Talk:Falun Gong

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

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

	Archive note: Kindly consult the archived discussions should you wish to make any substantial changes or additions. It is likely that an issue of concern has already been discussed. As a result, a would-be poster can save the wikipedia community time spent on otherwise rehashing an issue already discussed.Template:Archive box collapsible
(This message should only be placed on talk pages, please.)

Require More Information Regarding FLG's Belief/Teachings Regarding Modern Science and Medicine

This has NOT been elaborated enough in the article itself. As a scientist I would like to know more about the stance of FLG on modern science and medicine. Children of the dragon (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Olaf's comments to User:Intranetusa

In my view, the way some of you are applying the 'cult' label is yet another obfuscation of the word's meaning. Talking about aliens, mixed-race marriages or homosexuality has no relation to whether Falun Gong is a 'cult' or not. You could shout "Heresy! Heterodoxy! Feudal superstition!" all over the place, just because you disagree with Li Hongzhi's teachings. But that does not make Falun Gong a 'cult' or Li Hongzhi a 'cult leader'. However, I'm aware of how such words are powerful tools in positioning Falun Gong practitioners--or anyone, for that matter--outside the borders of rationality and normalcy. Thus "cult members" is just another way of saying "inferior subjects", whose autonomous will is not on the level of an ordinary citizen. More severe control measures then seem acceptable and justified, and the outsider's "rational" view becomes the standard by which to judge what "they" really are all about. "Now, stay put while the doctor administers his cure!"

But whether something deserves to be called a 'cult' is a matter of its operational structure. Falun Gong is not operating like a cult, which has been verified by all those who have done serious research on the movement. Practitioners know that perfectly well: they know such labels have absolutely nothing to do with their experiences. Those who choose to use this word in labeling Falun Gong are merely drawing a line of demarcation between 'us' and 'them', 'purity' and 'danger', 'center' and 'margin', while paying no attention to the accuracy of such concepts. Because they think Falun Gong is stupid and its practitioners are alienated from what is real, they couldn't care less if people assume, for example, that Falun Gong is an "organization", with a tight grip on the sheepish "cult members", whose money is going up a pyramid structure to the hands of a callous, calculating and charismatic "cult leader".

Falun Gong is completely open for people to come in or leave. You don't have to pay for anything. You either take responsibility for your own cultivation or you don't, or you start working against the persecution or not, but nobody's ever going to order you to do something. You never join any organization; the practice itself is about as informal as when you go play pétanque with your friends in a park. True, Falun Gong can be called dissidence, at least in relation to the dominant scientific paradigm. But we must keep in mind that China's so-called qigong boom was widely perceived as a paradigm shift--a new form of science--and therefore it's totally understandable why so many qigong enthusiasts, including many Falun Gong practitioners, are highly educated, as proven by fieldwork. True qigong's effects are perfectly tangible and real; the discrepancy that exists between the views of materialist science and the phenomenology of qigong is a blatant farce. And judging by its pre-1999 popularity and the number of awards it received in China, Falun Gong is the most renowned qigong practice in history. That is why it was banned; it was too genuine, intertextual and deeply-rooted for the Communist leaders, as it created a meaningful existence outside of the Party framework. Taking into account what took place in China in the 1980s and 90s, the pop culture definition of qigong as just another "breathing exercise" is a form of revisionist history, an ideologically loaded concept that aims at neutralizing and diluting its essence. China's qigong boom came to an abrupt end because of political repression; qigong was never conclusively proven false or irreal, but the leading ideologies of the scientific establishment have swept it under the carpet, along with a myriad of other anomalous phenomena that call into question the legacy of the Western Enlightenment. This is nothing new, but its implications are sometimes forgotten.

In this way, deliberate obfuscation of the 'cult' label is, in itself, a tool of ideological struggle, not infrequently linked to militant secularism, scientism, or, ironically, even religious fundamentalism. It postulates a "closed" reality, a fixed set of metaphysical axioms, and seeks to crush its perceived adversaries by the way of social exclusion, even if it has to prostitute language itself: it doesn't matter if apples become oranges or war becomes peace. Of course, many people slap labels without any profound idea of what they're doing, but in this matter, they are, unwittingly or not, serving as lackeys of those who would rather see "heresy" weeded out to pave the way for a Brave New World. Talk about yet another Hegelian nightmare! It is heartbreaking to see how the 20th Century couldn't teach us very much. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 07:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

bunch of wikilaywering that has nothing to do with the case. The edit actually was reviewed by multiple administrators, please read their decision that the edit should stay. Bobby fletcher (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The edit? Wikilawyering? Why, I just said what is inherently true. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 05:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please cite some wiki rule on "inherently true". It's neither a reliable or notable source is it? Bobby fletcher (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

practice/movement

On the second paragraph of the lead, all the sources on that paragraph call it a movement, and some (if not all) specify that it teaches practices or mention "practices and teachings (of Falun Gong)" (searching for both "practice" and "movement" and see how each one is used).

Notice the ambiguity with Falun Gong followers being called "practitioners", probably because they all practice its teachings and practices. Altough Ownby uses the term "Falun Gong practitioners", that doesn't mean that he is saying that Falun Gong is a practice, since a few lines above he says "practitioner to the Falun Gong organization", so he is calling it an organization, and also says somewhere else "practitioners of qigong and Falun Gong", when he has specifically called qigong a movement. The only source that I couldn't verify was the book, but there was an online source from the same author on the first paragraph that I reused.

Ownby doesn't call it directly a movement, but it says that it's a school of qigong and that it emerged from it, with qigong being a movement, and that it teaches a certain practice. Also, the article speaks about the movement and not bout the practice that it teachs. I re-used the online source on the second paragraph. I assume that both the online source and the book say that same, since they are written by the same person.

Barend ter Haar also calls it a movement. It only mentions "practice" to refer to what Falun Gong teaches.

Benjamin Penny concurs, just like the lead says, because it calls it a movement on its source.

The ABC source also calls it a movement, and refers to practice on sentences like "practice and teachings of Falun Gong" and "(some people) practice Falun Gong".

Britannica also says that it's a movement.

So, seeing the above, I changed the lead to be in accord with the verifiability policy, see the diff for my change. (are you hearing, Asdfg? we are supossed to all what it is called on the sources, not what we personally think that it is!)

P.D.: This article itself is about the movement. The practice itself is covered on Falun_Gong#Theoretical_background and Qigong. By the way, the Qigong article deals exclusively with practice and says nothing about the movement (and should probably be expanded to explain better the movement and the spinoff schools Falun Gong and Zhong Gong). --Enric Naval (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, the primary issue here is that Falun Gong defines itself as a practice, and that should be the first definition given; Falun Gong is a set of exercises and books, and people practice them by reading them or doing those exercises. The analysis, critique, and interpretation comes firmly after that. You can find a dozen sources that call Falun Gong a movement? For everyone one of those, I'll bet there's another that calls it a practice. Ownby also uses practice, so does Penny. They also use movement sometimes. Do I need to dig around for examples of where they refer to Falun Gong as a practice? for example, from Ownby's latest book, "Falun Gong and the future of China", on the second page where he first refers to Falun Gong directly: "First, this book is not a defense of Falun Gong doctrine and practice." -- I could find many others where this term is used. I would suggest that "practice" is just as common as "movement" in the literature, and coupled with the even more important point that this is the way Falun Gong defines itself, the immediate definition should be the lowest common denominator, and elaborations remain elaborations. Check out MOS:IDENTITY. --Asdfg12345 01:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I read my comment again, and I want to clarify something. Firstly, I acknowledge that reliable, independent sources often characterise Falun Gong as a "movement". Secondly, I assert that they just as often characterise it as a "practice"--I am able to find more examples, if you please. (For example, Danny Schechter's book is entitled "Falun Gong's Challenge to China: Spiritual Practice or 'Evil Cult'?", also consider that overwhelmingly those who practice Falun Gong are referred to as Falun Gong practitioners--doesn't this already indicate that Falun Gong is something that you do, i.e., practice?) My point in illustrating these other, reliable independent instances of the use of practice to describe Falun Gong was to make clear that I am not just going on my personal view, but that this is even more supported by reliable sources than "movement"; I give examples to illustrate. Thirdly, Falun Gong defines itself as a "practice", and I regard this as perhaps the most important point. Wikipedia appears to defer to self-definition, and coupled with the strong support this finds in reliable sources, I believe it should be totally acceptable. No one is disputing that Falun Gong is actually a practice, including the sources which describe it as a "movement"; "practice" is the lowest common denominator, and a quite basic commonality between what Falun Gong says of itself, and what reliable sources say.--Asdfg12345 01:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

some more sources, from Adam Frank's book chapter called "Falun Gong and the Threat of History" in the book Gods, Guns, and globalization: "The emerging scholarly discourse on Falun Gong generally seeks a place for the practice in the wider discourse of Chinese history but without resorting to sensationalism..."

"In a lecture at Rice University, Ownby made a point of mentioning that he had learned the rudiments of the practice in the course of his fieldwork but neither shared the Falun Gong belief system nor considered himself an adherent"

Yuezhi Zhao's book chapter in "Contesting media power" :

"Li Hongzhi, a middle-aged clerk with a high school education, began to introduce Falun Gong in 1992 through public lectures. The practice spread quickly through word of mouth and the demonstrative effect of the spectacle of group exercises in public parks."

"Falun Gong literally means “Dharma Wheel Practice,” which refers to a series of five stretching and meditation exercises aimed at channeling and harmonizing the qi, or vital energy, that supposedly circulates through the body."

"The involvement of official publishing houses, like the participation of elites in the practice, ensured the initial legitimacy of Falun Gong."

And just another point, related to the above, a note on translation. In Chinese, what we are calling Falun Gong is either written like: 法輪功 or 法輪大法. The first is "Falun Gong", the latter is "Falun Dafa". Even the name indicates something. 功 is the same 功 of 氣功 qigong。 In this context it means "practice", "method", or something along those lines. the second, 大法, means "great law", or "great way". My point in illustrating this is that the name itself underscores this issue. The "gong" of "Falun Gong" itself means practice; the Falun Gong means "Falun practice", or "law wheel practice" or "dharma wheel practice". Fa = law, dharma; lun = wheel. In this sense it's not just a discrete, simple name, but it already defines what it actually is. I'm bringing these further notes up as a way of supplementing the demonstration that "practice" is just as, if not more used, in independent sources as "movement", and that apart from that source parity there are all these other considerations.--Asdfg12345 01:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Last thing to add to my already long comments, just considered while in the shower: there would be no sense insisting on practice if it was not supported so much by reliable sources, and I wouldn't do so, I'd have already conceded to this. Apart from the support it finds, and the other things I've said, the other reason for favouring it is because it is less loaded. "Movement" is a term with many connotations, and while it also expresses the views of some reliable sources, it also carries with it many other meanings--some of which may not have been intended by the source, some of which may have been, though that is not particularly important--whereas "practice" simply does not. It is a more basic term which does not attempt to define without contextualising; the view that Falun Gong is a "movement" is disputed and not universal, whereas no one disputes that it is a "practice."--Asdfg12345 02:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I saw the edit and I was going to complain on the grounds of verifiability, but I see that you did your research and found reliable sources for your change. I agree with your change, since I see a lot of ambiguity with the same name being given to the movement and to the practice, and checking again the Ownby source, I see that it also says "qigong practice", which I didn't notice the first time. Seeing that "gong" means "practice" in chinese, I'm happy with defining it as a practice on the first sentence on the lead, specially since the second paragraph already explains how several researchers view its other facets of movement, qigong practice, religion, phenomena, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

lol, I have to figure out how to get my points across with less space and greater humour...--Asdfg12345 03:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Teachings section

Mainly to Mr Naval. Let me know that you have read through both of the parts on offer and that you firmly think the original is better. Clearly the most important part of Falun Gong is its beliefs and teachings, so I think it's appropriate that this section be longer than other sections on the page. As for the duplication, I personally don't think that's an issue. You will notice that every section on this front page duplicates content from its daughter article, and the same for their daughters (for example the tiananmen square self immolation introduction on the persecution page is the lede of that main article--know what I mean?) I'm unaware of a wikipedia policy advising against this. It seems like a rational way to do it. The content and the subject is going to be the same. I don't mind how it goes in the end, but I'd submit two key points for consideration:

• The old teachings stuff on this page was a little unsophisticated and did not draw on any relevant literature on Falun Gong; it was simplistic and not well written. It failed to introduce the subject in an intelligent and intellectually coherent way. It didn't really give people a full idea of what Falun Gong teaches, or use quality sources to do so.
• The other section did; I don't think there's a problem to c&p a lede and other stuff as appropriate. Basically I think the altered and expanded version was much better--I think the scrutiny should be on why we shouldn't go with it? Just a few thoughts. Let's deliberate. --Asdfg12345 09:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You can look at Wikipedia:Summary_style. The section should make a summary of the relevant points on main article. I guess that copy/pasting the whole lead is one way to doing it. I would rather improve the actual text, because using the lead fattens the section from 614 words to 1562 words, but I don't know enough about the topic to know which version treats Falun gong beliefs better. If you say that the longer version is really much better, then it must be so, so feel free to just undo my edit back to your version.

Also, please, try not to archive the whole talk page. Leave at least a pair of threads that have been edit recently, man. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Eric is right about leaving a pair of threads. Fixed that. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 07:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

hehe, sorry. Thanks for putting back the last few threads. It'd been ages since an archive. Well, it would still be good to hear your opinion about which version is better. Perhaps it could be shorter. I thought the lede of the main teachings page summed things up well, and add another few hundreds words it would give people a good picture (but I think I ended up adding another 1000; only one paragraph was originally written for this page). The majority of people that come to this page probably won't read the whole teachings page, I reckon, so I think it's important to give them a good idea of what the story is with Falun Gong beliefs and teachings on the main page. It could be rather shorter though, perhaps combining and synthesising the main points on the teachings page. Will do soonish.--Asdfg12345 12:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Repeated Removal of Adminstrator Reviewed Edits

Edit A) in question:

The Chinese government considers Falun Gong to be a cult while other countries do not.

1) According to editor Enric Naval "chinese government source is now accepted as source for the label existance":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive24#Cult_vs_Evil_Cult

2) This edit was vetted by multiple Administrators as appropriate and should be in the lead:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive442#Is_Chinese_government_website_notable_source.3F

However it has since been removed yet again. Some editors, in addition to this case, has demonstrated a pattern of "improving" this edit by blanking it. It is DE and POV Pushing.

I have personally appealed, on multiple occasions, that edit such as this be improved without remval, but such appeal has been consistently ignored.

I hereby request the community's attention and opinion.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I find it a little difficult to relate to your complaint. There was so much discussion about this, a week ago. Thousands of words were written, and basically it was decided that we weren't going to do this in the lede because there isn't enough space to contextualise it, because it was a minor detail (though notable) of just one part of one part of this whole topic, and much more. Please click on the latest archive above and read all the discussion, in case you missed it. You didn't seem to engage in the discussion. If you feel there are unresolved issues you might indicate which. The edit and these comments indicate that you have ignored, or perhaps were simply unaware of, that consensus, I think. Anyway, please read all the discussion.--Asdfg12345 05:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If it shouldn't be in the lead, where in the body should it be? Not that I agree with you, as multiple editors have opined that it should be in the lead Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Also please see Administrator llywrch's reply addressing all your objections:

The only gain I can see here if these sources are excluded from this article is to suppress mentioning what the Chinese position is at all -- which does not help our users. Suppose a user wants to know what the Chinese POV is in order to debate & refute it: by not including a link to this source, we have made it more difficult for this person to prepare for this debate. I believe this responds to all of your objections, even the ones you do not want to repeat. -- llywrch (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I think as one aspect of the media campaign, which is one aspect of the persecution, it rightly belongs on the persecution page. It has its own section on the persecution page, too. If it was thought particularly notable, we could just have a few sentences on this main page, in the persecution section, outlining what reliable sources say about the CCP's media campaign against Falun Gong, and include a sentence that the CCP labelled Falun Gong a cult during this, but that this is dismissed by academics etc.. About your final note--there was a huge amount of discussion about just this topic, can you indicate that you have clicked on the archive and read it?

• further note: I understand and read all those remarks, though there was more discussion on this talk page. I think you really should actually read it. I'm trying not to repeat myself so I'll just finish my note here. Please read the extensive discussion about this that took place on this talk page. --Asdfg12345 05:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me quote some Wikipedia policies (from WP:NPOV), emphases mine:

Disagreements over whether something is approached neutrally can usually be avoided through the practice of good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little ground work can save a lot of time justifying a point later. [...]

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

While we all agree that the 'cult' label is an important part of how the Chinese government has tried to legitimize the persecution, it has hardly any significance outside of this context. It is not taken seriously by leading sinologists; serious research has not given it any kudos at all. On the other hand, the word 'propaganda' has been used in such research to characterise the CCP's media campaign. This is not about two competing views that could be juxtapositioned and given the air of equality. There is the mainstream academic view, and there is the fringe view that has been thoroughly analysed and debunked. That's why it belongs into its own section; we are not excluding these sources from the article, nor do we have any interest in doing so. The lead, whose length is limited to four relatively short paragraphs, should mention the propaganda campaign on a general level.

See also WP:Verifiability:

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text. [...]

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves as described below. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

Still another point: User:Samuel Sol, who was taking part in the discussion on the Admins' noticeboard, said on Asdfg12345's talk page: "Hey Asdfg12345, the point, if the problem is to put the statement on the lead, would be just to move it down further on the text." [1] ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 07:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

How about mentioning it at Falun_Gong#The_persecution? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Olaf, the RfC stated this very clearly. This Admin-vetted edit has been repeatedly removed, instead good-faih modification such as the moving down. Would you put it back and move it down? Bobby fletcher (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's do that. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 05:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead Olaf, thanks! The admin-vetted edit is stated in the beginning of the RfC. Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I did that already on 18 July. You're welcome. See [2]. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 08:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hell no, you have no proof that the PRC view is "fringe" or has been "thoroughly analysed and debunked", as you claimed, nor it has been descredited by "serious research by sinologists". Where are the sources?--PCPP (talk) 08:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

How many sources do you want?--Asdfg12345 00:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Both the NPOV and Verifiability issues have been addressed by the Admins in the AIN:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive442#Is_Chinese_government_website_notable_source.3F

Admin EveryKing - there can be no basis for objecting to their use in citing the claim that the Chinese government considers Falun Gong a cult.

Admin Jenny - the Chinese ambassador to Austria outlining his government's views on the nature of Falun Gong, thus supporting your statement. The Xinhua news agency is a perfectly reliable source on the statements of Chinese government officials.

Obviously the attitude of the Chinese government towards Falun Gong is highly relevant to Falun Gong so in my opinion the statement probably does belong in the lead.

Admin Samuel Sol - One single statement about it on the article, does not fail WP:UNDUE

Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Bobby, it's in the article now in the persecution section.--Asdfg12345 05:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Well, I can't help but say this article is VASTLY improved over the entry 2 months ago. I know there are some still some editing wars being fought here, but at least the article is now resembling a complete and neutral document. I commend the hard work put in on finding a happier middle ground. It's beginning to look more like a real explaination of the religion and it's history more than a propaganda mock up. I hope this can be maintained.Beerman5000 (talk) 11:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection of the persecution articles, I'm still seeing some pretty big gaps in contradictory evidence against the claims of Falun Gong's alleged persecution such as the instances of falsely labled photographs in regard the the debunked sexual torture claims and the logical impossibilities of the Shenyang "organ harvesting" operation (you all know what I'm talking about).

ATTN: Falun Gong supporters, until the controversy of the apparently false claims of Falun Gong are addressed, this article is never going to be considered anywhere near nuetral. Editing out all the untruths spoken by just one side of any argument will always yield a very stern backlash in any community. Xinhua is a joke, why would you possibly want to act even more ridiculous than they do? You are just going to keep hurting your credibility and continue to look like a propaganda filled cult that operates by disinformation. You are just hurting yourselves and what's worse, you are keeping the controversy alive so that it can come back on you later.Beerman5000 (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Beerman5000, please read the feedback from various Admins from above RfC. It is said:

"I read that article almost as an altar and a praise to Falun Gong practices. It totally fails WP:NPOV, and I'm deeply worried about a possible WP:COI from you"

Yet the POV falg has been repeatedly removed. Do you think the POV flag should remain? If you do I encourage neutural editor like yourself to reinsert it. Every time I put it in it just get blanked. If you check the archive there are numerous editors disputing this, but such discussions are not addressed but hidden instead.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The persecution article and many others are in need of some serious, devoted work. However, aren't we talking about the main article? Even Beerman5000 said it looks completely different now. I would like to know which exact passages, sentences or words are disputed. See Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute#Adding_a_page: "The above label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that are problematic." ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Olaf, there have been numerous objection to the one-sided POV in this article. But they've all been archived and hidden. Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide links to the most pertinent discussions? I'd like to take a look. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 08:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If you were able to cite specific instances of violations of WP:NPOV and WP:V that would be the most useful way of approaching the situation, and creating better articles. Like for the persecution page for example, I think nearly all those sources are academics, high quality newspapers, or human rights orgs. Specific problems you see, with reference to policy, would be really useful.--Asdfg12345 14:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

required reading for editors of these pages

Recent Far Eastern Economic Review article: "China’s Guerrilla War for the Web". Quite relevant, methinks.--Asdfg12345 11:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

How is that differnent from "validating the Fa"?[3]--PCPP (talk) 06:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd figured it was the opposite. btw, I don't dispute that there's relevant info in that article. --Asdfg12345 10:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

concerns on this page

I will start by saying I am no expert on the contents of this article, but attempting to read this from a neutral stand point, I think that this article is very bias against the Chinese government. Although I am by no means defending some of their decisions and actions, I am troubled that this article lacks the 'Controversy' section that many other controversial articles contain. As an immigrant from China, I know that the general opinion is one that is negative towards the Falun Gong, and I cannot see how this view can be without foundation. This article seems to view the religion as an image of innocence and attributes the banning of it to simply 'jealousy'. There are quite a few important events that have at the very least contributed to the Chinese government's view on the religion. For example, the attempted mass public suicide of practitioners in 1999 <http://atimes.com/china/CA27Ad01.html>, while credited in the references of this article, isn't mentioned anywhere within. While I won't list them all, I hope that my concerns will be considered in a future editting. While I can't say present facts, I have a friend who practiced falun gon who has died from refusing modern medicines, and I personally see the religion in negative light. While I always try to keep an open mind, I iterate again the concern I have for the lack of controversial points in this article, even though it is marked as such. Uforian (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uforian (talk • contribs) 01:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The article wasn't always like that, try browsing through the history. Frankly, the article has been used as a battleground between pro-FLG and anti-FLG activists, and resulted in an arbitration case where several editors were banned. Now the pro-FLG camp has basically made the FLG pages an extension of the Epoch Times, the article on "Criticism of Falun Gong" was changed to "Academic views on Falun Gong", the page on "Suppression of Falun Gong" became "Persecution of Falun Gong" ect. You're not the only user with a problem, see here User:Ohconfucius/rant_about_Falun_Gong_pages.--PCPP (talk) 06:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

But all such discussion has only ever been personal complaints about how such and such editor perceives the subject. Often it even includes the very propaganda used to persecute the group, according to reliable sources. No reference is made to the highest quality sources to back these views up. But that's what wikipedia requires: "Disagreements over whether something is approached neutrally can usually be avoided through the practice of good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little ground work can save a lot of time justifying a point later." A quick scan of this talk page reveals some cogent argumentation on this point. --Asdfg12345 08:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see how a lack of references can completely negate an entire point of view on the subject. My main concern is that there is absolutely nothing within the article that even hints at controversies of the Falun Gong. Furthermore, as per PCPP's suggestion, I went through the history of the page, and I see many controversial points that no longer exist in the page that WERE referenced. It's just absurd that pages on the wiki like Bigfoot have more points of controversy and neutrality than one as globally controversial as the Falun Gong. It's almost ironic the amount of propaganda this article possesses compared to that which the pro-falungong supporters frown upon. Seriously, read over the article, an entire country persecutes something simply out of 'personal jealousy'? give me a break, how can you think that a statement like that has more credibility than any of the points that were removed? Uforian (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a few points. "I still don't see how a lack of references can completely negate an entire point of view on the subject." -- please see WP:V; that's precisely what wikipedia is. And the other thing is that there's a long explanation of what reliable sources have said about the reasons for the persecution on the persecution page. To boil it down: your argument is essentially that the reasons for the persecution also have something to do with Falun Gong itself, i.e., it's somehow problematic, or more than a innocent spiritual practice. This simply isn't the view that's been adopted by the highest quality sources on the topic. To give an example, the foremost scholar on Falun Gong wrote a book recently called "Falun Gong and the Future of China", you can look it up. Of course, he raises critical commentary on Falun Gong from the perspective of an academic observer, but basically rejects this approach out of hand. For example, he says the cult label was a red-herring from the start, and the chapter about the persecution is called "David vs Goliath." This is basically the framework that western academia and media have under understood things within, as demonstrated by the hundreds of sources on the persecution page from top newspapers, journals, and reports from HR orgs. They basically argue that the CCP is a repressive regime which does not allow freedom of assembly, belief, etc., and that Falun Gong was competing for popularity among the people and undermining the totalitarian ideological control of CCP rule. I understand your wish to see a variety of views. Wikipedia elevates the views which are more prominent, in the mainstream and in top sources, and gives less space to, or for the unpublished, excludes, those which are non-mainstream. This is in the policies. Overall though, the "motivations" section on this main page could be another couple of hundred words longer.--Asdfg12345 23:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You make valid points on the exclusion of content based on Wikipedia guidelines. and I'm not arguing with the western perception of FLG or the human rights issues of the CCP. However, narrowing it down to specifics, I still want to see mention of the self-immolation and the recent sicknesses of people who refuse modern-medicine in connection with FLG. While I understand that there is no concrete evidence (other than the victims admitting it themselves *cough*) to make the connection, it is a definitely a source of controversy, and I don't see how those arguments have less value than some scholar who says it's because of government suppression. Neither have solid evidence, both have references, yet somehow the article completely ignores negative controversies against the FLG. - off topic on a friendlier note, to help with the task of scanning through the guidelines, does wikipedia require english references? Like you said, the western academia and media have their own understanding of FLG, but I have some references from Chinese and French sources that are of decent-solid quality that emphasize my previous arguments in reference form, which may allow me to stroke my e-peen as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uforian (talk • contribs) 01:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm, there's a page on the immolation, which goes over the arguments about whether they were really Falun Gong practitioners or a CCP cook-up. It should be obviously linked somewhere. I've honestly only seen the medicine stuff in the context of propaganda around 1999 in China. This has been taken up by some academics, like Noah Porter wrote of it in his thesis. It's a "controversy", I guess. I'd suggested a section called "Competing representations" a while ago where some notable, competing representations of Falun Gong in good sources could be hashed out. Or there is an "Academic page" where stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere has been put for a while. We lack editors though, so some cool ideas don't end up flying. About the French/Chinese thing: my understanding is that English wiki will prize English texts, French wiki French ones, etc.. But the French I guess we could use if they are top quality, like from academics. I don't know the exact rules, to be honest. I haven't ran into this before. For Chinese, I think it's clear that anything post 1999 from mainland China is worthless as independent commentary on this subject. The CCP controls all the universities. The PSB put up a notice in universities about how they were to write about Falun Gong; it had the core points of Xinhua propaganda, and asked them to fill in the rest with their own expertise. --Asdfg12345 02:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether "cult" should be in the lede or not

Asdfg calls this section "controversial" and removed it from the lede:

"The Chinese government considers Falun Gong to be a cult, and has compared Li to various infamous cult leaders.

I dont see anything controversial. It states the view of a major world nation, one quite relevant to the subject, in a brief and NPOV way. -Zahd (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been extensively discussed. Please comment on the pending arguments instead of starting all over. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you please deal with the subject at hand. Its one sentence. -Zahd (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's not be uncivil. There's a tag up top which says: "This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary." Here are some links from the previous archive which I suggest reading. If there is a continued line of argumentation about anything there, responding to any loose ends or whatever, then we should take it up again. This particular issue has been hashed out recently. links: Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive24#Discussing_the_lede, then Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive24#Lead right down to the end. There's a lot of stuff written.--Asdfg12345 22:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like you and Olaf have made a point of removing the term "cult" from the lede, regardless of the argument. Your arguments don't seem to hold water, as the statement merely reflects a characterisation by the PRC, not a fact in and of itself. Its entirely possible that both things are true: 1) the PRC has engineered the term "cult" as a pejorative and 2) FG is a cult. -Zahd (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you please indicate whether you've read all that writing on the topic? It's more complex than that. I hope you understand that I'm reluctant to go through another giant discussion if you're not familiar with what's already been said. I understand your point; I believe it is addressed in that discussion, I think even in the first link I pasted above.--Asdfg12345 23:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that everyone must read twenty pages of old conversation, some of which may be relevant, some not, as a prerequisite for dealing with issues in this article? Ive read enough to know you lament not being able to label the CCP (in article) as an "evil cult." -Zahd (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)`

There's a tag at the top of this page, which I quoted, which says this. It's only from last month, and everything I linked is relevant. Just let me check again. Yeah, basically it's all relevant and very recent. There's no point going over it again straight away. That's also an inaccurate characterisation of my views and what I was saying.--Asdfg12345 23:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Or I'd just c&p what's already written, cause they're identical issues.--Asdfg12345 23:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, again the same discussion.... A quick summary: the CCP has labelled Falun Gong as a cult, but western scholars disagree on the label having any basis on reality. This means that the label is reduced to being one more exaggerated false argument of CCP's demonization of Falun Gong inside the context of the persecution of Falun Gong. Now, the persecution is already covered on the lead and it covers stuff like cases of torture reported by several human rights associations. After much edit-warring and a few proposed versions, it was finally agreed that the lead was already too long and the label too unimportant to justify inclusion on the lead, and the sentence was moved to the body of the article under the relevant section. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"The Encyclopedia Britannica characterises Falun Gong as "controversial,"" because of its status in China as a banned practice. -Zahd (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

PS:One thing is clear. This article, as well as the one on Li Hongzhi have been cleared of certain controversial bits by various editors. Its apparent that certain editors here are Falun Gong students and are editing from a rather biased point of view - one which Li and all of Falun Gong are whitewashed of any criticism, and where such exists, instead representing it as "persecution", just as controversies are now "academic views" -Zahd (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Asdfg on the one hand commented on the relevance of China to Falun Gong, asking if China is relevant simply because its the country of origin, or (sarcastically) because FG "is persecuted there." Asdfg doesnt mind however this statement "Ownby also lists its "Chineseness" as a major part of the practice's appeal" being in the lede of the academics views article. -Zahd (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I admit that I haven't read all of the discussion's history, however after reading the summaries mentioned here there is something I’d like to point out. In addition to the PRC, Falun Gong is also considered a cult by other respectable and knowledgeable individuals, including western scholars, and especially by the prominent Israeli cult-fighting group, Yad L'Achim. I refer you to a recent article on israelnn.com titled "Yad L’Achim Advises Chinese on Cult-Fighting"

Here is the link: [4]Gakerman (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

TIME: Have you seen human beings levitate off the ground? Li: I have known too many.

TIME: Can you describe any that you have known? Li: David Copperfield. He can levitate and he did it during performances.

Actually, I didn't put that on the academic page. I'm not sure I understand the issue you raise. One thing's for sure though, I'm editing in good faith, and I'm not here trying to cram some status quo down your neck. I disagree with many things on the pages at the moment but haven't got around to fixing them. It would actually be awesome if I were the boss around here. Wiki is a work in progress, things get discussed. I've been trying to focus on research and adding content, when time permits. Overall if editors can communicate in a friendly way, exchange ideas and approaches, refer to wikipedia policies and high quality sources in their arguments, and generally communicate in a way that creates an atmosphere of 'we're working on the pages together', this will help to build better articles. btw: I think at a certain point it was between 'criticism and praise' to 'third party views' to 'academic views.' --Asdfg12345 01:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats all fine and good. But, one question stands out at the moment: why are Li's comments about aliens and levitation not in his article or in this one? They are well sourced, and provide an important insight into the character of FG's leadership. -Zahd (talk) 03:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you able to explain further what you mean?--Asdfg12345 11:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This should make it clear enough for you: Li_Hongzhi#Comments_to_TIME -Zahd (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of his comments to Time, but could you elaborate on how you understand their relevance or relationship to these articles? Having a section called "Li Hongzhi's comments to Time" is a kind of original research. Why not a section called "Li Hongzhi's comments in New York", "Li Hongzhi's comments to New Tang Dynasty Television", "Li Hongzhi's comments in Sydney, at a restaurant" etc.? I thought it would make sense to address Li Hongzhi's teachings in the context of the teachings; there is a page on this which includes commentary on these subjects... Not sure if I misunderstand something. --Asdfg12345 12:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Li Hongzhi's comments about aliens, flying and homosexuality are far more interesting and far-fetched than "Li Hongzhi's comments at a restaurant". Since this is the guy who founded Falun Gong, his personal beliefs are highly relevant if they are controversal. If Jesus believed in aliens and freezing people, you can be sure it would have been mentioned in "Christianity" because it provides a important insight into the mind of the man who founded the religion. If I wrote a book as a prominent Neo-Nazi, and you wrote a article on my book, you would mention that I was a Neo-Nazi. --Ilivetocomment (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it the case that it doesn't really matter what we, as editors, find interesting, far-fetched, or controversial? Apart from the relevant point being what independent, reliable sources say about it, these are aspects of Falun Gong teachings, right? They were actually covered on the Teachings of Falun Gong page in their appropriate context, where they should be, but some of that material was removed, and I couldn't be bothered reinstating it. That's where this discussion is pertinent to, since these are elements of the teachings of Falun Gong. There were a couple of a paragraphs which got into this stuff, including commentary from people who thought it was daft etc., along with a practitioner's response.--Asdfg12345 07:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It is, as a whole considered supernatural and controversial to most people who read it. I think that the aspects of Falun Gong that are most important should be on the page. The article should have a rundown summary about the bulk of the teachings and include the most mportant portions of it. This includes aliens, flying and their...other less mainstream views, like their views on homosexuality. An example would be the article on The Lord of the Flies, a very good book. The fact that it said "a pack of painted niggers" in the book sparked this mention of it:"In Chapter 11 of the original Lord of the Flies, Piggy calls Jack's tribe "a pack of painted niggers."[6] This was changed to "savages" in some editions and "Indians" in the mass media publication." The article gave a rundown on most of the book and gave this statement special mention because it is controversial. This is the reason why these beliefs should be included in this article and especially the Teachings of Falun Gong and Li Hongzhi one. Strangely enough, the relation of Falun Gong and these less common beliefs do not appear on any of the wiki articles that mention Falun Gong. --99.224.175.127 (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, they are part of the teachings, and most belong on the teachings page. In the context of wikipedia, they aren't key aspects of Falun Gong's notability, or even key elements of the teachings; they're details about its beliefs and should be addressed in their overall context, right? I understand what you are saying, and of course agree that they should not be excluded. I'm saying they ought to be presented in context. Tomorrow I will restore the material that was on the teachings page which covers precisely what you are mentioning here.--Asdfg12345 09:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I also realised I didn't respond to one point. They aren't controversial because you say they're controversial, and other things are a certain way because I say they are a certain way. I've seen no source which argues that these are key elements of Falun Gong's notability. On the other hand, I've seen a bunch, including the best ones like David Ownby's recent text, which see them as details, and approach these elements in their overall context. That strikes me as obviously the most mature and non-sensational way of doing it. We aren't a tabloid, and we aren't digging up things that we think are controversial to make a splash. The articles are supposed to be encyclopedic and informative, right? Doesn't being intelligent, encyclopedic, and informative, require presenting things in context? It's not our personal views on what is controversial and what isn't--wikipedia isn't based on that. This is my understanding. Tomorrow I intend to dredge up the formulation that was on the teachings page which covered this.--Asdfg12345 09:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok fine. It should be put on the Teachings page and the Li Hongzhi page I think...but putting it on the Falun Gong page should be postponed until someone finds a source that says that ÈsomeguyÈ thinks that Falun Gong is bad because of aliens and flying or something like that. PS: The È is what happens when I try to put a quote. --Ilivetocomment (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Organ Harvest Investigation

Hello regarding this edit: [5].

I don't think that this is correct: "In 2006, two high-profile Canadian lawyers published an investigative report concluding that since 1999, the Chinese authorities have systematically executed Falun Gong" is "giving too much weight to one unconfirmed issue". Because the fact is that they said so, and one of them is an ex-secretary of state.

Also "shortening as much as possible" a few characters actually it's not a good idea because this is something very relevant, since the issue they raised is something new in world history as far as organized genocide go. Thx. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

But the report has not been confirmed by other investigations.... --Enric Naval (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been confirmed by two other independent reports. Have('nt) you read the organ harvesting page? A Yale PhD thesis and a report by the Associate Director of the Program in Human Rights and Medicine at the University of Minnesota. Amnesty, US State, Congressional Research Service have not confirmed it, though nor have they refuted it. They raise further questions and withhold judgement, according to my understanding. This is a similar position that many world governments have taken. K/M raise further questions too. K/M are basically saying 'based on what we can see now, we conclude this is happening', but they also seek more info. The CCP is just so tight-fisted though; they don't even have a central donation system, so they simply have no way to account for these massive transplants. They say "executed prisoners," but what's this code for?--Asdfg12345 11:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have read the article, but all the conclusions rely on circumstancial evidence.....

