Talk:Death of Yu Zhou

A note on some changes

I see this article underwent some pretty big changes, and I can't say I agree with all of them. Let me go down the list here and explain myself:

• With the change to the page name, I did try to make the page as much of a biography as I could by including a section on his background, his band, and some well-sourced commentaries on his lifestyle and personality. But some of those were deleted.
• "After they found illegal Falun Gong paraphernalia in his car" -- which law does this refer to? The Chinese government often claims the illegality of Falun Gong, but it's not actually "illegal" in a strict sense. And none of the sources cited say that the literature was "illegal" either.
• "According to medical authorities, his condition deteriorated in detention as a result of a hunger strike or a complication stemming from his diabetes, a condition and cause of death which his family denies." -- None of the sources attribute this cause of death to "medical authorities". They say that this was "the authorities'" claim, as in "Her brother had died but authorities were unclear about the cause, saying first it was an illness and then later dehydration as a result of a hunger strike."
• There were some biographic details and descriptions that were deleted for no apparent reason. Maybe because they contribute to an understanding of Yu Zhou's personality, but don't relate directly to his death? That includes the Associated Press description of his “Bohemian existence” and his sister's description of his personality.
• There are several places where generic terms to refer to Falun Gong were replaced by "new religious movement." It's not the worst classification, but I prefer to use more general terms, as there's some disagreement about the extent to which Falun Gong should be categorized either as religious or as a movement. Same with the label of "syncretic." I understand some people have described Falun Gong this way, but other observers disagree. Anyway, it's more complicated than the labels can adequately capture.
• "In the mid-1990s, the couple began following Falun Gong, a syncretic new religious movement based on the teachings of Li Hongzhi, an "enlightened" government grain clerk." -- This new wording seems to have the effect of trivializing and ridiculing the belief system, which is just not necessary or appropriate. Such derisive wording isn't found in the sources cited either.
• "After the group staged a surprise demonstration against the Communist Party at its headquarters in Zhongnanhai..." -- the demonstration at Zhongnanhai was not "against the Communist Party of China." It was a request, made in good faith, for legal recognition and the cessation of harassment and defamation in the state-run presses. 16% of Falun Gong practitioners were card-carrying party members at the time. It took about five more years for them to turn on the party.
• " the Party began to treat the movement as a threat to national security" -- that does not capture what happened. The party launched a campaign whose explicit, stated aim was to "eradicate" Falun Gong. I suggest reading the book "Dangerous Medidation" if you'd like more information on this aspect of it. Also, the "evil cult" moniker was applied ex post facto, and was a rhetorical tool used to legitimize the campaign.
• "The group has responded by moving its campaign to overthrow Party rule outside of China." -- Beginning in the middle part of the 2000s, you could say (as the New York Times does) that Falun Gong began to advocate essentially for an end to party rule, but not for its "overthrow." Again, this edit seems to reflect the preferred language and framing of the Chinese government, but it's not really accurate.
• "her association with the banned group" -- sounds ominous. I would just use the language that the Times does: "for her association with Falun Gong."
• This phrase was deleted entirely with no explanation: "Amnesty International wrote that hundreds were sent to prisons or re-education through labor camps where they were at risk of torture."
• "That medical center told his family that he had staged a hunger strike and died from dehydration or some other diabetic complication." -- The implication here, along with the edit to the introduction, is that this was the cause of death as claimed by medical experts. But that wasn't the case. All the sources say that it was "authorities" who asserted this cause of death, and some note that the authorities were very inconsistent in attributing the cause. So I will change back accordingly to "authorities" per the sources.
• It used to read " Yu Zhou's family said that he did not have diabetes, and maintained that he was killed by police." The fact that Yu Zhou's family said he didn't have diabetes was deleted entirely, but that's an important detail.
• This was deleted completely: "His sister, Yu Qun, told the New York Times: “I don’t understand why this happened to them because they didn’t do anything to break the law.”
• "Over a year later, Yu Zhou's family reported that police and prosecutors continued to deny requests for a death certificate or an autopsy." -- I think the previous wording was more detailed and accurate. As the New York Times reported, "The family’s efforts to investigate Mr. Yu’s death have been thwarted by the police and prosecutors, who refuse to allow an autopsy or even issue a death certificate." I tried to capture that "thwarted by police," which suggests there was more than simple inaction.
• "Amnesty International described her as being at risk of torture and ill-treatment in detention." -- this was entirely deleted.
• The government’s "continued 'crusade'" was changed to "continued vigilance," which changes the meaning. The original wording came from the New York Times, and is more accurate, I think.
• I'm not sure about the relevance of the Chinese foreign ministry's propaganda claims against Falun Gong have to do with the reaction. The foreign ministry spokesperson was not reacting to Yu Zhou's death. I might try to see how I could finesse this.
• An external link to a video of Yu's band was removed, but it seems to be compliant with the guidelines on external links.TheBlueCanoe 12:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we have similar concerns, you and I. :) While you don't want wording that "[has] the effect of trivializing and ridiculing the belief system", I also don't want wording that that trivializes or ridicules the campaign against the group. For example, the title "dangerous meditation" is a sarcastic oxymoron which misrepresents the source of the government's concern, which is the group's political-revolutionary activities and not its calisthenics.

