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

Wandering ...
I am a self declared Falun Gong practitioner as you can see on my user page. And there are at least three more contributing to these pages, they are also self declared, at least if you ask them they will openly say yes.

What I'm wondering is, who is employed by the Chinese Communist Party? According to the Chinese Communist Party's Policies and Directives on Falun Gong there is quite a battle against Falun Gong. Yet nobody from the CCP is editing these pages? Is that plausible?

Frankly I stated before that if somebody is or not a member of the CCP does not matter much because we need to adhere to Wikipedia Spirit and Policies. But still I'm wandering ... :) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Include Olaf please
I assume the mediators will realise the way the whole thing has been framed is through PCPP's ideological filter. Anyway, I believe the sources will speak for themselves, as they should. Please include user:Olaf Stephanos, a long time editor of the pages, in the mediation. Thanks.--Asdfg12345 07:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just realised I can do this myself, it's okay--Asdfg12345 07:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts
Although I'm actually not going to be able to play much of a role over the next several months (moving countries, jobs, everything), I just want to say a few things. Any review of the pages should not be framed in a 'pro-FLG' and 'anti-FLG' way. If you read the talk pages, especially the Falun Gong talk page over the last week or so, I hope one thing comes clear: We're interested in how the pages can be improved. I'm not trying to defend any status quo, or badmouth anybody's intentions or point of view. So it is not an oppositional situation, where here we are on this side and the other guys on the other side. The most important thing is to talk about anything defective in the pages, specifically, with reference to policy and sources, and then, to talk about how this can be remedied--again, with strong reference to good sources. This is all it comes down to, and it has got nothing to do with ideologies and politics. If certain arguments can be proven out through reference to reliable sources, then it shows that those arguments have traction. My overall point of view is like this: the pages aren't perfect, they need more work. Let's identify the deficiencies, find strong sources, and then fix them! Reading through the talk page recently, I've actually realised at least one specific thing I can do to address some of the concerns therein, will do that in the next couple of days. With regard to PCPP's points of dispute, each one of them is a discrete issue that needs to be talked about and resolved independently. In each case the body of reliable sources on the topic should be examined, and the page should be assessed in that light. I'll just make some quick notes on each; if you request references please advise and I'll dig them up.


 * Falun Gong -- Rick Ross has been established as a non-reliable source on this topic, and reliable sources make it clear that the cult label in relation to Falun Gong is most relevant as part of the Chinese Communist Party's media campaign, not as something that independent researchers have widely adopted as a useful way of understanding the phenomenon. This has been hashed out on the talk page. How should this be best represented in the pages?
 * Organ harvesting page -- The report is the most comprehensive document on the topic of the article, and it is what spawned nearly every other source on it, and is also what makes the article notable in the first place. The USDOS and Harry Wu investigations were before that report came out, about one specific allegation of organ harvesting in Sujiatun. They do not address the wider issue. In the article they are placed in the section about Sujiatun--is this appropriate or not?
 * Persecution page -- Needs more specific notes on the questionable nature of the sources. That's something that needs to be scrutinised carefully, section by section and source by source. Whether they are "attacking the PRC government" or not is irrelevant, isn't it? It needs to be clearly established how the section about Jiang Zemin violates BLP, like with some excerpts from the policy, then excerpts of the offending passages, and an explanation of how the latter contravenes the former.
 * Immolation page -- I haven't looked at this page closely and I think I'm a little unsatisfied with some of the changes it's gone through. I'd suggest comparing the current and GA versions, identifying the differences, and discussing how they improve the article and/or how they damage it.
 * Shen Yun page -- Nothing to say for now, I haven't spent much time on it.

About the "What would you like to change about this?" I think: The other three I don't have any particular comment on. In months of complaints about the pages, PCPP has rarely brought forward sources to back up what he says. See Talk:Falun_Gong for a condensed version of all the complaints so far--this is what we're dealing with. Best wishes everyone.--Asdfg12345 21:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How are Falun Gong articles different from any other articles on wikipedia? I wonder what extra POV guideline is required apart from WP:NPOV?

