Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong/Archive 1

message: I'm thinking of moving or at least copying the relevant portions of the Falun Gong talk page over here so that we can discuss in the correct place and not overuse the main talk page. Thoughts? CovenantD 16:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. That page explodes every day with posts. --Yenchin 17:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I seond that approach, and agree with your edits below.  Thanks for putting in those "citation needed" comments.  They will help us focus on what needs to be done. --Tomananda 18:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I think I got everything. Many of the concerns are being addressed with my revision, and the revisions based on it, so let's continue to look forward. CovenantD 23:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This talk page

message: === Text that needs to be deleted, verified or re-written ===
5.  Unsourced material which makes claims about what actually happened during the Tianamin Square self-immolation indicent:
*The campaign of government criticism begun in 1999 was considered by most observers to be largely ineffectual until January 2001,( unsourced POV) when persons whom the government claimed were Falun Gong practitioners.  And:
*Falun Gong practitioners emphatically denied that the people who set themselves on fire could have been actual practitioners, since suicide is completely against Falun Gong's principles. (unsourced POV)  And:
*Falun Gong members believe that the incident is an attempt of the Chinese government to turn public opinion in China against Falun Gong to rally support for government crackdown. Falun Gong practitioenrs claim that their Master forbids suicide but have not yet provide any such statements.
This material currently appears in the page called Persecution of Falun Gong.  An  editor added the comments about unsourced POV) some time ago, but without a response from any of the pro-Falun Gong editors.  Dilip states he can re-write this material and provide verifiable sources, and other editors have commented, but so far no alternative text has been proposed.
6.  Additional unsourced or unverified  material appearing in the page called Persecution of Falun Gong:
*Falun Gong practitioners have affimed that the people seen in the video were not actually practitioners.
Dilip says he can provide sources for this claim, but they all appear to be Falun Gong’s own websites.   This does not
meet the standard of verification that is needed.
*Falun Gong practitioners went to Tianjin College of Education, which published the magazine, and related governmental agencies and held peaceful protests.
What source, other than a Falun Gong website, verifies that the protest was peaceful?   We know that 45 practitioners were arrested during this protest and it is likely that they were disrupting the normal course of business at this magazine publisher’s office, at the least.
    194.88.250.22 09:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking medication during cultivation implies that you do not believe in the disease-curing effects of cultivation.  If you believed in it, why would you take medication?  Falun Gong,  revised edition,  Chapter Five, Questions and Answers,  p. 82.
10. In a subsequent paragraph, an unverified claim that the Falun Gong is not “political”
 
*CCP claims that the practice has deviated its focus from engaging in spiritual cultivation to engaging in politics, basing their opinions on the existence of numerous websites disparate from, yet in support of, Falun Gong (such as Friends of Falun Gong). Due to an implication derived from its core principles, the teachings of Falun Gong are said to forbid any political involvement, and practitioners claim to have little interest in power or politics, the large number of  protests to the crackdown notwithstanding. Falun Gong's supporters, such as The Epoch Times, tend to be conservative and anti-communist. Kangang Xu, a Falun Gong speaker, is the Chairman of the paper's board.
This unsourced material  also violates Wikipedia’s policy against original research and  NPOV.  Editors cannot report the views of Falun Gong practitioners in this way to refute the claim of the CCP that the Falun Gong has turned “from engaging in spiritual cultivation to engaging in politics.”   The second sentence contains a non-sequitur (the stuff about the conservative nature of the Epoch Times) as well as an unverified claim concerning an alleged implication deriving from Falun Gong’s core principles that is said “to forbid any political involvement.”   Actually, the exact opposite is true:  Li Honghzhi demands that his practitioners do everything they can to publicly undermine the CCP, with the explicit goal of reducing membership in the party by millions of people. (These numbers are updated in the Epoch Times, the paper Li’s disciples created to validate Li’s teachings. In the name of “validating the Dafa” Falun Gong practitioners are required to pursue Li’s political objective of overthrowing  the Chinese Communist Party.  This is an absolute requirement for one to be considered a Dafa disciple during this “Fa-rectification period” and Li reminds his practitioners of this requirement in all his lectures.--Tomananda 21:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From the main Falun Gong talk page

message: 5.  Unsourced material which makes claims about what actually happened during the Tianamin Square self-immolation indicent:
*The campaign of government criticism begun in 1999 was considered by most observers to be largely ineffectual until January 2001,( unsourced POV) when persons whom the government claimed were Falun Gong practitioners.  And:
*Falun Gong practitioners emphatically denied that the people who set themselves on fire could have been actual practitioners, since suicide is completely against Falun Gong's principles. (unsourced POV)  And:
*Falun Gong members believe that the incident is an attempt of the Chinese government to turn public opinion in China against Falun Gong to rally support for government crackdown. Falun Gong practitioenrs claim that their Master forbids suicide but have not yet provide any such statements.
This material currently appears in the page called Persecution of Falun Gong.  An  editor added the comments about unsourced POV) some time ago, but without a response from any of the pro-Falun Gong editors.  Dilip states he can re-write this material and provide verifiable sources, and other editors have commented, but so far no alternative text has been proposed.
6.  Additional unsourced or unverified  material appearing in the page called Persecution of Falun Gong:
*Falun Gong practitioners have affimed that the people seen in the video were not actually practitioners.
Dilip says he can provide sources for this claim, but they all appear to be Falun Gong’s own websites.   This does not
meet the standard of verification that is needed.
*Falun Gong practitioners went to Tianjin College of Education, which published the magazine, and related governmental agencies and held peaceful protests.
What source, other than a Falun Gong website, verifies that the protest was peaceful?   We know that 45 practitioners were arrested during this protest and it is likely that they were disrupting the normal course of business at this magazine publisher’s office, at the least.
    194.88.250.22 09:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking medication during cultivation implies that you do not believe in the disease-curing effects of cultivation.  If you believed in it, why would you take medication?  Falun Gong,  revised edition,  Chapter Five, Questions and Answers,  p. 82.
10. In a subsequent paragraph, an unverified claim that the Falun Gong is not “political”
 