For readability, I've divided my responses into sections.

Broad issues

• The scope of the article. There's a convention or guideline somewhere that's widely followed on Wikipedia, which prescribes the use of titles like "Death of x" when our article describes someone who is primarily notable for their death.
  • All of the sources cited include biographical details only insofar as they provide context for the man's death.
  • Some of the "biographical" material just had an inappropriate tone. What is a "bohemian existence"? It's colorful, but not a very factual description. Similarly, we could pull out family quotes of "oh my poor baby, he would never hurt a fly" after the conviction of every violent criminal, but it doesn't say anything other than that the convict has family that unconditionally loves him.
  • Pursuant to the above, the music video is just not relevant. I think you would have written the same article if he weren't an artist but some middle management office worker, would you not? Very little would change.

• Illegality of Falun Gong: yes, it's illegal.
  • According to the AFP article, Yu's wife Xu Na was convicted in a Beijing court of "using a [xiejiao, officially "evil cult" but AFP chose a more literal translation] to undermine the implementation of the law"; it strongly implies that the conviction was related to the material was that paraphernalia found in the car.
  • You enjoyed the quote from Yu Zhou's sister saiyng that "they didn't do anything to break the law", but you left out the second half of the sentence: "they didn't do anything to break the law and they weren't promoting the group," showing that Yu Qun acknowledged that recruiting people to FLG is illegal. She doesn't have any special expertise about the law anyway, and including the quote is too much like a news website.
  • As for whether the FLG media itself was illegal, the Xu Na AFP article suggests that it was, but since it's neither 100% clear nor a big deal, I can remove the description.

• Falun Gong classification: "qigong" is not more general than "new religious movement", and lines up with FLG's own propaganda that portrays itself as apolitical, harmless, and rooted in ancient tradition, against the descriptions of third party sources and antagonists, including mainstream qigong associations.
  • I'm surprised that you would say "government grain clerk" is not found in the sources; it was obviously journalese and I added a direct inline citation to Sheridan. Actually, let me guess: you were consulting Falun Gong's own excerpt of the Sunday Times, which hid the characterization within ellipses,[1] and not the actual times website, or a complete reprint like here[2].
  • Quoting Sheridan (Times), Falun Gong was founded in 1992 by Li Hongzhi, a former government grain clerk who is said to have achieved enlightenment. Oleson (AP), Falun Gong attracted millions of followers in the 1990s with its program of traditional Chinese calisthenics and philosophy drawn from Buddhism, Taoism and the often-unorthodox teachings of founder Li Hongzhi, a former government grain clerk now living in hiding overseas. You can see how I compressed Oleson's description to "syncretic", and how both our journalistic sources use "government grain clerk", so it's by no mean an idiosyncratic choice.

• Early history of the BFFs-turned-frenemies FLG and CPC.
  • Here's how I avoid the issue of "well, your introduction/background does not frame it in my preferred way" and avoid improper synthesis at the same time. Only consult the reliable sources which mention the Yu Zhou case specifically for the history.
  • You're giving the extended explanation of the demonstration from FLG's POV, but avoiding CPC's POV which saw it as a direct challenge to them. Anyway, the fact that they would go to Zhongnanhai and not the Xinhua News headquarters kind of validates the point that they conflated the CPC press and CPC itself, right?

• Framing Issues: this is why we can't have nice things (like DYK)
  • Okay, "overthrow" is debateable, but I'm really not in the mood for a theological dispute about tracts like "The Limits of Forbearance" :) But we can't uncritically accept FLG's unilateral self-description as peaceful, either.
  • My wording made clear that the "evil cult" label came after the decision to ban, or what is described in the press accounts as a long period of FLG infiltration into CPC and CPC ignorance about FLG's organizational structure.

Wording issues

• The ominous, omnipotent "authorities": in general, I replaced the dehumanizing catchall term "authorities" with more specific wording when cited; for example, "police and prosecutors"
  • In the lead summary, I took medical authorities to be synonymous with the authorities from the Qinghe District Emergency Centre [who] told his family that Yu Zhou had died from either diabetes or from a hunger strike from AI. The police probably also presented this explanation, but the hospital's word is first and most authoritative.

• Religion (or a cult) gives you certainty; medical science, not always
  • The fact that authorities gave multiple explanations for his death does not necessarily mean that they are "inconsistent", because non-immediate causes of death are not mutually exclusive. It could be hunger strike-->diabetic complication-->dehydration, or hunger strike-->dehydration, or diabetic complication-->dehydration. Since there was no autopsy, conclusions are difficult to make, which is why I just lay out a factual description instead of a suspicious judgment.

• Playing Doctor: Yu Zhou's sister on his medical conditions
  • Yes, I deleted Yu Qun's denial of her brother's diabetic condition, but I left the redundant sentence beforehand: "Yu Zhou's family said that he was healthy at the time of arrest", which referred to his sister, anyway. Since you restored the sister quote, I'll remove the redundant family quote.

• Whodunnit? Raising the dead and inspecting their bodies
  • "denied requests for a death certificate or an autopsy" is the most specific and factual description possible, and indeed suggests "more than simple inaction". "Thwarted investigation" sounds like spy thriller writing, and is redundant.

• A meme that just won't die
  • "Crusade" is a sensationalist and inappropriate term for normal execution of the law, and especially misplaced when it is FLG who sees itself as fighting a holy war.
  • You can't not argue that "the Chinese foreign ministry's propaganda" about Falun Gong is not relevant to the broader theme which the press says Yu Zhou illustrates: the continuing FLG-CPC war of words, and it's in the source, besides. We don't know if there was a specific question about Yu, but the question had to be a response to at least a question about increased anti-FLG activity.

• "At Risk": weasel words from the mouth of a very political organization
  • At their best, Amnesty International reports are hearsay repackaged as God's own truth: they republish what Wikipedia would describe as "Han Jian issued a statement alleging he was tortured" into "Mr. Han was tortured". To say someone is "at risk" of torture, without a single whisper that they even dreamed that they were tortured, is over-the-top speculation and dramatization designed for the advocacy organization's purpose of promoting detainees' release. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: we include scheduled events only "if the event is notable and almost certain to take place".

• Getting over our allergy to synonyms
  • In the context of your other statements in which you express a belief that Falun Gong is not illegal, your suggestion to change "association with the banned group" to "association with Falun Gong" seems to be an attempt to shield Xu from liability. Since I provided evidence that Falun Gong is indeed prosecutable, would you reconsider?

Shrigley (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It’s clear from your comments that you hold very strong opinions about Falun Gong, the Chinese government, and human rights organizations. You've also made a good deal of unnecessary comments about me--suggesting, for instance, that I want to "shield Xu from liability," when really I just want to follow the wording of the sources and make the sentence clear and neutral. It probably would have been wise for you not be the reviewer for the DYK, given your personal views and history with this topic. But here we are.

Since I don't have time to get sidetracked responding to all this, I'm going to start a new section to just lay out the specific issues where we have not yet been able to reach agreement. TheBlueCanoe 04:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you noticed that throughout our conversations, that I have almost solely discussed content, while you have begun to cast aspersions upon my character in increasingly shrill tones? I'll answer your content queries, but not personal attacks.

P.S.: Aside from that minority of Wikipedians who have no obligations and are living on unearned income, every one of us has to fit article-writing within the nooks and crannies of our own spare time. To say that you "don't have time" to engage in talk page discussion does not impress other discussants, but rather insults them. Shrigley (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

TheBlueCanoe's comments were personal; Shrigley's comments were not. But let's move past that. There's been quite a few unexplained reverts by Homunculus and TheBlueCanoe on Shrigley's quite detailed (and well-explained) edits. I'm going to revert all of them unless Canoe and Homunculus come by to explain their reversions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostromantic (talk • contribs) 01:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Dude, look below and you'll see that the consensus here is against Shrigley/Quigley. He was filibustering with no evidence to support him. Not a single one of the sources cited in the article described Falun Gong either as a new religious movement or as syncretic. It's a weird, uncommon description with accuracy and neutrality problems. TheBlueCanoe 02:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Matters in dispute

I'm going to list the parts of the article where there is disagreement. It probably looks like a lot, but most of the issues actually aren't super significant.

1. There is a disagreement over whether the article should contain the following paragraph:

[Yu Zhou and his wife] were described by the Associated Press as living “a Bohemian existence” in Beijing, and Yu’s sister recalled that he had “a gentle personality and was always thinking of other people."

I am not super attached to this content, but I think it has value, and I don’t see the problem with including it. These details are some of the only ones in the article that paint a picture of Yu Zhou’s personality, lifestyle, and disposition, and I think that’s useful to have in a biography.

2. There is disagreement over how to label Falun Gong. I suggest simply referring to it as a “qigong” practice. This is a neutral, widely accepted, accurate, and fairly precise way of categorizing Falun Gong. There are dozens of academic books and journal articles where Falun Gong is described as a form of qigong. That description is also found in a few of the sources cited in this article.

Shrigley prefers to label Falun Gong as “a syncretic new religious movement”--a term that does not appear in any of the sources cited for this article, and which is not a common or widely accepted description of Falun Gong. The term “syncretic” is very rarely found in books or articles on Falun Gong, and is not used in any of the sources cited. Some experts have described it as a new religious movement, though probably because the more accurate Chinese classification systems (“qigong” or “inner cultivation”) don’t mean anything in the West. None of the sources cited in the article use “new religious movement” to refer to Falun Gong. I would also contend that it may not be entirely accurate or neutral (some definitions of NRMs describe them as “fringe”.)

So, my description is neutral, accurate, and widely used. Shrigley's description is not.

3. There is further disagreement when it comes to characterizing Falun Gong. Shrigley wants the description to read “Falun Gong is a syncretic new religious movement based on the teachings of Li Hongzhi, an "enlightened" government grain clerk.” This is clearly not neutral, and the tone and presentation has the effect of needlessly trivializing and ridiculing a belief system.

I would be open to expanding a bit on the explanation of Falun Gong. For instance, I would be fine with something like this: “Falun Gong is a spiritual practice founded in 1992 by Li Hongzhi. It combines qigong techniques and meditation with a moral philosophy drawing on Buddhist and Daoist traditions.” I think a description like that is neutral, factual, and supported by the sources.

4. We can’t seem to agree on how to explain the Chinese government’s persecution of Falun Gong. In the interest of compromise, I am prepared to accept this version, even though it frankly falls far short of capturing the severity and intensity of the suppression:

”In 1999, after an estimated 10,000 Falun Gong practitioners staged a surprise demonstration at the central government compound at Zhongnanhai, the Communist Party branded it a threat to national security and began persecuting the group, launching a major media campaign against it, and imprisoning its followers.”

