Talk:Falun Gong

Notice: Samuel Luo and his Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Samuel Luo and Tomananda are banned from editing this article indefinitely

The users specified have been banned by the Arbitration committee from editing this article. These users are also prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page. Posted by Srikeit 06:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC) for the Arbitration committee. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong.

In relation to qigong and its roots in Chinese culture

In 1992, Li Hongzhi introduced Falun Gong and along with teachings that touched upon a wide range of topics, from detailed exposition on qigong related phenomenon and cultivation practice to science and morality. In the next few years, Falun Gong quickly grew in popularity across China to become the most popular qigong practice in Chinese History. Falun Gong was welcomed into the state-controlled Scientific Qigong Research Association, which sponsored and helped to organize many of his activities between 1992 and 1994, including 54 large-scale lectures. In 1992 and 1993 he won government awards at the Beijing Oriental Health Expos, including the "Qigong Master most acclaimed by the Masses" and "The Award for Advancing Boundary Science."

According to academics, Falun Gong originally surfaced in the institutional field of alternative Chinese science, not religion. The debate between what can be called "naturalist" and "supernaturalist" schools of qigong theory has produced a considerable amount of literature. Xu Jian stated in The Journal of Asian Studies 58 (4 November 1999): "Situated both in scientific researches on qigong and in the prevailing nationalistic revival of traditional beliefs and values, this discursive struggle has articulated itself as an intellectual debate and enlisted on both sides a host of well-known writers and scientists — so much so that a veritable corpus of literature on qigong resulted. In it, two conflicting discourses became identifiable. Taking “discourse” in its contemporary sense as referring to forms of representation that generate specific cultural and historical fields of meaning, we can describe one such discourse as rational and scientific and the other as psychosomatic and metaphysical. Each strives to establish its own order of power and knowledge, its own “truth” about the “reality” of qigong, although they differ drastically in their explanation of many of its phenomena. The controversy centers on the question of whether and how qigong can induce “supranormal abilities” (teyi gongneng). The psychosomatic discourse emphasizes the inexplicable power of qigong and relishes its super-normal mechanisms or which causative factors which go beyond wht canbe explained by presentday scietific models, whereas the rational discourse strives to demystify many of its phenomena and to situate it strictly in the knowledge present day modern science." The Chinese government has generally tried to encourage qigong as a science and discourage religious or supernatural elements. However, the category of science in China tends to include things that are generally not considered scientific in the West, including qigong and traditional Chinese medicine.

David Aikman has written in American Spectator (March 2000): "Americans may believe that qigong belongs in a general category of socially neutral, New Age-style concepts that are merely subjective, not necessarily harmful, and incapable of scientific proof. But China's scientific community doesn't share this view. Experiments under controlled conditions established by the Chinese Academy of Sciences in the late 1970s and early 1980s concluded that qi, when emitted by a qigong expert, actually constitutes measurable infrared electromagnetic waves and causes chemical changes in static water through mental concentration. Qi, according to much of China's scientific establishment, for all intents existed."

Li Hongzhi states in Falun Buddha Fa Lectures in Europe:

"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. 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, and allow you to truly ascend to high levels in the process of cultivation. Whether it’s your realm of mind or the physical quality of your body, the Fa truly enables you to reach the standards of different levels. It absolutely can assume this role."

Andrew P. Kipnis is quoted as stating: "...to the Western layperson, qigong of all sorts may seem to be religious because it deals with spiritual matters. Because Li Hongzhi makes use of many concepts from Buddhism and Taoism in his writings, this may make Falun Gong seem even more like a religion to the outsider; bur Falun Gong grew initially into a space termed scientific [in China], but was mostly insulated from the spaces formally acknowledged as institutionalized science in Western countries"

The term 'qigong' was coined in the early 1950s as an alternative label to past spiritual disciplines rooted Buddhism or Taoism, that promoted the belief in the supernatural, immortality and pursuit of spiritual transcendence. The new term was constructed to avoid danger of association with ancient spiritual practices which were labeled "superstitious" and persecuted during the Maoist era. In Communist China, where spirituality and religion are looked-down upon, the concept was "tolerated" because it carried with it no overt religious or spiritual elements; and millions flocked to it during China's spiritual vacuum of the 1980s and 1990s. Scholars argue that the immense popularity of qigong in China could, in part, lie in the fact that the public saw in it a way to improve and maintain health. According to Ownby, this rapidly became a social phenomenon of considerable importance.

Membership and finances

Sociologist Susan Palmer writes that, "...Falun Gong does not behave like other new religions. For one thing, its organization - if one can even call it that - is quite nebulous. There are no church buildings, rented spaces, no priests or administrators. At first I assumed this was defensive [...] now, I'm beginning to think that what you see is exactly what you get - Master Li's teachings on the Net on the one hand and a global network of practitioners on the other. Traveling through North America, all I dug up was a handful of volunteer contact persons. The local membership (they vehemently reject that word) is whoever happens to show up at the park on a particular Saturday morning to do qigong."

Finances

In his thesis, Noah Porter takes up the issue of Falun Gong and finance in Mainland China. He quotes and responds to some of the allegations of the Chinese Communist Party that Li benefited financially from teaching the practice. Porter writes that when teaching seminars, there was an admission of 40 yuan per new practitioner and 20 yuan for repeat practitioners--with the repeat practitioners making up for 50-75% of the admissions. He goes on to say with respect to the CCP's claims: "...but the Chinese government figures for the profits of the seminars counted all attendees as paying the 40-yuan fee charged to newcomers. Also, the Chinese Qigong Research Society received 40% of admission receipts from July 1993 to September 1994. Falun Gong's first four training seminars took in a total of 20,000 yuan, which is only 10% of the 200,000 figure cited by the Chinese government. Finally, from that 20,000 yuan, they had several operating expenses..."

Ian Johnson points out that during the greatest period of Falun Gong book sales in China, Li Hongzhi never received any royalties because all publications were bootleg.

James Tong writes about the competing claims by Falun Gong and the Chinese government in 'The China Quarterly' journal, 2003. He writes that the government has attempted to portray Falun Gong as being financially savvy with a centralized administration system and a variety of mechanisms for deriving profit from the practice. He also looks over Falun Gong's claims of having no hierarchy, administration, membership or financial accounts, and that seminar admission was charged at a minimal rate. Tong writes that it was in the government's interest, in the post-crackdown context, to portray Falun Gong as being highly organised: "The more organized the Falun Gong could be shown to be, then the more justified the regime's repression in the name of social order was." He writes that the government's charges that Falun Gong made excessive profits, charged exorbitant fees, and that Li Hongzhi led a lavish lifestyle "...lack both internal and external substantiating evidence" and points out that that despite the arrests and scrutiny, the authorities "had disclosed no financial accounts that established the official charge and credibly countered Falun Gong rebuttals."

Li Hongzhi stipulates in his books Falun Gong and Zhuan Falun that practitioners should only voluntarily help others learn the exercises and that this could never be done for fame and money, and also stipulates that practitioners must not accept any fee, donation or gift in return for their voluntarily teaching the practice. According to Falun Gong, Li's insistence that the practice be offered free of charge caused a rift with the China Qigong Research Society, the state administrative body under which Falun Dafa was initially introduced. Li subsequently withdrew from the organization.

Falun Gong website often state on their pages that "All Falun Gong Activities Are Free of Charge and Run by Volunteers"

In an interview in Sydney on May 2, 1999, mentioning his financial status, Li said : "In mainland China I published so many books, but added together, they haven't exceeded twenty thousand Renminbi (equivalent to US $ 2,469). This is what the publishing company gave me. When publishing books in other countries of the world, you know there is a rule, which pays 5 or 6% royalties to the author, so each time I can only get a little bit, a few hundred, or a few thousand dollars."

Article not neutral or academic

In my opinion, the current article does not provide a neutral enough perspective in Falun Gong. I agree with the above poster and Ohconfucius's enforcement motion, that the article is pro-FLG.

I would also contend that this article seems similar in nature to what I have read from FLG promotional materials and heard from my personal encounters with FLG practitioners in that there is a heavy focus on their prosecution by the CCP rather than the overall nature of FLG. There should be a greater exposition of the beliefs and practices unique to FLG, and of the FLG organizational structure. This opinion, of course, by no means is meant to lessen the seriousness of the the atrocities committed by the CCP against FLG followers.