*CCP claims that the practice has deviated its focus from engaging in spiritual cultivation to engaging in politics, basing their opinions on the existence of numerous websites disparate from, yet in support of, Falun Gong (such as Friends of Falun Gong). Due to an implication derived from its core principles, the teachings of Falun Gong are said to forbid any political involvement, and practitioners claim to have little interest in power or politics, the large number of  protests to the crackdown notwithstanding. Falun Gong's supporters, such as The Epoch Times, tend to be conservative and anti-communist. Kangang Xu, a Falun Gong speaker, is the Chairman of the paper's board.
This unsourced material  also violates Wikipedia’s policy against original research and  NPOV.  Editors cannot report the views of Falun Gong practitioners in this way to refute the claim of the CCP that the Falun Gong has turned “from engaging in spiritual cultivation to engaging in politics.”   The second sentence contains a non-sequitur (the stuff about the conservative nature of the Epoch Times) as well as an unverified claim concerning an alleged implication deriving from Falun Gong’s core principles that is said “to forbid any political involvement.”   Actually, the exact opposite is true:  Li Honghzhi demands that his practitioners do everything they can to publicly undermine the CCP, with the explicit goal of reducing membership in the party by millions of people. (These numbers are updated in the Epoch Times, the paper Li’s disciples created to validate Li’s teachings. In the name of “validating the Dafa” Falun Gong practitioners are required to pursue Li’s political objective of overthrowing  the Chinese Communist Party.  This is an absolute requirement for one to be considered a Dafa disciple during this “Fa-rectification period” and Li reminds his practitioners of this requirement in all his lectures.--Tomananda 21:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text that needs to be deleted, verified or re-written 

message: My edits of June 1 consisted mainly of the following -
:1) Replacing text removed by Tomananda that didn't have proper citation
:2) Placing <citation needed> tags where appropriate, and rewriting where necessary to show amiguity or clarity
::Rationale - It behooves us to allow time for proper citations to be found, as long as it's done in a timely manner and those bits are noted. Just like the debate of Fang & Deng, if citations are not provided in a few days then those passages can be removed or rewritten.
CovenantD 16:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: Dilip, I see that you have again removed the tag from this bit - The campaign of government criticism begun in 1999 was considered by most observers to be largely ineffectual until January 2001... and I have to ask. Why? CovenantD 18:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the source I provided at the end of the paragraph( not immediatley after) atleast indirectly alludes to that conclusion. Kindly let me know if that source will suffice.. Though it may be hard to find a source with the same wording...
Dilip rajeev 04:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhere along the way it was changed to "The campaign of government criticism increased in January 2001..." I think the new wording works without a citation. Does that work? CovenantD 05:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation needed tag removed

message: I re-added the Sky Net bit for now, but it needs better explanation for why it's relevant. If it's not shown to have some major relevance in a few days, it needs to be removed. CovenantD 04:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sky Net 

message: Somebody commented out the Time quote and inserted a note saying the info was wrong. While a rebuttal from a reliable source may be included, Time is also considered a reliable source and use of their article is acceptable. If they issued a correction that may be included, but the sentence cannot be removed because a Falun Gong site disputes it.
:I urge the commentor to make a more detailed explanation over here. The Daniel Schetcher essay says that the Western media believed what China sells about the incident. It addresses nothing about the Time article, in which it directly quoted a FLG member.
: Also "facts were mis-represented in western media" doesn't directly conclude to "everything they report which gives a bad image to FLG is wrong".
:--Yenchin 17:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time quote

message: I added it back to external link. According to http://www.deep6-publishing.org/about.htm, the author has nothing to do with Falun Gong. And it is not self-published. Fnhddzs 17:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The book of "Poisonous Deceit"

message: A lot of material that were on the article was either original research or lacking a source.  The removed pictures have practitioners enacting alleged torture.  The Sujiatun allegation has its own page, it is only appropriate for the info to be displayed there. --Samuel Luo 18:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those pictures with practitioners acting in them have no place in wikipedia.  You guys obviously have the whole video why not show it to people?  --Yueyuen 04:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yenchin Do you agree that all the material about organ harvesting should be compiled on one page?  Also, are you interested in working with me to clarify the facts about "The Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident"?  I can do better when there is a commitment. --Yueyuen 06:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Sujiatun does deserve a page of its own. It has been like a few months of news and a detailed page would be better. As for the Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident I can help since it is one of my interests on FLG. --Yenchin 06:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I am sorry I don't see its relevance with this article. In my view, it is just some point of view or misunderstanding based on one or two phrases of quotes without context. If you insist on putting somewhere, it may go to the critism article or we could address it some where related to the teachings. Fnhddzs 18:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, Harry Wu of Laogai Research Foundation just released his investigation - guess what? he also found the claim not credible: http://www.zonaSPAMLINK--Asdfg12345 20:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is a blog, as far as I know it's CCP controlled. Could you please find a more credible source? --HappyInGeneral 16:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Improving this page

message: No. friend. this world is not for persecuting good people. Nothing could be more cruel than hiding the facts. Think about what if your family and friends got organ harvested alive!! Speak righteously, for your own prospect!
Fnhddzs 04:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop the persecution 

message: I've protected this article from editing, there appears to be a long-running edit war going on with no discussion.  Work out your differences here on the talk page, find consensus, and then the page will be unprotected.  --Cyde Weys 01:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have unprotected to ascertain the current status of any disputes. Fred Bauder 14:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Samuel said his stuff is deleted. However, in his revert, he deleted a lot of stuff with credible source. Now, I will add those first and then look at other different parts between two version. Fnhddzs 01:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion? 

