Talk:Falun Gong Outside Mainland China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not a forum for general discussion of Falun Gong Outside Mainland China. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Contents 1 Unsourced 2 NPOV material removed 3 "Official Falun Gong Week/Month" 4 Hong Kong 5 Indonesia Jakarta outrage 6 Distribution of printed media 7 Overseas Suppression 8 Recent deletion of my edits 8.1 Shortlist 9 A warning to McConn 10 A note on Sydney mayor 11 Singapore 12 SHRIC = Falund gong? 13 Noah Porter quote 14 Saskatoon 15 senior cit case in canada 16 Disput Asdfg's "blanking" of sourced edit important to article 17 Fair use rationale for Image:Asampleofprintdistributedbyfalungong.jpg 18 notes for changing the page 19 PCPP, please discuss edits here 19.1 reiterate request for discussion 19.2 disputed content

[edit] Unsourced

Most of this article doesn't include References. You have 72 hours to start sourcing this article or I will remove all unsourced statements. CovenantD 13:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV material removed

I see that the material relating to Falun Gong outside China in the Falun Gong page has been moved and expanded into this article. However, some material appears to have been lost in the process, with the result that the present article (this one) appears to be non-NPOV. In particular, it appears to have removed any references to activities by admitted Falun Gong practitioners which would thrown the movement into a negative light. In particular, I'm concerned about the removal of material relating to (1) visa rorts by claiming to be a Falun Gong practitioner; (2) the proliferation of Falun Gong media outlets, and questions about their funding; (3) critics of Falun Gong outside China. I am also concerned about the lack of references as noted in the comment above, in particular the "awards" section, which does not seem appropriate in an article about a spiritual movement (e.g., would the Christianity page have a section about "awards"?) --Sumple (Talk) 00:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This move, which was done before consensus was reached and in the middle of an edit war, was done by a practitioner. Many of the Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong were also spun off into their own daughter article, so you might find some of the info there. Please check it out and let's see about getting this article up to par. CovenantD 00:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Official Falun Gong Week/Month"

The Wiki on Saskatoon makes no mention of any Falun Gong Week. It seems something that would've invited the criticism of the Chinese government would've made the article. Is there any proper source for this relatively outrageous claim? -spetz

[edit] Hong Kong

Hong Kong is part of the People's Republic of China. Nevertheless as a separate legal jurisdiction Falun Gong is legal and allowed. Hong Kong is currently within the subject matter of this article, despite its title. This article should therefore be renamed Falun Gong outside mainland China to reflect its actual scope. — Instantnood 22:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This above is only a proposal by one user, obviously pending public discussion. Jsw663 14:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Either protray Hong Kong as not part of the PRC, or change the title. The latter former is, nevertheless, not true and should be avoided on Wikipedia. — Instantnood 12:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC) (modified 20:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Indonesia Jakarta outrage

deleting certainly i cannot put netral point of view cause still clouded by upset and pain they do let other people who have more netral view from both side write about this anciddent. Daimond 09:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

wel wel i have been shocking the epoch time are part of falungong so my upset are right they bending the truth and could lying freely like that?Daimond 09:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

well certainly there i have put more balance whatever there the ancident happened and they rejection case, do not tried look every palce in the world would welcome falungong. this i put balance references in the side articel so many people could hear both side argument.Daimond 06:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have re-written the Indonesia section for clearer expression, and also added information about similar local community reactions in Australia and the US. Mentioning this aspect of Falun Gong's record outside China introduces a level of balance to the article, I think, and also shows that there is a dimension to the whole episode other than the Falun Gong - Communist Party conflict. --Sumple (Talk) 07:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

They've also been banned from Chinese New Year celebrations in Paris, but I don't know enough about the situation to comment. If others know more about those events, please add! --Sumple (Talk) 07:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

what happned after you? who other orgainization would follow you lead after you in this area? falungong are clearly selfish think only in that time what happned after your left? did you not recodnized you left us with time bomb if you been permited to demo in that area, did you want us face other riot like 1998? you are so cruel to make us life with that time bomb? did you like our people be murder and rape? i hope you ready with that kind sins and karma. your falun gong only think that time in short term, not notice there are long term and we live in that long term in the area, after you left us an we must face it? did you would responsible if that happned again riot 1998?. even ccp not so cruel like you?. did you witnes the victim rape 1998 there a victim rape by many people and must bear a child who rape her and born to this world did you ask us to let it happend if we permited to let you did any kind activity in that area? so we forbid any kind street activity ( not only falun gong spesific but for any kind organisation (espesialy who contain treat like falun gong)) who would do in future so we prevent it from the begining of time before have the roots.