Also, the reason I shortened the sentence is because it makes an appeal to authority by name-dropping the names of the authors in a place where you don't need to mention them..... When a fact is backed by several sources then you don't need to make particular attribution to one of the sources. You just plain state the fact and then put the necessary references right after it. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There is another aspect to this.. Kilgour and Matas are not "two high profile lawyers" - For instance, David Kilgour, PC , BA , JD , D.D. is a prominent human rights activist and an ex-canadian secretary of state - it is not acurate to label him a "high profile lawyer". Its much better to mention the names so that the reader may objectively judge for himself - we donot have to make any extrapolations here - its just a simple matter of mentioning the names of the authors and leaving it at that. Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

outdated britannica source on lead for "controversial"

Regarding using the Britannica statement, without context, in the intro - all additional reference the brit article mentions are dated before 2000 - infact 1999 or befre. "Controversial" is hardly the stance taken by the academic or human rights community now - including analysis by david ownby, zhao, latest version of worldbook encyclopaedia, human rights reports etc. So the statement being crammed into the intro seems to serve little purpose than push a pov, especially considering the fact that the particular persepective on this topic, on which each day there is additional information unfolding, is very much anachronistic. Note that this a topic on which there was insufficient information for the academics or journalists to form a clear picture on back in 1999. Further I would like to point out that mainstream academics and the human rights community now considers articles such as by jishi ( which the britannica article refers to) to be pure chinese government propaganda. For these reasons, I am removing the particluar line, which seems to serve little purpose than push a pov, from the intro. Dilip rajeev (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Dilip, just a short comment: I disagree with your edit. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

And may I please know why?

Dilip rajeev (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Because I consider it counterproductive and unprofessional. By Wikipedia standards, Encyclopaedia Britannica is a valid source. The same policies and guidelines must apply to everyone. Your reasoning could be used against any material "our" party tries to introduce, and then it will only lead to endless edit warring (you should know) and anomie. Furthermore, the article will not appear credible to any third-party observers if everything "critical" is deliberately removed. We don't need to be partisan in our edits, because the facts are on Falun Gong's side to begin with. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

From where did you get this idea? I have specifically outlined the reasons for my edit above. Have you read the wikipedia policies when using sources such as encyclopaedias? Olaf, its not about personal perspectives or retaining or removing something to make the article "appear" in such and such a way, at all - its about accurately reflecting what the main stream academic community tells us and presenting things in proper context. And am sure you would agree that the article is outdated - there was hardly any information available back then. The later articles, including encyclopaedias , you would know, carry a very different perspective. For instance the 2002 world book encyclopaedia describes the contents of Zhuan Falun as examining "evolution, the meaning of space and time, and the mysteries of the universe." - just to point out how much the perspective had changed within the academic community in the few years after 1999 when the only source was Chinese government propaganda.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I wouldn't say that the mainstream academic community has explicitly defined Falun Gong as "uncontroversial". It would be wrong to state that Falun Gong is inherently something (in a sentence such as "Falun Gong is a controversial spiritual practice from China") in a Wikipedia article, as that would be a weasel word. But attributing this statement to Encyclopedia Britannica is not a problem. See what WP:Undue weight says about this: "* If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

If we assume that nearly every subject has a "majority view" and a "significant minority view", and that they're two different things, what would you call the "significant minority view" on Falun Gong and how should we include it in the articles?

It's an entirely different thing to quote CCP propaganda (such as "Falun Gong practitioners engage in necrophilia") than report that Falun Gong has been called controversial by a certain reputable source. Of course, we should not give it undue weight, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't give it weight at all. You've never fundamentally changed your editing style, Dilip, and I'm worried about that. Even if you feel something shouldn't be in the lead, you should not entirely remove it but perhaps replace it in another section, as long as it's reliably sourced and verifiable. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 08:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This edit had three sources, and it was removed after it was to start of the lead [6] and then it was reduced to the most prestigious one [7]. I knew that I should have insisted that all three sources stayed. The sources were:

1. Britannica: "controversial Chinese spiritual movement founded by Li Hongzhi in 1992;" [8]
2. about.com: "Falun Dafa, controversial Chinese sect." [9]
3. Halifax Daily News (hosted in organinvestigation.net): "Practitioners of Falun Gong, a controversial Chinese religion, will (...)" [10]

to which I add several media reports

1. LA Times, 2008, "Ties to Falun Gong add controversy to the Chinese New Year Spectacular (...) Some of these dramas depict the persecution of Falun Gong members in China (...) Policemen come in and drag the practitioners off and beat them, including little girls, which is very true" [11]
2. Television New Zealand, 2007, "Controversial Falun Gong banned from Santa Parade" (notice the controversial word is on the browser title but not on the article title) [12]
3. abc.net, 2007, "Politicians urged not to attend controversial Chinese stage show (...) In one scene a Falun Gong dancer is killed by dancing Chinese police, who strangle her with a red flag" [13]
4. reuters, 2001, "Li Hongzhi, founder of the controversial Falun Gong spiritual movement" [14]
5. cbs5.com, 2007, "Controversial Falun Gong Lunar New Year Show In SF" [15]
6. listed on a book from 2005 called "Controversial New Religions" [16] "In most ways, Falun Gong was like other schools of gigong, and thus was not particularly controversial at the outset" [17]
7. gotham gazzete (New York newspaper) "New Year's Show Sparks Controversy"[18]

David Ownby does call Falun Gong controversial. "Neither Li Hongzhi nor Falun Gong was controversial in the beginning. Instead, Li became an instant ..." (this quote is from the preview of a google search) [19]. Also from the Controversial New Religions book "Falun Gong is without doubt controversial." (pag 195) [20], "In the final analysis, Falun Gong came to be controversial because of the extraordinary growth of qigong, and because of the eventual negative reaction of the Chinese state. Otherwise, Falun Gong is largely consistent with certain traditional popular religious practices well known in pre-communist China." remember this book is from 2005.

So, stop deleting the "controversial" thing from the lead. This need a section on the body of the article saying how it makes controversial acts, how it wasn't controversial on the beggining, and explaining why and how it became controversial.

Also, "controversial" is a neutral term on english ("controversial" can be anything that generates controversy, regardless of the reasons or details for the controversy). We shouldn't remove notable adjectives from articles just because we don't agree with them.

All of this was already discussed at Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive24#Lead --Enric Naval (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with just saying that Britannica or whatever regards Falun Gong as controversial, and somehow elaborating on Falun Gong's various representations in different fora elsewhere? I was thinking of a section called "Falun Gong in the media" where this could go. We need to be careful of original research in this case, but it should be fine to say that so and so have regarded Falun Gong as controversial and why, and also the other media analysis related to Falun Gong published by Schechter, Adam Frank, and other writers, newspapermen and academics. This would be good.--Asdfg12345 12:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The term "controversial" carries different connotations - controversial in what sense? We cannot present things without making the context clear and britannica clearly is a rather anachronistic report on the topic. But the thing to note here is that we cant put things in this almost childish manner " Brtannica says its "controversial"". What is that sentence meant to convey? I really dont understand. What about also including the world book says ".... " Thats not how we approach things - we present the issues - without drawing conclusions - in the intro. Further, are we talking about some of the "controversies" surrounding the facts of persecution ? Are we talking about things being "controversial" within the chinese regime ? What does "controversial" connote there? We must present things with proper context - arent we presenting the facts of the persecution , the international response etc? Shouldn't the reader be left to understand these aspects on his own? David Ownby is saying Falun Gong was not controversial with the chinese government's politcal agenda - if my interpretation of his words is correct. Another instance, he says the controversial aspect was the extraordinary rate of growth. What is controversial supposed to mean here in the lead?

Here is what worldbook says:

Falun Gong is a spiritual way of living that emerged in China during the early 1990's. Falun Gong teaches techniques of meditation through exercises as a means of gaining improved physical health and fitness and moral and spiritual purity. The name Falun Gong means turn the wheel of law in Chinese. Falun Gong is also called Falun Dafa (the great law). Falun Gong claims millions of followers in dozens of countries... Falun Gong followers state that the movement aims to promote truth, tolerance, and compassion--universal virtues that cross cultural, national, and racial boundaries. Those who practice Falun Gong seek to guide people to higher dimensions and spiritual enlightenment...In 1992, Li Hongzhi introduced Falun Gong to a group of followers. It soon grew into a movement that became popular throughout China. Li completed the system's main book of teachings, Zhuan Falun, in 1994. In addition to describing the principles of Falun Gong, the book examines evolution, the meaning of space and time, and the mysteries of the universe...Followers of Falun Gong perform open-air exercises designed to promote good health by harnessing and controlling a spiritual energy called qi (chee). They follow the teachings of Li Hongzhi as published in Zhuan Falun and other books, as well as on video and audio tapes and Internet sites on the World Wide Web....In 1996, Li left China to conduct classes in Falun Gong in Europe, Asia, and Australia.

Now if we are to keep that sentence in the intro, perhaps we ought also to say world book says Falun Gong is a "spritual way of living" and teaches "techniques of meditation through exercises as a means of gaining improved physical health and fitness and moral and spiritual purity." Shouldnt we? Why give an older brit article more weightage to a newer, more up to date, world book one? The point am trying to get across is that we cant just randomly cite things in the intro - especially without providing proper context. Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

We make a section called "controversy" where we explain the context, and then we can put "controversial" on the lead. Controversial means that is causes controversy, that's pretty much a direct statement. That the group is controversial is part of the context of the group, that's why it should be there, the context of the controversial word itself goes on the body of the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Kind of agree. Though the section should be called "Falun Gong in the media", and should not single out one aspect of Falun Gong's representations in the media, (i.e., as apparently controversial), but engage with the wider discourse on Falun Gong's different media representations. There are sources for this, including a book chapter by a China scholar Adam Frank specifically on how Falun Gong has been represented in different fora. (I say this to avoid the circumstance where we have a section called "praise for Falun Gong" or "positive comments on Falun Gong"--that's not what we want) A different point is, it seems a slightly goofy phrase to say that Falun Gong is controversial. Everything is controversial. I'm not really sure what it provides the reader. For the lede, I have two ideas: remove the paragraph about the scholars saying it's a religion or whatever, this is all quite wordy and waffling. move the persecution para up. Have another para on how Falun Gong is practiced, and its spread in the world, and on the topic of Falun Gong apart from 1. it's beliefs and 2. the persecution. So something like Falun Gong is practiced here and there with no structure and currently these people hold protests out the front of embassies and hand out fliers, something like that. Instead of the controversial sentnece, maybe a sentence which simply says "Falun Gong became the subject of media attention after its immense growth within China and subsequent persecution." -- this kind of opens the door for a section about Falun Gong in the media. These are just some suggestions. These two points of immense growth and persecution are important anyway, for giving context to the "controversial" remark, also. my 2 pence.--Asdfg12345 15:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"Outlandish" Claims of Falun Gong

I have been reading the Beliefs and Teachings article. In that article, some of the more outlandish beliefs of Li that are espoused by Falun Gong, according to that article, include:

Related to these ideas are Li's remarks about various topis that have caught the eye of journalists, such as the "Falun"—"an intelligent, spinning body of high-energy substances"; the meaning of sexuality and race—that homosexuality, transsexuality, and sexual relations outside heterosexual marriage are all immoral and a result of declining moral standards in the "Dharma-ending period"; extraterrestrials—who, according to Li, exist in other dimensions and invented modern science for the "manipulation and eventual replacement of humankind"; physical phenomena such as gravity, where "Li postulates that gravity may be controlled by deities that practitioners can visualize at work in their own bodies"; prehistoric culture—"that there were 81 civilisations before us, that there is a two-billion year old nuclear reactor in Africa", and other "idiosyncratic notions" such as the existence of "separate-but-equal heavens for people of different races."

Why isn't any of this information included in the main article? I read the main articles sections on beliefs and practices, and read about Chinese breathing techniques. Then I read about accusations of China suppressing and torturing followers of breathing techniques, and can't understand how even mega-crazy China would care about people practicing breathing exercises.

As I understand it, Falun Gong also teaches that its practitioners can gain "supernormal" powers (a la Dungeons & Dragons) of levitation and clairvoyance. Yet, in the main article on the subject, I read only about breathing techniques.

Now, while I might not want to throw people in jail for espousing absurd and moronic beliefs such as that there are 2 billion year-old nuclear reactors in Africa, I can at least get some sense of what the Chinese government might have against these people.

These claims and beliefs are relevant to this article. Why aren't they in it anywhere? Is the Teachings and Beliefs article being vandalized? Are these not teachings of Falun Gong? A lot of the sources are credible.

I'm not trying to pass judgment on these beliefs if they are what the followers hold. Ok... well... yes I am, but I'm not suggesting that the article passes judgment on them. I'm just suggesting that it would make more sense to readers if it weren't simply the reasonable beliefs of the sect that were presented in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.77.144.5 (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've just done a quick googling of some of the above details about FG, and they seem to be correct. These details seem quite notable and worthy of inclusion in the article. Fuzzypeg★ 05:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the lead of Persecution of Falun Gong explains perfectly why the group is persecuted, and it has nothing to do with aliens. Saying that those parts of their books are notable is original research, as the secondary sources that are currently on the article give them no relevane at all. Same for saying that it has anything to do with China's persecution, as no secondary source says that. Until some good sources are provided, this is all pushing of original research by this IP in order to smear this group, and the explanations about the articles only talking of breathing techniques are false, and are just mirrors and smoke. Stop pushing the damned thing with no secondary sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. One notable problem is that the Chinese scientific community in the 1980s and 90s actually talked about things that seem really far-out to most Westerners. Supernaturality was debated to an extent never seen in Western countries, "so much so that a veritable corpus of literature on qigong resulted [...] [wherein] controversy centers on the question of whether and how qigong can induce “supranormal abilities” (teyi gongneng)." (Xu Jian, Journal of Asian Studies, nr. 58) And it wasn't some mr. Hocus Pocus from the backwoods of Xinjiang who babbled about feudalistic superstition--more like Tsinghua University and Qian Xuesen eulogizing an emerging scientific revolution. David Ownby is completely right in saying that Falun Gong was not particularly controversial in the beginning, even though Li Hongzhi's ideas were put forth already in the very first published texts and lectures. Besides, he was the one who sought to undermine the claims made by other qigong masters about practicing qigong in order to acquire supernormal powers. These things did not cause the persecution. You can find some infomation about these anomalies from completely unrelated sources. Needless to say, they have not been taken seriously in the West by most people. (Which might not prove anything in itself.)

By the way, Falun Gong makes use of no breathing techniques at all. I don't know where people keep getting this impression. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 12:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Anon ip is positing a connection between these beliefs and the motivation for persecuting Falun Gong. Any sources for that? Sounds like original research.--Asdfg12345 06:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

OK Olaf, Asdfg and Enric, you've given me a few points to answer. The first is the general tone of your dismissal, saying "of course this isn't relevant to the article"; well, that editor's comment was deleted without explanation. When that kind of thing happens you can be sure there will be some explaining to do afterwards. I only look in at this article from time to time, but when I see behaviour like that I start to take more interest. Not that any of you did the deleting.

Now, you're getting carried away with the concept of WP:OR. It is not OR to post a suggestion on a talk page. Also he says that he is judging FG himself, but that he doesn't expect the article to follow his judgement. He's also been gracious enough to ask for alternative explanations ("Are these not teachings of Falun Gong?") rather than just jumping in and editing himself. He's also made it clear that he believes the article should remain neutral but that he thinks it would be useful to the readers to hear about some of the more bizarre beliefs of FG. I agree with him; and remember, not everyone who comes here is reading the article because they're interested in Chinese repression. Some just want to find out about Falun Gong. Make sense?

Regarding these beliefs not being present in secondary sources: well, they're mentioned in Time magazine (Monday, Jun. 25, 2001 "Spiritual society or evil cult?"), the New York Times (April 30, 2000 "Rooting Out Falun Gong; China Makes War on Mysticism") and a wide variety of other sources, but more importantly they appear in Li Hongzhi's Zhuan Falun, which makes them clearly relevant to the article. Yes, yes, I know that's a primary source, but it's probably the most reliable source for information about Falun Gong teachings, which is of primary concern to this article. Do the editors at the Christianity article avoid quoting the Bible because it's a primary source? Noooooo.

You guys are tying yourselves in knots trying to argue for the exclusion of information that is neutral, verifiable, is not original research, and is highly relevant to the article. I think perhaps you need to take a step backwards and try to see the forest rather than the trees. I know there's a lot of controversy in this article about the Chinese persecution, but trying to exclude relevant factual information because you think it will weaken your position in that argument is a real problem. This is precisely the reason why editors with a conflict of interest are discouraged from editing. Truthfulness is not achieved by obscuring the facts. Fuzzypeg★ 22:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

See Olaf's comment. Those things are irrelevant to Falun Gong's notability, expansion or controversy. Notice that, since the last time you edited, there have been anonymous editors trying to push smears into the article using these writings [21][22], that was two days ago, and it also happened on July [23][24][25][26] (it's 4 inserts of the same info).

This would be similar to saying that Christianity is a bad religion because the Bible says that the Sun stopped on the sky, which is astronomically imposible. The Bible also says stuff about inmortal beings called angels that live on heaven, which is only marginally more believable than aliens and levitation, but the christianity article only mentions them on a caption of a drawing. That sort of detail, without a good published analysis of their importance inside the religion, are just trivia and OR. Those articles you mentioned don't explain why or how those details are important, the Time one is a tease piece for a poll [27], the NYT is using Mr. Zhou's beliefs to fill space[28], and, of course, we have Ownby explaining what is the actual relevance of those details. See page 204 of Controversial New Religions. If you look at the section above I propose making a "controversy" section where the real relevance of that stuff can be explained. Simply dropping "The founder says that aliens exist" just makes the article look bad, and it's just our personal pick of what is important on the beliefs. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, so these details "are irrelevant to Falun Gong's notability, expansion or controversy". I'm happy to agree that they're not directly relevant to those things. But I can tell you straight off they aren't irrelevant to Falun Gong in general. The "smears" you mention above are examples of how this information shouldn't be presented, since it's not in context, and is clearly just trying to choose the most bizarre beliefs and list them one after the other. Also some of those edits go out of their way to cast judgement, which is in direct contravention of WP:NPOV policy.

The Christianity article mentions a number of rather odd beliefs, such as resurrection, miracles, virgin birth and so on, but doesn't say "Christianity is a bad religion" as a result. I don't see why the Falun Gong article shouldn't mention some of the important beliefs of FG, particularly those around perceptions of race, sexuality and science/physics. They seem fairly important elements of FG philosophy.

In my experience, too, a good way to shut up people who persistently add poor quality info to an article is to add that info yourself, and get it right. Once the FG article actually becomes more informative in this regard, there will be fewer critical edits.

Rather than simply dropping in "the founder believes that aliens exist" (which is hardly a controversial statement, given the number of stars out there!), I would work some of these key elements into their appropriate places in the "Beliefs and teachings" and "Theoretical background" sections. If neutrally worded, they shouldn't come across as a criticism, and readers can draw their own conclusions.

And please don't invent your own reasons why notable, highly credible sources should be discounted in the same breath as telling me what is and isn't OR. Fuzzypeg★ 06:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your comment, this needs to be worked into the article. Notice that "beliefes and teachings" on this article is a summary of the main article Teachings of Falun Gong, so it would need to have an extended version there of these topics, and a shorter version here.

About the sources, notice that we two different types of sources talking about the same topic. One type is newspaper articles that mention it but don't go deep into the question, and other are books or scholar sources that go into it. Now, for every topic, I try to make myself a scale of quality of sources, in order to decide which sources should be used (everyone needs its own personal scale of values in order to work). In this case: opinion columns < newspaper articles < investigation articles and documentaries < books < scholar papers on journals, human rights organization reports, government reports (except chinese, because we have so many reports from many other sources saying they are incorrect) < peer-reviewed paper on high-quality history journal. In this scale these newspapers sources would fall lower than Davind Ownby's work, that's why I objected to using them. However, your comment is very wise, so I'm sure that you can use them right :) --Enric Naval (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your ranking for quality/reliability. I only cited the newspaper/magazine sources to demonstrate that there are indeed credible secondary sources, as anyone can find using google, but I don't know the literature so I can't point people to peer-reviewed analyses of FG beliefs. It's ideal if someone knowledgable writes this kind of thing up rather than waiting for a less knowledgable person like me. That way you can achieve a really solid, balanced and informative summary right from the outset, rather than it being an evolutionary process filled with editorial debate. Fuzzypeg★ 21:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Zhuan Falun Source Material for 66.77.144.5's claims

Regarding Fuzzypeg's comment, why do we need reliable secondary sources regarding beliefs of Falun Gong when primary sources are readily available? The official English translations of Li Hongzhi's books can be downloaded at falundafa.org. These are the same books that Li Hongzhi sells to his followers in print form and are the definitive word what Falun Gong is. Most, if not all, of the "outlandish" claims brought up by 66.77.144.5 at the start of this discussion can be verified from Zhuan Falun or subsequent official transcripts of Li Hongzhi's lectures. Note, that like many PDF documents, the PDF page numbers in Zhuan Falun don't match the numbers on each page of the document.

• Prehistoric nuclear reactor - Zhuan Falun, pg 10 (pdf pg 15)
• The 81 cycles of civilization- Zhuan Falun, pg 11 (pdf pg 16)
• Spinning Law Wheel in the lower abdomen, Zhuan Falun, pg 21 (pdf pg 26)
• The Third (Celestial) Eye - Zhuan Falun, pg 24 (pdf pg 29)
• Degradation of human society and recent development of homosexuality - Zhuan Falun, pg 181 (pdf pg 186)
• The "Dharma-ending period" and loss of morals - Teachings of Li Hongzhi at the Zhuan Falun Publication Ceremony, Beijing, January 4, 1995, pg 2.

To reiterate, these are from the authorized English translations FG's fundamental literature. Some, particularly the "Law Wheel" and Third Eye appear to be very important to the FG belief system. This is certainly not a comprehensive list, as these and other "outlandish claims" are reiterated in other publications of Mr. Li. By the way, the ancient "reactor" in Gabon is quite real and has been dated by isotopic composition to approximately 2 billion years ago as Mr. Li claims. The "outlandish claim" is that it is man made, while modern science indicates that it resulted from the natural concentration of uranium oxide with a ground water moderator.

I agree with 66.77.144.5 that the "outlandish claims" should be presented in the main article. I think that most readers would consider inconsistency with mainstream western science to be an important aspect of FG, and thus worthy of inclusion in the article. Obviously, many would consider this inconsistency to reflect negatively on FG, which is why FG promotional materials highlight less controversial aspects such as the exercises. Having read both the translation of Zhuan Falun and some FG promotional materials, my opinion is that that the current article follows the promotional materials too closely approaching something of propaganda piece. I would strongly recommend including some of issues 66.77.144.5 brings up, with citations as I have mentioned above or find your own "outlandish claims" on falundafa.org. Bdentremont (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Dilip's answer to anonymous IP

I am assuming its just some misunderstanding that leads the anonymous ip here to make these wild statements. Just to clarify to him: These things are apparently from some journalists - things like the the claim made by the journalist above- "Li postulates that gravity may be controlled by deities that practitioners can visualize at work in their own bodies" - have absolutely nothing to do with the Teaching of Falun Gong. Neither do they represent the teachings of Falun Gong. For instance, gravity is explained as follows in one of the lectures - its explained in in passing because the Teachings of Falun Gong are on spiritual cultivation practice - not today's scientific theories. The lecture apparently states that, "all matter, including air and water, that are on Earth and within the Three Realms—all things that exist in the Three Realms—are composed of particles of all the different levels in the Three Realms, and different particles of different levels are interconnected. This interconnection can, when there’s a pulling force, extend or move within the Three Realms. In other words, when you pull it, it can extend like a rubber band, and when you release it, it will go back. That is, there’s a basic, stable form of existence among particles. This is why any object in this Earth’s environment will come back to the ground after you move it. Of course, I’m not talking about moving a piece of rock to some different location, in which case it wouldn’t return to where it was. That’s not the idea. The surface of Earth is the boundary of one level. Within this level things can move horizontally since they are all at the same level. But when something moves towards a level beyond its level, it will be pulled back..." The teachings apparently explains that as one moves farther away from a celestial body, the higher dimensional interconnections between particles are broken and density of connections are sparser at the periphery, and thus strength of this pulling force decreases.[29] To summarize my very limited understanding of whats said in the lecture - space here is composed of many material dimensions; an object we see as in existence in this dimension alone has, in fact, its forms of existence in other dimensions; The interaction between higher dimensional matter causes the phenomenon of gravity; the surface of the earth forms a level of the same potential so you may move it on that equipotential surface without working against these connections. But to take it to a higher "potential" takes work/ requires force. Again it strikes me that if the density of these interconnecting particles varied inversely with distance from earth - it would mean the inverse square law! Indeed, this has no relation with the claim made by the journalist.

Rotation velocity curve of a typical spiral galaxy: predicted using our theory of gravitation (A) and observed (B).

Speaking of this something else comes to mind ( I know I am going off tangentially from the topic here :P .. and my edit may be removed after this discussion is over .. but i'll just point this out :).. ) - the galaxies that we see with our telescopes - they seem to rotate almost like a solid disc. If our theory of gravitation were right - how should they rotate? Well.. put some saw dust into a cup of coffee and swirl it around - the particles inside will rotate faster, while those on the outside much slower. The rotation pattern for galaxies ought to be the exact same way. But rather eerily what we observe is in stark conflict with what our best theories predict. Now what do our scientists do? They are faced with two choices - 1. Admit that current theory of universal gravitation could very likely be completely and grossly wrong. 2. Come up with some "explanations" that wouldn't require the "precious" model to be abandoned

Ofcourse, they chose #2. And came up with an awfully far-fetched explanation - and thats exactly from where the whole concept of "dark matter" comes from. The only way to save the model was to assume that 95%-99% of matter in the universe is invisible ( does not interact with light/ electromagnetic radiation) but produces gravity. ( Infact over 99.6% if we ignore intergalactic gas - according to some models. ) Well the model for gravitation was "saved" but now nobody knows what this "dark matter" thing could be - and by the way are still "searching" in completely futility for this "dark matter". If this cosmological model were true our earth must be passing through trillions of particles of such matter each second. Our best observations fail to detect any. My point being that its very likely that our model/ theory of gravitation itself may be flawed. What Falun Gong's Founder, Li Hongzhi, has said is that "things don’t work as the theory of 'universal gravitation' states" [ please read the lecture here ] and he continues to outline a very scientific explanation for this phenomenon involving the existence of physical, higher dimensional matter.

Regarding cycles of civilization - Falun Gong's teachings mention there were cycles of civilization. In fact even Buddhism does and many oriental and indian traditions do - here in india our traditions talk abut 4 "yugas" or something... smaller cycles within those - something of that sort. First when I heard about cycles of civilization in Falun Gong lectures - i did a lot of online research on this - coz back then i had almost a blind level of belief in mainstream science's theories. In fact, there are many truly intriguing finds that have been made around the world. :

This NBC documentary, the "mysterious origins of man" is indeed worth watching:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4848668803639628771&ei=kC6gSOifJoq0wgOduZg3&q=+mysterious+origins+of+man

I had compiled a short presentation on the topic - hoping you'll find it interesting... http://cid-c170094d7e9be7ec.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/World/Prehistoric-Civilizations.ppt .

(sorry about going completely tangential from the topic - the post may please be removed later) Dilip rajeev (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I find this interesting, Dilip. Others might also like to read it. Maybe it could be moved to a sub page under your name rather than deleted?--Asdfg12345 13:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Dilip says gravity has nothing to do with the teachings of Falun Gong, and then proceeds to prove himself wrong by citing Li's rather elaborate explanation of gravity in one of the Lectures (and further fleshing it out himself). Asdfg finds this "interesting", and if it's so interesting then why is he arguing against any of these ideas being mentioned in the article? Wouldn't other readers find it interesting too? Fuzzypeg★ 23:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to that quote from the journalist( picked by the anon Ip above : "Li postulates that gravity may be controlled by deities that practitioners can visualize at work in their own bodies.") and stating that its a gross mis-representation of what is said in the teachings. I meant to refer specifically to the journalist quote when i used the phrase "things like 'gravity and deities' hav nothing to do with the teachings". I did not mean at all to imply that the teachings do not touch upon gravity and dieties/Gods as two separate topics. Otherwise - my whole post would be self-contradictory. I assumed the context was obvious since i was replying to the post by the anonymous ip. I have edited my previous post to clear up the issue.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, they may do. It's all original research from Dilip though. I just thought it was personally interesting. I bet you could write me an essay about ten pet topics of yours and theories you've got nestled away and I'll say they're interesting. I'll even thank you for sharing them with me. In the Falun Gong teachings there are around 2000 pages of what may be termed similar material (to the remarks on gravity, as above, for example). Who's going to pick and choose which parts we highlight? There are some lectures on creating fine art, classical music, all sorts of topics. It seems to make sense to: Firstly, take as a basis the main book, Zhuan Falun, which Li Hongzhi repeatedly says is the main book and everything else supplementary, and which practitioners read every day, and according to David Ownby, the other scriptures "rarely, if ever" (that quote's wrong, just from memory, something like that). Secondly, to present things in a coherent way given their context, since we are making an encyclopedia, not a scrapbook of Dilip's or anyone else's personal theories. Thirdly, quantity and prominence should probably be a factor, I suppose. Since the topics of creating fine art and music each have their own lectures, while gravity doesn't, wouldn't we elaborate on these subjects first?--Asdfg12345 00:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Ownby's perspective was that the Zhuan Falun is "studied by practitioners to the virtual exclusion of.. other writings".. not sure if this is the quote you refer to...

Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

lol, and I had to laugh when I read the start of Dilip's note again. Of course gravity and deities have to do with the teachings of Falun Gong! I'm not sure what he meant to say, maybe that aberrant interpretations of these subjects have nothing to do with the teachings? hehe--Asdfg12345 00:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This statement by a journalist [ picked by the anon ip mentioned above: "Li postulates that gravity may be controlled by deities that practitioners can visualize at work in their own bodies." ] is not a correct representation of what is taught in Falun Gong.That is what I was saying in my post. Its completely mis-representing what Falun Gong lectures have said on the topic. Thats what I meant by "things like 'gravity and dieties' have nothing to do with the Teaching of Falun Gong." - sorry if that created some confusion - i thought it was obvious what i was taking about. I was referring specifically to the quote from the journalist when i said "things like 'gravity and deities' " - it obviously was not meant to be a reference to gravity and deities/Gods as two separate topics. I have edited the post to get rid of the ambiguity. I hope that makes things clear.I had replied immediately under the post from the anon ip, so I assumed the context was completely clear. The post was moved down to this separate section by another editor.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Requesting Kind Attention From The Arbitration Committee

A user has been adding in material from a clearly propagandistic video made by the CCP and aired in CCP as well as in hong kong based pheonix television. The contents of the program are clearly propagandistic and further, they violate WP:Reliable_Sources and WP:NPOV, . I most humbly request the Administrators to kindly look into the matter and take appropriate action. The page has been subject to a lot of vandalism, removal of sourced content and propaganda pushing form the CCP before. Till a few weeks back a user "bobby fletcher" had been vandalising it - western standard published an article noting that the very person, who had admitted on wikipedia that his real name is "charles liu", is most likely a person hired by the CCP with possible ties to high-level CCP officials. The same user had been spreading mis-information on this talk page also. With the olympics going on and the increased media attention to CCP's crimes, I believe it is no coincidence, such things are being pushed on talk pages pertinent to CCP's Human Rights violation issues and from there, completely violating Wikipedia policies, into articles.

Kindly See:

• "Sowing Confusion." This Western Standard article is about the above user, who has been pushing CCP propaganda on wikipedia, and calls himself "bobby fletcher". The last paragraph of the article is particularly interesting.

• Sowing confusion: embarrassed by reports of live organ harvesting, China's sympathizers launch a high-tech disinformation campaign.

Now, once again CCP propaganda, things that completely fail WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V are being pushed viciously into the article. Kindly see the material added under the section "pheonix tv": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_in_China&diff=232109812&oldid=232092584

David Kilgour and Matas point out that "what they[the CCP] are engaged in is propaganda and disinformation, rather than real debate."

Kindly look into to RSF's 2005 report "Xinhua: The World’s Biggest Propaganda Agency" for an analysis on the extent to which the Chinese Communist Party is engaged in disinformation.

Requesting you, most humbly, to kindly look into the matter and take action as you consider appropriate.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt the arbitration committee monitors this talk pages; and they wouldn't open another case on the Falun Gong articles because of a post here. You have to start a request, and I'm sure they wouldn't even look at it. The things you are saying about Liu being an agent are also unable to be substantiated in this forum. The pages are on probation. Anyone who edits them disruptively can get blocked. That includes you and antilived if you edit war on the organ harvesting page.--Asdfg12345 15:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please note that it is not me who is saying anything about Liu - I am merely bringing to other editors' and the arbitration committee's attention what The Western Standard has reported on him; what Kilgour and Matas, themselves ( please see last paragraph of the article), have said about it.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

One more thing I wanted to clarify is that am not at all implying the editor who did the recent edit to the article, introducing material from the so called 'pheonix tv' movie to the article, is an agent or anything - I think it is only that he himself was not aware of the material [added by an anonymous IP to the talk page of the article] as being CCP propaganda - causing him to insist on pushing the material into the article. I sincerely apologize if the above post of mine came across as suggesting anything to that effect.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Comprehensive Look

I am impressed that Falun Gong practitioners have extended their marketing, a less charged term for propaganda, to the English Wikipedia. The entire article is now devoid of any sort of statement that can be taken with a hint of criticism towards Falun Gong, and any statement that seems to portray Falun Gong in a negative light has a refuting clause thereafter. I find this utterly sad, but by far one of the best attempts on Wikipedia to mask NPOV. Even in the "Academic attention" section on the article, critical analysis of Falun Gong is scant and misinformed, and only select studies are shown with little regard to the overwhelming trend, that, in the very least, Falun Gong is a controversial movement. What we end up having is a subtly biased article that shields most of Wikipedia's audience from the truth about Falun Gong.

What is interesting, however, is that on the Chinese version of Wikipedia, which is systematically biased in favour of anti-Communist views due to its block on mainland China, examines Falun Gong from a much more neutral light than the article on the English Wikipedia. For example, there is an entire section, written in traditional Chinese, discussing the political elements of the Falun Gong movement. The dominant pattern on the English Wikipedia has been to "compromise" based solely on requests made by Falun Gong-practicing editors and to systematically and gradually erode any negative views of Falun Gong in the article whenever and wherever possible. The persistence of Falun Gong-praciticing editors have long discouraged any neutral-minded editors from persisting in their cause to present a neutral view, and the ease to dismissing anything negative as "CPC propaganda" while unquestionably adhering to favourable views of Falun Gong has led to the ultimate product of another piece of Falun Gong marketing material found right here in the article today.

I myself have grown tired of trying to present a NPOV with regards to this article, or the article on Li Hongzhi. But in all honesty I am saddened, but not surprised, that the innate systemic behaviors of Falun Gong members have flagrantly invaded on neutrality grounds on Wikipedia and have embedded a spirit of pseudo-religious marketing. As a tireless Wikipedia contributor, I am discouraged and insulted from these developments. Colipon+(T) 20:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

That is interesting to read, but it is not very specific. Can you provide some references to specific things that aren't in the article that should be? (Please forgive me if I am not familiar with some of the history here.) -Wookipedian (talk) 05:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, try to mention that Li Hongzhi considers homosexuality as evil as murder, or his business with aliens, walking through walls or any other stuff (sourced, of course) that doesn't suit the sentinels watching this space. Hexmaster (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I had a quote taken from the New York Times which they reported as being a direct quote from Li Hongzhi, addressing followers in Australia, but as it had to do with Mr. Li's views on race (that children of interracial marriages only get into heaven through the good graces of Mr. Li) it was deleted without comment or discussion from the sub-page on their teachings. I'm giving the deleters until the end of today to provide a justification for the deletion and then the quote is going back in... but they will probably just delete it again. FLG is very activist and has a vested interest in disseminating anti-chinese propaghanda, not a neutral look at their religion.Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

So - did you get past the FG censorship or not? I haven't even looked... This have to be one of the worst articles in all of Wikipedia. Hexmaster (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

They take great advantage of people who have little knowledge of the subject, advance their agenda through media, notably the internet (which would explain the Wikipedia patrols and reverts), and have received numerous awards from clueless municipal authorities and NGOs. They also ride on anti-China hysteria and exploit the current regime's bad human rights record to advance their own goals. What can I say, they are geniuses at their marketing - and their not-so-subtle agenda-pushing on Wikipedia has certainly been successful. Can something be done to this article? Not very likely. Most people have just given up. Is this justified or right? No. Colipon+(T) 04:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The English language version of this article seems to highlight Falun Gong in an unfairly positive light. Even at the start, it's referred to as a 'spiritual practice' when it is considered a religion by some (and a cult by others) - little to no mention of this is made in the article. This seems to be consistent with the way FG is described to the public as a form of exercises and meditation - any elements of FG practice or beliefs which would be regarded as unsavoury in the Western world (such as the views on homosexuality as amoral behaviour, although I did check the article on Christianity and found no mention either, which seems odd) are eliminated or toned down.

A search of the article for the word 'cult' turned up a first mention in the "Persecution" section, stating that the Chinese government had branded FG as such (note that "branded" in this context is kind of a weasel word). The next hit, in the "Reception" section is of interest, but completely fails to mention any of the reasons why those people consider FG to be a cult. Why is the "Persection" section seven times longer than the "Reception" section? That in itself indicates some bias in the article's current state.

Finally, I have to agree with a previous editor who mentioned that the Chinese language version of the article is much fairer and balanced than the English language one. It discusses some important issues which are completely omitted in the English version.

Destynova (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There is some discussion of this above, here: [30]. So, if the article just had a whole lot of stuff about how dumb Falun Gong belief's are, that would make everything okay? I'm not sure I get the problem. The specific things about the teachings seem to be details; you could just change them for anything for wikipedia purposes, like, Li said that blue flowers are better than red ones on Tuesdays, and that practitioners should always wash their hands twice before eating, not once. You know, just anything--how would such details be relevant? I know the answer: if they appear in reliable sources, then they should be mentioned in proportion to their representation in such sources. Which brings me to the point: academics which have studied Falun Gong don't latch onto things like this and say this is what Falun Gong is all about, they seek to understand such remarks in their wider context. Read Ownby's recent book, for example. The encyclopedia isn't a tabloid. What I'm annoyed is that people on "my side" have removed explanations of such things from the teachings page, and I'm going to restore them right now.--Asdfg12345 04:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is hopeless

Everytime someone makes an edit in the hopes of providing balance it is almost immediately destroyed. There is no attempt at finding a balance between the claims of abuse that have merit and those that are obviously manufactured. There are nuetral parties interested in the article, but there are far more non-nuetral editors and many of them are clearly biased on behalf of Falun Gong. I've been looking at this article from time to time for the last year and it has gone from bad to worse to worst and back to just bad. Any attempt at nuetrality is shot down and multiple arguments are made for removing anything that casts Falun in any kind of concievably negative light.

