Talk:Falun Gong

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

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

In relation to qigong and its roots in Chinese culture

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

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

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

Li Hongzhi states in Falun Buddha Fa Lectures in Europe:

"Since the time Dafa was made public, I have unveiled some inexplicable phenomena in qigong as well as things that hadn’t been explained in the qigong community. But this isn’t the reason why so many people are studying Dafa. It’s because our Fa can truly enable people to Consummate, truly save people, and allow you to truly ascend to high levels in the process of cultivation. Whether it’s your realm of mind or the physical quality of your body, the Fa truly enables you to reach the standards of different levels. It absolutely can assume this role."

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

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

Membership and finances

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

Finances

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

It seems to me that, maybe, we have not paid a great deal of attention to some of the more recent works on this subject. Revenge of the Forbidden City was a fairly well received book a few years ago about the Chinese reaction to FG, and the more recent Cultural Economy of Falun Gong, which has only been out a month or two and hasn't yet gotten a lot of reviews, is probably also very useful. Also, I note that Ownby and Palmer have both written and helped collect some articles for publication in Nova Religio, which seems to be the journal which has been selected for the publication of writings on the subject of FG as a movement in general. They would certainly be reasonable to be included. I can't e-mail books to anyone, but, if they were to want any articles, including the Nova Religio articles, and can't get them, I could e-mail those articles out. John Carter (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe a few of these are already found in the article, including some Nova Religio pieces. Correct me if I'm wrong. Revenge of the Forbidden City is cited at length in the section on the conversion campaign. Tong not being an expert on Falun Gong as a religion (except, perhaps, its organization), I suspect his research will be more useful on the persecution page. But I would suggest being aware of the limitations of his research, which ended in 2005 and relied overwhelmingly on primary source, official literature (and zero field work, it would seem, or even interviews with former detainees and the like). I have not read Xiao Ming's book, but if you happen to have a pdf, send it my way. In my last round of edits to this page, I made a pretty feable attempt to incorporate some of the more recent scholarly and journalistic literature, including Vivienne Shue's excellent contribution to State and Society in 21st Century China. It's a worthwhile endeavor, but on the other hand, I worry already (as previously expressed) than the page already contains more scholarly exegesis than is useful to an average reader, so it needs to be balanced against the needs of brevity and clarity.Homunculus (duihua) 00:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

He and Luo, two years later.

I see that the issue with He and Luo is still basically unresolved. Did we just run out of steam like every other instance and let it be? See: Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_37#RFC_on_connections_between_Luo_and_He, and my arguments prior to my departure from Falun Gong articles: Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_34#Gutmann_deletions.3F. Colipon+(Talk) 03:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Rationale for my edit on the Controversies section

1) PCCP's statement about non-scholarly anti-cult activists like Rick Ross is undue weight next to the opinions of numerous credible scholars. 2) The references were also messed up and misplaced in his earlier edit. 3) He included material that was taken out of context, like Palmer's quote about the "absolute centralization" of money, organization, and healing. The quote was explaining that local practice sites are not allowed to take money; it's not about Falun Gong being tightly organized. 4) He added in Craig Smith's quote saying that Falun Gong believes mixed-race people are the "spawn" of the dharma-ending period. The primary sources (i.e. Falun Gong's teachings, the sole corpus of teachings that determines what Falun Gong "believes") do not include such allegations. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 07:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your edit (or at least the one part that I was paying attention to). On the one hand we have a reliable secondary source, the New York Times, in an article about Falun Gong saying that Li Hongzhi "said interracial children are the spawn of the Dharma Ending Period, a Buddhist phrase that refers to an era of moral degeneration. 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." and on the other we have a Wikipedia editor talking about what primary sources say as the basis for the removal of the WP:V compliant material. Please could you explain how the removal of the material is consistemt with policy ? Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to reject the idea of including what Li Hongzhi has said about the the mixed-race issue; I'm talking about the opinionated, inflammatory wording in that article. There are no reliable academic sources contesting the idea that Li Hongzhi's lectures are the sole criterion for determining what Falun Gong "teaches". In fact, many sources explicitly state just the opposite. In this case, the primary sources are in no way ambiguous nor can they be dismissed when we evaluate what has definitively been said. Using another source is just like playing Chinese whispers—the further we get from the source, the less likely we are able to preserve the original meaning without distortion.