I would also contend that after the year-long domination of this article by pro-FLG editors (asdfg12345, Olaf Stephanos and HappyInGeneral) with the edits by FLG practitioners (Dilip rajeev, FalunGongDisciple, etc), the results of their dominance still linger. With the degree of controversy surrounding this group as evidenced just by this talk page, I find it surprising that there is no mention of the controversial nature of the group in the intro. Even under the controversies section, the section seems to white-wash the arguments used by opponents of the FLG by not including the details of the conservative nature of the group (eg. regarding mixed-raced couples, rock music, etc), omitting the more fanciful claims by the leader (eg flight, walking through walls, etc) and dismissing the controversy as a cultural misunderstanding while emphasizing the gentle nature of the group. I also find the omission the the controversies surrounding the health claims, particularly those surrounding FLG cancer patients being urged not to receive chemotherapy particularly egregious. Hmm... (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you read David Ownby's book on Falun Gong? I think it's a good place to start. The arguments you make here are interesting, but the question is how much weight real scholars give the issues you raise. Does Ownby (or any other scholar, for that matter) find Falun Gong's teachings on medicine to be extremely important? Could you please provide references to substantiate that? Also, in Falun Gong there is no such thing as urging someone not to receive chemotherapy if they have cancer. I practice Falun Gong and if someone who practiced it got cancer I would suggest they get treatment, if they really had cancer. There are no rules about what people have to do, it is without form. Also, I think the arguments are documented clearly in the article already. Falun Gong is not against mixed-race marriages, as evidenced here. Finally, cherrypicking statements the "leader" of Falun Gong has made and highlighting them may be undue weight, if it couldn't be shown how third parties consider such things so important. I also do not see how the fact that people have a lot of ideas about this practice automatically makes those ideas important. Sure, they ought not be ignored, but that's not what the article is primarily about: it should be more factual rather than a stream of opinions. And I think the current set-up, where there is an opinion then another opinion, is quite fair. Or, should we delete all the opinions that try to make Falun Gong understandable? Do we seek to, rather than illuminate and help people understand the topic of the article, have them form negative ideas about the subject? My view is that the purpose of the article is to provide information about the topic, not to try to persuade readers that it is good or bad. Explaining what people find problematic about Falun Gong, then explaining how Falun Gong responded to that, and what other people think--this is fair, isn't it? Marriage is controversial, too. The article on marriage doesn't leap into the controversies associated with it in the introduction. --Asdfg12345 12:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Western Academics and Press is overwhelmingly sypathetic to thier religion persecuation, thus we have a slight bias as most western sources are in either english so that is possible Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Weaponbb7's assessment strikes me as about right. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

agreed, though this is to be expected in an English article especially with so many practitioners contributing to this article. Overall it's improved though I feel ~ at least all opinions are backed with sources, even if they may be biased. My main issue and I think many have brought this up in the past is that the entire article still seems to focus on FLG and it's relationship with China. The whole theme is surrounding the persecution and acceptance of the practice; it's image rather than it's substance. For spiritual/physical practice I think its is lacking in addressing the following as it's central topics 1) What is the theory behind this 'gong' 2) How is it actually practiced, what forms or methods are performed 3) How is it applied to relevant aspects of life (i.e. health, strength building, socializing). With so many practitioners contributing, I'd hoped these would be easily covered. BTW, Marriage is not controversial, a more suitable comparison would be gay marriage. Bedbug1122 (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree too. I find it particularly interesting that most of the falungong activities in other parts of the world and well as the sometimes negative responses to them have been quite diligently hidden or obscured. Jeanpetr (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hidden or obscured in what sense? CCP officials trying to hide them? --Asdfg12345 22:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the CCP would most likely try the opposite. For the most part, this article reads something like: " Falun Gong is immaculate and a persecuted symbol of human rights and freedom. All who criticize Falun Gong are members of the CCP or unfairly influenced by them." At best, this is a bit tiring, at worse, it is an attempt at white washing. CCP is persecuting Falun Gong, everyone knows, but Falun Gong with its numerous publicity campaigns, voice boxes, and sometimes exaggerated reports, is not exactly neutral either. Jeanpetr (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I am curious as to how many of the editors on this page fall into these following categories: One, you have lived in China prior to Li Hong Zhi's flight to the United States. Two, you have personally attended Li Hong Zhi's public seminars while he still resided in China. Three, you have relatives or close friends who practiced Falun Gong. In my experience regarding this subject, if you do not fall into all 3 aforementioned categories, then you have no business editing this article for the purposes of maintaining neutrality. If you did not personally hear Li HongZhi speak, then you cannot have an educated opinion regarding whether he was an enlightened individual or a nutcase. If you cannot understand Falun Gong's texts in its native Chinese form (not one of the badly translated English copies), then you cannot form a proper interpretation. If you were not in China to witness the rise and fall of Falun Gong, and your only source of information are articles written by Western Authors (Or the CCP Media), then you do not have even the slightest clue as to what really happened. Having personally witnessed many aspects of Falun Gong while it was still practiced in China (protests, lectures, watching relatives practice), I can attest to the fact that much of the information on the articles related to FLG are either misinterpretation of facts or flat out lies.

In response to the comment made by Asdfg12345, The controversy regarding Falun Gong practitioners refusing medical treatment is no myth. It may not be written specifically in the teachings of Falun Gong but it did not stop the less educated public in China from interpreting it as such. You cannot pretend a controversy doesn't exist simply because you do not perceive it as one. Falun Gong caused many adverse health issues while it was in practice in China, with the most extreme cases documenting practitioners slicing their stomaches open with a steak knife looking for the "Fa Lun". Zkevwlu (talk) 10:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You couldn't be more wrong in my view. It would be better if editors had no opinions about or experience of either Falun Gong or the CCP but had 100% fidelity when it comes to complying with Wikipedia policies. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Then there wouldn't be much to write about, would there? However it does seem as if Zkevwlu's comment above is inviting original research in the article - in fact literally suggesting that anyone without direct experience with the subject has "no business editing this article for the purposes of maintaining neutrality" which is quite ridiculous. It seems that Zkevwlu has misunderstood the fundamental premise of Wikipedia - to explain topics impartially, giving notable references that you did not create. Meeting his listed preconditions should perhaps even preclude an author from editing FLG-related articles on Wikipedia due to the inherent bias from being too close to this contentious subject. Destynova (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Ownby's book mentions at least a few cases where FG practitioners have refused medical treatment. If I remember rightly, that refusal was once in a while related to other factors, like cost of treatment, as well, but they did indicate one of their reasons for such refusal was their belief that Falun Gong would save them. And, for what little it might be worth, I myself have not found that the published books in English on Falun Gong are necessarily overwhelming biased in favor of FG, although there is the problem that a lot of the editors who themselves are so biased might cherrypick material for their own purposes. In general, though, I think all this material would benefit greatly if there were fewer editors involved who supported either the CCP or FG. Unfortunately, while there are a few such editors, like, well, me, we tend to have other matters to deal with as well. And I have noted that some other editors have indicated that they have been, effectively, driven away from the content because of their perception that some editors, including the pro-FG editors, create more drama and trouble when changes are proposed or made than those other, uninvolved, editors really think is required, and that such actions drive some of them away. John Carter (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, John Carter, the situation is not quite so simple. The editors who support either FLG or CCP represent only a part of the bias. I think everyone here believes that he or she is the one acting most rationally; this is nothing new. Any commitment to a belief system, including secular materialism or some social theory, has ostensibly lead some "uninvolved" editors to varying degrees of ideological editing. On the other hand, among the "involved" editors there are some people, including myself, with a post-graduate academic background in the study of religions and cultures. Overall, looking at the world's phenomena from an Archimedean point is hardly possible for a human being. Some of what you call "drama" and "trouble" has frequently been brought into play when the proposed changes have indeed been problematic and called for a careful scrutiny on the talk page, even if their proponents would rather have had it their way without much ado. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

My view has always been that the less meta-discussion the better. Just focus on the nuts and bolts of editing the actual article. --Asdfg12345 06:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the initial comment that the article places too much emphasis on the relationship between Falun Gong and the party-state, and that insufficient attention is given to the practice and beliefs, organizations, and related issues such as demography. Moreover, while much of this information is present in the article, it is not coherently organized; the article jumps abruptly from a general overview of Falun Gong's philosophy into a historical narrative, followed by accounts of state suppression, and then back into organization of the practice. I am willing to volunteer myself to try to consolidate this information, and give somewhat more weight to matters of the practice, including its very socially conservative morality, etc. On another note, that an article "seems similar in nature to what I have read from FLG promotional materials" does not mean that the article lacks neutrality or is not academic per se. Neutrality is not achieved by striking a perfect balance between two competing narratives. It is achieved by following the evidence and engaging in thoughtful analysis of the best information available.Homunculus (duihua) 22:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see my response at the end of this page. The persecution is one of the most notable features of Falun Gong, so naturally it would occupy a large portion of the page on the topic. If this logic is wrong, please correct me... typing out loud here. -- Asdfg12345 04:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The extent that citations are needed

What is the extent to which things need to be cited? I can't help think that this[5] is a FLG practitioner's overly exacting demands for sources for things that are well known. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's good if things can be cited properly. In other news, how is this part relevant to the history: During its anti-Falun Gong propaganda campaign the Chinese authorities countered these claims, asserting that Li was merely a former army trumpet player and grain clerk at the Changchun Cereals Company, having plagiarised Falun Gong from existing qigong systems.-- this appears in the history of the practice section? Doesn't appear to be relevant here. I haven't removed it in case it's controversial. --Asdfg12345 15:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Some more points:

• Li made statements that activism to defend Falun Gong was an essential aspect of Dafa cultivation, and, according to David Palmer, adjunct professor of anthropology and religious studies at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, "would separate the false disciples from the true ones." -- The way this sentence is structure is misleading. Why quote a professor on what Li said, rather than quote Li directly? If we quote Li directly, it would show that he is not saying Falun Gong practitioners must become activists, lest they not be considered true disciples. He was saying that practitioners’ response to criticism showed something of their heart, but he was not saying that right thoughts needed to manifest as activism.
• Needs info on the studies commissioned by Luo Gan and friends to seek evidence that Falun Gong was xie jiao. Nor is the mounting surveillance or discrimination against practitioners mentioned.
• Jiang’s April 25th letter not mentioned
• Not much description here of the Zhongnanhai protest or other protests themselves. I suggest drawing on James Tong for this.
• There’s nothing here about the conclusion of the negotiations, where Falun Gong representatives were assured that the government was not against them, etc.
• No information about the evolving counter-narrative about how the Zhongnanhai protest was a set-up
• In the discussion of the banning, info between April and July is entirely missing.
• Elizabeth Perry wrote about the very early CCP rhetoric against Falun Gong, noting that the Party was positing there was a dichotomy between religion and science, and that Falun Gong undermined the CCP’s narrative of history. It’s interesting stuff. Could be included.
• Suggest adding a little more meat to the analysis of the causes for the persecution. I.e. Falun Gong was the largest independent civil society group in China. It undermined the CCP’s sources of legitimacy (not deliberately, but implicitly). Jiang was jealous, etc.

There are more issues, but here are some ideas for now. --Asdfg12345 18:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair points to raise, but you need sources for your additions. I won't remove them now, pending your providing sources. If you don't source some of the more controversial statements, I will remove them. Particularly after you emphasized the need for rigorous sourcing to TheSoundAndTheFury. —Zujine|talk 18:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I appreciate the civil discussion and the chance to figure this stuff out. I will certainly add the references you suggest. No Problem. Right now I will just make one more tentative edit that may be bold and need some tweaking, but which has been discussed extensively and is important or even crucial: providing the "counter-narrative" about Zhongnanhai, which suggests that the persecution was not an action-reaction type thing, but was rather a deliberate build-up on the part of some elements in the Party, who orchestrated the whole thing against Falun Gong. There are some reasonable sources on this. I'm just going to add a framework narrative now, and we can discuss, refine, etc. After this, I need to go. --Asdfg12345 05:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at Gutmann's presentation of the counter-narrative on Zhongnanhai. It is compelling (as far as conspiracy theories go), but it feels like undue weight to give this narrative its own sub-section. Moreover, while I commend your attempts to write out the theory, it is lacking in citations and involves a fair bit of conjecture. I propose splitting the difference by folding this into the body of the main section by including relevant, verifiable facts within the chronological narrative. Scholarly interpretations of the event, the individuals involved and their motives can be summarized briefly at the end. In the interest of being bold, I took a stab at doing this, and would welcome further edits/discussions to improve it. Homunculus (duihua) 06:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe Asdfg put back allegations that He and Luo are related, despite an extensive discussion months ago. No reliable sources actually proved that these two are actually related. This seems like another attempt to discredit FLG's critics.--PCPP (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

PCPP, this question was already resolved. numerous credible sources note the familial connection between the two. Please do not assume ulterior motives. If you would like to pursue this further, the burden of proof that Luo and He are not related lies with you. Homunculus (duihua) 14:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That's funny, neither the articles on Luo Gan and He Zuoxiu mentioned that they are related, both in English and Chinese. The "sources" provided only had passing mentions - there's no concrete evidence on their relations.--PCPP (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose next you’ll be demanding to see He and Luo’s birth certificates?? The point is that this information is in other reliable sources. It does not strike me as unusual that their short Wikipedia biographies do not make mention of who their relatives are. If you believe it is relevant information to include in their biographies, however, I am happy to remedy this and note the connection on each page. I suspect, however, that this may appear to be giving undue weight. In any case, even the incorrigible Colipon assented to this edit, and now we have an outside editor paying attention to the page and finding the claims veracious. I'm not sure what more there is to say? --Asdfg12345 01:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool heads, please. This discussion need not deteriorate into birther comparisons. PCPP, again, if you wish to challenge the familial connection, I suggest that you find explicit evidence that they are not related. If you can find this, then we can revisit this discussion and include the conflicting evidence in the article. In the meantime, let's more on.Homunculus (duihua) 02:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The hell? I think you're the one that needs to find explicit evidence that the are related. None of the sources you provided does this. Adding unsourced conspiracy theories about how He is responsible for starting the FLG crackdown is not in the spirits of NPOV.--PCPP (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The sources provided explicitly state that Luo Gan and He Zuoxiu are brother-in-law. Moreover, sources are provided relating to the counter-narrative of He and Luo's collusion. I suggest you read the Gutmann article on this topic.

I also noticed a series of reversions occurring between yourself and Asdfg. I do not wish to get involved in this edit war, and will not myself attempt to resolve the problematic points in contention; I trust other editors can work them out. Asdfg did make a number of unsourced edits, and he discusses them above. He was asked to provide citations to support these edits, but has not yet done so. Asdfg, I suggest you get on this.

PCPP, your reversions to Asdfg's edits did not, in all cases, remove unsourced material as you claim. To the contrary, some of Asdfg's edits were in fact correcting improperly attribute sources, and others were correcting grammatical problems. For instance, you reinstated the following statement:

The Falun Dafa Information Center disputed this [the self-immolation]...and further alleged that the event itself never happened... (emphasis mine). I have never seen Falun Gong sources alleging the event itself never happened. This therefore seems like a straw man argument. Asdfg removed this, and you returned it to its place. Please explain.

Asdfg also removed the following statement: "Human rights activist Harry Wu also voiced doubts about conclusions of the Kilgour-Matas report." He did so on the grounds that the source cited (a CRS report) did not, in fact, make this statement. It is therefore unattributed. Moreover, Harry Wu has not expressed concerns about the Kilgour-Matas report; his concerns surrounded the earlier Sujiatun allegations. In any case, you reinstated a falsely attributed statement. Please explain why.

Your blanket reversions also removed references to the Luo-He familial relationship against the apparent consensus that has been reached on the talk page.