I'm washing my hands of this. Just call me Pontius. Beerman5000 (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's really sad. Rumour has it that a journalist at a FG-controlled newspaper has made it part of his everyday work to monitor and whitewash this entry. It's somewhat useful if a reader wants to learn about FG's self-image and propaganda practices, but completely useless as a neutral encyclopedia entry. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 06:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If that is true, can't we just take it to the Wikipedia "authorities"? I am unconvinced we can't do anything about this... (for a lack of better terminology), utter bullshit. Colipon+(T) 05:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that the olympics are over, the spotlight is off Falun Gong and China, and perhaps this article won't be such a madhouse of trigger-happy editing. I've just read through most of the article as it currently stands, and yes, it does spend a lot of time describing FG philosophy in a non-critical manner, but that's exactly what one would expect from an article about a spiritual movement. There are a few items that have gone missing, such as the Canadian Judge's critical findings, and information about some of the more outlandish beliefs. These should not dominate the article, but they should be present; especially well-sourced critiques from reliable and dispassionate 3rd-party sources. None of this needs overstating, but it does need stating. Fuzzypeg★ 23:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds very good to me. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 09:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Move Out Info On Persecution From This Article?

In my opinion, the persecution of FG is not the most important aspect of the organisation, and not the kind of information a Wikipedia user is likely to seek in any great detail when she looks up FG here. There is a separate page about the persecution of FG. Would it be a problem if I edited down the info on the persecution in this article and referred to the specialised article instead? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Strong Disagree: The vast majority of people outside of China would never even have heard of Falun Gong were it not for China's communist government oppressing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.141.234 (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree. The persecution is obviously central to Falun Gong's notability.--Asdfg12345 01:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Come on now, that's patently disingenuous. We all know that you guys wouldn't want FG to be invisible in Wikipedia if there were no persecution. You're using this as a propaganda platform. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

dude, there'd probably be a stub or something. If there really was never a persecution (or media attack campaign), Chinese newspapers would have kept singing its praises, and western journalists may have only started to take slight notice, granting only cleverly written, short reports in passing, along the lines of "those wacky Chinese and their mystical disciplines, look at the zillion people meditating every morning--why?", before getting back to their usual grind of economic news and the latest communist press conference; apart from nerdy western scholars writing in depth about obscure historical comparisons, I doubt there would be much else. For now, the persecution is obviously highly relevant to the notability of the subject, and that is without a doubt. You will be hard pressed to find a media report that does not mention the persecution or take the persecution as the main focus of reportage, and in fact, the majority of reports which mention Falun Gong only make reference to the persecution, and don't even make an attempt to engage with a discussion of the practice itself (except perhaps as a means to explain why it might be persecuted--yes, mainstream media is largely hopeless when it comes to certain themes). Suggested reading (see the second page of the first link, at the very least): [31][32][33][34][35]--Asdfg12345 16:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Asdfg12345 is absolutely right. In my view, the persecution characterises the Western discourses on Falun Gong to such an extent that there's no way we could cut down on that information.

During the recent years, the arbitration committee has expunged certain people who have tried to use Wikipedia as a platform for ideological struggle. Many of them have tried to remove such information, because they despise Falun Gong but realise that the persecution creates strong sympathy towards practitioners in normal, healthy-minded people. I can only feel sad for those guys.

While I agree that the articles are not perfect, they make extensive use of high-quality sources and esteemed third-party research and, even in their present state, surely qualify among the top 10% of Wikipedia. We can only strive to make them even better and more transparent. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"Penny regards Falun Gong as one of the most important phenomena"

As I've pointed out before, "Penny regards Falun Gong as one of the most important phenomena..." is not very informative. To my mind it's fluff. I suggest we strike this sentence from the intro. Opinions? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

'It informs us of the opinion of one of the leading scholars of Falun Gong. I certainly don't think it's fluff. It's been there for nearly a year now, why the fuss? --Asdfg12345 16:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What does "important phenomenon" really mean in concrete terms? That FG has a lot of notability. And nobody's disputing that. But that is self-evident since the article hasn't been deleted from Wikipedia. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 09:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the important point in this quote is that he says "in recent Chinese history." Any large spiritual group that gets persecuted and generates a bunch of media is notable, though the context in which that happens is important. His quote immediately and in very simple terms makes it clear that the phenomenon of Falun Gong is a big deal in recent Chinese history. Just having an article on the topic doesn't make that clear. There are articles on all the different versions of Zelda's sword, and those haven't been deleted. Actually, the extent of the ludicrousness of what qualifies for a wikipedia article is laughable. There are articles which are lists of the abstruse powers of comic book heroes. I've seen something like that. So an article isn't enough, but this is a sinologist that gives the reader immediate orientation to the import of Falun Gong. The point you raise is that it may be a little non-specific. While it is a useful quote, it could still do with minor substantiation. Then there is one more thing we should add to the lede: say why. Yuezhi Zhao gets into this, and it would be possible to find a one sentence note which sums this up. I'll add it now, even. --Asdfg12345 12:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

But a reader who has never heard of FG is highly unlikely to be impressed by the mention of sinologist Penny. It adds no useful information. We can't have a bit in the article's intro to the effect that "even though other articles are about unimportant things, this article is about an important phenomenon, because Penny says so". Martin Rundkvist (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a good argument in favour of keeping the "most important phenomena" comment in. I will delete it soon unless somebody makes a brief convincing argument for its retention. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 11:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Do not delete it. I gave you a reason. It establishes context and makes clear that Falun Gong is one of the most important phenomena to emerge from China in recent years. This is precisely what articles are supposed to do. Establish context, orient and familiarise the reader with the subject. Quotes from Zhao, and the actual content of the articles make it clear as to why, but Penny immediately lets us know that it is an important subject worth paying attention to. The existence of the article itself doesn't achieve this, as explained above. You already raised this several months ago and no one agreed to it then, I think just drop it, dude.--Asdfg12345 14:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Asdf, we all know that you are a one-trick FG pony on Wikipedia. I'd like to hear from somebody who doesn't spend all his time monitoring this article. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Great. Personal attacks. And you seem to have sought out people who love Falun Gong to come and comment. That is rather interesting. It's a strong comment from a leading sinologist in this area. It establishes immediate context, and completely conforms to WP:LEAD which requires that the scope of the subject be briefly presented. It's impeccably sourced, highly relevant. Your argument to delete it is based on your opinion that you think it is "fluff," and your response to my argument from policy is ad-hominem and a search for co-conspirators. I don't know what to say.--Asdfg12345 15:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop putting that silly emphasis on the first words, both of you. I know Asdfg12345 is just parodying Mr Rundkvist, but I believe it simply doesn't belong to proper Wiki etiquette.

There are plenty of reasons to include that specific quote in the introduction. I don't know any serious sinologist that would not consider Falun Gong as one of the most important phenomena to recently emerge from China. David Ownby has named his latest book "Falun Gong and the Future of China", implying that we're dealing with questions of considerable historical weight. On the other hand, we know that the pro-CCP (and/or blatantly anti-FLG) parties have tried to downplay the importance of Falun Gong, from belittling the actual number of Mainland practitioners to doing all kinds of venomous lobbying behind the scenes. Wikipedia articles should be based on high-quality research, not wishy-washy opinions or patent falsehoods. Inclusion of that comment is all the more necessary as a scholarly rebuttal of the anti-scholarly discourse that downgrades the subject out of purely ideological motives. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

As Olaf says, the scholar sources indicate that it's an important phenomen in China. There should be no problem on adding that quote on the lead. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Just went through the current version of the lead - seemed quite comprehensive to me. A minor issue with it that struck me was the britannica statement in the lead - the one going " Britannica 'characterizes' Falun Gong as 'controversial'. Such phrasing, I think, could be very misleading to someone new to the topic. Mainly because - the statement does not, in anyway, make clear what is implied by term "controversial" there and, further, because of the various connotations the term carries, it could very likely create a deviated understanding in the reader's mind - one not implied by the term in the context in which it was used in the original article.

I feel it serves little purpose to put something like this in without providing the appropriate background/context. Just to make my point clear - a newer britannica article on a related topic -in particular, the 2008 Britannica article Li Hongzhi, states "...cities as Chicago, Toronto, and Houston, Texas, had honoured him by proclaiming “Master Li Hongzhi” days in recognition of the positive contributions of Falun Dafa." Now, how helpful would it be, if an editor picks on the statement and writes into the lead that "Britannica "characterizes" Falun Dafa as having positive contributions ...recognized through proclamations by cities such as Tonoronto, Chicago,..." My point being that the "britannica characterizes" statement currently in the intro, can, for the uninformed reader, be quite misleading and, further, it serves little purpose there other than, perhaps, push a paticular POV or create a misunderstanding in the reader's mind through name-dropping. The purpose of having something in the lead must not be to drag the reader's impression on the subject in a particular direction - but to provide an, objective, informative and scholarly perspective on the topic - and, to this end, I think, the statement contributes very little . For the reasons I adumbrate above, I am, for now, removing it - I'll reinstate it if other editors see issues with the edit. Also, another strong concern with it I had was (I think I mentioned this in an earlier post) the date that Britannica article was authored - the references used there don't go beyond 1999!

Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I've read the Britanica article, and to be fair, they perhaps had something in mind when they said that Falun Gong is controversial, however they did not say in what way do they think that the practice is controversial. So I don't see how can, this source, be used to highlight in the lead that Falun Gong is controversial. Since controversial, when just this one word is used, can mean a million things. Best --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There used to be a segment of the article explaining what the controversy is, but it was blanked repeatedly by the same group of wikipedians who remove the word itself. Come to think of it, the word "spiritual" is rather versatile as well, however that adjective is allowed to stand. PerEdman (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I can hardly follow, see Spirituality and you might want to elaborate. But be aware this is not a place to push strong POV's. This is an encyclopedia. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That Falun Gong is controversial is not a strong point of view, it is an observation that there is a conflict between other people's strong points of view. If you have any strong points of view about an article subject, you would do better not to write anything in that article as it becomes increasingly more difficult to separate objectivity and the personal opinion the stronger your opinion is. Wouldn't you agree? PerEdman (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The Genomic Profiling Study

I was wondering why this study is not touched upon by any of the articles. Yes, am aware its a preliminary study but is one published in a leading peer reviewed journal in the field - The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine published by Mary Ann Liebert and the official journal of The International Society for Complementary Medicine Research . Further, I see many almost irrelevant stuff being mentioned in the article - for instance, a casual statement made by a late psychologist, one not based on any study, has been cherry picked and embedded into the article - a statement made at a time when many in the west were highly influenced by CCP's propaganda. This, the very least, is a peer-reviewed, scientific paper based on a scientific study conducted by scientists from leading research institutions - obviously worthy of attention. The results of the study also seem quite interesting to me.

I quote from the paper:

The changes in gene expression of FLG practitioners in contrast to normal healthy controls were characterized by enhanced immunity, downregulation of cellular metabolism, and alteration of apoptotic genes in favor of a rapid resolution of inflammation. The lifespan of normal neutrophils was prolonged, while the inflammatory neutrophils displayed accelerated cell death in FLG practitioners as determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Correlating with enhanced immunity reflected by microarray data, neutrophil phagocytosis was significantly increased in Qigong practitioners. Some of the altered genes observed by microarray were confirmed by RPA.[36][37]

Among 12000 genes tested in the Affymetrix chip, about 200 genes were consistently altered in the FLG practitioners, and we have discussed some of the changed genes...[38]

Ribosomal proteins are very important components of protein synthesis. Downregulation of 10 out of 11 genes for ribosomal proteins suggests that protein synthesis might also be lowered. Ribosomes are the molecular machines that manufacture proteins (Maguire et al., 2001). Downregulation of both genes for ribosomal proteins and genes for protein degradation may lead to reduced protein turnover. In correlation with downregulation of protein degradation and synthesis, the genes coding for proteins involved in DNA repair, cellular stress, and antioxidant enzymes are also lowered (Fig. 3C). Decreases of those stress-associated key enzymes, along with other stress-responsive genes, may implicate limited oxidative production and macromolecular damage...[39]

Any suggestions on how the results of the study could be summarized and mentioned in the article - perhaps in the academic perspectives stub? Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really get that last paragraph. Actually, I don't really get any of that, to be honest. Could someone spell it out for me? By the way, another editor complained about this once, but I'm not sure what the complaint was. I think it surely belongs in the article though, judging from the source. The academic section would be the place for it, too, I suppose. If there is something notable here--which there seems to be--and the source is fine, whoever has the wits to understand that and summarise the message, they should go for it.--Asdfg12345 16:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Consummation

I noted (in hunting down misspellings) that at least /Archive 14 has numerous uses of the misspelled term "consumation". No harm on the talk page, but editors are cautioned that

1. The correct spelling has, for etymological reasons, a double M: "consummation".
2. The expression "a consummation devoutly to be wished" is a fairly well known expression, usually, i think, about something pleasant and unexpected, with the word "devout" in it sounding to modern ears like an using religious devotion as an ironic metaphor -- but to those who know Hamlet well, it refers to death, especially by suicide ("with a bare bodkin"):

   ... To die: to sleep:

   Nor more; and by a sleep to say we end

   The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks

   That flesh is heir to; ‘tis a consummation

   Devoutly to be wished.

3. Although the senses that are synonyms of more generic words like "fulfillment", "completion", and so on are technically correct and quite understandable, "consummation" is both a legal and colloquial term for sexual activities, so that editors may at least want to be aware what the joke is that may be occasionally made (perhaps by vandals, in the accompanying article) about its use.

(Hmm, that may be the germ of a Consummation (usage) article.)
--Jerzy•t 20:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time, dude.--Asdfg12345 00:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I remember, it was Tomananda who always wrote the word that way. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 13:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

2¢ from a reader

I know next-to-nothing about Falun Gong. I came to the article hoping for a brief summary of the movement, it's beliefs and the controversies that surround it, particularly in China. I read the intro and the first ("beliefs...") section of the article, and I found little in the way of illuminating information. Indeed, the article seems untrustworthy; it reads like a whitewash, even though I don't know what is being hidden. The intro should summarize the whole article, and in this case it should include some description of the controversies and politics in which Falun Gong has been embroiled, shouldn't it? I'm not going to get involved as an editor here--I'm just posting this in the hopes that a "reality check" from a reader with no axe to grind might be useful. Seems to me there's major change needed before this becomes a credible encyclopedia article. 75.79.57.162 (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, and the articles need more high-quality references in order to become even better. But they are already far more balanced than what some people suggest. Whatever popular myths are spread about Falun Gong have not stood in the face of academic inquiry, and we should be clear on that. If this were an article on Jews, you probably wouldn't say, "it doesn't mention the international conspiracy, so it seems like whitewashing". ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 01:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

References are valuable, but I don't think lack of references is the problem. The problem is the way it's written. The article suggests whitewashing because it describes Falun Gong only in gauzy promotional-sounding phrases like "seeks to develop practitioners' hearts and character according to the principles of Truthfulness, Compassion, and Forbearance." The article also does a poor job of explaining the terms it introduces. When it jumps to protests against persecution, there is no description of any history that led to persecution or any attempt to represent differing perspectives on the group, their leaders, beliefs, etc. An obvious question emerges in a reader's mind when reading that the Chinese banned the practice: why did they ban it? This isn't addressed. Even if the basis for suppressing Falun Gong is outrageously false, as with the Nazis and the Jews, their stated rationale still needs to be described, and perhaps other perspectives on the Chinese government's motives could be introduced as well. In other words, the article (I'm restricting myself to the first couple of sections, nothing there motivated me to read further) does not read like it was written by a disinterested third party encyclopedist trying to explain the movement and their history; it seems more like not-very-slick public relations material prepared by the group itself. I'm just responding to the quality of the writing: truly, I don't know enough about Falun Gong to have any perspective on it or opinion of it, either as a political phenomenon or a spiritual practice. I was just disappointed that the Wikipedia article didn't seem enlightening. I suspect that virtually any article about Falun Gong from a major newspaper would be much more informative than the current Wikipedia entry. BTfromLA (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

pls finish reading and share your thoughts.--Asdfg12345 10:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I echo Asdfg12345. Please read through the entirety of Falun Gong articles. You'll find plenty of sourced material from top researchers. While I agree that none of the articles are extremely well written or structured, I'd argue that ample information on the issues you mentioned has already been added. Making the articles' style more encyclopedic definitely needs more work. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Just another personal opinion from a slightly different angle. I have recently came back from Taiwan where I had multiple opportunities to meet and observe, over a period of years, some of the Falun Gong practitioners and their families from rather quite close perspective. For the sake of.. hmm, lets call it: "social responsibility" I feel strong urge to voice my support to various people who raised their concerns about the accuracy of the FG articles and the objectivity of the editors who seem to have taken over the FG articles. The reasons why it still hasn't found its place among such phenomena as Scientology is that it is still young and fairly unknown in the English side of the Wikipedia (which still lacks resources that could provide critical and objective analysis) and insurmountable amounts of personal time "practitioners" spend marketing the movement. I hope, and believe, that once the movement gets more attention from "non-practitioners" (which seems to be a primary way the FG "practitioners" partition people) the articles become more critical and more accurate as to portrayal of various external aspects of the movement. -- Tch77 (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This entire article, indeed, looks like a piece of not-so-well-written marketing pamphlet on the group. I've noticed that since two or three months ago, when I've last checked on this article, even the slightest hint at criticism has been removed from the page. This article represents one of the fundamental and systematic flaws with Wikipedia. Third party editors have tried to make a more balanced view presented, but have been constantly discouraged by editors who will revert any critical information, sourced or not, within a few hours. It is interesting that with two distinct sides to the issue, those who are reverting do not come from the Communist Party of China side, but from the Falun Gong side. It is clear which side is trying to hide information.

However, if you look at the FLG article on the Chinese Wikipedia (which is edited by mostly HK and Taiwan editors), it does provide a more balanced look, with some academic criticisms of the practice. Colipon+(T) 17:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Second that, in fact I was trying to edit this article few months ago but it is just impossible because these professional Falun Gong editors, I don't get paid by editing a Wikipedia article but they does, so I guess they won, and Wikipedia lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zixingche (talk • contribs) 23:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hilarious. My salaries must be seriously overdue in that case. Where can I cash in? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I read everyone's remarks. I'll just quickly write my thoughts. I agree that it would be good to have a balanced, neutral, and intelligent treatment of this subject. I don't want to defend the status quo, but just to address things and make the article better; improvement is good.

BTfromLA: The apparently gauzy phrase "seeks to develop" was changed to "teaches", which is more straightforward. I can see the point there. About doing a poor job of explaining the terms--which terms? Finally, the explanations for the persecution, according to the Party itself, scholars, and Falun Gong, are addressed--maybe you did not read that far, though. It would be good for another assessment after you have read the whole article.

Tch77: It would be good if your comment was more specific, I think. For example, are you able to list some similarities between Falun Gong practice and Scientology? It would be good to substantiate a comment like that. I don't see how they have anything to do with each other. On a side note, such comparisons aren't anywhere to be found in the literature as far as I am aware of, and this particular comparison (along with the general claims of evil, murder, insanity, beggar-poisonings etc., about Falun Gong practitioners) first came from the Chinese Communist Party. It was part of the propaganda campaign. I've never seen it substantiated or hashed out in any depth. It's unclear what you mean by social responsibility, and the other remarks. That practitioners refer to people as practitioners and non-practitioners is often the case, but I have to ask, so what? Please help editors to understand in what way wikipedia could more accurately portray "various external aspects" of the activities of Falun Gong practitioners, or of the practice, as you indicate.

Colipon: It would be good to understand which parts of the article appear to be marketing for Falun Gong. Specific comments allow for improvement, whereas sweeping remarks makes it difficult to identify the problem. Also, are you able to provide a few references for some of the most prominent criticism you are aware of, coming from scholars or other high-quality sources?

Zixingche: That's not even a serious claim. You've swallowed the communist propaganda hook, line and sinker. Of course a neutral article on the subject won't conform to your tastes.

Finally, I have to also ask something else. The article currently gives a fairly routine and neutral presentation of the historical context of Falun Gong’s emergence, its beliefs, the persecution in China, and touches on the development of the practice outside of China. The information here is drawn from the highest quality sources; the article is basically a synthesis of the best sources available on the topic. I won’t even bother saying that the content of the article at the moment is simply true and historically accurate, but just emphasise that all of the information is drawn from impeccable sources. If you find it unsatisfactory, and not confirming to your prejudices, perhaps it is those prejudices that should be changed, rather than the sources? The sources here are the highest quality available, so who is right?

Finally, I remember reading a short remark on a UCLA blog from a Chinese student’s class. This is what one person wrote: Subject: Wikipedia on Falun Gong (and bonus link). “I hadn’t looked at the wikipedia entry on Falun Gong until this morning, and was expecting it to be heavily tilted in one direction or the other. The author is sympathetic to Falun Gong, but overall this strikes me as a useful, mostly balanced account, with reference to most of the scholars who have written on the topic. It is also up-to-the-minute, noting that Falun Gong appears in the lyrics of the new Guns N Roses album.” There is still room for improvement. --Asdfg12345 01:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes this article about Falun Gong is super good, however:

1, Why this article does not mention that Falun Gong claims that it can in fact cure cancer?

2, Why this article does not mention that Falun Gong claims that it is in fact an anti virus software?

3, Why this article does not mention that Falun Gong claims that it can in fact save you from car crash? Zixingche (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read this: [40] -- you should be absolutely clear about what you have signed up for.--Asdfg12345 15:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey will you stop playing this game? Chinese government sucks, however just because Chinese government sucks does not make Falun Gong rocks, they both sucks, they both kills! Can you please at least answer my question above?Zixingche (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It's random, irrelevant information which is not notable. Please read the wikipedia policies and content guidelines. A key factor is how much attention things have received from media, scholars, and other reliable sources. I've never seen claims like that reported in third party sources; they are not notable. It's also an absurd claim to say that Falun Gong kills people. It feels dumb to even bother saying there is no evidence for it. I'm surprised that you do not realise that the communist party simply fabricated the large majority of its reports on Falun Gong after July 1999.--Asdfg12345 00:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, all those information are from either clearwisdom.net or minghui.org, they are CCTV of Falun Gong and are directly owned & operated by Falun Gong, and now these information become irrelevant? If we are talking 100 million practitioners believing that practicing Falun Gong can cure cancer, I don't think it is irrelevant!.Zixingche (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that Li Hongzhi's new articles are first published there, Minghui is mostly a forum of individual practitioners sharing their experiences. You post your experience, it's published on Minghui if it qualifies -- there's no "central organisation" communicating some "official" Falun Gong stance through these articles. Besides, the Chinese government heavily endorsed Falun Gong because of its health effects. By 1999, Chinese officials went so far as to quantify Falun Gong's benefits. One official from China's National Sports Commission declared that Falun Dafa "can save each person 1,000 yuan in annual medical fees. If 100 million people are practicing it, that's 100 billion yuan saved per year in medical fees." The same official went on to note that, "Premier Zhu Rongji is very happy about that." (Source: U.S. News & World Report, 22 February 1999) ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You know what, it is a pity that you are not a Chinese, and I assume that you can't read Chinese, Minghui is A FORUM, that's funny, sadly you don't understand the quote by Master Li: "重大问题看明慧网". Zixingche (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

So Minghui is concerned about "major issues"? So what? Everybody knows the Minghui editors occasionally comment on some things, and they've issued warnings regarding fake jingwen and stuff like that. Call it a site for sharing experiences, or a forum, or whatever you wish, but a great majority of the articles you see posted there come from individual practitioners all around the world, including all the news on regional activities. The Minghui editors are just doing their share by taking an important role in running this particular project. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the article is missing an explanation of how Falun Gong practice is actually carried out (as in, carried on in three dimensions); maybe some of the information from the Overseas page could be transported here and a small section made. At the moment it seems unclear on that point.--Asdfg12345 17:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Zixingche. Regarding points 1, 2, 3, in which you say that Falun Gong claims that it can cure everything, could you please cite the only authority in Falun Gong, which is it's founder, where he is saying all these? Actually during this exercise you will find that there are no 100% magic pills, and you will find that he explains that only when your virtue ascends, by conforming to the principles of Zhen Shan Ren, can good things happen to you. In Christianity there are the 10 commandments for pretty much the same principles, and in ancient China these principles are even more pervasive, but for that perhaps you should ask a Chinese guy who did not change completely his mindset after German guy named Karl Marx. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong can save you from car crash

Reference: Directly from Zhuan Falun Lecture 3, by Master Li: a practitioner crossed the street on her bike. At a turn of the street, a luxury car came and knocked down this practitioner, a woman over fifty years old. It collided with her at once and hit her very hard. With the sound of "bang," it hit her head, and her head hit the car roof squarely. At that point, this practitioner’s feet were still on the bike pedals. Though her head was hit, she did not feel any pain.

Falun Gong can cure any disease

Reference: Directly from Zhuan Falun Lecture 6, by Master Li: One must truly practice cultivation and pay attention to one’s xinxing. Only by truly practicing cultivation can one’s illness be eliminated.

Falun Gong is an anti virus software

Sorry I can't find any references in Zhuan Falun about Falun Gong is an anti virus software, may be Master Li didn't have a clue what a anti virus software is when he was writing Zhuan Falun, however I can have another 100 funny story from Zhuan Falun, such as the Third Eye of a human being which has television ability.

And to all of you professional Falun Gong editor, your logics are all the same and simple: if anybody says Falun Gong is bad, then you will accused that he/she is supporting CCP, this is funny, is it? oh and another rules is: all information from CCP are fake, except those say Falun Gong is good. Excellent, you should all get a pay rise in 2009. Zixingche (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Good quotes from Zhuan Falun :) . And if you are a CCP agent or not, I don't know, but it's not very much relevant anyway. Best wishes, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 06:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point, now even Zhuan Falun is no longer relevant anymore, great finding, congratulation! Zixingche (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, however that is your point of view, see WP:POV, that I will respect as such. Still I can assure you that Zhuan Falun is very relevant for me. Best wishes, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

As Zhuan Falun is your bible, can you please kindly answer my question: "Can Falun Gong cure cancer?" A:Yes, B: No, please choose from A or B Zixingche (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

To follow your logic, your question is similar to this one: People have babies, so in mathematics how much is 1+1? A:3, B:4, please choose from A or B :)

• Mathematics itself has axioms, so what I'm trying to point out that the answer is not as simple as you want to make it. Not everything is based on your axioms, that is on your version of truth. At this point I can only repeat what I told you before: study Zhuan Falun and you perhaps will find that there are no 100% magic pills, promised by Falun Gong. As I understand it, one of the main idea's is that when your virtue improves, by conforming to the principles of Zhen Shan Ren (Truthfulness Compassion Forbearance), the universe will let you ascend (in many ways), or more simply puz it will let you have good things, and that is not limited to healing.
• Based on your questions my impression is that you only want controversies, in that case I will point to wikipedia policies, like WP:SOAP, by which you should understand that discussions that are not aimed to improve the article, have no place on wikipedia. So in that light, I will also stop here and I will not answer provocations/questions. Because if I do that I myself would be breaching the policies. PS: we can always discuss on the user talk page which is more appropriate. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This answer is what I already expected, you just can't directly answer my question, because either way you are screwed, answer A and people will find out that Falun Gong is in fact a cult offering cancer cure, answer B then you are talking about everything on minghui / clearwisdom / Zhuan Falun are lies. So what you can do is just playing game, "well the answer is somewhat this and that, well.."

Not to mention your "People have babies, so in mathematics how much is 1+1? " doesn't make any sense.

I read Zhuan Falun more than 10 times already [redacted--Asdfg12345], Asdfg, stop editing my comment, to me, Zhuan Falun is a piece of shit!. Zixingche (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Take your squirming flamebaits to personal talk pages. Thanks. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Please don't feed the trolls by responding to Zixingche. This user (judging by his contributions) does not spend any time working on articles or anything else for the project, and just comes here from time to time to pick fights. It's in the article's best interest just to ignore him and not respond. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah you are correct, if you check my previous comments (which are already archived), I already said that I will not contribute to this article, it is not because I do want to, but because I knew that my English is not good enough to contribute, however what I can do is post SOURCED & RELIABLE references in the discussion page to help other sane contributors. Zixingche (talk) 10:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Homophobic Rhetorics

criticism sections seems to being continously removed by Falun Gong members.

Some scholars such as Philip Cunningham at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok have criticized Falun Gong teachings as deeply illiberal and homophobic and described it as "looks like a cult, smells like a cult and by any reasonable definition is a cult". Rick Ross, an American expert on cults have described Li Hongzhi, the funder of Falun Gong as someone who "doesn’t recognize everyone’s human rights, or even their right to be 'human'"" Falun Gong also lists "Homosexuality, licentious desires" as one of the "world's ten evils". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.189.70 (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Rick Ross, waging his religiously motivated battle outside the academia, is not an "expert on cults" in the eyes of any genuine scholar, and Falun Gong has never restricted anybody's rights to do what they will; it seems you're talking about thought crimes. Traditionalist views on certain issues are not "cultish" per se, except in the double-speak of militant secularists and other fundamentalists. A 'cult' is defined by how it operates--otherwise the term loses it meaning and becomes an ideological club against perceived 'heresy'--and Falun Gong does not operate like a 'cult'. Read this post, please, and then we can discuss, if you feel it's necessary.

However, I agree that in the Teachings of Falun Gong article we need to find some room for covering these issues. They should be contextualised appropriately, and their relative weight in the corpus of teachings should be apparent to any reader. Also, if the reader gets the impression that Falun Gong would be pushing any societal agenda against homosexuals or mixed-race marriages (the latter being very common even among practitioners), we would be misleading them to believe in falsehoods. As the topic is so sensitive, and well-documented physical violence, structural discrimination and other forms of persecution are involved, we must meticulously adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, keeping any kind of ideological struggle away from these pages. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is it religious motivated just because he's Jewish?99.244.189.150 (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It's laughable that Olaf, who personally practices FLG, deciding what is and isn't a scholar. Got any evidence that Ross is not an expert on cults? He is considered an expert witness on cults by the US High Court [41].--PCPP (talk) 04:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Olaf, stop typing so damn much and show me and the OP how much you agree by adding the information yourself, in what you believe to be the proper context. Currently the article is giving readers the impression that Falun Gong has no opinion on homosexuals at all, which is clearly false. Please, go ahead and correct that little issue, would you? PerEdman (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually Falun Gong is not forcing it's views on anyone, not even on practitioners, so why would you insist to make a big case out of this when it's not. Wikipedia is not a tabloid see: WP:UNDUE --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Video

Video collection of Li Hongzhi (Falun Gong sole founder) talking about curing all kind of diseases using the power of Falun Gong. These videos are taken from Li's presentation, many years ago, while Falun Gong was then still legal in China.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1waDp9p6tU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujmepkAVBV0&feature=related

Zixingche (talk) 07:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Zhenyu21's comments

[moved by Olaf]

I have been pointed out by one of my friends to check out this article. And I have read through what I thought was in my opinion, a very biased article. I believe that both sides of the views should be given which is why I do not agree that this article should not have a controversy section dedicated to this specific topic. The views presented here solely lopside towards the pro-FLG section. With that (i have to say) very dedicated users editing/discussing (and in his case defending) this information with, in my opinion, a very biased view on the subject. I would like to propose that this article be given to a third party (with no affiliations what so ever to both sides) to edit and maintain. This I have to say, is one of the worse articles I have read on Wikipedia. Also, referencing from the Epoch Times is as bad as referencing Xinhua or People's Daily. It is very hard to dissect propaganda from the truth in all of these newspapers.Zhenyu21 (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

These articles are full of references to high-quality, peer-reviewed academic publications. It may be that genuine research does not match your prejudices; this is not uncommon. While I agree that the articles need balancing, they are far from being "very biased"; actually, they are rather objective, provided that we're aiming for a comprehensive, hermeneutic understanding of Falun Gong in the appropriate context. No equality can be assumed between "both sides of the views" [sic]; there is the side that is based on research data, fieldwork and historical documents, and there is the side of the anti-FLG crusaders, many of whom resemble holocaust negationists in their ideological frenzy. This is all very transparent to those who have done serious research on the subject.

Using Epoch Times as a secondary source is problematic, but as a primary source it is OK. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper). As long as its use complies with these policies, there shouldn't be a problem. You are welcome to point out any specific text passages you find distressing. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Another bad article documenting the failure of WP policies

[moved by Asdfg12345] There isn't any neutrality in this article where emotionally supercharged adherents of the cult have basically won the edit war and removed any kind of criticism towards their movement.

Falun Dafa is one of countless asian religious groups that merely stands out due to the lack of ethics of its leadership and its political motivation. The believers are exchangable zombies who do the will of their leaders, like in any psycho cult.

The only thing that makes Falun Dafa stand out is the massive money behind it and its political motivation.

Viande hachée (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Your first paragraph is the only thing related to the article. The rest is simply slander and using the talk page as a forum. Your comments are also quite vicious and completely unfounded. It is acceptable for other editors to delete material not relevant to improving the article on talk pages. Please read the Talk_page_guidelines, respect wikipedia policies, and consider changing your post to reflect them. --Asdfg12345 12:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, You makle Xenu proud! 99.244.189.150 (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, you are not improving the article by deleting all edits to it that you do not like, including blanking reputable sources. That is not consensus, it is monopolization. PerEdman (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, you know what, you are hopeless, the more you edit this article the more you are ruining wikipedia, again, let me make this clear: we don't want professional paid editor on wikipedia, thank you but no. Zixingche (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty broke at the moment, actually. Some extra cash would be nice. Where can I pick it up?--Asdfg12345 06:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That would also explain how you can spend working hours reverting any changes to this article. PerEdman (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversial

Controversial. Adjective. Earliest noted usage in 1583. Means something of, relating to or arousing controversy. It can also mean something that is given to controversy, such as a humour or temperament. I use the word in the first meaning.

Controversy. Noun. Dated 14th century. A discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views. A dispute.

Now, as many of you have noticed, this is a humongous talk page. Just look at it. And this is not the only place in the world where a similar discussion is taking place. We aren't in agreement. We aren't all holding the same views of Falun Gong. In fact, we have very much opposing views of the movement, the training regime, the philosophy and strangest of all - we the wikipedians even disagree on whether or not we disagree about Falun Gong.

But it's obvious. We do disagree. We are in dispute. We have a controversy and that controversy is about a subject that relates to or arouses that controversy. That's what controversial means. That's what Falun Gong is.

So why do I add the word to the introduction when I know that there is a sentinel or three just waiting to revert any such edit? Well, partly because I care about Wikipedia and partially because I want it blindingly obvious what a crying shame this article is. Carry on. PerEdman (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I copy this response here from Olaf, which I think sums up the problem with this well enough. The last link given is relevant.--Asdfg12345 06:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg12345 and HappyInGeneral are right, in my opinion. Falun Gong per se cannot be defined as "controversial". We don't define qigong as "controversial", even though it's very much controversial in the eyes of James Randi and others. Nor is ISKCON defined as "controversial" in the article's lead section, even though E. Burke Rochford, Jr.'s book Hare Krishna in America begins with the words "Few social issues have been more controversial over the past decade than the growth and expansion of the new religions in America." Defining a phenomenon as "controversial" is already implying a stance; it is not a neutral word, because anything can be seen controversial, including the theory of evolution, George W. Bush, or impressionist art. Shall we define GWB as "a controversial American president"? Or impressionism as "a controversial art movement"? Or heterosexual marriage as "a controversial social institution"? See Wikipedia:No weasel words. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 10:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, please do not rehash select parts of an old discussion, it is hardly objective or convincing. There is controversy over Falun Gong, therefore it is controversial. This is what the word controversial means and stating this implies no stance what so ever.

If all you wanted to say was "controversial is a weasel word", you could do that without the huge quote. As you know, the article defines the term "weasel words" as "words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources". Since verifiable sources have been given for the word, only to be blanked by you, it does not apply. PerEdman (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

@PerEdman: I understand your reasoning - but i find it to be aahhmmm... how shall i say this "controversial" (-: Cause if we go by your logic - than one of the MOST controversial groups would undoutably be the jewish religion. As at all times they have faced harsh persecution and countless people opposing, disagreeing, de-valueing or even plainly attacking them. So seen from such a perspective - maybe they could actually be called "controversial". But it would be even more controversial to call them that, wouldn't it? --Hoerth (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hoerth, Please bring this up on the talk page for Judaism; I'm sure the discussion will be more welcome there that it is here. If you have any questions about the data driving my logic, you are more than welcome to ask. PerEdman (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Immediately cease groundlessly undoing edits to the article without discussing the subject with the intent of reaching a consensus. I will naturally not revert your revisions as that would only serve to indicate that I was not interested in discussing the issue. PerEdman (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Your comments came after the edit, and I assumed you were not interested in discussion. When I saw the comments I responded, and the edit conflict happened. I wouldn't simply revert and not say anything; I thought it was the other way around. Here's my response. I won't revert more than once a day, but it shouldn't be necessary anyway. Please consider.

The quote I introduced was relevant. It is the same argument and it ended last time there. If there is more to say, please add it on. There's no sense dismissing it because it's six months old, it's the same set of ideas. I was going to elaborate myself but thought it wasn't necessary. The start of any article could start with "controversial."

Let's do an experiment. Should all articles be like this:

• Christianity (from the word Xριστός "Christ") is a controversial monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in the New Testament.

• Physics (Greek: physis – φύσις meaning "nature") is the controversial natural science which examines basic concepts such as energy, force, and spacetime and all that derives from these, such as mass, charge, matter and its motion.

• The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were controversial nuclear attacks near the end of World War II against the Empire of Japan by the United States at the executive order of U.S. President Harry S. Truman on August 6 and 9, 1945.