This is perfectly consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including the verifiability of sources. "The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article. Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source." [5] Craig Smith is very partisan; all his articles by this era had become propaganda pieces for the CCP, a fact we can easily corroborate by comparing them with scholarly accounts of Falun Gong. Given that his account is contentious (i.e. the "spawn" thing, and the idea that people of mixed race are doomed without Li's intervention), we should seek an additional source on it. And since no other sources make these same claims, it shouldn't be included.

Moreover, the idea is already touched upon in the Ian Johnson quote. If you think that more needs to be said about it, you should attempt to accurately present these beliefs by first checking them against Li Hongzhi's teachings, and then refer to credible scholars of Falun Gong for insight into how to understand them. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 08:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hundreds of people have written thousands of pages on Falungong, but that does not mean that everything they have said should be included in this article simply because their writing it is verifiable. In determining whether this particular quote should be included, we need to ask, first, if the quote attributed to a living person is accurate; second, if it is given due weight; third, if it is relevant.

The answer to the first question is disputed, and the most inflammatory elements of the NYT article are not properly attributed. On those grounds alone, I would be reluctant to include it. To the question of due weight, we currently have two quotes in this section (one from Smith, one from Johnson) that touch on this topic, but no response from Falungong, and no evidence that this is actually notable. Which brings me to the third point of relevance. I checked Ian Johnson and David Ownby’s writings to see if they say more on this subject of mixed races, and they do not. Both only allude to the issue in passing as an example of novel Falungong beliefs, but do not return to it. Ownby devotes a lengthy chapter to exploring Falungong’s teachings, but does not think that this one is sufficiently notable to warrant any further discussion. Furthermore, this section of the page is about controversies. Craig Smith was not reporting on a controversy caused by this teaching (if anything, it seems he may have been trying to manufacture one). Aside from the fact that Falungong’s views on mixed races are antiquated and idiosyncratic, there’s nothing notable here. The single reference by Ian Johnson is certainly enough on this topic.

There is a legitimate controversy that is not currently explored in the article, which is the question of Falungong’s teachings and impacts on health. Namely, the charge that it discourages conventional medical treatment. On this topic, quite a bit has been said—not only by Falungong and PRC sources, but more importantly by academic observers. I will work on drafting this section when time allows.

Regarding the David Palmer quote, I agree with Olaf’s assessment that it was quoted in the article to convey quite a different meaning than was intended. Palmer recognizes that Falungong is loosely organised, just as do Ownby, Tong, (Susan) Palmer and others, so his statement should not be used to present the impression of dissent on that particular issue. Information from that section of Palmer could be included in a discussion of Falungong funds, but his statements should be used to explain the issue, not dramatise it.—Zujine|talk 13:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that an editor attempted to restore his preferred version of the page, ignoring edits that have been made in the interim, and disregarding the discussion process. In so doing, he reintroduced edits that do not seem to comport with WP:UNDUE or WP:BLP, deleted source content, and mangled some references. I restored to the last version of the page, and suggest that any potentially controversial edits be discussed on the talk page.Homunculus (duihua) 05:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm restoring the NYT reference, considering that none of you offered concrete evidence that why it fails WP:RS, and seemed to edit upon a personal dislike of the NYT article. The controversy section was distorted to read like an apology for FLG controversies and make as if all of FLG's controversies are manufactured by the Chinese government.--PCPP (talk) 06:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

PCPP, I don't like being accused of bad faith in your edit summaries. It seems that you have fallen back into your old patterns of reverting without discussion. Other editors have offered sound reasons for removing the NYT quote. In addition, you have not provided any justification for your other edits, which are problematic. A controversy section should be balanced. That is, it should present actual controversies, giving due weight, and explaining the different perspectives on those issues in accordance with their importance and value. I suggest you cool off. Homunculus (duihua) 06:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You're the one who should cool off, considering that you continued in your own pro-FLG edit-warring and seemed content in removing all critical material. All I added are sourced and verifiable materials from third parties, and you have not yet offered any concrete evidence on why they shouldn't remain. As I said, Craig Smith's article comes from a reliable source that's easily verifiable. If Ownby or Johnson disagree, then add their viewpoints instead of reverting the entire section because you dislike one change.--PCPP (talk) 07:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no intention of engaging in an edit war with you. I recommend you read the above discussion for reasons why your edits and reverts were problematic. For the record, my involvement here is minimal; since your series of edits in September, other editors made changes to the page. They have discussed these changes, and in my view provided sound reasoning for partially undoing some of your edits. They also contributed some new, sourced materials. I got involved when I noticed that you had begun to revert others' contributions without discussion, which is unfortunately a familiar pattern. Homunculus (duihua) 07:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You should stop trying to paint a false picture, because all Olaf (a known FLG activist) did was revert all of my changes on the controversy section. And all your reverts has been specifically targeting my changes regardless of merits. I asked for concrete evidence on why the NYT article should be removes, and so far you haven't provided any.--PCPP (talk) 07:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I see there that PCPP made several reversions in order to restore his version of the page. It took some time, but I parsed through the differences between his version and the one that he kept reverting:

1.The most obvious difference is that PCPP’s version claims, without attributing a primary source, a disputed claim that Falungong believes people of mixed-race are the “spawn” of the Dharma ending period. The secondary source that is used as reference does not properly attribute this wording either; it is the interpretation of the author masquerading as a quotation, and thus fails verifiability policy for quotations from living persons. If it were changed to read “Craig Smith believes that Falungong teaches mixed-race children are the spawn of the Dharma ending period,” it would satisfy WP:RS, but serious questions as to its notability, neutrality, and compliance with other policies would remain.

2.He changed this sentence:

The view that Falun Gong is a cult, widely used as part of Chinese state propaganda against the practice and adopted by some members of the anti-cult movement, is mostly rejected by mainstream scholarship.

to this:

The Chinese government's view that Falun Gong is a destructive cult, widely used as part of Chinese state propaganda against the practice, is largely criticized by mainstream Western scholarship, while a minority of members of the anti-cult movement claimed that Li meets their definition of a manipulative cult leader.

These sentences essentially say the same thing, and both allude to this small minority of anti-cult activists who see Falungong as a cult (in the pejorative sense). Yet the sentence structure employed in PCPP’s version places emphasis on the views of the non-scholarly minority, while skirting over the academic consensus. Alone, this is a pretty minor issue, but it seems that PCPP’s version fails WP:UNDUE, and is part of a broader pattern to try to undermine scholarly consensus when it does not comport with the perspective of Falun Gong’s critics.

3. The previous version of the page included this sentence on the entomology and usage of the Chinese term “xiejiao,” or evil religion:

In the context of imperial China, the term "xiejiao" was used to refer to non-Confucian religions, though in the context of Communist China, it has been used to target religious organizations which do not submit to the authority of the Communist Party.[192][193]

PCPP has removed this three times now, without explanation.

4. PCPP rearranged the order and wording on two paragraphs discussing the issue of Falungong’s practice fees (or lack thereof) and how much money Li Hongzhi made. It looks like both versions are more or less the same in terms of content and references, though he did remove the sentence that, I think, provided a better introduction to the subject. I don’t think there’s anything untoward here, other than a preference for his version.

5. To a discussion of whether or not Falungong is organised, PCPP added several sources that would appear to support the Chinese government’s (mostly discredited) view that Falungong is highly organised, and deleted references that suggested otherwise.

He added the following from David Palmer:

Palmer writes that Falun Gong was highly centralised, and it maintained "absolute centralisation of thought, healing and money." Power flowed directly to or from the Master, Li Hongzhi, "whose authority was strictly moral and ideological".[85]

These quotes are correct, they do belong to Palmer, and Palmer is a good source on Falungong. The problem, which myself and Olaf pointed out, is that the Palmer quote is being misused here. It is nestled between Falungong’s claims of having no formal organisation or hierarchy and the consensus of other scholars that Falungong’s organisation is minimal. By placing it in this position, it is made to give the impression that Palmer is dissenting. If you actually read this page of his book, however, you see that he is not. I actually think some more of this material from Palmer should be included on the page, but this wasn’t the appropriate place for it, so Olaf and Homunculus removed it, and PCPP thrice restored it without answering to the concerns raised by others.

PCPP’s version also added a description of Falungong’s organisation from the state-run People’s Daily, and added another source describing the increasingly “militant” (militant how?) nature of Falungong’s locally autonomous groups in response to an escalation of tensions from the Chinese state. The second source, like the Palmer reference, could be put to good use on this page, but probably not where it is now. The People's Daily source is not inappropriate here, as it is describing the Chinese government's position, but the decision to include it is again part of a pattern of POV editing.