(if you notice in indonesia matter we ask the goverment to let the area not to be distrub in the future) did any kind articl in epoch time and many your propaganda machine ever ever see that from other view not only your(falun gong view) side view?Daimond 13:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• and to peoples in falun gong who participate in that event and so like that happned to make us face the kind of threat like riots 1998, certainly they ever warn by them, did they hear? may you enjoy the avici hell.Daimond 14:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Daimond 12:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Your current hostility is duly noted. It should also be noted that Indonesia is a Muslim country and the perception of prosletyzing is dealt with very adversely. Try going to Mecca and holding up a New Testament and see how fast the Saudi Gov't sentences you to a public lashing if you survive long enough for the gov't to get their hands on you. Diamond has a clear agenda and it should not be in the context of WP to provide him a clear path.208.254.130.235 (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Distribution of printed media

I added the section "Distribution of printed media", Couldn't think of a better name. I am aware the section is a little short... but there doesn't seem to be much to write. I added the Image which i scanned and uploaded : ) so you cannot say its a unbased statement =P Fierywindz 06:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overseas Suppression

"Suppression" is a loaded word that is unfit to describe such current, on-going phenomenon that has no established evaluation. I suggest it be changed "Oversea Resistance" or be expanded to be named "Oversea Reaction" with its content modified accordingly. Chevrox 12:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Suppression is loaded, but it is relatively neutral and a compromise from both sides. Whether it is an encyclopedic word is up for debate. You may want to contribute to the discussion on the Talk page of the Falun Gong entry - you will be heard there. Jsw663 13:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent deletion of my edits

Recently, someone deleted my additions, which are:

However, the Falun Gong knows that unidentified individuals or organizations are working for the Chinese Communists because the Falun Gong have the power of prophecy <ref>[www.minghui.ca/mh/articles/2004/3/3/68902.html Clear Wisdom: Prophecy doesn't just predict the future]</ref>.

and

On numerous occasions, including his interviews with [[Time magazine]] and [[Voice of Asia]], [[Li Hongzhi]] has explained that space aliens will invade the earth. <ref>[http://www.xys.org/xys/netters/Fang-Zhouzi/religion/falun10.txt Fang Zhouzi - Ten pieces dissecting the Falun Gong]</ref> It is quite clear that these space aliens are acting on orders from the government of the [[People's Republic of China]]. The famous Roswell space alien autopsy video shows that one of the space aliens has a star-shaped mark on his lower left arm - the same symbol borne by troops of the [[People's Liberation Army]] of China. Clearly, he was a scout for the Communist space aliens. However, it is claimed that countering these Communist space aliens will be difficult, because, as Falun Gong website Clear Wisdom net explains <ref>[http://media.minghui.org/mh/articles/1999/7/18/8404.html Clear Wisdom net - Falun Gong is not fake science; Falun Gong is normal, supernormal science]</ref> these aliens possess aircrafts much faster than the fastest fighter planes in existence.

Both of these paragraphs are backed up numerous sources, many of which come directly from Falun Gong websites. They are the same sources used for many other claims made in this article. They are accurate representations of the power and teachings of Falun Gong. Please do not discriminate agaainst me on the basis of my religion.

Please explain what is wrong with these paragraphs, that they deserve deletion. If you think the sources are inadequate or the claims are irrationaly, then the same argument should apply to most of the rest of the page. --I'm completely NPOV 23:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

haha. I'd like to see the FLG editors reply to this. Colipon+(T) 00:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

be prepair to protect it if you are posting something hinting that the Falun Gong is not about truthful, compassion and tolerance. --Mr.He 00:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

One practitioner's understandings or experiences do not represent anyone by themselves. Your presenting your own theories based loosely on random statenents and articles is not in accordance Wiki's rule for original research, to say the least. It's a funny joke, I even chuckled, but that's all. If your serious about this, then maybe you can make your own website like Sam did, but you can't put it here. Mcconn 00:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, with respect, I don't see User:Mcconn logic. These statements are sourced from Falun Gong websites. If you are saying that references from Falun Gong websites are not good enough for Wikipeida purposes, then half of this page will have to go. Is that what you are advocating, Mcconn? --Sumple (Talk) 02:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Half of this page will have to go. How can you say one bit of information found on Falun Gong websites is more valid than another? After all, they are both found on Falun Gong websites, aren't they? Who gets to decide what's valid and what's not? Could you give us a list of what we can and can't use from these websites? Colipon+(T) 02:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr McConn, you claim to be acting for "neutrality", but you are clearly putting down authoritative Falun Dafa websites such as Clear Wisdom and the Epoch Times. What are your motives in this? Why are you discriminating against me because I am a Falun Gong follower?

