Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-05-15/Falun Gong

Where is the dispute?
Dispute regarding the use of sources and content disputes on several Falun Gong related articles, including Falun Gong, Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China, Shen Yun Performing Arts, Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident, Persecution of Falun Gong.--PCPP (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the dispute?
The FLG series of articles suffers from neglect from wikipedia administration and are frequently edited and protected by FLG activist users. I (PCPP) feel that these articles have became slanted to the degree that they became mouthpieces for FLG to attack the PRC government, and have edited the disputed sections, only to be quickly reverted by the FLG SPAs.


 * Falun Gong - dispute whether Rick Ross and other cult critics should be listed in the reception section
 * Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China - dispute over whether a report by Kilgour and Matas has been given undue weight over other views. Over 50% of this article comes Kilgour and Matas, while other relevant sources, including visits by US embassy officials and Chinese dissident Harry Wu gets sandwiched in between.
 * Persecution of Falun Gong - whether the ban should be referred as "persecution" by wikipedia. Article currently is full of attacks on the PRC government by questionable sources, including a whole section on former Chinese PM Jiang Zemin that possibly violates WP:BLP.
 * Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident - whether the article have too much commentaries added with reported facts to push the article towards an anti-PRC slant, and whether it should be reverted to the previous GA version
 * Shen Yun Performing Arts - whether the review section is too large and unnecessary

The previous attempts to settle the dispute are documented, , , , , , --PCPP (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

What would you like to change about this?

 * Establish a specific POV guideline dealing with FLG articles
 * Discuss on whether disputed sources should be kept, trimmed, or removed
 * possible workshop to mediate the disputed changes, and work towards rewriting articles
 * Deal with particular conflict of interest issues

How do you think we can help?

 * Provide outside opinions on disputes to find possible solutions, and possible admin intervention dealing with edit warring