Ohconfucius (talk | contribs) |
Ohconfucius (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 263: | Line 263: | ||
Agreed. I cringed when I read Sisci describe He Zuoxiu as a mild mannered and soft spoken professor that I couldn't wait to put that into the article with a touch of irony. [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] 15:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC) |
Agreed. I cringed when I read Sisci describe He Zuoxiu as a mild mannered and soft spoken professor that I couldn't wait to put that into the article with a touch of irony. [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] 15:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
==Barnstar== |
|||
{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};" |
|||
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:Barnstar of Humour3.png|100px]] |
|||
|rowspan="2" | |
|||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Barnstar of Good Humor''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I hereby award you with this barnstar as an appreciation of your indefatigable good humour. Thanks for your encouragement to stay [[WP:COOL|cool]], to persevere in the face of hostility, seize the challenge of the Falun Gong series of articles. Above all, thank you for teaching me that it's not just the end result which matters, but that the journey is equally if not more important. [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] 08:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
Revision as of 08:11, 11 October 2007
Userboxes | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Sorry to have bothered you while your on your break. I have created a discussion regarding the disputed edits to Li Hongzhi. You can find the discussion here →Talk:Li_Hongzhi#Disputed_Edits. Since you have been involved in the article, your input is requested... but I understand if you have better things to do. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
It's fine but I can't spend a long time on that right now. The articles are all in flux at the moment anyway so I don't feel it is pressing to do that. I don't have that much access to internet and I have to pay to use it, so I won't use it very much but just thought I would check now and then.--Asdfg12345 19:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.
- Falun Gong and all closely related articles are placed on article probation. It is expected that the articles will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that information contained in them will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. The articles may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review.
- Mcconn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
- Samuel Luo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from editing Falun Gong-related articles or their talk pages.
- Tomananda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from editing Falun Gong-related articles or their talk pages.
- Violations of paroles and probations imposed on parties of this case shall be enforced by blocks for an appropriate period. Blocks and bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Log of blocks and bans.
For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 06:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Crackbrained nature of Falun Gong
I wanted not to engage you in this, but just to tell you that Falun Dafa has on the whole only taught me to be a simpler and better person, and allowed me to appreciate my life in a deeper sense. I understand myself in a different way and have a mucher clearer mind now. This is something I could not at all have expected, and I feel extremely grateful and content. It is simple to me. I remember reading what one practitioner said in China before the persecution, which is that Falun Dafa just teaches people to be good, and that being a practitioner is essentially the matter of preparing for, or coming to terms with, one's own inevitable death. In this sense, if it has not harmed anyone and since the people who do it say that it is great and helps them a lot in this way, I think that a reasonable person should conclude that personally they have nothing against it. I only write this now to express this, with the expectation that you have nothing against Falun Dafa.--Asdfg12345 23:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I consider most religions lacking in intellectual coherence. I celebrate whatever benefit it gives its practitioners. Fred Bauder 01:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Falun Gong
If that is what you're doing, believing in yourself and believe what you're doing is good, then please go do that and show it through your actions. Because thus far you and your fellow practitioners have done very little to convince me, and a large number of other objective observers, that you are true to your word.
And because this subject has been discussed innumerable times with the same general circular logic, please never talk to me again. It is not necessary to reply to this message. I quite frankly think any more discussion between us is as much a waste of your time as it is mine. Inform your fellow Dafa practitioners of the same thing. Colipon+(T) 05:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Communists-against-FLG-1.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Communists-against-FLG-1.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Response
Note: although I completely disagree with the following sentences: "In the face of the deep injustice of the persecution of Falun Gong and the subsequent smear campaign, the cruel torture and beatings of innocent people including women, and the systematic, profit-driven live organ harvesting, a call to integrity is truly fitting. I think to recognise this is the most important thing," for reasons that I have previously noted - that I contest FG allegations to the utmost - I do thank you for a generally positive farewell message. Your positive turnaround to becoming a polite and mature editor is appreciated and good for Wiki (and Falun Gong, as supposed to more radical users like Omido and Dilip_rajeev), although Wiki certainly needs a few rule-abiding anti-FGers to provide a more balanced picture for FG-related entires currently!