Please clarify your position, otherwise you will be Fa-rectified along with the godless commies editing on this page! --I'm completely NPOV 04:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shortlist

Meanwhile, here is a shortlist of sources that now have been at some point declared illegitimate by McConn and other FLG editors.

• All mainland Chinese newspapers (CCP lapdogs)
• Xinhua (CCP mouthpiece)
• CCTV (CCP-controlled media outlet)
• Samuel Luo's website (obviously anti-FLG)
• Time(Li Hongzhi's interviews)
• BBC(McConn called one specific article "too opinionated")
• The Epoch Times apparently can be sourced to praise the newspaper itself.
• The authenticity of numerous studies has been, so far, ignored.
• And now... Falun Gong websites (deemed illegitimate, reason was "One practitioner's understandings or experiences do not represent anyone by themselves")

This is for my own sake only. Please do not reply to this list. Colipon+(T) 02:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A warning to McConn

Your edits are deliberately and intentionally one-sided. The material as currently presented are in summary style and have regard to both sides of the issue. By deliberately embellishing the story using only material from one side, you are intentionally violating WP:NPOV.

Before you put forth any denial, have a look at your own edit. Every single sentence which you have added was designed to present Falun Gong action in a positive light, and the actions of local residents and government authorities in a negative light. No amount of Wikilawyering will mask the fact that you are intentionally destroying the objective stance of this article.

Please desist from this effort to one-sidedly whitewash the actions of certain groups.

One content issue: it is inaccurate to re-title the section "Overseas Chinese community response". Your intention in making this edit is manifestly clear. However, it is inappropriate, since much of the material deals with the actions of people who are manifestly not "overseas Chinese". You are also being racist and xenophobic when you label local residents as "Overseas Chinese" instead of "local residents" simply because you assume that they have Chinese ancestry. What makes you think all residents of Indonesia's Chinatown are Chinese? What makes you think all the organisers of Sydney's Chinese New Year parade are Chinese? Many of these people are not Chinese, and it is not up to you to label them Chinese in pursuit of your political agenda. Your intention is to minimise the appearance of opposition to the Falun Gong, to serve your own political agenda. If you are unable to edit the article in an unbiased, neutral, and objective way, please refrain from editing it. --Sumple (Talk) 10:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not making things "one-sided". I've tried my best to summarise all sides and important facts of the reports and let them speak for themselves. If you feel that I'm leaving out something important, or that my wording is not objective, then add it or change it, but don't just delete everything I've written. I've tried my best to be objective when writing them.

I re-retitled the section "Overseas Chinese community opposition", because I felt it more accurately represtend what was being added. Chinatown is a Chinese community, regardless of the whether not all of the people are Chinese. A Chinese New Year parade is a Chinese event celebrating the Chinese culture, and take a look at the actual report. It calls them "Chinese community leaders". Besides, look at the lead sentence of the section: "The local Chinese community in many countries have opposed Falun Gong activities in those areas." I didn't write that. It was there before I started editing. Why don't you attack that person and call him or her racist? If someone adds some info about opposition from a different community or a society at large, then we can change the title. I'm not attached to it, I just want it to be accurate, like everything else. I honestly don't understand everyone's hostility towards me. Perhaps you edited these pages with a goal, and are upset that it's gone the other way. Mcconn 17:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Since you continue to deny it, let's just have a look at your edits to the Indonesia section as an example:

1. Clear imbalance in length between perspectives

This is the length of the paragraph written from a Falun Gong perspective:

According to an August 7th, 2006, article in Indonesia Matters, a group of ten Falun Gong practitioners tried to hold a protest in the Jakarta Chinatown (Glodok) community in Indonesia, but were greeted with unwelcoming banners that read "Glodok people totally reject the activities of Falun Gong". The practitioners, who were protesting the illegal organ-harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners said to be being carried out by the Chinese government, were then threatened and attacked by a group of about one hundred people and forced to disperse. Tata Ermanta, an Indonesian representative of Falun Dafa, claimed that the Chinese embassy had paid the attacking protestors, and said the Chinese embassy had business interests and connections in the Glodok market. He added that that was the fifth incident of this kind, that each incident had been recorded by police, but that no action has been taken to stop it.