message: Or "the Tiananmen Square Self-immolation Incident" POV?
I think the latter is POV. CCP said it is self-immolation. But Falun Gong teachings said "committing suicide is sinful". 
And from the slow motion desctructs, the woman was beaten and fell down to the fire when she tried to stand up. And there are a lot of other self contradictory places. So Falun Gong website said it is staged.  If it is staged, then it is murder not self-immolation.
The former has a question mark, it is NPOV. I think it is fair to use this title. Fnhddzs 02:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Title of "Is the Tiananmen Square Self-immolation Incident Staged?" POV?

message: Move to "Suppression of Falun Gong"; the word "suppression" is misspelled.  Peter O. (Talk) 20:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor spelling mistake 

message: Regarding the caption of the arrest of peaceful protestors in Beijing.  It would be more encyclopedic and opinion-neutral to state that they were Falun Gong protestors, not peaceful ones, as no context was given.  Jsw663 08:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The current picture on the page 

message: The whole section may require at least a brief rebuttal by the PRC government's viewpoint as the page is filled entirely with Falun Gong's and anti-PRC-groups' viewpoints (mostly unproven allegations) only.  Whilst the topic of this page inevitably means a pro-Falun Gong-bias, it would be unfair to only air one view, not to talk about contravening Wiki's policies.  What are other people's views on this?  Jsw663 16:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that while we greatly prefer English sources, Chinese language sources will do. Obviously they have a unique set of problems but they're still acceptable. Also, AFAIK altho we prefer secondary sources, primary sources of government views and claims are generally accepted Nil Einne 12:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the PRC viewpoint need to be aired on this page? 

message: Suppression is spelt with two 'p's... can an editor move this entire article into a correctly-spelt entry?  Thanks.  Jsw663 16:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling mistake of Wiki entry 

message: This article has many statements that are clearly POV, notably "in order to peacefully protest the hate propaganda against the Falun Gong." Canthony 17:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added NPOV tag 

message: Falun Gong should have a wikilink from this page. And perhaps it's not the only wording that is missing the wikilink. --213.157.175.121 16:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To administrators, please add Falun Gong as wikilink in the Suppression of Falun Gong page. Thx. --213.157.175.121 16:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to use  Nil Einne 13:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki Links 

message: I've tagged the image :Image:Tianamen beating.jpg as a possibly unfree image. Please check out Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#January 18 for info why. It's normal practice to add  to the image caption, so if an admin can do that it would be great Nil Einne 13:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --Robdurbar 17:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image warning 

message: Hello, I just noticed the reverting happening on this page. I have not had a chance to have a good look but it looks like there are two quite different versions of everything. I would like to combine them, one section at a time. Sentence by sentence and paragraph by paragraph, and all the unfit material can be discarded, with the only thing remained sourced and neutral material. There is a lot of unsourced stuff and very biased writing which is no good. I just reverted the page back to the pro-Falun Gong version. I hope it stays that way, but if not I will not revert it again until trying this approach. I will start another page and use it for this. It is quite okay for wikipedia to provide contrasting narratives, and I think that would be an even more complete article. However, if it is biased writing and has no sources, then it is not not up to wikistandards, we can't keep it, and it doesn't belong in the article. In two days I will spend a few hours on this. I will post the link here. Just in case anyone knows - how can I start a new page, just like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong/Introduction. It is a page set up just to handle the discussion of the introduction on the Falun Gong page. I would start a new page for discussing this page, cut and paste both versions and then go through them paragraph by paragraph, come up with a new version which included both, remove the biased content. Of course, I have my own biases so if there were some other person on the opposite side who wants to see a good article they should participate. Okay, stay tuned. --Asdfg12345 17:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reconciliation 

message: let's talk about her picture here. --Yueyuen 21:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New image

message: I was wondering why the following was removed. I'm not making a conclusion that its removal was wrong. I'm just wondering why.
:The reasons behind the ban are inconclusive, although several theories seem to have gathered common ground in the various academic studies related to Falun Gong. The dominant theory holds that Falun Gong's religious elements and offers of salvation became a challenge to the orthodox communist ideologies on which the Communist Party of China(CPC)'s power is rested upon, and as Falun Gong's members looked to exceed the number of CPC members, the central leadership under President Jiang Zemin began to fear the extent of Falun Gong's political and social influence. Another theory puts Jiang Zemin squarely to blame as he became jealous of the popularity of Falun Gong's founder Li Hongzhi.
Colipon+(T) 04:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many one sided changes and removal of well sourced entry's. I'm making a list now. Thank you for your concern. --HappyInGeneral 04:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Samuel Luo, see here:  --HappyInGeneral 10:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 2nd paragraph 

