Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Research into health benefits of Falun Gong

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kobi Lurie (talk | contribs) at 09:18, 29 June 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Research into health benefits of Falun Gong

Collection of source material, mostly by Falun Gong supporters, supporting health benefits. Apart from mostly being just quotes, this is also highly NPOV, and nearly all of it is of questionable notability. It appears that the researchers for the "journal" article are connected with the editors for the page, so there may be WP:VAIN problems as well. Philosophus T 02:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are not believable research projects Bwithh 18:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki is to report anything as long as they have a valid source. -- Quite certainly not. ~ trialsanderrors 19:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read the verifiability policy carefully:Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources.. One peer reviewed obscure journal article (with a sample size of six subjects ) plus some large scale surveys whose only source is a Falun Gong promotional page is not sufficient here, especially given the enormous claims made by these reports. Bwithh 23:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pulling out the text for me. I think the article itself did not make outlandish claims, instead, it may just report some seeming outlandish claims and leaves the readers to decide. Whether the sample size is adequate or not is not a question for wiki, but for the journal paper review committee. Fnhddzs 04:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, technically it's not the business of WP to report primary sources in the first place. Our job is to wait until it gets picked up by a secondary source, such as a textbook or compendium, from which we turn it into a tertiary source. ~ trialsanderrors 04:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ok. that seems a good comment. If I understand correctly, so you mean although the source is a published journal paper, it has to be cited by any other source to be cited on wiki? Although I personally think it is kind of too much, I follow your suggestion to find where it is cited. I found 'two' places.
According to [1], This paper was cited by :
Current awareness on comparative and functional genomics
Comparative and Functional Genomics. 2005, Vol. 6, No. 7-8: 412

But it is not cited by this only one as suggested on liebertonline.com.

According to isiknowledge.com, It is also cited by Zieker D, Zieker J, Dietzsch J, et al.
CDNA-microarray analysis as a research tool for expression profiling in human peripheral blood following exercise
EXERCISE IMMUNOLOGY REVIEW 11: 86-96 2005 [2][3]
Would this look better? -- Fnhddzs 05:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I already listed this on the Talk page, along with the impact score of the journal. This is not really what I'm talking about, but I recommend we continue the discussion at the bottom, where I wrote some comments on what an encyclopedic article requires. ~ trialsanderrors 06:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. Over 50% of the article is text copied from elsewhere. Might as well read the original studies if you want the info. (ADMIN: Please watch for sockpuppets in this vote.) -Medtopic 06:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I second fnhddzs's words and want to add that, as part of the Falun Gong article, this information is very relevant since one of the most common claims made by Falun Gong practitioners, as well as the founder himself, is that it is beneficial to health. The page mostly contains results from actual scientific and physiological research and surveys. Although these researchers may support Falun Gong, that does not render their findings POV. The fact that they were published in scientific journals furthers their credibility. I don't know what you're talking about regarding a connection between the editors and the researchers. Also, like all wiki pages, this page is subject to improvement and further editing. I expect that the majority of the quotes will be better summarized in the near future.Mcconn 07:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment These are NOT genuine scientific research and surveys. Take a closer look. They're more like hoaxes. See my further comment below Bwithh 18:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As I mentioned above, wiki does not care about whether it is genunine or not. For example, if Wallstreet newspaper said a physicist named ABC said the moon is tetrahedron. Wiki articles could report it as long as it mentioned the source since the Wallstreet newspaper is a nice source. Fnhddzs 19:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do I read this correctly that the article is based on a study with 6 + 6 subjects? ~ trialsanderrors 07:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My main problem with this article is that it appears to be an abstract of one single reference source, save some top and tail sources. I am unsure whether this satisfies WP:NPOV. I am unconvinced at the moment that it warrants deletion. It might help if Falun Gong was wikilinked from this daughter page at least once though! --DaveG12345 07:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's put it this way: Strong Delete as WP:NOT part of accepted knowledge and WP:POV unless this is summarized significantly unless the editors get a WP:PR underway before this AfD is over. I'm not even sure this isn't WP:OR. ~ trialsanderrors 07:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC) 17:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and retain WP:NPOV tag, add wikify tag. This appears to be an article with a fairly busy discussion page in the process of addressing its (fairly considerable) POV issues. Assuming those are eventually fixed up, this is - on the face of it - a work in progress but valid spin-off from a long main article (which has POV problems of its own). --DaveG12345 08:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry. If an article starts with Research into I expect an article on a research field. Something that has produced enough peer-reviewed journal articles to write a balanced review summarizing the key theories and disputes. Replicating the findings of one third-tier article is not what the title of this article implies, and looking at the edit history I'm not confident that this article will go anywhere, lengthy discussions on the talk page or not. But maybe someone surprises me and cuts this down to size. ~ trialsanderrors 08:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, using WP:AGF, I couldn't find grounds for delete. --DaveG12345 09:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, I agree that WP:POV might be assuming bad faith. But a single article on a 6+6 study from a third tier journal (impact factor 1.051), a conference report and a survey of unknown provenance is far below WP:N for a science article. If it hasn't been compiled into a textbook, research survey or another secondary source it fails WP:RS. An alternative would be to put this AfD on hold if the editors agree to a Wikipedia:Peer review. ~ trialsanderrors
  • Keep. Whats POV about this? Wouldnt reserach into health benefits of tai-chi be of great relevance to a tai-chi article. Falun Gong is a system of Xiulian ( cultivation practice) like taichi. To avoid POV issues, the data from the papers/surveys were presented as such. No extrapolation was done by any editor. Dilip rajeev 10:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Falun Gong is not very comparable to Tai-Chi, as Tai-chi doesn't have a cult movement leader that claims to have supernatural divine powers and claims to be humankind's saviour who will turn all his followers in gods after the coming apocalypse . Bwithh 15:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'd say it's relevant of course, no issue with that. But the source used here seems to be a primary source, and - according to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Some_definitions - primary sources used in WP must be from a reliable publisher. The publisher of claims of positive health benefits from their own research surely cannot be "reliable" in this sense. Note the definition of a primary source includes the following: "In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material." I don't think (from what I have seen) this has occurred in this case. But I say Keep, and feel sure it will be sorted given time. --DaveG12345 13:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Of course it should be kept, it is a research so it is important that it is kept./Omido 11:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Coredesat. --TrianaC 11:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per excellent arguments made by trialsanderrors regarding very poor methodology and dubious intent of "scientific" research cited. Unverifiable / POV research + possible Original Research problems, even possibly hoax problems. Bwithh 15:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The large-scale surveys sourced from this page appear to be highly dubious too. For instance, these supposedly official scientific studies demonstrate their methodological authority by stating "The data was input into a computer.... The data was analyzed with Microsoft Office 97 Excel version 8.0" (how impressive!). To confirm (why does this have to be confirmed in this way?) something as simple as gender and age distribution of their sample size, the researchers confidently state that used two different statistical methods (again with the indisputable Excel 8.0). The conclusions of the surveys are also completely pro-Falun Gong with very little scientific discussion. In fact, they sound like propaganda or advertising: "The survey showed that the number of people learning Falun Gong was growing bigger and bigger. This was, based on the analysis of the survey, because 1) the practitioners of Falun Gong were able to prove its extraordinary effects through their own practice. After doing Falun Gong, their health was improved. Their intelligence was enhanced. Their minds were widened and clarified. Their bad habits were quit. Their family lives were in amity. They become compassionate in their hearts. Their relationships with other people were harmonized.". This is nothing like genuine scientific research. This is bogus propaganda Bwithh 18:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth.