Directly defining the subject as "controversial" is at once a weasel word, vague, and non-neutral. And the above three are just simple examples of what leads would look like in a world where that kind of language was the order of the day.--Asdfg12345 19:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, This talk section was created at 18:51, 8 March 2009. You made your second revert with reference to talk page at 05:54, 9 March 2009, i.e. 11 hours later. You then made a third revert at 18:53, 10 March 2009, still without going to the talk page, even though you yourself had referred to it. You are clearly reflexively undoing edits to the article. You did simply revert and not say anything.

You reprinted a post from an old discussion rather than discuss with me, your entire point being that controversial is a "weasel word", even though sources have been provided and blanked for the word and it can therefore by definition not be a weasel term. The discussion did not end due to any argument put forth in the quoted text and no consensus was reached, yet you continued to erase the word from the article.

Your incomprehensible examples bear little to no relevance. How is Falun Gong like an atomic bombing of Japan? How is Falun Gong like Christianity? How is Falun Gong like Physics? Oddly enough, the Wikipedia article on controversy currently states: "Christianity today is still considered controversial by leading authorities in psychiatry and communism, as in Red China." Funny, that. PerEdman (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

True, but not in the lead (although technically speaking that article is not very well organized, so it's hard to say). That would not make a good entry for an encyclopedia, because it would be too judgmental :) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what does this comment refer to? PerEdman (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It refered to your previous quote where you said: ""Wikipedia article on controversy currently states "Christianity today is still considered controversial by leading authorities in psychiatry and communism, as in Red China." Funny, that. "" --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW thank you for the who, and the which tags with references that you just put up. That is constructive. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The thanks should go to Asdfg12345 who put me in the mind of weasel words. Finding unsourced statements is one of the most basic duties of wikipedians and one we can almost always engage in even in articles whose subjects we know little about. It almost always makes for a better article, at least once the tags have been answered. :) PerEdman (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

PerEdman, if there is a discussion on the talk page on something, I will take it up. I'm not interested in reverting and ignoring discussion. Just wanted to make that point quickly. I will be away for close to a week, and can then fill in those references and things when I get back, unless someone else does it. The "alleged" seemed silly, since the whole thing is extremely well documented; and the nationwide crackdown thing can be referenced directly to Forbes. anyway, got to go. Please don't think I'm a bad guy or trying to be problematic, or whatever. You don't need to question my intentions or get personal, either. There could be some misunderstanding. If you want a more scrupulously referenced article, that's great. The point of the examples is to show how any subject can be labelled as "controversial" and its exactly the same principle here. In particular, in this case the "controversy" is related to the persecution and all that has happened since, and this is the context. A final note also, I forgot to ask, what do you mean about Falun Gong having a "training regime"?--Asdfg12345 01:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, You can't insist that you never do something that you just did. You did not bring it up, you reverted instantly. There was nothing preventing you yourself from adding it to the talk page yourself either, or to the older discussion.

Second point, as you know unsourced claims should not stand. If no-one comes forward with sources, the statements will be removed. Don't hold that against me, it's in the guidelines. PerEdman (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

also, about the examples, the point is sort of this: anything, anywhere, ever has different points of view, but to directly characterise a particular topic as "controversial" does nothing to inform the reader of the topic. All those articles above can be changed like that, and I've no doubt that sources could be found for the terms. The point is that it would not be informative or helpful, and the same principle applies here. It is not a neutral statement, it certainly implies a stance. The other examples are given to illuminate the silliness of doing it in this case--how is Falun Gong different from any other randomly selected topic? I could find a source that says Falun Gong is "healthy", so will the article start with "Falun Gong is a controversial, healthy spiritual discipline...." ? --Asdfg12345 01:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And finally finally, the term “weasel word" emcompasses more than just not having a source, as I understand it, but also includes specious language that appears to say something but doesn't, appears to be neutral but is a judgement, and so on. You can get the idea from "weasel", right? It is sneaky, it sneaks in--that's the feeling I get. I read the policy and thought to myself that it includes more than just on that page, it's about the spirit of the term and its meaning. If you have a different interpretation or understanding on the spirit or meaning of the weasel word policy--and I do believe it's different from just WP:V, (or why would there not be just WP:V?)--no matter: why not put a sentence somewhere that "The (source) characterises Falun Gong as "controversial."" -- this would solve both problems, right? Now really got to scram!--Asdfg12345 02:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, I see there were some things here I had not commented on.

You can call qigong exercises healthy. All you'd need are a few verifiable, reliable, third-party reputable sources for the claim. It would certainly be informative and helpful, very much like the article's current focus on the persecution of Falun Gong in China would be a significant fact about the exercises. As for your opinion that my opinion is silly, that's just not relevant to the massive controversies, imprisonments and unlawful seizures of property or the effectiveness of Falun Gong stretching, meditation and breathing exercises on well-known illnesses. Sources are.

Am I to understand that you would now accept reputable sources for the controversy surrounding Falun Gong? You have never accepted the NY Times or Encyclopedia Britannica on the subject before, so what's changed?

Finally, the meaning of weasel words in the context of wikipedia is very well laid out on the wikipedia page on the subject, which you yourself linked to. Do read it some time. There is no reason for me to discuss it unless you have a specific complaint or criticism. As a clue, however, the definition is not sneaky, it sneaks in--it's the feeling you get. :) PerEdman (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, I am not "characterizing" Falun Gong as controversial. NOTHING is controversial in itself, it only becomes controversial when it is of, relating to or arousing controversy. Falun Gong has aroused controversy. This is no judgement, it is a statement of fact. The same is true of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which are both actions that have given rise to significant controversy and both can, for this factual reason, be called controversial.

You have yourself in the past argued for the focus of the FG article to be on the conflict between the PRC and FG and the persecution of FG. I will not speculate on your reasons for this, but I want you to know that I agree with you, and it is because I agree with this that I believe it is a significant fact about Falun Gong that there is such severe controversy surrounding Falun Gong and the PRC that it has even lead to torture, imprisonment and persecution. Therefore, the significant fact of Falun Gongs controversialty must be mentioned very near the start of the article

The examples did not show that "controversial" can be put into any context, as at least two of the three examples appeared to be completely without merit. All you proved was that you can put the word 'controversial' into any context. I can do the same with 'spiritual'. It is not until we can provide either sources or come to a consensus on a well-known fact that it should be put into the article. I believe there is grounds for this with "controversial", as I believe it is obvious that there are many controversies surrounding Falun Gong, most significantly the ones between the PRC and the FD movement. PerEdman (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand your point. My question regarding this reasoning is how can we put the controversial notions into the correct context. I'm asking this because you said quote: "I believe it is a significant fact about Falun Gong that there is such severe controversy surrounding Falun Gong and the PRC that it has even lead to torture, imprisonment and persecution." in which case you agree that the PRC is doing torture, imprisonment and persecution. Based on this agreement I think that you will also agree, that when these acts (genocide) are done by a state they always go hand in hand with massive vicious propaganda, to justify somehow the unjustifiable. In this case the proper context of the PRC generated controversy would be simply to state that it's an authoritarian state doing what it wants. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

HiG: You quoted me correctly so I hardly have to repeat myself. It does not matter, though as there is no rule saying that you must ascribe to one certain opinion in order to edit a certain article. In fact, the less opinionated you are on the subject, the better.

I cannot agree to a wording such as "the proper context of the PRC generated controversy would be simply to state that it's an authoritarian state doing what it wants." as I'm sure you realize in the context of wikipedia. Proper is normative, non-verifiable, PRC generated misses the point of the neutral use of the descriptive word 'controversial' and doing what it wants is speculative and non-verifiable. Wikipedia is hardly the place to speculate on the unspoken motives of political or spiritual enemies. If you are capable of producing reputable, verifiable sources despite my misgivings, I would gladly accept them.

I observe that Falun Gong is controversial -- of, relating to or arousing controversy -- as I observe that the PRC is persecuting FG. Please note that "arousing" here does not imply the first person causing or taking an active part, it refers to (re)actions of a third party. Let's stick to reproducing the verifiable facts. PerEdman (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] I think that the summary of what you said above is: "Let's stick to reproducing the verifiable facts." To this I can easily agree! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just put the sentence back that was removed at some point, after Penny et al.： "The Encyclopedia Britannica characterizes Falun Gong as "controversial."" -- problem solved.--Asdfg12345 17:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I concurr. Now the only question is... in what section? :) PerEdman (talk) 11:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

My quick thought at the moment is that the academic section should be changed to "Reception" or something similarly useful and descriptive, and then this should go there. My reasoning is that sections should not be determined per type of source, but theme. That's the only way it makes sense, right? Or we'd have "Newspaper responses", and blah blah, instead of theme based responses. The theme approach is far more sensible, and we can put all the reception stuff in one section. If this idea gets the green light, we can just do it that way. Watcha reckon?--Asdfg12345 05:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that there has been have endless discussions on whether or not Falun Gong is controversial here makes it controversial. The fact that the Chinese Government, one of the most powerful nations in the world has banned them makes it controversial. When the Roman Empire banned Christianity, that made Christianity controversial, at least until Constantine. And reliable sources saying that Falun Gong is controversial are there. --Ilivetocomment (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. There is still obvious controversy, much of which is already being described in the article: The allegations of organ harvesting, the protests against He Zuoxiu, the claims of Li Hongzhis supernatural abilities, the opinion on homosexuality, the opinions expressed about mixed marriages and of course the most significantly argued point of all: The persecution of Falun Gong by the PRC. This persecution is fact, repeated throughout the article, and that persecution is in itself a controversy between the PRC and Falun Gong. Therefore, "controversial" is exactly the kind of word that should be used in the lede, followed by a description of these controversies throughout the article, something that is already present. PerEdman (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This should be attributed to a source (like britanica or some other) and put somewhere, possibly in the lede. I don't know what the whole discussion was about; let's just attribute it and put it in.--Asdfg12345 08:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Shortening Academic attention segment?

Compared to the rest of the article, which is very well sourced, the second and third paragraph of the "Academic attention" segment are all sourced to one specific website (http://website.leidenuniv.nl/~haarbjter/falun.htm) maintained by one of the persons mentioned as sources in these two paragraphs, Barend ter Haar. I hope to be proven wrong, but I cannot see how this page lives up to being a reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For further reading, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If there are more reputable sources for a listing of academic attention and, even more significantly, what those studies have found or resulted in, I believe such sources would be much more beneficial to the article as a whole. If not, I believe the second and third paragraphs should be shortened into a single, smaller paragraph that does not so much as the current text simply repeat what the website says on the first page. Please be wary that you do not engage in too much original research for finding such references, but rather shorten the text into something that can be clearly and reputably sourced. Thank you. PerEdman (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

What's missing are the numbers above the lines; someone didn't bother to put them in. The notes there are just summaries of what those academics have written, actually. The references to the articles are on the academic page. I haven't look at that page in over a year. It would probably take 10 minutes to find the sources and put those references in--I mean, the summary statements of what different academics have written--do you think this would be a good idea, or better to shorten it? About the ter Haar, this is a good point. I understood there was some provision for self-published sources in certain circumstances, though: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" -- this guy is a China scholar, and this is the website he keeps. Since he's not saying anything particularly unusual, and is a recognised expert, I'd be inclined to let it slide. Thoughts?--Asdfg12345 17:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not what is missing. Accurate references for the specific claims inside the Academic Attention segment is missing wholesale, and instead a blanket reference to Bared ter Haars webpage is made, a webpage that is in itself a collection of third party sources. How would "the numbers above the lines" (do you mean superscript references?) alleviate the issue of all these claims referring to a single, collating, private webpage? At least the Patricia M. Thornton reference was an outside, peer reviewed, direct reference with page numbers which brought something OTHER than Barend Ter Haar's webpage to the segment. That's why I'm keeping that reference in the academic attention section.

If it takes "10 minutes to find the sources", then fix the references or the text has no right to be there. That's how wikipedia works. There is no excuse for keeping unsourced claims, at all. If Barnend Ter Haar is only republishing material that was previously published, then a reference to the journal where the original publication was made, is the very least we can ask for. And that's me making a provision for the possibility that this may be the case with Barend Ter Haar - I have really not seen any reason to believe that the provision is correct.

What Barend Ter Haar says is not in question - it is the references he is making to other scholars, as well as the fact that his own personal webpage is used as a source for his claims, making it self-published. PerEdman (talk) 10:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

We have more in common than you may realise. Let me find all references for the academic section now, I'll try to be thorough. The excuse for keeping around unreferenced claims is that there is an actural reference, or they're true, but just no one has gone to the trouble to put them in. There are stacks of unreferenced articles in wiki, I think they're great! It's just that when it is something like this, we should be more precise--I agree with you there. The criteria just seems to be whether there is any editor who actually comes along and does something about it. Let me look at it now. --Asdfg12345 04:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A messege of hope to those who value NPOV.

Just a quick story to those of you who have tried to add any semblance of neutrality to this article.

I've been to China twice. The second time for the Olympics. When getting my visa, I saw a whole bunch of Falun Gong people with literature and stuff, but paid no attention.

Then one day, on one of my many Wikipedia nights, I decided to learn about them. How shocked I was! How could China do such things? How could they torture such wonderful, innocent people, with not a bad intention, only love and peace in their hearts?

I told my friends about it. I told them how I'd canceled my plans to go back to China for a third time.

But then I met a friend who gave me the best Wikipedia lesson of all: don't believe everything you read.

So after a few hours internet searches and talks with those on both sides of the story, I learned of the controversies surrounding the Falun Gong. Why, oh why, was that not in the Wikipedia article, I asked.

And then it was time for this naive Wikipedia user to glimpse at the dark side.

So to those of you who have silenced any mention of the Time interview, or the word "cult," or the word "controversial," congratulations, you have lost my sympathy. You have convinced me that the Falun Gong are, indeed, a cult, for only a cult would make such a concerted effort to silence anything that challenges that which they have devoted so much to. Does it hurt you to know that some people think the Falun Gong are a cult? Does it hurt so bad that you must delete it from the screen in the hopes of deleting it from your mind?

I can't wait to return to China.

I'm a Jew, and while I think those who deny the holocaust are either evil or stupid, I fully support their right to voice their theories here and elsewhere. So I say to you, Falun Gong, take a deep look in the mirror. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.95.58 (talk) 07:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear anonymous IP, There's a lot of material outside of wikipedia you could look into to get the facts straight. Schecheter's research, David Ownby's research, reports from The Amnesty International, Kilgour Matas Reports, etc - to mention just a few ( perhaps you could skip a few of your "wikipedia nights" to go through them). Enough material and top-quality scholarship to bring your "lost sympathy" back and make you want to cancel your next three planned trips to China. Also note that academic perspectives on the "cult" label, what Kilgour and Matas refer to as "a manufactured tool of repression", has been discussed in detail in this and related articles. Note that leading scholars like Ownby state Falun Gong is "by no means a cult." They discuss in detail the origin of the term, how Falun Gong was first labeled a "cult" months into the persecution, how the label was used a tool of repression, academic perspectives on it etc. Have you really read these wikipedia articles?

Anyways, must admit.. easily the most theatrical of all comments I've seen to date on wikipedia!

Dilip rajeev (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Dilip, Don't you yourself find your selection of sources somewhat one-sided? PerEdman (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Very dramatic, indeed. You spelt the word message wrong, but you have half of my agreement. Firstly, no one is running the article, certainly not the dastardly "organisation" you have in mind. Anyone is free to edit wikipedia, discuss changes, and bring sources to bear. The main issue, I think in the end, is that the "cult" argument isn't supported by reliable sources--wikipedia isn't a vehicle for communist party propaganda, nor for non-academics like Rick Ross and their agendas (to note, Ross is the main "Falun Gong critic," who claims Falun Gong is a cult, and frequently attends conferences defaming Falun Gong set up by the Chinese embassy). If there are actually reliable sources on these issues, they should be represented. Except for in the context of the persecution, the cult label really has no meaning. It isn't backed up by any research, studies, fieldwork, or even plain old reality. No serious academic supports it as a meaningful way of characterising Falun Gong. Check out the recent work by David Ownby called "Falun Gong and the Future of China" and see how much play the cult argument gets. He is a serious researcher and makes it clear that it was a furphy from the start.

With regard to the apparent controversies about Falun Gong, what are they? Where are the sources? Wikipedia has clear content standards for what should and should not be in articles. If there are high-quality sources dealing with these issues, then no one can stop them from being in the article--they just get summarised and relevant material grouped together, presenting according to relevance, notability, etc.. If something important is missing from the article, what is it? Let's put it in. My half agreement with you is that of course relevant and notable material should not be left out--but it needs to be backed up by reliable sources. Making a fuss that has nothing to do with wikipedia's content guidelines is a waste of time. Can't we see some quality sources?--Asdfg12345 09:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Lastly, that the wikipedia article doesn't match your expectations doesn't change the reality of the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China. The logic that "the wikipedia article does not match my expectations therefore I have no more sympathy for the people getting tortured to death for their beliefs" doesn't make any sense whatsoever. By the way, did you hear about Lawyer Gao? He defended Falun Gong practitioners in China. Consider reading his recently released open letter. Best. --Asdfg12345 09:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Again we have a personal experience from a brand new IP. Please keep in mind this is Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, not "rumor pedia". See WP:V. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Also I find this quote, from the genocide article, very useful in this context: "Also required is a campaign of vilification and dehumanization of the victims by the perpetrators" --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, HIG, this is the talk page, not the wikipedia page. Furthermore, I can't see how vilification and dehumanization of the victims by the perpetrators is at all relevant to the personal experience related to us by the anonymous poster. He certainly was not dehumanizing anyone by saying that he believes wikipage is unreliable and biased. (My interpretation of Anonymous IP's opinion would be that the wikipage is what we wikians would call "Whitewashed", but as this is the talk page, I hardly need a source to state my belief.) PerEdman (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

@anonymous IP: Well since you are jewish and made the comparison to the holocaust yourself, you must know the propaganda the Nazis spread about the jews at that time. All they did was just make them look like some kind of evil cult. That was it. That was more than sufficiant to de-humanize your people. Of course more specificly the National Socialist German Workers Party labeled the jews as an evil capitalist organization with the goal of exploiting it's members as well as the rest of the world, as having brutal satanic rituals involving self-mutalation and sucide and as simply being "anti-German", "anti-patriotic", and "anti-socialist". I wouldn't have mentioned it, but you are the one who is asking for it to be included - and maybe you are right. Maybe this Propaganda should get mentioned. Because after all this kind of propaganda still exists. And we could ignore - but that will not make it go away. Only by exposing this kind of smear-propaganda as what it really is, can it no longer play it's role in de-humanizing our people and thereby "justifying" their attempted elimination. --Hoerth (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hoerth's comment seems to make sense. It is not about "exposing" anything though, but simply presenting relevant information to the reader. This is an encyclopedia, and the policies like WP:NPOV WP:V etc. are strictly procedural--you don't start with your objective then make the articles into that, but start with the sources and just fill things in. If anyone has some good sources on these things, please bring them up. Otherwise when I get some time I will go digging for some. What's needed are reliable sources detailing these claims against Falun Gong, preferably in specific terms and without vaguery if possible, and then to find the Falun Gong rebuttal, and some analysis by third parties. PerEdman, if you're reading, you may have some leads--this seems to be your field. --Asdfg12345 22:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess this is a futile exercise, but I shall give it another shot. Others have quite convincingly argued that there are parts of the Falun Gong dogma that are being actively excluded from this article (see Talk:Falun Gong#"Outlandish" Claims of Falun Gong and Talk:Falun Gong#Zhuan Falun Source Material for 66.77.144.5's claims, for example). I don't think I can do much better (or care to spend my time trying) than them.

Is the Time magazine article not a good source? Is the fact that the leader of your organization himself has discussed levitation, alien races, alternate dimensions, in the primary literature of your practice? I say these things wihtout any intention to judge them, just to state that they exist, and they leave a deafening silence in the article. Again: some facts can be interpreted in a negative light, some can be seen in a positive light, some can be seen in no light, but the fact is that they exist, and they are being suppressed such that a naive reader (such as myself) does not get the full story, or even equally partial parts of both sides of the story, when reading this article.

I apologize for giving the impression that, since there are a few people trying to actively suppress some information about the Falun Gong, I have lost sympathy for those who are being tortured. This is certainly not the case. All torture is evil and should be abolished from the Earth. But I guess all I'm saying is that there are other ways to achieve your objective besides suppression.

And yes, Jews were dehumanized before, during, and after the holocaust. Yes, is it a common way of achieving genocide and torture. But I am not calling for the deletion of the organ harvesting article, nor have I challenged its validity. I have not called for any of your claims of torture to be deleted. It's just the facts that you omit (or delete) with bogus logic that disturbs me. Again, I reference you to the aforementioned discussion topics. I mean, why not mention them, and discredit them at the same time? The Protocols of the Elders of Zion article is a great example: it's a featured article that calmly and academically rejects one of the fundamental arguements used by anti-Semites. The fact that you delete any of the aforementioned claims instead of taking them on raises my suspicion, and that may be doing your practice a great disservice.

My apologies for the emotion of my writing, and I thank you all for keeping a cool head. I'm a seasoned reader of Wikipedia, but am green when it comes to editing or talking. It blows my top when reality creeps in and tells me that not all Wikipedia articles are telling the whole truth. But let's not let my emotion cloud the main point:

If you believe in Falun Dafa, if you love it so and want everyone to know both its beauty and the trials it is facing, godspeed. But you are doing a disservice to your faith by supressing any sort of (referenced) material that could be seen as controversial, or out of the norm, or whatever. You are doing it a disservice by not taking those facets and expounding on them, discussing them, and giving them their fair shake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.95.58 (talk) 06:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

@anonymous IP: No, your post was not futile, as at least I for my part can now understand you better and I tend to agree with you: having an entry similar to the entry on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion might be necessary. But i am not actually involved in any of this either and my english wouldn't be good enough for this task. There actually ARE many things similar to those protocols. Like the alleged 10. Chatper of Zhuan Falun published by the 610 office etc.. Or for example the Communist Party's claim that there would be only 2 million Falun Gong practitioners in China and that of those 2 millions 1600 would have died of their illness. And they use that to show that Falun Gong would harm people's health. But if you think about the number, you realize that it is propaganda and doesn't make sense as the national average death rate due to illness in China is way, way higher. There are many such things and they are easy to refute once you think about it - but of course ussually people DON'T think about it. So having an article that rationaly analyzes such claims without using any weasel words like "cult" etc. might be necessary and doesn't necessarily have to comprimize Wikipedia's NPOV. Some people might have not understood that so they just ignore those things, resulting in your having the impression you descriped. --Hoerth (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

@anonymous IP: the best article to read is from Falun Gong itself, the Zhuan Fa Lun, the bible for Falun Gong, inside the book you will enjoy at least 3 hours of fun reading jokes you will never read from other book, example like Falun Gong save from car crash, Falun Gong give you teleporting and television ability, Falun Gong cures every diseases in the earth including AIDS and cancer, and Li himself fighting with a Ming Dynasty snake ghost (or whatever). This is the story you will never read in Wikipedia, actually Wikipedia is a very good source in most of the time, but Falun Gong is just not the case, this article is totally ruined by these professional paid editors, as you may noticed, should you say anything negative towards Falun Gong and they will beat you in group. Anyway, welcome to China, though I can't welcome you in person as I am oversea, have a nice trip! Zixingche (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Zhuan Falun can be downloaded here. The Nine Lecture Videos (with voice over English translation), also cover the same content as Zhuan Falun ( a work described by the World Book Encyclopaedia as examining "evolution, the meaning of space and time, and the mysteries of the universe" and a best seller in China in before onset of the persecution). Both Zhuan Falun and the Nine Lecture Videos are comprehensive expositions of the Teachings of Falun Dafa. I would urge anyone interested in understanding the system to go through them first hand.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Good, just to list a few pages which to me are the funniest (I am referring to the PDF file here Zhuan Falun):

Page 104, a snake in Ming Dynasty (at least 400 years ago) toke someone's body and cultivated into human form, and Li with his super power called "Dissolving Gong", "melt its lower body into water".

Page 32, teaching and explain the ability of Remote Vision, or tele-vision, which allow you to view Beijing or Washington, live, from your human eye, or Third Eye.

Page 67, telling about Li's Law Buddy, which will protect you from any danger (Quoted: you have my Law Bodies protecting you, so you won’t run into any danger.), in this case, car crash, a 50 year old female practitioner got hit by a moving car at her head, because Li's Law Buddy is protecting her invisibly anywhere, the practitioner is completely fine without any injury after the crash, however, the car's bonnet is broken.

Page 67 - 68, Quoted: "There was also something that happened in Changchun. A building was being built near a student’s home. Nowadays, buildings are built so high, and the scaffolding is made up of steel rods that are two inches thick and four yards long. The student was walking not too far from home when a steel rod dropped from that tall building, and it was coming straight down toward his head. Everyone on the street was petrified. But he just said, “Who patted me?” He thought that someone had patted him on the head. Then, he turned and saw that a big Law Wheel was there rotating over his head. The steel rod had slid down along the side of his head and stuck into the ground, sticking up. If it really had hit somebody, think about it, it was so heavy it would have gone all the way through his body, like a skewer through marshmallows. It was that dangerous!"

Well, to me, if this is not a joke, then it is a cult. Zixingche (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

@Zixingche, Gross distortions, exaggerations, cherry picked stuff presented completely out of context, outright lies, etc. are not likely to interest editors here the least. One could pull random statements from Buddhist Scriptures and claim Buddhism is about whatever. You could pull statements from The Bible to characterize Jesus Christ's teachings the way you want. But such meaningless distortions are not what anyone here is interested in nor does it contribute, in any way, towards improving the article. Even facts can be made to sound ridiculous: One could make a big brouhaha and go around claiming Aikido and Tai Chi practitioners are so silly that they really believe they can overcome an aggressive opponent without resorting to aggressive physical force; that quantum physicists are really so absurd they believe a particle can simultaneously exist in two places at the same time or that Einstein really 'believed' that time passes slowly in a moving body. But could such out of context characterization of things help rationally understand or appreciate any of these sciences? To understand any tradition or science, you need a holistic perspective on it. Presenting things without the appropriate background and context serves little purpose - especially when we are all here to contribute to an encylopaedia.

Falun Dafa is a Xiu Lian tradition for mind-body cultivation - and it is repeatedly made clear in the teachings that it is not to be understood as something to be used for the purpose of healing one's illnesses. Yet, mind-body cultivation practice, rooted in cultivation of one's Xin-xing ( heart/mind nature), can have the effect of gradually achieving a state free of illness. Medical science researchers in US have published the results of preliminary research[42] into these and their conclusions are quite interesting. If the teachings interest you try to understand things in their appropriate context and substantiate your contributions on talk with quality academic scholarship - but this kind of incessant hatred-mongering serves little purpose.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I must say, those quotes do interest me. They look very much like the outlandish statements you can find in most religious literature, and if I really wanted to, I assume I could download and read the PDF file and find out the context. If I find the same text in there, it can hardly be an exhaggeration, could it? PerEdman (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, a quick question to the ip guy who first raised this issue: which articles did you read about all these things you say weren't included in the article, which you thought should have been? Could you give some links or details of the specific sources? I'd like to take a look at them. --Asdfg12345 15:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I plan to archive this talk page and start the new one with a note for brainstorming ideas on how to move forward, and looking for some of the sources that people keep referring to. The more specific the better, and it would be good to get something done about this.--Asdfg12345 22:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg, That's an honorable cause, but how is it going to work? People who used to try to inject criticism are hardly going to come back out of the blue just because you archive the current talk page. We can hardly canvas wikipedia to inform them of this New Deal and that they should come back. Are you and I going to go back and reverify old edits to see if there's anything in them? I suppose I could help with that, but it seems like very much work. PerEdman (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg, I have a very important question to you, and it is important because you are constantly asking for a "actually reliable sources, backed up by research, studies, fieldwork or even plain old reality", that Falun Gong would be a "cult". The question is this:

What, in your mind, would actually constitute an "actually reliable source backed up by research, studies, fieldwork or reality" that Falun Gong is a cult?

If you can think of no material that could be used in this manner, you should immediately cease to request it. This is the scientific principle of falsifiability. PerEdman (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I just meant cause the page is so long already, and it would be great to get some clarity and work out what needs to be done. Doesn't matter, I'll just let someone else take the lead there. About your other question, it's not my responsibility to actually find the sources. It's possible that they exist, I don't really know, but until someone brings them out then we can't put them in the article. Despite that, it's not like the cult label shouldn't be addressed, there are some sources on it, for sure. What I've maintained is that the sources refuting it (David Ownby, Benjamin Penny) are better than those putting it forward (Rick Ross, the CCP). I'll assume this is true until there is evidence to the contrary.--Asdfg12345 05:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we call NASA and every corporation a Cybersect?

Regarding this edit [43], can we call NASA and every corporation a Cybersect: "due to the group's reliance on the internet for text distribution, recruitment and information-sharing among adherents." --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely NOT. Science is NOT a belief system. On the other hand, something like FLG IS. Children of the dragon (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think User:HappyInGeneral was pointing out that such a definition could be applied to almost any organization or group. The term "recruitment" in no sense applies to Falun Gong - since there is no concept of membership or anything of the sort in the first place. The rest of the definition would apply to almost any group. "Text-distribution" and "information sharing" - who does not use the internet for information sharing in 2009 A.D.? By text-distribution - is it that all material is made available free of cost on falundafa.org website that the author is referring to?

This definition could be applied to almost any group - Computer Scientists, Lay Buddhists, Homeopaths, Doctors, Engineers, - any group you can think of.

And the argument that "science" is not belief and everything outside narrow fields of research in mainstream science is belief, I think, is quite fallacious. Scientific theories are but models we use to gain insight into a set of natural phenomenon. The word theory and the word theater share the same Greek root - theoria - meaning to see, an insight. Thats what theories are - models that help us gain an insight into a set of phenomenon - not pictures of absolute reality - not even an abstraction of reality, but mere models that that help us gain insight into phenomenon - models which are continually displaced by better models which encompass a superset of phenomenon. By making something out of science that it is not - an absolute picture of reality everything outside of whose framework or fields of research is but "belief" - we are doing it a great disservice and downgrading science from an approach to exploring and understanding reality to a personal belief system. There are different approaches to understanding reality - the path taken by present day western science is but one of those. To give an example that comes to mind - Goethean science - we may think of it as another approach, one which lays more emphasis on a direct understanding of reality through higher faculties of objective perception, which Goethe believed was latent in the human, than through axiomatic reasoning on physical measurements. The Buddhists and Daoists traditions take yet another approach to understanding nature - which is as scientific and an equally valid method, if not a more direct and faster one, of objectively understanding physical reality, as our modern science is. In fact, study of qi gong related phenomenon, which many westerners would simply dismiss as "unscientific" or "supernatural", even till 10 years back, was a field of active scientific research in China. I remember reading of an experiment conducted in Princeton University where they found humans consciously willing the outcome of a phenomenon considered purely random in quantum physics( think of it as a quantum coin-toss), had a statistically measurable and significant impact on its outcome. Even scientific notions we come to accept since high school as plain truths - for instance that memory, personality are all associated with the brain are contradicted by evidence emerging in recent research[44]. Not just in in patients who have undergone hemispherectomy, even in those who have survived gunshots through the brain, the personality, memory, likes, dislikes, all, "unbelievably"(as the Scientific American puts it), remain intact upon recovery. There are many such interesting phenomenon scientifically observed, some in controlled experiments some otherwise, which are quite difficult, if not impossible, to explain within the framework of present day science. But that does not mean these observed phenomenon are all "beliefs" and "superstitions" to be ignored but only that scientific models, as of 2009 A.D., are inadequate and not capable of encompassing these phenomenon - just as 18th century physics didn't encompass(and could not have explained) quantum or relativistic phenomenon. Not related, and am digressing quite a bit here from our original topic, but thought would share, while on the topic of "out of the mainstream framework phenomenon", as I hope some of you may find it interesting, as I myself did, these videos I saw a while back on youtube:[45][46]

Dilip rajeev (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ummm. Falun Gong is quite probably a cybersect cause of this wikipedia definition; "Cybersectarianism refers to the phenomenon of new religious movements that rely primarily on the internet for text distribution, recruitment and information-sharing among adherents." If you don't want to call Falun Gong a religion, fine. But you can't deny that Falun Gong is based on a set of concepts and exercises that all Falun Gong practitioners agree with as a whole. It's a new movement that started a couple decades ago. The Falun Gong community is also united through the Internet. Li's writings are mostly spread using the Internet and most communication between Falun Gong practitioners occurs though the Internet. Falun Gong uses the Internet to contact their adherents in mainland China and also filters as much news as they can slip past the Great Firewall. The definition applies pretty well to Falun Gong, I think. --Ilivetocomment (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If you ask me the concept of cybersect is odd to begin with. It might have had traction before, maybe because it sounds like an old Science Fiction term, but now the internet is widespread. In 2009 let's be serious, show me one organization that is not using the internet. Plus there are reasons why Falun Gong is called a spiritual practice. As far as I know that is because religions contain stuff which Falun Gong is not, like there is no membership, anyone is free to come and go as he likes, no fees, etc... As for it being a sect, for that it would need to have a "parent" which again it does not have, see from wikipedia article: "in modern culture can refer to any organization that breaks away from a larger one to follow a different set of rules and principles" + it's not a desirable term because: "The term is mostly used in a malicious way and would suggest the broken-off group was following a more negative path than the original." quote from the sect article. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference. Falun Gong's entire community relies on the Internet, unlike most organizations who just have informal websites where you can see what it's all about and send emails. All of Mr. Li's writing are distributed largely through the Internet. If there was no Internet, Falun Gong's community of practitioners would be nowhere near as organized as they are. Organizations like Wal-Mart, The United Nations, and yes, the CCP may have a Internet presence but their current form doesn't depend on it and can survive without it. And plus, all the major religions all don't have membership either, you don't have to pay to believe in Jesus Christ or Allah and you can go to church or mosque whenever they're open. Falun Gong can be called a sect because they are based on a form of Qigong which could be considered its parent movement. And the statement "Although in the past it was mostly used to refer to religious groups, it has since expanded and in modern culture can refer to any organization that breaks away from a larger one to follow a different set of rules and principles. The term is mostly used in a malicious way and would suggest the broken-off group was following a more negative path than the original." is not sourced and it is almost certainly a POV of the writer. I looked up the definition on Google, from here: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=sect and it said a sect is either a subdivision of a larger religious group or a dissenting clique, either of which can fit Falun Gong. Religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny. --Ilivetocomment (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A few points.

• "Falun Gong's entire community relies on the Internet", I disagree.
• "All of Mr. Li's writing are distributed largely through the Internet.", so is the constitution and lots of other billion of pages + the Falun Dafa teachings are also published, see here [47] for example.
• Nobody would be as well organized without the internet or without phones or telegraphs.
• Qigong is not a religion of it's own, Falun Gong can not be a sect of qigong.
• etc...

I think we can agree that we have different POV's and that wikipedia is not WP:SOAP. Here we have WP:V & WP:RS so let's stick to sources and not to WP:OR. PS: sorry for the late response, I was out of town. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

np with the late response, I didnt even notice neways. I check this place about once every couple days so no harm done. And my keyboard is f*cked up so that quote comes up like this: È. Anyways, to the point.

A few more points.

• "Falun Gong's entire community relies on the Internet", I disagree. They rely almost solely on the Internet to get information in and out of China thanks to wiretapping and unless I am wrong, most Falun Gong practitioners live in China. Also the overseas community communicates mainly through the Internet, unlike a lot of other organizations.
• "All of Mr. Li's writing are distributed largely through the Internet.", so is the constitution and lots of other billion of pages + the Falun Dafa teachings are also published, see here [48] for example. LiÈs writings are current, and when they come out the main means of distribution is through the Internet. The US Constitution is generally found in books since it was written about 200 years ago. The books are published also, but much fewer people see it that way. Not so current writings were probably put into the Internet today and not back then.
• Nobody would be as well organized without the internet or without phones or telegraphs. Falun Gong puts special reliance on the Internet to communicate.
• Qigong is not a religion of it's own, Falun Gong can not be a sect of qigong. Call it a branch of qigong then, it meets the definition near enuff.
• etc... Plus it says in the Wiki Cybersect page that Falun Gong is a cybersect.

--Ilivetocomment (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Answers:

• "Falun Gong's entire community relies on the Internet" for communication in 2009 everybody rely on internet, because it's more efficient. Do you have any studies to point otherwise? Does even your common sense say otherwise?
• "200 years ago" there was no internet, so you are right, the US Constitution was first published in books. My mistake, I live in Romania, our constitution changed recently and I did not get a published hard copy, I got it from the internet, just as I read recently the US Constitution on the internet, so on.
• "Falun Gong puts special reliance on the Internet to communicate." and who does not? Again we are in 2009.
• "Plus it says in the Wiki Cybersect page that Falun Gong is a cybersect", so it's fine to quote the cybersect wiki page, but not the sect page? See Google Battle [49] return 2.7k vs. 33400k and tell me which one is more relevant. Or in Wikipedia context: [50]

Do you really live just to comment? Please see WP:NOT. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Quote the cybersect page because we are calling Falun Gong cybersect not sect. I'm just trying to disprove you saying that everyone is cybersect so it has no relevance. I will get back to the other stuff l8r. --Ilivetocomment (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

And the reason you are calling Falun Gong and not everything else a cybersect is? My point is this term does not really makes sense. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Because not everything else falls under the definition, of course. Please read the Cybersect page before making any further claims to the effect that "if falun gong is a cybersect then so is everything else". PerEdman (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(the North-American Space Administration is not new, not religious and not a movement. Nor does it rely primarily on the internet, not for text distribution nor for recruitment or information-sharing. I'm not even sure NASA has adherents, but it does have employees and fans, I guess.) PerEdman (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the chinese government, world of warcraft players are a dangerous sect. Have you seen their ban on skeleton characters. Online gamers also unite on the internet. They actually had meetings to do discuss how to properly deal with these negative influence on society. Benjwong (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That article doesn't say that the chinese government called it a sect, and it comments that it could also be caused by Blizzard failing to bribe the correct guys in the Chinese government. So, it wouldn't be relevant to this particular discussion. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You have been led astray, Ilivetocomment, and Happy In General, you have led hir astray. The definition of a cybersect was "Cybersectarianism refers to the phenomenon of new religious movements that rely primarily on the internet for text distribution, recruitment and information-sharing among adherents." and yet you have led the current discussion onto the claim that "Falun Gong's entire community relies on the Internet" which is never claimed in the definition. It is my opinion that the definition and appliance of "cybersect" is indeed relevant to Falun Gong and if you do not like the definition of a word, that is still no reason to deny others the usage of these words. Remember - again - that Wikipedia is not a reflection of your beliefs, it is a communal encyclopedia.