message: see bellow 
1.	Reinsert image at right with coment 
::Gao Rongrong, was a Falun Gong practitioner, who died in custody in June after being detained in Longshan Reeducation through Labour facility in Shenyang, Liaoning province. Officials had reportedly beaten her in 2004, including by using electro-shock batons on her face and neck, which caused severe blistering and eyesight problems, after she was discovered reading Falun Gong materials.    ]] 
: This image is of Gao Rongrong, see here: 
2. Reinsert  tags, this time with date.
::Reason of removal: information blanking.
3. reinsert image 
::Reason of removal: information blanking (because there was no other reason provided).
4. reinsert paragraph
: The reasons behind the ban are inconclusive, although several theories seem to have gathered common ground in the various academic studies related to Falun Gong. The dominant theory holds that Falun Gong's religious elements and offers of salvation became a challenge to the orthodox communist ideologies on which the Communist Party of China(CPC)'s power is rested upon, and as Falun Gong's members looked to exceed the number of CPC members, the central leadership under President Jiang Zemin began to fear the extent of Falun Gong's political and social influence. Another theory puts Jiang Zemin squarely to blame as he became jealous of the popularity of Falun Gong's founder Li Hongzhi.
::Reason of removal: information blanking (because there was no other reason provided).
5. Change
:: “Falun Gong practitioners have claimed that the Zhongnanhai protest was their response to government suppression, but evidences show that this claim is questionable”
: to
::“Falun Gong practitioners have claimed that the Zhongnanhai protest was their response to government suppression, but critics allege that this claim is questionable.”
: this is correct and it’s according to NPOV + revert was not justified in the first place.
6. Replace POV
::Critics of the Chinese government, who are unaware of the Falun Gong's attacks against critics in China before the ban and the cultish nature of this group, has suggested it was the Zhongnanhai demonstration of April 25 that led to "fear, animosity and suppression".American Asian Review, Vol. XIX, no. 4, Winter 2001, p. 12
:with NPOV
::Julia Ching from the University of Toronto, writing for the American Asian Review has suggested it was the Zhongnanhai demonstration of April 25 that led to "fear, animosity and suppression".American Asian Review, Vol. XIX, no. 4, Winter 2001, p. 12 In addition, Jiang Zemin had received a letter from the former director of the 301 Military Hospital, "a doctor with considerable standing among the political elite", endorsing Falun Gong and advising high-level cadres to start practicing it.Critical Asian Studies 33:2 (2001), pp. 170-171 Jiang also found out that Li's book, Zhuan Falun, had been published by People's Liberation Navy, and that possibly seven hundred thousand Communist party members were practitioners. Ching opines that "Jiang accepts the threat of Falun Gong as an ideological one: spiritual beliefs against militant atheism and historical materialism. He wishes to purge the government and the military of such beliefs."American Asian Review, Vol. XIX, no. 4, Winter 2001, pp. 12-13 She also says that "the accusation of Falun Gong's being an "evil cult" made previous arrests and imprisonments "constitutional." Of course, the accusation was made after the government already had started to crack down on Falun Gong [practitioners]. The enumeration of features of an "evil cult" was done by political officials on political premises, not by any religious authority. It was an atheistic, Communist government, handing down an executive decision by the pronouncement of an "evil cult," without an explanation of what would be its opposite: a good cult, or a good religion."ibid., p. 9 Similar theories about the fundamental reasons are also supported by Elizabeth J. Perry in Critical Asian StudiesCritical Asian Studies 33:2 (2001), a peer-reviewed quarterly journal.
: Revert was not justified in the first place.
7. Add complete quote, or remove quote, don't quote out of context.
Current quote is:
:: Recently, a few scoundrels from literary, scientific, and qigong circles, who have been hoping to become famous through opposing qigong, have been constantly causing trouble, as though the last thing they want to see is a peaceful world. Some newspapers, radio stations and TV stations in various parts of the country have directly resorted to these propaganda tools to harm our Dafa, having a very bad impact on the public. This was deliberately harming Dafa and cannot be ignored. Under these very special circumstances, Dafa disciples in Beijing adopted a special approach to ask those people to stop harming Dafa—this actually was not wrong. This was done when there was no other way (other regions should not copy their approach). But when students voluntarily approach those uninformed and irresponsible media agencies and explain to them our true situation, this should not be considered wrong.
:the quote with the relevant context included is below:
::Recently, a few scoundrels from literary, scientific, and qigong circles, who have been hoping to become famous through opposing qigong, have been constantly causing trouble, as though the last thing they want to see is a peaceful world. Some newspapers, radio stations and TV stations in various parts of the country have directly resorted to these propaganda tools to harm our Dafa, having a very bad impact on the public. This was deliberately harming Dafa and cannot be ignored. Under these very special circumstances, Dafa disciples in Beijing adopted a special approach to ask those people to stop harming Dafa—this actually was not wrong. This was done when there was no other way (other regions should not copy their approach). But when students voluntarily approach those uninformed and irresponsible media agencies and explain to them our true situation, this should not be considered wrong. 	 
::What I would like to tell you is not whether this incident itself was right or wrong. Instead, I want to point out that this event has exposed some people. They still have not fundamentally changed their human notions, and they still perceive problems with the human mentality wherein human beings protect human beings. I have said that Dafa absolutely should not get involved in politics. The purpose of this event itself was to help the media understand our actual situation and learn about us positively so that they would not drag us into politics. Speaking from another perspective, Dafa can teach the human heart to be good and it can stabilize society. But you must be clear that Dafa certainly is not taught for these purposes, but rather for cultivation practice. 	 
::Dafa has created a way of existence for the lowest level, mankind. Then, among various types of human behavior within the human form of existence at this level, which include collectively presenting facts to someone, and so forth, aren’t these one of the numerous forms of existence that Dafa gives to mankind at the lowest level? It is just that when humans do things, good and evil coexist. Thus, there are struggles and politics. Under extremely special circumstances, however, Dafa disciples adopted that approach from the Fa at the lowest level, and they completely applied their good side. Wasn’t this an act that harmonized the Fa at the level of mankind? Except under special extreme circumstances, this type of approach is not to be adopted. From "Digging Out the Roots", by Li Hongzhi, July 6, 1998
: Revert was not justified in the first place.
8. Complete sentence, current sentence:
::The first arrest of Falun Gong practitioners occurred in April 1999. On April 11, 1999 the Science and Technology for Youth magazine in the city of Tianjin published an article containing negative remarks about the Falun Gong written by He Zuoxiu Full text in Chinese of He Zuoxiu's article, a theoretical physicist.American Asian Review, Vol. XIX, no. 4, Winter 2001, p. 7 He also told the story of one of his colleagues who developed mental illness after practicing Falun Gong.
: complete sentence:
::The first arrest of Falun Gong practitioners occurred in April 1999. On April 11, 1999 the Science and Technology for Youth magazine in the city of Tianjin published an article containing negative remarks about the Falun Gong written by He Zuoxiu Full text in Chinese of He Zuoxiu's article, a theoretical physicist who advocated against "youth practicing Qigong". He also asserted that he did not wish to see the young practice qigong, urging rather that they take up as many athletic sports as possible to help their bodies develop properly.American Asian Review, Vol. XIX, no. 4, Winter 2001, p. 7 He also told the story of one of his colleagues who, according to his claims, developed mental illness after practicing Falun Gong. 
: Revert was not justified in the first place.
9. add 2 links:
# Pulitzer Prize Articles 1: A Deadly Exercise: Practicing Falun Gong Was a Right, Ms. Chen Said, to Her Last Day, 
# Pulitzer Prize Articles 10: Death Trap: How One Chinese City Resorted to Atrocities To Control Falun Dafa
Done for now, if anyone has any other change request or comment please post them here.
--HappyInGeneral 05:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done, as that's very complex.  Please create a version of the article with the changes included in a subpage (such as Suppresion of Falun Gong/scratch, then submit it here for discussion. Proto::► 15:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no way one side's views should be portrayed at the start of the article at the total expense of the other.  Placing all those FG pictures at the start is pre-determining readers' opinions.  Once again have you forgotten about WP:NPOV? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jsw663 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Protected page 2007-02-07 