Shrigley wants this version:

“In 1999, after an estimated 10,000 Falun Gong practitioners staged a surprise demonstration at the central government compound at Zhongnanhai, the Communist Party branded the group as a security threat and an "evil cult", imprisoning its followers.”

My problem with the second version is that it fails to mention that the Communist Party launched a major campaign to suppress Falun Gong. The suppression has been described by historians as an “unprecedented” political campaign, whose stated aim is nothing short of the eradication of Falun Gong through a “massive propaganda campaign” and state-sanctioned “torture and high-pressure indoctrination.” It is not simple matter of calling Falun Gong names and imprisoning some people.

Several of the sources cited in this article make this very clear. Here’s the New York Times article on Yu Zhou: “In the decade since the Chinese government began repressing Falun Gong, a crusade that human rights groups say has led to the imprisonment of tens of thousands of practitioners and claimed at least 2,000 lives, the world’s attention has shifted elsewhere...According to former detainees and human rights organizations, Falun Gong detainees are frequently subjected to harrowing abuse, particularly those who refuse to swear off their faith.” The article quotes Chinese law expert Jerome Cohen on the “excess and the savagery” of the Chinese government’s actions toward Falun Gong, and it refers to the government’s “propaganda juggernaut” against the group. The State Department report notes that “Some foreign observers estimated that Falun Gong adherents constituted at least half of the 250,000 officially recorded inmates in RTL (reeducation through labor) camps, while Falun Gong sources overseas placed the number even higher.”

I don’t think we’re doing readers any favors by omitting the context about the larger persecution campaign, as it relates directly to what happened to Yu Zhou and his wife.

5. Shrigley wants to include this sentence immediately after the background to the persecution: “[Falun Gong] has responded by moving its campaign to end Party rule outside of China.” This sentence falsely implies that, prior to the persecution, Falun Gong was engaged in a campaign to end Party rule inside China. This is not supported by any source. Shrigley previously tried to insert the claim that Falun Gong tried “overthrow” the Chinese government. That’s also not true and not supported in the sources. On the talk page above, he wrote that Falun Gong was banned because of its “political-revolutionary” activities. This is directly contradicted by reliable sources. Even when Falun Gong practitioners demonstrated at Zhongnanhai in 1999, their aim was to ask for the government to redress their greivances and grant them a legal recognition, not to protest against or to overthrow it. Dr. David Ownby summarizes it well: “There is in my mind little doubt that Li and Falun Gong had little or no political ambition at the outset, but that the movement has become very politicized since 1999, that is, since the beginning of the campaign of suppression. How could it be otherwise, given the posture of the Chinese state?”

Many Falun Gong practitioners around the world have become very vocal opponent of Communist Party rule in China, but that development came well after the persecution against it began, and the sources are clear on this. In any event, I don’t see how any of this is relevant to understanding Yu Zhou’s case.

6. Shrigley has repeatedly deleted this sentence about the Chinese government’s campaign against Falun Gong before the Olympics:

Amnesty International wrote that hundreds [of Falun Gong practitioners] were sent to prisons or re-education through labor camps where they were at risk of torture.

He described statement from Amnesty International as advocacy, and questioned the reliability of the information. I see no advocacy. Instead, I think Amnesty International is a reliable source on human rights issues, and that this background is directly related to Yu Zhou’s case.

7. Shrigley has repeatedly deleted this sentence:

"His sister, Yu Qun, told the New York Times: 'I don’t understand why this happened to them because they didn’t do anything to break the law.'"

One of the reasons he indicated for not liking this sentence is that Yu Qun is quoted “selectively,” and that the last part of the quote was cut off. I am perfectly happy to have the full quote, which is “I don’t understand why this happened to them because they didn’t do anything to break the law and they weren't promoting the group.”

8. Shrigley repeatedly deleted this sentence:

"Amnesty International described her [Yu Zhou’s wife] as being at risk of torture and ill-treatment in detention."