Why "everyone else" is not called cybersect was indicated to you in the very first comment. Please do not ignore such information because it is convenient to do so as repetition will only bore people to leave. PerEdman (talk) 09:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"Cybersectarianism refers to the phenomenon of new religious movements that rely primarily on the internet for text distribution, recruitment and information-sharing among adherents." What is your source saying, that this is the case for Falun Gong? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The definition says "primarily", not "entirely". There is a world of difference. PerEdman (talk) 12:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

What is your WP:RS for saying that Falun Gong relies "primarily" on the internet? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Aside from Patricia M. Thornton, Barent ter Haar also mentions it[51]

The Falun Gong is also a new kind of social phenomenon // namely the virtual movements that come into being quite rapidly due to modern means of communication such as handies (GSM, mobile telephones and what not) and the Internet (WWW, e-mail, WAP etc.). It is typically a city phenomenon and the traditional word of mouth so important in China, where official channels of information are always under state supervision, is now assisted by large scale e-communication in particular.

This is however from Barent ter Haar's personal webpage and could be criticized on that ground. PerEdman (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) This does not state how Falun Gong is different by the Underground Christian Churches for example or by any popular football team, or by ... well anything these days. Who is not using cell phones, who is not using email? So on this ground (nothing) you find it's somehow OK to call Falun Gong a cybersect? Out of which the sect part is what bothering me the most, because it has "pejorative connotations", quoting the sect article. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Practice vs Cultivation

Why use such a obscure and agricultural term as "cultivation" when you are really trying to describe the practice of a religion/spiritual excercise?Sjschen (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think thats how the term 修 煉 - Xiu(修) Lian(煉) got translated from Chinese. The sense is not the agricultural one :)...is, in my understanding, a bit closer to( but not the same as) the meaning the word coveys in :

It matters little whether a man be mathematically, or philologically, or artistically cultivated, so he be but cultivated.

— Goethe

Talents are cultivated in solitude; character in the stormy billows of the world.

— Goethe

Translating from one language to another is no easy thing.. a culture would have forged, over thousands of years of tradition, an understanding of a certain concept ( for instance The Buddists and Daoist 修 煉 traditions of ancient China) .. while another culture would have no equivalent concept and naturally its vocabulary becomes inadequate to convey the exact meaning conveyed by the original term.

Perhaps the best way ( in my opinion, the only way! ) to really comprehend what is meant by term cultivation(修) in Falun Dafa is to go through these lectures: http://www.falundafa.org/bul/audio-video/audiovideo_9video.html

Dilip rajeev (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

To me the term simply seems a bit too linked with moral associations and to me seems a bit non-encyclopedic and non-neutral. I'm sure its not intended but somehow reading "cultivated" in terms of the rest of the text seem as if it is proselytizing the religious instead of just providing facts... Sjschen (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dilip rajeev because throughout the article, the word "cultivate" and "cultivation" are used either within quotation marks or in a context where it is clear that the word is being described in the context of Falun Gong. I do however agree with Sjschen that the way parts of the article has been written, carries proselytizing forms. It is just a bit too explanatory, just a bit too apologetic, to be considered encyclopedic, but I have too little time to devote to one single article about one single religious expression and will have to be content with returning every now and then to find that all my revisions have been raked over with salt. Not particularily cultivating, if I allow myself to use that term. PerEdman (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

6-10 Office

In the article, it says that "An extra-constitutional body, the "6-10 Office" was created to "oversee the terror campaign,"[57]", but when i looked at the source cited, http://www.forbes.com/2006/02/09/falun-gong-china_cz_rm_0209falungong.html it said that "The Chinese government's persecution of Falun Gong followers is allegedly run by the notorious Office 6-10,". But the sentence in the article states it as a fact. I propose it be changed to this: "An extra-constitutional body, The "6-10 Office" was allegedly created to "oversee the terror campaign," as I feel this would be more accurate, as the source says nothing about the office being extra-constitutional or even if it actually exists, it just notes hearsay from Falun Gong practitioners. --Ilivetocomment (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we could easily source to Kilgour Matas, or Amnesty International Reports - with no need to introduce "allegedly. " These reports carry entire sections on the 6-10 office. Dilip rajeev (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be cool if you got a Amnesty International Report source that explicitly says that the 6-10 Office exists and is a extra-constitutional body. However, I wouldn't be happy with Kilgour/Matas because they agree with anything Falun Gong says. They are heavily biased towards Falun Gong and Falun Gong practitioners lean heavily on these two guys for credibility. --Ilivetocomment (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

..I remember reading a rather detailed discussion of the 610 office in Amnesty International reports... but here is another source I could find: Congressional-Executive commission on China Annual Report 2008:

“An extrajudicial security apparatus called the 6-10 Office monitors and leads the suppression of groups that the government deems to be `cult organizations,' including groups that self-identify as Christian. ”

"On June 10, 1999, former President Jiang Zemin and Politburo member Luo Gan established an extrajudicial security apparatus called the '6-10 Office.' This entity was charged with the mission of enforcing a ban on Falun Gong and carrying out a crackdown against its practitioners, which commenced on July 22, 1999, when the government formally outlawed the movement. Falun Gong practitioners describe it as a `traditional Chinese spiritual discipline that is Buddhist in nature,' which consists of `moral teachings, a meditation, and four gentle exercises that resemble tai-chi and are known in Chinese culture as `qigong.' ' Tens of millions of Chinese citizens practiced Falun Gong in the 1990s.. "

"Publicly available government documents detail the central role of the 6-10 Office in the persecution of Falun Gong..."

"6-10 Offices throughout China maintain extrajudicial 'transformation through reeducation' facilities that are used specifically to detain Falun Gong practitioners who have completed terms in reeducation through labor (RTL) camps but whom authorities refuse to release. The term `transformation through reeducation' (jiaoyu zhuanhua) describes a process of ideological reprogramming whereby practitioners are subjected to various methods of physical and psychological coercion until they recant their belief in Falun Gong."

Dilip rajeev (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

From.. Congressional-Executive commission on China Annual Report 2008

Gao Zhisheng, a lawyer who has defended various Chinese activists, exposed numerous forms of torture and violence employed by the 6-10 Office against Falun Gong practitioners. Gao describes the 6-10 Office as a "Gestapo-like organization" with "powers that no civilized state in the world would even consider trying to obtain." He further notes that "of all the true accounts of incredible violence that I have heard, of all the records of the government's inhuman torture of its own people, what has shaken me most is the routine practice on the part of the 6-10 Office and the police of assaulting women's genitals." Gao went missing in September 2007 following the public release of a letter he sent to the U.S. Congress and remains in detention at an undisclosed location.

Gao Zhisheng and his family, including children, suffered extreme persecution at the hands of 6-10 office after this.. you can read about it online.. his family managed to escape to US recently. This persecution is very real friend, none of this is "alleged" .. even top journalists like Ian Johnson didn't dare continue in China after writing reports on the persecution .. concerned, in his own words, that the Chinese authorities would have made his life there impossible. The extent of brutality involved and how widespread it is just shocking. Dilip rajeev (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the US government is a good source, can you replace the old source with the new one? And would this be OK for a new sentence: "An extrajudicial entity, the "6-10 Office" was created to head the suppression campaign against Falun Gong. which was allegedly driven by large-scale propaganda through television, newspapers, radio and internet." I think this would be more accurate and succinct. --Ilivetocomment (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'll add the new source. Just to point out - the large-scale media propaganda is a verifiable fact - you get to see, read and experience it every day if you are in China and Human rights organizations have reported extensively on it. I'll be contributing on that section of the article, later today after looking into the Amnesty reports as well. Dilip rajeev (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that really is a much better source for the 6-10 claim. I am very happy that this comment could result in such an improvement of the article. Keep it up! :) PerEdman (talk) 09:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I know man, it sounds better and is way more concise this way because they already mention the media thing earlier in the paragraph. I don't deny that the persecution is happening, but Falun Gong practitioners have kind of turned this article into a very pro-Falun Gong article. The persecution has been magnified by Falun Gong and they claim that things are a lot bigger than they are. The number of deaths in the first year of the banning of Falun Gong is 10 people. This is because most of the arrested Falun Gong practitioners are sent to "reeducation camps" where they work in a attempt to get them to renounce. The Government makes money that way. The Falun Gong media outlets such as The Epoch Times and New Tang Dynasty Television regularly produce propaganda and ad-hominium attacks against the Chinese Government. The Nine Commentaries of the Party is a farce. I'd be happy to debate about it. --Ilivetocomment (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Improving the entire article

I'm interested in looking at ways we can correct the article to make it more neutral. First what needs to happen is to identify what is wrong with it as it stands, if anything, and then do what needs to be done to fix it. I like it less that people think it's pro-Falun Gong than you do. There's a clause called WP:UNDUE though, which I think is a factor here. This talk page isn't the place to debate the topic though. Check out Faluninfo's recent report, if you like, for the year 2008: http://faluninfo.net/article/846/?cid=84. Despite it being a Falun Gong source, I suggest scrutinising it carefully, since it is clearly at a professional standard, and these organisations set up by practitioners to investigate the persecution are acknowledged as legitimate and thorough by independent groups (I have a source for that. David Ownby mentions it several times in his recent book). I　might just add that everything in this article should be traced back to verifiable sources and should be scrupulously referenced. One side benefit of my demanding this is also to avoid what you complain about--like there is something wrong with the article just because it has this information. If it's in reliable sources, it can be talked about to include here. That's not any individuals fault, so it's a poor point of complaint, if you know what I mean. Neutrality is a methodology, not an objective. If you respond, please take up from the first sentence I wrote here, since that's the most important, and while we could discuss the other issues all day, we can make real progress on the concrete issue at hand if we work together.--Asdfg12345 04:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, Glad to see you come around to my way of thinking, he he. But this topic, "how to improve the article", deserves a heading of its own. I hope you forgive me, Asdfg12345 and Dilip rajeev for moving your comment for that reason.

The first thing to remember is that the current version of the article is totally expendable. I don't mean that we should throw everything out, I just mean to say that it would not really do any harm to remove any part of the article. The sources would still be there. I think the next step, the easiest step, would be to start removing things from the article. Entire paragraphs, entire explanations of concepts, and rather link these to already-existing articles on these subjects. For example the excellent information about 6-10 I am sure can be incorporated into some other article on PRC or Chinese Governmental structure or something like that. It is relevant to the FG article, but it doesn't help the FG article to have all that ... data ... inside it, making it hard to read, hard to overview, hard to understand with all these shoots going off in all directions inside it.

The tree of the article needs to be cultivated and pruned. Fewer branches, thicker bole. Less flowery, more robust. This is supposed to be a solid oak to rest on, not a multicolored garden that drags the eye in all directions at once.

Even though we read one article by a Falun Gong or PRC source and we believe it to be professional or verifiable, it would still be a very bad idea to link to the article as it opens you up to criticism of bias. It is not about what the article mentions that we can verify, but about what it does not mention that we thus cannot verify. Therefore it is always better to find a reference as close to the source as possible, rather than tether sweeping statements in Falun Gong-sourced collected material. In my opinion, that is. PerEdman (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi PerEdman. Can you please be more specific about what you mean? I don't believe there is much information about the 610 office in this article, aside from the odd mention. What you say sounds reasonable, I just don't know what you mean by it?--Asdfg12345 13:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Cut. It. Down. Focus on the most important parts. Even though the 6-10 office text is short, it is certainly one of the thinnest branches that makes the article look bushy. PerEdman (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

the 610 office is the agency inside China that has run the whole persecution. None of the rest of the notes about the persecution would be possible without the 610 office; the persecution itself is predicated on the 610 office. And most people wouldn't have even heard of Falun Gong if it weren't for the persecution.--Asdfg12345 14:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I was concerned about the statement from a book review by Philip Cunningham being used in the Academic Views section. WP:RS tells us :"Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." The article[52] is clearly no academic study and my reservations on using the source is strengthened by the fact that its view conflicts with mainstream scholarship and well as that of the book it is reviewing. For now, am removing the particular line. If any of you think, the source does indeed meet WP:RS, is academic and worthy of inclusion, please share your perspective. Dilip rajeev (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have commented on this as well. At least I think I have. PerEdman (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry, my comment was directed at the section "Academic attention" contained links to a single webpage by one Barend ter Haar, which collects non-academic materials and academic materials alike. PerEdman (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Dilip, WP:RS is the guideline, WP:V is the policy. JapanTimes is a valid source as it is a mainstream newspaper, see WP:SOURCES. Cunningham's view is not included as an academic source, but as a respected newspaper: "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications (WP:SOURCES). In other words, you cannot remove it just because it is not a peer-reviewed publication. However, see also "Statements of Opinion" in WP:RS[53]

For now, and until you have presented further arguments, adding material back. PerEdman (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Buddy, this is an academic topic. And academic sources,a ccording to wikipedia, ought to be given a much higher priority over a newspaper book review. The claim in makes conflicts with that of mainstream scholarship. I have pointed out earlier problems in using newspaper articles as a source for academic topics. Such a claim, made has to be supported by a study. A book review published in a newspaper is but a book review - not in anyway an academic source. If we are to cherry pick statements from book reviews and give them undue weightage like this - then we'd soon turn this article into an opinion piece.

Dilip rajeev (talk)

Archive

Might be time to archive pre-2009 threads, this page is getting rather long. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Stance on homosexuality must be mentioned

Talking to homosexual friends, the defamation of homosexuality within the teachings of Li Hongzhi ar every important to represent in an article about Falun Gong as it represents a subject of public interest to someone who comes to this article to find out more about what Falun Gong is, what it stands for, what actions are taken by its practicioners.

Regardless of what you personally, dear reader, believe about representing Li Hongzhis opinions on homosexuality, you can also choose to view this as a way of moderating the reactions that could result either from withholding the stance on homosexuality, and to explain to any newcomer to the article that Falun Gong does not proactively seek to prevent homosexual people from living their own lives.

The subject, however, must be included. As per my humble opinion, of course. If no one else adds the topic to the article before I have the time and energy for it, I will do so myself. PerEdman (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering Li Hongzhi himself describes homosexuality as evil as e.g. murder (Zhuan Falun, lecture one), it would merit at least a mention. Hexmaster (talk) 07:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the issue should be mentioned. However, I would like to make a point about Falun Gong's teachings: Li Hongzhi does not equate homosexuality with murder. In Zhuan Falun, he lists things he considers humankind's vices. As you said, it is important to note that Falun Gong does not promote an anti-homosexual agenda in society, and has never done that. We need to find a way to present this in the article. According to my understanding, in Falun Gong metaphysics, the criterion for a person's "salvation" is his or her attitude towards the persecution. Taken out of context, Falun Gong's conservative stance on how a cultivator should act – i.e. respecting traditional virtues and values – will inevitably cause misunderstandings, because people tend to rely on stereotypes. We need to take the entire corpus of teachings into account; for instance, the following quote (lecture in Los Angeles, 2006):

Disciple asks: How can we save homosexuals more effectively?

Teacher: They are sentient beings, so save them just like the other ordinary sentient beings. Save them if you can, and treat them just like anyone else. The more you regard them as a special group, the less you will be able to save them. Just save them as you would any other persons. Save them if you can. If you can't, then you can't.

Of course, here we must explain what is meant by 'saving people'. Another common misinterpretation is that it means converting them to Falun Gong, while it has nothing to do with changing their spiritual beliefs. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 12:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Olaf, please see my previous comment above. If you have considerations on how to "best" publicize Falun Gong's stance towards homosexuals, you are entirely free to formulate the passage, before someone else does. Go right ahead. PerEdman (talk) 12:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought there was something about this on the teachings page? I don't see the notability here. I believe the term appears twice in Zhuan Falun, among other things that are seen as immoral, and a smattering of other mentions in the thousands of pages of conference transcripts. It must be something less than 1% of the total body of teachings. I guess it warrants a cursory mention, to establish the context of traditional morality that Falun Gong is approaching things with. I just checked the teachings page and there is nothing there--I suggest some notes on it there.--Asdfg12345 14:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It may not be very important to you, Asdfg, or to Li Hongzhi, but it can be ever so important to the people who are likened to murderers and rapists themselves. If it only a smatterling, or even unimportant, or very especially if the claim is simply not true, then this too must be presented in the article so that the reader can satisfy him- or herself that Falun Gong is not indeed trying to hide this opinion, or that it harbors any secret hatreds against homosexuals.

As you must know, similar opinions expressed towards homosexuals, infidels, respectless children and so forth, constitute only a very small percentage also of sacred texts belonging to the large religions, and still these small segments have caused much controversy, even violence. It is only for the best to be open and honest about these things, rather than secretive or denigrating. PerEdman (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we ought not pull out a few lines from 2000+ pages and interpret it through the prism of our own notions. What is said, in my understanding, is that there are certain actions which engender karma and so is ultimately harmful for the those engaging in such actions. There is no hatred against anyone here! Practitioners do not hold any negativity against even have those who have tortured them - and despite all the persecution, they have only used the most peaceful and kind means to help the persecutors understand and to counter the persecution. Remember among these are people who have suffered handicaps as a result of the tortures or even have lost family members. Ownby writes: "violence of any sort is so alien to Falun Gong."

Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That is no argument at all. If we cannot pull a few lines from any of the 2000+ pages, then we might as well not mention the writings at all. In the case of apparent racism and apparent homophobia, it is vital to be transparent on these matters. Being obscure only leads to speculation.

I'm still waiting for someone to write about this. It may not be important to you, but it can be very important to people who ARE gay or come from mixed ethnicities to know that, as you say, Falun Gong pratitions "do not hold any negativity" against them, or against torturers. (Why the comparison to torturers, by the way???) PerEdman (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not comparing them to torturers - how did you come up with that twisted interpretation?!!! Did you miss the "even to" part? If I say that guy is so good he wont hit back even if you hit him let alone go attack someone innocent for no reason - am I comparing the innocent guy to the attacker? What kind of logic is that? Homosexuals are as welcome to practice cultivation as anybody else - but just as a person would have to gradually give up smoking, drinking, promiscuous behavior, drug abuse, jealousy, greed, lust, anger, hatred etc. - he would have to give up his homosexual behavior as well as he progresses in practice. Everyone makes his own choices and whether a person wants to change any aspect of himself is completely the person's own choice. Practitioners absolutely do not discriminate against anyone.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying you harbor any hatred, I am saying that Falun Gong and Li Hongzhi's stance on homosexuality must be mentioned in the article. You brought up hatred, and torturers: "Practitioners do not hold any negativity against even have those who have tortured them". If you, in response to my request, feel you need to state that "Practitioners do not hold any negativity against even have those who have tortured them", well, then I am suddenly confused, because I was not asking about torturers or hatred. That is how I came to make my "twisted" interpretation.

Again I am confused that you bring up homosexual behavior as if it were a bad habit or negative emotion one can just "give up". Is that, perhaps, the view of Falun Gong, that being homosexual is like smoke, drink, be promiscous, abuse drigs, being jeolous, gready, lustful, angry or full of hatred? I could add that to the wikipedia text right now, if you could tell me what source we can use.

As for sources, here is my own: "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."[54] PerEdman (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a big deal to mention this. People have complained about Falun Gong's apparently conservative stance on these things, I'm sure. Just mention their criticism then mention the 'stance' of Falun Gong from faluninfo.net. If this isn't done by the 6th or 7th, I'll do it then.--Asdfg12345 17:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Rick Ross does NOT qualify as a source

Rick Ross's comments come from his personal website [55], and personal sites, by definition, only qualify as sources under strict conditions (see [56]). Ross is not recognised as a "cult expert" by any scientific authority, and his writings have never been published in academic journals; in addition, he has directly cooperated with the Chinese persecutors of Falun Gong, spoken in their seminars in China, and received money from them. (Isn't it curious how five most recent articles on his site seek to "expose" Dalai Lama?) Ross is nearly a stereotypical example of someone whose comments have no place in Wikipedia, except in an article about Rick Ross himself. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 12:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he does and attempting to miscredit him by repeating the unsourced claim that he is "in bed with the CCP" in multiple edit-comments does not make him any less of an expert witness on cults, plus it miscredits YOU. If you were to remove Rick Ross from the list of viable sources, then we must also remove all references made to Barent ter Haar, whose personal webpage acts as a repository for various claims made throughout the article.

I find it perfectly abhorrent how you choose to source some of the claims you make above, but you choose not to source the claim that Ross has "directly cooperated with the Chinese persecutors of Falun Gong, spoken in their seminars in China, and received money from them".

This article is not about Rick Ross, it is about Falun Gong. Therefore an expert on religious cults is a valid source. Now... if you were to add that segment on the attitudes towards homosexuality, you may gain some repute for constructivism, rather than this horrible defamation of valid sources. PerEdman (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

PerEdman, you did not present any external argument that would support Rick Ross's inclusion in this article — whereas Barent ter Haar is Professor, Research Fellow, and Chair of Sinological Institute at Leiden University. "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." [57] What "reliable third-party publication" has published Rick Ross's work? Who in the Academia considers him as an "expert on religious cults"? Please start by giving me even one such reference. Then we can discuss.

Forgive me for not providing you a source about Ross's cooperation with the CCP. Here it is. "The following paper was presented by Rick Ross at the January 2009 International Forum on Cultic Studies [in Shenzhen] sponsored by the the Centre for the Study of Destructive Cults in China and published by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences." ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 13:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Olaf, You did not present any source about Ross's cooperation with the CCP, instead you hand me a paper presented at a school in China? I'm sorry, that's just not sufficient for the slanderous accusations you are making from excluding a source from a wikipedia article. For information on Rick Ross, I would direct you primarily to the wikipedia page on the man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Ross_(consultant) - Speaking of which, the Rick A Ross institute, would you consider that to be a self-published page of such a magnitude that you would find it an acceptable source, even if it were ... critical?

The material quoted from Barent ter Haar's webpage is not all written by himself, but it is referenced from this Wikipedia page to Barent ter Haar's own webspace, which still makes it inappropriate. That ter Haar's own material is quoted from there is just perfect. Just as Rick Ross should be quoted from his own webpage, when he is making his opinion known. PerEdman (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

PerEdman, Ross obviously doesn't qualify as a reliable source, Olaf has enumerated reasons. The views he holds are also clearly minority, and often (and particularly in the case of Ross) indistinguishable from those of the CCP. I know you want to get some dirt on Falun Gong, but you'll need to dig a bit deeper, I think. If there's something out there in peer-reviewed journals, it must be waiting for you to find it.--Asdfg12345 14:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg, Ross obviously does qualify as a reliable source and baseless slander of an academic source included under an "academic attention" section is just inexcusable. This article is about Falun Gong and the section is about academic attention, of course academic attention, positive and negative, should be in this section of this article. Though as we both know, the real heading should be another, one that is mysteriously missing from the article. I want you and Olaf to stop trying to put dirt up on ANYONE who adds a speck of criticism to this page. Rick Ross is one such example. Cunningham is another one. I suppose that is also what you are trying to do to me when you say I know you want to get some dirt on Falun Gong as you cannot possibly know any such thing. And besides - how can Rick Ross's opinion in any way, shape or form be construed as "dirt" on the movement he harbors this opinion towards? It cannot, as the opinion is his.

I think you might be rather be thinking about my opinion that Li Hongzis opinion of homosexuals should be included in the article? I might agree that's a bit dirty but believe, just as Olaf seems to do, that it can still be done in an apropriate manner.

If you have anything RELEVANT against Rick Ross as a source, I suggest you bring it up immediately. Slander is not a valid reason to keep criticism out of a Wikipedia article. PerEdman (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

PerEdman, Ross has no academic qualifications. I agree what you say about positive and negative is the same in terms of reporting academic attention, as in, we don't pick things based on what they say, only who says it. That's the reason there is resistance to Ross. He runs his own website and makes money from advertising himself as an expert. He attends CCP conferences and speaks at them, and uses the same language as the CCP in talking about Falun Gong. His stuff is self-published, and he does not appear in peer-reviewed journals. He's operating outside the academia in his work. You may also know that he's has been convicted for kidnapping, a highly controversial figure, honestly. He himself is not a reliable source, and is promoting a definitively fringe view of Falun Gong.The cult label should be treated on these pages in the terms in which it is treated in the reliable sources. Apart from this view (that the cult label was a red herring, objectively inaccurate and merely politically expedient), there may be others. That is called a fringe view. Find a good academic on it who gives some analysis with a negative slant and let's use that, at least it will be admissible. I didn't delete the Cunningham reference; don't confuse me with Dilip, please.--Asdfg12345 21:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have any relevant criticism of Rick Ross, I suggest you add them to the wikipage on the person, rather than repeatedly delete any references to the man on the Falun Gong wikipage. You have no sources for your claims, and you are making all this speculation only on the grounds of Rick Ross's statements about Falun Gong. You even went so far as to claim that I am looking for "dirt" on Falun Gong by refusing to have Rick Ross statement about Falun Gong removed from the Falun Gong webpage. You are not being objective here, Asdfg.

Then you say "Find a good academic on it who gives some analysis with a negative slant and let's use that, at least it will be admissible." and again you are obviously misconstruing me. I am not looking for "a negative slant". I am looking to have critical sources included in this wikipedia article, and I am being hindered by smear campaigns, repeated reverts, major edits marked as minor, and rule-page bashing. PerEdman (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

We have referred to several Wikipedia policies that do not allow Rick Ross's inclusion into the article. Either you present your argument in a similar fashion, or you don't edit. It's quite simple. Take a look at this arbitration case. [58] There is nothing wrong with the behaviour of those who try to stop illicit edits on the basis of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I have been consistent with the approach I've taken on this article, and I've never been criticised by the arbitration committee. On the other hand, people who have not been able to justify their controversial edits through what you call "rule-page bashing" have been banned indefinitely before. You have not answered to any of our concerns about Rick Ross, and I know you really can't, because he does not have even low-ranking academic credentials, and he hasn't been published by any reputable outsiders. He is not a "critical source"; he's just "critical", and not doing a very good job at that, either. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 07:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Olaf,

What is wrong is referencing the article without being specific in your criticism. Combine this with slander of the source, and you lose any credibiltiy. In this thread, you have only referenced WP:V, self-published section. I would look closer at guideline WP:RS which allows, among other things: "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" - this is Rick Ross. He is not sourced as an academic source, he is sourced as an expert in his field. To dismiss him from this based on accusations of illegal behavior would be original research ( Wikipedia:No_original_research ). I would also contest the implicit claim that CultNews is Rick Ross's personal webpage. It is the webpage of an organization he has created, that much is true, but it is not a self-published personal webpage in the meaning implied in policy WP:V. The concept being similar to using the FalunDafa.org webpage as a source for Li Hongzhi's statements, opinions and actions (covered under WP:SELFPUB ).

WP:RS also states "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources." and "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."

Relevant to this article, this means that Wikipedia articles should be based more on secondary sources such as Cunninham, Ross and Thornton than FalunDafa.org and Clearwisdom.net which are primary sources. And because we are talking about Ross's opinion, it is also relevant to point out that WP:RS states "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact.", which is also relevant to the NYT source to Li Hongzhi's comments on interracial children.

For these reasons to Rick Ross's benefit and the lack of relevant criticism against him as a source, I restore the quotation to the article.PerEdman (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This is getting a bit silly. Please just respond to this: he does not have even low-ranking academic credentials, and he hasn't been published by any reputable outsiders -- what do you say?--Asdfg12345 17:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I repeat Asdfg's request. "[...] whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". What are these "reliable third-party publications" in Ross's case? How many more times do we have to reiterate this?

On a side note, I am majoring in the "relevant field" (religious studies). I have never seen a reference to Rick Ross's work in anything I've studied; likewise, I've never heard anybody in my field call him an "expert". I'm not saying that Rick Ross wouldn't make good study material — anthropologists have studied all kinds of human behaviour from quirky tribal rites to karaoke bars — but suggesting that his work has any value as a secondary source is not only misguided; it is preposterous. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Racism and Racial Segregation

I've seen quotes from Li Hongzhi where he has said that children of mixed 'race' are "unclean" and where he has stated that the after-life is racially segregated. I have also heard second hand accounts stating that he has further said that the racially segregated after-life is ranked with better post-death fates for certain ethnicities. I edit from work and most sites about ARGs are blocked so I can't effectively search for the quote. Could somebody lend a hand?Simonm223 (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere is any term with any connotation as "unclean" or anything even remotely carrying such connotation used. I am sure you would seen this claim made in some CCP related website - they can't find anything wrong with Falun Gong - so they resort to ridiculous misrepresentations, like these, to bolster their propaganda campaign.

Buddhists traditions and Daoist traditions ( and many Indian traditions as well ) have a world-view in which a hierarchy of dimensions are present - systems or ordering in a plane, never arising coincidentally, but as a natural, physical consequence of a deeper, higher dimensional ordering. All that is said, in passing, is that the ordering of this plane of the cosmos has to do with how more microcosmic, higher dimensional planes are ordered - and racial ordering here, as well, exists not by mere chance. Many inter-racial people practice cultivation - So Very Many. What is mentioned in the teachings is that mixing of races, on this scale, is a fairly recent phenomenon. It is also said that mixed race people can practice cultivation all the same, and it is said, very clearly, that it is neither their fault nor their parents' - but just has got to do with chaotic cosmic phenomenon beyond their control. Interracial marriages are, in fact, not uncommon among practitioners .

Dilip rajeev (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong is not racist. Spit out the bait you accidentally swallowed. I've been practicing for eight years, and I've noticed that mixed-race marriages among practitioners (esp. Caucasians <-> Chinese) seem to be more common than in population at large. I have never heard a practitioner utter a racist slur. Moreover, I've seen hundreds of practitioners of mixed-race origin.

For more information, take a look at the following accurate description of Falun Gong's "stance" in these controversial issues [59]:

Knowing the democratic West to be a tolerant, pluralistic, and diverse place, Chinese authorities have sought to brand Falun Gong as contrary to these basic values. In a word, they’ve sought to cast it as “intolerant.” Several journalists have taken the bait.

The characterization is patently misleading, and rests solely upon an outsider’s uninformed interpretation of doctrine. It’s found to be at odds with lived practice.

Consider the first of the two major issues Chinese authorities cite: an alleged intolerance of homosexuality. (We can’t help but note the irony of China’s communist rulers having until recently banned homosexuality, labeling it a mental disorder.)

Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are welcomed by the practice just like anyone else, and not accorded any different treatment. Whether they continue to live that lifestyle, or self-identify with that term, is solely a personal choice and not something anyone in Falun Gong would force upon the individual. Central to Falun Gong is the making of one’s own decisions.

Falun Gong’s teachings do suggest that certain behaviors, including homosexuality, generate more karma than others or are not conducive to certain aspirations in the practice. But this it is left at the level of teaching, and not a creed or regulation. How one understands a given teaching, and to what extent he or she applies it, is always a personal matter.

A second, related point that must be emphasized is that Falun Gong’s teachings on this and other matters do not equate to a “position statement” or “stance” on some social issue. They are intended solely for the individual aspirant, and to be applied to his or her own life; they are not meant to be applied to others, much less non-practitioners. Falun Gong does not have any position on what other people should or shouldn’t do with their lives. It simply offers its teachings on personal change to whomever is interested in its path to spiritual growth.

What holds true for homosexuality holds true for interracial marriage, if not more so. Falun Gong’s teachings have little to say about the matter. What several journalists have picked up on, prompted by Chinese state media intimations, is the presence of one passage in one book where Falun Gong’s founder mentions the issue in passing.

Regrettably the said journalists didn’t temper their own, outsider’s reading of that passage with investigation or evidence. They failed to check with any living, actual persons who do Falun Gong, preferring, seemingly, to not let a sensational reading of the passage be spoiled by evidence to the contrary.

Had they looked into the matter, they would have found their assumptions to be just that, assumptions. Many who practice Falun Gong have married individuals of a different race after taking up the practice. Of the 14 individuals who make up the Information Center’s staff, fully 4 fall into this category. If Falun Gong teaches racial segregation, it’s doing a poor job of it.

If the practice does not breed racial intolerance in the life of the individual, one might readily imagine how much less so it translates into a general “stance” on interracial marriage in society.

The two most frequently cited forms of “intolerance” end up suggesting, upon closer examination, just the opposite. Indeed, if anything, it would seem that something in Falun Gong is instead conducive to greater tolerance.

✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Essays on Falun Gong practice aside the truth is that I have read quotes from Li Hongzhi on the issue of racial segregation, as I said previously, I just can't find them right now. Please next time you don't have the information I requested it would be sufficient for you to say that you don't believe you have ever read such material. Furthermore please refrain from making personal attacks when you speak to me. It is unwelcome and inappropriate. Thank you very much. Simonm223 (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Found the quote. It was in the new york times in 2000 and was a quote of a statement made by Li Hongzhi in an interview in 1999. I have added the appropriate quote to the "Teachings of Falun Gong" page and will add balancing comments in order to maintain neutrality. As this is a direct quote taken from a source that IIRC does meet Wikipedia's reference standards I ask that it not be removed. I will endeavor to make sure the presentation is neutral.Simonm223 (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Simonm223, we're going to need a date reference ... wait, I just realized this is talk about different wikipage. Going to that Talk page now. PerEdman (talk) 09:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Academic analysis - Ownby, Schechter, etc. never mention anything to such an effect - and these works carry extensive analysis of the Teachings. They don't find anything suggestive of any form of racism or segregation. For a tabloid or a newspaper, such mis-characterization does not count for much. But for an encyclopaedic article, which ought to be of high enough quality to serve as an academic source, such far-fetched claims, unless supported by mainstream academia, in my opinion, are to be avoided. What is said in the teachings has to be understood in the context of over 2000 pages of teachings. If the teachings present, like many Indian and Chinese Traditions, a world-view of a Cosmic Ordering in which is present a hierarchy of material dimensions, and organization in this material dimension arising as a natural consequence of how the system is organized in higher, more microcosmic dimensions, and the teachings, in passing, mention something about racial ordering ( something that occupies just a para or so in over 2000 pages of the teachings ) in this plane arising as a natural consequence of a higher ordering - it has to be presented in the appropriate context - and not be exaggerated and presented in a distorted, out of context and misleading manner. A journalist might do this - sensationalism is part of his job, and he is no position to analyze things in a scholarly manner or to make an academic statement on the issue. But a true Scholar won't - as is evidenced by that prominent scholarly studies of the teachings do not make any such claims.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

In australia in 1999 Li Hongzhi told followers of his religion that children of interracial ancestry could only get into heaven through his graces. He said that there were separate heavens segregated by colour. How is this not racism?Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Dilip, The New York Times does reach wikipedia's reference standards. That Ownby and Schechter do, too, is not a reason to not allow the NYT as a valid source. The quotation may therefore be included in context. PerEdman (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, "is not an indescriminate collection of information". What is presented in the NYT article is but a particular journalist's characterization - who is by no means an expert on the topic. For outrageous claims like these - like that it is said mixed-race people are all "spawn" of this period ( which is a ridiculously misleading representation) - which completely conflicts with what academics say about Falun Gong; and is not supported by scholarly sources and also , by no means, the original source - we must exercise great caution, lest we end up misleading the reader. Highest quality scholarship available on the topic all tell us Falun Gong is a peaceful form of self-belief - what does a particular journalist's sensationalist comments count for, in the face of all that academic analysis?

"Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred to provide proper context, where available." - WP:RS .. This article obviously is not a study.. The claim made by the journalist is not even a study, is quite far-fetched and the tone of writing is very misleading as well. Remember, a journalist is no position to pass scholarly comments on the topic. We cannot include every journalist's interpretation and comments in an encyclopaedic article. Further the article, written in 2000 could easily have been influenced by CCP propaganda, which had then infiltrated many western news agencies, according to analysts like Schechter.

"Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text."..."For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. For example, news reports often fail to adequately report methodology, errors, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment."..."An individual extremist or fringe source[this is not a fringe source but the claim made is obviously a fringe theory] may be entirely excluded if there is no independent evidence that it is prominent enough for mention. Fringe and extremist sources must not be used to obscure or describe the mainstream view, nor used to indicate a fringe theory's level of acceptance." - WP:RS

Considering these wiki-policies, and the completely non-academic tone of the content being added, I am of the firm opinion that such sensationalist material ought not be added in without context. For the reasons I adumbrate here, I am keeping it out of the article for now.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Dilip the article in question was not a "journalist's characterization". It was a direct quote of statements made by Li Hongzhi.Simonm223 (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

See.. the article ended up misleading you as well. It is not a direct quote. Nor is it even a paraphrase. Using terminology, never found in the teachings like "spawn of" - if anything, it is a very biased and intentional/sensationalist mis-characterization. You may verify this for yourself. The lectures are available online. Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because Mr. Li didn't write it down in Zhuan Falun doesn't mean it isn't part of what he taught when he said those things to his followers in australia in 1999. PS: If conversation must continue on this subject can we please do so in Talk:Teachings of Falun Gong?Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The 1999 Lecture in Australia is available on FalunDafa.org as well. You may go through the lecture and verify for yourself.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Dilip, I am afraid Wikipedia cannot possible accept the word of a FalunDafa.org webpage instead of the New York Times, on the word of Li Hongzhi during an interview and I am sure you can understand why. PerEdman (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] To make things easier. Here are the articles: [60] and here is the lecture from Australia taught on 1999: [61]. People who practice Falun Dafa, will read these articles, they will not consider any writing as being genuine even if another practitioner would give it to them, not to mention if it just happened to appear in a newspaper. So for what the teachings are this is the only reliable source. Is there a thread open on this subject on the Teachings page? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

HIG, I am sure you too can see the problem of using a Falun Dafa webpage in place of a New York Times article for sourcing controversial statements made by Li Hongzhi. PerEdman (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

PerEdman, it is not using nyt as a source that I have a problem with. but the non-contextual manner in which the material is currently presented. We need to keep in mind that the source is a newspaper article. WP:RS itself tells us: "Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context".

Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Dilip rajeev, Please read MORE of the text in WP:RS, for example the part about allowing even for opinion pieces. Or even the start of the paragraph you chose to quote so selectively:

For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. For example, news reports often fail to adequately report methodology, errors, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment. -WP:RS

There will never be a complete context inside the wikipedia article itself - that is why we have references; so we do not have to reproduce everything on wikipedia. A wiki page cannot tell people what to believe, but it can show them the sources so that people can make up their own minds.

Nor can you read WP: guidelines as you read a holy writ. Just because WP:RS makes the reservation that newspapers can misrepresent results or report discoveries (this about scientific discoveries, nb) does not mean that you can just quote that part, out of context, as an argument against the quotation presented by Simonm223.

If you believe context is missing, add context but do it in the wikipedia spirit, and please don't just remove the claim. PerEdman (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times article is explicitly referring to the Australian lecture in 1999, therefore it is the stated original source. Apart from what is available on falundafa.org, Falun Dafa does not have any additional lectures. Every interpretation has been made on the basis of these same lectures, transcribed word-for-word from Li Hongzhi's speech. PerEdman seems confused about "the word of Li Hongzhi during an interview"; this is not what the New York Times article is talking about. If there is an obvious discrepancy between the lectures and any derivative sources, which one do you think is correct? And if we choose to include such text from a derivative source, how should we articulate this discrepancy in the Wikipedia article? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 07:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Olaf, Simonm223 was not talking about the content of the lecture itself. I will assume you missed it, so here's a quote: "Found the quote. It was in the new york times in 2000 and was a quote of a statement made by Li Hongzhi in an interview in 1999.", to which he also attached a publication date and in the article, a link. Yes, the article refers to a lecture in Australia, but the quote was not from the lecture, it was from an interview in connection with the lecture. This is also obvious from reading the NYT article. I do not believe the interview is a part of the lecture, or listed on the Falun Dafa webpage.

In the hypothetical event that we have two sources and only two sources that are both reliable and relevant for an event, then both sources can be given exposure. WP:Undue, remember. "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."

In this specific event however, we have the NYT source.[62]

In an interview last year, he said each race has its own paradise, and he later told followers in Australia that, The yellow people, the white people, and the black people have corresponding races in heaven. As a result, he said, interracial children have no place in heaven without his intervention.

For what valid reason should this interview source be left out or ignored for the benefit of a Falun Dafa webpage's claim that Li Hongzhi has only ever said what is listed on their webpage? PerEdman (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an obscure point. Why don't we just have some language like "Journalists have criticised as overly conservative Li's remarks on topics such as interracial marriage and homosexuality; Falun Gong claims that Li's speeches have often been taken out of context and misunderstood." -- the references there would be faluninfo.net, and the NYT source. This would be broadly summing up their arguments and presenting them in a simple way for the reader. What are the thoughts about this kind of approach? Given the enormous amount of different, actually notable things on this topic--and for example, the fact that many of the books and journal articles on the subject don't even mention these contentions at all (Ownby's recent, for example)--I'd have a bit of a hard time understanding why such an obscure point of contention would be given much more than a sentence.--Asdfg12345 17:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

About the Qigong and beyond section.

HappyInGeneral just restored this section after it was removed, stating that there was nothing on the talk page about it. Now, I don't know why it was removed either, but I can say that I did not miss it. Look at the page in its entirety. Notice anything in particular about it? What I first note is how incredibly long it is. The section about "qigong and beyond" read like a handbook to me, it was unencyclopedic and somewhat rambling. I'm not entirely in favor of removing it wholesale, but I am in favor of shortening the entire article to make it more readable. I'm currently going through the refs, so I won't have time for such a massive rewrite any time soon, but if anyone has any ideas on sections that may be duplicates, that may contain too much quoted material, or is just too wordy, I encourage you to Be Brave and try to remove those sections to see if the text is better, or worse, without them.

Thank you. PerEdman (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorporating criticism

Hello fellow co-editors. Please, as I just have, read through the page Wikipedia:Criticism and discuss it. The current "Academic attention" segment is to me a clear "Criticism" section and just changing its name to "Academic attention" instead, which is then used to refuse to include non-academic sources of criticism, is just not an acceptable state of affairs.

Instead, read the Wikipedia:Criticism article, in particular the parts that deal with using a separate criticism section, and what Jimbo W means to be the better alternative: Spreading positive and negative criticism throughout the article, so that a neutral point of view permeates the text and we avoid the "troll magnet" we have in the section today... by first pushing all criticism into the section, then moving the section out to a separate article, then wanting to delete that article, then re-adding some of the material to the article... and so on. Let's instead integrate the text in the "Academic attention" section, into the rest of the text. Thank you. PerEdman (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You have to admit, they're really good at what they do. Their way to weasling through Wikipedia policies is truly textbook. Someone should write a book on how to crawl thru wiki policy just on the verge of violating it, but using some seemingly logical argumentation to sustain a clear agenda masked by "neutrality". Everything from "controversial" or "criticism" was deleted, the only critical phrase under "academic attention" is immediately discredited, and every time something criticizing FLG in the slightest way is removed, with or without supporting arguments. One really doesn't have to look far to find the truth behind Falun Gong thru the eyes of third-party observers. Simply do a search on Google with the right keywords. Colipon+(T) 04:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I did a Google search with the "right keywords" and found this page. I may be getting personal, but I'd like you to elaborate a bit on the words "I am currently not affiliated with any political organizations, but have been in the past". You are a native of Nanjing, so can we deduce that you have been a member of the Chinese Communist Party? Why are you linking to Shanghai Expo, Xinhua.net and other CCP sites? This is just something I'd like to know. I'm playing my cards openly. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, I am an agent trying to perpetuate propaganda. Why else would I be here day and night?

In all seriousness, Olaf, you can discredit me all you'd like, I really don't care. With the state of affairs here I don't even plan on editing the article, so discredit me all you like. I just want a third-party editor, admin, organization, whatever it may be, to come and inspect the state of this article. If you are so confident that this article passes the NPOV test you should easily agree to this proposition.

I'm calling to attention the fact that NPOV in this article is absolutely non-existent, and the FLG-POV flavour is to an extent unseen anywhere else on Wikipedia. Colipon+(T) 00:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe you are an agent; I've seen them before, and they generally behave in a way that's very different from you. But I believe you may be someone who's had strong CCP sympathies in the past, and I know that recently you have chosen to link to Xinhua from your user page — all the while "a neutral-minded editor" has become your catch phrase. Honestly speaking, it doesn't matter who you are and what you think, as long as you play by the rules. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Gentlepersons, please discuss the suggestion under this heading, rather than whether one of you is an agent of either organization or googling one another's names. Olaf, I believe you are out of line. PerEdman (talk) 11:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

PerEdman's new, shorter Lede

Dilip Rajeev, you wanted to talk to me about the new lede and my choice of removing the explicit references made to sources throughout the lede? I started by going to WP:LEDE guideline which suggests that "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." and I felt that yes, we were doing that already, but we were taking up much too much space in doing so, breaking: "The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article.". We HAVE all the source we need for our statements, there is simply no reason to inject them into the text as well. I see for example that you re-added the paragraph that starts with '"Falun Gong has five sets of qigong exercises, and teaches the principles truthfulness, compassion, and forbearance"', which I had chosen to incorporate into the lede itself, like this:

"Falun Gong has five sets of qigong exercises and teaches the principles truthfulness, compassion and forbearance (眞，善，忍) as set out in the main books Falun Gong"

I thought that was an excellent idea, but you apparently did not agree, and not only re-added the paragraph itself, duplicating data, but also removing my version of the paragraph. Now, I have no prestige over this, but I sincerely still believe that my version was a glimpse of a new, more accessible Falun Gong article, easier on the eye. And I did not really remove anything, I just rearranged it and let the references stand for themselves rather than be completely duplicated within the text. So for these reasons, Dilip, and waiting for your comments on the matter, I will revert back to the version I had written, so that others can comment as well. PerEdman (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I missed that I was wondering where that paragraph disappeared.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you slow down a bit and discuss your changes on talk - that would very much help avoid such confusions. Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I am doing this as slowly as I can while still actually doing something, Dilip. If I do it any slower, there will be no changes made, and we won't be Bold in editing. I'm very confused here though. I make an edit and a Talk page post to discuss the new lede, and all you're worried about, the only thing you bring up to discussion, is that you wondered where the paragraph went, or that things are moving too fast? Does that mean you approve, or that you disapprove, or that you have no opinion on the new, shorter lede? If you have any relevant criticism, I'm sure you can anchor that criticism in guidelines. If there is a guideline that states that paragraphs should not be rewritten if they've been up for a long time, or that discussion on a talk page about a change must take place before the very discussion about the change, or that slowness is a virtue in Wikipedia, by all means, baffle me!

I haven't dared look since 2 July 2009, but I will just assume that you, HappyInGeneral or ASDFG12345 chose to remove my new, shorter lede without even trying, as you did, to actually discuss it first. Please tell me I am wrong in this, before I go look for myself. PerEdman (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you please provide some diffs or a "copy/paste" on what your version exactly is. For example I really don't see any problem with the sentence you provided above. "Falun Gong has five sets of qigong exercises and teaches the principles truthfulness, compassion and forbearance (眞，善，忍) as set out in the main books Falun Gong". Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 04:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Richardson/Edelman

I am removing the claims sourced to James T Richardson and Bryan Edelman article "Imposed limitations on freedom of religion in China and the margin of appreciation doctrine: a legal analysis of the crackdown on the Falun Gong and other "evil cults""[63] in Journal of Church and State since I have now read the article and found that it does not support the claims made on the wikipedia page. The Falun Gong page used to read:

"the cult label applied to Falun Gong has no "empirical verification or general acceptance in the scientific community," and is merely a label that has been conveniently used to ban the practice."

Whereas Edelman and Richardson's article reads on page 11:

"As described above, ACM ideology assents that the cult threat poses a serious danger to society. However, most of the claims put forth by the ACM lack empirical verification or general acceptance within the scientific community. (73) However, China has incorporated many ACM theories into its campaign against the Falun Gong. The China Association for Science and Technology concluded that (emphasis added):"

...where ACM is the authors' initialism for "the Western Anti-Cult Movement", defined on page 8 as:

"According to state representatives, the Falun Gong and other groups targeted by the government are "cults," not spiritual or religious groups. (54) As discussed below, Chinese authorities appear to have borrowed heavily from the Western Anti-Cult Movement (ACM) to support the claim that such groups are not entitled to legal protections. (55)"

Because the article sourced does not agree with the claim made in the article, I felt it best to remove the claim entirely rather than try to reformulate the claim to fit the source better. Besides, doing so would likely have been original research.

Having sourced claims that are not actually supported by the sources is a very, very bad situation for any Wikipedia article so I am glad that I was able to find the original source for this reason. PerEdman (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe a good faith approach on your part would have been to, as you see it, correct the explanation of Edelman/Richardson's view, rather than simply delete it. Of course it wouldn't be original research to do that. I don't have time to argue for the original formulation, or come up with a new one. Hope to be able to do my part to remedy it in a few more days, when I have time.--Asdfg12345 17:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed this remark of yours above: "If you believe context is missing, add context but do it in the wikipedia spirit, and please don't just remove the claim. PerEdman (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)" -- to be blunt, simply deleting this reference therefore smacks of hypocrisy.--Asdfg12345 17:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, I did try to think up a way of incorporating the actual Edelman/Richardson view, but it would not have improved the article as it would have become too convoluted. What Edelman and Richardson criticise is not the application of the cult label on Falun Gong; their criticism is rather that something they call the (western) Anti-Cult Movement is incorrect in assenting that"the cult threat poses a serious danger to society". So you see it is not the application of the label that is false according to Edelman and Richardsson, but the assumption that cults are serious threats to society.

In the end I argued that it is much more important to remove a possibly false reference than to build a new paraphrasing of an article that is much more complex than it has been referenced as. Should we devote a whole section of the Falun Gong wikipage to describing what Edelman and Richardson think of the Anti-Cult Movement, or who they believe the Anti-Cult Movement are? Of course not.

If you do not have time to argue for the original formulation or come up with a new one, then I hope you on 2 July 2009 did not in fact revert my edit while you waited to come up with such a formulation. In fact, when I returned here on 25 July, the OLD formulation was back, with a reference to "the conclusion" of the article. I fail to see how I was being hypocritical there. I made an edit and I brought it to the talk page. How should I have done - please reference wikipedia guidelines here - to avoid being "hypocritical"? PerEdman (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, if the cult label was "borrowed" from ACM and ACM lacks "empirical verification or general acceptance in the scientific community," and the CCP "borrowed" this "to support the claim that such groups are not entitled to legal protections" then as I see it

"the cult label applied to Falun Gong has no "empirical verification or general acceptance in the scientific community," and is merely a label that has been conveniently used to ban the practice."

is a good and honest summary. If you see this as WP:OR, please provide an alternative. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 04:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No using Rick Ross

In previous discussions, it was clearly established that rick ross is not an acceptable source for the article. Peredman, before you repeatedly add such stuff in, please make clear your rationale and attempt to get consensus. In my opinion the source is, in no way, acceptable. Here is about rick-ross from a webpage:

".. a review of his educational background shows that quite apart from being anti-Christian (he refers to Christians as “Bible bangers”) has no religious educational credentials whatsoever. To the contrary, his only formal education is a high school diploma. Self-aggrandizement and personal financial reward seem to be Ross’ primary motive for his attacks on Christians and members of other faiths... an unbiased review of Ross’ activities overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that Ross systematically engages in anti-social and often illegal activity" [64]

Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

First, I don't think that www.religiousfreedomwatch.org does not really qualifies as a RS for who is a good experts in cults, what with being sponsored by the Church of Scientology to bash anyone that has ever criticized the church[65][66].

Second, after reading Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_34#Rick_Ross_on_Falun_Gong, which seems to be the most recent discussion in WP:RSN about Ross, although Rick Ross (consultant) is a "cult expert" and that should qualify him for opinating here, I reluctantly have to agree that we shouldn't use his opinion unless he gets mentioned in some RS as being an expert or a notable opinion in Falun Gong. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree about www.religiousfreedomwatch.org. Dilip should keep himself to the same standards he requires of others.

As for Rick Ross and the discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard — sorry, I just have to say this, but I told you guys. Way too many of our editors don't seem to have the faintest clue about the Wikipedia policies and guidelines and what they entail. Some of us have been editing these articles for almost five years, and it gets rather tiresome to see people attempt the same old stuff over and over again. Keeping the disrupting editors in check takes time, and I'm sure everybody has plenty of other things to attend to. Please get acquainted with the rules from now on. Thank you.

(On a side note, it is interesting how the words of these complete outsiders and Wikipedia experts — who cannot be argued to have any conflict of interest in this topic whatsoever — greatly resemble what I and Asdfg12345 have always said about acceptable sources. I encourage you to read the original WP:RSN thread. Did you notice how User:PCPP made no attempt to bring the content and result of this discussion into our awareness, even though he directly named three editors, including myself?) ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 16:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The RSN doesn't seem to share your opinion of Rick Ross, Olaf Stephanos. Not once did they mention his criminal background or that he is an agent of the CCP, so I do not believe you did tell us. I'm sure it must be tiring to edit the same old stuff for five years, I know how tiring it gets in just five weeks. PerEdman (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is WP:RSN not sharing Olaf's opinion? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

To all those looking to restore NPOV

Let me be clear. There has been 24 archives of this talk page, the discussions around this article have largely remained consistent through the ages, and the controversies surrounding it are not going away. Falun Gong is a controversial movement. The fact that they distribute pamphlets, put on artistic productions, solicit people on streets, run newspapers, etc. is very well known. The internet propaganda battle between the Communist Party of China and Falun Gong is not one on which Wikipedia should take sides, but should examine from a reasoned, calm, and impartial perspective. Both sides have been shown to disrupt edits on Wikipedia, with the CPC apologists hovering around articles dealing with Tibet and the Olympics last year, and with Falun Gong supporters whitewashing almost all pages related to themselves. A scan through Wikipedia, and you will find some amusing results. The CPC's propaganda campaign has evidently failed on Wikipedia (see article on "Tibet"), but Falun Gong's propaganda campaign has been vastly successful (see article on Li Hongzhi). So successful that today, this very article, clearly biased in favour of Falun Gong, has not a mention of the controversy surrounding it, and does not even have the elusive Wikipedia tag of "This article's neutrality is disputed".

I want to remind the editors that wish to insert material onto this article to present a neutral point of view. It will be deleted or altered, often without you knowing. Either that or someone will come onto this talk page and attempt to use some kind of intellectual argumentation to stall the edits, and then tire you out until you give up. Whatever sources the neutral editors provide, the Pro-FLG editors will dispute, ad nauseum. To see whether or not what I am saying can be substantiated, take a good read through the vast archives of this talk page.

For all the neutral-minded editors reading this, it is clear that more concrete action needs to be taken. I am not a big expert on Wikipedia policies, but if anyone has any suggestions on anything that can be done, please point it out here. The state of the article is so clearly in need of attention that simply further editing the article in the hope of a compromise would be naive; it would be justified to approach Wikipedia's top administrators. For now, I am adding on the tag that the neutrality of this article is disputed (really, I should be adding the tag "this article has multiple issues"). I will be surprised if it is not taken down within a few hours. All the best. -Colipon+(T) 20:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Some food for thought: [67] [68] Colipon+(T) 00:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Objectivity and neutrality are methods, not end goals in themselves. These articles do not become fair and balanced by giving equal weight to low-ranking (or substandard) and high-ranking sources. The most reputable sources usually try to understand Falun Gong without resorting to sensationalism, and that's why the article may inevitably seem biased to those with skewed notions.

I know your history on these pages, Colipon, and you have never come across as a "neutral-minded editor". In several instances, you have been unable to defend your position on this discussion page; perhaps you have grown bitter. I hope I'm not offending you, but I agree you are "not a big expert on Wikipedia policies". I honestly suggest you devote some time to familiarise yourself with them. If you really do that, I'm sure we can find a way to get along and cooperate. I am planning to get more involved with these pages once again, and my stated objective has always been to eventually make this a featured article. We need people with all kinds of perspectives, as long as they are willing to play fair.

I don't agree with the conduct of some pro-FLG editors, but the most severe problems have been caused by those who have tried to use these articles as an ideological platform for anti-FLG struggle. Some of them have been banned indefinitely by the Arbcom. We have repeatedly asked other editors to take advantage of peer-reviewed journals and other first class references, and we'll absolutely not let these articles turn into a dumping ground for personal websites and half-truths that have been refuted and exposed by considerably higher ranking academic sources. That said, we should certainly incorporate different viewpoints in proportion to their true relevance. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 14:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Really, from having had past discussions with you, Olaf, I really don't need to refute what you are saying. What you did in that last comment was to resort to the "stall-argumentation" (they call it "Wikilawyering" here.) technique used by various pro-FLG editors on this page, and then attack me for being "not neutral". To that all I have to say, let someone else who is on neither side of the debate, let a third-party administrator come on here and preside over the editing of this page. Anyone who is third-party can just look at the history of this page to see what has gone on. Do a thorough investigation. It is really sad that the pro-FLG editors understand wiki policy a lot better than the people that come on here to try and curb the FLG agenda once in a while.

This is the sign of an editor who has exhausted his options, and asking those who are looking to restore NPOV to think of more concrete ways of doing it. Colipon+(T) 17:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikilawyering

The pro-FLG editors clearly fit all the following criteria of Wikilawyering, specifically #2. To substantiate this claims really all I need to do is look for someone that is a third-party expert of this policy to come onto this page and just read the discussion.

1. Using formal legal terms in an inappropriate way when discussing Wikipedia policy;
2. Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles;
3. Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express;
4. Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.

Colipon+(T) 17:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Gross misuse of the term

It does not help your case to dig up a term and appropriate it in a way that's explicitly described as its misuse on the very same page [69] (emphasis mine):

As any pejorative, the term is easily misused. As any pejorative, it is an offense towards a fellow Wikipedian. At the same time, the notions of offense (in a debate) and insult should not be confused. While there is a blurred gray zone between offense and insult, the major distinction is that an offense in a debate is argumentative, while an insult is ... an insult, i.e., an act of demeaning an opponent. An offense is always specific, i.e., addresses a particular argument or reasoning, while an insult is generalizing and dismissive. For example the phrase "You are wikilawyering" is an insult. On the other hand, the message "Therefore I conclude that you are stretching the WP:NOT policy here beyond common sense, i.e., you are wikilawyering", while aggressive, is not an insult, but rather a pointer to an identifiable wikibehavioral pattern.

In any case an accusation of wikilawyering is never a valid argument per se, unless an explanation is given why particular actions may be described as wikilawyering, and the term "wikilawyering" is used as a mere shortcut to these explanations.

✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I really applaud you, Olaf, that you have the audacity to Wikilawyer my suggestion that there is wikilawyering on this page. I have to say, it's quite well done. For now let's just say you are correct in your assertion, and let us wait a 3rd party observer or another NPOV minded editor to enter this discussion. Colipon+(T) 20:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The disputes on this article has been going on for some 24 archived talk pages. It is clearly not NPOV, and many non-aligned editors have mentioned this with posts such as "This article is hopeless", and also, another earlier piece about a person who genuinely believed the FLG article gave him a false impression and now feels no sympathy for the group (under the heading "A messege of hope to those who value NPOV."). This is from this talk page alone. Then scan through the other 24 talk page archives. The NPOV tag is an understatement, and asdfg12345 has taken it down twice within the space of the past few hours. One more revert would be against the "3R rule", wouldn't it? Colipon+(T) 05:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm just asking you to follow wikipedia guidelines. What is your understanding of the purpose of such tags? I do not think the purpose of them is to score points. Here is a note from WP:TAGGING:

When adding a tag, keep in mind that other people who might be interested in fixing the problem (or who might dispute the tag) might not immediately see the same problems you do. Even if the problem seems obvious, it's useful to leave a short note on the talk page describing the issue, and suggesting an approach to fixing it if you know how. Some editors feel this should be mandatory and "drive-by" tagging should be prohibited. Other editors feel that some tags are self-explanatory.

Especially in the case of a tag such as {{npov}}, complaints left at a talkpage need to be actionable, so that editors can attempt to address them. It is not helpful to say simply "The article is biased." Instead, some details should be given to help other editors understand what needs to be fixed or discussed.

Emphasis mine. What do you say?--Asdfg12345 06:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, just a word about all these disputes. I've noticed that at no point have the apparent problems with the article been identified. I'm not going to make a personal rant about the topic, but I just want to actually be clear. As far as I am aware, every source in this article is reliable, and most are references to academic journals. What, precisely, is the problem? How can it be fixed? Often, talk page discussion has revolved around things like putting "controversial" in the first sentence, trying to include sources like Ross, and similar nonsense. Just because there's a lot of talk page discussion doesn't necessarily mean anything about the article. A large portion of the total discussion is probably from the time of Samuel and Tomananda (and their sockpuppets), too. I'd just like to know specifically what's actually defective with the article, if anything, and how that could be remedied. Is it just like, "put more negative things on Falun Gong more prominently and we'll be happy," regardless of the sources?--Asdfg12345 06:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple actionable issues on this talk page. Just look at what hasn't even been archived yet. The repeated attempts of pro-FLG editors to block any attempt to bring this article into line with WP:NPOV is something that has to be addressed. The article is most certainly not neutral by any means of the word!Simonm223 (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Name them. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

My real point is that just editing this article and pointing out "issues" in this article is no longer effective. It's a little naive, in fact. The tag is there because numerous users report neutrality-related disputes, source disputes, disruptive editing, and various other attempts to wash the article free of any criticism of Falun Gong (as far as I can see currently there is only one line of criticism in this entire article, and by its tonw its made to sound not-too-credible - "the late psychologist Margaret Singer derided it as a 'cult'.").

I have one suggestion to fixing this issue, and that is bringing these multiple issues to an administrator, who will conduct a thorough investigation of the article without third-party interference. After that it should be very, very apparent what has gone on in this article over the past few years, and what measures need to be taken. Colipon+(T) 18:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, this article needs serious Admin intervention. Is there a notice board or something to alert Admin?Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You can start with Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

In my perspective the NPOV tag is necessary because of two reasons: 1) the use of pro-flg language throughout all FLG-related articles. This issue is pervasive. 2) Sourcing. Pro-FLG editors simultaneously remove valid sources (including Time Magazine, New York Times, and Rick Ross) while promoting the use of biassed sources such as falundafa.org and the falun gong owned Epoch Times. Until these systemic issues are resolved the NPOV tag remains.Simonm223 (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

For #1 you need to be more specific give examples, for #2 if I recall correctly every edit was discussed. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I have to remind you that all references to Rick Ross were disqualified by third parties. See this discussion.

I welcome administrators to observe our conduct and comment on the current state of the articles. Such an approach hasn't lead to any bad results in the past. Quite the contrary — the crackpots were predictably rapped on their knuckles. I can only answer for myself, but Wikipedia policies and guidelines have never ruled against what I am doing here. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like the same vague arm-waving that has always gone on. You need to muster high-quality sources to support your points of view. That is the bottom line. If you cannot bring them to bear, it may indicate that they don't exist. The fact is that the cult argument is a fringe view, and it's not just that it has weak support among scholars of Falun Gong, but it's directly dismissed by them as an inaccurate approach to understanding the phenomenon, and one that came about only because of the Chinese Communist Party's propaganda. As far as I'm aware, Singer is the most high-profile proponent of this view aside from the CCP itself. Falun Gong sources are not used in any way that violates wikipedia policies; if this is the case, point it out and we'll fix it. What I suggest is that Simon223 and Colipon actually read some of the literature on Falun Gong that we are referring to in this article, to get an understanding of how high-quality sources treat this topic, and therefore how the wikipedia page on the topic should look. Don't keep ramming your head against the wall with these tired prejudices. You could start with Ownby's "Falun Gong and the Future of China." He's the most notable scholar on the topic, and his work is the most recent and complete on it.

On the other issue, what you seem to be requesting is mediation. There is a formal wikipedia process for this. You can read about it. I hope you know, they're still going to ask what is the problem?, though, and I imagine anyone doing the job seriously would ask for specific examples. Colipon, for example, do you have a better suggestion for how to present the cult label in relation to Falun Gong? Simon: can you give some specific examples of "pro-flg" language? Let's fix it! Why doesn't one of you just go through the article one section at a time and write what is wrong with it, how it could be improved, what your sources are, and then let's see. As I see it, this is all still a bunch of vague and sweeping remarks, not backed up by sources. I also have a fairly good understanding of the body of scholarly literature on Falun Gong, so I'm not surprised. The article at the moment broadly correlates with the analyses of Penny, Ownby, Zhao, Porter, and others.--Asdfg12345 22:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC tag

Some editors have expressed concern over the neutrality of this article and have suggested that the overall tone and certain editing practices of devoted editors have damaged the neutrality therein. In a good-faith attempt to draw attention to this and work towards improving the neutrality of the article several editors have put up the pov tag at the top of the page. Other editors have removed the pov tag, arguing that the concerns on neutrality are baseless. The request for comments in this case is on whether the Wikipedia policy on neutrality tagging has been adhered to correctly in the case of this article and whether the tag should be placed on this article until substantial changes to tone and content are made.Simonm223 (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way "Some editors" is WP:WEASEL, if you want the POV flag, follow the guidelines for Wikipedia:TAGGING#Constructive_tagging as also highlighted above. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't argue that the page was neutral or not-neutral. I just asked you to explain how it was not neutral and how we could fix it. I asked for specific examples, and said I would like to work together to fix any problems in the page. You never gave examples of problems with the page, you have not brought up any reliable sources or major viewpoints that are missing. I removed the tag because there was no explanation for it, only that the page was "POV". But when I asked how it was "POV" you didn't respond. Just go through it and point out the problems, like weasel words, or whatever, and let's fix them. That's all I've said. Other thing is, having an RfC about a tag is really abstruse. Especially under the condition that it stays "until substantial changes to tone and content are made," when you haven't even pointed out what problems there are with the tone and content, I mean, what is this? Can't you just say what's wrong with the article, specifically, and let's fix it?? --Asdfg12345 21:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

And yet whenever the neutrality issue is brought up on the talk page you have denied it. I understand you may dislike me putting up a policy RfC on tagging but, honestly, there is a serious policy disagreement between two blocs of editors over what constitutes a POV concern. Wikipedia should not be a soap box for alternative religions to proselytize and yet, all too often, we have seen this behaviour on the FLG articles. It's not how other religions are handled on Wikipedia and it's high time that it not be how the FLG was handled. Now I would honestly rather NOT have FLG on my watchlist. I genuinely don't care about the religion very much. I do care about Wikipedia being a valid place to get factual information... this is not the case with FLG. So, yes, I intend to be somewhat activist here for a while. Until it's cleaned up. One page at a time, one issue at a time. And I will tag, revert and RfC as necessary to see that this system of articles ceases to be one-sided propaganda and becomes, instead, good articles on a controversial new religious movement. And, when that is finished, hopefully I will not have to exhaust another valuable pico-second of my life dealing with the Falun Gong. And HappyInGeneral, seriously, you are complaining of weasel words? On a talk page? For this article? Over the phrase some editors? Seriously? Have a good weekend, talk to you again on Monday.Simonm223 (talk) 02:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

How slickly you avoid answering to Asdfg12345. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* I don't know that I have denied that the page is biased, or argued that it's neutral. I don't mean to be the one denying or advancing anything. I'm just asking you for some non-general commentary on why this page is apparently biased. I want examples, and if there are problems, some specific ideas for how to improve. Sources would also be helpful. Wikipedia's policy on placing tags requires as much. I am looking forward to the scrutiny of a wider audience.--Asdfg12345 07:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, wikipedia requires that you respond to this. The tag will be removed, again, if the problems with the article can't be specifically identified. I am interested in improving the article, not carrying on these arguments--so please walk the walk.--Asdfg12345 21:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

How to improve? Total tear-down and rewrite with strict administrative controls. Inclusion of information from experts on cults. Inclusion of information from the Chinese state to balance against the Epoch Times, Clearwisdom.org and other FLG websites. Elimination of the undue weight given to the single Montreal academic (who is likely considered expert by a reasonable definition) and to Kilgour and Matas (who are less expert than the banned-by-the-FLG cult experts). Oh and a little bit less of the poorly informed, frequently mistaken, wikilawyering from certain editors would be nice. It's ludicrous that I needed to RfC to keep a neutrality tag on such a clearly biassed article.Simonm223 (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I post here the opinion I posted in the NPOV/noticeboard.

Tags are legit as long as there is a perceived NPOV issue with the article and there is an ongoing discussion in the talk page or if no consensus is reached as to the resolution of the NPOV issue. It is difficult to give opinions without concrete examples but editors must be mindful not to engage in WP:TAGBOMB and follow the recommendations of WP:RESPTAG

It seems that some POV concrete examples are given in the above comment and thus to me at least the POV tag is warranted until a genuine effort by all editors concerned is done to bring the article within WP.--LexCorp (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

An Occurrence on Fuyou Street

Anyone interested in this topic would do well to read this article: [70]. We can even do a "I'll read yours if you read mine" sort of deal. This is my first nomination, and I would very much like Colipon and Simon223 to read it, because I believe it is necessary to be aware of such things to make a meaningful contribution to this topic.--Asdfg12345 03:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider Kilgour to be an expert on China, Chinese religion or anything else of relevance. He's a rather trumped up conservative politician who vascilates between Canada's conservative party and Canada's really Conservative party.Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ethan Gutmann wrote the article, not Kilgour. Kilgour is an expert on human rights in China.--Asdfg12345 21:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Kilgour is a blow hard of no significant esteem who I have such a low opinion of that I am afraid I can not remain appropriately civil for Wikipedia talk pages while remaining entirely true to my personal opinion of the man. Needless to say he has no credentials to make him an expert on the human rights of anywhere except within the confines of his own mind.Simonm223 (talk) 02:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

"Kilgour is a blow hard of no significant esteem who I have such a low opinion of that ..." while your opinion is of course your opinion, I would still wonder what faults can you find in him, that you allegedly have such an unexplained low opinion. Also please note that this is the Falun Gong talk page, and we do want to avoid breaching WP:SOAP --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think he means that Falun Gong practitioners like I suspect you to be lean too much on Kilgour's political position and stance to prove your point. As for myself, I stopped reading when the author said that Falun Gong was "the most Chinese" movement...--Ilivetocomment (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

See my user page, I am a self declared Falun Gong practitioner. You don't really need to suspect anything :). Can you substantiate with some WP:RS that we lean too much on Kilgour's political position? I can tell you for sure that I don't need any politician to feel the seriousness of the persecution. To illustrate my point see here: [71] --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to point at a Kilgour report to prove points repeatedly...practitioners rely on him and Matas for credibility all the time. Direct proof of that would be difficult, but indirect can be just as good. Try searching Google Images the terms "David Kilgour" or "David Kilgour Falun Gong", and check the links below the images. About half of them turn out to be linked to obviously pro-Falun Gong sites and such. Personally, I've noticed that Falun Gong practitioners always point to Kilgour for proof, as they say on their posters. One example of this is a giant FG poster I saw on Parliament Hill during the Tulip Festival, which said: STOP Organ Harvesting in China NOW as proven by Kilgour and Matas reports! and a very graphic image of blood and gore right next to that message <.<. PS: I watched the video, and frankly, I'm a little disbelieving that she could actually be interviewed. I agree that torture and corruption often exists in China, but generally they keep it top secret, right? I did some research, and found this: http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/5-6-20/29680.html, which isn't very convincing. If that video is from NTDTV, then I know my answer, IMHO.--Ilivetocomment (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)--Ilivetocomment (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

So just to make it clear, tortured people on tape, footage made with a big difficulty is not convincing. Could anything be convincing to you?

On the other hand this is wikipedia, you know what, it does not need to be convincing, it needs to be sourced with WP:RS, so next time when you are feeling the need to complain (see WP:NOTSOAPBOX), please do it under the wikipedia guidelines. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. The enormous amount of third party commentary that came after the Kilgour/Matas report makes it clear that it's a credible document and more than enough a reliable source. It's also not a question that Kilgour/Matas are reliable sources; the latter has won a series of prizes for his law achievements. Kilgour attends and regularly gives speeches at conferences on human rights, in China, Darfur, etc.. I'm not familiar with or interested in his politics, but he's reliable to comment on this topic, particularly in terms of the persecution of Falun Gong.--Asdfg12345 07:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

For instance, Kilgour/Matas have been referred to in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, which is one of the UK's leading medical, peer-reviewed journals. You can freely read the article on the website of Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting. [72] ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The Kilgour/Matas report is a perfect example of the fact that if you shout hard enough about something people know nothing about they will believe you. Those of us who demand things like dispassionate third party verification tend to look at it as a spurious report of misinformation, lies, mistakes, assumptions and flawed detective work assembled by a non-expert with a political axe to grind. Also I find it ironic that you call WP:NOTSOAPBOX on me for impugning the expertise of Kilgour and then turn around and say "So just to make it clear, tortured people on tape, footage made with a big difficulty is not convincing". Simonm223 (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Kilgour and Matas more than pass WP:RS. End of story.--Asdfg12345 22:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hum, that article says that his allegations are credible due to a series of indications, it doesn't state that there was actually organ harvesting happening. I see that this already correctly reported in Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_in_China#Corroborative_reports (I saw other issues on that article and I posted there about them). --Enric Naval (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I'm going to be off wikipedia for a while now, for a period of months. I'll be able to check infrequently. I'm moving countries and will not have any opportunity to make serious contributions for a while. Best wishes everyone.--Asdfg12345 12:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree over the reliability of the Kilgour / Matas report. As I said it is based on a whole lot of factual errors. Whole rooms of hospitals that appear to have vanished, etc. At best it was a sincere effort gone astray. At worst it was self-serving propaghanda. Good luck on your move. It's highly likely we will speak again. Until then, regards.Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The beauty of Wikipedia: reliable sources are not determined by personal opinions, but by cold policy. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And if there weren't FLG activists pumping for propaghanda to be considered a reliable source this wouldn't make the cut.Simonm223 (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, Simonm223, I don't understand you. Perhaps I've missed it, but I have never seen you refer to a policy page when you argue on these talk pages. If an investigation is considered plausible by a peer-reviewed journal, there's nothing in the policies that would keep it off Wikipedia. If you played by the rules and clearly pointed out why you think others are wrong (I'm talking about direct quotes from the article, or references to proposed reliable sources, backed up by direct policy references), I wouldn't consider you breaching WP:SOAP all the time. Actually, it would be agreeable to cooperate with you towards a mutually acceptable goal. But you seem to have adopted a different attitude, perhaps out of frustration, or perhaps you never learnt Wikipedia style to begin with — I cannot say. I've encountered both kinds. This makes the situation rather tense. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 05:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong is a Religion

Scientology is not called a "spiritual practice" and neither should Falun Gong. It's a religion. That IS the neutral compromise between "spiritual practice" and "dangerous cult"Simonm223 (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong has nothing to do with Scientology. But we can have both definitions. I am mostly concerned that people would confuse it with organised religion (churches, denominations etc.) But you can find me a reliable source calling Falun Gong a 'religion', I'll find one calling it a 'spiritual practice', and we should agree. I'll settle for 'religion' for now, but you must still find a source for it if you want to keep it.

The 'illegality' of Falun Gong is explained in the fourth paragraph. First we must explain what Falun Gong is per se, and then we can briefly describe other notable things. There are guidelines for how to do this right, see Wikipedia:Lead section. But adding the words "...through the auspices of the divine intervention of Li Hongzhi..." is a textbook example of how not to edit Wikipedia. Not only are they intentionally ironic in tone, they never appear in any published source − you just made them up. Please explain yourself.

