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.)

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: [1]. 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)

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 [2].--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)

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)

Can we call NASA and every corporation a Cybersect?

Regarding this edit [3], 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[4]. 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:[5][6]

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 [7] 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 [8] 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 [9] return 2.7k vs. 33400k and tell me which one is more relevant. Or in Wikipedia context: [10]

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[11]

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)

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[12] 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[13]

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)

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."[14] 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 [15], and personal sites, by definition, only qualify as sources under strict conditions (see [16]). 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." [17] 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. [18] 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 [19]:

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: [20] and here is the lecture from Australia taught on 1999: [21]. 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.[22]

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""[23] 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" [24]

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[25][26].

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: [27] [28] 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 [29] (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: [30]. 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: [31] --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. [32] ✔ 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 [33]. 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)

I am willing to agree as well, the entire topic needs Mediation. I apologize for my accusations against User:HappyInGeneral, made previously. I would like to point out, however, an attempt by User:Olaf Stephanos to discredit me with how new my account is. Talk:Persecution_of_Falun_Gong_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Requested_move_2 Irbisgreif (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If it helps any I see Irbisgreif as a user familiar with Wikipedia policies, so I would not brand him/her as new contributor to Wikipedia, only the account. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing against new editors; but writing "Fulan Gong" into the official rename proposal means you didn't even have time to proofread what you wrote, and it conveyed an impression of hastiness and overexcitement. When combined with the fact that your account is very recently created, it aroused some concerns in my mind. As HappyInGeneral said, it seems you are familiar with Wikipedia policies, so I apologise for my premature judgment. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. For the mediator, I consider that issue closed and needing no further worry. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I welcome Vassyana's mediation. I think it will be salutary while he is around. But I am pessimistic about his long-term effect on the article. Historically, the influences on the article that I consider harmful have taken the form of an continual pressure for change in a certain direction. And the moment Vassyana departs, that pressure will in all likelihood resume its unbridled action. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence there. If you hadn't noticed, a few other editors, me included, are hopefully going to try to do something with this material, and I'm hoping at least one of us, probably including me, hangs around a bit thereafter as well. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"I'm hoping at least one of us, probably including me, hangs around a bit thereafter as well." => Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:54, 1 August 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: [34]. 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:[35]. 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 [36]), 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"[37][38] 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.[39][40]

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...[41]

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...[42]

( 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 [43] 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 [44], 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 [45].--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 [46] 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 [47], 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: [48]. 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)

Hello Colipon, I changed to "Falun Gong also was also critiqued on several occasions." and reordered the paragraphs, see here: [49], because this way it starts with the scholarly reception which should be the most NPOV. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:48, 29 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 [50]. 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)

So claims the self-professed FLG practitioner. It's nice to see your hypocrisy in smearing other beliefs yet claim "persecution" yourself.--PCPP (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, just wait for the mediator. Colipon+(T) 18:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Claims vs. Says

Hello Edward, regarding this edit [51] 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)

Right, I read the source on Singer, and now I see that you made a 1 to 1 weight on the sources, although Olaf pointed out that these are rather fringe theories. BTW, what I don't understand at this point why are the critics in front? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure, but I think it is because the non-critics are refuting the critics.--Edward130603 (talk) 01:20, 4 August 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 [52] [53], 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." [54] 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)

I completely disagree. One of Falun Gong's defining characteristics is its extreme sensitivities to any outside criticism. It responds to criticism with ad hominem attacks and stylish apologetics. This is quite apparent even in your comment. Your logic runs that because Singer has been a controversial figure that her opinions are not credible - and then you also raise the ad hominem notion that because Rahn is a BA and used to be an actress that her publications and views should also be discredited. You then go on to brand the entire ACM as "ideologists". A read through Rahn's works and you will see that she actually attempts to take a very moderate view. Yet you posit Rahn and Singer on "one side" and Ownby, Kohn etc. on another, giving the impression that these scholars are opposed to each other - that academics who criticize FLG are against FLG, out to get FLG, running an ideological struggle etc. This argumentation is grossly misleading. In any case, the ACM is a controversial body - that fact is recognized. But the ACM will not publish material on say, the Lutheran Church, or moderate Presbyterian groups, or Ismaili Muslims, or Tibetan Buddhists. It publishes material on Scientology, polygamist Latter-Day Saints sects, and Westboro Baptists for a reason. It has also publishes material on Falun Gong. The fact that it has published material on Falun Gong already speaks volumes. But Falun Gong would have none of it. Anything critical of Falun Gong must be wrong, must be discredited.

I also find it questionable why your wall of text is necessary in response to a concern by a passing user who simply raised an opinion about the way the article is written. It's apologetics at best and a laughable insecurity on the part of FLG at worst. Colipon+(T) 15:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I am not a representative of Falun Gong. I am here as an educated, argumentative person who believes in transparency and honest, rational discussion. I am well-read in the subject matter, and I want to make sure that no propaganda and fringe views override reputable academic sources. Do you know why I keep insisting on peer-reviewed journals? Because they are a good reflection of the scientific consensus among the experts of the relevant field. And because they rank highest in the Wikipedia hierarchy. Falun Gong and the persecution of its practitioners are extremely complicated social phenomena, and they warrant good, comprehensive research that keeps the ideological slant to a minimum. The Anti-Cult Movement is not only controversial; it is utterly refuted by Cultural Studies and related disciplines. I know this beyond doubt because of my own academic background.