This is the length of the paragraph reflecting the contrary perspective:

Another report claims that the protest was broken up because traders in the area accuse the practitioners of disrupting business activities. It also suggests that locals were annoyed with Falun Gong practitioners distributing leaflets, claiming that they distrubeted a leaflet that threatened them, causing their attack.

2. Weasel words and non-neutral language

The higlighted words above are all subjective, some weasel words, which associate negative connotations with the acts of anyone opposing the Falun Gong, especially the use of "treatened" and "attacked" without any qualification (e.g. "alleged" or "claimed").

Also disturbing is the quote from a Falun Gong leader without any qualification or counterbalancing material. While I accept that this is a deficiency in the source material, it does not mean that you can simply include it willy-nilly. The presentation of such ignorant views on Wikipedia is simply irresponsible. The Chinese embassy suppresses the Falun Gong because of their political agenda and mass influence, not because of some petty interest in a market stall. Such a quote, without any evidence whatsoever, is clearly non-NPOV. That's right, you can't hide from NPOV behind a set of quotation marks. Otherwise, someone may as well re-write the entire Mao Zedong article using quotes from Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong. Do you think that would be NPOV?

3. Presenting one side as fact

Note also the discrepancy between the first section and the second section. All claims of the Falun Gong ("threatend", "attacked", "unwelcoming", "forced to disperse") are presented as fact. By contrast, all claims from anti-Falun Gong interests are presented as "accusations" and "claims".

Most disturbingly, the paragraph says: "who were protesting the illegal organ-harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners said to be being carried out by the Chinese government" - this presents the "illegal" organ-harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners as fact, before qualifying it as being "said" to be carried out...

This construction has the clear effect of first establishing the claim as fact, before employing a weasel word ("said") to qualify it.

Whether the organ harvesting claims are backed up by any probative evidence is debatable. Whether it is even rational or sane is also debatable. However, that clearly does not matter to the Falun Gong propaganda machine, oh no. If it can manipulatively establish it as fact in the minds of readers, weasel words and all, then it's all okay!

So you call this "neutral", eh? Answer my issues here, or fix up your paragraphs, otherwise any of your edits will be reverted. --Sumple (Talk) 22:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sumple, I acknowledge and applaud your efforts. I have tried the same thing numerous times (quite comprehensively, actually) at Talk:Falun Gong, using quotes and edits from the editors themselves to show how ridiculous this has become. They failed to acknowledge me with any sort of legitimate or understandable responses, and have usually chosen to deny or ignore what I say. As a result, I have placed a warning on McConn's talk page. It is my suggestion that we do not waste any more time arguing with pro-FLG editors as it has persisted for far too long. If this persists for a few more days we have the right and the obligation to report them as "problem users". They will have no way of defending themselves once that happens and frankly, after the reporting, any more of their edits can even be rightfully presented as "vandalism". There is evidence in their edits that suggests their obvious POV stance and their flagrant advertising for Falun Gong, one just needs to click on "User contributions". We really don't even need to make a case; their edits tell everything (especially McConn, HappyInGeneral, and ASDFG) Wikipedia administrators need to know. Colipon+(T) 03:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Imbalance? As before, take a look at the article. The core of the article is the first paragraph that you call the "Falun Gong perspective". The other paragraph cites information from another report. In the actual article the first part is 235 words, while the second is 97. What you call the "Falun Gong perspective" is over double the content of the other. I already told you how I summarized it, point by point, and suggested that if I left something out you can add it. And actually it's not "the Falun Gong persepective", it's the article's perspective (at least until it gets to what the practitioner says".

Weasel words?

Tried - Yes, tried. They tried to hold an activity, but they couldn't because of the obvious reasons.

Unwelcoming - I think this a pretty accurate adjective to describe the banners. They are basically saying, "We don't want you here. Get out." Who would say that's not unwelcoming? I think you're problem is with the fact that I used an adjective. If it bothers you that much, then remove it. It's not a big deal, but it reads better.

