has gone missing from our accounting.  I do think you might want to read it.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll have to get a copy of this and a couple of others ... -- JN 466  16:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Chavez has done so much, that one forgets the history :) I knew all of this, but time heals all wounds, and it goes into missing memory banks :)  Our articles present the Venezuelan media as being irrationally against Chavez, but completely fail to mention all that Chavez did to enrage the population, business leaders and the media long before the "coup"; most of that has completely gone missing from our articles. I notice that his enactment of 49 laws the day before the Enabling Act was to expire is absent, as well as a heck of a lot more.  I have no problem citing all of that to this book, since I know it's all backed by other sources, but citing it to better sources is preferable.  So far, the book is accurate, and if anything, a bit favorable to Chavez because in the interest of space, it glosses over some highly offensive things he did.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba
Hi J, a single use account has just made some unexplained deletions to Sathya Sai Baba. Cheers, eric.  Esowteric + Talk  12:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  JN 466  12:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

War of the Bavarian Succession
J, would you read through War of the Bavarian Succession? I've read it so many times I've got it memorized now. It needs another pair of eyes before ACR. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, will do.  JN 466  17:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

translation on Cologne War
J, you did a short but critical translation for the Cologne War article, which I cut and pasted from somewhere into the article, with credit to you, since it was not in the article history. Someone has taken exception to it, and there has been a policy discussion at VP here: the vpp consensus, to which I responded here: Village_pump_%28policy%29. So it seems we should actually document the translation on talk page. Arggh. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Your note
I don't know. I have an email in to the BBC to ask. SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 21:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I need the links for now in case questioned because I'm preparing the article for peer review. If people want them removed at that time, then at least I'll have a version in the history where they can go and look for the source material. The video has been there for over three years, and I do know the BBC is aware of it. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 21:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I know. That's what I'm currently adding. :) SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 23:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, we were talking about different links. I think we'd have the same copyright problems with the Google link. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 23:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Image
Yes if you could fix the error in the image I would appreciated it.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do. -- JN 466  02:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Renaming
Hi Jay, just a quick one, as you are better with the google numbers than me, there is a request to change the name of this guy from Paramahamsa Nithyananda to Swami Nithyananda (Dhyanapeetam)... Dhyanapeetam being the name of his ashram and swami being the new tag instead of Paramahamsa which there are some hits for, mm another guru kissing pretty girls. Off2riorob (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The recents news are imo a bit attacking and I should imagine that is why they are removing his high foluting claim to fame name, but all the long term hits appear to me to be in the Paramahamsa Nithyananda name, there is a merge vote thingy on the talkpage, if you get time to have a look and let me know what you think, I saw that this guy is usinf a lot of old techniques and I have watched a few video since I was involved the last few days he does attribute other masters and claims to have sat at the feet of many masters and so on...bla bla. What is the president with news hit, are they as importand as long term hits? All of his own sites refer to his as the Nity P name..It seems to be working for him as he is top ten searches on google today, that is if you believe all publicity is good publicity.Off2riorob (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * :) The older hits:, . Most of the latter seem to be from a column he had on oneindia. He's also had both titles applied side by side:  (the latter also includes some other swamis ...). Do you think Swami necessarily implies a "demotion" from Paramahamsa? -- JN  466  23:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

New Arbitration Enforcement case: Dilip rajeev
Kindly note the WP:AE case above has just been filed. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi and associated pages
Hi J, for your info only, as I'm not sure how busy or interested you are:

Regarding the long-running content disputes over articles and pages relating to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, I have opened an WP:RFC. Please see: Talk:Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi. Thanks,  Esowteric + Talk  12:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Watchlisted; I'll weigh in later. -- JN 466  12:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Gee, what a pickle. Well done for raising it.  JN 466  17:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've filed a report + checkuser. You can find it here: Sockpuppet investigations/Falconkhe. As well as 3RR, there's probably also COI. A pickle indeed.  Esowteric + Talk  12:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wispanow
Consensus at AE seems to be that I should be engaging with Wispanow. Since you've kindly offered to mediate, I've summarised one of the issues he has edit-warred over here: Talk:Scientology_in_Germany. It would be great if we could resolve this, so it does not result in future flare-ups at the article. I'll invite Wispanow to respond, and if you could keep an eye on the discussion and chime in as appropriate, that would be great. Thanks, -- JN 466  11:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have left a note on Wispanow's talkpage asking him if he wishes to have a moderated discussion. I have outlined some examples of disruptive editing that would result in a warning, and if the disruption continued would result in a topic ban. These restrictions will, of course, apply to you as well. Such disruptive editing would include placing POV type tags on the article without consensus, reverting any non-vandal edits, or making comments about other editors in edit summaries. If you see an edit that you wish to revert, please get in touch with me, and if I agree that the edit is inappropriate I will deal with it. If I am not available, then please wait. There is no non-vandal edit that is so bad that it cannot wait. For avoidance of doubt, I would count an unsourced libelous BLP statement as a vandal edit.  SilkTork  *YES! 21:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. To tie up a remaining loose end, you referred at the Arbitration Enforcement thread to this edit of mine, mentioning in the edit summary a talk page discussion you had been unable to find. This diff contains the relevant talk page discussions. I proposed returning to the Feb 19 version on the talk page at 00:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC), and the GA reviewer, Mattisse, replied at 01:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC), The unreliable sources need to be removed, as well as any information that they are sourcing that is not sopported by other sources. I agree if the "originals" can be found, that would be fine. The SP Times article seem good. It seems to mostly quote what the German official said, as I recall, without commenting on the veracity of much of it. I have had no problem with your judgment nor your willingness to cooperate with other editors, so I trust you judgment in restoring the articles sources to a reliable condition. I made the edit at 13:26, 23 February 2009. In case you were wondering, I restored the deleted information about Antje Victore's allegedly fraudulent asylum case later that day, in this edit, but now sourced wholly to reliable sources. The GA reviewer had objected to the source whyaretheydead.net, which had been inserted by an IP in this edit. If you have any other questions about the edit, please ask. I note your points about moving forward, which seem fair, and look forward to the process. -- JN 466  00:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you help with a Human Rights in China Project?
This is to request you to join http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Human_Rights_in_China. I sincerely believe you could contribute much.Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, I am making amends to my approach, and attempting to actively engage all editors on talk, when making changes to the set of articles. I have taken a good look at my talk discussions and see that I have been a little pushy - I'd like to sincerely apologize and correct myself, and request I be judged on the merit of the research and contributions I have done as well. Not as an excuse but the frustration from large-scale blanking of content that has happened and continues to happen on these pages is perhaps what resulted in my being too emphatic on talk. I will definitely address this issue that you pointed out. Also, could you kindly, in your convenience, go through the diffs and the evidence I present here, and comment on the issue. Sincerely, Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invite. Unfortunately I have too many things on my plate right now to join the project, my interest in the subject matter notwithstanding. You are welcome to ping me on my talk page though if you ever want a third opinion.
 * As for your Falun Gong editing in general, there is a widespread belief (one which I share, based on what I have seen) that your editing is advocacy-based. I think people like yourself have a very important input to make here, but you will not be able to make that input if you don't learn to write for your opponent, and can call on diffs to prove that you are capable of doing so. If indeed you have diffs that show you adding views that are critical of Falun Gong, or views that take issue with some of its official statements, and which were not present in the article before your edit, then I'd encourage you to present them at AE, as they might dispel some of the concerns. I'm prepared to discuss this further. -- JN 466  13:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have hardly used primary sources - and have stuck to 3rd party sources. A lot of 3rd party sources are positive in nature. Schechter, Ownby, Human Rights reports, etc. You could go through my contributions - my edits reflect the POV of the sources I use. Other than that, while I might not have succeeded in getting my point across to other editors effectively, I can firmly state that my contributions are not "advocacy-based." You might notice that there is little information regarding the persecution in these articles, despite it occupying a significant place in Reliable Sources - so there must certainly be another side to this story - another set of editors engaged in advocacy for the CCP. Its the same set of editors who have continually piled these accusations on me. There is almost no info I have added which is poorly sourced or is undue. Kindly review my edits ( particularly my recent edits, almost all of which have been on "Propaganda in the PRC" page). In fact a significant portion of the material I added there has been blanked out as well - and with no real rationale presented.   Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you aware that you misrepresented Time magazine in this edit? Your edited version reads, "Time magazine and Professor David Ownby of the University of Montreal remarked that while it was possible for some misguided practitioners to have taken it upon themselves to demonstrate in this manner, it was equally possible that the CCP entirely staged the incident." Time actually said, "Falun Gong's leaders badly flubbed their damage control after the immolations. Instead of acknowledging that the five protesters might have been misguided practitioners, they denied any connection with them. Implausibly, the Falun Gong website insists the episode was set up by government provocateurs. Few were convinced by that line." I believe this was an honest mistake on your part, as your main idea seems to have been to more fully cover Ownby's position, but it's important that if a mainstream source like Time casts doubt on the official Falun Gong account, that we cover this correctly. Would you agree? -- JN 466  15:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It was an honest mistake - I did not notice the "Time Magazine and" part when I attempted to clearly present Ownby's perspective. I saw he was misrepresented in that line and proceeded to fix that - in the process missing the initial part of the sentence. I hope that its apparent from the edit summary in which I write " Ownby's correct perspective ( which was presented in a distorted manner)." I apologize for the mistake and I would have immediately corrected it myself had it been pointed out earlier. Thanks.
 * Dilip rajeev (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Time source, it certainly is notable and we should cover its perspective. I remember reading Ian Johnson or Pan saying initially western media initially just took the xinhua news without critically analyzing it. That said, on a personal level, I am inclined to think the event was staged - its typical of CCP propaganda, you'll develop a feel for it as you research this topic deeper. People padded  up in several layers of clothing, fake looking hair and masks, the footage suggesting Liu Chunling being hit on the head, western media being denied access, treatment inconsistent with standard medical procedures for burns, etc.  Btw, did you read Danny Schechter on the topic? You'll find a good analysis in there, with more detail, in certain aspects, than Ownby. He refers to the Xinhua footage as "engineered" ( the sentence runs sth like.. it was a week after the incident before "the fully engineered footage" was released.)