LIst of Current Issues
I originally posted this at Talk:Falun Gong. I wanted to copy it here to avoid it being lost in the sea of rhetoric.


 * Undue weight: beyond the body of what is ostensibly a well-sourced and well-written article, lies serious undue weight. The alleged persecution of Falun Gong in China, for example, is an important issue, but it is being given undue weight.
 * Neutrality: The article may appear like it is written in a neutral tone, but many pro-FLG editors have abandoned the basic spirit of neutrality and have only made the article sound neutral. This practice must end.
 * Criticism of Falun Gong: A "criticism" or "controversy" section must be part of this article. To any objective person FLG is a controversial movement. Whether it is a religion, a spiritual movement, or just a harmless qigong group, it has generated significant controversy. A browse through these archives, and it will be apparent what the controversy surrounds. While many people agree it is morally not justifiable for the Chinese government to have "banned" Falun Gong and persecuted practitioners, many reputable sources (NYT, IHT, Time, SCMP) have also acknowledged Falun Gong manipulating the persecution, "prey on the naivete and lack of knowledge by Western governments and individuals", to serve what looks like Falun Gong's own propaganda campaign to further their "agenda". There is undoubtedly enough controversy about FLG to warrant an article all by itself (users have previously attempted this at "Third party views of Falun Gong" - now "Academic views on Falun Gong" but criticism there has also been gradually silenced - see the article's history).
 * The idea here is that the article makes it look like the Communist Party are the only ones who have ever criticized Falun Gong, and that they are only doing so to serve the purposes of the "persecution". This is the crux of the issue: that this is not just a FLG vs. Communists propaganda war. Many third parties have been critical of FLG. Colipon+(T) 02:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nature of Li Hongzhi: He is also a controversial figure. There's really little discussion here.
 * Reliable sources: what is a reliable source? If CCP publications and Chinese government-sponsored media be branded as "pure propaganda" and unreliable, does the same apply for Falun Gong-related websites? Do Minghui, Falundafa.net, Epoch Times etc. serve as reliable sources when it is clear they are owned and operated by Falun Gong practitioners? Can one source be considered reliable when it is praising Falun Gong, but unreliable when criticizing it? The trend here has been that every source, no matter reputation, if critical of Falun Gong, has been derided as "unreliable". Rick Ross, for example (see debate above), has been quoted many times in many other controversial articles, but it doesn't make the cut here, according to several pro-FLG editors.
 * Political nature of Falun Gong: Persecution or not, Falun Gong is clearly politically-oriented. The Chinese article (written mostly by Taiwan and HK editors) points out that although initially Falun Gong appeared to have no political allegiance or beliefs, it is apparent that contemporary Falun Gong groups outside of Mainland China have become "unmistakably involved in politics", particularly in their dogmatic opposition to the Communist Party of China. In fact, Falun Gong appears to be the most effective overseas anti-CCP force to have ever emerged. These points get no mention in the English Wikipedia article due to claims by FLG practitioners that Falun Gong was "never political".
 * "Wikilawyering": I have pointed out before that a few pro-FLG editors engage in acts of Wikilawyering. Pro-FLG editors often invoke Wikipedia principles and policies when they remove well-sourced content critical of FLG. Although they have denied this, I urge the mediator to go and read some of the past discussion to judge for him/herself whether or not this has taken place.
 * Chinese government ban: As user:BTfromLA explained above, the reason and motives for the Chinese gov't to ban Falun Gong are never explained. Surely, the Chinese gov't are not saints when it comes to human rights, but what was their rationale for banning the practice? Doesn't it at least deserve some mention? Shouldn't it be explained? Colipon+(T) 18:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's hard to talk about (or dismiss) things that are not specific, has no concrete diffs, has no WP:RS, no nothing, just tons of POV, which as I see it is as purely a FUD technique. But then again, we should wait for the mediator opinion. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)