His version did include a good summary quote from James Tong. But he also deleted a different, equally a important quote from Tong, as well deleting two other sources without explanation. PCPP deleted the very plain assertion from David Ownby and Susan Palmer (which is also supported by Tong, David Palmer, Porter, and others) that Falungong is not highly organised or hierarchical. That one sentence came the closest to encapsulating the scholarly consensus on this topic. By deleting these sources and adding in several others to support the opposing view, PCPP has substantially changed the meaning of this section in a direction that goes against the scholarly consensus. (On a side note, there is already a section in the article on Falun Gong's organisation. Isn't that enough?)

6). As described in point #1, PCPP added a disputed account of Falungong beliefs written by Craig Smith. I won’t repeat what I said above, but one thing strikes me as interesting here. Craig Smith’s statement included, within it, a properly attributed quotation from Li Hongzhi. It also included Smith’s own, inflammatory paraphrasing of Falungong beliefs. What is interesting is that, in his last revert, PCPP decided he needed to leave in Smith’s paraphrasing—which is considerably more offensive—but not the actual, attributed quote to Li Hongzhi. This does not seem like the behaviour of an editor interested in following policy or accurately presenting this topic, but rather serves only to sensationalise the group's beliefs.

7. The previous version of the page included the following:

In discussing the portrayal of Falun Gong as “anti-gay,” Ethan Gutmann notes that Falun Gong's teachings are "essentially indistinguishable" from traditional religions such as Buddhism, Christianity and Islam.

It was hard to see from the diff what PCPP did to this statement, but I am always up for a good game of ‘spot the difference.’ He decided to remove “Buddhism”, leaving only Abrahamic religions behind. The original text to which this is attributed does includes Buddhism.

8. The previous version of the page included a request for citation from the following statement:

Li maintains that mankind has been destroyed 81 times, and, according to some interpretations, that another round of destruction may be imminent.

PCPP removed the citation request, but did not provide a reference. He did add in two other opinions on the question of whether Falungong contains an apocalyptic message (as the Chinese government purports, and Falungong denies), both of which indirectly seem to endorse the Chinese government position.

This is a pretty exhaustive summary of the changes PCPP has been edit waring to preserve. His current version is what is on the page now because other editors are evidently less willing to hit “undo” repeatedly. I hope this is helpful to anyone looking in on this discussion, and I hope that PCPP can—without resorting to personal attacks or accusations of bad faith—answer for each of these edits.—Zujine|talk 21:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

1) The Dharma Ending Period statement is widely quoted and is not something made up by Smith and the NYT. For example, C. Schafferer "Understanding modern East Asian politics" P.94 - "Li is convinced that the moral decadence of our times is leading us to another apocalypse. His writings and speeches are replete with references to the "Dharma ending period" of "the apocalypse", "the Great Havoc", and the "end times" (mojie).

2)So? If anything, my addition certainly improved the intro, and noted which cult crtics made the statements, whereas the previous version dismissed that any criticism of FLG are Chinese propaganda. Furthermore, the wording it complete inapppriate for a criticism section, and reads like a FLG apology piece. What you're doing here is simply lawyering with Wikipedia guidelines and synthesize a claim about "academic consensus".

3)The Xiejiao claim was moved because it covered in the speculation section.

4)More nitpicking. I don't need an analysis from you of ever word I change.

5)Since when is the FLG "organization" decredited? By you? Here's another source on FLG's organization: S. O'Leary, "Falun Gong and the Internet", "Yet, although the attempt to depict Falun Gong as a non-political, non-religious group appears rather convincing, the fact remains that it is a massive group that is organized, though perhaps not in a clear, structured fashion... One comes away from the various Falun Gong Web sites groups with a distinct impression of an effective global network that is indeed organized and connected by virtue of the Internet."[6]

6)Sorry, You still have not demonstrated how Smith engaged in "inflammatory paraphrasing" despite your empty rhetorics. NYT is a reliable source, full stop.

7)Wow, I removed an extra word! Alert the presses!

8)Li's '81 times' claim has been widely reported and sourced. B. Penny "The rast, present and future of Falun Gong", "Li says, ‘I made a careful investigation once and found that humankind has undergone complete annihilation 81 times’. Several times in his writings, Li says that we are living in the ‘last days of Last Havoc’, the last of three phases of evolution of the universe, and that he has chosen this time to make Falun Gong public."

