Talk:610 Office

message: There is no reliable source of information provided here; Interviews cannot be taken as de facto reliable; Just as nobody treats Comical Ali's spiel as reliable, even though it was given substantial press coverage. In this case, interviewee could be POV, there has been no established research on the existence of the 6-10 Office, and the "Uphold Justice" and its affiliate sites publicly states that their reports are for the sole purpose of presenting a one-sided view of affairs. No affirmatory research to support the stance of either the interviews or the "General Report" exists. --Miborovsky  03:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Old commentary

message: The latest available material on the topic present a lot more information on the 6-10 office than is currently touched upon by this article. See, for instance, the Congressional-Executive commission on China, Annual Report 2008. 
Congressional-Executive commission on China, Annual Report 2008: 
“An extrajudicial security apparatus called the 6-10 Office monitors and leads the suppression of groups that the government deems to be `cult 
organizations,' including groups that self-identify as Christian. ”
"On June 10, 1999, former President Jiang Zemin and Politburo member Luo Gan established an extrajudicial security apparatus called the '6-10 Office.'  This entity was charged with the mission of enforcing a ban on Falun Gong and carrying out a crackdown against its practitioners, which commenced on July 22, 1999, when the government formally outlawed the movement. Falun Gong practitioners describe it as a `traditional Chinese spiritual discipline that is Buddhist in nature,' which consists of `moral teachings, a meditation, and four gentle exercises that resemble tai-chi and are known in Chinese culture as `qigong.' '  Tens of millions of Chinese citizens practiced Falun Gong in the 1990s.. "
"Publicly available government documents detail the central role of the 6-10 Office in the persecution of Falun Gong..." 
"6-10 Offices throughout China maintain extrajudicial 'transformation through reeducation' facilities that are used specifically to detain Falun Gong practitioners who have completed terms in reeducation through labor (RTL) camps but whom authorities refuse to release. The term 
`transformation through reeducation' (jiaoyu zhuanhua) describes a process of ideological reprogramming whereby practitioners are subjected to various methods of physical and psychological coercion until they recant their belief in Falun Gong."
Gao Zhisheng, a lawyer who has defended various Chinese activists, exposed numerous forms of torture and violence employed by the 6-10 Office against Falun Gong  practitioners. Gao describes the 6-10 Office as a "Gestapo-like organization" with "powers that no civilized state in the world would even consider trying to obtain." He further notes that "of all the true accounts of incredible violence that I have heard, of all the records of the government's inhuman torture of its own people, what has shaken me most is the routine practice on the part of the 6-10 Office and the police of assaulting women's genitals." Gao went missing in September 2007 following the public release of a letter he sent to the U.S. Congress and remains in detention at an undisclosed location.
Dilip rajeev (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Please use the latest sources to update this article

message: Hello my friend . If it is not too much trouble, I would really be super curious as to why you made this edit, which included deleting several paragraphs of sourced and relevant content. I don't mean to put any pressure on you, and I know that "delete first, ask questions later" is just "your way," but I would just really like to understand how that material could be made acceptable to your tastes. I'm sorry to have been harsh before, it's just that I didn't understand. But please, explain why that information, mostly sourced to the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, which is probably one of the best sources available on the topic of Falun Gong, should be deleted from the page. Just for your kind information, below are a few excerpts from the CECC document (you're not expected to have read the relevant parts of it, and I know it's all just U.S. propaganda against China, but just for your information):
Publicly available government documents detail the central role
of the 6–10 Office in the persecution of Falun Gong. Since its inception,
the 6–10 Office has also expanded its targets to include other
religious and qigong groups that the central government deems
‘‘harmful.’
An April 2008 notice posted on the Gutian county government
Web site in Fujian province describes the central government’s
‘‘basic policy’’ outlawing the practice of Falun Gong and outlines
five primary tasks to implement: (1) ‘‘explicitly order the dissemination
of information regarding the ban [on Falun Gong],’’ (2)
‘‘carry out comprehensive administration [of the policy],’’ (3) ‘‘fully
utilize all legal weapons, sternly punish the criminal activities of
cult ringleaders and key members,’’ (4) ‘‘do a good job at transformation
through reeducation for the great majority of practitioners,’’
and (5) ‘‘prevent external cults from seeping into the area,
reduce the conditions that allow cults to propagate.’’
Aggressive surveillance is a key aspect of the 6–10 Office’s work.
The Wuling Party Political-Legal Committee describes having implemented
a set of three ‘‘responsibility measures’’ to ensure that
‘‘more than 600 Falun Gong practitioners’’ are closely monitored by
the district police, neighborhood committee, and their own relatives.
The Committee also instructs security officials to organize
an ‘‘inspect and control’’ system whereby local police are to
conduct home ‘‘visits’’ of Falun Gong practitioners three times per
day.In order to monitor more ‘‘die-hard’’ practitioners, public security
forces are to form an ‘‘inspection and control small group’’ to
carry out ‘‘24-hour surveillance.’’
6–10 Offices throughout China maintain extrajudicial ‘‘transformation
through reeducation’’ facilities that are used specifically
to detain Falun Gong practitioners who have completed terms in
reeducation through labor (RTL) camps but whom authorities
refuse to release. The term ‘‘transformation through reeducation’’
(jiaoyu zhuanhua) describes a process of ideological reprogramming
whereby practitioners are subjected to various methods
of physical and psychological coercion until they recant their
belief in Falun Gong.
Sorry to use your time like this--just when you get a minute, please take a quick look at the above, and leave a note here about whether it's acceptable. Thanks! --Asdfg12345 00:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Depending on the outcome of the RfC, I will pursue some other dispute resolution measures, perhaps mediation, as long as you edit any page I am editing. Simply deleting information because it's "nothing but a blalant attempt to appeal to emotions," particularly when from such good sources, is really inappropriate, in my view. I can simply not imagine myself or others who have been labelled pro-Falun Gong contributors making similar deletions and forms of argumentation. I find it out of order and highly unusual. Brady's book took a decade of research, including interviews, primary source documents, and so on. Her's is perhaps the latest and most comprehensive, but the CCP's apparatus of indoctrination and propaganda has been studied extensively. Another page you may want to check is Thought reform in the People's Republic of China. I will make no further changes until the outcome of the RfC is clear or some other method for resolving this is found. Maybe an AE case would be in order. --Asdfg12345 03:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for deletions and restructuring lead? 

message: Could we vote or decide which to use? I personally prefer the latter, though the former gets many more ghits. But in scholar, the latter is more prominent. In the latest book on the persecution by Tong, "610 Office" is used. If no one disagrees, then I would suggest "610." --Asdfg12345 02:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 6-10 or 610?

message: Asdfg has just stated on my talkpage that this office/organization does not exclusively relate to Falun Gong. Assuming good faith and taking his word for it I am going to tag it as . 
Asdfg, I think you are in limbo now. Either this is mainly about Falun Gong, and you violated your topic-ban, or it is not mainly about Falun Gong, then that aspect is given undue weight in the article. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note to editors of this article 

message: I have to say that I am beginning to see a pattern of systematic removal of material and distortion of sources on articles related to violation of human rights by the CCP. In this article, I would bring the editor's attention to this edit . The lead is distorted to white-wash the 6-10 office , ad an entire paragraph, sourced to Congressional Executive Reports, 2008:
.
The report states: ""6-10 Offices throughout China maintain extrajudicial 'transformation through reeducation' facilities that are used specifically to detain Falun Gong practitioners who have completed terms in reeducation through labor (RTL) camps but whom authorities refuse to release. The term `transformation through reeducation' (jiaoyu zhuanhua) describes a process of ideological reprogramming whereby practitioners are subjected to various methods of physical and psychological coercion until they recant their belief in Falun Gong."
blanked with no explanation. By no means an isolated incident. You see the same editor blank 12 paragraphs from Propaganda in the PRC page here. I think a systematic analysis would reveal a lot more evidence of this. 
This, I believe, is a concern worth looking deeper into. I am collecting  systematic evidence of this. If other editors have similar concerns, or have noticed such patterns of blanking, and are interested in throwing light on it, kindly do share.
Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, I haven't deleted anything. The paragraph was summarized to:
The name of the body draws from of its date of formation: June 10, 1999. According to the 2008 Congressional Executive Commission Report on China, the 6-10 Offices maintain extrajudicial 'transformation through reeducation' (jiaoyu zhuanhua) facilities, where Falun Gong practitioners are subjected to various methods of physical and psychological coercion until they recant their belief in Falun Gong." 
--PCPP (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

text: If the information in the article matches the tone of the sources available and the content is all well sourced there's no need to "take out key words" per or give undue weight to one side of the story.  If the majority of the sources on a topic are critical of said topic then it's perfectly acceptable to write the article in such a manner and not violate WP:NPOV.  The critical issue is that us editors don't pass judgment or insert POV and only write the articles in accordance with the sources.  Nefariousski (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You wouldn't believe how long such a basic restatement of common sense and wiki policy has been lacking on these pages. And since you don't have a dirty label on you, other editors should actually listen. --Asdfg12345 02:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Distortion of sources and removal of material

message: According to modern definition a large portion of historical documents are defined based upon personal experiences. There are currently many individuals who have removed themselves from this evil office and exposed the truth of the matter, many remain anonymous for personal safety. It was specifically created to persecute Falun Dafa, there are internal documents from the Chinese Communist Party that have surfaced speaking directly on the topic of persecuting Falun Gong practitioners. To disregard The Epoch Times on this subject is to saboteur the discussion and truth. Throughout the world Falun Gong has been embraced by every democratic nation.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resolutedefinition (talk • contribs) 12:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Miscellany 

message: When this page was created, there was a fairly serious dearth of reliable, secondary-source information available on the 610 Office. Consequently, the page was very limited, and contained quite a lot of dubious information (ie. the claim that the 610 Office itself runs over 1000 spies overseas), and mischaracterizations (ie. of 610 being run under the administration of the Ministry of Public Security). In the last couple years, however, several new sources have become available that offer real insights—typically based on an analysis of official documents—on the history, structure, and mandates of 610 Offices at the central and local levels, including James Tong's latest book, the report on the 610 office published by the Jamestown Foundation, and various CECC reports. I've attempted to summarize all the sources I could find in the article, and restructured it in a more systematic way. Hopefully it's an improvement. Homunculus (duihua) 23:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you could have written a more clinical article on the 610 Office (I mean that as a compliment). I've expanded a couple sections a little bit, but not sure what else I could add to it. The only thing that comes to mind is whether any of falungong's lawsuits abroad have targeted this office, but I don't think that's imperative. Well done.—Zujine|talk 18:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision  

message: Someone moved the page to "Central Leading Group on Dealing with Heretical Religions."  I have moved back for two reasons: 
*The WP:COMMONNAME policy says that we should use the name most frequently used. 610 Office is by far the common name, including in the reliable sources. 
*610 Office and the CLGDF are not quite the same thing. The central leading group only exists in the Politburo Standing Committee. The 610 offices operate at every administrative level, and this article is as much about its activities at local levels as anything else. So 610 office is a more accurate title, and it encompasses more. —Zujine|talk 14:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move  

message: In response to this edit, I think the HRW source was used to cite the fact that the 610 Office was named for the date of its creation. The other statement (about how the 610 office was established to oversee the suppression of Falun Gong) is the defining feature of this office, as noted by numerous sources. It should therefore be the opening sentence in accordance with Wikipedia's style guide. Here is how reliable sources have described the 610 Office:
* "At its core, the 610 Office is a plainclothes CCP-based extra-ministerial security force focused on suppressing the Falun Gong spiritual group."
*"the government outlawed [Falun Gong] and launched a long-term campaign of intimidation and persecution, directed by a special organization called the 610 Office."
*"the central-level 6-10 Office [is] an extralegal, Party-run security apparatus created in June 1999 to implement the Party's ban against Falun Gong." 
**"...The "610 office" (named for the date of its founding), which reportedly had been directing the crackdown [on Falun Gong] since June 10, 1999"
*"Publicly available government documents detail the central role of the 6–10 Office in the persecution of Falun Gong."
TheBlueCanoe 18:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sean brought up a good point on a possible neutrality issue on his talk page. When this page was undergoing GA review I tried looking for conflicting points of view or some kind of defence of the 610 Office. It turns out there is very little divergence in the way reliable sources discuss this office. Academic and journalistic sources use the same types of language as human rights sources, writing that the 610 Office's mandate is to crush, eliminate, suppress or crack down on Falungong (and to a lesser extent other religious and qigong groups, though that came later). The Party itself says the mission of the 610 Office is to "disintegrate" and "struggle" against Falungong. Most of the secondary sources in this article actually relied heavily on Chinese government documents for information on the propaganda and reeducation work.—Zujine|talk 06:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If the CCP do not say that the 610 Office was established for the purpose of coordinating and executing the persecution of Falun Gong, how is the current unattributed statement of fact in the narrative voice of the encyclopedia consistent with the mandatory requirements of NPOV, to represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" ? Clearly the CCP's view is significant and has been published by sources that are reliable sources for that view. The article body covers that in some depth. The views of prominent human rights groups, scholars etc are significant too of course. The lead should present both, as views, attributed to the sources of those views or at least not in the voice of the encyclopedia, and it already does that to some extent in the paragraph that starts with "The main functions...". Regardless of diversity of terminology (which as I said I will try to look at when I have time) and the undocumented transformations of alternative terms to become "persecution" in the voice of the encyclopedia, I don't see how the statement "it was established for the purpose of coordinating and executing the persecution of Falun Gong" can possibly be anything other than a policy violation. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic function  

message: I noticed this recent change by another editor and sources do mention cults, so I'm not sure what to make of this.  I'll leave it as cults for now, —PaleoNeonate – 08:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heretical Religions vs cults 

message: The source used didn't mention sterilization or abortion and the sources about the activist do mention it as being his claims.  I attempted to reword and also removed the image since it also contained a sensationalist caption not directly supported by the sources.  Reading it suggested systematic forced abortion for women of religious minorities is taking place or something similar.  —PaleoNeonate – 08:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forced abortions 

message: To add to this article:  information about Peng Bo and his recent prosecution by Xi Jinping. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 08:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: To add to article