Illegal - I'm pretty sure that's how practitioners describe it, but if it bothers you, then delete it. Note that I said it's "said to be being carried out...", so I'm not stating it as a fact.

Threatened - Ya, threatened. Did you even read the report? Let me quote, "Threats were screamed,..." That means that they were threatened. There's nothing pov about that.

Attacked - The report uses the word "assaulted". I'm fine with that too. Also with regard to this and "threatened". These aren't claims. They are stated as fact in the report. There is no need to say anyone "claims" these things.

forced - This word makes sense to me. They were threatened and beaten by a mob, I don't think they really had a choice to stay. They were thus forced. But if you have a better word, then I'd be willing to hear it.

the Chinese embassy had paid the attacking protestors - That's what the report said. I added "attacking" in order to distingish the two groups of protesters, but you can use a different word, as long as it's accurate.

Chinese embassy had business interests - Dude!? I ask you again, did you even read the report? These aren't even my words, they're taken directly from it.

no action has been taken to stop it. - The report says "All episodes were reported to the police but, Tata says, no action has ever been taken." I just worded it more clearly. It's the exact same meaning.

accuse and claiming - Perhaps these are a little negative in tone. If you used other words like "said", "hold", or whatever, I wouldn't stop you.

The practitioner's claim - If it is presented in the report and relevant to the content then it should be included. No one's asking you to believe it, we don't state it as fact. This is how wiki works my friend. We're summarizing an incident and in this incident this is relevent. I don't believe that practitioners made a leaflet that "threatened" anyone, but still I included it because it was a view presented in the article and it is basically the "other side of the story" of the phrase you're making a fuss about. Both are presented.

As for stating what practitioners say as fact and what the other guys say as claims, I just summarised the way the article did it. The article doesn't say 'Falun Gong practitioners said" for the facts you are referring to, it states them as fact. But when it referes to the other party it does say that these are "claims" made in another article, thus not necessarily fact. I was probably wrong to say that they claim them, since the article doesn't say that, it says that the other report claims them. So I guess that should be changed.

Maybe you can see better now that I'm not the boogie man you're making me out to be. I suggest that rather than making all these claims against me and trying to ridicule me, that you try saying something like "I've got a problem with some of your edits. Here's why...", and just say where you think the problems are and why they are problems. I'm actually a reasonable person, but I don't think I'm being treated reasonably. I'm not your enemy. Also, I'm not going to be at home for the next few days (including right now) so don't be surprised if I don't respond to things right away. Mcconn 05:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You basically plead the defence of "I summarised the article". Just because an article is imbalanced, does not mean that you, if you were a responsible Wikipedia editor, should not extract information on both sides of the story and present a balanced view.

As I said, you can't hide behind quotations. Faithfully summarising a biased source is bias itself. If the report itself presents opinions as facts, that does not mean you are entitled to also present opinions as facts.

I'm sorry. Your argument fails. Please read WP:NPOV again.

For now, I will assume good faith and wait for you to rectify the material in light of the above. The article clearly presents two opposing views, and just as clearly favours one over the other. A responsible Wikipedia editor must use the available material in an NPOV way. --Sumple (Talk) 08:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll be back on Monday. Sorry if I don't make any changes until then. Mcconn 05:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A note on Sydney mayor

A note on why I think Clover Moore writing a letter is non-notable: I surmise from your edit that Mcconn you have not been to Sydney. The Lord Mayor of Sydney has jurisdiction over an area 5 street blocks wide and 8 blocks long. She's really quite minor on the bureaucratic scale.

What's more, the Lord Mayor practically does nothing but take "interests" in all sorts of things. Writing a letter is hardly notable. If the council passed a resolution condemning the Chinese community of Sydney, that would be something notable. Writing a letter hardly expresses any opinion one way or the other. Tony Blair is probably very interested in the new season of the Simpsons, but that is non-notable unless he does something about it. --Sumple (Talk) 23:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore

I was walking around in Singapore when I saw some Falun Gong people carrying banners and posters showing Lee Kuan Yew's face and saying some bad stuff about the Singapore government, something like "Lee Kuan Yew oppresses Falun Gong". But there were no protests because outdoor protests of more than 3 people without licenses are illegal in Singapore. Since there isn't a Singapore section here, can anyone bother to add it in? :) --121.6.184.26 09:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SHRIC = Falund gong?