message: I think Colipon put this one in. I am stating my intention to remove it if there is no source is provided or no response to this note is given indicating that a search for a source is now in progress. I won't delete it right now. --Asdfg12345 19:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence at the beginning needing a source

message: In reference to this edit, as many who read Chinese edit this article, there would seem to be no problem, as any mistranslation would be rapidly caught. However, poking around with the search engine on the English version will probably yield the same page in English. Regarding the People's Daily as a reliable source, sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Much depends on the subject matter and context. But the same is true of the New York Times, which at times is simply a mouthpiece for the United States government. One must be familiar with the political culture of the country to made an adequate determination. In general, the government of China, which controls the People's Daily, is biased with respect to Falun Gong. That should not have to be said, it is so obvious. Use of a biased source is usually unacceptable. That said, whether to use a particular article as a reference is a matter of editorial judgement. Opinions may differ.Fred Bauder 15:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But can any non-Chinese government mouthpiece accurately represent the Chinese government's view in a matter which bases its whole belief system upon the destruction of the Chinese government?  Jsw663 21:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''People's Daily'' as a source

message: Hello
In about 3 days time (70 hours or so hours), I intend to invest a lot of time on the first section. I hope editors have been keeping up with the important discussion between Olaf and Jsw on the main talk page. In light of our collective, growing recognition of the need to abide by wikipolicies and produce neutral and well-sourced articles, and also given the many tags calling for sources that have sat on quite a lot of the material in the abovementioned section for a while now, I would like to say here that I intend to remove much of this content in about 3 and a half days. Of course, I will not do this under the conditions that: 
*sources meeting wikirequirements are provided;
*discussion is initiated here indicating that sources are being sought for;
*maybe some other declarations from other editors requesting that I should not proceed or indicating why it is not a good idea to proceed;
There could be other factors involved. 
I will remove that material and start putting sourced material in. I will probably spend upwards of 4 or 5 hours doing this. I will just put some Templates there now.--Asdfg12345 20:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First background section - important message

message: Armedblowfish:  At what point does an editor get stopped in his tracks?  If Asdfg's blatant announcment above, together with his repeated assertions on the main article talk page that he will delete what he considers to be "falacious" here, on the Epoch Times page, and presumably all pages don't constitute grounds for an administrative sanction of some sort, I don't know what does.  We are supposed to operate by consensus and for the most part editors on both "sides" of this debate have tried to honor consensus decsions.  But as Firestar has pointed out on multiple occassions, Asdfg actually demands the right to take unilateral actions which he feels are justified.   Witness what he says above, and witness the series of edits he and others have done to change the Suppression of Falun Gong page into an anti-CCP propaganda piece.  I am requesting that you take action now to stop Asdfg in his POV warrior campaign.  --Tomananda 03:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Out 

message: they do not help people to understand the conflict. --Pirate101 02:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It portrays the methods of the conflict.Which are way to violent, for more information on this check out:   , also I can provide you a lot more, just ask. --HappyInGeneral 07:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: These pictures are useless

message: Julia Ching's comment is not appropriate for the lead section since it provides a one-sied view.  --Samuel Luo 23:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead section

message: I've replaced the section titled 'analysis' with 'criticism' under the Tiananmen self-immolation incident.  If pure criticism is merely 'analysis', then are FGers saying that Samuel's and Tomananda's efforts are merely 'analyzing' the FG??
As for the 'some commentators' and 'some NGOs' point - the use of the word 'some' should be avoided in encyclopedic entries.  They are used primarily to enforce an insufficiently sourced POV.  Despite possible bias in content, I have not touched it.  I have merely re-labeled these as 'human rights' people, as all the people quoted are noted for their work in being pro-HR.  Notice I'm not passing judgment on their work; I'm merely saying that that is their job, much like Matas'.
Regarding the K/M section, there is no need to put the 'Mr.' titles before their surname.  It is not as if their views are suddenly worthy of a distinctive title - and this is clearly not the practice on Wikipedia overall (esp on non-biographical pages).  There is also no need to place every single title Kilgour held previously, especially as he has a separate Wiki entry already.  Placing more titles in an attempt to boost his credibility is a weak one, if outrightly unencylcopedic, to say the least.  Jsw663 13:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Analysis' v. 'criticism' 