I added the changes because the previous version is frankly contains no controversy whatsoever, and contains carefully plucked sources to paint a picture as if all of FLG's controversies are manufactured by the Chinese government, which clearly violates NPOV. Furthermore, I am simply defending my right to edit Wikipedia, as Olaf has completely reverted the controversy section and Homunculus seems content in engaging in edit warring.--PCPP (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Too much stuff to review now, but for now:

1) secondary sources > primary sources. And oral quotes from Li are of course not going to appear in the written material, unless all his discourses are transcribed in that material. And, just like the sources, it should specify that those were things said by Li in discourses, not written down stuff.

3) the speculation section doesn't mention the original meaning of "xiejiao" anywhere, and the controversie section looks like the most adequate place for explaining the original meaning of that word, and it is important to distinguish between the traditional and the modern meaning of the word, PPCC, I think that either it should be restored where it was, or it should be moved to the speculation section, probably after the sentence that says "any group that does not come under the control of the Party"

7) errr, can't we simply restore "Buddhism" and get on with it? I mean, if it really appears in the source (which I haven't checked) then it should also be there. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I have put back the "xiejiao" definition and readded "Buddhism" per Enric's suggestions.--PCPP (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for ceding some ground here, but this solution does not address some of the more significant problems PCPP's edits introduced, such as the removal of three reliable sources, removal of the citation request (which referred to the second part of the statement, not the first, I believe), the misuse of the Palmer quote, and the disputed Craig Smith quote which, again, seems to violate verifiability policy for quotations from living persons (among others). There are some instances where primary sources are better than secondary sources, and quotations is one of them.

I don't expect that PCPP is himself going to make these changes, so I will prepare a version that I hope will be somewhat agreeable to all (or somewhat disagreeable to all, maybe). I also intend to move out the discussion on organisation, and put any valuable information into the main section on Falungong organisation where it was originally.—Zujine|talk 22:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This is funny—I came here to say that I was pleased to see some earnest collaboration to resolve the issue, but then I noticed that PCPP reverted again.Homunculus (duihua) 05:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Noted that Zujine engaged in deceptive editing and reverted back to his preferred version while a discussion is going on. Again, he is trying to portray as if all of FLG's controversies are manufactured by the PRC government.--PCPP (talk) 05:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment

There is a dispute over inclusions of material in the Controversy paragraph. Specifically, should a New York Times article be used [7] on controversy over interracial children and the "Dharma Ending Period".--PCPP (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll summarise my previous objection again here. The problem, in my view, is that Smith's statement is part quote from Li Hongzhi, and part his own sensationalised paraphrase of Li Hongzhi. The former is properly attributed, and the latter (which you are pushing to include) is not. Another editor, who has a deeper familiarity with Falungong doctrine than either of us, has said that Smith's paraphrase is invalid, and does not reflect Falungong beliefs. He referred you to the policy on identifying reliable sources, which states "The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article. Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source."

The part of the Craig Smith quote that you have been edit waring to include is not properly attributed to the primary source, is disputed, and is not corroborated by any other, neutral scholar on Falungong. Therefore, it does not appear to satisfy the above criteria. The way you have currently written it in the article does not even include an inline citation, let alone a rebuttal or anything else that could possibly redeem it as NPOV. If you wish to discuss Falungong's views on the Dharma ending period, there is a separate paragraph at the end of the section that addresses it, but you could certainly find higher quality sources.

My other concern, which I raised previously, is whether this is notable as a controversy. It seems to me to be merely an expression of novel Falungong beliefs, about which almost nothing is written in academic discourse on Falungong, and around which there are no real world controversies.—Zujine|talk 06:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Prove it. The "Dharma Ending Period" and proported apocalyptic messages of FLG has been debated since it was banned by the PRC government. Per WP:PRIMARY "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

New York Times falls under WP:RS, and you have not demonstrated nor provided evidence on why the claim is disputed by other authors. An attribution to primary source, as you claimed, is certainly not needed.--PCPP (talk) 06:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Include Smith's statement. Correct preference is being given to secondary sources here. Zujine, if you have a "rebuttal" from a "neutral scholar" (implying that the NYT journalist is biased against Falun Gong is a BLP attack by the way), then include it, but a lack of such a rebuttal does not mean the information is false. Additionally, this information is appropriate for the controversy section because its premise is explaining the controversy about why some people think this group is "worth dying for" and why others think "its followers are misled and its leader deluded" with reference to relevant beliefs and teachings. Quigley (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• The dispute here is not about the "Dharma Ending period", as PCPP is trying to claim. Li Hongzhi's teachings contain multiple references to that period of time, and it is a very well-known concept in practically all Buddhist traditions. The sole concern is whether Craig Smith has misquoted Li Hongzhi and/or placed his words out of relevant context. Wikipedia policies clearly indicate that primary sources are the best sources about these sources themselves. Of course, this should be self-evident to any reasonable person. Again, "the accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article." [8]