It seems Falun gong has a number of different organizations tied to it, such as the Epoch Times, and a number web sites under different names. I have come accross a HR group called "Supporting Human Rights in China" (SCHRIC). It seems to be very closely related to Falun gong though I'm not sure. Does anyone have any information on this? If so I think it should be included in the article. Osli73 22:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather say that many different human rights organizations have Falun Gong practitioners as members. I'm not sure about the situation in SHRIC, but at least Friends of Falun Gong consists mostly of non-practitioners who support Falun Gong. Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong is another organization whose members are oftentimes not practitioners: "Since the formation of the CIPFG, several hundreds of Humanitarians from all walks of life have joined CIPFG. They are willing to go to China to do a thorough independent investigation. Because there are so many people, we are planning to organize sub-teams from different continents to investigate in China, i.e., investigation team from Australia, investigation team from Asia, investigation team from Europe, and investigation team from North America. Each investigation sub-team has about 30 members, and is made up of (current and former) members of parliament and senators, attorneys, reporters, VIP’s and doctors. Like Hon. David Kilgour and Mr. David Matas, all members are volunteers, and will conduct the independent investigation voluntarily without payment." [1] ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 06:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with assessing the Falun Gong-ness of any organisation is that there is often very little to go on except their own statements. An organisation will often have a spokesperson or nominal leader who doesn't reflect the actual makeup of the group at all. For example, large-scale cram schools staffed and attended by Asians will often have a non-Asian nominal "Principal" or spokesperson. I imagine the same is true of many organisations which want to project an image of impartiality and diversity. --PalaceGuard008 00:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Noah Porter quote

Quite frankly, the Porter quote about the significance of the award in Tampa is ridiculous. I have mentioned elsewhere that Porter completely lack academic stature. In addition, the article cites him as saying that in one case, "this is not easy to obtain" makes the article completely risible. Ohconfucius 02:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Who has more cred, porter or rahn? She writes for Cultic Studies for goodness sake! His thesis (300 pages or so?) and subsequent follow up work, (which has been published in journals) his extensive citation of other materials on Falun Gong, his long term personal research from several angles, fieldwork, etc., I think his paper should be considered as having some value. It is a lot more well thought out than many of the other things I have seen. We are allowed to quote the opinions of journalists who have not even picked up Zhuan Falun, and who make some smarmy remarks about Falun Gong. I think we should definitely be allowed to quote those who have done their homework. I'd wager that when it comes to Falun Gong, where there are no institutionalised study programs, and basically a bunch of people out there practicing it and some stuff on the internet, whoever goes out and interviews practitioners, presents an argument, analyses statistics, facts, and other materials, and publishes it in a normal way, I think that constitutes someone who knows something about Falun Gong. In the thesis he gives some examples about "practitioners had to do this and that" to get the proclamation or whatever it is. He's obviously very sympathetic to Falun Gong, but I don't think he should be disqualified because of that. Some of these people have not even tried to understand what Falun Gong is, they have no clue about religious, metaphysical or mystical thought, but they publish their sensationalised personal interpretations which are downright useless in terms of a serious analysis of this thing. And they are interviewed etc. like some kind of experts. As long as Rahn and her ilk (even rick ross is referenced!) are being cited in wikipedia, Porter more than qualifies. That's just my opinion of course. If this was going to become a problematic issue we could seek outside opinions and do things super amicably. --Asdfg12345 04:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saskatoon

I don't particular care if its true or false, but I have deleted the section in its entirety for want of citation. There are at present no sources cited whatsoever in support of this, and I believe it should remain deleted until a reliable source is found to support the article's assertions. Ohconfucius 04:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] senior cit case in canada

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2006/2006hrto1/2006hrto1.html

(there'll probably be something official on the saskatoon one somewhere)--Asdfg12345 00:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disput Asdfg's "blanking" of sourced edit important to article

Asdfg, if you don't know who Robert Helvey and Gene Sharp are, please try to Google them. They are notables and are related to the NED:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Col.+Robert+Helvey+National+Endowment+Democracy

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Gene+Sharp+National+Endowment+Democracy&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Albert+Einstein+Institute+National+Endowment+Democracy&spell=1