I think this is a neutral, factual presentation. And given that her healthy, 42-year-old husband died after 10 days in custody, it also seems like quite an obvious statement. Shrigley rejects this, declaring that “Amnesty International reports are hearsay repackaged as God's own truth,” and questioning the rigor of their reporting.

9. Shrigley wants to include this sentence into the section on the response to Yu Zhou’s death:

"At a regular press briefing, foreign ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu accused Falun Gong of brainwashing followers into believing that it can cure illness, of leading to the deaths of innocents, and of orchestrating the deadly 2001 Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident."

I have a few issues with this. First, it has nothing to do with Yu Zhou, or to the response to his death. The press briefing took place 1.5 years after Yu Zhou died, and there’s no indication that the foreign ministry spokesperson was talking about Yu Zhou. I am also concerned about uncritically parroting the Chinese government’s accusations against Falun Gong, which have been described as “propaganda” and “misinformation” in reliable sources.

10. There’s some disagreement over the attribution of information. In a previous version, I wrote:

"Human rights observers abroad estimated that over 8,000 Falun Gong adherents were arrested by security forces between December 2007 and June 2008."

Let's compare this to what the reliable sources wrote. From the Congressional Commission report:

“Relying on reports from practitioners and their families in China, sources outside of China, not all of whom are themselves Falun Gong practitioners, estimate that Chinese authorities detained ‘‘at least 8,037’’ practitioners between December 2007 and the end of June 2008 in a nationwide pre-Olympics crackdown”

The New York Times also reported this information in their coverage of Yu Zhou’s death:

“In the past year, as many as 8,000 practitioners have been detained, according to experts on human rights, and at least 100 have died in custody.”

Shrigley changed the text to “Practitioners and their families outside China allege, via the Falun Dafa Information Center, that the state arrested over 8,000 Falun Gong adherents between December 2007 and June 2008.”

I don’t see the Falun Dafa Information Center mentioned in either the Congressional Commission report or in the New York Times. I think the version I wrote was fine, especially after the NYT reference is added.TheBlueCanoe 04:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Good. It looks like we're getting somewhere.

• 1. This article is not a biography. It does not proportionally cover Yu Zhou's early life, career, hobbies, interests, and notable actions. It cannot be a biography, because all "biographical" details come from death articles, because he is notable for dying. Therefore, it is a death article.
• 2. You seem to have ignored my explanation for the word "syncretic", which succinctly sums up the Olsen source and a description which even you like, alluding to roots in Chinese religion, Buddhism, Taoism, and Li's personal "unorthodox" teachings. To imply that Falun Gong is "fringe" (you said it, not me) is nothing but fair, since they aren't a big mainstream or officially-sanctioned religion like Christianity or Islam.
• 3. Again, I refer you to my previous comment, because my description of Falun Gong almost exactly follows that description which I quoted from the two press descriptions that you chose to cite for this article. Neutrality means following the wording of reliable sources, not following Wikipedians' subjective beliefs about what "trivializes" their favored belief system.
• 4. I thought that it was implicit that branding such a group as an "evil cult" is part of a media campaign; that we wouldn't need to use those words "propaganda campaign" which cast the government in a self-serving light.

  Similarly, the word "persecution" evokes unfair suppression of religious and social groups that are widely recognized as legitimate, (which gladly or sadly, depending on your POV, they are not), rather than suppression of dangerous or controversial cults.

• 5. I already agreed with you that "overthrow" was overkill, and that while I could debate this point with reference to reliable sources, that I would not. Let's stick with what the sources which mention Yu Zhou say: Falun Gong admits its campaign to end CPC rule in China since the official crackdown. Whether such motives can be traced to the Zhongnanhai protest or before, we can be agnostic.
• 6. You don't benefit our content dispute by fundamentally misrepresenting my objection to the AI sentences. Whether AI is reliable is beside the point, and I only raised that question for context.

  I don't want to print speculation that they were "at risk" for torture, since it's a subjective and self-interested judgment, rather than a factual statement of what did or was alleged to have happened.