I pointed out on Talk:Teachings of Falun Gong that you seem to be here to right what you perceive as great wrongs, but I may be wrong. Could you answer:

• Are you here to edit constructively, taking all the policies and guidelines into account in everything you do?
• Are you ready to discuss each and every edit that is legitimately challenged (i.e. with policy references and explicit arguments)?
• Will you provide counterarguments, based on direct references to policy, when other editors accuse you of breaching the rules?
• Do you understand what it means to back up your edits with reliable sources, and do you acknowledge all the criteria put forth in WP:RS?

I would like to have a straightforward, unambiguous reply to these four questions. It is of vital importance to our cooperation. Thank you. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 16:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I agree that the crackdown on Falun Gong should be mentioned earlier, preferably in the first chapter, if we want to adhere to WP:LEAD. It is one of the most notable issues surrounding this topic. But it has to be done after briefly explaining the essential characteristics of Falun Gong as a spiritual discipline (or religion, if you prefer). Therefore, regardless of its notability, the persecution is less important than the fact that Falun Gong has five qigong exercises and books discussing cultivation practice. Without establishing this context, everything else is out of question. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:DUCK for Falun Gong being a religion. And, honestly, Scientology is the very best analogue for the FLG that one can find. Very simmilar in structure and behaviour.

As for the "divine auspices" quote I could reference the same NY Times article that we have been doing the RfC for over in Teachings of Falun Gong that the children of interracial marriages only get salvation if Li Hongzhi intervenes. If you want I can add that quote in there... or we can leave it just mentioning that salvation only comes with intervention of Mr. Li without a specific quote. Either is fine by me.Simonm223 (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That should resolve your WP:OR concerns. Nicely cited from a valid source.Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Answer my questions. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I've answered every question you have asked except for those that warrant no answer but silence.Simonm223 (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

of course Falung Gong may be called a religion. Hell, football may be called a religion. The point is that "religion" is a term taylored for the western (strictly, Roman) and there can be lengthy debate as to what extent any of the "Far Eastern religions" can properly be called religions. With this in mind, yes, Falung Gong is a religion, but like Buddhism it may also meaningfully be described as a "spiritual practice". --dab (𒁳) 09:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Any religion with an engaged congregation could be called a "spiritual practice". Pentecostalism could certainly be called a "spiritual practice". The fact is that FLG have tried to diastance themselves from the term "religion" to avoid the easy paralels to Scientology and Raelianism that would otherwise arise. It's just PR. And Wikipedia must not be a PR point for any religious group - it is an encyclopedia and should be based in reality.Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, mister based-in-reality. Originally this difference comes from how 'religion' is understood in the Chinese context: a religion (宗教) has churches, denominations, temples, officials, and a hierarchical structure. Falun Gong does not have any of that. The Western understanding of religion is arguably quite different. In addition, Falun Gong is clearly something that's practiced through concrete efforts, not only believed in. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 14:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Falun Gong doesn't call itself a religion. But if people regard Falun Gong as a religion and wanna call it that, than i guess that's fine. But is that really what you want? Wouldn't you rather be much happier if it where labeled an "evil cult" not only by the Communist Party but also by the west? But an "evil cult" actually isn't the same as a "religion" at all. Doesn't an evil Cult exploit it's members, glorify it's leaders, make false promises to gain members and deceive the public, brainwash it's members, kill those who want to quit or think differently, practice forced labor, intimidate members with violence etc.

Anyone who really looks at Falun Gong for himself knows that it does none of that. Yet the Communist Party itself employs all of these methods and more. Many in my family died at the hands of the Communist Party and yet i am not trying to get them labeled an "evil cult" on Wikipedia. So what point is there in your trying to label Falun Gong an evil cult even though we both know that it doesn't do any of that? What would be achieved by labeling it that? At best it could only fuel the persecution. --Hoerth (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth Hoerth. I have never used the word evil to describe Falun Gong. When I did use the word cult it was preceeded by the word dangerous and was within the context of pointing out that Religion was a neutral term as opposed to that obviously POV slanted term and the equally POV slanted spiritual practice term. So next time you try to accuse somebody of labeling a religion as an evil cult you would be well advised to actually make sure they really did so. Since you FLG types insist on bringing up my personal politics I am a democratic socialist and am thus opposed to real and verifiable instances of oppression. I have been heavily critical of the Chinese state for abandoning socialist principles in favour of free market capitalism without providing democratic political reforms. I am not a bloody mouthpiece for the CCPC, so you can drop that angle right here, right now. What I am is somebody who doesn't like to see religions using Wikipedia to advance their own agenda and somebody who thinks it is harmful to lie about being oppressed to drum up popular sentiment for a controversial religion.Simonm223 (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Just like some people feel it's harmful to "lie" about the six million Jews who "supposedly" died during the Second World War? Right. You choose what you believe, Simonm223, but the hubris is your own. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It was only a matter of time, I suppose, before you started alluding to the nazis. The differences between the FLG case and the Holocaust are so extensive that they could not be enumerated but the core is this: there is real proof that the nazis killed six million jews. There is no real proof that the People's Republic of China has systemically exterminated any number of FLG members.Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There is. You just don't believe it, which may reflect on some underlying issues, as you also failed to read and comprehend the article you were linking to. End of discussion. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

How about this? In the extreme case, let me allude to this. Somebody decides to overthrow the Chinese government over the Falun Gong issue. In the process, untold millions die in the carnage. In the end, it is proven that no or very little Falun Gong persecutions actually take place. Who will go to the International Criminal Court? J'accuse! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.152.119 (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no proof that anything like this is going to happen or that is even likely to happen. So then what you are actually doing here is the spreading of FUD Fear, uncertainty and doubt. If you would like to contribute to Wikipedia, please start by getting familiar with Wikipedia spirit and policies, here is a good place to start Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:Verifiability. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Olaf, you fall victim to passion again. If you use reason, you can probably understand the issue more. If there is or was really a genocide going on against Falun Gong, it would be natural that more and more witnesses will come out from China testifying of the crimes simply because there are more people living there. But as days go by, the only tangible witnesses come from outside of China. To the contrary, the number of people saying the opposite of what the Falun Gong has been claiming is actually growing. You don't see the same momentum going on with the Falun Gong group though. In the years before Holocaust concentration camps were discovered in 1945, the amount of evidence claiming the same is happening were much larger and ever growing. Consider that war is going on in the early 1940's and very few travelers can freely travel between Nazi Germany and the Allied world, while comparing the same with modern China and the West, one can feel that if something so great and horrible is happening, then there must be a SOLID evidence testifying of it. After all, before the ban, Falun Gong practitioners were limited to rural and undeveloped areas. They are all over the cities. How can such a great amount of evidence suddenly disappear? I have been to the Holocaust Memorial in Washington D.C. and heard tales of the abhorrent and unimaginable things that are backed up by evidence. A people slaughtered like animals, a culture completely gone, and this is about six million individual stories. Olaf, I understand your horror at the question, "What if I do nothing when a genocide is going on?" But, as a man of reason, will you feel the same thing with dread, "What if I do this thing for lies and propaganda?" Very possibly, a war may break out, and many more people are going to perish, this being a nuclear age. The entire Chinese civilization is at stake here. Will you not feel the same dread that you felt for the Jewish people? With much evidence I collected, I can roughly form this picture in my mind: Most Falun Gong practitioners in China were probably driven underground, with some totally giving up the practise. Their situation is not unlike what happened to the underground Christians in China. They were indeed oppressed, or you may say they "disappeared", but it is unimaginable for you to compare this with the situation of the Holocaust. It is unfortunate that I can not produce a mirror that when it reflects a person, reflects not his shadow, but his faith and truthfulness. But I can responsibly tell you that neither the CCP nor the FLG actually tell you the truth. The only truth that you can get is when you visit China and see for yourself. Are you ready for that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.152.119 (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are really just unclear about the facts, I can recommend you to watch the documentary series made by NTDTV, http://www.adecadeofcourage.com/. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

99.244.152.119, let me tell you that I know dozens of Falun Gong practitioners who have been imprisoned and tortured in labor camps. Many of them are my friends. What they've told about their treatment in China is very consistent, and some of them still have scars on their bodies. Direct comparisons with the Holocaust may not be appropriate in the sense that millions of Falun Gong practitioners haven't been killed. But the severity of this persecution and some of the criminal acts are part of the same continuum – the unimaginable totalitarian nightmare, the Fundamental Issue of the 20th century.

An older Chinese lady, a Falun Gong practitioner, who used to work as a plant manager in a large oil refinery before 1999, was granted a UN asylum in my home country. Before she managed to escape China about four years ago, she had been arrested nine times. More than 20 different methods of torture had been applied to her; she was tortured to the brink of death four times; once she was bound into a bed for 58 consecutive days and became partially disabled (though she later recovered through Falun Gong practice). Her sister died in the persecution. Another friend of mine was kept for two months in a small, windowless cubicle of less than two square meters. She was also beaten up and tortured with electricity. Some of my friends haven't seen their relatives in years, nor do they know their whereabouts. The wife of a friend of mine was sentenced to a labor camp for an indefinite number of years because of driving a truck loaded with leaflets describing the persecution. You don't seem to understand; we know this is happening and will not be stopped by people who fail to discern the facts from the fiction. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation request

Mediation assistance was requested with the general Falun Gong topic area (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-05-15/Falun Gong). I understand that this can be a complex topic area with a heated editing environment. I have looked over the history of this article and its talk page, as well as those of several related articles. I am generally familiar with Chinese religious and cultural traditions. I have experience with several religious and cultural mediations. I formerly served on MedCom and as a coordinator for MedCab. I believe with my experience, and after looking over matters, that I will be able to help the editors here reach some agreement.

Just to address it upfront, while I am an arbitrator, that role plays no part in my participation here. I am here to help purely as an informal mediator. On a similar note, I will not take any direct administrative actions on this article or its editors, except to use article protection in case of edit warring or heavy vandalism. So please, do not ask me to block or otherwise sanction any editor to this article. I will post conduct reminders or ask an uninvolved administrator to review the situation if things start devolving too much.

Mediation is purely voluntary. On that point, we will need to forge some agreement on the basics before moving forward. First, those participating need to indicate whether they accept me as a mediator. Second, we need agreement on some basic behavior points:

• No personal attacks, insults, or otherwise rude comments. Intelligent and respectful conversation is impossible with such negative commentary.
• No accusations of ulterior motives, extreme points of view, or so forth. Guessing about motives and questioning the basic honor of editors only results in a poisonous editing atmosphere.
• Stick to the bold/revert/discuss model. If an edit is reverted, take it to the talk page. Do not revert back and trigger an edit war.

Third, we need to agree to stay focused on the content and reliable sources. A major portion of my presence here will be keeping the discussion focused in this direction, with an eye towards improving the article and developing consensus on how to handle some disputed issues.

So, do the editors here agree to accept my assistance as a mediator, follow the basic behavior ground rules, and focus on developing the article according to the most reliable sources? Any additional comments, questions, or concerns? Let's not jump into describing the disagreements and article issues quite yet. Please just indicate if you agree with these three points and ask any related questions. --Vassyana (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You sound like a reasonable and experienced mediator, Vassyana, and I agree with your demands on the editors. Let me thank you in advance for your time and efforts. Welcome. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 08:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that the points you listed are very reasonable, and now I see that the point you mentioned in the second bullet might have been broken by me here [73]. At this point I think you are perfectly right and we need to concentrate on "Third, we need to agree to stay focused on the content and reliable sources.". So, Welcome! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree to the mediator. Colipon+(T) 15:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Same here, I agree to the mediator.--Edward130603 (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

List of current issues

Firstly, I thank you for choosing to mediate one of the most controversial articles on Wikipedia. Secondly, I agree with your policies and guidelines as listed above. Now I will raise my concerns:

• Undue weight: beyond the body of what is ostensibly a well-sourced and well-written article, lies serious undue weight. The alleged persecution of Falun Gong in China, for example, is an important issue, but it is being given undue weight.
• Neutrality: The article may appear like it is written in a neutral tone, but many pro-FLG editors have abandoned the basic spirit of neutrality and have only made the article sound neutral. This practice must end.
• Criticism of Falun Gong: A "criticism" or "controversy" section must be part of this article. To any objective person FLG is a controversial movement. Whether it is a religion, a spiritual movement, or just a harmless qigong group, it has generated significant controversy. A browse through these archives, and it will be apparent what the controversy surrounds. While many people agree it is morally not justifiable for the Chinese government to have "banned" Falun Gong and persecuted practitioners, many reputable sources (NYT, IHT, Time, SCMP) have also acknowledged Falun Gong manipulating the persecution, "prey on the naivete and lack of knowledge by Western governments and individuals", to serve what looks like Falun Gong's own propaganda campaign to further their "agenda". There is undoubtedly enough controversy about FLG to warrant an article all by itself (users have previously attempted this at "Third party views of Falun Gong" - now "Academic views on Falun Gong" but criticism there has also been gradually silenced - see the article's history).
  • The idea here is that the article makes it look like the Communist Party are the only ones who have ever criticized Falun Gong, and that they are only doing so to serve the purposes of the "persecution". This is the crux of the issue: that this is not just a FLG vs. Communists propaganda war. Many third parties have been critical of FLG. Colipon+(T) 02:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Nature of Li Hongzhi: He is also a controversial figure. There's really little discussion here.
  • There are rather strongly enforced wikipeida policies when it comes to BLP. Even as regards talk page comments. "Talk pages are used to make decisions about article contents. Contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted, and even permanently removed ("oversighted") if especially problematic (telephone number, libel, etc). New material should generally be discussed in order to arrive at a consensus concerning relevance, availability of sources, and reliability of sources. Repeated questionable claims with biographies of living persons issues not based on new evidence can generally be immediately deleted with a reference to where in the archive the prior consensus was reached." The material presented must be directly related to the individual's notability. Here is the Britannica Encyclopaedia article on the subject: [74]. The person is also the recipient of several hundred awards world-over. Britannica touches upon the recognition received in US. The wikipedia article, in fact, does not even cover a tip of the recognition and awards the Individual has received from various governments and international bodies. -- :Dilip rajeev (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've found a brief article from TIME magazine here. It gives a general picture of the ridiculous things Li Hongzhi claims. More importantly, it also shows that FLG could be but is not neccesarily a cult (50/50% in terms of criteria). I have added it as a external link.--Edward130603 (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • This has been discussed before, numerous times. This article, in fact. This is a classic example of where pro-FLG editors allege that TIME is a "unreliable source" when they are critical of FLG. Colipon+(T) 02:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I am yet to see a single editor claim TIME is not a reliable source. But certainly, as Wikipedia requires us to, we might need to give academic and scholarly sources a higher priority. And things presented, in BLPs, Wikipedia requires us, should directly be related to the Individuals' notability. Please see my comment below.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Reliable sources: what is a reliable source? If CCP publications and Chinese government-sponsored media be branded as "pure propaganda" and unreliable, does the same apply for Falun Gong-related websites? Do Minghui, Falundafa.net, Epoch Times etc. serve as reliable sources when it is clear they are owned and operated by Falun Gong practitioners? Can one source be considered reliable when it is praising Falun Gong, but unreliable when criticizing it? The trend here has been that every source, no matter reputation, if critical of Falun Gong, has been derided as "unreliable". Rick Ross, for example (see debate above), has been quoted many times in many other controversial articles, but it doesn't make the cut here, according to several pro-FLG editors.
• Political nature of Falun Gong: Persecution or not, Falun Gong is clearly politically-oriented. The Chinese article (written mostly by Taiwan and HK editors) points out that although initially Falun Gong appeared to have no political allegiance or beliefs, it is apparent that contemporary Falun Gong groups outside of Mainland China have become "unmistakably involved in politics", particularly in their dogmatic opposition to the Communist Party of China. In fact, Falun Gong appears to be the most effective overseas anti-CCP force to have ever emerged. These points get no mention in the English Wikipedia article due to claims by FLG practitioners that Falun Gong was "never political".
• "Wikilawyering": I have pointed out before that a few pro-FLG editors engage in acts of Wikilawyering. Pro-FLG editors often invoke Wikipedia principles and policies when they remove well-sourced content critical of FLG. Although they have denied this, I urge the mediator to go and read some of the past discussion to judge for him/herself whether or not this has taken place.

I will not engage in any kind of unproductive debate by pro-FLG editors that attempt to deny that these issues exist, or that I am looking at this from the "wrong angle", or any other type of argumentation for the sake of argument to stall actual edits. Again, I welcome the mediator to this discussion. Colipon+(T) 20:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I 100% concur with Colipon. Most of the FLG articles need to checked/reviewed for NPOV. --Edward130603 (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, you will notice that on this talk page alone, there has been four editors (myself included) from very different backgrounds who have written of the article as being "hopeless" under three separate headings. ("This article is hopeless", "2 cents from a reader" and "comprehensive look".) In fact, almost in every heading we see some kind of dispute about the neutrality of the article, and almost all seem to be concerns in good faith. The extent of discussion on these talk pages is a sober reminder of just how big a problem this article has become.

I will also add another issue to the ones that I have already raised above:

• Chinese government ban: As user:BTfromLA explained above, the reason and motives for the Chinese gov't to ban Falun Gong are never explained. Surely, the Chinese gov't are not saints when it comes to human rights, but what was their rationale for banning the practice? Doesn't it at least deserve some mention? Shouldn't it be explained? Colipon+(T) 20:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ensuing Discussion

Colipon, when did any editor say TIME is not a good source? Of course, editors could have pointed out that academic studies must be given a higher priority. As regarding the facts of the persecution - the authoritative bodies: Amnesty International, HRW etc ( and all major governments and human rights organizations, according to David Ownby) make the reasons clear. I am not sure what you imply by "involved in politics." Is it that practitioners have exposed the persecution that makes them "political?" Anyway, if there are 3rd party, reliable sources, vetted by the academic community and their claims are not superseded by latest scholarship, then certainly it merits inclusion - the Falun Gong outside of China Page should be right place to present the material. Am yet to see an academic study make such a claim though. I think these pages mention how the Nine Commentaries were made by Epoch Times, has resulted in around 50 million quitting the CCP, etc. Whether that makes Epoch Times "politicized" is a subjective thing. We present the facts. If you can find academic sources making such claims ( am yet to see, and, in fact, whatever scholarship I have come across tells the straight opposite. Falun Dafa is best understood as traditional qi gong cultivation practice according to almost all academic sources - Ownby, Schechter, Penny, etc. )

As for the "why" behind CCP's murder and killing of innocents, including women, elderly and children - it is covered by scholarly and human rights sources and is covered in the article(s). Details of the mechanics which drives the persecution is also covered, all highly sourced. In the main article, the statement the chinese communist party issues as its "rationale" for persecuting Falun Gong is presented in block quotes:[75]. If you ask me, thats overkill. We need to stick strictly to quality sources, on a topic like this. I quite dont understand from your concern that it deserves "at least some mention" stems.

Falun Dafa related website are only used sparingly in these articles, as far as I see. And they certainly merit inclusion as primary sources - when the perspective presented doesn't conflict with mainstream academic perspectives on the topic. Dilip rajeev (talk) 10:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The 50 million quitting the quitting the CCP is the most blatant lie from FLG ever. The only sites to report that are pro-FLG sites. Since the FLG ban in China, FLG has directed just about all of its efforts into spreading lies about China. Plus, over 1,000 practitioners died because they followed Li's "teachings" and refused to seek medical treatment for their illnesses. Is that just propaganda from the Communist party or should the FLG practitioners actually refuse treatment? After all, Li Hongzhi says that the mankind has been destroyed 81 times, that the earth is about to explode very soon, and that he is the only one to rely on to prevent the explosion.--Edward130603 (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This is from Times:

Li's rambling dissertation, Zhuan Falun, has only added to accusations that Falun Gong is a cult. Li writes he can personally heal disease and that his followers can stop speeding cars using the powers of his teachings. He writes that the Falun Gong emblem exists in the bellies of practitioners, who can see through the celestial eyes in their foreheads. Li believes "humankind is degenerating and demons are everywhere"�extraterrestrials are everywhere, too�and that Africa boasts a 2-billion-year-old nuclear reactor. He also says he can fly.

--Edward130603 (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This might come as a shock to you but see here: Natural nuclear fission reactor. And about the rest, well if it's written in Zhuan Falun you can quote that directly, correct? As a side note: if you want to make Albert Einstein with it's Special relativity look wacky, I think that is also possible, at the extent that you can phrase it wacky. But still if placed in the proper context it becomes a scientific theory, well some say (me for example, but I think Ethan Guttman also said it, just need to find the source for it) that the same is true for Zhuan Falun. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I must admit that that was quite surprising. As for the rest of what you said, could you be more specific. Albert Einstein's theories may seem wacky because of the little information we know on that topic. However, I'm sure that Li Hongzhi being able to fly is just nonsense. No, I didn't make it look wacky, his statements are wacky.--Edward130603 (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I wander if there is any point in discussing your opinion that "No, I didn't make it look wacky, his statements are wacky.", because Wikipedia is not about your opinion or my opinion, it's about WP:RS and WP:V and not WP:SOAP. But here we go. Li Hongzhi did not say anywhere that he can fly, you can look up all of the books. CCP said that Li Hongzhi said that he can fly. That is the correct attribution. Regarding levitation, Li Hongzhi presented a theory explaining the mechanics of levitation. He also explained why people can not see anyone flying and why is the whole human race in illusion. And in the spiritual/religious/qigong/meditation community this is not something wacky. In their eyes as I often times heard is something experienced first hand. So if they could experience this first hand in a consistent/repeatable manner, doesn't this make levitation a reality, even a scientific reality in their eyes? See definition of Science: "Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome." --HappyInGeneral (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's also the way TIME magzazine puts it. And no, I don't write for Time so it is not what I said, nor is it what your opinion is. It meets WP:RS and WP:V. Of course, this article shouldn't be a soapbox. It shouldn't be the battleground where FLG propaganda is, apparently, dominating. I checked out Zhuan Falun myself today. It wasn't as the CCP put it to be, but it does mention flying. It says that if you release all the locks in your body, you will be able to fly and levitate. People don't show it to other people because they can't levitate, but Zhuan says that it is because others need cultivation. --Edward130603 (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if just by accident you misunderstood me, I meant that WP:RS, WP:V and WP:SOAP fails your statement of "No, I didn't make it look wacky, his statements are wacky.". I never said that about the Time magazine article, that is a separate discussion as I see Olaf has addressed it bellow. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because these issues are the laughing stock for (pseudo)skeptics worldwide, that doesn't warrant undue weight in a Wikipedia article. But not mentioning them at all wouldn't conform to WP:NPOV. Time Magazine meets WP:RS and WP:V; yet again, "the choice of appropriate sources depends on context and information should be clearly attributed where there are conflicting sources." If secondary sources rephrase primary sources incorrectly, we should report this discrepancy.

I'll take a brief step into WP:SOAP by saying this: it seems rather unfair how Falun Gong is blamed for every supernatural claim that was ever made in qigong. There were so many "qigong masters" in China who openly boasted with their gongfu, encouraging their followers to pursue these abilities, and so forth. In Zhuan Falun, Li Hongzhi was addressing an already existing discourse that had been embraced by extremely large numbers of Chinese. The failure to acknowledge this historical context, as well as the portrayal of Li Hongzhi as some random guy out of nowhere who came to subvert reason and state power, is preposterous to anyone who knows what was really going on in Chinese society. Unfortunately, historical revisionism and even negationism are an essential part of any totalitarian ideology; history must be reinterpreted to suit the needs of the ruling class. A large part of the more "outlandish" claims made by Li Hongzhi have been made by others before him; these include the natural nuclear fission reactor in Gabon, the existence of aliens, levitation, prehistoric civilisations, plants with emotions (they actually tested this on Mythbusters in 2006 and got similar results with a polygraph [76]), and so forth. It's just that a lot of this stuff is considered pseudoscience, and there's an organised opposition to these ideas. I'm not going to start an argument about how supporting evidence is systematically rejected – people hold strong opinions about this, and we're talking Falun Gong and WP:RS instead of debating the structure of scientific revolutions. This is just something I wanted to point out. Compared to some other 'masters' in China, Li Hongzhi was quite moderate in his claims, and always emphasised that becoming a kindhearted person while living a normal life in society is the only thing that matters. If you read through Zhuan Falun, you'll know what I mean. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 12:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not actually undue weight here that's the issue. It's that skeptics are not being given any weight. Again, the only phrase in the entire article that is slightly critical of FLG is Maragret Singer derided Falun Gong as a "cult", with cult being placed in quotations, without any explanations as to why, and with a paragraph after it extensively refuting Singer. Just look at that section. It's extremely obvious POV-pushing. Colipon+(T) 14:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the idea that Falun Gong is a 'cult' just doesn't seem plausible to academics, so why should we claim otherwise? What reliable sources are you suggesting? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a little bit telltale to any ordinary reader that even though there is "no academic evidence" suggesting FLG is a cult, that an entire paragraph is spent defending the fact that it's not a cult. Clearly there is a debate. Margaret Singer's theory should be explained in its own right. Colipon+(T) 15:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It would help if you could provide diffs or chapter links, so at least we are all on the same page, and know exactly what the 2 of you are talking about. Thank you! PS: I'll be leaving for a couple of days shortly. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you refer to this edit, but still please confirm. Thank you. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Earth is abould to explode very soon?!!! lolss.. not worth commenting.. but still.. several academics, including Ownby, make it very clear that there is no doomsday stuff in Falun Dafa.. though it is mentioned a period of renewal will be there..the teachings explicitly say prophesies of major catastrophies etc. are true.. and as for cycles of civilization mentioned ,in passing, in the lectures.. its part of every tradition.. Hindu( read this article:Yugas .. and thats what every Indian believed/understood, for thousands of years, till Darwinism and Western education became mainstream.. now are you gonna say every Indian who believes there might be substance to his traditions need to be persecuted to death?.. or till he recants his beliefs? ) , Buddhist, South American, Jain..

An increasing number of scientists are starting to hold the same view: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wox3SfzBA8. And the discovery of what are labelled "out of place artifacts"[77][78] have lead many scientists to hypothesize a model involving cycles of civilizations. Why? You'll accept things only when they are 100% in-conformity what your school teachers taught? And it becomes a "sin" to even discuss anything not in conformity with the school-text-theories framework? Perhaps, it is so in CCP's rule. Not here.

We don't need hackneyed communist propaganda on our discussions.. do we? This is an encyclopedia, not CCP's propaganda ground. And it really serves no purpose. And it is not gonna fool anyone outside of mainland China, where media is censored and people are forced to swallow whatever the state controlled media says.

Regarding the 50 million statistic.. I meant: according to Epoch Times.. Well, there is no reason for many to suspect the numbers... Since all signatures and names are made available online. Anyway, someone claimed in a post above something like the Nine Commentaries by the Epoch Times and its powerful impact on exposing CPP's real nature has not been covered, or at least I thought thats what he meant when said he said "political...". As far as I can see, its an award winning editorial series, very well researched, well structured and well written. Personally, I really dont know what would make it any more "political" than another study on CCP. Anyways, isn't this stuff related to the Epoch Times page? Am for even having a separate article on The Nine Commentaries - certainly meets WP:N.

Cities throughout US and Canada Honor Falun Dafa for the benefits it has brought to the society practitioners live in. Over 900 awards and proclamations have been issued in the US alone.

Regarding medicine. You may want to look into this study, published in a leading peer reviewed journal in the field - The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine published by Mary Ann Liebert and the official journal of The International Society for Complementary Medicine Research .

The changes in gene expression of FLG practitioners in contrast to normal healthy controls were characterized by enhanced immunity, downregulation of cellular metabolism, and alteration of apoptotic genes in favor of a rapid resolution of inflammation. The lifespan of normal neutrophils was prolonged, while the inflammatory neutrophils displayed accelerated cell death in FLG practitioners as determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Correlating with enhanced immunity reflected by microarray data, neutrophil phagocytosis was significantly increased in Qigong practitioners. Some of the altered genes observed by microarray were confirmed by RPA.[79][80]

Among 12000 genes tested in the Affymetrix chip, about 200 genes were consistently altered in the FLG practitioners, and we have discussed some of the changed genes...[81]

Ribosomal proteins are very important components of protein synthesis. Downregulation of 10 out of 11 genes for ribosomal proteins suggests that protein synthesis might also be lowered. Ribosomes are the molecular machines that manufacture proteins (Maguire et al., 2001). Downregulation of both genes for ribosomal proteins and genes for protein degradation may lead to reduced protein turnover. In correlation with downregulation of protein degradation and synthesis, the genes coding for proteins involved in DNA repair, cellular stress, and antioxidant enzymes are also lowered (Fig. 3C). Decreases of those stress-associated key enzymes, along with other stress-responsive genes, may implicate limited oxidative production and macromolecular damage...[82]

( Also could someone please add the above material , summarized, to the article? If no one else does it, I'll be doing it - later today or tommorrow. This piece of research certainly merits mention. )

And also you find this article, written by an MD, an interesting read: http://www.pureinsight.org/node/154

Btw, these - straight out of CCP's propaganda sheet- claims you make above are things have been repeatedly proved baseless by independent researchers, human rights organizations, journalists and scholars. Raised only by editors who have since been banned. Even judging by common sense, 1000 people out of 70 million ( China's own statistic, according to the New York Times, as well as academic sources) in a 8 year period.. with a significant portion of practitioners being the elderly would imply a death rate manifolds lower than in the most developed of nations. In fact, it is plain to see that the Chinese Government itself was promoting Falun Dafa. For instance, the first Lecture outside China was upon direct invitation of the Chinese embassy in France. In American Universities, Falun Gong was introduced through embassy channels. And several awards were given by state qi gong orgaizations ( ref: ownby). Pre-persecution state sponsored research in China concluded Falun Dafa saved hundreds of millions of dollars in terms of health care costs etc., each year and, further, profoundly improved the health and productivity of practitioners.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's do a bit of mathematics, sourced with reliable statistics, to substantiate Dilip or Edwards claims. Actually I always wanted to do this computation, but never got around it, the result actually surprised me. Here are the facts: Based on this figure [83] death rate in China multiplied with the number of practitioners 70 millions over 8 years would have mean a total of about 3.9 million dead people. Now out of those 3.9 million, well about 1 thousand actually died. Hmm, if you ask me it means that Falun Gong just saved around 3.9 million peoples lives in China and yet the communist party was so desperate in finding faults on Falun Gong that it used this figure. Now of course there is the problem that in China these figures might not be publicized, only the state party propaganda makes it to the press, Internet, Radio, TV etc. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I must admit multiplying with 8 might be a bit exaggerated, because the 70 to 100 million practitioners figure (according to the Chinese Communist source) was made in 1998, and it was not stated that is a constant/average number from 1992 to 1999. So let's get it minimal and let's compute the death rate for 70 million people in 1 year [84], that is 489 thousand, which statistically speaking compared to the 1 thousand mentioned it's still quite good (miracle?). --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The "over 1000" statistic is from those that refused medical treatment in the case where it is needed.

• According to Zhuan Falun, "no medical help is needed" for practitioners is an important part of the teachings.
• According to China Falun Gong "Taking medicine while practicing Falun Gong means not believing that Falun Gong is able to cure illness. If you believe, why do you need to take medicine?"
• According to Zhuan Falun, "One of our students went to the hospital and had several syringe needles bend on him, ... but the needle still couldn't go in. Then he caught on, 'Wait, I'm a cultivator! I don't want any more injections.'"
• According to Sickness Karma, "Once ill, the person takes medicine or seeks various kinds of treatments, which in effect press the sickness back into the body again."

Here are a few examples of the deaths:

• Zhang Jinsheng aged 21 in Liaoning Province burnt his arm incautiously. But he refused medical treatment because he thought this was his master was eliminating karma for him. Consequently, he died of septemia in November 1998 caused by the wound infection.
• Li Qiaoying (58 years old) felt sick in October 1998. But she refused to be treated at hospital and died of cerebral thrombosis in December of that year. Two days before her death, she was suffering from paralysis and lost the ability of talking. Her husband said to her, "It is Falun Gong that has brought us misfortune. If cured earlier at hospital, you would have been saved." Li kept nodding her head but too late to repent.
• Falun Gong practitioner Hu Guangying, a retired worker in Shanghai aged 59, caught an ordinary dermatosis in January 2001, but she resolutely refused to accept medical treatment, and finally died caused by purulent infection on the affected part.

There are many more, although I don't think I need to go on.--Edward130603 (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There are many cases of these - unfortunately because the Chinese government has launched a propaganda war against Falun Gong, it is very easy to FLG practitioners to just label everything here as "CCP propaganda", regardless of whether or not the above cases are true. If nothing else, FLG is extremely sensitive to outside criticism. That's why we saw the first protests in Zhongnanhai, that's why they started their own PR campaign, and that's why we are now having issues with this very article. Colipon+(T) 21:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

One simple reason that allows for this to be dismissed as CCP propaganda is that these cases can not be checked independently. The Party does not allow it + this documentary shows the extent the Party goes with the lies and theatrics to deceitfully incriminate Falun Gong. See stages of genocide step 5 Polarization. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

One other reason is that most of the quotes used above are taken out of context or simply do not exist in the Falun Gong teachings, see here: "Taking medicine while practicing Falun Gong means not believing that Falun Gong is able to cure illness. If you believe, why do you need to take medicine?". This quote is taken directly from the CCP propaganda machine. When quoting please always attribute it to the correct source, see WP:A. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact, that is exactly where I found it. However, that doesn't mean it is false. By the way, it was originally in a book Li Hongzhi wrote: China Falun Gong.--Edward130603 (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You do need to attribute your source, if CCP said it, then the CCP said it. If it's really in China Falun Gong, you need to quote it correctly from there. I saw for example a documentary how the CCP changed the video cut one word from "the world is not going to end" to "the world is going to end" then heavily promoted this footage claiming that Falun Gong is a doomsday cult, while they cut the Chinese nations access to the original/genuine Falun Gong materials. So please don't rely on the fact that you think it was in China Falun Gong. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I found it as I was browsing through Falun Dafa's online version of Zhuan Falun:

We have a practitioner who broke a few needles at a hospital. In the end, the liquid medicine squirted out, and the needle still would not penetrate. He came to understand: "Oh, I’m a practitioner, and I shouldn’t have injections." He just realized that he should not have an injection.

See...A few sentences afterwards, Li Hongzhi says that he doesn't allow his practitioners to go the hospital. You can find it at about 70% down the page on [85].--Edward130603 (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll give you what I think about the discussion above:

• To test the validity of the "Quit CCP" campaign, I decided to see if I could "quit the CCP" myself on their website. To date I have quit the CCP three times. During these three times, I claimed to represent 65 people in total. Once I even used the pseudonym "Zhou Enlai", thinking the Epoch Times might catch on that I am not being serious. But a day later I found my "quit party testimonial" on their website. The "Quit CCP" thing is a joke, and everyone knows it. At its current rates over 80 million CCP members would "quit" by 2010. This also means that since the beginning of their campaign, 75% of the CCP have already quit. Doesn't look like it to me.
• Dilip responded to my contention that Li Hongzhi is a controversial figure with a note to Britannica. Here is what Britannica says about Falun Gong:

[...]On a more esoteric level, Li also teaches that demonic space aliens seek to destroy humanity and, since their arrival in 1900, have manipulated scientists and world leaders. Critics of the movement not only ridicule such claims but regard its reliance on Xiu Lian as an alternative to official medicine as hazardous to the members’ health. Indeed, the Chinese government claims that 1,400

Falun Gong devotees have died as a result of this alleged rejection of modern medicine.

Curiously, the same content has never made it onto Wikipedia.

• In response to the "research" above, it's an attempt to stall edits again, not to mention your math is quite plainly wrong, and is very clearly WP:OR.
• Need mediator here now. We're straying again. Constantly debating the same things is useless and unproductive. Colipon+(T) 14:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Math is "plainly wrong?" Why May I ask? And OR? It is talk page discussion! Then, dont you think what you end above with "Doesn't look like it to me"... is OR?

Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Mathematics is plainly wrong? I have graduated Computer Science, and for computation I did use a "computational knowledge engine", made by the creators of Mathematica. So please Vassyana can you please confirm that the the mathematics used above [86] is correct? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

About: "To test the validity of the "Quit CCP"", a campaign like this is at the moment the single best way in which you can quit the party and not loose your income, freedom or perhaps even life. The potential number for the Quit the CCP campaign is 1.3 billion because it includes even those who took an oath in school to be little red guards. Anyway the fact that you did quit post many times there, well that is just wrong. Let me put it this way, given the conditions do you know a safer/better way to, at least in principle, Quit the Party? One more thing the whole story about you quitting the party is WP:OR. Also please be reminded that Wikipedia is not a SOAP box WP:NOTSOAP, please keep to WP:RS and WP:V + refrain from using FUD. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm really quite impressed how much Wikipedia policy you can pull into one small discussion about the validity of the Epoch Times Quit CCP program. The entire Epoch Times "Quit Party" campaign is clearly a fraud. If I can quit the CCP three times on behalf of 65 people, the next guy can do it ten times and represent 10,000 people. Honestly, even in Taiwan and HK they see the whole thing as a joke. Colipon+(T) 22:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Happyingeneraly, pulling all that WP policy still doesn't make the Quit CCP campaign reliable, at all. Anyone can go on there and pretend to quit CCP. I could even if I don't have any affiliation with CCP. It's about the same as asking everyone online to leave a signature and join me on my mission to reach Pluto by December of the next year...okay, that is a bit of an exaggeration.--Edward130603 (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I could debate extensively with you, but that would be useless because we are on wikipedia. What is relevant is exactly, what you are impressed about: "I'm really quite impressed how much Wikipedia policy you can pull into one small discussion". --HappyInGeneral (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Colipon, you may want to read the Archives of discussion.