I disagree with your, yet again, arbitary "blanking" of others edit. If anything should be done, the facts on Helvey, Sharp, NED, should be expanded.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This is so weird... the link you gave in the article had one mention of Falun Gong, that this guy had given advice about techniques of nonviolent protest or something?, and you put in the article: "It has been alleged that Falun Gong has links with the National Endowment for Democracy, a group funded by the U.S. Congress to promote democracy worldwide." I don't get it. Can you please explain the situation further?--Asdfg12345 13:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Asampleofprintdistributedbyfalungong.jpg

Image:Asampleofprintdistributedbyfalungong.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] notes for changing the page

It is more of a priority to finish the organ harvesting page to a reasonable standard, come to think of it, but to change this page I think the following would be good:

get rid of the subsections for countries, many are only a paragraph or one particular incident. the breakdown can follow the themes already there, and include more, but probably cull a bunch of these singular incidents and maintain a few, look at them in more depth, and allow the third sources to develop what is happening more deeply. it would be possibly to completely flood the page with examples of what has been happening. There's no distinction on how any incident is more significant than any other at the moment. I think the key ones should be picked and elaborates, and a note somehwere saying that similar cases exist in the following places: x, y z countries. Any thoughts on this?--Asdfg12345 04:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PCPP, please discuss edits here

Please outline the changes you'd like to make, or go ahead and make them one by one. Please don't do blanket reverts like you have been, it's totally unproductive, and shifts the burden onto other editors to sift through the changes. In particular, other editors will not even be clear about what you do and do not have a problem with. Please compare the two versions and make the changes in particular that you would like to make, rather than simply reverting. You owe other editors that courtesy, at least. --Asdfg12345 16:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reiterate request for discussion

Hi PCPP, as per my above request, please discuss the vast changes you would like to make to the article. You seem to be deleting a lot of things, and I'm not sure why. Can you please explain here? You can number points simply, like:

1. first
2. second

etc.. We will be unable to build consensus if you refuse to discuss anything. --Asdfg12345 05:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] disputed content

• Your removal of:

"An attempt to nominate Li Hongzhi for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2001 by Bay Area legislators was withdrawn after they were notified of Falun Gong's views on homosexuality.^[1] In 2006, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a 9-2 resolution calling for China to end its suppression of Falun Gong, despite criticism by the LGBT community.^[2]"

"In December 2005, practitioners in Montreal took a local Chinese newspaper, Les Presses Chinoises, to court for alleged defamation. The case was dismissed, and the judge described Falun Gong as a "controversial movement, which does not accept criticism."[2]"

• Your addition of unsourced and pov comments:

"In addition to the actions of Falun Gong groups, independent human rights organisations such as Amnesty International have worked to bring pressure on the Chinese authorities over their human rights abuses.^{[citation needed]} "

"Chinese consulates and embassies around the world have attempted to curtail Falun Gong activities in many ways, including accusations of inciting violence and anti-Falun Gong propaganda.^{[citation needed]} "

"Falun Gong practitioners have also been found protesting along Orchard Road, Singapore although outdoor protesting is illegal in Singapore. They be occasionally found meditating under the Esplanade Bridge, which is situated on the Singapore River.^{[citation needed]}"

"as of February 2007, currently being tried in absentia for crimes of Genocide against Falun Gong in the Federal Court of Argentina. ^{[citation needed]} "

• Changing the heading community response to the more pov difficulties and interference

• Reverting my attempts to remove unsourced statements from ages ago, and comments accomplying deleted photos.--PCPP (talk) 06:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

1. The topic of LGBT community resistance to condemning persecution was already covered in a previous paragraph. Can you explain why we need it twice?
2. The case is in appeal, so as far as I understand that means it's not a valid source until it's sorted out.
3. The first two comments that need sourcing can be sourced in two shakes on a lamb's tail. The third can be deleted, I don't know where that came from. The third part there about the genocide case in argentina can be sourced easily too. In these cases I would suggest putting a fact that there and if nothing is done in a week then delete it.
4. The "community response" section had the same information as the "Chinese diplomatic service" section, so I just combined them. Do you see a qualitative difference in the information in each of those? The question of FLG being harrassed outside of China isn't really a question. WSJ has done editorials and stuff about all this.
5. The deleted photos can just be deleted; that is an unfortunate result of my simple reverts of your huge changes with no discussion. Instead of looking through the edits I just pressed "undo".

Are there any more points of contention? I can make these changes next time, or you can go ahead and do what you like for now and I can make the changes next time anyway.--Asdfg12345 06:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)