 * Regarding the lead, the problem I attempted to fix was that it airs the CCP story while marginalizing/ mis-presenting what the FDI said, and the factors on whose basis they denied any involvement. It was not just that the teachings forbid all forms of killing including suicide ( as the current intro claims) - it was based on a variety of factors and evidence.
 * Dilip rajeev (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Its better to rely on secondary sourced than on primary sources, thus I do not believe the lead to 'self-immolation' marginalised the FDI view as such. The deconstruction came from NTDTV, a secondary source albeit a biased one. What came out in the lead was still the 'party line', roughly balanced with the CPC view in terms of weight; the only thing being it's attributed to NTDTV instead of FDI. It would have been disingenuous to cite them as if they were unrelated and independent of each other, a position you implied you would have preferred.  Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 17:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand. We could discuss this in detail on talk. The FDI is a source with a good standing ( ref Ownby), and being directly related to the subject matter, its perspective is notable in the article. In fact, the specific issue with the lead is that it very inaccurately claims that it was on grounds that suicide is a sin that FDI denied involvement. Their stance was entirely different and NTDTV, the source you attribute to, draws attention to a series of discrepancies, and then argues based on the set of discrepancies that the event was staged. It is misattribution and a factual error to state that the grounds of their argument was just that the teachings prohibit any form of killing. Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * DR, we are quoting the clearwisdom.net press statement by the Falun Dafa Information Center, which is authoritative, and which says, literally, "This so-called suicide attempt on Tiananmen Square has nothing to do with Falun Gong practitioners because the teachings of Falun Gong prohibit any form of killing. Mr. Li Hongzhi, the founder of the practice, has explicitly stated that suicide is a sin." This is exactly what the article says. You owe Ohconfucius an apology.  JN 466  17:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Schechter does not himself refer to the footage as fully engineered in that passage. He is quoting another Falun Gong press statement, though sympathetically so.  JN 466  18:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Schechter quote I wrote from memory. Kindly see this page as well: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=v20J18hL1MAC&pg=PA122&dq=inauthor:SCHECHTER+UNSUBSTANTIATED&cd=5#v=onepage&q=inauthor%3ASCHECHTER%20UNSUBSTANTIATED&f=false where he writes that "China's charges are unsubstantiated by outside parties." Also that FDI release was the one released on the same day of the incident, NTDTV and clearwisdom had later said more on the incident.
 * Dilip rajeev (talk) 03:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Jayen, could you skip through pages 20-23 on Schechter. Infact, as Schechter points out, among practitioners there were several reasons to believe the incident was staged, including that they were not doing the exercises correctly.Dilip rajeev (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've read it before. If it's true that they were not doing the exercises correctly this might well be due to their being atypical or badly schooled students, an idea that both Ownby and Porter voice. If they were actors wearing fire-proof suits, and the whole thing was staged, why is one of them being hit over the head? If they really did set fire to themselves to participate in a PRC propaganda coup, what would be their motivation? It's something both Time and Ownby wondered about. Personally, I tend to think they were misguided practitioners. People being people, in tens of millions of followers of any religion, you can find more than a half dozen misguided extremists; why not in Falun Gong? -- JN 466  03:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One thing I did find intriguing was this report of a previous alleged self-immolation some time before Tiananmen Square, which according to Falun Gong sources was exposed as a PRC hoax. However, I cannot find any sources independent of Falun Gong discussing this, even though the Hong Kong Center for Human Rights was supposed to be involved. If you are aware of any such independent source, I would be interested. -- JN 466  03:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I 'll just share my personal perspective here. The picture I have had upon investigating the issue is that it was agreed that they would be paid and would be safe. While the participants were given the idea they are doing it for money, the CCP needed deaths to create the shock-factor. For those of us outside of China, its difficult to believe a regime would do that. But if you look at CCP's history - these kind of campaigns are not few. The targeted group is defamed in all possible ways - criminals would be given less punishment if they identify themselves as part of it. Any suicide or self immolation would be labelled as belonging to that group. You don't see any such self immolation or anything before 1999 or outside China.