message: I have added arguments from both sides regarding the conflict while removed and reduced Comments from third parties in order to shorten the article.  The media war section is deleted and its material can be added back to the body of this article.  Asylum cases section is removed because Chen Yonglin is not a practitioner and he has nothing to do with the conflict.  Falun Gong practitioners have flooded the page with their pictures again, since the authenticity of these pictures can not be verified and many editors have rejected to adding them, I have remove these pictures.  --Samuel Luo 02:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see comment above. We won't push a case if you correct your disruptive editing, or even if you are seen to make an effort to correct it. I am becoming more fully aware of my rights with regards to using wikipedia, and it is clear that I no longer need to battle with you about this. It's a big waste of time for everyone involved, and I would prefer to make positive changes to these articles in accordance with the actual wikipedia policies and guidelines rather than engage in revert wars with you. I've been reading through the ArbCom pages, so I am fairly sure about how this is going to turn out.--Asdfg12345 03:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I reverted this edit at the spot when I saw all the images removed, which are well sourced and very contextual, removing this is Blanking aka Vandalism. Anyway the evidence is still present since all the history is kept. --HappyInGeneral 10:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes have been made to this page

message: I would like to initiate a discussion with Falun-gong-practitioner-eidtors to improve this article.  
Falun-gong-practitioner-eidtors have complained about this new version, yet none of them have pointed out what is it in this version that they reject.  Some material from the old version was removed, explanation is given above.  If you believe some (or all) of these material should be restored, Can you talk about it here?   --Samuel Luo 05:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No more tricks, Samuel. If you restore all the blanked material and constructively add your edits, that will be counted as your doing the right thing. This is your opportunity: we won't play games with you. Those are the terms. Restore the blanked material, do not do any more blanking, and we will forgive you.--Asdfg12345 11:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Asdfg12345, you are the one who has rountinely removed sourced material.  You should be the one begging for forgiveness. --Yueyuen 20:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You guys did not talk to anyone before making big changes.  Samuel's version is closer to the one existed before you guys rewrote the article.  this version is also more informative.  Unless the mediator write one version, if I have to choose one from your version and Samuel's version, I will choose Samuel's. --Yueyuen 03:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Both sides are equally guilty of editing the main page without much discussion, or at least not discussing BEFORE editing.  Since we shall not resolve which version will be 'authoritative', how about setting up a discussion group?  Work to and for a compromise, not engage in more unhelpful edit wars.  Please.  Jsw663 12:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jsw663, it sound extremely noble to stop edit wars, and you know what, I'm all for it and ready to talk as always. Still can you tell me what to do when sourced facts are just removed without any real and serious attempt for discussion? How long should it stay like that? What policy is it breached by having the images in (along with the rest of the sourced content)? I understand that by adding sourced information to this page we can actually show to the reader that the persecution is real and serious. Now I understand that this is a picture of which some like perhaps yourself, but definitely Samuel Luo,  Yueyuen, Mr. He, are uncomfortable, but then again I ask which wikipedia policy is broken by this. After all we are on Wikipedia. --HappyInGeneral 22:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  HiG, with the current ArbCom case pending, it probably would not be wise of me to comment on specific content now.  I have urged them to provide further guidelines specific to FG-related articles, precisely to stop these ridiculous edit wars.  The problem is that I understand both POVs here, because after one understands the assumptions both sides make, one can understand why they see their POV as true and unbiased.  So all I can say now is please can everyone resist the urge to "correct" what they feel is wrong on the main entry?  There will never be a "correct" one until one compromises.  However, it has been clear to me that when I tried to make a balanced version that contained a bit of both sides, that it was rejected by both sides.  So it's up to ArbCom first.  Jsw663 16:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we talk?

message: You can write draft versions of the Supression of Falun Gong article in the following places:
* Talk:Suppression of Falun Gong/Working Pro-FG
* Talk:Suppression of Falun Gong/Working Anti-FG
I can then, assuming you all agree this is a good idea, merge them into Conflict between Falun Gong and the Chinese government and try to reword things to avoid saying whether or not disputed things are true or not.  It would be very helpful to me if you included reliable sources in both.  Hopefully, this will also help you all reach some sort of truce on the edit conflicts on this page.  Thanks!
— Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 21:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, in order the avoid confusion of parallel discussions, it would be great if you responded on the mediation subpage.  I mostly posted here to get the attention of interested editors.  Thank you, Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 21:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, so if somebody wants to do bigger changes, which include removal of sourced material, a good idea would be to do it on the draft proposed by  Armedblowfish, until consensus is gained on it. This is a direct invitation to Samuel. Please let me know what you think. --HappyInGeneral 16:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working drafts for pro- and anti- FG 

message: Based on this Arbitration this Arbitration, I am officially putting the mediation on hold.  Sorry for failing you all, ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 01:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation on hold pending Arbitration 

message: Samuel, what is your justification from deleting sourced images from the talk page? See here:
Also I placed the image of Gao Ronrong to the intro because is highly relevant there. 
The title of this page is Suppression of Falun Gong.
I agree that at some point we might reach consensus and clean up the article, but until then, please stop blanking sourced material. --HappyInGeneral 17:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samuel: Please Stop Blanking Sourced Material 