It seems as if I share many of the same viewpoints as Fred Bauder about Falun Gong (incl during the Arb case) so it would be better if we left on positive terms, but more importantly, recognition that we agree to disagree on our viewpoints of what is going on. The statement made on the FG discussion page was hopefully more of a reconciliation one that could be agreed by both sides, so please don't exploit it :) Nice to have been informed what FG was all about though; it was an educational experience for sure, and I certainly do not hesitate to sincerely thank you and the other FG people for that. Jsw663 16:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:Compassion Edition6.pdf
Thanks for uploading Image:Compassion Edition6.pdf. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Dafa-winterpractice.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Dafa-winterpractice.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 12:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- You put up a number of images asserting that FG/Clearwisdom/ClearHarmony.. etc allow use subject to attribution. I have lookes at the sites and the waivers do not appear to be in very prominent or "logical" places. Do you have the rrelevant page(s) which says so, whether generally or specifically on one image. Ohconfucius 07:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I sent them an email about it ages ago and they replied and said something along the lines of "anyone is free to use to use the photos on our website (except the ones from third party reports) as long as they note they came from Clearwisdom". I'd copy you the precise text, but I just did a quick search now but couldn't find the email. My inbox was purged a few months ago. I'll send them another one now.--Asdfg12345 12:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I take your point about what I wrote to the lead section; I was thinking out loud about the opener. Each article starts off with "'Namespace refers to the something of somewhere by someone", and I was trying to replicate that in the lead, instead of having a C&P section from the main article.
If anything, we need to create a lead which could be pasted to the main FG article as introduction to the persecution section, and not the other way round. Ohconfucius 09:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- yeah that's right. I think a general run down of the relevant third-party literature is what is there already, but there is no explanation from the CCP side of things, (weren't there some paragraphs about "hoodwinking" the public etc.?,), or from falun gong (jiang zemin's jealousy, political opportunism, ccp's need to control people). so those things might be useful. plus some quick rundown of analysis from some academics of the motivations of the persecution. got to give this a break now. did not expect to spend time on wiki right now; did not budget for it. some images got deleted!! those media war ones. got to find them and put them on later. bye for now. pease don't delete porter, he is fine. just an academic's thesis. it's obvious luo was up to no good anyway, right?--Asdfg12345 09:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
You've been a busy bee. It troubles me that you last edit was the most radical, or something has gone horribly wrong, unwittingly: your last edit may have been a C&P from a much earlier version which I cannot track - the NPOV and other tags, and a lot of stuff which we cleaned up is back. Could it have been the fatigue? I've just reverted to the version prior to it and I'll start working from there. Ohconfucius 02:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Quite possibly. I certainly wouldn't deliberately do anything I thought you would find overly objectionable. You can be sure of that. Just let me take a look at a few things. I dearly hope you haven't undone large amounts of work/additions. I restored some information which had been deleted in some way. I didn't do any kind of blanket restoration, but scrutinised every element, and did a lot of rearranging. I would sincerely hope that you consider these changes rather than simply reverting to an older version.--Asdfg12345 03:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh shit. Okay, please just wait till I find out what happened. It looks like somehow things got reverted to a much older version, even deleting much of my own work. That definitely wasn't intentional. Thanks for understanding...--Asdfg12345 03:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm relieved. I suspect you had an old version in edit mode from which you were doing copying, and that you inadvertently pressed the "save page" key before closing the browser. Ohconfucius 09:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Who knows the broken down mind of an idiot suffering severe fatigue?--Asdfg12345 04:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Disagree with your edits. I have been trying to take things out of "quotes" and you appear to be putting them back. Most of them are strictly unnecessary: For example, I inserted 'Li Hongzhi claims it was entirely spontaneous' and you changed 'claimed' back to 'said', you also put back "came… No one mobilized them, no one told them." Please could you explain to me what benefit do you think that phrase brings, when the 'entirely spontaneous' means exactly the same thing? Ohconfucius 05:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I have a far less strong stand on this than nearly every other point of contention so far. Please, let me take those parts out. I thought it was better with those final lines "No one mobilized them, no one told them." I just find it more illustrative of the idea I see that is trying to be expressed... "No one mobilized them."