There is a lot of evidence, out there suggesting these are actors. There was this voice analysis report which suggested different people played the same victim ( released by WOIPFG). There are a lot of things - the body language of the police, the statements these people shout out, etc. As for the new practitioner argument - it does not align with CCP claims which say they have been practicing for years. Also the very basic things are wrong, how Wan Jindong holds his hand ( the very basic position in the exercises.) Infact, those who've tried the exercises know, even if you do it a few times, your movements are automatically corrected by the qi ji or the energy mechanisms. The qi energy flow happens correctly only when the movements are done accureately, and there is a vice-versa effect of the qi energy mechanisms correcting the movements as well. Such gross mistakes in movements are not really possible if you've been practicing for a few weeks even.

If you haven't already seen it, kindly do pull out a few minutes to see the False Fire documentary. Also you may want to go through this book : http://www.deep6-publishing.org/ ( definitely not RS but worth exploring to know the truth.)

To get an idea of how CCP spins its stores, you might want read this article on Dalai Lama http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/english/200006/01/eng20000601_42058.html. They accuse him of everything from rape to eating children's hearts. And they have their evidence for all that. They have even museums set up with "evidence" of such purported activities to slander Dalai Lama. What really happens behind such slander is:

Here is [http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/english/200006/01/eng20000601_42058.html from People's Daily, regarding Dalai Lama and his "followers":

The commentary also unveiled the evil deeds of Dalai Lama and his followers during their armed insurgence in 1959 which aimed to protect feudal serfdom. Their evil deeds include splitting the motherland, butchering Tibetan people, looting temples, and raping women.

They killed a nine-year-old boy Samni, for example, cutting open his belly and eating his heart. Then, they cut the boy into small pieces and had him hung from a tree.

And who exactly butchered Tibetans, looted temples, etc. ? The CCP itself. This is how they fabricate their stories. The Big Lie strategy.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Jayen, do pull out a second to see 7:17 of the false fire video. See the mask of the victim. The patterns on it. For me, the pattern in the marks, in itself, make clear beyond doubt that it is a mask - such patterned marks are not the kind one would expect to result from burns! Also, I'll look for a source for the story clearwisdom mentions. I cant seem to find it straightaway. Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks; put this way, it's a more plausible (and chilling) scenario. And I agree the pattern looks odd (though I am not an expert, and we would need sources referring to it). How do you square this scenario though with the fact that according to Pan in the International Herald Tribune, the Hong Kong-based Information Center for Human Rights and Democracy said all but the 12-year-old had demonstrated for Falun Gong in Tiananmen Square before? (Is this the same Hong Kong Human Rights organisation that according to clearwisdom.net condemned the previous self-immolation as a hoax?) -- JN 466  14:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (I would be interested to know how the guy running that site got that info.) --Asdfg12345 14:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Am not sure what to make of the the HK based organization's statement. I wonder from which source the organization got the statistic from - a very relevant question to consider. These things could easily have been embedded by the CCP for the HK organization to pick up. I doubt there is a list of all practitioners who have demonstrated for Falun Gong with any organization. I would find it 'odd', from a stochastic perspective, that these 5 names, itself, ended up being recorded by this human rights organization. Perhaps the info they had came from China itself - it was embedded there with a purpose.

Pan himself points out some facts that don't align with the claim that they were practitioners. I am quoting this from an older version of the wiki article:

Philip P. Pan of the Washington Post located the home of the two purported  self-immolators, Liu Siying and Liu Chunling, who state media had  claimed were daughter and mother, in Kaifeng, a town in a region that  drew negative publicity after a recent fire in a disco killed hundred  and scarred many others. Based on his reports, analysts opine that it is doubtful if the immolators could have been practitioners. Pan discovered that the young girl's mother, Liu Chunling, was not locally  known as a practitioner but was depressed, mentally unstable, was  accused of beating her daughter and mother and worked as an escort in a  local night club.[21]  David Ownby notes that "this is hardly a typical profile of a  practitioner."[41]

Ian Johnson had made some interesting observations as well:

Wall Street Journal's Ian Johnson was skeptical due to the speed with which the story was covered, observing that the state media "..reported  the victim's death with unusual alacrity, implying that the death took  place earlier than reported or the usually cautious media had top-level  approval to rush out electronic reports and a televised dispatch, The 7  p.m. local evening news, for example had a filmed report from Mr Tan's  hometown of Changde, a small city in Hunan province. Most reports for  the evening news are vetted by noon, so the daily broadcasts rarely  carries reports from the same day, let alone an event that happened at  noon and involved satellite feeds from relatively remote parts of the  country."