message: I still do not feel it is possible to continue mediation during the Arbitration, but since some of you are trying to build a consensus, I would like to offer the private MediationWiki as an option.  If it is possible to continue the mediation after the Arbitration, I would like to continue there anyway.  If you'd like an account on the MediationWiki, please send me an email, with "Falun Gong" somewhere in the subject.  If for some reason you would like a username other than the one you use here, be sure to note that.  If email is a problem for you, let me know on my talk page an we'll work something out.  Thanks, Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, very good, let's continue the mediation, but why on Media southportbeekeepers.co.uk? Any reason for that? Less downtime perhaps? --HappyInGeneral 11:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  If anyone is interested, you can discuss FG articles on a private MediationWiki 

message: As Pirate101 pointed out, we really start to make contributions. Well there is not really possible to make contribution on the main page where there is a revert war going on so I'll set up these draft pages:
* Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong/Draft PRO FalunDafa
* Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong/Draft ANTI FalunDafa
* Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong/Working Towards Consensus SectionBySection
PS: Hope this will work out for everybody
--HappyInGeneral 16:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am glad you found one piece of my advice useful.  : )  Armed Blowfish (mail) 17:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I think this will really help, I'm only sad that I did not realize this before. So, many thanks. --HappyInGeneral 17:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Glad to be of service, Armed Blowfish (mail) 19:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank You :) --HappyInGeneral 21:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  So far, I haven't seen any work in the "Working Towards Consensus" piece. Nonetheless, I have made one edit to the "Pro" draft and one edit to the "Anti" draft. (Personally, I am neutral, and frankly, this isn't really my fight. Pro-Falun Gong sentiment dominates the Internet as far as I can tell.)  —  Rickyrab | Talk 20:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Due to recent changes in the overall situation, I don't think that working on the drafts is very topical at the moment. Just my two cents. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me guess. Exit - Stage Left for User:Samuel Luo and his sockpuppets, eh?  —  Rickyrab | Talk 11:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drafts 

message: Could somebody take a look at the blanking that Samuel, Yueyen and Pirate101 is doing ? 
I would really want to concentrate on the drafts, but removing even the tags from the main page, not to mention the other well sourced informations, it's really something that is against Wikipedia's spirit and rules. I already did a lot of reverts and even reported to the arbitrators as evidence . I would like to take a break from this for a little while.
So can somebody, anybody, overview these changes and if he or she thinks that they should be reverted, to keep these and perhaps even other materials, then do so? 
Thank You. --HappyInGeneral 21:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could somebody take a look to what Samuel is doing? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suppression_of_Falun_Gong&diff=128021623&oldid=127993427]

message: Picture of Tan Yongjie 
Yueyuen, could you please point a wikipedia policy for this removal? The source of this image is mentions so this makes it a well sourced material. --HappyInGeneral 04:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The torture of Tan Yongjie is also documented here . Also these article points that   Associated Press reported the story of Tan Yongjie on July 29, 2001. --HappyInGeneral 04:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This image is from a unreliable source.  Falun Gong is a party of the conflict, citing evidence from its own website causes a conflict of interest. --Yueyuen 02:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was this image removed? 

message: The Mediation Committee is currently discussing whether or not it is
possible for mediation of Falun Gong articles to continue.  We
appreciate your patience and any input you have to offer here.  For the Mediation Committee, Martinp23 20:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation update 

message: I would like to propose the title, "Crackdown on Falun Gong" for this page. Any pro/contra/alternatives for this? Thanks. --HappyInGeneral 00:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in favour of this change. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 03:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It would be a good change for sure. Besides, the word is used widely in the main Falun Gong article. Emanuil Tolev 15:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: I have just noticed an unconstructive revert struggle and wanted to say something. In editing these articles editors should simply follow wikipedia policies. This will make editing much quicker, comfortable and friendly. No one should be whole-sale deleting sourced content, and I think this is a basic thing we can all agree on. I don't think anyone should be introducing content that is not sourced or is fraught with weasel words and everything, and if they do it can simply be deleted. Some of the stuff Dilip fit that category. This is counterproductive for all parties. However, some of the stuff he deleted was relevant, neutrally written and sourced, so it should not have been deleted. 
We should just watch this. There may be a tendency to simply revert an edit that contains both bias and neutrality, rather than scanning the editing and only removing the biased parts. In fact, Dilip, the bias does not belong on wikipedia at all and you should not put it back. But for Jsw, why did you revert a large edit and not examine which parts should be kept and which should not? Wouldn't that have been even better? It will take personal time and care to work on these articles, one that one should be willing to invest. It is not enough to do things in a very slapdash way, in the process creating more work for other editors. This is also a sign of respect towards other editors, and importantly, it will save a large amount of time if we ensure that all edits conform to policy, just that they are more or less neutral, always, always cited to a reliable source, and do not contain weasel words. It is not really hard, after all.--Asdfg12345 13:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just restored the introduction. This is really laborious kind of work. Someone needs to read through both sets of material and more or less combine them, cutting out the bias from each section and coming up with a bland and neutral description of the events leading up to the persecution. All weasel words like in "...at the end of the protest the practitioners dispersed peacefully..." or "after days of the practitioners harrassing their critics...", as well as the others, will all need to be cleaned out. Some of this is hard to do and requires time, care and dedication, but some of it is quite obvious. Why delete the media war section, for example, Jsw? Dilip, why simply replace some material that was there with other material? This is not a productive way to work, and that is not a productive way to respond Jsw. Whoever works on this will need to put in time and care and make sure they do it well please. I still cannot put in time to this yet.--Asdfg12345 13:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please read: note on working methods 