... Language has many connotations, and this use of language seems to well express the viewpoint that Falun Gong claims, that there is no kind of "mobilization," or organisation, nothing behind the scenes, everything is ad-hoc. I just saw more significance in this trailing remark than perhaps others might. Let me remove that now. Just to explain. I think there were some important things that were restored. I understand the use of "quotes" not in an ironic or pejorative sense, but that they are making clear that those parts are quoted, or the ideas being directly expressed in the material. It may not be necessary to employ them as much as I have been. I guess it is again quite subtle. The difference, to me, is that when you say "Edward said the food had an "awful" taste," that "awful" is meant to be the word of Edward. That is not part of your precis, or paraphrasing, summarising of the situation with Edward and the food. You could say "Edward found the taste of the food displeasing" and you'd summarise probably the situation well enough, but I guess I just find it more meaningful to directly point out which parts came from the source. It also means it is not like wikipedia itself is saying that thing is such and such, but making clear that it is the source said that. Again it is subtle. In many cases I'd just be happy with your view on it. Some things simply can't be conveyed though, without this. I don't think you could say that Jiang was "muttering incessantly," or the regime "went nuts" without putting that in quotations. At the same time, in some cases (in this case) I think it's important that the original meaning of the source be conveyed as much as possible. So carving things up and paring them right back to their very basic message I think is sometimes good and sometimes not. I think sometimes the subtleties are very important to get across and sometimes the general theme is. Really though, if I change something back, and you change it back again, I'd just prefer to compromise with you and not fight you on it.--Asdfg12345 13:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Tks for your time on your considered reply, and for your understanding. I grant that you have not objected to my removal of most of the block quotes, and I still feel that there is still a tendency within the various article to use quotemarks excessively, which is why I have tried to remove them. I would agree that it is not easy, which is why I am doing this rather slowly, with frequent checking back to the source, in order not to pervert the meaning. Obviously, the level of detail must be carefully considered, and I think that in the majority of cases, the reader of article would be most interested in the "feel" of the subject as a whole, and less of "exactly" what so and so said, so there is a problem when every other word (I exaggerate) of a paragraph appears in quotes. I now see the point you make with the Zhongnanhai quotes about Jiang, that they portray his state of mind, and does add something to the portrayal of paranoia which the authoritarian and control freak regime which cannot be described otherwise. Ohconfucius 05:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Falun Gong says it is not organised, has no registers, but the Chinese Government says it is a tightly organised cult with "its supreme organ in China is the Falun Dafa Research Society (FDRS) in Beijing. Under the FDRS, there are 39 general stations, 1,900 instruction centres, and 28,263 exercising sites, controlling a total of 2.1 million practitioners". Can I ask what you find objectionable about what Xinhua says? Don't you think this a relevant propaganda to be cited? Ohconfucius 01:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
yes of course, why? Did i delete this or somethng? This should go somehwere in the persecution stuff. if I have been remiss and just deleted it without putting it in another spot that's a mistake on my part. i probably deleted from one spot then forgot to put it in the other spot. i seem to remember it being in the 'background' of falun gong section on the main page, and i probably thought it didn't belong this, since it is post persecution. can put it in the 'ban and crackdown' maybe, or 'media war' might be good, whatever you reckon. I've been a bit busy of late, and hope to start contributing more soon--Asdfg12345 04:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't find it any more, so I think that's what happened. When I get a moment, I'll find somewhere appropriate in 'Persecution' to put it. Ohconfucius 08:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
By the way--I won't revert it, I don't think you'd appreciate that--but of that Li Hongzhi quote, I think you took out the part that was most relevant. The point is contextualising Falun Gong within this framework, and those first few comments "Since the time Dafa was made public, I have unveiled some inexplicable phenomena in qigong as well as things that hadn’t been explained in the qigong community." are directly related to this contextualisation. This is how Li Hongzhi presented Falun Gong, and how people understood Falun Gong. What follows is less directly relevant to this point ... "But this isn’t the reason why so many people are studying Dafa. It’s because our Fa can truly enable people to Consummate, truly save people..." etc. -- all that is less relevant in my opinion. I would strongly suggest leaving the quote in its entirety, or if you are keen to delete something from it, something from the back can be deleted. Like the last sentence, you can just delete the last sentence instead of the first one. How's that sound? --Asdfg12345 04:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I admit to not catching the importance of the bit I deleted, so I'll re-read it and try to rewrite it in plain English and outside of quotes. Ohconfucius 08:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I hope to spend a bit of time on the pages in 22 hours or so. I am thinking that particular item may be better left as a quote, with maybe the final sentence deleted to make it shorter. The quote itself gets to the point fairly succinctly, and sometimes I don't think there is always value added by paraphrasing. Of course, sometimes there definitely is. We can discuss it. I am just thinking the first two sentences in this case do the job well enough. Of course, I wouldn't object if there is nothing lost with the paraphrase. My time is tight with some assessment tasks due for my university, but I hope to start contributing again very soon. --Asdfg12345 14:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no contention, my friend. Ohconfucius 01:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Falun Gong and live organ harvesting
Perhaps you've been too busy to notice what has been going on here: I have made quite a few changes to the article, and have removed one of the transcripts. I think what we have is enough. please could you review it when you have some time. Ohconfucius 02:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, please note that I did not read the article, but just looked at the headings and scanned it very, very quickly. I think I might be repeating some of my thoughts on the other page.
Introduction: I don't think should get into the specifics of the claims re Sujiatun, and the denial of them. I think it should mention quickly what the allegations are broadly and the responses. Maybe like a few sentences on sujiatun, then abit on the k/m report. mention the general allegations, then mention them with respect to sujiatun with ccp response, then k/m and govt response. then finally round off with how third parties have taken up the claims.
generally: I think it should go chronologically through the movements in the topic. Should be a section for transplant law in China, about what the laws have been/were, how they changed, what the ccp says is the source of their organs, just generally the organ transplant situation in China. They say they get them from prisoners, so this needs to be mentioned, and also about the changes in law that have taken place. They've changed it several times, one even quite recently.
next I think it should have a section for Sujiatun, and have the for & against on this point, I think it's important to give this its own section, and not confuse the sujiatun allegation with the wider claims.... but actually I have to read it and think about how it should be laid out, or how I think it might be best, and we can share ideas about it. Right now, personally I think it is a bit of a dog's breakfast. I may not have read it properly yet, though. It just seems undisciplined, scrappy, and a bit vague. Not to mention that K&M are the strongest voices in this now, travelling around giving speeches, Kilgour calling to boycott the olympics, and the fact that the CCP has not responsded to the substance of their claims at all. I think there should be more detailed discussion of the K&M report, and a subsection there for CCP response. To be honest I had thought to deal with this last, because it is the most acute. Further, I know there are a series of speeches given by Kilgour and Matas in Australia recently, the transcripts of which should be available on the internet sometime in the near future, and I was kind of holding out for them. They distil many of the important points they considered, and talk about how the ccp responded, along with other general comments. They talked about the CCP's involvement in Darfur, too. I think it's fine to take out the transcripts from the main article and have them featured on the side in boxes. I don't think they should be given undue importance/word count. Just excerpts from the most egregious maybe, a couple of those in one long box down the side, might be a good idea. Then the article can go through the report, and mention the some of the evidence quickly, and elaborate on some other parts of it, and exclude a bunch of it that is peripheral. Those are my thoughts, just for now.--Asdfg12345 12:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Persecution
What is the significance/importance of this phrase: "In a paper entitled "Falun Gong Is a Cult," the Chinese government claimed that Falun Gong supporters surrounded the offices of the newspaper in protest.[18]"? - Is the protest by FG disputed, for instance? I removed the name of the article as not relevant whether chronologically or contextually. Note that I have moved mention of the 'FG is a cult' article to the 'cult label' section. Ohconfucius 13:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Alright. I thought the title was relevant. The nature of the gathering is disputed; "surrounded" is questionable. I imagine they would have just milled around out the front or something, not actually surrounded the place like they were preparing for some kind of siege. It's quite minor. Mentioning the ridiculous title allows for a contextualisation of the language used in it, ie "surrounded." Let's not spend more time on this. Whatever you decide.--Asdfg12345 14:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Self-immo
Could you point out where it was "clarified". Just by looking at the article, one can see the original posting date and that it had been modified (last mod 22 mar), but there is no explicit mention of clarification. BTW Is there anywhere where we can see the original message? Ohconfucius 02:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I might misunderstand. I thought the time article, or some other newspaper, said that after that message was published "beyond the limits of forbearance," then some New York practitioner published some message explaining 'what this means is x yz'. correct me if i am wrong. you can find that, just search that title + "Li Hongzhi"--Asdfg12345 04:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
MfD
FYI: proposed this bunch of obsolete working drafts for deletion. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Falun Gong/Working Anti-FG Ohconfucius 04:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
yeah of course delete them. the history and epistemology pages ought to be deleted too.--Asdfg12345 04:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- history is OK as a redirect, Theoretical and epistemological studies on Falun Gong has been prodded. Ohconfucius 06:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
You may be aware of this piece of research. Perhaps you will understand my continued questioning of Porter (and similar works) as a reliable source ;-) Ohconfucius 07:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes I've seen this once. Obviously it's an elaborate farce. I don't think it has too much to do with Porter though--do you?--Asdfg12345 13:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Obviously ;-) It just proves that anyone can publish a "thesis" and get it presented in front of a wide audience, but that it takes a lot more for it to be just a marginal view, and that is endorsement by the wider community. Ohconfucius 15:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC) I see you've been putting back quite a lot of the stuff I removed. I still think much of it is clutter, eg the torture examples, which are already well covered. Also, Munro gets a prominent billing, and although gets challenged also gets a right of reply. I think that looks too much like obvious bias. I suggest we worked that rebuttal into a more fluidly opposed text without the for and against. Ohconfucius 15:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't want repetition, but the specifics are essential to mention. I don't think those guys actually responded to him though. I mean, he's obviously got them nailed. If there was anything more to make it appear unbiased, we should do it. A problem though, is that they are wrong, and portraying it neutrally will just end up showing that. I think thesis/antithesis is often a meaningful way of presenting information. Essentially they (munro/lee&kleinman) are portraying conflicting accounts of the situation, and Munro clearly makes his position more convincingly. He also replies to Stone, who's obviously exercising wilful ignorance, or is benefiting materially by maintaining the jellyfish position. A combination of both, I'd say. Maybe more of Stone could be put in... I'd welcome how you think it could be improved. I think Munro's response to their articles should still be quite clear, though.--Asdfg12345 13:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- They being quite naïve and are taking WP:AGF too far. I think they must be wearing tunnel vision glasses. I've been contemplating moving some more of the psych abuse stuff to the psychiatry article, but there is a lot of stuff specific to FG. I could copy it over and make it more general, but that may not be "proper". Even just copying it over as it is, without the rich context of abuse and non-compliance, would not do justice. let me know what you think. Ohconfucius 01:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Just found this article: Potentially a better home for much of the psych abuse stuff is Ankang (asylum). Ohconfucius 01:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
All of the psych abuse stuff on the persecution page is Falun Gong specific. I am sure these writers have done work on the system in general. Munro's colombia article is huge and only one section is on Falun Gong. If someone had such an inclination, they could include much of this info on the Ankang page. 75kb for the article is not too long, and I don't think that is expected to grow too much from here. I don't think the psych abuse from the persecution page should be moved to ankang page.