This is the article from Encyclopædia Britannica Online(2009): http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/338603/Li-Hongzhi

In July 1999 Li Hongzhi became known to the world when the Chinese government condemned the practice of his Falun Dafa system, a cultivation of five meditation exercises (known as Falun Gong) that were based on ancient Chinese methods of spiritual healing and enlightenment. Li and his system came under attack on April 25, when more than 10,000 followers protested against being called a “superstitious cult” by the Chinese government. Li, allegedly unaware of the ensuing events, left China just one day before the protest, traveling to Australia for a presentation. He did not return. Three months later, Chinese Pres. Jiang Zemin declared the practitioners of Falun Gong a threat to the government and issued a warrant for Li’s arrest while detaining thousands of his followers, some of whom were officials for the Chinese Communist regime. Millions of Li’s books and cassette tapes were destroyed in the crackdown.

Li was born into an intellectual family on July 7, 1952, in Jilin province, China. He studied under masters from the Buddhist and Taoist faiths. With the surge in China in the late 1980s of Qiqong-related activities—from which many Falun Gong exercises descended—Li decided to synthesize his techniques in order to establish a synergy between the mind and nature. He compiled many of his lectures into a book entitled Zhuan Falun, which served as the main text for his methodology. In it, he called for spiritual enlightenment through meditation and the striving toward a high moral standard of living. Falun Gong became popular in the 1990s largely because many followers claimed to be healed from diseases that traditional medicine could not treat. By the end of 1999 Li estimated there to be around 100 million Falun Gong practitioners throughout the world. Zhuan Falun had been translated into nine different languages.

Shortly after publishing Zhuan Falun, Li announced that he had completed his teachings in China. He began to travel extensively, making guest appearances at conferences in support of his techniques. Li became a U.S. citizen in 1997 and moved to New York City in 1998. He called for dialogue with the Chinese government to resolve the crisis that had resulted from the use of his system. His teachings continued to be relayed in books and on audiotapes throughout the world, and such cities as Chicago, Toronto, and Houston, Texas, had honoured him by proclaiming “Master Li Hongzhi” days in recognition of the positive contributions of Falun Dafa.

DeAudray Brown

The article on Falun gong in the encyclopaedia is extremely dated. Not a single reference going beyond 1999/2000 - when CCP was the only available source on the topic to many in the west and no third party research was available. This has since been superseded by latest academic research - Refer, for instance, David Ownby's 2008 research. Even the 2002 World Book Encyclopaedia article is entirely positive.

In a topic like this, a field of active academic research, and where more information is available almost daily, latest scholarship, vetted by the academic community, certainly deserves more merit than 10 year old articles. See earlier discussions. Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Every one of these topics have been debated ad nauseum on the 24 archives of this talk page. Can we just refrain from writing things and await the mediator?Colipon+(T) 15:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

At least the mathematics presented above [87], which although it's very simple and straight forward, you state is "quite plainly wrong, and is very clearly WP:OR", is new :-) But I do agree that everything was discussed before, and it's best to keep to WP:RS. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Margaret Singer

As a side discussion from above, why is it that Margaret Singer's labeling of Falun Gong being a "cult" not explained at all? She mentions in her book that "cult" is not even meant to be a pejorative term, merely descriptive. I find it interesting that the fact that she believes FLG is a cult is presented, and then not described at all. Why does she think so? If she thinks so, there must be a reason, right? Why isn't the reason presented at all? She is clearly a very reputable source who has published in many peer-reviewed journals. She even wrote a book (See here on Amazon) called "Cults in Our Midst" that details some of what she considers "cult characteristics" of Falun Gong. She has also published a well-referenced journal article here. I'm sure this has probably been discussed before. But why isn't this part of the article at all? Colipon+(T) 16:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. At the moment, her comment isn't explained. It is given a short sentence and is overshadowed by all of the pro-FLG statements.--Edward130603 (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's put it in context. David Ownby - the professor at the University of Montreal, has his name all over every article that deals with Falun Gong. But Margaret Singer, who is equally if not more qualified from UCLA, and renowned for her cult studies works, was given one line. Both scholars ostensibly do not want to promote any agenda, CCP or FLG. But one somehow goes on to appear much, much more than the other. It doesn't take much to see that there is very obvious POV tampering. Colipon+(T) 19:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit on "Reception" section

I have made this edit on the "reception" section: [88]. This is the first edit I have made on the page for ages. Please discuss first if there is any plans to revert. Colipon+(T) 17:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"Falun Gong has garnered diverse public attention on several occasions." Although I will not change this statement for fear of reverts, to me it is clearly just a way to avoid saying "Falun Gong has generated public controversy". Colipon+(T) 17:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Zhuan Falun

Earlier in the discussion, User:Bdentremont pointed out direct primary source Zhuan Falun.

He stated:

Why do we need reliable secondary sources regarding beliefs of Falun Gong when primary sources are readily available?[...]

He then gives the following pages for reference:

• Prehistoric nuclear reactor - Zhuan Falun, pg 10 (pdf pg 15)
• The 81 cycles of civilization- Zhuan Falun, pg 11 (pdf pg 16)
• Spinning Law Wheel in the lower abdomen, Zhuan Falun, pg 21 (pdf pg 26)
• The Third (Celestial) Eye - Zhuan Falun, pg 24 (pdf pg 29)
• Degradation of human society and recent development of homosexuality - Zhuan Falun, pg 181 (pdf pg 186)
• The "Dharma-ending period" and loss of morals - Teachings of Li Hongzhi at the Zhuan Falun Publication Ceremony, Beijing, January 4, 1995, pg 2.

He goes on to point out "To reiterate, these are from the authorized English translations FG's fundamental literature. Some, particularly the "Law Wheel" and Third Eye appear to be very important to the FG belief system." and that "I think that most readers would consider inconsistency with mainstream western science to be an important aspect of FG, and thus worthy of inclusion in the article. Obviously, many would consider this inconsistency to reflect negatively on FG, which is why FG promotional materials highlight less controversial aspects such as the exercises. Having read both the translation of Zhuan Falun and some FG promotional materials, my opinion is that that the current article follows the promotional materials too closely approaching something of propaganda piece..

This is a very well-argued concern in good faith from what looks like a very neutral-minded editor. We have yet to receive a response to this. Colipon+(T) 16:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

These issues belong into the article Teachings of Falun Gong. They can be nicely added alongside the larger context provided by the secondary sources. But their relative weight in the teachings must be taken into account: deliberate cherry-picking of anything that sounds or smells controversial is not the point. While some things, such as the spinning Law Wheel, celestial eye and the moral degradation of entire humankind can be easily perceived as major issues in Li Hongzhi's talks, things like "recent development of homosexuality" (an original interpretation), the prehistoric nuclear reactor and the 81 cycles of civilization are a lot less important, based on their prevalence in the entire corpus of teachings. Other major issues (in my own words) are the supernatural aspects of ancient Chinese traditions; non-pursuit as a core concept in cultivation; the structure of dimensions; physical transformation of the entire being through xiulian; insistence to conform to the ways of ordinary society; Fa-rectification; and saving people from imminent destruction by making them understand the true nature of the CCP and this persecution. In my view, all this should be included on the Teachings page to some degree.

A few of words regarding the "FG promotional materials" and how they highlight "less controversial aspects such as the exercises". The truth is that a lot of these issues, such as the supposed existence of aliens or 81 cycles of civilisation, do not bear any practical relevance to Falun Gong practitioners. Essentially, the practice consists of doing the exercises, studying the books, and disciplining one's moral character. All of the lectures and books are very easily available; there have been no attempts to hide any of their content. Just think about it: if Falun Gong promotional materials would discuss these things, a lot of disinterested people on the street would consider it an assault on their worldview. Besides, in our activities, we're primarily trying to spread the message about what's happening to practitioners in China. It's not missionary work. We don't want to push any of this stuff; if a person finds Falun Gong appealing, it's up to him or her to digest it and see if the unconventional claims become insurmountable obstacles in his or her mind. But now that the promotional materials are more considerate towards different opinions and avoid provoking people too much, practitioners are accused of cover-ups. You just can't please everyone, can you? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've read the article at Teachings of Falun Gong. If you notice, much of it (and the entire section on "Falun Gong's views on science") was written from one source - David Ownby. I will eagerly wait for third-party assessments. In any case, it's fairly clear that the main article reads like a promotional piece for Falun Gong, as User:Bdentromont has pointed out. Colipon+(T) 19:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Just ask anyone to read the following, word for word:

Leading Falun Gong scholar David Ownby sees Falun Gong as first and foremost "concerned with moral purpose and the ultimate meaning of life and death."[34] Falun Gong practitioners consider their practice "profoundly moral," according to Ownby, where "the very structure of the universe, according to Li Hongzhi, is made up of the moral qualities cultivators are enjoined to practice in their own lives: truth, compassion and forbearance. The goal of cultivation, and hence of life itself, is spiritual elevation, achieved by eliminating karma—the built-up sins of past and present lives which often manifest themselves in individuals as illness—and accumulating virtue."[8] Through cultivation, Falun Gong promises "personal harmony with the very substance of the universe." Ownby says that Li's teachings do not focus on "lists of dos and don'ts or 'sophisticated ethical discussions.'" Falun Gong teaches instead that followers should "rid themselves of unnecessary ‘attachments’, to do what they know is right and hence to return to ‘the origin’, to their ‘original self,’" he says.[8]

This is considered encyclopedic? Colipon+(T) 19:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, that quote from Ownby's book is a good description of the phenomenology of Falun Gong practice. In the school of thought that emphasises understanding (the hermeneutic phenomenological tradition rooted in German philosophy), that is considered good science. If you've been formed in an environment of Marxist sociology and scientific positivism, perhaps you don't see its value. Ownby's overused in these articles, though. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

China Falun Gong

Does anyone know where I can find an online copy of the book China Falun Gong by Li Hongzhi?--Edward130603 (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that book was later renamed simply Falun Gong, so see here [89]. It is considered an introductory book, the main text being Zhuan Falun. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--Edward130603 (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Question for the Mediator

Is it possible for the mediator to conduct a thorough 3rd party investigation into what has actually taken place on this page and other FLG-related articles? Without any outside interference? This is really the only way to fix it. I understand this may be outside the jurisdiction of a mediator but something has to be done. Something third-party, thorough, serious, and conclusive. Issues have been brought to RfC, ArbCom, AdminNoticeboard etc. no less than nine times, and nothing seems to be resolved, or even in the process of being resolved. The same circular arguments are being rehashed over and over and over again, by the same group of pro-FLG users, over and over again (just read this page). So many NPOV-minded editors have reported their frustrations with this, yet nothing can be done. To the mediator, I must say, your help is greatly appreciated.

It's at a point where giong to Jimmy Wales himself on this issue may not be an unreasonable thing to do. After all, can anyone else name any other article on here that has faced so many serious disputes that have not been resolved through so many available channels? Colipon+(T) 17:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Strange, I've mostly seen anti-FLG editors rehashing their circular arguments over and over and over again. The fundamental problem is still related to reliable sources and their relative weight. Personally, I have nothing against the inclusion of "critical" sources; but attempting to hijack the lede with red herrings, or failing to produce Wiki-qualifying references on demand, seems to be the norm among some ideologues in our midst. While sources like NYT, IHT, Time, and SCMP do meet the community requirements – mind you, I've never removed them, and I don't agree with the conduct of those who have – they are still less significant than peer-reviewed journals, and are not entitled to similar visibility or weight. And when anti-FLG editors really start digging the dumpsters (Rick Ross), and refuse to get the point in spite of third party discussion, that effectively poisons the atmosphere and weeds out any cooperative mentality at the outset.

The anti-FLG party has to accept the fact that the most reliable sources are actually taking a neutral outlook at Falun Gong, oftentimes seeking proper contextualisation and a hermeneutical understanding, and that's why they appear positive. Anything that aims at genuine understanding doesn't satisfy sensationalists, who perfer distorting the relationship between individual parts and the whole to suit their agenda. To me it seems that only a sensationalist "exposé" of Falun Gong could ever appear "neutral" to certain people. We will never let these articles degrade into something like that; if the legacy of Samuel Luo and Tomananda starts raising its deformed head, it will be pushed back into its boghole without delay. But I do agree with you on this: these articles need WP:NPOV. Unfortunately, we haven't seen too many editors with a disciplined approach to neutrality.

One more thing. Please stop calling yourself a "NPOV-minded editor". As long as you use words like 'alleged' in front of 'persecution'; and fail to evaluate sources based on their notability (i.e. academic sources are more notable than newspapers, peer-reviewed journals are more notable than non-peer-reviewed ones); and continue to lobby for people like Rick Ross; and fail to make distinctions between editors on the "pro-FLG" side, I don't see much NPOV-mindedness in that. You're not fooling me; you clearly have an ax to grind, and I see you as a moderate anti-FLG editor. You're not a fanatical extremist like Simonm223, but you are far too committed to a maligning discourse to call yourself neutral. In my eyes, you're only trying to angle for sympathy, as if paying lip service to some Archimedean point would hoodwink anyone. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 07:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Olaf Stephanos, which "anti-FLG editors" do you mean? There must have been an insane number of them judging by the reverts that have been performed, mustn't there? You have stated many times that you have nothing against critical sources, but when have you last let one stand, let alone included one yourself, even when directly asked to do so.

There was the question on Falun Gong's view of homosexuality which was brought up the last time I had the time and energy to edit the page. At that time, you responded with a veritable wall of text on how careful one must be when mentioning Falun Gong's view of homosexuality, but when asked, you did not actually add anything to the page, just cautioning everyone else. The same thing happened when we spoke of mixed-ethnicity marriages and Falun Gong's view of them.

The lowest point is still however how you will at one moment claim that you have nothing against critical voices, and at another you have no qualms about launching accusations of criminality against a source (Rick Ross in this case) as a method of excluding his statements from the article.

I really wish I had the time and energy to help improve this article, but I am so very tired of poorly-motivated blanking, combined calls for discussions and then reverts made without discussion and then, particularily from you, Olaf Stephanos, endless references to wikipedia guidelines which do not actually support your action. PerEdman (talk) 11:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

My direct impact on the current state of the articles is not very significant. I have been discussing on the talk pages – probably way too much in proportion to the actual work that needs to be done. But I want to get involved without having to ward off constant harassment and ideological struggle, and foster an environment where only reliable sources, sound arguments, rational thinking, and a disciplined approach can stand a chance.

Oh, and Rick Ross can keep selling his snake oil on a private website. All your concerns were resolved here. This is getting old. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 16:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

By accident I stumbled upon this edit of yours on Samuel Luo's talk page. "I think we have a lot in common, and can work together in revealing the truth about Falun Gong. I'd like to know, aside from Wikipedia and having the initiative to start your own website, did you do anything else in this process of exposure? I am very interested. Get back to me when you can." So you're interested in a "process of exposure" and have "a lot in common" with Samuel. Good to know. This was written at a time when the articles were oozing with original research, weasel words, and ideological struggle that ultimately got Luo and Tom banned for life. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 12:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Colipon is nearly as radical as Luo. Please refrain from making connections. It is getting close to violating WP:NPA.--Edward130603 (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

He's not nearly as radical; like I said, I consider him moderate. I'm just pointing out that his NPOV-mindedness is extremely selective, and that he has sympathised with Luo's crackpottery before – even when the articles were failing miserably. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 13:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's okay, really. I've gotten used to the personal attacks on this talk page. I have never been similarly attacked anywhere else on Wikipedia. I've been called a CCP agent numerous times already, Olaf even going as far as to scout out my user page history to find a phrase "political affiliations in the past", saying it is obviously a clue that I'm a Communist propagandist. To that, I say, go on. Discredit me all you'd like. No matter how much I am discredited, the article is still in a terrible state. Compare me to radical editors in the past, accuse me of being an agent, whatever you can think of. By discrediting me and alluding to my allged "connections" to people such as Sam Luo, Olaf hopes to paint my edits and comments, and indeed, my person, as someone who is not editing in good faith, someone who is part of a larger agenda. By disputing my neutrality, pro-FLG editors aim to give mediators and spectators the illusion that the conflict on the article is a protracted two-sided war with defined anti-FLG and pro-FLG interests, whereas this is more a case of neutral-minded editors calling on the pro-FLG side to adhere to NPOV. If Olaf is a neutral minded editor himself, he would have no problems with asking for a third-party investigation into the state of the article and its disputes. If he were truly neutral, he would support my comment above, because neutral editors have nothing to lose if a third-party investigation is conducted.

The article's not getting any better. The state of the article and the nature of these disputes are extremely clear to any third party, once they have read this talk page, its 24 archives, or the article itself. Colipon+(T) 14:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Colipon, I'm sure nobody has any problem with truly NPOV, third party contributors, I think Olaf was only trying to say that you are not one of those, as it could have been understood in your request, in which, you just request by painting a picture without any concrete and to the point information provided. I requested a few times and I will repeat here, please refrain from FUD techniques and provide concrete addressable issues (that is new issues, not ones that are repeated and discredited over and over again). --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have never called you a "Communist propagandist". Moreover, I have explicitly stated that I don't believe you are an agent, nor do I believe you are "part of a larger agenda". I'd like to ask you to stop misrepresenting my words. I merely proved through direct quotes that your shining helmet of neutrality seems to be made of cheap Chinese tinfoil. If you weren't peacocking around with phrases like "neutral-minded editors calling on the pro-FLG side to adhere to NPOV", there would be no need to point out your double standards. Why don't you start playing your cards openly? "Yes, I have these careless remarks in my past, but I have learned my lessons; I am no longer interested in 'processes of exposure' and promise to collaborate in good faith." ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"...your shining helmet of neutrality seems to be made of cheap Chinese tinfoil." haha. I like it. :)Colipon+(T)

"Miss representing words" goes against one of my favorite policies on Wikipedia Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and it is a disruptive technique. So I kindly ask for it to stop. In any case I will keep an eye on it anyway and bring it up whenever it happens to keep it as a reminder. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Colipon+(T) 15:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I must remind editors that my question above was intended for the mediator. I look forward to getting an answer from him/her soon. Colipon+(T) 14:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Call for Investigation

I just read Archive No. 24 and the entirety of this talk page. Just a message to the mediator: reading these two pages alone (will take roughly 30-40 minutes) is enough to give you a good idea how serious the problem really is. Very self-evident - doesn't require much to be said. Seems like there are two users, namely asdfg12345 and Olaf, who have done most of the refutation/reverts of criticism, and they are intermittently flanked by dilip and HappyInGeneral. Olaf seems to employ argumentation at a more advanced level than asdfg, although asdfg seems more versed in invoking wiki policy. Dilip has been banned once for various abuses, and HappyInGeneral, as far as I can tell, is more "moderate". Anyway. Several blogs have already been written about issues in this article, from users like OhConfucius, Mrund, etc., after they gave up on their quest to present a neutral view. My view on this matter is that the only proactive way to solve the problems on this article is:

1. Conduct thorough investigation from higher Wikipedia authorities.
2. Ban the users they deem responsible for causing the problems on this article.

I am certain that I am not alone in these thoughts. Best wishes, Colipon+(T) 20:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have dissected many callow arguments and left them in bloody pulp, but my reverts have been sparse and few over the years. If you aren't content with our mediator, you can always take another route of WP:Dispute resolution. Prepare to do a lot of work; nobody's going to do it for you. I know, I initiated the previous arbitration case. It all comes down to whether the anti-FLGers have used WP:RS and given them due weight or not. Unreliable sources can be removed by anyone without further ado, not to speak of original research. Other problems have been caused by people who want to hijack the lede with some red herring. The same old story. I don't think you have a case, Colipon, but you can always try your luck. Hey, don't we all love gaming? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we please wait for the mediator to respond?--Edward130603 (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agree with Edward and Colipon. Mediator please read thru the archived talk pages. I, like many others, have basically given up on these FLG pages; IMHO some editor's wangon circling has resulted in many facts unfairly removed/marginalized.

The same editors have also circled wagon and POVed it to death in this page.

On a personal note, I'd like to ask the mediator to reveiw this balnking of cite okayed by multiple administrators

Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Any fair-minded reader who looks at the past discussion will see that a few pro-FLG contributors are camping on this entry and removing all criticism, no matter how well sourced. The amount of passive-aggressive wikilawyering exhibited here is staggering. It's the same situation that recently led to the wholesale banning of pro-Scientology contributors from Wikipedia. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree on most points. I am not sure "higher Wikipedia authorities" should "ban users responsible for causing problems", but this article certainly bears investigating, but it cannot stand under constant surveillance of administrators for all time. The article needs skilled editors and I have lost the energy to be one of them. The article and the list of active editors needs to be much improved before I can participate constructively.

The article is poorly written (wordy, convoluted, contains too much name-dropping), poorly sourced (too many sources, many of them to Falun Gong webpages and liks to articles that reference each other) and gives a very whitewashed impression (very few critical voices, if any, are allowed and have even been removed through "minor edits" or by accusing the source of being criminal or being implied as agents of the Chinese government). When one digs into the sources, web-available articles will be linked by article name and publication rather than a weblink, or the link will go to a webpage collecting snippets of articles, created by Falun Gong members, rather than the first-hand statement.

I have tried to improve the article in these areas: by going through sources to verify that they support claims in the wikipedia page, by restricting references to ref tags (removing namedropping) to make lede more readable, remove references that build their content solely on the content of another reference that has already been used on the wikipage. Please see my talk page headings from 2 July 2009 for details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong#Incorporating_criticism ff. PerEdman (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

After reading the archives and history here it is a little naive to go on believing that if we keep this group of Pro-FLG users on this page, that it will be possible to improve it. Therefore my opinion is that a "wholesale ban" is more than necessary. I am just discouraged because a) I have another life and do not have the time to keep monitoring this page and b) we have exhausted all of Wikipedia's dispute resolution channels. This is the reason I suggested "higher Wikipedia authorities" - although because I have never dealt with an issues similar to this, I really don't know where to go anymore. Colipon+(T) 16:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Guys, guys, here's a handkerchief to wipe your foaming mouths. The conduct of "pro-FLG" editors has been investigated during the previous arbitration case. I will be here keeping you in check, and there is no way to get rid of me, because I know what I'm doing. I know how dispute resolution works, what are my rights as an editor, and what kind of behaviour entails punishment. I'm not going to burn myself, nor is there anything in my edit history that would incriminate me.

Grand talk without reliable sources; inability to present reasonable, logical, cool-headed arguments; blind ideological struggle; refusal to get the point; and complete avoidance of the real bones of contention, even when they are brought forth in discussion – these are the real problems we're facing. A lot of us just haven't read the friendly manual properly, have we? When I browse through the archives, I see something very different from what you're describing; me and Asdfg12345 have always asked for sources, sources, sources – and rational discussion. How many dozens of hours have we wasted debating something that unambiguously does not qualify, just because it's the best someone can come up with (and that says a lot). How many times have we seen someone insert some pungent red herring and insist on its placement in the lede, even if we would've agreed that the reference is alright in another location, as long as it's contextualised properly. We've encountered a myriad of agitators, pseudoskeptics, CCP-sympathisers, militant atheists, and a motley crew of other anti-FLGers who've never learned the details of how to edit Wikipedia properly. They realise they're dealing with a group of editors who're extremely aware of their rights, and they don't find a way around the fundamental requirements, don't know how to do genuine research, get extremely frustrated, and eventually say things like "I have never dealt with issues similar to this, I really don't know where to go."

Let me give you a piece of friendly advice. There are two ways we can proceed. The way that is probably the simplest for all of us is waiting and seeing if we can get ahead with our mediator. He seems like an experienced and reasonable guy. Another way is starting an arbitration enforcement case. You need to collect the evidence, present the exact diffs, elaborate on what policies they are breaching through direct references to the rules (something you've erroneously called "wikilawyering") – and be scrutinised yourself, as the accused parties will certainly gather countering evidence to prove your own misconduct. I've gone through this process. It's quite time-consuming, but it's the final step of dispute resolution. There are no "higher authorities" on Wikipedia who just show up on demand and conduct an investigation. You conduct your own investigation and present it to the judges. Tomananda and Samuel Luo, the two chums from Frisco, were banned indefinitely as a result of the previous arbitration case; until the very end, they thought they were the ones who had done nothing wrong. You should familiarise yourselves with their tragic fate. I see a lot of their hubris in some of you. Apart from User:Mcconn, who was placed on standard revert parole and hasn't been around for years, no "pro-FLG" editors were punished. Why? Because we're familiar with the playground. And we do research. And our sources are better than yours. (And because, in the end, we know what we're doing, while you are making the most serious miscalculation of your lives – but that's another story, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox, so let us stick to tangible issues and not give too much weight to correct personal opinions.)

Nevertheless, to give you some credit, I can say that I've seen some glimpses of constructive editing on these pages. You may indeed have the potential to learn and become mature. For instance, I was very happy with Colipon's wording "Falun Gong has garnered diverse public attention on several occasions." That is definitely true, and a neutral wording we should all be able to agree with. On the other hand, from your point of view, it may be unfortunate that the overwhelming majority of reliable academic sources are quite neutral towards Falun Gong – and what is 'neutral' will undoubtedly appear 'pro-FLG' to some of you, as it does not portray Falun Gong as some weird, incomprehensible, dangerous phenomenon that warrants further marginalisation. As a result, this article cannot give out the impression that the anti-FLG activists would prefer. There's no doubt we need to develop these articles by making them more balanced, more comprehensive, more diverse. But they will never turn into a frantic "exposé" of Falun Gong; you should realise this at the outset. I am aware of a large number of untapped, reliable, third party sources that are just waiting to be included here. I'm perfectly assured that any rational reader will be able to understand the real situation when we really get down to business; because even if Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, it will all be wonderfully transparent when the facts are laid out in an eloquent, systematic fashion. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Olaf, it is because you are a "civil POV pusher". Please read WP:PUSH. I don't think that those of us arguing against you are gonna get banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. None of us have 24 sockpuppets and all of us edit constructively. For one, I'm not a single purpose editor. I don't spend my life on Falun Gong articles on Wikipedia. Happyingeneral, Asdfg, Olaf, and Dilip are all people that do nothing on Wikipedia except for editing FLG-related articles. You are familiar with the FLG "playground" because you are on it day in and day out. You eat on it, you drink on it, you "cultivate" on it, you even sleep on it.

Also, please don't try to scare us off by telling us to "familiarise" with Sam Luo's "tragic fate". I don't see anything I have done that would warrant an indefinite ban.--Edward130603 (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I completely disagree with your characterisation. I understand you can find no other accusations against me, so you keep calling me a "single-purpose account" (see WP:Tendentious editing#Characteristics of problem editors). I have plenty of other things in my life, as you can see on my user page, so I'm not going to bother using even more of my precious time for Wikipedia, even if I have other areas of expertise that would surely help building an encyclopedia. I am here, because in the real world, a near-infinite amount of renminbi and dollars have been used to denigrate and defame Falun Gong; because so many people are deluded by the CCP; and because using nothing but reliable sources and giving them due weight is the only way to keep this article from degenerating into another tool of oppression and propaganda. I am here as a defender of transparency, reliable sources, and the spirit of Wikipedia. I can write for the enemy, and I have done so in the past. I've swept the floor with hollow arguments over and over again, yet remained civil, even if my arrows are sharp and I shoot you straight. I can see several characteristics of "civil POV pushers" applying to anti-FLG warriors, such as:

• They argue endlessly about the neutral-point-of-view policy and particularly try to undermine the undue weight clause. They try to add information that is (at best) peripherally relevant on the grounds that "it is verifiable, so it should be in."
• They argue for the inclusion of material of dubious reliability; for example, using commentary from partisan think tanks rather than from the scientific literature. ("cultic studies", anyone?)
• They repeatedly use the talk page for soapboxing, and/or to re-raise the same issues that have already been discussed numerous times. (Rick Ross, CCP propaganda in the lede...)
• They attempt to water down language ("alleged" persecution), unreasonably exclude, marginalize or push views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV, or give undue weight to fringe theories - pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, marginal nationalist or historic viewpoints, and the like (PCCTL for short). (why do you always have trouble producing academic sources on demand?)
• They often make a series of silly and time wasting requests for comment, mediation or arbitration again to try to wear down the serious editors. (...and keep insisting on some sources even when they've been turned down)

Secondly, I did not say you would deserve an indefinite ban. None of you have surpassed Tomananda and Samuel in blind ideological struggle. But the road some of you are treading would undoubtedly lead to sanctions if you kept your attitude. Martin Rundkvist, Per Edman, and Simonm223, to say the least, all have incriminating edits in their past. A lot of this evidence is already collected, so it's easily available if our problems escalate. Talking about bans and their targets was a reply to Colipon's comment: "After reading the archives and history here it is a little naive to go on believing that if we keep this group of Pro-FLG users on this page, that it will be possible to improve it. Therefore my opinion is that a "wholesale ban" is more than necessary." Right, Colipon, wouldn't it all be so much easier without accountability? All those pesky 轮子 niggers, those no-good cult members being so awfully demanding? I mean, who would have the time and energy for that? But a wholesale ban, mmmmmm... yes... sweet....... ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 10:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I've only called you a single-purpose account once. The persecution of FLG exists so it is not alleged, but the word persecution is not NPOV. Also, FLG's couterattempt at defaming China is disgusting. In addition, in China (yes I have been there for extended periods of time before), civilians who want peace are harrased with leaflets that are sneaked in to them and bombarded with endless phone calls asking them to join FLG and/or donate money. Westerners only see the good side of FLG. (BTW, please don't say that that was WP:OR, I'm not trying to put it into the article.)

And who was calling you a "wheel nigger"?--Edward130603 (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong practitioners do not make phone calls asking people to "join FLG and/or donate money". You've been lied to – or you have encountered an agent provocateur. However, I know Chinese who call their fellow countrymen and persuade them to renounce the CCP. It is not uncommon for more than half of the respondents to agree. (As for your other question, calling practitioners 轮子 is a common slur in Mainland China.) ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Over half of the people agree because the respondents are tired of harrassment from FLG.--Edward130603 (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If none of this is relevant, I really do request that you folks wait till Vassyana gets back. He's an extremely accomplished mediator. In the meantime, I hope you folks will abstain from this pro- and anti- talk about each other. Thank you. Xavexgoem (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Our mediator, Vassyana, is "currently without regular internet service. This will be corrected withint 7 to 10 days. Apologies for any inconvenience." as it says on his/her talk page yesterday. Lets just wait for our mediator to return before we proceed.--Edward130603 (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. That's a good idea. Colipon+(T) 16:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• First, I'd like to thank you all for your patience and understanding regarding my internet service issues. That said, what I will do in response to the request above is take a deeper look over the history of this article and the talk page archives, as well as those of related articles, and provide some honest feedback about what I see as the main problems and stumbling blocks. Does that seem appropriate and helpful? Vassyana (talk) 08:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Similar Arbitration Case for Reference

If we choose to take the path of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology, it certainly looks like a long road ahead.

Also, this archive gives a very good overview of what tactics users may resort to if a ban is placed. Also looks like the article on Scientology has a lot more admin attention and quite a few apologist editors. Colipon+(T) 16:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you know what's the fundamental difference? Scientology, as described by numerous reliable sources, is nothing but a money-making pyramid scam for useful idiots. The overwhelming majority of academics are clear on this. The Church of Scientology IP addresses have gone to great lengths to keep the most reliable sources out of the article. The ArbCom did wisely by banning them wholesale.

On the other hand, in Falun Gong's case, the reliable, academic sources tell a very different story. A paranoid totalitarian government launched a vicious assault on a peaceful group of meditators who did not want to get involved with politics. The group has no official membership, no formal organisation, no leaders and subordinates, no monetary corruption, and seems to be composed of normal people with some unconventional beliefs. They've been imprisoned, subjected to forced labour, tortured and killed, and there are numerous pieces of circumstantial evidence about their organs being harvested. Some people are so committed to their anti-FLG beliefs that they are genuinely surprised to find obstacles in their missionary work. Their views cannot stand closer scrutiny and are handily dissected by fellow editors with sufficient mastery of the word. They find it incredibly difficult to prove their arguments with reliable sources; and they turn into wolverines, digging the outlying dumpsters to find one half-rotten red herring, and fiercely insist on showcasing it at the prime spot of the exhibition. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, just wait for the mediator. Colipon+(T) 18:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Claims vs. Says

Hello Edward, regarding this edit [90] could you please elaborate why you think claim is a better wording then says? Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Happy. It was just to match the tone of Singer's statement, which used "claims". If you think that the original wording was better, please tell me and we can revert it back!--Edward130603 (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Destynova's Comments

[moved by Edward130603 from section Comprehensive Look]

Agreed. The English language version of this article seems to highlight Falun Gong in an unfairly positive light. Even at the start, it's referred to as a 'spiritual practice' when it is considered a religion by some (and a cult by others) - little to no mention of this is made in the article. This seems to be consistent with the way FG is described to the public as a form of exercises and meditation - any elements of FG practice or beliefs which would be regarded as unsavoury in the Western world (such as the views on homosexuality as amoral behaviour, although I did check the article on Christianity and found no mention either, which seems odd) are eliminated or toned down.

A search of the article for the word 'cult' turned up a first mention in the "Persecution" section, stating that the Chinese government had branded FG as such (note that "branded" in this context is kind of a weasel word). The next hit, in the "Reception" section is of interest, but completely fails to mention any of the reasons why those people consider FG to be a cult. Why is the "Persection" section seven times longer than the "Reception" section? That in itself indicates some bias in the article's current state.

Finally, I have to agree with a previous editor who mentioned that the Chinese language version of the article is much fairer and balanced than the English language one. It discusses some important issues which are completely omitted in the English version.

Destynova (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Where are the reliable academic sources calling Falun Gong a 'cult'? Just because billions of dollars have been used to attack and defame Falun Gong, and some people have been seriously mislead, that doesn't mean Falun Gong has anything to do with genuine cults. Nobody called it a 'cult' before the persecution began, so it is more than appropriate to mention the word in that section and explain its origins. We shouldn't give an air of objectivity to something that is, academically speaking, nothing but a fringe view. See my post here for some elaborations on this issue. Falun Gong's views on homosexuality and other such things can be mentioned in the article, as long as they are given due weight; they are a minor fraction of the entire corpus of teachings and don't have any impact on how Falun Gong practitioners act towards other people.

Why aren't these views given more prominence in the "Reception" section? Margaret Singer was so controversial that she was no longer accepted as an expert witness in her later years; her reports "lacked scientific rigor and an evenhanded approach" according to a court ruling. This should be mentioned whenever she's brought up. Patsy Rahn is a former B-class soap opera actress [91] [92], who has nothing but a BA in political science (although she "studies modern and classical Chinese at the University of California at Los Angeles", according to the reference in the article). On the other side, we have David Ownby (Director of the Centre of East Asian studies at the University of Montreal); Livia Kohn (Professor of Religion and East Asian Studies at Boston University and a scholar in Daoism); Barend ter Haar (Chair of Sinological Institute at the University of Leiden); and many other respected scholars. Per WP:RS and WP:UNDUE, there's no way we can end up with a fair and balanced article by giving equal weight to people like Singer and Rahn and other members of the "anti-cult movement", whose partisan views and ideologies have been described in a peer-reviewed journal as "[lacking] empirical verification or general acceptance within the scientific community", as well as "useful tools, helping efforts by the [Communist] party to try to maintain a delicate balance and create the illusion that the rule-of-law has been upheld, even as actions in violation of international customary law are being taken against the Falun Gong." [93] As long as you don't give me an opposing peer-reviewed reference claiming that these are not fringe views, we will go by what is said in WP:FRINGE (emphasis mine):

Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is. Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence, it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects. Other well-known, reliable, and verifiable sources that discuss an idea are required so that Wikipedia does not become the primary source for fringe theories. Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner if there are no independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality about it.

There are people who like to "struggle" against almost anything that seems irreal, untrue, and/or religious; there are those who are concerned about Falun Gong's incredibly strong peaceful resistance to the CCP and want to discredit the practice based on their personal sentiments; and there are other reasons. We have editors like that, such as Simonm223, whose entire Wikipedia history is somehow related to lobbying for secular materialism. These kinds of people undoubtedly see this article as biased, because it doesn't "expose" Falun Gong, blow things out of their proportions, and make the whole issue seem ridiculous and dangerously irrational. But don't blame me on the fact that most Western academics are taking a neutral outlook on Falun Gong. Giving due weight to reliable sources and taking extra caution at representing things in their relevant contexts is the only way we can get ahead, regardless of personal opinions. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 04:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Other FLG-related articles

Just another note: there are other articles which are not in the spotlight that also deserve serious attention:

• For example, there is pervasive blanking and disputes at Academic views on Falun Gong, a recent issue I've noted about serious blanking by User:Asdfg12345 can be seen at Talk:Academic_views_on_Falun_Gong#Serious_Blanking.
• Articles on Falun Gong media outlets Epoch Times, NTDTV and Shen Yun Performing Arts face similar disputes and issues regarding the removal of well-sourced content, both critical and praise - most notably, editors wish to minimize their identity as Falun Gong-related organizations for whatever reason (also, all of these articles have at one point had "criticism" sections, but they have all been intermittently removed).
• The Organ Harvesting article has been branded as "Falun Gong propaganda" by several editors, but there is currently no consensus on how to deal with it.
• Persecution of Falun Gong also faces wide-ranging NPOV disputes and heated verbal exchanges that can be seen at Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong.
• Teachings of Falun Gong also has on-going disputes about some of the more "outlandish" claims of Falun Gong, its views on homosexuals, interracial marriage, etc. There has been what looks like an on-going attempt to whitewash any critical content. Pro-FLG editors also accuse editors of undue weight whenever they wish to insert more unconventional claims into that article. See Talk:Teachings of Falun Gong.
• Li Hongzhi: perhaps one of the most heavily scrutinized articles. The article gives no hint to Li's status as a controversial figure (which has been noted by mainstream American media TIME, NYT, San Francisco Chronicle etc.) and glorifies him with depictions of awards and benevolence. Margaret Singer, for example, says Li resembles many characteristics of a cult leader. This is given no attention in that article.

Anyway, all of these articles are home to disruptive editing from both sides, and will not improve without due attention from administrators. It is my view that all these articles in their current revision unmistakably resemble Falun Gong promotional material. I thought it would be relevant to raise these issues now. Colipon+(T) 23:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)