message: TODO: this section should start with an earlier date like when the books about the teachings were banned, and even before that if there is sourced material for it. I'm also looking into how to make a todo list as on the Falun Dafa discussion page. --HappyInGeneral 09:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it's a work in progress now, please feel free to contribute. --HappyInGeneral 16:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improve requirement: Beginning of conflict 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The following articles are found from Wikipedia, among others: Persecution of Jews, Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Muslims, Persecution_of_Bahá'ís, Persecution of Hindus, Persecution of Atheists, Persecution of Zoroastrians, Persecution of Rastafari, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses, Persecution of Germanic Pagans, Persecution of Buddhists, and Persecution of Wiccans. Unless somebody provides a good reason why we should stray from this naming policy, I will rename the article in a couple of days. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 10:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amnesty International uses "persecution": . The same applies to U.S. Government's Congressional-Executive Commission on China: . ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 00:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it's a valid move. --HappyInGeneral 15:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
This article has been renamed  as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 07:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suppression -> Persecution 

message: Please check out:
* Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong/Draft PRO FalunDafa
which is the same as the main article only that it does not have so many disputed and weasel tags. 
Here is the diff for what I am proposing: 
Basically I would still leave in the ActiveDiscuss tags, but the rest I think it would be fine to remove for this version. Please let me know what do you think. Thank You. --HappyInGeneral 14:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well since it looks like nobody has anything to say, well then let's say that in 1 week I'll remove these tags. If there is some objections please let me know. --HappyInGeneral 08:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing tags 

message: In the Kilgour and Matas report they made some extensive research, because one of the points needed for a state sanctioned harvest from a group of people is that the government is stating that, that group of people is the enemy. So in Apendix 7  of their report they collected a lot of statements from the Chinese Communist ruling Party which shows that the persecution is very real.  Now these are very well sourced because they cite directly Chinese Official websites (which they can not remove, because the directives are still in place because the persecution is ongoing). Now it would be nice to summarize these and include in a separate section of the persecution page. Any help is welcomed. --HappyInGeneral 11:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: for the footnotes, check out the pdf file, the HTML version seems to have a problem.--HappyInGeneral 11:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improve requirement: Statements of the Government of China 

message: Please do not just delete the whole section as done here  because that part contains the background information of what happened before 1999, like the books where baned in 1996, what kind of publications appeared, etc ...  This information is quite important. --HappyInGeneral 14:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that while this background info is important, and that it is nicer to discuss things rather than delete large amounts, basically that all has to go anyway because Clearwisdom is not the best source for a wikipedia article, and especially copy-pasting large amounts of it, this would probably be copyvio. I don't know if those parts were re-worded from Clearwisdom or what, but PCPP is right to bring this up. There is a UN 2004 report which has a fairly comprehensive background section which addresses the leadup to the persecution, and some of this could be used. We are talking about the ban of the books and some motivations and things inside the party, maybe an analysis from different sources and some informational pieces. So we need that section, but it should come from a variety of sources, not only clearwisdom. For now I don't mind if the section goes or stays, but it is obviously something that needs to be fixed properly at some point. Also, one important thing here is to keep away from edit struggles at all costs. These pages have seen enough of that and deserve some proper attention and care, with a mature and cooperate approach to editing.--Asdfg12345 15:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As long as the critical info is present for this section, finding a better source for it it's always a good thing, and also I'm sure it's out there somewhere, so I'm all for it! --HappyInGeneral 13:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginning of the Conflict 

message: It is simply not possible at this stage for anyone to REASONABLY write this article. WAY TOO much disputes are in place and so many things are so fishy about the entire situation, including the Chinese government's motive AND Li Hongzhi's motive. It is possible, as suggested by falun, that the Chinese government have done much they shouldn't in handling the situation; it is too very possible that Li, as claimed by the government, used many CRUEL ways to manipulate followers to do his bidding for various reasons. Much of this is too foggy to know now, in fact, many things, because they are spread verbally only, may never be known.
THE ONLY FAIR AND CIVIL WAY to protect the integrity of WIKIPEDIA is NOT to debate about falun gong here; this is an encyclopedia w/ESTABLISHED TRUTH, not personal belief, one-sided story, or rootless claims and speculation. I WHOLEHEARTEDLY BELIEVE THAT IT IS THE BEST TO SIGNIFICANTLY CUT THE CONTENTS OF THIS PAGE IF NOT TO DELIETE IT ALL TOGETHER, BECAUSE WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PLACE FOR DEBATE ABOUT THE RIGHT OR WRONG OF A POLITICAL STRUGGLE. -- Unsigned comment by Harrygao
: To do that you will first have to point out which part is not according to wikipedia spirit and policies. --HappyInGeneral 15:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is absolutely no confusion here. There is more than enough material from academic sources of the high repute. Governments and Human Rights organizations around the world agree on the situation in China. The only problem is that some users are routinely deleting well sources information. For instance the staged fire incident so much well sourced information presented has all been deleted! Other examples include The kigour Matas Report or statements from EU, US HR etc. It is not too surprising that such a thing would happen on a public encyclopedia, given the methods CCP uses to cover up critical information from the public. There are people who chose to work to cover up for criminals! The confusion is merely created by these people,  working through irrational edits and reverts to cover up very well sourced information. That is not a big issue, their edits all violate wikipedia policies and can be dealt with accordingly
Dilip rajeev 16:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simply not possible 

message: Some time ago, I tagged the article . Unfortunately, the huge chunks of block quotes which caused me to tag it are still in the article. So please fellow editors do not be surprised when I will shortly delete the entire mass of block quotes, substitute a  template in the interim. Shortly thereafter, I will attempt to reinsert concise carefully reconsidered and non-POV text extracted therefrom, paying attention to WP:UNDUE, a policy which certainly does not seem to be at all adhered to here within the group of FG articles. Ohconfucius 07:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright issues

message: Substituted at 21:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment