Talk:Falun Gong

Number of followers in 1999

We say in Demography section:

Prior to 1999, widely cited government estimates put the number of Falun Gong practitioners in China at over 70 million adherents. After the government imposed a ban on the group, it adjusted its estimates to approximately 2 million.

It might appear that the quoted material source is faluninfo.net, Number of Falun Gong practitioners in China in 1999: at least 70 million, which also uses the same three sources and arrives to adjustment conclusion. See sources for clarity:

• Renee Schoff's May 1 1999, New-age China: Cult or Cure (found it using faluninfo quote: "“But with more members than the Communist Party - at least 70 million, according to the State Sports Administration - Falun is also a formidable social network...”")
• Seth Faison, "In Beijing: A Roar of Silent Protestors," New York Times, 27 April 1999
• Seth Faison, "Followers of Chinese Sect Defend Its Spiritual Goals," New York Times, 30 July 1999

Later we add in 1996–1999 section:

By 1999, estimates provided by the State Sports Commission suggest there are upwards of 70 millions Falun Gong practitioners in China. Wu Shaozu, an official from China’s National Sports Commission, was at this time quoted in an interview with U.S. News & World Report that as many as 100 million may have taken up Falun Gong and other forms of qigong. Wu noted that the popularity of Falun Gong dramatically reduces health care costs, and that “Premier Zhu Rongji is very happy about that.”

Suggestions

1. We should do something about material duplication Demography<->1996–1999.
2. For Demography quoted material we might follow Seth Faison, 30 July 1999, along lines: Falun Gong followers insist that they number at least 100 million, though scholars say a truer figure is probably between 20 million and 60 million. The authorities, not known for their accurate portrayal of the group's followers, say there are only two million."

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a great deal of duplicate material. Given that the number of followers in China circa 1999 is relevant to both the history and the demography, I think it's fine to keep it in both places; the mention is brief enough. As to the Seth Faison accounts, there are two articles by him: the first, published in April 1999, cites government estimates of 70 million. The second, published after the suppression began in July 1999, notes the adjusted government estimate of 2 million. The estimate of ~2 million first appeared in mid-July of 1999, and was made public immediately after the campaign began. This is why it's stated that the government adjusted its estimate downwards from tens of millions to two million. I hope that's clear. The page already gives a range of estimates from Western observers of 10 - 70 million. Maybe it should be 10 - 60 million, citing Faison on the high end, and David Palmer on the low end. One could also add a note that estimates vary, in part, because people are measuring different things. Palmer, for instance, is trying to gauge the number of committed disciples, not casual practitioners.

Regarding you edit to the lede, it reads a little choppy to me. Also, I'm sure this was just an oversight, but you got the pronoun wrong. People are "who," things are "which."Homunculus (duihua) 03:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding lede edit, somebody already fixed which->who.
• Regarding it adjusted its estimates - we can not attribute this material to Seth Faison, 30 July 1999, the source does not note that. We could attribute this observation to faluninfo.net, if other editors agree.
• Regarding 70 millions number, it appears this number comes from the State Sports Commission, according to Renee Schoff's May 1 1999. We have a source in 1996–1999 section where Wu Shaozu, an official from China’s National Sports Commission, raises estimations to 100 millions.

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the adjusted estimate, I recommend we source this to the U.S. Department of State: "Prior to the Government's 1999 ban on Falun Gong, it estimated that there were 70 million adherents; the Government subsequently adjusted the number of adherents to approximately 2 million. Falun Gong sources estimate that tens of millions continue to practice privately."[1]. As to the other estimates, what do you propose? Homunculus (duihua) 02:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The US government source does not shed more light on the issue, imho. The source is not academical, rather political, and does not cite any primary source for their claim. 70 millions number still appears to be reliably sourced to China’s National Sports Commission. The Sports Commission organization does not appear to represent CCP or PRC government. On the contrary, Wu Shaozu cited statements demonstrate that Sport Commission is sympathetic to Falun Gong. We have additional source in the lede

• By 1999, some estimates placed the number of Falun Gong adherents at over 70 million, exceeding the total membership of the Chinese Communist Party.

According to Gallagher-Ashcraft Falun Gong claimed 60 million followers, "rivaling the size of the CCP". Lede's Joseph Kahn's source attribute the 70 millions number to "Beijing" or PRC government., such claim contains internal contradiction, since Kahn notes: "Chinese Government estimates has more members than the Communist Party". Well, even reliable sources contain bad material from time to time. I'd sugest to treat claims that "rival the size of the CCP" indiscriminately as Falun Gong estimates.

For the article material, on question of number of Falun Gong partitioners in 1999, I'd sugest to go along lines of Librarian from Idaho, which cites this information to Tong, supra n. 11, at 636 and say:

• By the time of crackdown in1999, estimations on Falun Gong membership ranged from as low as 2.1 million according to CCP and and as high as 60-80 million according to Falun Gong.

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Agada, I'm afraid I'm more than a little confused as to what you're proposing. The State Sports Commission (aka State General Administration for Sports) that Wu Shaozu represented is a government organization under the control of the State Council. It is correct to say that a government body produced an estimate of ~70 million in 1998 (at that time the suppression had not begun, and several government ministries still openly supported Falun Gong). In July 1999, the Ministry of Public Security issued a revised number of about 2.1 million. It is my understanding that Falun Gong claimed to have closer to 100 million members, by contrast. I also don't know what you're saying regarding the notion that FG may have had more members than the party. Multiple news reports and other reliable sources have noted this comparison. As to the U.S. government source, I provided it because it's a reliable source that clearly connects the two divergent estimates from Chinese government sources, saying that the Chinese authorities revised their numbers downward from 70 million to 2 million. There is nothing politically driven in this observation; it's just what happened. Could you just clarify what you're suggesting? Homunculus (duihua) 16:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but the quantum leap State General Administration for Sports equals CCP is still not reliable. Sure, in 1999 when the crackdown started, sensational news reports might have included the material by media reporters where those two organizations were mixed up. For an observer outside China, it might appear that the Communist Party controls everything and everybody inside China and let's not pretend that PRC is a liberal democracy. But when we cross-reference with other sources present in this article even for a non-expert like me, it is clear that Wu Shaozu advocates for the Falun Gong. For the sake of the quality we need to base the material on later academical independent secondary sources, like Librarian from Idaho which summarizes academical world view on the subject. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Agada, I see you replaced other sources with the article by Michael Greenlee. I don't think that's a very good idea, for the same reason I've raised previously. Namely, there are vastly divergent estimates, they measure different things, and the official estimates changed from 1998 to July 1999. Furthermore, by deleted other sources, you're treating Greenlee (a legal scholar, apparently) as authoritative. But he's not. Look at the source of Greenlee's estimate on the population of Falun Gong circa 1999. He cited James Tong's article in the China Quarterly. In particular, Greenlee was citing Tong's statement that by July 22 1999, Falun Gong "had attracted a following between 2 to 80 million inside China, according to respective official and falun gong estimates." The footnote Tong gives provides an even greater range:

Renmin ribao (People’s Daily), 15 August 1999, p. 1. Official media gave a range of estimates for the number of falun gong adherents, from 2 million in the above report, to 40 million in Nanfang ribao, 18 March 1999, p. 11. The later, more authoritative figures are 2.1 to 2.3 million, Xinhua, 27 October 2001; Zong Hairen, “Zhu Rongji zai yijiujiujiu nian” (“Zhu Rongji in 1999”), p. 15, Chinese original in September 2001, English text in Chinese Law and Government, January–February, March–April 2002. There is also a range of falun gong estimates. The most common is 70–80 million domestic practitioners, and over 100 million world-wide, see “Falun gong zhenshi di gushi” (“The real story of falun gong”) 14 August 1999, in www.Mingui.ca, the falun gong website, hereafter Minghui. On the high end, one falun gong leader in Guangdong claimed that the movement had 130 million followers, Nanfang ribao, 27 July 1999, p. 2.

So, Falun Gong estimates were mostly in the 70-80 million range, and official estimates were 2 million to 40 million as of 22 July 1999. But as multiple reliable sources have noted, official estimates were higher prior to July 1999, ranging up to 70 million. You deleted any mention of this. I suggest you restore the information on where official estimates stood circa 1998. I also suggest you restore the note about what independent scholars estimated participation to be in this era, per Seth Faison's article. You could also refer to David Palmer's low-end estimate of 10 million for active practitioners in this era.

In response to your last comment, I didn't understand what you were staying about the State Sports Commission on first read. It seems you're arguing that reporters confused it for the Communist Party. That's not the case. The State Sports Commission is a government body, which answers to the State Council. It is not a Communist Party body, and no one ever said they were the same thing. The Ministry of Public Security is also a government, rather than a CCP, organization. But it is still correct to say that a government organ in 1998 produced the estimate of 70 million followers, and that number was revised by another government body in July 1999 to 2 million. Homunculus (duihua) 02:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Just looked at the page. this edit strikes me as making no sense. Hmm, well, seeing as there has been no explanation by Agada about the change, and seeing that it doesn't make sense (it inserts a citation request?) I will just undo it. The numbers issue is complex; the new presentation muddies more than clarifies, and I don't think that essentially replacing multiple secondary sources with one kind of unknown tertiary source is an adequate solution. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's best to allow the fellow a chance to respond before reverting.Homunculus (duihua) 04:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

This is unbelievable. The Sound and the Fury says " seeing as there has been no explanation by Agada about the change". So he just "undo it?" Really? Please see the discussion above. Let me sum it up for you again:

• Regarding it adjusted its estimates - we can not attribute this material to Seth Faison, 30 July 1999, the source does not note that. We could attribute this observation to faluninfo.net, if other editors agree. And no political US source does not help.
• The quantum leap State General Administration for Sports equals Communist Party or China's government is still not reliable. Please see ref [37], cited multiple times in the article. Yuezhi Zhao outlines in Falung Gong, the Chinese State and Media Politics. see page 212 the affiliation of Li Hongzhi with this Sports Commission, when Falun Gong was legitimized by the state. Moreover she notes that the state helped to publish and distribute Li Hongzhi's books and the his followers were in highest echelons on the Communist Party. So this is not a surprise that Wu Shaozu advocates for the Falun Gong.

I'm surprised how some editors behave in the article covered by arbitration sanctions. I see a point though in attributing 2.1 number to PRC instead the party to get closer to the source provided. We need to summarize though, it appears there is no way to cite a "real" number since both sides wage a propaganda war. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, I misread the chronology of this conversation, and it looked like you made the change unilaterally and against consensus. On reading more carefully I see that wasn't the case, so I'm sorry for being quick on the revert trigger. I thought there were ample sources on the point that the two million estimate came after the persecution as a general part of the propaganda campaign (i.e., diminish influence of the verboten group; [2]), but more sources can be found for that by someone if necessary. Mainly I objected to the change because it seemed to simplify a more complex picture with a single tertiary source. I don't know who equated the sports commission with the communist party; no doubt it's an official organ of the state, however, and its "estimates" (who knows how reliable they were to begin with) of the number of followers are understood to be within the rubric of the permissible at that time in China. Numbers in China, of most any type, are easily and often politicized. The FLG-follower number quickly became political after the ban. As long as the article reflects this, according to reliable sources, that's fine. And of course both sides seek to portray themselves in the most favorable light. But that's as helpful as saying the sky is blue when the sun's out and no clouds inhibit its rays. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Agada, I agree that what's currently on the page could be improved upon, though the content you replaced with was also deficient. Also agree with your statement that we need to try to be concise, and that no definitive number is possible (really, if you pick any multiple of ten million up to 130 million, chances are someone has estimated the FG population to be that). Sometime tomorrow I will go through my collection of sources and come back with a suggestion on what the wording might be, and maybe we can find a solution agreeable to all. Is that reasonable? I hope this process isn't too frustrating or disheartening. Homunculus (duihua) 03:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I looked through several different sources, and came up with the most densely referenced paragraph I've ever composed. Let me know if this satisfies:

Prior to the July suppression of the group, Chinese government estimates placed the number of Falun Gong practitioners as high as 60 to 70 million nationwide, rivaling membership in the Communist Party. By the time of the suppression on July 22, 1999, most Chinese government numbers said the population of Falun Gong was between 2 and 3 million, though some publications supported an estimate of 40 million. Most Falun Gong estimates in the same period estimated the total number of practitioners in China at 70-80 million. Other sources have estimated the Falun Gong population in China to have peaked between 10 and 60 million practitioners.

Let me know if this addresses your concerns adequately, or how it might be improved.Homunculus (duihua) 07:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Funny, so Homunculus, you still think, according to available sources, that 70 millions attributed to the State Sports Administration could be attributed to the Chinese government , honestly? Do you still want to make "adjustment" WP:POINT? I don't really care, but this does not make any sense. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I've expended considerable effort just trying to understand what you're objecting to, and I'm afraid I still don't understand. Is it that you don't think the State Sports Administration is part of the government? Well, it is. It is an agency directly administered by the State Council which, in lay terms, is the government of the People's Republic of China. More importantly, four of the reliable sources used to substantiate that estimate simply credit it to "the government," so that is what I wrote. Do you want the article to credit that number to the State Sports Commission directly? If that's the case, just say so. It's really not a big deal.Homunculus (duihua) 01:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. I don't have personal experience with Falun Gong, but I have reviewed considerable number of sources. The subject was popular among schoolars. I like the fact that faluninfo appears supported by reliable sources, it reads almost as Wikipedia. I'm going to tag the article for npov and synth material. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? I really do not understand what you're doing. I've tried very hard to cooperate with you, but you're simply not making any sense. What do you want? Please explain what you think is problematic, in very clear terms. You've just added four tags to the article without any coherent explanation of what the problem is. If you don't explain the problems you've identified, then no one will be able to arrive at a solution. Homunculus (duihua) 23:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• I removed the tags. Since Agada commented on the talk page since then, he obviously saw the request to explain what their point was (and implicitly declined to do so). Pls don't put tags on the page etc. just to make a point about some other editing or content issue one is not happy about. There is a thing about Wikipedia:Tagging_pages_for_problems. I would say it's not even necessary because there is proactive discussion going on here and people who jump right into it and fix things when problems are identified. Let's play nice. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I keep reading this conversation, and I still don't know how it spiraled out of control. Agada, I really have been trying to understand and address your concerns, so there's no need for the sardonic tone, let alone any justification for tag bombing the page. I am still interested in addressing your concerns and improving the estimates on demographics. Please read the proposal I posted above, take a look at the dozen or so references used to support it and the quotes contained therein, and let me know if there is some specific, actionable way to improve upon it. If your objection is that the 70 million number is sourced to "the government" (per the sources) and not the State Sports Commission, I'm totally happy to just use the State Sports Commission. Even though it's not made clear in the majority of sources, it is more accurate and specific. If you have a clear, specific objection, please share it and propose an alternative. Homunculus (duihua) 06:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I hope it's alright if I move forward with the change as proposed. I'll use the sports commission in lieu of "government."Homunculus (duihua) 00:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

References for above

References

Organ Harvesting

The idea of the Chinese harvesting the organs of Falun Gong prisoners against their will while they're still alive and selling them on the black market is almost as interesting as it is horrific, to me anyway. With the way the People's republic of china seems to be silently castrating almost all Wikipedia articles concerning it I have to say I'm not surprised to find this omitted. If I was more knowledgeable about editing these pages I would take it on myself to fight the suppression of free information about China but as lowly ignorant consumer of Wikipedia's greatness I have to leave that to all of you. I hope that the Kilgour-Matas Report is found to be worth more than a passing mention in this article. The report offers compelling evidence and the fact that it is not mentioned here is frightening.--76.182.236.144 (talk) 05:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Propaganda

Nice propaganda in this article.

-There has never been any conclusive evidence for the allegations of organ harvesting or even the allegations of widespread torture of Falun Gong members. The allegations should be classified here as opinion, not stated as fact. Significant doubts have been raised concerning many of these supposed human rights abuses.

-Falun Gong was outlawed because of it's political motivations and it's threat to stability in China, not because of it's "spiritual teachings". Anybody who believes that is completely ignorant of the objective, observable reality. There are countless Qigong based spiritual groups operating in China openly, without any kind of persecution. Falun Gong was banned when it became increasingly political, culminating when 10'000 members staged an illegal demonstration at Zhongnanhai.

-Academic classifications of what Falun Gong actually is are varied. Margaret Singer, Berkeley professor and considered by many to be the world's foremost expert on cults, considered them a cult. This deserves mention.

-Absurd figures such as "70 million adherents in Mainland China", "more followers than the members of the Chinese Communist Party" are not consistent with reality and are not academically sound by any standard. How was this laughable data collected?

-Mention should be made of Falun Gong's control of/association with propaganda outlets such as The Epoch Times, Shen Yun Performing Arts and New Tang Dynasty Television.

-Proper mention should be made of the high profile murder and suicide cases involving Falun Gong members, as well as the hundreds of instances of FLG members perishing as a result of refusal to take medicine or recieve medical treatment

Honestly, this article reads like something straight off of clearwisdom. It's a laugh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnAimlessRoad (talk • contribs) 02:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Heres a laugh for you,

• Of 60,000 organ transplants officially recorded between 2000 and 2005, 18,500 came from identifiable sources (including death row inmates), making the source of 41,500 transplant organs unexplained. Traditional sources of transplants such as executed prisoners, donors, and the brain dead "come nowhere near to explaining the total number of transplants across China" (they therefore conclude that the only other identified source which can explain the “skyrocketing” transplant numbers is Falun Gong practitioners).
• The meteoric increase in organ transplantation in China corresponds with the timeline of the Falun Gong suppression.
• There are very short waiting times in Chinese hospitals for transplants. One hospital boasted a wait of one week for a transplant, another claimed to provide a liver in two weeks. In Canada, the waiting time for a kidney can be up to 32.5 months. Meanwhile, the survival period for a kidney is between 24-48 hours and a liver about 12 hours. The authors contend that only a large bank of living 'donors' could account for the “astonishingly short” waiting times.
• Recipients of organs from China say that the transplant surgery is “conducted in almost total secrecy,” the recipient is not told the identity of the donor or shown written consent, the identity of the doctor and nurses are often withheld, operations sometimes take place in the middle of the night, and “the whole procedure is done on a 'don't ask, don't tell' basis”
• Mandarin speaking investigators, posing as potential organ transplant recipients or their relatives, called several Chinese hospitals inquiring about organ availability and obtained admissions that Falun Gong practitioners’ organs were being used (the original recordings of these conversations remain available).
• Information on Chinese hospital websites is "self-accusatory" in that it admits to waiting times of one week, or organ swap intervals of one week (these websites were later taken offline, but Kilgour and Matas archived them); many Chinese transplant websites showed graphs with soaring organ transplantation figures, showing a sharp rise soon after the persecution of Falun Gong began.
• Organ transplanting is a highly profitable industry in China, with a kidney worth US$62,000, a heart worth US$130,000-160,000;
• Anecdotal evidence indicates that Falun Gong practitioners are blood and urine tested and have their organs examined while in custody, while other prisoners, who are not practitioners, are not tested.

I'm sure you got a kick out of that, I really wish we could stop CPC members like you from castrating all of these articles. --76.182.236.144 (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment - He / Luo connection

Should the article, specifically the section dealing with events that led to the suppression of the Falun Gong in the spring of 1999, note the alleged familial connection between two of Falun Gong’s leading opponents in this era? Two reliable sources (excerpted below) have noted this connection and the possible significance of it. The men are He Zuoxiu, a physisist and opponent of qigong, Chinese medicine, and pseudo-science; and Luo Gan, a high-ranking Chinese official with significant influence over the Ministry of Public Security. Both men were instrumental in the events that led to the suppression, and benefited personally from it. One proposal for what could be on the page is this:

"Porter and Gutmann have noted the possible significance of a familial relationship between He Zuoxiu and Luo Gan, who are purported to be brothers-in-law or otherwise related by marriage. Porter speculates that the two may have planned the events of April 1999 with the goal of provoking Falun Gong and creating a pretext for the suppression of the group."

As stated above, there are two reliable sources who note this connection. The first, anthropologist Noah Porter, did so in his MA thesis, which was later published as a book. Although only a Master’s dissertation, the work achieved considerable influence, and was well reviewed by more established experts on the field. Porter is not an expert on Chinese politics, however, and some editors expressed concern that Porter’s source on the family link are Falun Gong websites which, while not necessarily untrue, are not necessarily true either. This is a slightly redacted version of Porter’s synthesis of the events (emphasis added):

Finally, a man named Luo Gan, along with a relative of his, may bear some responsibility for the crackdown.[...] Luo Gan was secretary general of the State Council, and he “had been investigating Falun Gong and had wanted it banned since 1996 but could not find any legal basis for transgression” (Ching 2001). However, “[Luo] had the police direct [Falungong practitioners] to Zhongnanhai, in order to create an incident with which they afterwards could be charged” (Ching 2001). [...] He Zuoxiu, a scientist and one of Luo Gan’s relatives (FalunInfo.net n.d.a; Clearwisdom.net 2000g)...seems to have intentionally provoked Falun Gong [...] He Zuoxiu claimed that two of his graduate students had relapses of mental disorders due to Falun Gong, both in his article and on Beijing Television. The practitioners protested the magazine’s office in Tianjin because they would not carry a response, and were beaten and arrest by riot police (Schechter 2001: 69) under orders from Luo Gan (FalunInfo.net n.d.a). Afterwards, practitioners who complained to local authorities about this harsh treatment were told to go to Beijing (Schechter 2001: 69); Luo Gan had “secretly order[ed] the police to lead Falun Gong practitioners into gathering around the Zhongnanhai government compound” [...] Afterwards, Luo Gan was appointed as part of the team created by the Central Committee of the CCP to investigate the April 25 incident.It was Luo Gan who finally issued the order that Falun Gong be banned (Luo 1999). Luo Gan was then put in charge of the “the Head Office for Handling the Falun Gong Issue,” also known as the “610 Office.” [...] As for He Zuoxiu, he “became a national hero for opposing Falun Gong” (Yan 2001). Things could not have worked out better for the two if they planned it – which, it appears, they just might have.

(In case it is not clear, the point is that Luo wanted to crack down on Falun Gong for years, but had no pretext. He Zuoxiu published the article in Tianjin, which set off a chain reaction that resulted in Falun Gong demonstrating in front of the Zhongnanhai government compound. That demonstration is widely viewed as the catalyst for the crackdown on Falun Gong. As Porter notes, Luo Gan seemed to have been pulling the strings in Tianjin and Zhongnanhai, and was as a result of these events, he was put in charge of the suppression of Falun Gong).

The second source that points out this connection is Ethan Gutmann, an investigative journalist who has written and published on Falun Gong for about a decade. Gutmann was in Beijing as the events of 1999 unfolded, and present at Zhongnanhai when the pivotal Falun Gong demonstration took place. He appears to have sources in the Chinese government, and conducted extensive interviews for his account of the events leading up to the suppression. Gutmann wrote a feature article in the National Review which analyzed the events of the Spring of 1999, essentially arguing that the Falun Gong were baited into protesting at Zhongnanhai, providing certain Communist Party leaders with a long-awaited excuse to launch a full suppression of the group. It cannot be so concisely excerpted, so I would advise reading the full article.[3] One key excerpt is here:

...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.

Editors who oppose the inclusion of the information on He and Luo’s family connection point out that Gutmann does not explain the source of this claim (to which I would say that journalistic articles like this one don’t have footnotes, but are fact-checked by discerning editorial boards).

I did research to see if any other sources (outside the Falun Gong context) have noted the family connection between He Zuoxiu and Luo Gan. There is virtually no information on Luo Gan’s wife. However, in the city of Yangzhou, the He family has a garden frequented by tourists where they display their family tree. According to multiple tourist accounts, the family tree indicates that one of He Zuoxiu’s relatives, He Zuozhi (probably a sister or cousin), is married to Luo Gan. This is not definitive proof, but it certainly helps to make the case that the family connection is real, and no evidence to the contrary has ever been presented.

So, we need to establish:

• That the family connection and the possible implications thereof is notable enough to be briefly mentioned in the relevant history section (with inline citations given)
• That such inclusion satisfies verifiability policy

I hope I have presented the evidence here judiciously and have not left anything out. Sorry this is such a long RfC, but it's a complex issue. Homunculus (duihua) 16:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not have time to work through all the details. What I will say is that the situation is being somewhat misrepresented by the analysis above. I urge any editor who is participating in the RfC to read the full discussion and not rely on the above analysis to characterize the nature of the dispute. Moreover, I do remind the editors that a previous RfC had already been conducted on this matter in 2010, in which User John Carter had pointed out that the passages in question were in violation of WP:BLP, WP:NOR, more specifically WP:SYNTH. I quote User John Carter: "If, and I believe only if a reliable source explicitly says that these two individuals have, in some way, colluded or conspired to act, then, perhaps, that might be relevant to the article about the suppression of Falun Gong in China, and, I suppose, an argument could be made that it is relevant here. But I have not yet seen the sources which make the statements which would be required by policy for this material to be included. If those sources exist, than I very strongly suggest that they be produced and that others be allowed to review them to ensure that the relevant policies and guidelines are not violated." Colipon+(Talk) 16:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

New evidence, and more full excerpts, have been presented in this RfC that were not presented in the previous one. Namely, the Porter source cited above does explicitly say that these two individuals likely colluded or conspired, that they may have had a significant role in catalyzing the persecution, and notes their being relatives as part of that allegation. The Gutmann source is not as explicit, but I think a reasonable person would understand that the subtext is precisely that of a collusion or conspiracy involving these two individuals. Moreover, the new evidence from Yangzhou alleviates BLP concerns (that and the fact that no evidence to the contrary can be found). I also think that the new wording proposed here resolves any concerns about original synthesis. So, with due respect to the previous decision, I would therefore exhort outside parties to consider the evidence presented with fresh eyes. I also hope sincerely that this discussion is not derailed accusations of bad faith or deception.Homunculus (duihua) 16:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not true. The argument haven't advanced at all from Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_36#Bringing_up_an_old_discussion_.28Luo_Gan.29, in which Falun Gong user ASDFG brings up the exact same passage from Palmer. The language Palmer uses is enough to set off alarms for us: "seems to have", "might have", "may bear some". Simply pasting the paragraph instead of the passage does not constitute 'new evidence' from what ASDFG already presented. Again, the standard of scrutiny suggested by John Carter is perfectly reasonable, and the content as it stands does not reach this standard. Colipon+(Talk) 17:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The Porter (not Palmer) passage was not presented in full in the previous RfC. It was very heavily excerpted, which would naturally lead to concerns about synthesis. Do you know why Porter used qualifications like "may have"? It's because he's a responsible scholar. It's likely no one will ever know the truth about what went on, so he can't state definitively that they did conspire. But he can put together the evidence, connect the dots, and say that there appears to have been a conspiracy, and their being related seems to be part of it. And since Porter does that, and Gutmann does that, we can present their views in an equally responsible and qualified manner on this encyclopedia. I am not going to debate with you further. This is forum for uninvolved editors to review what the sources say and weigh in on how it might be included on the page.Homunculus (duihua) 17:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• I am unclear on the relevance of the family relationship. There is an underlying suggestion that the relationship is somehow improper, though the sources do not make that explicit. We do not encourage speculation. If these are the best sources that can be found, then I do not see a rationale for mentioning the relationship. This is a passing comment, I haven't read any background material, and do not have the time or inclination for that at the moment, so my comment must be taken as uninformed and cursory. If I do get some time later, I may look more deeply into the matter. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

There's an explicit claim in several sources that the familial relationship between the two precipitated the particular circumstances of the persecution. It's not an underlying suggestion that the relationship between He/Luo is somehow improper (I'm not sure what this could mean. A familial relationship is a familial relationship--the sources claim that it was put to improper use, specifically in creating the pretext for a suppression, not that the relationship itself is improper). This is stated explicitly in the sources. The question is whether the sources brought forth pass wp:rs for the claims they're making. But what they're claiming is perfectly clear. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was actually discussing this with SilkTork on his/her talk page, and neglected to respond here. Silk raised a point, which I think has some merit, that highlighting the Zhongnanhai counter-narrative may be premature. If the narrative about the He / Luo relationship (and the significant of it) gains more ground in the relevant literature as being significant, then we are in a better position to assess its notability and relevance to the topic. For now, if we present the facts of these events in a straight-forward way, without the speculation on the significance of the familial connection, I think that should be satisfactory. Also, if ever a page is created dealing with the April 25 protest directly, that may be a more appropriate forum to explore the different interpretations of the event in greater detail. I'm not attached to any particular approach.Homunculus (duihua) 23:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

So what you are basically saying is that you are now in favour of removing all the references to He and Luo's familial relationship. 209.29.21.158 (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually I'm being noncommittal to provide an opportunity for more discussion. I think that the idea of stating the facts of the relationship in passing, without elaboration on the possible implications of it, is one option. There's also the option of leaving in a (short) description of what folks like Porter and Gutmann see as the implications, while being careful not to extrapolate beyond what the reliable sources have written. Omitting the information from this page, and perhaps waiting to see if it gains traction in future literature on the subject, is another choice available to us. None of these options seems to be a violation of any Wikipedia policies or guidelines, so all are valid choices as far as I can tell. I would be curious to see what other people think after reading the sources described above.Homunculus (duihua) 05:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you really want this to be an RfC or is this some sort of "I want to intimidate my opponents so I post an RfC that no outsider will understand"? Seriously, if you want anyone other than the usual suspects to give comment, keep it simple... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ha, well, there is no doubt I failed in the mission to elicit comment from non-involved editors! Though I'm not sure how the length of an RfC could be expected to deter only would-be opponents (and, since I'm not committed to a position on this question, I'm not sure who my opponents would be in any case). On self-examination, however, I realize that I may have sought to intimidate those with an aversion to reading. I would hope that people weighing in on this question actually take the time to examine the sources in question and familiarize themselves with the surrounding issues. Maybe I hope for too much.Homunculus (duihua) 16:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"may", "seems", "just might". And other sources don't claim any deliberate provocation. Other sources directly blame Falun Gong for escalating the situation[4][5]. Another one says:

"Falundafa likely became the target of Chinese authorities in 1999. On April 25, 1999 around 10,000 Falundafa believers appeared outside the Chinese leadership's Zhongnanhai compound in Beijing. Contrary to general belief, this was not a protest against the Chinese Government. It was a request for legal recognition and defense against attacks made by a physics professor He Zuoxiu. Prof. He had made a second career as a debunker of what he regarded as pseudoscience and bogus beliefs. He wrote a critique of Falundafa in the April issue of Science and Technology for Youth, an obscure Chinese magazine. The Falundafa protest was in response to this (Eckholm, 2001)." [6].

I already heard of this guy before I saw him in Falun Gong articles. Back in 1994, He Zuoxiu was already a famous skeptic, forcing the Chinese government to make a public commitment against pseudoscience and superstition, see Hongcheng_Magic_Liquid. He appears as a skeptic in 1995 in Science[7] and in May 2006 in Nature[8] (I can't read the full article). There was nothing strange or abnormal about him giving a talk against Falun gong (which was becoming popular at the time, and had a good amount of superstitious explanations for qigong).

Please remove this as speculations from less than a handful of sources, that are not supported on any actual fact. We are not going to add every conspiracy theory. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Enric, it seems that you’re objecting to the inclusion of the speculation about the significance of the He-Luo relationship, which I think is a different question from just stating the relationship (something that could be done in five words or so). I can see the point that including the theory around this is speculative, but when reliable sources are the ones speculating, can’t we report it? The page has an entire section speculating on the causes behind the campaign. I’m not saying we have to include this, but there are a couple points I want to raise for consideration:

• • First, although there are only two sources that explicitly mention this He - Luo connection as being significant, they are not exactly marginal. If I were to make a list of, say, the top ten journalists and scholars whose writings on Falungong are must-reads on the subject, Porter and Gutmann would be on that list. It seems their views on these events represent a notable viewpoint.
  • Secondly, this may actually be a question of neutrality and balance. The version of events that Gutmann and Porter are challenging holds, essentially, that Falungong stupidly provoked the crackdown by protesting at Zhongnanhai (meaning they got what they deserved for their audacity). As Enric says, this account of events blames Falungong for escalating the situation. This is basically the Chinese government’s story. To an extent it was accepted by western journalists at the time because they didn’t know any better. For most of them, Zhongnanhai was their first exposure to Falungong, and they cobbled together what information they could relying on official accounts and plainly observable facts. Gutmann and Porter drew on more evidence to put together a different hypothesis, and found that Falungong was the victim and not the provocateur in the April demonstration. I think there’s a case to be made that a balanced article needs to represent this view (and I suspect this is the reason that such an apparently minor issue has been the subject of such frequent contention).

But leaving aside the question of this alternative narrative, does anyone dispute that the relationship between He and Luo exists? One might disagree with what it means, or think that conspiracy theories are out of place, but it is a fact, is it not? I previously had some concerns, but the stuff from Yangzhou (and the lack of contrary evidence) put those to rest. If we don’t include the short paragraph expounding on the importance of the relationship, at a minimum I think it would be fine to note, when introducing Luo Gan, that he is related through marriage to He Zuoxiu. Given the facts, readers can come to their own conclusions.—Zujine|talk 14:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about perceived truth, it only includes what can be verified from reliable sources. If no reliable sources mention the connection then neither should we. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Right, that is a good point. Please note that two reliable sources mention the connection.Homunculus (duihua) 14:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I find it interesting that so many books and schoolar works were published about the Falun Gong that don't discuss He / Luo connection, while discussing their role in the crackdown. Appears as WP:FRINGE to me. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw the RfC and decided to have a look at this case. I've studied China related topics in the past and read some interesting articles on Falun Gong, and although I can't call myself an expert, the issue at hand seems notable enough to me and the sources appear reliable. Include. Bstephens393 (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

This RfC is unlikely to draw much more constructive comment. As far as I can tell, no one who weighed in took the time to read the sources or analyse them. To recap this and the preceding discussion, there were a couple initial concerns that were raised about inclusion of the He/Luo connection and accompanying theory. Namely, concern about the authenticity and sourcing of the claim, the use of the Zhao article as a source for the claim, and the statement of the connection as unqualified fact. The first of these concerns has been resolved through reference to other sources (outside the Falungong context) which assert the family relationship. The second and third points were addressed early on in edits by The Sound And The Fury. There do not appear to be any further, objective problems, but only normative interpretations. About the inclusion of the collusion theory, I pointed out that this is actually a question of balance, and that Gutmann and Porter are prominent sources on Falungong whose views represent a notable perspective. No one responded to those points. I don't think that inclusion needs to be long. Can I propose that we just adopt the wording presented at the start of this RfC? It's short, well supported by the sources, and is almost certainly an improvement to what's now in the article. That way we can wrap this up. —Zujine|talk 14:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

If it's quite alright with you, I removed the paragraph that expounded on the collusion theory, and left just a passing mention of the relationship with an inline citation to Gutmann and Porter.Homunculus (duihua) 23:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the current version remains WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:CHERRY, even if the relationship itself is 'real', the relevance of it has not been established by a wide enough range of sources. In fact, the vast majority of sources that make this connection at all are Falun Gong propaganda websites, whose only reason for highlighting this reference is to portray the actions of He Zuoxiu as part of a well-orchestrated conspiracy rather than bona fide criticism that is not linked to the CCP in any way, shape or form. Indeed, several users above already mention that this is more-or-less WP:FRINGE.