• 7. It is the job of a newspaper to interview anyone that they can, and to reprint their statements in full, even if they may not be qualified to comment on such legal matters. Yu Qun is not a lawyer or official, so she can't say what does or doesn't "break the law", and what she does or doesn't "understand" is trivia.
• 8. See 6.
• 9. Why is it that on the one hand, you want context about the government's media campaign against Falun Gong (see point #4), but on the other hand, you don't want to quote the government in flagrante delicto? Our media source thinks the conference is relevant to Yu Zhou's death by putting it in a story about his death.
• 10. You only cited CECC, not NYT for this information. For the sentence, "Relying on reports from practitioners and their families in China, sources outside of China, not all of whom are themselves Falun Gong practitioners", you choose to emphasize the latter part, while I want to make clear the ultimate source for the information.

  I followed CECC's footnote 127, which quotes ¹²⁷ Falun Dafa Information Center (Online), "Thousands of Falun Gong Adherents Arrested throughout China in Run up to Olympics," 7 July 08. Available online, FDIC says: In recent months, the Falun Dafa Information Center (FDI) has received regular reports from adherents and their families inside China of door-to-door searches and arrests. According to statistics compiled from these reports, there have been at least 8,037 arrests... since December 2007

  Since we have a more specific source for the information, clearly it is more illuminating for readers to be able to judge the reliability of the information by citing FDIC via CECC, rather than unnamed "experts on human rights" via NYT, especially since those "experts" are likely quoting FDIC without attribution (as AI reports often do, sometimes with attribution).

Shrigley (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I restored some of the more egregious of Shrigley's improper deletions of legitimate content. It should be rather self-explanatory: relevant information describing the background, deleted on the basis of Shrigley saying Amnesty International is an advocacy group, for example? And the AP source didn't say anything about a "struggle" with the authorities. The word "struggle" is not even in the article! That's a clear example of manipulating the presentation of a source. Of course, I won't speculate why Shrigley would do that. It's a mystery to me, really it is. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh and I fixed the "syncretic NRM" and "enlightened government grain clerk" (!). Do I need to explain? Well, why wouldn't we just use neutral and normal descriptors? Obviously enlightened grain clerk sounds weird - who uses that particular descriptor? If it can be shown to be widely accepted as a normal, standard, uncontroversial descriptor (waiting for the Ownby/Penny etc. page refs) then we should have it. If not, then why? Why would we use weird descriptions that no one uses? Similarly for syncretic NRM. There are neutral, non-controversial descriptions. Many of these things have in fact been debated at length and with reference to many sources on the main Falun Gong page. This page should just take the lead from how that page presents things, since they're basic points about how Falun Gong should be neutrally presented. There is a many year long consensus, demonstrated by the immense sourcing and stability of that article, about how to present these basic points about Falun Gong. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

TheSoundAndTheFury, I disagree with one of your changes, and it's a small thing. You modified a sentence to say "The Associated Press similarly wrote about Yu Zhou's story on the tenth anniversary of the suppression, referring to Falun Gong's 'strength and wide appeal.'" But I think the point of the AP article wasn't to discuss Falun Gong's popularity so much as to show that the Chinese government continues to persecuted it after ten years. It quotes a Falun Gong practitioner as saying that "the crackdown remains as vicious as ever," and Yu Zhou's case is used as an example on that side of things. I'm just going to modify that sentence a bit.TheBlueCanoe 23:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. I didn't mean to suggest that was the point of the article. I was trying to make that sentence, as it stood, reflect the actual article content (rather than, say, talk of FLG's "struggle against the authorities" which was never referred to.) A change there would be welcome. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Death of Yu Zhou. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101128053259/http://organharvestinvestigation.net/media/ap_042409.htm to http://organharvestinvestigation.net/media/ap_042409.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130220025450/http://report2009.amnesty.org/en/regions/asia-pacific/China to http://report2009.amnesty.org/en/regions/asia-pacific/china

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Death of Yu Zhou. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121212041846/http://www.cecc.gov/pages/annualRpt/annualRpt08/CECCannRpt2008.pdf to http://www.cecc.gov/pages/annualRpt/annualRpt08/CECCannRpt2008.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)