Sure, the ACM may have published a lot of material on Scientology, polygamist sects and Westboro Baptists. I could write books about tuna, catfish, Baltic herrings, and blue whales, but that wouldn't make me an acknowledged expert on fish, nor would blue whales become fish just because I didn't know any better. No matter how you try to get around it, you need to find me peer-reviewed references calling Falun Gong a cult, if you want to dispute what is said in other peer-reviewed sources. Otherwise: fringe views deserve fringe visibility. Go change the policies if you think there's something wrong with them. Drop me a line when you pan out, will ya? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, the problem has nothing to do with whether or not Falun Gong is a cult. The problem lies with editors trying to hide and whitewash criticism of any kind.

David Ownby himself calls Falun Gong "undoubtedly controversial" as an opening to his segment published in "New Controversial Religions". Only after I had read Ownby's works have I seen how whitewashed this article truly is. It chooses part of Ownby's writings that present FLG in a positive light, but ignores, for example, Ownby's writings on Li Hongzhi's "eccentricity", the "holy" nature of Zhuan Falun, Li's claims of supernatural powers, and his apocalyptic rhetoric (which Ownby himself portrays as a very important part of the FLG doctrine). Colipon+(T) 16:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Now we're talking. Let's incorporate that stuff. Can you offer some quotes, so that we can find start discussing their placement? We probably need to redesign the structure of these articles as well. As long as the sources are alright, the most serious obstacle has been removed, and I will be more than happy to cooperate with you. It's about time to move from discussion to actual work. I found the article you mentioned (I hadn't read it before), and the final paragraph nicely sums up Ownby's position: "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." We should represent this viewpoint fairly.

As I've said before, my impact on the current state of these articles is not significant. I am not here to whitewash anything or defend status quo. I've said that I want you to come up with reputable sources, not some ACM mish-mash with no scientific value whatsoever. I don't stand in opposition to critical voices per se, as long as the material complies with the Wikipedia standards. When I talked about transparency, I meant it. A rational reader will be able to come to his or her own conclusions, as long as the articles conform to WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I will be away from computer until Sunday. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion here has been quite encouraging, although I'm still a little bit concerned about this statement by Olaf: "No matter how you try to get around it, you need to find me peer-reviewed references calling Falun Gong a cult, if you want to dispute what is said in other peer-reviewed sources. Otherwise: fringe views deserve fringe visibility." My issue here is that peer-reviewed sources were already available that happened to contradict the view currently predominant in the article (that FG is not a cult and the Anti Cult Movement lacks credibility), and you attacked those sources not only in this discussion but in the article itself. It would be a shame if all critical viewpoints were quickly marked as "fringe" views. There have been good points made; the material by Ownby as quoted by Olaf is promising: "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." - I think the relation to qigong practices and the persecution by the Chinese state have been covered quite well in the article, but the notion that FG is consistent with Chinese religious practices has not, and would be a welcome addition to the article which, as I mentioned earlier, describes it as a "spiritual practice" and is somewhat ambiguous over whether FG is a religion or not. Regarding the views on FG being a cult or not, I agree that such a contentious issue should not be treated lightly and quality sources should be found that treat the argument fairly.

Destynova (talk) 11:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

One short question (I really won't be able to take part until Sunday, this is the last thing I'm writing here): what peer-reviewed sources are contradicting the view that FG is not a cult and that the anti-cult movement lacks credibility?

@Olaf: I was referring to Singer and Rahn, who have both described FG as a cult, and whose contributions you described as not credible (e.g. "is a former B-class soap opera actress [92] [93], who has nothing but a BA in political science").

I should point out that I am undecided on whether FG is a cult (since there has clearly been a strong propaganda movement by the PRC to label it as such, whatever the truth is), which is why I came to the article in the first place (and quickly found that some views were under-represented there). That the relatively small number of sources in the article critical to FG have their opinions followed by a caveat which diminishes their credibility just seems dodgy.

Destynova (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You responded so quickly that I can still comment on this. Perhaps you don't know what "peer-reviewed" means.

Peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform impartial review.

I have never seen anything by Singer and Rahn that has been subjected to formal evaluation by their peers. Instead, a publication that does meet these requirements (Journal of Church and State) has completely discredited the anti-cult movement ("most of the claims put forth by the ACM lack empirical verification or general acceptance within the scientific community") and even said this: "By applying the label and embracing theories that posit passive followers under the mental control of a dangerous leader, the government can aggressively destroy the group, all the while claiming to be protecting religious freedom. In this respect, the Western Anti-Cult Movement has served, unwittingly or not, as a lackey in the party's efforts to maintain its political dominance." [55]

This is what I meant. It's not the opinion of an individual writer; the peer-review process ensures that this is an accurate reflection of the scientific consensus in that field. Unless you find a peer-reviewed reference that disputes this claim, we have direct proof of Singer's and Rahn's views being subject to WP:FRINGE. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 12:40, 30 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)

Blatantly POV edits

I feel it is necessary to bring to light recent edits by Olaf. He attempted to explain these edits above in a very long-winded response against concerns raised by a passer-by user on this article. In this edit he goes on to very directly discredit Dr. Margaret Singer's statements and then also wrote an entire paragraph discrediting the American Anti-Cult Movement in general. The fact that these kinds of edits continue to happen is frankly quite alarming. While they do not seem to violate the letter of WP policies they unmistakably run counter to the spirit of presenting the material from a neutral perspective.

This is also the general trend in these articles - whenever critique is introduced a pro-FLG editor immediately comes in and either blanks it or refutes it. See for yourself at this revision.

In discrediting Singer, Olaf writes into the article the following, seemingly in direct response to Singer calling FLG a cult:

However, Margaret Singer's academic views have been deemed as "not accepted in the scientific community" according to a court ruling, and she was no longer accepted as an expert witness in her later years.

He also inserts this long paragraph, clearly aimed at refuting any notions of FLG being a cult:

According to Brian Edelman and James T. Richardson writing in the peer-reviewed Journal of Church and State, China has incorporated many theories of the "anti-cult movement" into its campaign against the Falun Gong. "However, most of the claims put forth by the ACM lack empirical verification or general acceptance within the scientific community." Moreover, Edelman and Richardson argue that "the definition [of a 'cult'] allows the government to employ the restrictive anti-cult legislation to target a wide array of religious and spiritual organizations. The evidence suggests that this is precisely what has happened." As for the anti-Falun Gong legislation in China, "such infringements are not within the bounds of state discretion. As a result, they are in violation of international customary law. Furthermore, although China's discretion in relation to its restrictions on religious practice is greater, its actions also seem to overstep the bounds of the margin of appreciation. State edicts and legislation appear to be discriminatory in nature." The researchers conclude that "the anti-cult movement and its ideology have served as useful tools, helping efforts by the 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."

If these edits are to considered to be "in good faith" then there should be some serious review of wiki policies. Colipon+(T) 14:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Each sentence I wrote has significance. First refute my arguments point-by-point; then we can discuss. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. No. I have not made any changes to your edits, nor do I plan to until the mediator sees this and decides for him/herself what to do. Colipon+(T) 15:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to know why do you insist in using low quality and shaky sources? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Topic area review

While I am still waiting for the nice technician to come grant me the wonders of new internet service, I do have occasional trustworthy access to the internet still. I have taken a good chunk of time to review the article editing history, talk page archives, various noticeboard discussions, past administrative and arbitration interventions, and several user talk page histories.

• Most of the problems can be described as "point of view pushing". Many editors, usually with good intentions, possess a clear point of view and advocate for it almost explicitly.
• As a consequence of this "POV pushing" and an often antagonistic atmosphere, much of the discussion becomes sidetracked with speculative and accusatory personal comments.
• Bad faith, uncooperative attitudes, and adversarial obstruction abound in this environment.

• This is illustrated by conversations becoming sidetracked in accusations of bias, ulterior motives, and similar speculations on a sadly regular basis.

These factors have a heavy impact on the content, due to the positions taken as a consequence of the environment and individual opinions.

• Primary sources, governmental statements, and NGO reports are overused, over-discussed, and often misused. The misuse comes as a consequence of selective quotation, mining material for a predetermined view, and ignoring how those sources are addressed by the best available reliable sources.

• The no original research and content noticeboards should be more often used to determine the appropriate use of these sources.

• Reliable sources, especially academic/scholarly sources, are underused and often selectively chosen. The former is especially true of good overview sources that place Falun Gong in a broader context of new religious movements, Chinese religion, and so forth.
• What appear to be clearly reliable sources are argued against on the basis of the view that it favors, or appears to favor. The reliable sources noticeboard is underutilized.
• The neutral point of view is regularly argued on the basis of what predetermined picture of Falun Gong should be presented, with little reference to the body of reliable sources outside of a limited (and cherry-picked) selection of sources.

• As with reliable sources, the NPOV noticeboard is underutilized.

I know this seems like a harsh assessment, and it is, but it is a set of my honest observations. It is important to be aware of the problems (and their chronic nature) in order to properly address the editing environment. There needs to be a willingness to collaborate without the speculative accusations of bias and agency. (Don't make things worse, but instead keep it calm.) More outside input needs to be solicited, and deferred to, in order to solve many points of dispute. (Be flexible and respect consensus.) Sources need to be examined as a whole group and their reliability fairly determined without resistance due to the source supporting the "wrong" point of view. (Sometimes you have to write for the enemy and accept that it's not about winning.)

In order to help move things forward, I would like to invite three to five experienced editors with some diverse views and strengths to join us here. I believe their input and example would be incredibly useful in keeping discussion focused and moving things forward. I will generally remain available to provide feedback, help get through some of the more difficult disputes, and craft noticeboard requests and requests for comment to solicit outside input. I believe a core of active experienced editors, coupled with assistance in keeping things on-track and getting community feedback, could help counter the problems I outlined above. Does this seem to be an acceptable approach to attempt improving the quality of discussion and the overall editing environment? --Vassyana (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• This is a good idea. I think it will help to improve these Falun Gong pages.--Edward130603 (talk) 10:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Good points, at this point I think anything is welcomed that will keep the sidetrack discussion to a minimum and asses the relevance of the sources. Also I think it's great that you will help us get more feedback on this. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Thank you, Vassyana. I see you've done a very thorough job and given us invaluable advice. I recognise and acknowledge all of the core problems you mentioned. I'm especially grateful that you pointed out how the community noticeboards are underused; moreover, I think it's a good idea to bring in some outsiders and hear what they have to say. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• I also agree, and feel that bringing in some new people and making better use of the noticeboards is a good step, the noticeboards are populated by some pretty level-headed folks. Irbisgreif (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• I would like to thank the mediator for the work s/he has done in what looks to be a very complex case. I completely agree with the assessments of the mediator. That being said, I would like some clarification with the following: what is meant by "three to five experienced editors with some diverse views and strengths"? What is considered "diverse views"? What is considered "experienced"? Another concern of mine deals with enforcement of these recommendations. Several decisions were passed in regards to the arbitration case dealing with the Falun Gong articles in 2007. Clearly, the rulings from that arbitration have not been enforced properly - much of the conclusions of that arbitration were supposed to deal directly with issues that are still recurring and on-going. Some of the decisions from that arbitration are being blatantly (and also subtly) violated. How do we ensure that a mediation isn't all talk and no real action? How do we enforce that the same circular reasoning not be used repetitively in future discussions? Colipon+(T) 15:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Diverse views" means editors with a variety of perspectives and general outlooks. "Experienced" means the person in question has been around for a while, is very familiar with policy, and has some experience with related topic areas. With a bit more focus and structure with the involvement of a few experienced hands will make it much easier for uninvolved administrators to decipher what's going on and identify disruptive editors. If I can further clarify or answer any other questions, please let me know. --Vassyana (talk) 02:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean, then, that these "experienced editors" will be outside, third-party editors? Because there is nothing this article needs more than fresh, third-party perspectives. I was also wondering if the mediator could address the question about enforcement. Colipon+(T) 04:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly right. A few fresh uninvolved voices to help steer things in the right direction is what I believe is needed here. Regarding enforcement, I am here in a capacity as a mediator, which means I will be unlikely to handle enforcement. However, as I mention above, the changes to the editing environment should make it easier for uninvolved administrators to understand the situation and identify disruptive editors. --Vassyana (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm very hopeful about this, given that the Bold-Revert-Discuss strategy has totally fallen apart. Irbisgreif (talk) 04:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Certainly don't see BRD working at all. Especially the "discussion" part. We need third-party, relatively uninvolved editors to come here, give their honest opinions, and intervene when something is clearly going out of hand. Colipon+(T) 20:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Hi. I think I'm one of the "experienced editors" mentioned above. I have some familiarity with religious/philosophical material, even if I'm not particularly knowledgable about this particular topic. To answer one of the questions posed above, regarding "circular reasoning", that's a problem fairly often, but doing so repeatedly is a violation of policy, and could be addressed by an administrator or ArbCom. That isn't to say that it may not still happen, because there are times, unfortunately, when the people engaged in circular reasoning have a point, even if they don't express it particularly well. But the best way to address is it to find sources which resolve the matter one way or another. I do have some access to scholarly/academic sources, and will try to help add some materials from them. Also, if any of you want material from JSTOR, but are not personally able to pull up the articles yourself from their database, let me know which specific articles you want and I can try to email them to you. John Carter (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to get some tangible examples of what Colipon is talking about. Nothing abstract – more like direct links to discussions on this talk page, and pointing out how they employ circular reasoning, and what would be the logical conclusion instead. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for being abstract. But I've mentioned that to any third-party editor, a lot of these "tangible examples" you are asking for are extremely apparent after a read through these archives. Basically the same idea as "The neutral point of view is regularly argued on the basis of what predetermined picture of Falun Gong should be presented, with little reference to the body of reliable sources outside of a limited (and cherry-picked) selection of sources." Essentially my "abstract" commentary on these talk pages is very nicely summed up by our mediator in his/her analysis of the situation. I stand fully behind the mediator.

Best example on this page would probably be Talk:Falun_Gong#RfC_on_Repeated_Removal_of_Adminstrator_Reviewed_Edits, raised by Bobby Fletcher. The logical conclusion would be to restore administrator-reviewed edits. Colipon+(T) 19:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, how come those exact words nicely sum up my concerns, too? The only thing I've been asking for are reliable (and preferably academic) sources, so that we can start discussing their placement. I've been pushing you to do research over and over again. We've argued endlessly about some cherry-picked quotes from private websites; and the disputes have become even more ridiculous when some editors have tried to insert these quotes into the lede. I know there are so-called pro-FLG editors (sorry, we should stop using these terms) who have removed stuff just because it's critical. I've always said that I don't agree with them (an example). I've seen anti-FLG editors (uh...) argue against reliable sources "on the basis of the view that they favor, or appear to favor"; and I've seen NPOV "regularly argued on the basis of what predetermined picture of Falun Gong should be presented, with little reference to the body of reliable sources outside of a limited (and cherry-picked) selection of sources." I have nothing against building a honest, transparent, encyclopedic article. But when people just want to find shortcuts to push their POV, it has been extremely damaging to any hints of cooperative mentality on these pages. That said, I do believe we can move forward with the kind help of our mediator. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I trust that the mediator and third-party editors will help improve this article. Colipon+(T) 22:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ideas from a newbie

OK, these are just a few ideas from one of the requested newcomers.

• (1) It might be a good idea to create a separate discussion page, like maybe Talk:Falun Gong/Discussion, which could be used to raise points of concern regarding content in any related articles. Such a forum for centralized discussion generally helps.
• (2) Like I said before, I have access to JSTOR, the online database of material from academic journals. Anyone can get the list of relevant articles from their website, at [56] but not everyone can actually access the articles themselves. I can. If you want to get a copy of one of the articles, e-mail me with the name of the article and the e-mail address you want it sent to and I'll get it to you.
• (3) In addition to academic sources, there are other printed sources which might be useful. I went over the list of book reviews related to Falun Gong on JSTOR and elsewhere, and found that the following books related at least in some way to Falun Gong all received multiple reviews, which means that at least theoretically not only could they be used as sources, but they could also be made the subjects of separate articles. These multiple-reviewed books include:
• Challenging the Mandate of Heaven by Elizabeth Perry
• Falun Gong: The End of Days by Maria Hsia Chang
• Falun Gong and the Future of China by David Ownby
• Falun Gong's Challenge to China by David Schechter
• Power of the Wheel: The Falun Gong Revolution by Ian Adams, Riley Adams and Rocco Galati
• Chinese Democracy after Tiananmen by Yijiang Ding
• Chinese Society: Change, Challenge, and Resistance by Elizabeth Perry
• A Comparative Sociology of World Religions by Stephan Sharot

If anyone has access to any of these books, I'm assuming they would be among the better sources of books out there.
I will myself try to access some of the JSTOR articles and at least attempt to locate some of the books, and I'm fairly sure some of them are fairly commonly available, in the near future. John Carter (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User:PCPP edit warring

I am very much offended by User:PCPP's recent attempts to push his POV. Instead of adjusting his behaviour to meet the mediator's suggestions, he keeps blanking peer-reviewed material about the Anti-Cult Movement and calling it "irrelevant". I find it extremely hard to assume good faith towards him, if he doesn't drastically change his approaches. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The material about Margaret Singer would probably best be included in the biography of the subject. While it is not irrelevant to say that her judgement was more than questioned, and even discredited, later, it would have to be established through references to the book in question preferably that her opinions were less than well regarded at the time she wrote the book cited for the material cited from the conference to be removed altogether. Although I am not a mediator, or member of the WP:MEDCAB per se, this article is under existing ArbCom sanctions and I cannot believe that they would consider any removal of sourced material without prior discussion appropriate. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understood. Your reply is quite tortuous. What I'm concerned about is that Margaret Singer, and the entire Anti-Cult Movement she represents, has been discredited by an extremely reliable, peer-reviewed source: "most of the claims put forth by the ACM lack empirical verification or general acceptance within the scientific community." As I said before, the same source also states that "by applying the ['cult'] label and embracing theories that posit passive followers under the mental control of a dangerous leader, the government can aggressively destroy the group, all the while claiming to be protecting religious freedom. In this respect, the Western Anti-Cult Movement has served, unwittingly or not, as a lackey in the party's efforts to maintain its political dominance." I don't think there's any room for ambiguity; the Journal of Church and State even leaves open the possibility that the ACM might not have acted "unwittingly."

Moreover, I have never seen a peer-reviewed source defending Singer's views. If this is not direct proof of her ideas being subject to WP:FRINGE, then please tell me what would be. I see only two choices: either we remove Singer and the ACM altogether, or we mention how the ACM has been discussed by reliable academic sources. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Those concerns however do not indicate that her own observations and personal experiences, which in this case include her claims that relatives approached her, are invalid. I have just read two reviews of the book in JSTOR, and neither was particularly positive. Whether her ideas do or do not meet WP:FRINGE is basically irrelevant to the statement in question, which is so far as I can see from the revision I have in front of me simply a statement by her that (1) she used the word "cult", which I'm assuming she did, and (2) that she was approached by members of the families of Falun Gong members. Considering she worked with "cults" and other such groups, and wrote on them, the first point, regarding her having defined the group as a "cult", seemingly based on her experience, is probably well enough sourced for inclusion, and the second point is something we would take the word of an academic on. I am not saying that there is any particular need for the word "cult" to be included, and certainly this isn't the best of all possible sourcing for such material, so WP:UNDUE might still enter into the matter. But it is sourcing, even if it could be improved, and the latter point doesn't relate to her personal opinions at all, so any questions of her personal opinions are basically irrelevant to that point. John Carter (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

We can find a near-infinite number of people calling Falun Gong this or that. The point is whether they deserve to be included in an encyclopedia. I'm not saying that we couldn't give any voice to Singer, but her opinion of Falun Gong being a 'cult' has no practical relevance to the academic community. Besides, Journal of Church and State is considerably more reputable than any publication or conference of the Anti-Cult Movement, so I don't see how Singer's views can be left intact while the reference in question is blanked. Please see the following quote from WP:FRINGE:

Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas. However, ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong. By the same token, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing.

On a side note, I'd like to ask you not to use the term "Falun Gong members" and talk about "Falun Gong practitioners" instead. The former term is loaded, since people who practice Falun Gong have never assumed any 'membership'. It also subscribes to a discourse that characterises Falun Gong as a formal organisation instead of a loose network of voluntary supporters. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Olaf, you wrote "I am very much offended by User:PCPP's recent attempts to push his POV." I believe that if a person is so emotionally invested in a subject that an edit to the Wikipedia entry about it is enough to offend him very much, then that person should not take part in editing the article. Could an edit to the article about Vienna offend you? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I am offended by what looks like fueling the fire - a deliberate attempt to undermine our mediation case. If there were similar controversies in the article about Vienna, and I was one of the involved parties, then yes, such behaviour might "offend" me as well, in lack of a better word. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur with John Carter's thoughts. The edit has been mentioned above by myself at "blatantly POV edits". Olaf seemingly inserted the material on his own accord without any consensus anyhow. I wouldn't jump straight on PCPP and say that he is "edit warring". Colipon+(T) 18:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As I see it John and Olaf where conducting a discussion based on substantiated Wiki principles. However if I see it correctly this is attempted to be "diverted" again by personal attacks against Olaf. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy, I'm sorry, but saying that Olaf inserted the material on his own accord without consensus is a reference to a fact, not a personal attack on Olaf. Colipon+(T) 19:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"Olaf inserted" WP:RS in context, true, but is that is not all that you and Martin said, is it? What do you hope to achieve with half quotes like this? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit-conflict) Actually, I was just recently in a discussion on Talk:Bob Dylan where someone who has done a good deal of work developing the WP:RS policy said that a source, if it meets the standards of WP:RS can be included even if it would be seen by most neutral outsiders as being factually wrong regarding that particular point. Therefore, considering that the publisher of the book seems to meet WP:RS, and the author's beliefs regarding the possible applicability of the word "cult" is an informed one, even if less than objective, and the material was published in a reliable source, I have to say that it probably meets WP:RS threshold, although you are free to take the matter to the noticeboard if you so wish. John Carter (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That still does not answer my concerns. I have not removed Singer and Rahn from the article; I am simply arguing that a peer-reviewed source discussing the Anti-Cult Movement should not be removed and is definitely not "irrelevant" in this context. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to John Carter: Yes. This article also frequently runs into issues such as, is the Chinese government an RS, even if everything it says is part of a nationwide propaganda campaign, should it still be considered relevant to the context of this article? Colipon+(T) 19:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

In response to Olaf, I never said it was irrelevant, at least I don't think so. I believe what I said was that it might violate WP:UNDUE to add all the material you wish, and I honestly believe that adding several sentences to discredit something which is itself only one sentence long is at best going into undue detail regarding a subject which is also covered elsewhere, in this case her own biography. You are free to take the matter to the WP:CNB or other page for outside input, but I doubt anyone would agree to that there is any reason to spend more space criticizing a person than we use in describing the person's comments themselves. And, yes, the matter of the government's material is a good one. It's clearly relevant, as it's the basis for the persecution, and including it would be important. It's objectivity is another matter entirely. Personally, I think by policy we should not be using the government's own material regarding their opinions, but rather try to find some other, independent, source, discussing their allegations. And, yes, considering that the subject of the government's repression of Falun Gong is one that was substantially covered in RS, there isn't much question that the material should be covered. To what extent it should be covered in this article, as opposed to Persecution of Falun Gong, is another matter. Personally, I don't myself see the need to have the quote regarding the government ban isolated as it is. But the material would be relevant to one article or another. Li Hongzhi's quote could also be more easily integrated into the text. In both cases there is a reasonable question whether the quotes themselves have to be used, or whether a paraphrase would work. Personally, I think paraphrases tend to be shorter, and they might be preferable for this, the main article. The quotes could reasonably be included in full in the Persecution of Falun Gong article, where WP:UNDUE would be less of a concern. John Carter (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As the article stand right now [57] Singer's opinion may look as a highly reputable opinion to a reader who just happen to read that. As I understand you don't consider sourcing the credentials of Singer's as irrelevant and yet you consider that adding too much details is WP:UNDUE then how would go about it? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope you all realize that the frequency of responses here have caused me to have to revise my statements as a result of other statements being made before I can post my initial responses, so I'm at this point not sure whether I said this on this page or whether I had to omit it as a result of edit conflict changes. Personally, I would say something to the effect of "Singer, a professional psychologist whose credentials regarding this matter were questioned, said..." I know I wrote that, I'm just not sure whether it made it through the multiple edit conflicts and subsequent changes or not. John Carter (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience, I'm sure we all appreciate it! As a best practice when an edit conflict occurs I copy out my statement in a document. On the other hand, if I would have always done that, perhaps, I would not needed to come back with that many grammar fixes :-) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not solely to discredit one sentence, but to offer a relevant context for all statements by members of the Anti-Cult Movement. The article in Journal of Church and State is specifically about how the ACM has postulated Falun Gong as a 'cult', even though the scientific community disagrees with their methodologies and sees them as a lackey of the CCP. Patsy Rahn is also one of them; correct me if I'm wrong, but she has never been published in any other journal besides Cultic Studies. And I agree with HappyInGeneral: if we don't balance their views with reputable sources, a casual reader might interpret these people as recognised authorities on the topic, and that would be terribly misleading. I suggest you read the article in question, if you haven't done that already; it's available here. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not try to change the subject. If you want to discuss Patsy Rahn, fine. I can see how that section might be putting undue weight on the subject of the conference. But she is not the same issue, and it would make sense to try to raise that issue in a discussion of a separate one. Rahn's material on Falun Gong was also published according to this page in the journal "Terrorism and Political Violence", published by Routledge, which is a respected academic publisher, so I tend to think that her credentials, while not necessarily the best, are good enough to meet minimum WP:RS standards. John Carter (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Singer's comment

I'm creating a new thread just to keep things clean. I made this edit where I kept the bare minimum about Singer as John suggested. Hope it's OK. Best Regards, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this edit. Honestly, putting five references beside that one phrase (not even a sentence, a phrase) is a clear sign that it's dodgy. But the trend is really discouraging. It goes something like this:

• Insert some critical content into the article, trying very very hard to make everything NPOV.
• Content is unreliable!
• Okay, we will source it.
• Sources are unreliable!
• Yes they are.
• Okay, they are out of the context. It's a fringe theory anyway.
• Yes, but that warrants some degree of inclusion, in the very least.
• Okay, let's insert a statement that discredits it.
• The statement is too long and unecessary
• 'Okay, make it shorter then.
• Okay.

Three months later... the statement disappears altogether again, back to square one.

Does no one else see why editing this article is so frustrating?Colipon+(T) 06:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Patsy Rahn

OK, new thread started. I'm not familiar with Patsy Rahn. For a start could you please provide the article you mentioned here? As I see that is only an introduction, if there is a full article, and I don't see it, sorry. One more thing, the "International Cultic Studies Association" (ISCA) as in http://www.icsahome.com/, is that a reputable source? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. I just asked the second question at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Cultic Studies Review, and the only response received to date is that it seems to be. I think the reference to Patsy Rahn is based on her being one of the subjects referenced at the Seattle conference, where she basically said that the popularity of Falun Gong in the US was in part fueled by the violations in China and that the truth of Falun Gong lies somewhere between Falun Gong being an evil cult and Communist China being an evil empire. The first comment is, at least to my eyes, fairly obvious (we in the US tend to do things to annoy countries we don't like) and the second is probably also fairly obvious, in saying the Communist Chinese and American press both tend to use more hyperbole than is required. Could you be a bit more specific regarding what exactly you're asking about Rahn? I don't find any of her articles on JSTOR, but they might be somewhere else. John Carter (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, basically you mentioned this article, and I was wondering if I can read more of it, not just the abstracts. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the article from 2000 is supposed to be at one of the local libraries, and I might be able to get a copy of that, but the local library with it doesn't list carrying anything after volume 17, although another local library says they have later holdings. WorldCat lists most of the libraries with holdings, and there might be one in your area. I can try to maybe make copies of them, but I'm not the best scanner user in the history of humanity. John Carter (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Continue discussion on Talk:Falun Gong/Discussion - agree or disagree?

As suggested by User:John Carter, creating a separate discussion page for all Falun Gong related articles would make things a lot easier for all of us. This would make the current talk pages redundant; I suggest archiving them and placing a link to the discussion on a blank page. Also, we could copy some current threads to the new discussion page.

• Agree ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Partial Agree, I agree that it would be nice to have a separate page where the discussion is going on only based on WP:RS and the other fundamental policies of Wikipedia, but I also think that separate talk pages are nice, because they each can address some page specific issues, like how to improve that wording, what sources to include, etc... These things did not work until now (I hope they will in the future) because usually the discussions where "diverted" from constructive to personal characterizations and attacks. Those are not useful, and I think with the mediator and the experienced wikipedia editor here, it should become close to in-existent, which would make the talk pages useful again. So you can take my partial agree to abstain, because I think both approaches are fine as long as civility is maintained. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Agree. Everyone should also put it on their watchlist. Also, we need a list of the articles in question. Do NTDTV and Epoch Times also qualify to be under this discussion? Colipon+(T) 22:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I wouldn't personally remove any of the talk pages, although this one could sure use archiving. They can be useful for any newcomers or occasional editors who want to add something or comment. I was initially thinking of trying to create a WikiProject or work group for the subject, whose talk page could be used to provide a place to leave notices on all the articles. With only 16 articles in the category though there probably isn't enough content to call for a work group. It does make it easier for people to see be able to comment about subjects which cross single articles to have a single place to comment on those cross-over subjects. Also, I left a message on the talk page of the Religion WikiProject asking for new eyes, partially because that might be the only related project which I personally do much with. It might be possible to get additional eyes from WikiProject China and/or WikiProject Philosophy as well. In response to the last question, I was thinking that all the articles in the Category:Falun Gong were relevant. Oh, and just on a side note, the Portal:Falun Gong could conceivably face some questioning. A portal is generally supposed to have about 20 articles without cleanup tags to draw from, or at least potentially face the possiblity of deletion, as per Wikipedia:Portal guidelines. That's one of the reasons I proposed creation of articles on the books. Conceivably, articles on proponents or opponents of Falun Gong, as well as any other directly relevant articles, could be included as well. John Carter (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• It would be easy enough to creation a Falun Gong working group or collaboration under the auspices of WikiProject Religion. If I'm not mistaken, Falun Gong is listed as a potential working group already at the project. It would serve to attract other WP Religion participants and provide a location for centralized discussions. It would also be an appropriate vehicle for discussing topic area/WikiProject guidelines, which could help bring everyone on to the same page. Just some thoughts. --Vassyana (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm actually the one who created the list of potential work groups, as per here. The problem is the number of articles. In general, a group like this is supposed to have at least 100 articles to be viable in the long term. Right now, there are about 15, not counting the portal, and it is a bit of work to create the page, the various categories for the banner, etc. Given the rather unusual circumstances of this subject, I could probably do the needed work to create the group anyway, but it would be nice if the amount of content were a bit greater. John Carter (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Agree--Edward130603 (talk) 01:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

This page is over 500 kBs long, which is way too long for most pages. Any objections if I archive any threads which haven't had any new comments since the beginning of July 2009? John Carter (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is a good suggestion and archiving should be uncontroversial. It is easy enough to restore a particular thread if someone had further comments they wished to add or want to revisit. --Vassyana (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's archived to the first of July, and still about 340 kB long. That'll probably require additional archiving later, maybe around the end of the month, if not sooner. John Carter (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions and comments

• I have specifically requested that PCPP join us in discussion here.
• Margaret Singer, Rick Ross, and other "anti-cult" individuals represent a significant minority of reliable sources. While they should not be given undue prominence, neither should they be shrugged off as a fringe view.
• This article is about Falun Gong. The sources should discuss Falun Gong. Off-topic material, however well-intentioned, is simply inappropriate.
• Edit-warring to remove sourced material, unless it is an extreme case such as a copyright violation or a "BLP" violation, is also inappropriate (especially while this topic area is subject to arbitration probation).
• Views about "cult" defenders and critics are significantly more diverse in academia than presented in this discussion. It is a very heated discussion that (even in some of the better sources) often becomes disparaging, dismissive, and even downright unprofessional. Here are a few sources that help better illustrate the nuances of the scholarly situation:[58][59][60][61]
• People from both sides are returning to the pattern of personal accusations and arguing against reliable sources on the acceptability of their views. We should be focusing on a productive review and discussion of what the general body of reliable sources reports about this topic. Partisan bickering will not get us to that goal.

Please:

1. Do not edit war.
2. Refrain from personal comments.
3. Focus on earnest, polite, and constructive discussion.
4. If there is an impasse about the use of a source or its appropriate balance, defer to the content noticeboards and opinions of outside editors. I will be glad to craft neutral requests for the noticeboards and outside comment.

If 1. and 2. are repeatedly violated despite the best efforts of myself and outside editors, I will neutrally and politely request review from uninvolved administrators at the incidents noticeboard and/or arbitration enforcement. Without 3. and 4., the arguments here will simply go in circles with little to no progress being made. I have to leave for the moment, but when I return later this evening, I will gladly post a request to the appropriate content noticeboard(s) about the reliability and appropriate weight for M. Singer (as well as the additional material regarding her credibility) to solicit a bit of further outside input to settle the matter. Please try to stay positive and help us move forward productively. If we all do that, we can find consensus for changes and improvement. This article could even become a good or even featured article, if we find that spirit of collaboration and encyclopedia-building. That should be the goal of everyone here. I see movement forward, but we still need more of the new and less of the old. Vassyana (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

One question: what reliable source represents Rick Ross? How has this discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard been overridden? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)