Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong/Archive 2

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Persecution of Falun Gong's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "dangerous":
From Falun Gong: Mickey Spiegel, "Dangerous Meditation: China's Campaign Against Falungong",  Human Rights Watch, 2002, accessed Sept 28, 2007
From Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident: 
From Re-education through labor: 
Reference named "wildgrass":
From Teachings of Falun Gong: p 212
From Qigong: 
From Falun Gong: Johnson, Ian, Wild Grass: three portraits of change in modern china, Vintage (8 March 2005)
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Persecution of Falun Gong]] 

message: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Persecution_of_Falun_Gong
:This was not needed, there is a link to that page in the tag you kept removing. Irbisgreif (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD 

message: This needs sources.  I have flagged bits that I see as needing sourcing, and there seem to be no interested editors at all. I also support the construction flag removal.- Sinneed 06:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm working  here /sources. Ups, letting it known to the public, sorry, I thought I already done that. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP does not use subpages in article space.- Sinneed 15:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No interest? 

message: Hello, there is a sources subpage, where I think we can list all relevant /sources contributions are welcome. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP does not use subpages in article space.  That link does not go anywhere from this article, for me.- Sinneed 15:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Article talk placed on my talk page will be very generally deleted immediately.  Article talk belongs, very generally, on article talk pages.- Sinneed 16:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is a sources sub page now 

message: copied from Sinneed user talk page 
Hi Sinneed, I'm not quite sure what you mean here could you please elaborate? My point in creating the sources subpage, was to have a place where we can all collect sources on this subject. What do you think? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Five pillars - WP doesn't have rock-solid rules.  Our rules/policies/guidelines describe what we DO.  We put, very generally, article talk, such as discussions of possible sources, on article talk pages.  It is very possible that this entire article would have been best served by being placed in a user space and worked until ready.- Sinneed 17:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources subpage 

message: Some are simply broken, and some were cut.  Please be sure to restore them.- Sinneed 00:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please be sure to restore the chopped sources. 

message: I find myself shocked.  Irrelevant - I urgently request that be restored, or an explanation of why it does not belong.  I find my assumption of good faith strained.- Sinneed 00:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies. The edit summary was not the best. But in my view, it was utterly out of place in that section. So someone wants this to be investigated, someone else calls upon other actions. It doesn't really fit into the greater context. Like I said above, if you see that a section needs to be restored, please do so. You don't have to even discuss it really, and I will not edit war. I'm just trying to do my best here with such a messy article. Colipon+(Talk) 00:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot revert it (3RR).  Please do.  If you feel the call for investigation of torture does not belong in the torture section, where would you suggest?  Then:  wp:SOFIXIT.  Clearly a call for investigation of torture would belong in the article. The details of the torture certainly would.  The sources certainly belonged.- Sinneed 00:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am always open to compromise. I find your reason sound so for now I will restore it by self-revert. Thanks for bringing it up. Colipon+(Talk) 00:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, very much. :)  - Sinneed 00:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shocked 

message: This name seems fundamentally incorrect... and POVish.  I expect that those ordering the usage don't see it as abuse (though that is just opinion, this is a talk page, it is for opinion on content).  I also think that he content falls into 3 categories:  "doesn't belong", "education", "torture".  I don't think this section is where I want to spend my Wikipedia time, and I hope some interested editor will spend some time on it.- Sinneed 22:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to give this section a facelift. But be forewarned that a lot of the material will be removed. Please restore it if you believe I have gone too far. Colipon+(Talk) 23:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I considered simply highlighting the section and clicking delete.- Sinneed 00:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I did too, but I think the material is worth mention. I think the current re-organized version gives it a much more neutral feel. Colipon+(Talk) 00:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. Most of the stuff in this immensely problematic article warrants outright removal. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 11:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Political abuse of psychiatry" section 

message: A bit unsure where this belongs. It's somewhat awkward just lying there by itself. Under "media", perhaps? Colipon+(Talk) 00:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it is a huge and defining event, I don't see how it standing on its own is awkward.  This one event so shocked China that support for even extreme actions became acceptable to many, as reported by the international press.- Sinneed 00:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's definitely a notable and defining event. I am merely asking where to place it in relation to the rest of the content on the article. Colipon+(Talk) 00:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Bottom, top, or middle.  I don't think the layout matters all that much.- Sinneed 00:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As you may well know, the incident played a huge role in the media campaign against Falun Gong. This is why I am suggesting it be moved under "Media". But I am open to other opinions as well. Colipon+(Talk) 00:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 11:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiananmen Square Self-immolation 

message: "Firmly support the decision of the Central Committee to deal with the illegal organization of Falun Gong" - How?  It would work as NPOV content in WP "The government called for firm support of the decision of the Central Committee to deal with the illegal organization of Falun Gong" - The government banned it, it is illegal.  NPOV-the propaganda claim does not belong... or the translation is wrong, and needs to be corrected.- Sinneed 00:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if I quite understand what you mean. Do you disagree that the poster is a form of propaganda? Or is there something else I'm missing? Colipon+(Talk) 00:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is a bit interesting how that is the only image that survived, see here for example. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disapprove of characterizing it.  The reader can look at the poster, read the caption, and decide if it is propaganda, or not.  It is a poster.  We say what it says in English.  The reader can draw own conclusions. If we are going to say it is propaganda, we need a wp:RS that says it is. - Sinneed 15:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is fine with me. Colipon+(Talk) 16:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propaganda? 

message: This article has a  tag, and it has 55 inline citations. Although it is a fairly long article, it seems to me that 55 inline citations should be sufficient, even though the subject matter and even the title is seen as controversial by some editors. If editors think the tag is justified, please comment here. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the concerns were with the verifiability of the sources, not the number of sources. Editors raised the concern that many sources are self-published Falun Gong sources, or sources commissioned to speak for Falun Gong. I don't know if this is still a major problem, but number of sources was never the issue. Previously, Falun Gong editors firebombed all Falun Gong-related articles with "sources" to prove a point, but most of it has been cleaned up. Colipon+(Talk) 13:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that clarification. Meanwhile, I learned from AWB that there are dead links in this article. Perhaps other editors, of whatever persuasion on the merits, might want to either fix or delete these dead links. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Link cleaner seems to like the links that are left at the moment.- Sinneed 17:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improve the references? 

message: The self-immolation incident is only a part of the FG persecution story and it is mostly related to media and propaganda. At the moment the section takes a bit too much focus and can really be condensed to just one paragraph. There is already a page dedicated to this topic. Also, the current version is not very neutral. Thus, I have taken a short excerpt from the main FG page to replace it. 
--Mavlo (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Unacceptable. WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:COI. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain. --Mavlo (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Read them, then understand.  This won't stay long.  You are presenting an extreme, opinion-based set of arguments with weak or non-existant sourcing.  I tagged a few bit.- Sinneed 04:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Opinion-based? Perhaps, but hardly extreme. Which part of the section was weak and where was there non-existent sourcing? I was able to trace each source. Patiently explain this to me please. In fact, every source used is currently also used in the latest edit EXCEPT the FG sources which basically state that killing is strictly forbidden in the practice. I would disagree that these sources are weak though as they are simply a justifiable defense of the accusation at hand. It's akin to accusing someone of a crime, then not allowing them to defend themselves, guilty or not. As for the wiki policies, which I admit I am relatively new to, again please patiently explain what or how I have violated them. 
WP:RS < every part is reliably sourced as mentioned above.
WP:NPOV  < the view presented is significantly and sufficiently explained.
WP:COI < again, I believe it is a neutral and reliably sourced addition to the topic. 
If I am misunderstanding something, clarification is much appreciated. 
--Mavlo (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-immolation incident 

message: Here I'm going to simply put some material from reliable sources about this issue, including a full reference, and the direct quotes and link. Editors can use them how they see fit. Thanks.--Asdfg12345 03:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Some raw material for editors to use

message: Hi, I had added in a lot of info, all directly sourced to academic, human rights and main stream media. Invovled addition of around 50 additional sources. "Seb", you may wnat to raise specific issues about the material added, which is a superset of the info currently present in the article, than just revert the addition of around 50 additional sources. 
Dilip rajeev (talk) 02:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. various editors have been working on this, debating this, and talking about this since at least November last year. This is the result. You cannot simply pull one of your drive-by stunts. The ball is in your court to explain to every- and anyone who worked on this. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Seb. Colipon+(Talk) 06:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

text: There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict Wikipedia:Be bold. There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption.Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal of sourced edits made in a neutral narrative is disruptive Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information. 
So I suggest Dilip just takes his sweet time on this. There was no legitimate reason this page should have been so badly decimated. The majority of the information he seeks to include is well sourced, notable, and perfectly fine. Everything is up for discussion. I think referencing a November chat among an in-group of editors as a reason 60kb of legit info should be blanked is a bit of a stretch. Really, the key is to see which information is extraneous, and then just not re-include that. But I don't think anyone could support the exclusion of vast amounts of sourced content because it shows what the persecution is about. Let's go delete half the info on the holocaust because it's "POV" then. It's the same bizarre logic. So let me reiterate: I think Dilip should go forward one step at a time, and if the editors who seek to keep this information out can't justify why it should not be added--and I mean in terms of wikipedia policy--but keep deleting it, then dispute resolutions measures can be adopted.--Asdfg12345 08:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dilip's recent additions