Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Falun Gong

Articles involved

• Falun Gong (FLG)
• History of Falun Gong
• Teachings of Falun Gong
• Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong
• Suppression of Falun Gong
• Theoretical and Epistemological studies on Falun Gong
• Falun Gong outside China
• Epoch Times
• Li Hongzhi

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:RFC [1]
• Also, most of the editors involved have previously agreed to informal mediation by an outside editor, CovenantD, who has since left the FLG project.

Issues to be mediated

• Long standing and seemingly intractable differences about how the article should be presented and worded between pro- and anti-FLG editors (for example, how to contextualise direct quotes from the founder of FLG, Li Hongzhi) that has led to the article being protected since 27 June 2006.
• Disagreement on validity of sources for citations in the articles, Chinese government, FLG websites,
  Epoch Times, Rick Ross
  , etc.
• Organ harvesting allegations.

• Daughter articles; amount of, titling of, POV intent or not of their creation
• Discussion on editing the article at Talk:Falun Gong often devolves to acrimonious argument on FLG itself, not the article

Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.

• Agree. --Fire Star 火星 14:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree --Tomananda 17:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. ---Olaf Stephanos 17:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. -----Yueyuen 18:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. -- Миборовский 21:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. ----Kent8888 21:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. --Sumple (Talk) 22:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. ----Cj cawley 01:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. -- Fnhddzs 04:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. --Yenchin 14:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. ----Samuel Luo 22:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. ----Mr.He 04:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. --Mcconn 17:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. ---Dilip rajeev 18:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree.-----Andres18 21:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. --HResearcher 03:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. --Colipon+(T) 20:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. --alanmorney 5 October 2006
• Agree. --Jsw663 14:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. --HappyInGeneral 04:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Accept:

For the Mediation Committee, —Guanaco 03:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to mediate this, assuming it's not a stale issue. Since there are so many of you, I hope you won't mind if I assume you all agree to me mediating until I am told otherwise. I'm also going to assume public mediation is fine, unless one of you asks for

private mediation, or I come to the conclusion that private mediation might be best. Anyways, I'd appreciate it if a few of you let me know if you still need a mediator, or if this has come to some kind of resolution. Thanks! Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 02:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: I see that you all went to ArbCom, but that your request there was rejected. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 03:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: The case is currently on hold due to

this Arbitration Committee request this Arbitration Committee request. — ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 02:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

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,

• The Arbcom has decided to place Falun Gong and its cycle of related articles on article probation, which will draw increased attention not just from Arbcom members but from more admins, and hopefully other editors, as time progresses. This attention has allowed me the luxury of withdrawing from the article, as I am now reassured it won't be as easily hijacked by single subject editors, either FLG practitioners or virulent critics. So, unless there is a direct conflict of opinion between editors actively contributing to the article that can't be solved by the newly imposed strictures, I don't myself see a need for continued mediation. --Fire Star 火星 21:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fire Star; mediation is not necessary at this point, especially after several editors have been revealed as sockpuppets of User:Samuel Luo. I hope that the light of reason will now shine through and the involved editors get back on a relatively cooperative track. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]