If Johnson is right, it would imply the media had prior knowledge this would happen. Also, if it were a legitimate protest in which people lost their lives, Xinhua would never be allowed to air the news immediately - let alone be in a position to present something complete with interviews from the victim's hometown. Neither would the victims ever be allowed to speak to the cameras at the scene of the incident. You might have seen videos of how real protesters, including women, are treated. See, for instance, 0:50 in this clip. Also interesting is Clive Ainsley's( head of WOIPFG) statement in the documentary Beyond the Red Wall ( 1:40 in this video )

I think the biggest problem is we don't have any real analysis of the footage than the False Fire video. I wonder why the international community has been so hesitant to really involve itself. I really hope some western organization had done or would do a thorough forensic analysis of the CCP aired videos - the footage surely carries in it enough info to determine what the truth is. Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jayen, could not help overhearing this discussion. I have presented a number of diffs which show that I'm not a singleminded puppeter of the Falun Gong POV (see "3: On the advocacy charge."), but they were roundly ignored. Secondly, no one has ever asked editors like Ohconfucius, Colipon, Mrund, PCPP, Simonm223, Seb, Edward, and whoever else, to show what positive views they have added about Falun Gong. They have not been asked to show this, because open anti-Falun Gong POV pushing is okay, but what I have been doing (and I wouldn't even call it pushing a Falun Gong POV, in the end) is not. Except maybe for Ohconfucius, I am pretty confident that none of these people have added anything remotely positive about Falun Gong. And they also actively remove and play down stuff about the persecution. The only advantage those editors have gained is creating the impression (and a true one, to an extent) that they are more a part of the community than us. So their POV-pushing is okay, but ours is bad. That's the general theme. And with that theme they have successfully had each of us banned, one after another. Usually I hate putting people in categories like that, but by now I don't think it would be controversial, and I don't have much to lose. --Asdfg12345 01:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence of "writing for the enemy" is ignored, though
 * Single-purpose accounts are consistently held to a higher standard than accounts that contribute to multiple topic areas. There are any number of arbitration decisions to that effect:
 * Requests_for_arbitration/St_Christopher
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles.
 * It is simply a human fact that if you edit practically nothing but one topic area, and do so with a clearly discernible POV, the community will feel that you are here to promote outside interests, rather than to contribute to the community and the project. Speaking in general terms, I have often felt sorry to see members of religious minorities banned, have many times stuck my neck out in defence of NRM editors, where such defence seemed deserved, and have urged that anti-NRM POVs should be scrutinised as well. But I cannot deny that NRM editors have oftentimes contributed to their own downfall by spending all their Wikipedia time pushing what in the overall scheme of things is a minority opinion as though it were a mainstream or even the only opinion. Use your time off the topic's articles to prove that you care about the project, rather than just its Falun Gong and PRC pages, and you will be in a better position in 6 months when the topic ban expires. In the meantime, you are welcome to ping me if you want something looked at. I am aware you are still permitted to post to talk pages in the topic area. I may not always be able to respond immediately, but promise that I will do my best to get round to it. -- JN 466  02:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I completely understand the dynamic, where perceived proponents of perceived NRMs simply get marginalised. I know. But the very interesting thing about this case is that the people on the outside who made the decisions to ban don't really have a grasp of the actual editing dynamics. Generally speaking I have not pushed minority opinions or primary sources, and don't even have to. Mainstream scholarship, broadly speaking, is on the "Falun Gong side." People like Ownby and Benjamin Penny are fairly sympathetic, and they recognise that Falun Gong practitioners are just normal people who want to get on with their lives but who are being persecuted. Ownby calls one chapter 'David takes on Goliath,' for example, which already says a lot. But the wikipedia pages do not reflect this. They have been constructed in a way so as to portray Falun Gong not as it is portrayed in the best sources (systematic violation of WP:UNDUE), but as this group of editors with a negative POV sees it. And they ceaselessly cover for each other, shut down debate, and marginalise us. Colipon's editing has included adding original research, things attributed to sources that don't say them, using primary sources in Chinese, pushing minority opinions to the fore, and so on. So it's just a mess. I also think it would be naive to expect that just cause I edited a bunch of other articles these editors would see me any differently. That would just be seen as covering my tracks. I think at this point I will just try to provide all the research/sources I can to whoever cares, and try to get some of the more egregious things fixed. Lots of people just edit one topic area. I'm interested in the activities of the CCP, and the Falun Gong issue. I wish to be judged on the merit of my edits and the research I bring to the table. I'm not here to brainlessly push a pro-Falun Gong POV or exclude any significant or minority points of view. Anyway, thanks for the offer to give your opinion in certain cases. --Asdfg12345 10:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that your opponents' views of you would not change, if you edited other topic areas as well, or might even worsen, seeing it as a form of deception. However, for better or worse, diversifying is what the arbitration committee has recommended to single-purpose accounts, and they have made it very clear that they look more kindly on accounts that are not single-purpose accounts. Admins take their cues from that. This is just a fact, and how things are at the moment. Personally I think the way forward would be to have discussions moderated by a team of uninvolved admins or mediators and leave article editing to them. There have been precedents for that. The challenge is getting people to care enough to invest the time. -- JN 466  11:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "The challenge is getting people to care enough to invest the time." -- Indeed. --Asdfg12345 14:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * SilkTork has kindly offered himself as a moderator at Dilip_rajeev's AE thread. -- JN 466  14:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yah I noticed. A possible breakthrough. I suggested the scope be expanded slightly. --Asdfg12345 14:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Jayen, I see asdfg has notified you already regarding Silktork's offer to moderate discussion. I believe its a great opportunity to work together to improve these pages. I have noticed that you are good at doing research and present things in an objective manner. So I sincerely request you to kindly be part of the discussions. We could take all these articles to FA status with some sincere effort. Sincerely, Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am happy to participate. -- JN 466  16:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This must be a joke. "Moderated discussion" with people who have clearly demonstrated for half a decade that they are not here to edit an encyclopedia but to advocate for their movement? And administrators think "Moderated discussion" will suddenly solve it? Even six month topic bans have proven to be ineffective. This is laughably naive. Best of luck with it. It will achieve nothing. Colipon+ (Talk) 20:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Colipon, If we set our minds to it, we could easily work together to improve these articles. Editors with all perspectives should have the opportunity to contribute - given they stick to RS. As long as you are human you are bound to have your perspective on issues and areas of interest to which you can contribute better. We should judge editors by the quality of their contributions - not by the views they hold or their areas of interests. I assure you that my goal here is to improve these articles, contribute based on research and Reliable Sources. I am also making major amends to my approach, including striving to involve editors with all POVs in discussions. Sincerely, Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Review of Akmal Shaikh on hold
The GA review of the Akmal Shaikh article has been on hold for over 30 days. It is near to being passed, but the Akmal_Shaikh section needs editing to reduce the amount of direct quotation as per Quotations, and also to be trimmed in general to meet GA criteria 3(b): "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". Any assistance in this matter would be appreciated.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