If I may summarize. After two RFCs, Respected administrators User John Carter and User Silktork, as well as User IRWolfie, User AgadaUrbanit, and User Enric Naval, in addition to myself and User OhConfucius, all have voiced their opinions that the He-Luo connection does not belong. Apparently this still does not satisfy the users that continue to push for its inclusion. So in light of that, it should be clear that the references (no matter how 'diluted') must be removed. If this still does not satisfy users pushing for the reference's inclusion, then I think I have exhausted what needs to be said here. Colipon+(Talk) 19:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's valuable to differentiate between facts and theories. The fact is that these men are related. The theory concerns the significance of that relationship, particularly as it related to the events of April 1999. Unfortunately most people who weighed in on the RfC commented only on the collusion theory. Three editors who weighted in here appear to agree that the theory of collusion is notable, particularly given the prominence of Porter and Gutmann in Falun Gong literature (I also think it's notable, and the more I read about Luo's early antagonism toward Falun Gong dating back to 1996, the more plausible I find it. But I'm also aware that while Porter and Gutmann are notable researchers on this topic, the theory hasn't exactly taken off in the literature). SilkTork, who did not have time to actually read the sources, suggested the theory may be premature for inclusion. Enric Naval argued it should be removed entirely, though I can't make sense of his statement that the connection and accompanying theory is not based on fact—it's based entirely on facts. IRWolfie, who did not seem to read the RfC carefully, let alone the literature, said that we can't include things not present in RS. John Carter weighed in on a separate RfC, where the proposed material for inclusion was different, and suggested there was a problem of synthesis. There is no consensus here on the inclusion of the theory of collusion, which is what all these editors seemed to be addressing. I thought you might find the middle ground agreeable: that is, remove the theory, but leave passing mention of the fact. It takes only a few words. There is no synthesis involved, nor any suggestion of impropriety. Readers can decide for themselves whether the relationship is coincidence or not. If you can't agree to this, I think it's likely this issue will never be put to rest. Say we remove all mention of this fact. The next time it's mentioned in a journal article or book or newspaper about Falun Gong, what then will you do? Homunculus (duihua) 21:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Samuel Luo notice

There's a notice on top of this page that singles out User:Samuel Luo "and his sockpuppets" as being banned from editing this article. But Samuel is not the only one who has been sanctioned as a result of the arbitration case, even indefinitely, and it's a general Wikipedia policy that block-evading sockpuppets are banned from editing articles. Since the last time a suspected sockpuppet of Samuel Luo edited was in December 2007, I think this notice is outdated, not very useful, and should be removed. Shrigley (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• I responded to this just now but my edit got lost in the conflict. Good idea. Instead we should have something useful like a note about the AE policies applicable to the page. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done Replaced with a discretionary sanctions notice. Shrigley (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Where do Critiques go

No critics? A NRM like Scientology in China could be no controversies? Lots need to be added. The elimination, rejection, or even some disgust is not only coming from the suppression of the Chinese goverment.--WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 02:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I just removed recent good faith additions by an editor because they relied on primary sources or no sources and didn't seem to establish notability for the claims. Can we get some good journalism or scholarship on this? I noticed these were imported from the Chinese version. The graffiti on bank notes is rather interesting--I hadn't seen this development--but it would be a good idea to have something more solid about where this fits into the broader anti-CPC scheme. UPDATE: Not a question of criticism or not, simply good sourcing etc. please take a look at wp:npov and wp:rs. Let's not get mean about things. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems the editor added some information and photos about the Tuidang movement. The page should include mention of this, though it can be done concisely (two sentences is probably sufficient), with a link to the relevant article. We can do this without the original research, original synthesis, or non-neutral language that was introduced. There is surprisingly little english-language scholarship or media coverage of the movement to establish notability, but there is enough to justify brief mention here.

As to other controversies, they are found at the bottom of the page. Also, try to avoid reductionist analogies (eg. between Falun Gong and Scientology). Such comparisons can only distort, and do nothing to illuminate a subject or contribute to a nuanced understanding.Homunculus (duihua) 04:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Very glad to see there are editors focused on the npov. Actually I don't want to go original research right here, just try to state more info. Alright I will try to get some good source to back those words, though it's hard. --WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 04:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at what I added. I forgot that Patricia Thornton is another source who has written on the movement (albeit peripherally) when it first began, but the sources there are probably enough.Homunculus (duihua) 05:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice job from upstairs. But why not the pictures? The propaganda of FLG is going crazily in rural areas actually, I'm a Chinese I've seen that but I can't find any source due to obvious reason. The graffiti on bank notes is the method used in urban areas. Without the picture stating, I don't think it could be so provable. --WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 14:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Since the images pertain to Tuidang specifically, I suggest a better place for them is on the Tuidang movement article, which currently has no pictures. There are, in fact, a couple reliably published english-language sources that have noted the presence of these FG banknote (see [9]). It is very interesting, but I wish there were more literature. Anyway, I'll see what I can do.Homunculus (duihua) 15:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

{{Multiple issues}}

This article is a pretty good start, but it is still far from WP:GA pages like Plan 9 from Bell Labs. There is still a quality gap to cover. I would like to explain more clearly the placement of {{Multiple issues}} tag for this page, with intention to encourage editors to improve the article.

• advert & POV - there are multiple unresolved discussions, most notably Propaganda. There are issues that were raised from number of angles also during other discussions on this talk page.
• self-published - there is a text book self-published source included in this article. The issue first raised at 9 January 2012, questionable source discussion.
• synthesis - during Number of followers in 1999 discussion it was pointed out on 6 February 2012 that adjustment point is a analysis that serves to advance a position not advanced by the Seth Faison source.

I am restoring the tag to allow collaborative resolution of outstanding issues. I would request not to remove the tag again till those multiple issues are resolved via discussed consensus on this talk page. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

This is... unusual. Tagged because not GA? Let's look at these issues. 1) some guy writes that the article is propaganda, based on disagreeing with the stuff about organ harvesting etc.? It's unclear of the points he raised which specifically are at play. If there are substantive issues of missing or problematic content, then specifically point out which and explain in detail. The reference here is unclear. 2) is because there's one blog post by an expert on the subject, one of among four references. The source is still there (Ethan Gutmann, "How many harvested?", March 10, 2011.) but the point is already made with CQ Researcher, it appears, so we could probably easily delete that. Is this a substantive issue? 3) this discussion, which you started, is above. The last thing Hom writes is " If you have a clear, specific objection, please share it and propose an alternative." You didn't answer. This is so weird. The only specific course of action in all this would be to remove the Gutmann blog. On 1) and 3) there's nothing really to do. The tagging now is obviously just an unsubtle way to make a WP:point. You're welcome to delete the Gutmann blog reference, if you insist. Other editors may see some reason for it to stay. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

To address each of these points:

1. The concerns raised at Talk:Falun_Gong#Propaganda weren't answered, at least not by me, because they're ridiculous. The non-confirmed user, whose edits are limited to this page and one other, raised concerns that are either irrelevant, poorly informed, or that have already been addressed. Their first concern was about the veracity of organ harvesting claims. No such claims are even made on this page. The second point argued, without reference to any sources, that Falun Gong was banned because of its "political motivations." Editor evidently never read any scholarship on Falun Gong, because if they had, they would know this wasn't the case. The third point was regarding the classification and the views of the (fringe) anti-cult movement, both of which are already addressed on the page. Fourth, they said that it's absurd that there could have been 70 million practitioners. This is already addressed on the page, with multiple sources provided. Fifth, they said that mention should be made of Falun Gong's ties to Epoch Times, Shen Yun, and New Tang Dynasty. That is already on the page. And finally, editor said that the page should note the "high profile murder and suicide cases" involving Falun Gong. There are no confirmed reports of murder or suicide cases involving Falun Gong; only party propaganda, which is addressed in the article.

2. Your concern about self-published sources for the death toll was already discussed at great length and resolved. Seriously, thousands of words were spilled explaining to you why Gutmann's estimates are notable, verifiable, and why they satisfy WP:RS. At long last, you seemed satisfied when I pointed out that they were cited in the CQ Researcher. I don't know why you're bringing this up again.

3.Your concern about original synthesis was also discussed, ad nauseum, and resolved. The synthesis you pointed out is no longer on the page.

I don't know why you're doing this, but it's not constructive.Homunculus (duihua) 23:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• I had written another long and annoyed thing. Bottom line is that this is dumb and the tags are deleted again. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems this user doesn't understand the purpose of adding tags. In order to be constructive, tags should be accompanied by specific statements of problems, and proposals for solutions. They should not be used to hold a page hostage to one's POV, or as an expression of vague disquiet with the tone of something. None of the issues identified here were real problems, as far as I can tell. If Homunculus is right, all of them are already addressed to satisfaction, if ever they existed at all. If your intention is truly to encourage others to improve the article, this is not a good way to go about it. Littering pages with maintenance tags will only 1) waste people's time, and 2) breed frustration and bad blood. There's simply no need for this kind of behaviour.

With that said, there are some legitimate areas for improvement. Foremost among these is that the persecution section still needs to be improved/consolidated/cleaned up. I volunteered for this a long time ago, and will try to get to it this week.—Zujine|talk 15:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, I see that there is one actionable issue raised by AgadaUrganit: that Ethan Gutmann's blog is used as a source on one occasion. It is one among four sources used to support a point about Gutmann's own research. Gutmann is an established expert on Falungong, so his self-published writings on this subject actually satisfy RS. Still, if it will put this tedium to an end, why not just remove the reference? You wouldn't even have to change the content, since there are three other sources.—Zujine|talk 15:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The only reason to delete the Gutmann reference would be for the purpose of appeasement. It does not violate policies or RS guidelines, and its presence improves the article. It is the only source in which Gutmann describes his methodology in depth; the other sources used do not provide this.Homunculus (duihua) 22:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I hate to be the Wikipedia policy and guidelines Nazi here, but the only reason which was given is WP:SPS. And current Falun_Gong#Demography beginning Prior to the July 1999, official estimates placed the number of Falun Gong practitioners as high as 60 to 70 million nationwide, rivaling membership in the Communist Party.[10][84][85][86] is still covered by WP:NOR per Talk:Falun_Gong#Number_of_followers_in_1999 and imho funny. The {{Multiple issues}} tag intention is to encourage editors to improve the article. The tag should be restored. See also {{Article discretionary sanctions}}. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

If you think that a statement of fact that is supported by the Associated Press, three New York Times articles, and the U.S. World and News Report is "self-published," then you don't understand what self-published means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homunculus (talk • contribs) 14:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

My point is there is a disagreement here and if someone, who removed the tag will not restore it, that editor would have to explain it on WP:AE. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed the tag for clear reasons stated above. Please just explain what can be fixed about the page rather than arguing over tags. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sound, I think you misunderstand the process. The tag placement should be explained, since Wikipedia:Tag bombing is not allowed. However, if you don't agree with the explained tag, it does not matter much. In order to remove or change a tag you need to reach a consensus on this talk page.

I don't need to repeat myself. This is your last warning. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Agada, the tags you added were discussed. They were found to be inapplicable; the concerns you pointed to have either already been resolved, or never existed. There is consensus that the tags you added should be removed. You are the lone dissenter, yet your dissent seems to be based solely on a misunderstanding of WP:SPS or WP:NOR (namely, your belief that a fact attributed to the New York Times and Associated Press is somehow self-published or original research).

On another note, there is no policy that dictates the use of tags. The essay WP:TAGGING does state, however, that "Anyone who sees a tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag." More importantly, the essay suggests that in cases of a disagreement, editors should attempt to discuss calmly and in good faith. On multiple discussion threads, myself and others have politely and repeatedly asked you yet to identify the content issues you object to. You have responded to attempts at collaboration with escalating sarcasm, tag-bombing, and threats. I will state again: if you have a clear, specific objection or suggestion, you are welcome to share it. I am confident that any and all legitimate, constructive suggestions for the page can be considered.Homunculus (duihua) 13:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Did things just become totally bizarre over here? Where did you get that big stop-hand thing from? Very expressive. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, oh, oh... this is rather reminiscent of the bad old days. It seems to me that AgadaUrbanit has a correct understanding of the use of these tags, and has had the good grace to come here and explain his/her concerns. Please don't insult anyone's intelligence or try to bully AU and insist this article is somehow neutral. I would remind you all that this page is under Arbcom probation, and that the entire Falun Gong cabal got banned not many moons ago. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

With due respect, I don't think you've followed very closely. If a user wants to add tags to a page, they're entitled to, but should accompany them with specific and actionable suggestions or identifications of problems on the talk page. AgadaUrbanit has tag bombed this page several times, and this is the first occasion he/she has attempted to explain. Unfortunately, that explanation involved simply pointing to previous threads, where issues were already resolved to satisfaction (if even they were legitimate issues to begin with). The tags were discussed and removed, as there was nothing further to do. (For example, Agada said above that there is a problem of synthesis with a Seth Faison source. That problem no longer exists. Similarly, they claim that a fact cited to multiple RS is original research. What can be done with that? Nothing.) The removal of the tags was perfectly appropriate. Agada then started threatening an AE case.

Take a look at the thread above titled 'Number of followers in 1999'. If you can even follow the discussion, you've bested me. I spend a substantial amount of time trying to work with this user, and to understand and answer their concerns. Finally I offer a solution to the problem, proposing a short paragraph with no fewer than 14 references, each with the quotes from relevant articles for easy corroboration. AgadaUrbanit then becomes inexplicably sarcastic and begins placing multiple tags on the page. After repeated requests that they just engage in discussion and articulate the problems they see with my proposal, they never respond. I fix the page anyway. Weeks later, user adds the same tags again and points back to that discussion as evidence of what's wrong. If you think that's appropriate behavior...well, anyways, it doesn't matter. Frankly, if this user is committed to spending the time filing that complaint, I have no problem with it (I don't think it would end well for him/her, however).Homunculus (duihua) 12:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• This is just intimidation. User AgadaUrbanit is a non-involved editor who raises some very legitimate doubts about the neutrality of the article and then they get scared off by the poisoned editing ambiance. Reminds me of why I stopped editing Falun Gong. Alas, the rational voices always get scared away from this wikispace. Colipon+(Talk) 19:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Colipon, take a look at some of the threads above (eg. the 'number of followers in 1999), or at AgadaUrganit's talk page. You will see, I think, an extraordinary level of patience being extended to this editor. If you are more capable than I at parsing meaning out of Agada's words, please tell me what the legitimate concerns are that this user raised. Because I can't figure it out. How can a simple statement violate WP:NOR when it is cited clearly and directly to the New York Times, U.S. World and News Report, and Associated Press? How can a statement be a violation of WP:SYNTH when it is not even on the page? If you can answer these question, I would appreciate it. Asking a user to clearly explain their concerns before covering a page with maintenance tags is not intimidation. Homunculus (duihua) 21:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed the tags because AU never explained himself in a sensible way, identifying clear and actionable concerns. The supposed issues collapsed upon examination. The tags seemed simply a way of expressing annoyance at a conversation that stopped making sense at some point (about the sports administration not being the Chinese government). The whole episode was strange. I wasn't trying to scare the guy. But I do agree with you both that this page is clearly not a magnet for rationality; that much has been amply shown. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

POV Problem

This article may be not neutral because some opinions of Chinese government are ignored. In addition, the fact that Falun gong organization involved in Chinese politics and damage the Chinese society should also be mentioned in the article.--A20120312 (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide reliable sources that explain how Falun Gong "damage the Chinese society"? Vague allegations of bias are not sufficient grounds to add a POV tag to a page. You need to provide detailed, actionable recommendations for improvement based on quality sources, in compliance with WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc. By the way, the "opinions" of the Chinese government, as expressed through their propaganda campaign against the group, are represented in the article. But they can't be used as primary sources, obviously, so they are expressed in a neutral manner through secondary, reliable sources. Homunculus (duihua) 17:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't bother looking for objectivity here, A20120312. This article is completely controlled by Falun Gong SPA's who are probably being paid. That's why it reads like a promotional piece.

The opinions of the Chinese government are no more biased than those of the Falun Gong sympathisers, and they are often more academically sound and more consistent with reality. Anybody who has actually spent any notable amount of time in China just chuckles at FLG propaganda like "70 million practitioners in mainland China" and "FLGers are tortured and murdered simply for doing Qigong". AnAimlessRoad (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hom I suggest you don't bother arguing with these people. Don't feed the troll(s?). The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Chen Fuzhao

I see that an article for Chen Fuzhao was created and speedily deleted. If there isn't going to be a separate article, does he merit a mention here ? Coverage in the Chinese media can certainly be included here to give the Chinese government's side of the story and there are also these sources

• China poisoner sentenced to die - BBC
• ARRESTED. CHEN FUZHAO - TIME
• Falun Gong follower to die for poisoning 16 - The Age/Reuters

I'm not very familiar with the media coverage of Chen Fuzhao in China but given that the government cited him in a letter to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and said "In May this year Falun Gong practitioner Chen Fuzhao, of Chanan County, Zhejiang Province, misled by Li Hongzhi, put poison in the food of some beggars, leading to the deaths of 16 of them and one Buddhist", I assume they are employing the case as part of their campaign, which may be notable. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

As I understand, there have been many specific instances of the government's anti-Falun Gong propaganda, and references for some of them could also be found, I imagine, in similar volume. At the moment the section on "media campaign" addresses the broad issues associated with anti-Falun Gong propaganda. I'm not sure if a particular case study is necessary, or, were it, whether Chen Fuzhao would be the most emblematic or notable case to include. I would imagine that in-depth discussion of particular propaganda cases associated with the media campaign against Falun Gong may be best placed on the page specifically about the persecution, where there is more room to elaborate. I think it would be too much detail for this article. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

In order to assess overall notability to the subject of Falun Gong, it would be helpful if some of the scholarly works on Falun Gong described this case. A cursory search through my collection of academic literature doesn't turn up any reference to Chen Fuzhao, but I may be missing something. There are a few sources that mention, in general terms, that the government's propaganda campaign includes attempts to link Falun Gong to violence and murder, and that's already mentioned on the page, albeit briefly.Homunculus (duihua) 19:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I was skeptical initially on inclusion, but Sean brought here 3 high quality major news reliable sources: BBC, Time Magazine and Reuters. Probably we could mention Chen Fuzhao in couple of sentences, while attributing carefully the information. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I fully expect Falun Gong practitioner-editors to paint it as another "conspiracy" orchestrated by the Chinese government, just like the Tiananmen self-immolation "conspiracy" and the Fu Yibin "conspiracy". This article will never reflect a balanced viewpoint as long as cult-members maintain their overwhelming grip upon it. AnAimlessRoad (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It's unclear to me whether it deserves to be included here, in the WP:POVFORK-ish Persecution of Falun Gong or neither. There are clues that it has some significance for both sides. For example, this interestingly structured editorial in China Daily ends dramatically with "If the self-elevation of Falun Gong practitioners has to be conditional on the killing of innocent others, it constitutes a heinous threat to public security. And that brooks no tolerance." and the World Organization to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong's fairly extensive efforts to distance themselves from the case and refute the government's story (see [10][11][12][13]). Without decent independent secondary source coverage of the various narratives it's difficult to get a balanced overview. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

AnAimlessRoad, I see what you mean about the cultists maintaining their overwhelming grip upon this wiki page. As soon as I added material, sourced by verifiable, trustworthy sources as per Wikipedia's rules, some religious fanatics reverted the changes I made almost immediately. They did not check the sources, they deleted the information apparently because it conflicts with the propaganda the rest of the article is full of. I wish other wikipedists and administrators would take note of this behaviour and really check this article thorougly. 91.63.202.190 (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Unusual beliefs

Aliens and cloning

"The aliens come from other planets. The names that I use for these planets are different . Some are from dimensions that human beings have not yet discovered. The key is how they have corrupted mankind. Everyone knows that from the beginning until now, there has never been a development of culture like today. Although it has been several thousand years, it has never been like now.

The aliens have introduced modern machinery like computers and airplanes. They started by teaching mankind about modern science, so people believe more and more science, and spiritually, they are controlled. Everyone thinks that scientists invent on their own when in fact their inspiration is manipulated by the aliens. In terms of culture and spirit, they already control man. Mankind cannot live without science.

The ultimate purpose is to replace humans. If cloning human beings succeeds, the aliens can officially replace humans. Why does a corpse lie dead, even though it is the same as a living body? The difference is the soul, which is the life of the body. If people reproduce a human person, the gods in heaven will not give its body a human soul. The aliens will take that opportunity to replace the human soul and by doing so they will enter earth and become earthlings.

When such people grow up, they will help replace humans with aliens. They will produce more and more clones. There will no longer be humans reproduced by humans. They will act like humans, but they will introduce legislation to stop human reproduction." --Li Hongzhi (TIME Magazine interview with Li Hongzhi)

Note, I added the above section to the article, from where it was immediately removed with no explanation, and no reason. Why is such edit VANDALISM accepted on this article? 91.63.202.190 (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, the added text does not break the "defamation of living persons" rule. It is simply sourced from interview material from the Time Magazine, and reported by THREE independent, MAJOR global news sources. (MSNBC, BBC, New York Times) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.63.202.190 (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently my contribution wasn't acceptable because it contained lengthy interview excepts that weren't seen as beneficial. Here the new version:

Li Hongzhi preaches a number of unusual doctrines, among them that the Earth is gradually being infiltrated by aliens. He has reported seeing green, blue and multicolored beings in other dimensions, and said the magician David Copperfield can levitate. He has also claimed that he, too, can levitate his body in the air, but upon asking if he would perform it for someone to see, he said that it is not in his enlightened nature to do so.

If it gets reverted by people wishing to censor the article, someone else may put it back. 91.63.202.190 (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)