As we can conclusively prove that the teachings of Falun Gong do not talk about interracial children being the "spawn" of the Dharma Ending period and other stuff like that, Craig Smith's words amount to none, especially since there are no secondary sources who would corroborate his claim. We cannot say that Falun Gong teaches something if it doesn't. There's no wikilawyering around that. This is not an analysis of Falun Gong's teachings but an alleged quote that can be easily checked against Li Hongzhi's lectures, meaning that the primary source takes precedence over any secondary source per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I assume the lecture and question being referred to in the NYT article is "Question: Can you say a little more about the interracial children?" Sean.hoyland - talk 18:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and I have no objection to accurately summarising what has been said there. (Our readers may also be interested in the fact that Falun Gong practitioners are in no way forbidden from marrying a person of another race and having children with him or her. This is also contained in the lectures, and I'll find you a reference. On a personal note, I've never met more Chinese-Caucasian couples and their kids than among practitioners of Falun Gong.) ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sean, thanks for providing the original source. As Olaf said, Craig Smith's wording that PCPP has fought to preserve (ie. "spawn") is nowhere found in the primary source. I'll propose a solution here (Olaf, please tell me if my summary is acceptable from your perspective). How about something to the effect of "Li Hongzhi posits in his teachings that there are distinct heavens for people of different races, and as such, "once races are mixed up, one does not have a corresponding relationship with the higher levels, and he has lost the root." In a lecture to his students in Australia, Li describes interracial children as a phenomenon unique to the Dharma ending period, an era of moral decline described in Buddhist scriptures, but adds "If you are an interracial child, it is, of course, neither your fault nor your parents' fault...If you want to practice cultivation, I can help." Homunculus (duihua) 20:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Your version seems to accurately paraphrase Li's words in that lecture and leaves no room for (un)intentional obfuscation. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'm glad that's satisfactory. The religion project has a draft policy proposal which, although not yet finalized, is helpful in the matter. With respect to criticisms of religions, it stipulates that "All critical comments should be thoroughly discussed on talk pages with both adherents and non-adherents participating to achieve the most neutral and fair wording possible. WP:Assuming good faith is as important during these discussions as anywhere else in Wikipedia." It also states that "Minor criticisms must be carefully considered before inclusion as to their notability and provenance and should never be afforded equal weight with more notable and substantial criticisms." I think this is useful when reviewing PCPP's dozens of other contributions as well, in which he added (ever without discussion) numerous other criticisms of Falun Gong whose objectivity and notability may be disputed. But I shall leave dealing with those for another day. What a saga.Homunculus (duihua) 21:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly just an ideological war, the same ideological war that has been fought in the last five years or so and never got resolved. I applaud all of you for your persistence, but I do suggest (with all due respect) that the involved editors all leave this page, pass this entire article to a totally neutral third party, and let them take it from here. Colipon+(Talk) 02:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea, Colipon, but it's worth noting that the page was stable and the discussions civil for a good long while before PCPP returned. I have said in other forums, and I will say again, that the only way for these pages to be constructive and neutral is for editors to work in good faith, and engage in substantive discussions of content, not ideology or ad hominem accusations of bias. I continue to have full faith that this is possible.Homunculus (duihua) 02:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, Homunculus, conversations are bound to be stable and civil when everyone out of lockstep with the "NGO consensus on Falun Gong" is driven away or banned at AE. Colipon, your idea won't work because the stakes are too high for the Falun Gong activists. Here's a horrifying excerpt from the testimony of Ethan Guttman (of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies), the contents of which were contested yesterday just a section above: "For many Democrats, it took one Chinese-planted Wikipedia reference alleging Falun Gong was anti-gay to ward off sympathy." Evidently, for Falun Gong and its NGO allies of convenience, their lifeblood of U.S. government subsidies is dependent on their ability to suppress the unsavory aspects of Falun Gong's teachings on Wikipedia. If only it were an ideological war. Quigley (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that Olaf's claims are completely invalid here, it refers to quoting people directly in Wikipedia articles, and not when the quote is mentioned in a reliable secondary source. What you're essentially doing is Original research.--PCPP (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