added Urban
Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/sources I have a lot of sources regarding SSB at home, though I am no longer very motivated to update this page. Anyway thanks for Urban. Andries (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've gotten side-tracked as well ... will get back to it sometime. -- JN 466  16:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk space created
Hi JN. Even though you and Wispanow have started, I would like the discussion to take place here. This is accessible from a notice I have placed on the talkpage. Some of the comments that you and Wispanow have already made can be moved into that talkpage. I would like it held there so it provides some protection from outside comments, yet is always visible on the Scientology in Germany talkpage. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 11:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking charge of the process, which is beginning to show some promise. :) -- JN 466  16:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Dilip rajeev
I have set up a discussion here.  SilkTork  *YES! 19:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Jayen, kindly let know when we may get into the discussion. We could address things step-by-step, starting with the persecution page, where the issues are most apparent, and, hence, could be easily addressed. Hoping you agree with the suggestion. Sincerely, Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Will post something presently. Sorry for the delay ... work.  JN 466  13:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Jayen, I have initiated the discussion there. Mostly ideas on how to go about discussing/investigating the concerns. Kindly go through when you find time, and do share your perspective, ideas and suggestions. Sincerely,Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have put up a proposal. -- JN 466  14:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Radar (song)/GA1
This should be wrapped up soon. Some more work's been done but I'm not sure if all of it has. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right.  JN 466  16:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Cultural aversion to organ donation
Hi JN, first things first: well done for doing your bit here despite being 10 out of 10 on your real life Richter scale :)

I note that the Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China article mentions that the Chinese have a cultural aversion to organ donation, and also that this isn't explained in the article.

The articles on slow slicing and Death by a Thousand Cuts (book) [which I don't have] may at least provide a starting point for a google search, eg (the unfortunately uncited):

"According to the Confucian principle of filial piety or xiào to alter one's body or to cut the body is a form of unfilial practice.[citation needed] Lingchi therefore contravenes the demands of xiao. In addition, to be cut to pieces meant that the body of the victim would not be 'whole' in a spiritual life after death.[citation needed]" ...

Macabre things have happened before, though of course we can't push a link; readers may draw their own conclusions about possible parallels.  Esowteric + Talk  13:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. I suspected this cultural tradition had a bearing on this issue. -- JN 466  13:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A google search on "chinese cultural aversion to organ donation" would probably yield lots of goodies. Random pick: University of Victoria pdf. Ah, not as useful as it looked at first glance.  Esowteric + Talk  14:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