Fnhddzs 19:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, aside from the issue of basic verifiability in terms of the scientific method, the only source for the large scale surveys is a Falun Gong promotion page. Take the large scale surveys out, and you're left with a sample size of six with six control subjects in a peer reviewed journal, which, well, raises the issue that not all peer reviewed journals are equally believable. Verifiability depends on reliable sources. Bwithh 22:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The surveys are gone (again). Your feelings about journals aside, I think in this case you would have to show the unreliability of the Journal before it could be ruled out. CovenantD 23:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peer review is not sufficient to guarantee reliability of a source. Anyway, regarding the research study example which remains - this study, according to its full abstract takes 6 (six) Falun Gong practitioners who exercise in a Falun Gong way for 1-2 hours a day (and possibly exercise in other ways too for more time - the abstract isn't clear), for at least one year previously, and up to 5 years. These Falun Gong exercisers are then compared to a control group of 6(six) people who have not followed any exercise program of any kind for 1 year or possibly longer. This second group of people are called a "normal and healthy" group by the research authors. Now, I'm kind of a couch potato, but even I know that doing NO exercise whatsover for a YEAR is not "normal and healthy" (unless you're in some kind of manual labour job), and even a 6 year old can predict that the 6 who are doing special exercises 1-2 hours a day (more than most people!) possibly besides any other exercising will turn out to be healthier than the control group. Again, peer review is not the hallmark of sound research. Now I'm off to the gym machine. Bwithh 02:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I posted some impact data on the journal and the lone cite to the article on the Talk page. As I mentioned there, the article is probably worth a one-liner, with a caveat about micronumerosity. For those who don't know the scientific publishing industry,m at the bottom of every specialiaztion there are a lot of journals that are essentially scams that milk university libraries for shitloads of money. This journal, by impact factor, seems slightly above that level. It's still not anywhere near what I would consider a sole reliable source for a science article, not to mention that the article itself should write about seconday sources (textbook science), not paraphrase primary sources at length. Again, I can only recommend organizing a peer review. ~ trialsanderrors 03:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. It's up for peer review now. CovenantD 17:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is to report something. It is a daughter article of the main article Falun_Gong#Research_into_Health_Benefits. It does not have POV issue. All editors working on the main article have had agreed to splitting the main article and link to the daughter articles. Could you tell me where the content to go if the article is deleted? Go back to the main article will make the main article lengthy again. I agree to wikify it or improve it. But I disagree to delete it. Fnhddzs 19:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. -- Jared Hunt 01:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To get it out of the way, I've only got 31 main namespace edits, but no vested interest in the fate of this article. I've been reading the Falun Gong and related talk pages for a while, and at this point I tend to agree that this article is both required and probably the most neutral formulation of the name available. In response to Cordesat's argument, this isn't an indiscriminate list of information, as, from what I've read since first hearing about Falun Gong (May something or other), health benefits are pretty central to the practicioners' claims. Moreover, I tend to disagree with TeaDrinker that the name is inherently POV, or, rather, wonder if anyone can think of a better phrasing? "Supposed health benefits of Falun Gong" implies they're dubious, at best; "Health benefits of Falun Gong," that they're confirmed and true; perhaps, "Claimed health benefits..." As it stands now, the name only states that the claims of health benefits are being studied. All of this has been hotly debated on the main article's talk page. I'm the first to agree with Bwithh that the study which made up much of the content (it has since been removed) is an utter sham; that doesn't invalidate the topic, in my eyes. The current quality is marginal, but the numerous editors of the FG pages should be given a chance to keep working and clean this up; it's taken them quite a while just to get this far. At least let trialsanderrors' suggestion of WP:PR run its course. --Philodespotos 05:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First, on the name, I would recommend health effects rather than health benefits, but that's a minor issue. Second, I'm still pushing for a WP:PR, but it seems like only one of the active editors is interested in it. Third, I tend to agree that health effects of FG warrants its own article if there is in fact a research field on the topic. And I'm less sanguine than you that this field actually exists in any meaningful way. Discussing one unvetted article at length is simply non encyclopedic, regardless of its scientific value. So the question is: what other material is there to turn this into an encyclopedic article? I see that the editors are trying to comply with WP:NPOV, but as long as that's the only piece of clay they have, it'll never turn into a sculpture. ~ trialsanderrors 05:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see that the dubious large-scale surveys which were pulled before from the article due to doubts raised here are now back in full force (and still just sourced from that australian pro-falun gong website). Bwithh 06:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per trialsanderrors and Coredesat. Tychocat 11:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Merge compromise solution- I understand that the editors of the parent article feel that the content of this article is distracting from the main article; however, it can not stand on its own either. Both of those problem come from the same problem. It is mainly a pubmed summary of research paper mainly direct quotes from research. The appropriate solution is to cut almost all of the quoted material and maybe have one, two or three sentences similar to the opening of this article with footnotes to references directly in the main article. That way it is not distracting to the main article. Something like "There has been limited research into the health affects of falun gong practice. Some articles have claimed to demonstrate health benefits and even effects on gene regulation ^1^2^3^4^5."--Nick Y. 16:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't quite understand what you mean by "distracting"? The parent article was too long. So it got split. Almost each section of the pararent article has a daughter article. Anyway, if this article is deleted, the content may have to go back to the main article since it was there. Fnhddzs 01:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No it won't. The same problems that have spawned this AfD prevent it from being transported back into the main article in it's current form. I think the compromise is the best that can be done, given the quality of the one and only source we have. CovenantD 01:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThanks. But could you please educate me the problems in detail? I think in the main article it would be a totally different story. I don't object to compromise somehow, though, since it is improvable anyway. The number of the source of one may seem to be few. but the quality seems good to me:). Fnhddzs 01:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the problems with the journal: Not well established (11 volumes). Publisher without reputation. Low impact indicates cursory peer review at best. Here are the problems with the study: Micronumerosity makes external validity extremely suspicious. Major sample selection problems. Study design problems. Single cite mean this paper has not been sufficiently vetted in the scientific community. Here is what speaks in favor of the journal: Online version available at cdlib.org. Here is what speaks in favor of the study: Authors are researchers at respectable medical centers. In summary, I second Nick Y.'s proposal, especially since none of the defenders of the article are willing to subject it to a peer review. ~ trialsanderrors 02:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for educating me. But regardless how many volumes (it was published on vol. 11 as of Feb 2005, but now it is June 2006), it is NIH publication searchable on NIH website[4]. I would be proudly putting on my professional resume if I have such a publication (I know disqualified publications weakens my resume). Fnhddzs 17:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I add that as "in favor of journal" then. Note also that I don't condone removing this source (unlike the "survey" which should be canned as blatantly unscientific). It should just be pared down to size according to its academic status. And if it is the only credible piece of scientific evidence discussing health effects of there is little reason to keep this outside the FG article. ~ trialsanderrors
  • Strongly Keep, per the above discussions, I strongly wish to keep this article. Health benefits of Falun Gong has been seen by all Falun Gong practitioners and their families, friends. Actually, that is the main reason for most people to start to learn Falun Gong. This article provides invaluable information to shed light on why many sick people get well after practicing Falun Gong and why many found their health and energy level significantly improved after practicing Falun Gong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinlian (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. I am speaking about my own experience. I had an insomnia due to spiritual pressure, but now I enjoy sound sleep. I attribute this to practicing Falun Gong. This topic is a good topic. Although its current paper is not many, it deserves more research. Crystalblue 04:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep. Many sociological analyses of Falun Gong's spread in China are reductionist instead of acknowledging that the relevant questions are extremely multifaceted. Falun Gong's popularity cannot be taken out of the context of its alleged (and possibly empirically verifiable) health effects. The Chinese government initially promoted Falun Gong because it could potentially save large sums of medical expenses. Falun Gong won several prizes and was nominated twice as the "Star Qigong School" in Beijing's Asian Health Expo in 1992 and 1993. The Chinese qigong community has cultural competence to evaluate the effectiveness of different practices, and Falun Gong is the most popular and widespread form of qigong in history. In addition, supernaturality has been one serious discourse in the scientific research on qigong for a couple of decades, so Falun Gong's extraordinary (and fantastical?) claims are no reason to belittle any serious considerations of its validity. Last but not least, this is a daughter article. The actual Falun Gong article got too long, hence the editors decided to make a split. Removing a page that is under development and a relevant part of the whole shouldn't be sanctioned. ---Olaf Stephanos 14:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So do you know of any research into the health effects of FG? ~ trialsanderrors 14:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I happened to just find an article on MNdaily.com[5]. It is not a research, just an interview. Also here has the words said by Mr. Da Liu [6][7]. I could try to find more[8][9]. Here is a new one [10], it mentioned "Because of its self-discipline and healthy approach – practitioners do not smoke or drink alcohol and have a rigorous moral code – it was encouraged by the authorities.". Sadly, in terms of organ harvesting,

Administrators tell inquirers: "Yes, it will be a Falun Gong, so it will be clean."

which suggest everybody know practitioners are usually healthy. Fnhddzs 18:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A really important aspect is that Falun Gong practice has really profound health benefits. Even Master Da Liu the Master who introduced Tai Chi to North AMerica said at the age of 95 that he now asks all his students to practice Falun Gong.. So research into health benefits of the system is really relevant. Further the research was done at Baylor College- one of the Nation's top 10 medical institutes..

202.83.32.153 15:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. per discussions above. I started practicing Falun Gong in Feb 2004. My serious back pain and headache all disappeared. I have a better appetite too. MyuserName 21:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I also had benefits practicing Falun Gong, very slow stress level compared to before, my waist is not cold anymore, I don't need to wear glasses, I did not get cold since I started to practice even though I did not take any medicine. --HappyInGeneral 02:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To me at least, testimonials as to the effectiveness of Falun Gong is not an arguement for keeping the article, especially when the cause for deletion is original research. --TeaDrinker 02:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First congratulations to the great health benefits HappyInGeneral received. I would say although Falun Gong practitioners all say Falun Gong is good (even after 7 years of persecution), they say it with a solid reason of which health benefits are significantly correlated. Yeah, maybe personal testimonials here are not very to the point. But media reports mentioning health benefits would be helpful, I will try to find more of that. By the way, the cause for nomination of deletion was POV, now it changed? Anyway, we are doing a vote. Cause is not that important, I think. Fnhddzs 03:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I vote to keep.

although science would probably be unable to completely prove health benefits of Falun Gong and qigong practices - since there is still an issue of belief and enlightening - there are at the same time hundreds of thousands if not millions of cases. Alot are also documented as self evident testimonies.
It would be silly to ignore the experience of such a huge number of people just because they hadn't published it in a well known newspaper.
Falun Dafa never bragged about being able to cure people, this is not a main purpose of the practice and there is no need to show those to prove or validate for Falun Dafa. It stands for itself in all its glory and splendor.
For Wikipedia, which aims to have factual information, health benefits surely happened and there is no problem to mention it.
Just my opinion, Kobi Lurie.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Research_into_health_benefits_of_Falun_Gong&oldid=61168808"