How does "Democrat sympathy" turn into "lifeblood of U.S. government subsidies"? How has the U.S. government subsidised Falun Gong and what independent source has made such allegations? Of course, no neutral commentators have ever claimed that Falun Gong has an anti-gay social agenda, nor is there anything in Li Hongzhi's teachings that would support such claims. If the readers are left with that impression, there's foul play involved. How practitioners are supposed to act if they want to practice cultivation is another matter, and Falun Gong's outlook on some aspects of sexuality is definitely quite conservative, which makes it no different from many religious traditions.

I remember how the article used to be in a very bad shape because of ideological struggle. Apart from some very few exceptions over the past 5 years, there have been no "totally neutral third parties" involved. It is nothing but a pipe dream to wish that such editors would suddenly appear and edit these articles from some Archimedean point. I, for one, have not been actively involved for quite some time, and the article probably doesn't contain a single sentence I wrote. On the other hand, no matter who's been most active and whether they have been Falun Gong practitioners or not, I've always seen the same people complaining that the article does not read like a tabloid exposé of "the unsavory aspects of Falun Gong's [alleged] teachings".

In addition to Falun Gong practitioners and NGOs, it is in the interests of scholars, researchers, students and philanthropists to keep these articles clean, informative and accurate. That's why only the best sources will do, and that's why we cannot make allegations about teachings that do not exist or are placed in a false context. That's why we are debating over and over again. I, for one, have a professional education in this field of studies, and many other editors probably have an academic background as well. Who thought it would be easy? It's not hard only because there are sympathisers and antagonists of Falun Gong, but because this discussion page is a microcosm of the corpus of Falun Gong literature debating with itself. The arguments need to be waterproof. No use complaining if there are pinholes all over.

And PCPP... no, it refers to the accuracy of the original quote and whether it has been used correctly. I ask you to read the bolded text once again. It's not ambiguous in any way.✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

And no, I think YOU are the one who should reread the page:

Any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material, however, should rely on a secondary source (See: WP:No original research)

What you are doing here is Original Research, don't pretend otherwise.--PCPP (talk) 10:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This comes after the quote has been validated as correct. The Wikipedia policies do not function independently of each other. Craig Smith is not analysing or interpreting the material; he claims Li said this, whereas we can unambiguously check that what he said was slightly different. As I said earlier, I have no objection to mentioning the mixed race issue, as long as we don't distort Li's words. If all comes down to what he's said, there's no wikilawyering around the fact that we need to check what he's said and stick to that. (How many more truisms do I need to write today?) ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 10:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I am going to disregard the red herrings that now litter this discussion, and recap. The original Craig Smith quote was not a scholarly interpretation of Li Hongzhi's writing; it was a half quote, half paraphrase that Smith attributed to Li Hongzhi. PCPP did not appear to care about having the actual quote in the article; he was fighting to include Craig Smith's paraphrase, which was inflammatory and of disputed accuracy. Given that "the accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted", Sean and Homunculus referred to the primary source. The conclusion was that Smith's paraphrase was not accurate. Homunculus proposed a summary of Li Hongzhi's actual words, which Olaf (who is now our only resident expert on Falungong teachings) found agreeable.

PCPP has tried to argue that Wikipedia is built on secondary sources, not primary sources. In general, this is true, but an exception holds when a primary source is describing what the primary source says; in that case, primary sources are superior. PCPP then tried to argue that Homunculus's summary was original research. I would ask him to reead the original research policy; Homunculus was not offering an original interpretation of the primary source, but was quoting and carefully summarising it. This is not in violation of WP:No original research I would also note that the guideline PCPP highlighted itself recommends using additional secondary sources to ensure that there are no novel interpretations of primary sources (by secondary sources). Craig Smith's paraphrase was, evidently, a novel and sensationalised reading of Li Hongzhi's original statement, and his reading is not supported by Falungong experts (in fact, Falungong scholars don't seem to care much about these teachings at all). This is to be expected; Smith is a journalist with his own point of view, not a scholar of religion or an expert on Falungong. We do not have any other, neutral and scholarly sources who would corroborate Smith's paraphrase, and it has now been definitively shown to be wrong through a comparison with the primary source. It simply cannot be included.