GA

 * Thanks! I see you did all the remaining work yourself ... well done, and sorry I was not able to chip in. -- JN 466  15:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Opinion on starting a page on the Kilgour Matas Reports
Jayen, I was planning to start a page on the KM reports. I believe the topic merits a page on wikipedia, given that it meets WP:N. Could you kindly share your perspective, and if you'd be able to help with its creation. Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There is much info here which were lost during the merge process, that could go into article. Any additional sources/ ideas for content on the namespace would be most welcome. Sincerely, Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The article was merged with Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China per concensus, and the report has not been corroborated by any third parties. --PCPP (talk) 09:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There was no article on the KM reports. The report being notable and having had an international impact, am of the opinion it merits an independent article. Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That would just constitute a POV fork on the issue of Falun Gong's treatment by the Chinese regime. Not a good idea. FG supporters would fill the article with a lengthy summary of this FG-friendly report's contents. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mrund, there is nothing POV about presenting relevant content and creating articles on clearly notable topics. If the topic is notable, it merits an article on wikipedia. The report presents the evidence which lead KM to conclude the practice is happening and is ongoing in China - it is not something you could just dismiss as something "FG friendly." Its been mentioned in a Royal Society of Medicine Journal, in The Christian Science monitor, in a Yale thesis, in the CBC documentary Beyond the Red Wall, etc. You might find a few scholarly sources mentioning the KM reports here. News reports can be seen here. Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please bear with me. I will try to establish how many secondary sources there are discussing the reports to see if they merit a standalone article per our notability guidelines, and will get back to y'all – hopefully later today, but it may also take longer, as I'm under work pressure right now and have a lot on my plate. If any of you would like to post a list of secondary sources discussing the reports here on my talk page, this will make my job easier. In locating secondary sources to establish notability, the most valuable sources would be in-depth discussions of the report by mainstream press (Time magazine, New York Times, etc.) or scholars (books, journals). Other sources may be useful too, but we should first survey what discussions there have been in sources of these types. -- JN 466  12:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Jayen here are a collection of articles pertinent to the Organ harvesting issue and in which the KM reports have been mentioned. Please do go through them: https://www.yousendit.com/download/THE2Rm80WlRwM2xMWEE9PQ, http://www.yousendit.com/download/THE2Rm82bEo5eFVLSkE9PQ

Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Will review and get back to you. -- JN 466  15:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Jayen, please be sure to read the merge discussion. It wasn't merged because of lack of secondary sources, but because of lack of independent secondary sources that confirmed the report. Add to this that the report was not independent on itself, since it had been commissioned by Falun Gong, and that the main publicity for the report came also from FG-dependant sources. There WP:UNDUE problems, which derived in WP:COATRACK problems since not-very-related content was used to fluff up the article's word count.


 * The sources were already taken into account at the merge discussion. Please go here, search for "17:56, 18 August 2009" to find Maunus' comment, and read his analysis of the sources. This analysis was linked from the merge discussion, and it was present at the same talk page when the discussion happened. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * /me thinks that Asdfg Dilip is WP:FORUMSHOPPING you, after the merge discussion reached a consensus that he didn't agree with. Just saying. Asdfg seems to be avoiding the normal course of action: starting a split proposal in the talk page of the Organ Harvesting article. This proposal would have almost certainly been rejected, and it looks like Asdfg Dilip is forumshopping another path to restore the article (similar to "dad told me that I couldn't eat chocolate and explained me why it's bad for me, but that I asked mom and she told me that I could. No, I didn't tell mom that I had already failed to get permission from dad", he is saying "consensus told me that I couldn't restore the article and explained me why it should be merged, but then I asked an admin and he told me that it was OK. No, I didn't tell the admin that I had already failed to get consensus". This is called "asking the other parent"). This is called gaming the system. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * With respect, I don't think confirmation of the report's veracity is relevant to its notability. The fact is that it was widely covered, and that the UN took it seriously enough to ask the Chinese government about the allegations made in the report. China responded, and there was at least one rebuttal to China's response by one of the authors. Thanks for the pointers to the merge discussions; as far as I can tell, these were about merging Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China into the general Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China article (a decision I have no quarrel with). However, this is not the same as having a standalone article on the Kilgour-Matas report, on which we don't ever seem to have had an article . If there are reliable sources that believe the report to have been untrustworthy, I feel certain that we will have editors who will see to it that these sources' views are reflected in the article. ;)
 * However, I tend to agree with SilkTork that the first step should be to brush up the relevant subsection in the Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China article, before a breakout article is considered.
 * Note that the present discussion is with Dilip rajeev; Asdfg12345 has not as yet involved himself in this discussion (at least not on this site). -- JN 466  14:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The UN enquiry and China's response that David Matas refers to in his rebuttal are paragraph 36, p. 47ff., in document A/HRC/7/3/Add.1 accessible from this page. -- JN 466  14:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In the merged page, most of the content revolved around the KM report. There is already a page on organ harvesting in China, and all the Kilgour-Matas content fits inside of it. There is not a good reason for presenting the report out of context of the organ harvesting allegations. DGG gave a good explanation here. Also, I just noticed that there was a poll on the merger at Talk:Organ_harvesting_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China/FG_poll, and that it included a RfC called "Is the "Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China" a topic in its own right, or is it part of a wider subject.".


 * (P.D.: I fixed the editor's name, I thought I had seen Asdfg's signature, my bad). --Enric Naval (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I respect DGG's judgment, and I would not have disagreed with him in the discussion then. However, I have since learnt that the report's authors have been nominated for the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize for this report, and received a human rights award for it last year. -- JN  466  23:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK, now that is a different question, if new sources have appeared, and they make a real difference. I have no problem with making an article about the report. Scratch that, it would become a nightmarish COATRACK problem and repeat tons of content from the organ harvesting page. Too many reasons were given against treating it in a separate article. Add the award and nomination to David Kilgour, David_Matas and to the organ harvesting page, and don't make an unnecessary extra page for the report.


 * (Let's see if the article about the report can stay as an article about the report, and it avoids becoming a WP:COATRACK of assorted Falun Gong complaints against Chinese government...... Also, keeping the organ harvesting topic at the main page, and dedicating the article on the report to only the topics of what it said and how much repercusion it had. Good luck with that.) --Enric Naval (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. We had this discussion before the FLG organ harvesting article before it was merged into organ harvesting in the PRC. Because all of the RS coverage I've seen is actually very superficial, I do not believe it will make for a suitable subject in its own right. If we were to have such an article, it is likely to make continuous references to the primary souce, which is an article based on conjecture and entirely on circumstantial evidence. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 07:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Any chance of seeing a draft version of the proposed article in user sandbox space first, so that folk could then work on that and debate facts, rather than conjecture?  Esowteric + Talk  17:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the plan, as outlined by SilkTork; but it will be a while. -- JN 466  19:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry if I'm slow on the uptake, JN: I have .NET code and SQL queries coming out of my ear holes at the moment.  Esowteric + Talk  19:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Scientology in Germany
SilkTork, in this edit Wispanow changed the wording ....

I would like the article to return to the prior wording, as the present version, implying that the courts took an active role in the publication, is at variance with the cited source. Per your role as the moderator of the recent discussions, would you be able to perform the revert, or permit me to do so? -- JN 466  11:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer waiting until Wispanow has had a chance to respond to my last message. I'll leave a note on his talkpage explaining that we wish to move on, and give him a few more days to respond. If there's no word from him after that time, I feel it would be reasonable to proceed with a GAR as previously discussed.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much for your support in the kangaroo court. You were clearly the most analytical person there. Where would I have been without a "lawyer"? I will not appeal, too much work, no fun. Anyway, this page is now on my watch list, which could be handy sometime. Thanks again. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's probably for the best. Thanks for the barnstar, and nice to have met you. Take care, -- JN 466  20:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Dürenstein
One of the reviewers thinks this article Featured article candidates/Battle of Dürenstein/archive1‎ needs an additional copy edit. is going to look at it. I don't think it's in terrible need, but perhaps you could cast a quick eye on it? Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do. I had started, and then got side-tracked again ... Best, -- JN 466  16:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sandy and Karanacs like the support at the right margin. Would you move it?  Thanks for reading, and for comments (and for fixing the bit about the Hauptmann).  Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks, and for figuring out I meant the other right.  ;)  Did you see that Jappalang had completely changed the reference style for every single reference?  I was very annoyed, and it has taken more than an hour to change it back.  I thought this was in MOS, that once a style was set, it was to stay that way, unless someone presented a good argument to the contrary.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is here: Citing_sources: Once a style is selected for an article it is inappropriate to change to another, unless there is a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style.[5] Manual_of_Style: An overriding principle is that style and formatting should be consistent within a Wikipedia article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole. Being consistent within an article promotes clarity and cohesion. Therefore, even where the Manual of Style permits alternative usages, be consistent within an article. The editor probably thought you were inconsistent, because you are in the habit of listing the full details in the first citation, but not the subsequent ones. That method is perfectly sensible, but it is unusual around here. When people list full publication details in a References section, they usually stick to just short refs everywhere in the Notes section, without treating the first occurrence of a source any different than the others. At any rate, they probably meant well, but should have checked with you first. -- JN 466  18:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure she/he didmean well, but just didn't check. And I always mention citation style in the nom, so it's pretty clear there. I only used the named refs for sequential cites, not all cites from the same page.  I don't think listing only the last name and page number helps with reliability either. I want to see the whole thing the first time, I don't want to have to scroll up and down to do it.  I'm Jappalang meant well, it was just really frustrating to have to reverse it all by hand (because it couldn't be reverted with undo.  Someone else had changed "a" to "the" (or the other way around).   Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand. But count your blessings. At least no one is accusing you of being anti-Austrian. :) -- JN 466  19:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought you were being accused of being anti-German. Has Scientology been eclipsed by another issue? Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)