There are three munro articles, one from 2000, two from 2002. The one from 2000 is the big one (some of which is on that link) and has a section on Falun Gong. One from 2002 is "Political Psychiatry in Post-Mao China and its Origins in the Cultural Revolution," the other is "On the Psychiatric Abuse of Falun Gong and Other Dissenters in China: A Reply to Stone, Hickling, Kleinman, and Lee" http://www.cecc.gov/pages/hearings/020702/munro.pdf --you should be able to search and find both these pdfs online.
As for below, aren't those two "deemed unworthy of mention", I don't know, i just did this search: http://www.google.com.au/search?q=Robin+munro+deemed+mention+worthy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
I hope you don't move everything to the Ankang page. It's all specific Falun Gong stuff right now, not much at all on the general Ankang situation--and the article doesn't seem too long, and this section not long enough, to warrant another daughter article--does it?--Asdfg12345 02:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
"Not worth mentioning"
I'm sure you're right, but just wanted to check that what is attributed to the Govt is in fact just so. An old version was not even ambiguous. In fact made little sense. (see comparison) Ohconfucius 14:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry dude you will have to specify what you mean--I can't tell what you want to draw my attention to. It's possible that I've made a mistake. If you mean about the Munro thing, where he goes "was not deemed worthy of mention" ? I just took that much of Munro's text out of quotation marks a short time ago, about him comparing the time period and the apparent claims about Falun Gong admissions to mental hospitals. He says that this coincidence was "not deemed worthy of mention." But I don't know if this is what you are referring to. Please let me know. This journal article is available from the net, I am pretty sure. --Asdfg12345 15:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
You nearly got it. You will see from the two versions below that it is/could be the same statement appearing in two quite different contexts. I just wanted to check which was correct.
- "Munro points out that at in these reports, the coincidence "between the reportedly very sizeable increase in Falun Gong admissions to mental hospitals," and "the fact that it was during this same period of that the government began preparing its nationwide public crackdown", was not"deemed worthy of mention."<ref name="Munro2002"> p 114"
- "government began preparing its nationwide public crackdown. He remarks that this was "deemed unworthy of mention" by Chinese authorities.<ref name="Munro2002"> p 114"
Ohconfucius 01:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Need some help with the dates: Munro is referenced throughout as 2002, but the article by that title I found was in 2000. Is there another article by the same name published in 2002? If not, the Munro refs should all be changed. Ohconfucius 01:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Question: "I Do Not Agree with Youth Practicing Qigong," was published on On April 19, in the Youth Scientific and Technological Review, a publication of Tianjin Normal University, or was it published on April 11, 1999 in Tianjin College of Education’s Youth Reader magazine, per the article? Ohconfucius 04:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Group exercise at Zhongnanhai
Thought that was rather amusing comment, but I see you removed it! Ohconfucius 14:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh i guess it just escaped me. I'll put it back. I guess it is kind of funny.--Asdfg12345 14:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll warrant that at the beginning it was not a decision directly to persecute them. Jiang thought it would be over very quickly. It became a persecution at least by October, though. But their intentions at the beginning were simply to permanently crush it into the ground so it would not exist any more. I think this is a most idiotic notion when it comes to concepts of cultivation practice and the meaning of cultivation. I had seen Sisci's article before. I still can't help being slightly reviled at the kind of thinking expressed in it. I would hope it is born of ignorance, but experience has shown that this may not be the case... it's good to have this kind of perspective in the article though, in terms of the wiki. --Asdfg12345 14:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I cringed when I read Sisci describe He Zuoxiu as a mild mannered and soft spoken professor that I couldn't wait to put that into the article with a touch of irony. Ohconfucius 15:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Barnstar of Good Humor | ||
I hereby award you with this barnstar as an appreciation of your indefatigable good humour. Thanks for your encouragement to stay cool, to persevere in the face of hostility, seize the challenge of the Falun Gong series of articles. Above all, thank you for teaching me that it's not just the end result which matters, but that the journey is equally if not more important. Ohconfucius 08:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC) |