I should stop here. Asdfg, please make a concerted effort to provide sources for new material you introduced. PCPP, I suggest you allow Asdfg to do this, and retract your reversions. I would be interested in seeing what other editors recommend as a solution. Homunculus (duihua) 06:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the edit and looked at this discussion, and it is clear that PCPP is behaving inappropriately. I would remind everyone that editors of these pages are subject to discretionary sanctions. I have no interest in entering into this particular dispute, but I would like to see that the rules of the road are followed by all parties. Those rules include engaging in meaningful discussion on points of contention, and refraining from blanket reversions. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I am going to make some edits to tone down or remove some of the more excessive or problematic edits that Asdfg made. If you would like to dispute my edits, please don't hesitate, provided you can give citations this time.Homunculus (duihua) 16:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hold your horses. I am about to add the references for the stuff I added previously. I haven't edited wiki for a while so I have gotten rusty. I am usually scrupulous in providing references for my additions. In half an hour all the additions I made will be referenced. -- Asdfg12345 16:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the supposed family connection of Luo and He reads like a conspiracy theory at best. A number of editors has already objected to the insertion of these material, and what you're essentially doing is laying low and sneakingly inserting them back. This material doesn't fly on their own articles, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander.--PCPP (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

PCPP, I linked above to several sources where this connection appears. Let me recap:

"It was at that point that a physicist published an article in a Tianjin Normal University journal portraying Falun Gong as a dangerous cult. China isn't the West, and these things aren't random: The physicist, He Zuoxiu, is the brother-in-law of Luo Gan, at that time the head of public security, and the Tianjin Normal University journal answers to the state. The article was a flare in the night sky, a signal and trial of the party's designs." (Gutmann, Ethan. "An occurrence on Fuyou Street: the communist myth of Falun Gong's original sin," National Review, July 20, 2009). Emphasis added

"He Zuoxiu, a scientist and one of Luo Gan's relatives, perhaps partially motivated by how Li Hongzhi calls modern science limited, seems to have intentionally provoked Falun Gong... Things could not have worked out better for the two if they had planned it — which, it appears, they just might have." (Porter, Noah. "Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study," University of South Florida, 2003). Emphasis added

"A number of factors were involved in the souring relations among Falun Gong and the Chinese state and the news media, including ... lobbying efforts on the part of Li’s qigong opponents and scientists-cum-ideologues with political motives and affiliations with competing central Party leaders..." (Zhao, Yuezhi (2003). Falun Gong, Identity, and the Struggle over Meaning Inside and Outside China. Rowman & Littlefield publishers, inc.. pp. 209–223 in Contesting Media Power: Alternative Media in a Networked World, ed. Nick Couldry and James Curran.) Emphasis added

This connection may appear in more sources, but at least, it is explicitly stated in the first two above. So, what are you disputing exactly? You are here opposed by at least two (myself and Homunculus) and possibly three (TheSound, though I will let that editor speak for him/herself) other editors. I do not see how I am laying low and "sneakingly inserting them back"? I put the information in, then another editor themselves looked into the matter and fixed it up a bit. I will await your response before undoing your edits. Since we here have two reliable sources on the matter, you are required to provide reliable sources showing that they are not brothers-in-law. Your position here seems quite indefensible. I await your response, and will certainly not revert war with you on it. -- Asdfg12345 14:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

As I stated earlier when this issue came up, I agree with the inclusion. Noting the familial connection and its relationship to how the persecution got started is obviously important. —Zujine|talk 15:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yawn, this is clearly disputed in the last discussion by several editors [6]. The dispute regarding the validity of the source still stands, and you coming back after disappearing for 5 months won't make it go away. You only provided three sources making only passing mentions, the first one comes from a known conservative magazine, the second from a Porter's PHD thesis, and the third source doesn't even specifically mention this. None of the other FLG experts eg Ownby even mentioned this quite significant claim, and none of the three sources even made the claim that Luo specifically targeted FLG because of He's claims, as you're trying to portray. This is clearly a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS.--PCPP (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you please identify specifically which editor is opposed to the material, except you? Why should the political persuasion of the magazine the information appears in matter? Porter's thesis has been published as a book. It is not a synthesis to present the information as it appears in the sources. There is a growing consensus on this, and you are the only one opposed to it. You are also just repeating the same short, stock phrases, like always. Since three editors now support the inclusion, I am going to put it back. You need to provide reliable sources that back up your perspective. -- Asdfg12345 16:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

BS. I challenged the validity of these tree sources and you've yet responded. Writing a book based on a thesis doesn't not warrant automatic inclusion. You're taking these three claims at face value, and somehow that because they said it then it must be true. The claim is a serious allegation not supported by FLG scholars (Ownby et al), nor any available Chinese sources. Furthermore you're using the claim to synthesis a conspiracy theory claiming that He is somewhat responsible for Luo's crackdown on FLG.--PCPP (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

[ec] Note that after three editors have all supported the inclusion of this information, as well as the other discussion where Colipon even says "If other editors agree with him, that's fine with me," about including this material. Then over on that discussion four editors came to support the inclusion, after the evidence was presented and we had a discussion, and now, it has been brought up again, and three editors support it, and it has good references. Now you are denying it and have no sources, and are opposed by everyone. I strongly recommend you don't edit war on this. (UPDATE: in response to the above: 1) I did respond to your challenge of the validity of the sources. I said that the political persuasion of the magazine does not matter--it is you who didn't respond to that. Secondly, I said Porter's thesis is published in a book and is and was a reliable source. You also didn't respond to that. It is true that no source warrants automatic inclusion, but I'm not arguing for automatic inclusion. Myself, and others, are suggesting that this information is reliable and pertinent, and all agree that it should be included. The allegation is indeed supported by relevant scholars. It does not matter if it is not supported by Chinese sources--since when was that a requirement? Finally, the claim has not been used as a synthesis, because everything in there now is merely a direct reflection of what is to be found in reliable sources. There is no synthesis. Indeed, the meaning that is drawn from these three (Porter, Gutmann, and Zhao) is that the connection between He and Luo was relevant to the persecution. This is what the sources say. Again, I invite some other editor to revert, and if PCPP again fails to produce a source to support his views, and continues to revert, other things can happen. -- Asdfg12345 16:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

PCPP is editing against consensus. I reverted to give him time to think about it; maybe he is too invested in these Falungong articles. In any case: please provide sources for your points, PCPP. —Zujine|talk 16:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

[ec] I see Zujine has in fact already done this. -- Asdfg12345 16:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm opening a RFC on this--PCPP (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is already a consensus forming on this topic here, over two rounds of discussion. Nevertheless, you can seek outside input for ideas, though they are not binding. The key thing is reliable sources, and you do not have any of them. When you write the RfC, be sure to provide the citations I have above, and try to write it as neutrally as possible. -- Asdfg12345 17:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Remember this? [7] You've yet brought up the "reliable sources" you were saying you are going to find months ago. This sounds like WP:FORUMSHOPPING to me.--PCPP (talk) 04:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I have presented three reliable sources, two which directly mention it, one which mentions it indirectly. This is the same forum. The outcome of the last discussion was to insert the material. The outcome of this is to insert the material. You have produced zero sources to support your views. z e r o . -- Asdfg12345 04:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Explanation and list of changes, Nov. 24

I have added references in all cases. I am now going to explain each change, in number form. It is assumed that people consulting this list will have open on one side of their screen this diff, and on the other my list here. You can then easily compare, point by point, each change I made and see its rationale.

1. demonstration > peaceful protest -- it is important that these activities are described both accurately and precisely. Please check Ownby, Tong, and Palmer, who all use the word "peaceful" a number of times. It is not biased to describe a peaceful activity as a peaceful activity. Nor is it gratuitous. It is a matter of historical fact that needs to be properly recorded. I intend to add further information on this point, actually (about how well behaved the individuals were in these protest actions. Several good sources have spent some paragraphs elaborating on the specifics of this, if you would believe that.)
2. thus claimed by Li to be... -- it's not necessary to say it was claimed by Li. Of course this is according to Li. It's the same difference as saying "Falun Gong says it is based on Zhen Shan Ren", when clearly it's better to just write "Falun Gong is based on..."
3. nationalism -- I changed this to Chinese culture, because that's what the reference I could find supported. I had misremembered this. If I find support for the nationalism claim, I will fix it. Please see the Ownby document: it is a good read, and will give you some better background on the topic.
4. operated outside the official sanction of the stage -- I have elaborated on this slightly and attributed it to Palmer. Context is crucial here, given all that followed.
5. tone began to shift to curb growth of the groups -- this is simply a well known fact of the period. I don't know what particular source or page states it. It's in Palmer, for example. Have you read that book? He describes the whole process. Citations are needed when something is controversial, this isn't particularly controversial.
6. Allegations > reports -- let's just say they reported it, which is a fact. Is there reason to doubt what they said? If so, allegations may be more appropriate. If this point comports with the rest of the information (which it surely does), then I see no reason to use language to make it seem more dubious.
7. long-term, complex, serious struggle to eradicate... -- referenced both points.
8. those who died were not actually Falun Gong -- I've referenced a Pan article, I believe it is this one.
9. number of torture cases -- it was less than I had said. This was a good catch. I have attributed it.
10. whether the torture was officially prohibited or not -- this detail I found facile. I simply removed it. Of course it was part of the official structure of the campaign. Read Johnson's account? They are linked on the main page. It is clear that torture was part of the whole process. Tong is being typical Tong, and not every minor point he makes needs to be repeated here, but mainly the broad, important points that comport with the wider body of research. It is not news that the CCP publicly says it doesn't believe in torture. The point is to get at the fact about how this persecution is conducted and report that, according to relevant sources. If we want a part here saying how the CCP denies what it does to practitioners, that is fine (though I think it would be largely irrelevant).
11. anti-Falun Gong campaign -- this was an error on my part. I misread the context. I've clarified that this is referring to Falun Gong's media response, not the persecution campaign.

I hope this is enough. -- Asdfg12345 17:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Note that I made more edits here, but I accidentally pressed enter when writing the edit summary. The summary would have been something like: "miscellaneous additions; sourced; should not be controversial; mostly elaborations." or something. If there's any problem with the diff please advise. -- Asdfg12345 03:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggested/planned edits

In the interests of utmost transparency and collegial editing and discussion, I am going to note here some of the changes I plan on making over the next some time. This is just meant to be both a friendly indication of intent, and an invitation to dialogue for any other interested party.

• Add brief info on the studies commissioned by Luo Gan and friends to seek evidence that Falun Gong was xie jiao, and on the mounting surveillance or discrimination against practitioners.
• Jiang’s April 25th letter to politburo
• Zhongnanhai protest and details.
• Brief detail on period between April and July.
• Briefer and more meaningful introduction and discussion of the propaganda campaign (and suggest changing the section head from "media campaign" to "propaganda campaign"). For example, Elizabeth Perry wrote about the very early CCP rhetoric against Falun Gong, noting that the Party was positing there was a dichotomy between religion and science, and that Falun Gong undermined the CCP’s narrative of history. Seth Faison also looks at the propaganda themes. The important point is the evolution of the propaganda tactics; the cult label came at some point during this evolution. It was not the initial rationale. This context can be brought out more and thematised.
• Some more meat to the analysis of the causes for the persecution. I.e. Falun Gong was the largest independent civil society group in China. It undermined the CCP’s sources of legitimacy (not deliberately, but implicitly). Jiang was jealous, etc. (All this needs sources of course).
• What did the ban actually look like, to begin with? (trucks with speakers, book burnings, etc.; a few lines on that only)
• Quotes from actual victims of the conversion programme on what it means to be subjected to those techniques (a few lines).
• More proper explanation of the structure of Falun Gong practice inside China (a lot of this information is in fact on this talk page).

We can discuss and refine any of these ideas. Let's all work together. -- Asdfg12345 04:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

RFC on connections between Luo and He

Should the three disputes source be used as evidence that two individuals mentioned in the article, He Zuoxiu and Luo Gan, are related?--PCPP (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I am challenging an attempt by Asdfg to add information claiming that two individuals mentioned in the article, He Zuoxiu (a Chinese pseudoscience critic) and Luo Gan (Chinese politician responsible for the ban of FLG), are related, and thus He is partially responsible for the crackdown of FLG. Asdfg is based his claims on three sources mentioned below.

These material has been disputed by several users previously[8] [9]. Source 1 derives from the National Review, a known politically conservative publication based in the US. Source 2 derives from Noah Porter's PHD thesis which has been published as a book, and which Asdfg previously said wasn't a viable source[10]. Source 3 doesn't even specifically mention He and Luo. These sources should not be used to establish a fact that Luo and He are factually related, especially since no other FLG scholars such as David Ownby even mention this, and no Chinese sources establish this claim either. Furthermore, there is a problem of WP:SYN, as Asdfg is attempting to use the above claims to synthesis a conspiracy theory on how He is responsible for instigating the FLG crackdown [11].--PCPP (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Please note that these are the three sources on which the information is based:

"It was at that point that a physicist published an article in a Tianjin Normal University journal portraying Falun Gong as a dangerous cult. China isn't the West, and these things aren't random: The physicist, He Zuoxiu, is the brother-in-law of Luo Gan, at that time the head of public security, and the Tianjin Normal University journal answers to the state. The article was a flare in the night sky, a signal and trial of the party's designs." (Gutmann, Ethan. "An occurrence on Fuyou Street: the communist myth of Falun Gong's original sin," National Review, July 20, 2009). Emphasis added

"He Zuoxiu, a scientist and one of Luo Gan's relatives, perhaps partially motivated by how Li Hongzhi calls modern science limited, seems to have intentionally provoked Falun Gong... Things could not have worked out better for the two if they had planned it — which, it appears, they just might have." (Porter, Noah. "Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study," University of South Florida, 2003). Emphasis added

"A number of factors were involved in the souring relations among Falun Gong and the Chinese state and the news media, including ... lobbying efforts on the part of Li’s qigong opponents and scientists-cum-ideologues with political motives and affiliations with competing central Party leaders..." (Zhao, Yuezhi (2003). Falun Gong, Identity, and the Struggle over Meaning Inside and Outside China. Rowman & Littlefield publishers, inc.. pp. 209–223 in Contesting Media Power: Alternative Media in a Networked World, ed. Nick Couldry and James Curran.) Emphasis added

In case it wasn't clear, I support the inclusion of the information. -- Asdfg12345 17:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I support it only in the sense that I support all good research and relevant argument/information. I could be persuaded otherwise--for example, if we had a top scholar saying that the connection is simply bogus and was a clever piece of Falungong propaganda that got its way into the circulation system. But I don't see any such source forthcoming. Thus, I support the inclusion until proper evidence can be presented as to why it is inappropriate. So far I am distinctly unconvinced by PCPP's arguments (if they could be called that) and his aggressive reverting behaviour, over which I hope I do not have to intercede again. —Zujine|talk 17:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I looked at Gutmann's article and there is another small piece of information that is relevant. He talks about how video cameras were already set up at Tianjin to monitor the protesting adherents. This indicates that the Party already had something in mind--or why would they set up that kind of surveillance? It is a small point that bolsters the relevance of this general conspiracy narrative, though it is not directly related to the He/Luo connection. —Zujine|talk 17:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

 Question: Why would it be relevant if they were related? If one of the two men did something on the advice of the other man, then that should be said directly. Otherwise, it looks like synthesis and petty insinuation. Quigley (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I was concerned by PCPP's arguing that the sources previously listed in support of this familial connection may not be reliable, and did some searching for other sources that would either confirm or refute the claim. In the process I found another piece of what appears to be original research, published by a graduate student at the University of Southern California:

"For example, the Zhengqing Net is an anti-Falun Gong website and operates under the name of He Zuoxiu, who is the academician of the CAS and also known as the husband of sisters with Luo Gan. The later is condemned by Falun Gong followers as one of the main executioners during the Falun Gong persecution. This point matches the information from the insider which indicates that the Zhengqing Net belongs to the 6.10 Office headed by Luo Gan and founded in June 10, 1999 after Falun Gong’s Zhongnanhai Demonstration in April that year."(Jia, Minna. "Impact of Internet on Chinese Authoritarian rule during SARS and Falun Gong Incidents,")

This supports not only that they are brother-in-law, but also serves as evidence that they are/were working very closely against Falun Gong. Homunculus (duihua) 03:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing new here. The essay Homunculus gave [12] has no evidence of being peer reviewed either, and did not actually provide a citation on the relations claim. All of these sources has been reviewed by editors here before and overwhelmingly rejected before [13]. In fact Asdfg was asked to provide better sources to prove the He-Luo relations, which he never did, and resurfaced months later with the same old.--PCPP (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It must be becoming clear to everyone that it is almost impossible to have a rational debate with PCPP, because he brings up every kind of specious, even contradictory argument, simply to try to win the discussion. Language and argument is just another weapon to try to get the desired result on the page. Anyway, while we still must abide by the fiction that this is actually a debate--that is, until this user oversteps the boundary, does one too many reverts, and finally gets banned from these pages--let me just respond to what he has said:

• The "this discussion has been had before" argument -- Firstly, yes it has been had before, and the consensus was to include the material. Here is the latest discussion on it. Editors agreed to include it then, and agree again now. Secondly, even if the consensus then was not to include it, new consensuses may be formed. So that is irrelevant.
• The "no Chinese source/no proof" argument -- this is irrelevant. Since when did something have to appear in a Chinese source? What kind of source would be reliable? Chinese sources, except primary ones, are among the most unreliable on this topic. In any case, the info appears in multiple reliable sources, and we do not require to prove the truth of the claim, merely that it has been made.
• The "not in Ownby" argument -- this is facile. So let's delete everything off the page that Ownby doesn't agree with? Please.

Did I miss any? He has been saying the same three meaningless arguments the whole time, by the way, in case anyone didn't notice. One final amusement: PCPP says that the recent source Homunculus brings up has not been peer-reviewed... but clearly this is not his standard anyway, because Porter's is a peer reviewed thesis/book, and he still rejects that. Clearly this user does not even follow his own standards. At this rate, I suspect that PCPP is rapidly putting himself on the shortlist of editors to ignore. I'll say no more on this unless PCPP brings more actual evidence to light on the topic. I mean reliable sources, not just specious argumentation. -- Asdfg12345 04:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Asdfg you're wasting your time here and learnt nothing from your 6 month ban. I already provided my reasons as why your "sources" are not sufficient enough to establish a fact. You previously stated that Porter's thesis isn't a reliable source, [14], that his discipline is not on religion, and now turned around and say it is.

• No, Chinese sources aren't "unreliable" because you say so. In fact He's campaigns against traditional Chinese medicine has been controversial amongst Chinese media, whereas the Chinese government has long harped about the benefits of TCM.
• Ownby's study on FLG has far more weight on the subject that the sources you provided. Not only him, but none of the other sources provide speculative evidence on the relations between Luo and He, and that He is somewhat responsible for the FLG ban. You've yet proved that the majority of FLG scholars agreed that He is related to Luo.
• The source bought up by Homunculus is nowhere new. It was a university essay that did not provide attribution for these claims at all [15]. And guess where did Porter attribute the relations claim? [16] Clearwisdom.net/Faluninfo.net, mouthpieces for the FLG movement.--PCPP (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

... and the fact remains that we have three reliable sources saying this, and several editors supporting the inclusion. If you find some research contradicting the claim, please let us know. -- Asdfg12345 05:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for completely skipping the debate and all arguments. I've already made my statements on why the three sources does not provide sufficient conclusion on why Luo and He are related, which you have yet answered, and now you ask me to provide evidence on how they're not related? Oh please.--PCPP (talk) 05:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The sources don't claim a direct relationship between them being related and the persecution of Falun Gong. The original sources were all Falun Gong websites (see Colipon's comment on old discussion, about how it only appears in English language websites and it's misteriously missing from Chinese language websites). I had heard before of He Zuoxiu and I had never read that any of his acts and success was due to being related to a certain politician. He Zuoxiu is a Chinese skeptic and Falun Gong is his natural target, he doesn't need any special reason to go after them. This is just trying to smear a source in order to reduce its credibility. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

But the sources do, in fact, say that there was a connection between their relationship and the persecution. I'm not going to paste them again, but just read what I posted above: both Gutmann and Porter state it directly, while Zhao says it indirectly. Why is it unusual that you had heard of He Zuoxiu, but not read of his connection with Luo Gan? And how does that relate to the relevance of its inclusion here? And, in fact, it is not mysteriously missing from Chinese language websites: it is all over Chinese websites, though most of them are Falun Gong ones, so I didn't quote them. How would that even bolster the credibility of the claim, since Chinese websites are so notoriously unreliable to begin with? And in what context would such familial relations be published, except as a way of criticising the two and showing the incestuousness of CCP officialdom--so would a mainland source boast of such things? I think not. The demand for a Chinese language source as some kind of independent corroboration for what appears in several English-language RS seems to me a furphy meant to throw us off the scent of what is right in front of our noses. It is the first time such a demand has been made, and what is its basis in policy? Do we need to scour the Chinese Internet for each piece of information, and only then will it be considered truthful? Finally, the idea that this is trying to "smear" a source in order to "reduce its credibility" is also unreasonable and inaccurate. There is no attempt whatsoever to smear Mr. He--in fact, for that all we would need to do is quote his own words about how he supports the incarceration and brainwashing of practitioners, made to the New York Times after the persecution began (though that would not be properly called smearing, merely relaying the man's own views)--but it is an attempt to explicate what several reliable sources have said about the origins of the Tianjin protest and its relation to Zhongnanhai and the origins of the persecution. What is on the page now is in fact not all of it. There were surveillance cameras set up at the protest site before the practitioners arrived in Tianjin, for example, indicating that the security apparatus was already quite prepared for it and was collecting information on these people. There should be a sentence on that, with a good source. -- Asdfg12345 16:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

He Zuoxiu explains in an interview why he attacked Falun Gong[17]. At that time, Zuoxiu had already been attacking pseudoscience for years, and he was one of the scientists that prodded the Chinese government into starting a campaign against pseudoscience in 1993. All those sources are just speculating with no proof.

Other sources say nothing at all of this connection, and some mention that he has attacked qi gong and other pseudoscience before. For example, Time magazine[18], and about every source that mentions Zuoxiu's interview. Apparently Ownby never felt necessary to mention any such connection. Zuoxiu himself says that he criticized Falun Gong in other occasions before a specific interview that caused protests[19]. A Lynne Rienner Publishers book gives another reason for ZuoXiu's attack against FG: "The He Zuoxiu anti-qigong article that originally sparked the Falun Gong protests came partly in response to Li's claims that Falun Gong had proved that modern science was inadequate to explain the universe (...)" page 245 [20]. From Columbia University Press book, Zuoxiu had already been "a leading role in the anti-qigong polemic of 1995", page 134 footnote 84 [21]. In other words, all sources of high quality say absolutely nothing about any brother-in-law or about ZuoXiu's collaborating with the Chinese government to bring down Falun Gong. The weight of sources is against any mention.

See also John Carter's comment below about this polemic not being important enough to appear in the main article. (He Zuoxiu‎ looks like an adequate "child" article to include this info) --Enric Naval (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

In response to Enric: even John Carter thinks the info is OK as far as NR is concerned. The Porter thesis has been published in book form, and has been called "excellent" by Ownby and also praised by Palmer, so it is a very good source. I will respond to the logic of the points you are making. One is that other sources say other things, and that not all of them mention this. But I don't know since when what was said in a few reliable sources had to be said in all reliable sources to be admissible. For example, Ownby also says little about how practitioners jammed satellites in China--does this mean that wikipedia should not mention this? Also, Ownby himself says that his book is mainly about Falun Gong and is not a detailed history of the persecution. He is not interested in a thorough discussion of the inner politics around what happened, whereas Gutmann directly researched and wrote about that aspect. Different scholars have different focuses. Ownby, for example, does not mention the Iceland incident once; but a scholar has recently published a whole book on just that incident, and it would certainly be relevant to include some of that on this page. Secondly, the other source you cited, a "Lynne Rienner Publishers" book, is a chapter written by Adam Frank, the only chapter that author has written on Falun Gong--it is explicitly about the scholarly and media discourse on Falun Gong, not a thorough examination of the origins of the persecution. Finally, your point about He Zuoxiu already being predisposed to attacking Falun Gong is well taken. But this does not conflict with the documented statements about his connection with Luo Gan, and Luo Gan's leading role in the persecution. They are complimentary pieces of information, not contradictory ones. Again, if you had a source which said explicitly that the brother-in-law thing was simply irrelevant, well, then we could say how others find it irrelevant; at the moment we have several reliable sources talking about its relevance. There is not a conflict between one source not saying it therefore meaning we shouldn't say it; Wikipedia is a composite of the best research on a given topic. -- Asdfg12345 03:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I have added the religion RFC tag as well. I think a few points are relevant here:

1) How is the material in question directly relevant to the topic of this article? This article is about Falun Gong, the movement. So far as I have seen, there is one source which states that these two individuals may be in some way cooperating to the detriment of Falun Gong. There are serious questions about whether that synthesis of material is necessarily of such importance that it has to be included in the main article.

2) Please see WP:SYNTH. I note that none of the sources indicate specifically state that there was any form of cooperation between the two individuals. If the purpose of the material is to imply that there is such a cooperation, then that purpose, however good, would be a form of synthesis not permitted by SYNTH.

3) Are these individuals alive? If either is, or even potentially if their direct families are, WP:BLP would very possibly be a serious consideration here. The idea seems to be to indicate that these two have cooperated actively in some way, and, honestly, the evidence presented does not make that a clear and necessary conclusion. Insinuations of things which cannot be clearly documented by reliable sources are very possibly unacceptable per BLP.

4) National Review, which I myself don't necessarily think is that good a magazine, is a good source for this comparatively straightforward information as per WP:RS. A PhD thesis, unless cited as a source by other independent sources, probably isn't. The third source, as mentioned above, doesn't even mention the individuals by name or in any other way clearly and explicitly, and is, on that basis, not really admissable evidence regarding this subject.

So, on the basis of the above, we have one generally reliable source which mentions that these two individuals are related, and other sources which include information which supports that conclusion, but without making clear and forthright statements to that effect. In all honesty, the National Review, on its own, is probably sufficient for the information to be included, if the material is to be included. The question becomes whether the material is of sufficient importance to be included in this, the main article on the topic. Honestly, I cannot see how it is, based on the clear and non-SYNTH information provided. Now, there are other questions involved.

Are these two individuals notable enough in their own rights to have separate biographical articles? If yes, then reference to family is certainly appropriate for such biographical articles.

Is the material, perhaps, of sufficient importance to be included in one of the "child" articles? Maybe. That would depend on a number of matters, including the degree of material in the article about the two individuals themselves. Even there, BLP might be a consideration.

Hope these answers are clear enough. If there are any doubts about what I said, please indicate as much below. John Carter (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I want to give my comment on this. I'll get back to you in a few hours. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick word. The material in question is only relevant in the context of Falun Gong. It bears virtually no significance in the biographies of these persons. There is ample research on the significance of the Zhongnanhai manifestation and the preceding Tianjin incident; among the competing narratives on the pre-crackdown era, this version of events is directly supported by many important sources, even if not all of them mention the family relationship between Luo Gan and He Zuoxiu. Gutmann in National Review believes the connection is important, and he is not the only source talking about a melange of science, ideology, politics and personal affiliations. Since this context and narrative already exists, we are not synthesising material, only providing the readers with reliably sourced remarks on the circumstances leading up to the crackdown. As far as I see it, there is no encyclopaedic reason to keep this information out of the article. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the passages cited are directly from these sources, certainly not an original synthesis of them. -- Asdfg12345 03:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Reorganized

I have done some Reorganizing to harmonize with WP:NRM.MOS, No content has been removed or added. Some further work can be done like Trimming the Persecution Section as its nearly half the article and some of that can be more appropriately used in the history part The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

A major determinant of what is to be included and how much space it is to take up is about notability, right? I mean, what the topic is notable for. If this assumption is correct, then I would think the persecution information should occupy a substantial portion of the article, since that is one of the most notable features of Falun Gong (i.e., its being persecuted). If either of these assumptions are not the case (notability influencing quantity/focus, and persecution being particularly notable) then I stand corrected and we should do something about that, after establishing the truth of both those claims.-- Asdfg12345 04:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

We have its own article so it can be covered adequately covered in detail. [[Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts – "Summary style" articles]We really only need a short summary]] of the main article. The Family International is a "sex cult," Scientology is known for suing people and Xenu. These are popular and important topics centered around these groups but are only one aspect of the group itself. Thus We have a summary here and give it the full monty elsewhere. I am not advocating the topics removal or negating the importance of the topic. Merely pointing it out it has undue weight as its own lengthy section. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I see. You didn't say much, but you write persuasively, and I think you make a good point. Let's see what we can do about that. The article is too long, as it is. Not just about the persecution, but some of the other sections. They spend a lot of words to get where they are going. -- Asdfg12345 05:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, the persecution is the longest so that is what I am most concerned about. I agree other section need trimming too and others need expansion. Most sections here can be adequately covered in maybe 3-5 paragraphs at most. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting perspective. It takes five paragraphs just to adequately explain what happened around Zhongnanhai, though. And if you look at some articles like Holocaust, you are in for a long read. This is a massive and important subject. It seems hard to balance the demands for complete coverage and those for brevity and ease of access. For now my strategy is to try to help construct a coherent and complete account of the key points on this page, and then when that is mostly done, start farming it out to the daughter articles, leaving the key parts here. It is hard to get an idea of what is the crucial information required here and what is tangential when it is not all here. I wanted to write more into the persecution section and many other sections, and then start taking it apart again. I just wrote the same point twice in different ways. I think you know what I mean. I can see the sense in the direction you are proposing. Asdfg12345 05:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah lol Perhaps your right, I was over optimistic with a 3-5 paragraphs but I am glad you follow my reasoning as I follow yours. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of the need for a reorganization of sorts as well to achieve a similar effect. That is, placing more emphasis on the practice itself (practice and beliefs, organization, categorization, demography, etc.), and consolidating some of the information that had been scattered on the page. So I applaud the effort. However, I'm afraid I have to disagree with the manner in which this organization was done. There is now a great discontinuity from the history in China to the ban; sections that used to lead into each other (Zhongnanhai -> the statewide suppression) are now separated by vast amounts of text. Moreover, the suppression of Falun Gong does not constitute a controversy in the conventional sense, and I don't think that's the appropriate header. I would suggest that the order of sub-sections might look something like this: 1) Practice and Beliefs 2) organization 3) categorization 4) public debate 5) History in China 6) Statewide suppression 7) Response (outside and inside China) Homunculus (duihua) 02:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Please remember that We should follow the manual of style for of style for these movements. The State wide suppression mostly should be trimmed and included into the history section. I agree The cohesion right now sucks and It needs clean up The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Unless I'm missing something, the manual of style offers very loose guidance on the article's structure, stating only that it should include, at a minimum, the beliefs and teachings, history, and reception. In what order, with what emphasis, and what additional sections appears to be left open-ended. While this article is certainly imperfect, frankly I'm not too concerned about its ability to conform to the requirements of the style manual. In any case, if you are generally in agreement over the proposed order, I can attempt to implement it as such. Whether the suppression is its own section or is folded into the history section is up for discussion. I'm not very partial, though I should note that at present, both the History of Falun Gong and Persecution of Falun Gong have their own, fairly extensive articles. It might therefore make more sense that they have their own sections within the Falun Gong article. Homunculus (duihua) 03:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Wp:summary style explains how articles of this sort should be broken up etc. I agree with Homunculus' proposed reordering, though I would put categorization and public debate somehow under the same rubric, or maybe even combined, and change the subhead from 'statewide suppression' to just 'suppression.' Also, it's unclear how relevant the NRM manual of style is here: Falungong is not necessarily an NRM, though there are some writers who consider it such. Primarily it should be understood in its indigenous context, as a traditional Chinese gongfa, not a "new religious movement." Homunculus, do you want to get onto that reordering? I might also add that I think the controversies, categorization, response, all can be shortened. I agree with Asdfg12345 that they are verbose and take too long to make their points. The non-crucial information can be shipped out to sub articles. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I am working on a new reorganization now. It may take a couple days, so hold tight. I will provide explanation on the changes, which I'm sure will prove to be a wildly entertaining read. Homunculus (duihua) 05:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to this next attempt, and I hope it is better than the first. I am sorry to report, ResidentAnthropologist, but I found your changes utterly confounding and I am about to reverse them. I hadn't looked until now. I disagree with nearly everything about the changes. I appreciate the attempt to fix the article and be WP:BOLD about it, but I think it was much better how it was (it was logically sequenced, to a large degree, at the very least). So I'm putting it back, and I hope we can all wait for the new attempt that Homunculus is going to make. I will also say that it's great to see some other editors engaging seriously in this topic. -- Asdfg12345 16:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I am equally sorry to report that WP:COI indicates that editors who have a clear conflict of interest are not supposed to make unilateral changes to content about which they have a clear conflict of interests. On that basis, I am reverting the last changes made to the article, and feel required to warn any individuals who have such conflicts of interests that they may be eligible for sanctions if they engage in such unilateral changes again. If they honestly oppose such changes, I believe they would be best advised to file an RfC to get the perspectives of more neutral editors before making such changes again in the future. John Carter (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This is most bizarre. The last change made by Asdfg did not change content, and was not unilateral. He was, instead, reverting a previous unilateral edit which saw the content of the page reorganized. Asdfg reverted to the previous version of the page only after both myself and TheSoundAndTheFury agreed that the attempted reorganization missed the mark. Please explain, specifically, how this violates a conflict of interest policy, because I simply don't see it. Homunculus (duihua) 19:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Because I didn't look at the history, obviously, and screwed up big time in so doing, for which I apologize. Having said that, I have to believe that there are serious questions about how much space to give the material on persecution in China. I do note that the online Britannica (I think that's the source - I haven't checked lately) does have a separate article on the persecution, but that is only one of several outside generally reliable sources, and even that source has, as I've seen elsewhere, at times a bit of a bias toward Western (English-speaking and European) perceptions. Having said that, I would myself think the following changes would be in order:

1) Having a "History in China" and a separate "Statewide suppression" section seems to give the two aspects of the history equal weight. Also, there is no indication of "history outside of China", which is I think relevant. I cannot see how we could not have, reasonably, a single "History" main section, with three subsections, pre-crackdrown, post-crackdown, and history outside of China. Certainly, there are multiple books which deal with the external history of Falun Gong, but no section of the article as yet. Why?

2) As far as I know, there is only one FA class article about a religious faith, Bahai Faith. That faith, also, has been the subject of somewhat extreme persecution at times. In that article, the repression comes as the 7th major heading, not the 3rd. I can see no particularly good reason why this article would require a completely separate form and structure than that article, particularly considering the number and degree of similarities between the two.

Having said all that, however, I do have to apologize for my early edit, which was done without clear thinking and with obviously incomplete review, and thus apologize again. Feel free to revert my own action, although I myself would honestly like to see discussion of perhaps following the format of the Bahai article first. Also, it would probably help if we consulted any other extant encyclopedias or other works to see how they format their articles on the subject, because I have a feeling that they might be useful templates. But, yeah, I screwed up. Sorry. John Carter (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a still an issue here, however, with Asdfg's previous insertion of a large amount of uncited material[22], in particularly claims of family links between Luo Gan and He Zuoxiu which was clearly disputed by previous discussions.--PCPP (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

John, No worries. I can see how what looked like a very significant edit by Asdfg would raise some flags. To your other points, I think your suggestions are valid. See my discussion here on plans for reorganization. I will take your recommendations here into account, for sure. Homunculus (duihua) 20:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There seem to be two issues here: the organisation of the page and the He/Luo information.

Viz. the organisation, I think we are safe putting it back to how it was before TheResidentAnthropologist's changes, which seemed deliciously bold; this was Asdfg12345's edit which has just been discussed above. I will make this change presently on the assumption that Homunculus and John Carter just formed that understanding. If I am mistaken, and in fact, it is thought that TheResidentAnthropologist's reorganisation of the page is desirable, then please do not hesitate to revert me.

The second issue is the He/Luo connection. That is still under discussion. PCPP, I don't believe the problem is that the material lacks citations. There are several sources cited. For the record, I see no reason that the sources brought forth so far should be excluded—though I could be convinced by new information.

Also for the record, I agree with John Carter's assessment on the Bahai comparison. Looking forward to the new reorganisation that Homunculus comes up with. —Zujine|talk 21:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I myself might favor something like the following structure: (1) beliefs and practices, (2) texts, (3) history, (3A-3?) subsections on persecution, FG outside China, etc., (4) demographics, (5) organizational structure (or lack of same - related entities, like Epoch Times and Shen Yun could be mentioned here), and the standard ending sections. The relevant questions that might impact this include when the texts were created, and whether the history prior to them was involved in their creation. If yes, then maybe the texts section would appear after the history. Maybe. In the Bahai article, texts precedes history, but that subject has a longer history since the texts were written, so it makes sense to have the bulk of the history come after the texts section, because that reflects the historical reality of most of its history being after the texts. If FG is expected to last for a considerable time, we should probably follow that lead. If not, and from what I know of some of the Chinese NRMs over time they do somewhat regularly disperse after the deaths of their founders, that might be different.

Also, I have gathered together at least a few reviews and similar works on the various extant books in English which discuss FG to a significant degree. I think that this subject, like a lot of others, would very much benefit from having a clear section or separate article on Bibliography of Falun Gong, with either separate articles on the books included therein or separate sections of the Bibliography article discussing the books. I will myself work on the bibliography article and individual articles as time permits, but there are very few of them even extant at this time and Falun Gong not being at the real beginning of the English alphabet, it might be awhile before I get there. If anyone would want the material I have gathered together to work on themselves, send me an e-mail and I will go on the sites in question and have them send to that address the citations, reviews, etc., I got from them. John Carter (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of Reorganization

On the assumption that I had everyone’s blessing, expressed or implicit, I have just updated the main article. A summary and explanation of changes is below. I know I previously promised this would be riveting, but now I’m simply hoping that I don’t offend too many people’s sensibilities. As we all know, this is a contentious topic, and I don’t expect that these changes will be universally well received, but I do hope that those who are particularly invested in this topic can appreciate what the edits attempt to accomplish.

The main changes are a reorganization of the sections, and the paring down of the entire article. I also attempted to add, in some cases, summary paragraphs at the beginning of some of the sub-sections, as they previously followed a somewhat ad-hoc, stream-of-consciousness order.

The new sections are as follows:

Beliefs and Teachings

• Categorization
• Organization and Structure
• Demographics

History

• Criticism and Response
• Tianjin and Zhongnanhai Protests
• The Ban

Suppression

• Media Campaign
• Conversion Program
• Coercive Measures
• Response Inside China

Falun Gong Outside China

Reception

• Controversies

The rationale for this reorganization is based largely on persistent suggestions that the article gave too much emphasis to the persecution of Falun Gong, and insufficient attention to the practice itself. I attempted to shorten the suppression section by consolidating information and removing extraneous and redundant analysis by human rights groups and academics. There is more that can be done in this respect, but I am not sufficiently bold to make further cuts to the content. I suggest that the content that was removed, if it is deemed relevant, be placed in the persecution article. I also moved the suppression section down, relative information about the practice itself.

Some editors have suggested that the suppression section should simply be folded into the history section, and then be followed by a discussion of Falun Gong’s organization, demography, etc. I attempted to do this, but ultimately concluded that it may be better to keep the most relevant information about the beliefs, organization, and composition of practitioners together, rather than breaking it up with a long and complex history about suppression in China. I therefore kept all the information about the practice under the same heading.

I also attempted to bring the suppression section under the History heading, but encountered two problems: First, as TheSoundAndTheFury pointed out, convention holds that the sub-headings should correspond to daughter articles, and both the suppression and the history have their own daughter article. The second problem I encountered is that I found it rather difficult to organize the suppression section as part of a chronological narrative (it is currently organized thematically). In the end, aside from reducing the total length and adding brief section summaries, I did very little in the way of changing the content of this section. In the future, however, I recommend that some effort be made to combine a chronological and thematic approach to the suppression. It should include more recent information, as the article currently says very little about the suppression from 2005 - present. Hopefully this information can be added without greatly expanding the size of this section.

Other notable changes:

• I broke up the “Public Debate,” moved “Categorization” into the “Practice and Beliefs” heading, and “Controversies” into the “Reception” section. Speaking of...

• I created a “Reception” section, and wrote some additional content, including a summary overview. Much of the content here was culled from other sections, where it was out of place (namely, ‘Public Debate’ and ‘Falun Gong outside China’)

• The ‘Controversies’ section now also includes the discussion of Falun Gong’s ‘cult’ status which was previously found elsewhere in the article.

• The section ‘Falun Gong outside China’ was messy and without direction. It discussed both the practice and activities of Falun Gong outside China, as well as its reception. It now discusses only the former. I also added an overview for this section and a brief history of the practice outside China, then transitioning into a discussion of how overseas Falun Gong communities have responded to the Chinese government’s campaign.

• I wrote a section on the demographics of Falun Gong practitioners both inside and outside China, drawing mainly on research by Ownby and Palmer, and some research cited by Porter.

• The categorization section includes content previously found in ‘Public Debate,’ as well as content that was previously in the Practice and Beliefs discussion. I also reduced the length here, as much of the content proved to be redundant when it was pulled together.

• The sections on organization and structure are pulled both from the previous version of the page, as well as contributions by Asdfg on the talk page regarding finances

• Added more information on Falun Gong beliefs, cosmology, and practice

• In the interest of reducing length, I tended to summarize instances of talking heads who were simply going back and forth on an issue.

All told, I think I reduced the length by about 1,500 words. I also made a number of other minor changes – removing the Gao Rongrong photo, for instance. I am happy to discuss any and all these changes at greater length, and hope that subsequent discussions will be constructive and in good faith. Homunculus (duihua) 03:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I am of two minds about this... these are certainly big changes, and many of them undiscussed. I disagree with what you call the "extraneous and redundant analysis" about the persecution, since it is one of the most notable aspects of this topic. I have changed a few subheads and re-added one of the important images regarding the persecution. I didn't look at the changes thoroughly but I will over the next few days, and probably have more comments. I do appreciate the work that goes into this though, at the least. -- Asdfg12345 03:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the reorganization is excellent. Asdfg, do you feel you have a tendency to own the page? It was agreed by several of us that the information about the suppression (I am about to revert your changes to those subsections) needn't be so prominent or extensive. Homunculus is to be applauded for the rigorous scholarship and painstaking research that obviously went into this rewrite. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)