Now, my comment: I am glad that Homunculus and Olaf tried to hash out a solution, and if it turns out that mine is a lone voice in the wilderness, I would support their proposal as a middle ground. But I still don't see the notability. PCPP appears to have thrown onto the page every critical statement he could find about Falungong (and rejects any attempt to discuss the neutrality or due weight that should be accorded to these things). Yet he has not explained why Falungong's views on race and heaven are a notable controversy. All religions have novel beliefs that some people will invariably find strange or unappealing, but the presence of these beliefs does not, itself, make a 'controversy.' If that were the case, the article on Judaism would have a lengthy criticism section about the implausibility of auto-combusting bushes. To Quigley, your first statement suggests that Smith's interpretation is germane because it illuminates the question of whether Falungong's leader is deluded. That is not at all the question here, and it is not the place of an encyclopedia article to weigh in on the validity of religious beliefs. WP:Criticisms emphasis the importance of not overemphasising criticisms or controversy, but that is exactly what is happening here.—Zujine|talk 14:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just been watching, not writing. I'll make one observation on the behavior of the editors. It looks to me like there are some neutral editors (Homunculus, Zujine, Sean Hoyland) who seemed to be engaged in substantive discussions and are willing to collaborate and compromise while being civil. They have different points of view on the subject, but their engagement with the discussion is fair, at least as far as I see it. Then, there are then some editors who are intent mainly on making attacks and accusations against others, which ends up derailing the discussions with politically and ideologically charged rhetoric, and remarks that don't seem to have anything to do with the content on the page (i.e. Quigley, Colipon, PCPP). Isn't Wikipedia meant to be edited by consensus? I would consider getting involved and editing if it did not seem so political. I'm not familiar with the policy, precisely, that decides what is included, but if there are serious and legitimate disputes about content, shouldn't they be discussed before changes are forced onto the page? That's all. --69.181.25.248 (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It takes more faith than I have to handle the cognitive dissonance of denouncing the "political" atmosphere of the Falun Gong pages, and then immediately separating users into imagined cliques to attack one of the groups. There is no diversity in viewpoints among a group of users who agree that replacing clear secondary source analysis with such primary quotes as "once races are mixed up, one does not have a corresponding relationship with the higher levels, and he has lost the root." improves the article. There's a good reason why Wikipedia doesn't allow Bible or Quran verses as direct references.

No proposals have been put forth to discuss the metaphysics of the Dharma Ending Period, so Zujine's burning bushes analogy is inappropriate. There is only a proposal to include (to restore, really) a conservative amount of secondary source analysis of the doctrines that make Falun Gong controversial. If any of you have relevant rebuttals by "neutral scholars" who you say help vindicate your cause, then include them. But to suppress or obfuscate this essential component of a thorough encyclopedic article on the movement is only a recipe for more edit-warring. Quigley (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I provided the primary source above because I wanted to verify for myself that the quoted material in the NYT article, "The yellow people, the white people, and the black people have corresponding races in heaven", was accurate. It was accurate or at least it was consistent with that source. It doesn't mean I care about the primary source or even regard it necessarily as a reliable source for what Li said. The secondary source takes precedence, that is the source being quoted and the NYT is an RS for what living people have said. It's use is consistent with mandatory policies WP:V and WP:BLP no matter what the content guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources says about quotations. When editors argue at length to exclude a report in the New York Times from an article covered by discretionary sanctions because they disagree with the way the journalist interpreted and presented the information available to them, even describing it as a propaganda piece for the CCP, inflammatory, not notable etc, there is a problem. Would any of us have written the article in the NYT using the same terminology and interpretation ? Probably not but it doesn't matter, we aren't RS. We can discuss details about wording, attribution, rebuttals etc but excluding material from the NYT is not an option that policy minded editors have available to them. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Everyone knows that NYT is a 'reliable source' by Wikipedia standards. It all comes down to the fact that we're dealing with an inaccurate description of what has verifiably been said by a living person. Moreover, the relevant policies state:

• "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content." (WP:BLP)
• "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where applicable." (WP:V)
• "Any exceptional claim requires high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: [...] reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended" (WP:V)
• "Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation." (WP:V)
• "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." (WP:NPV)

Of course, we could write, "Craig Smith claims Li Hongzhi says... [...] Li Hongzhi says...". In my view, that wouldn't make much sense from an encyclopaedic perspective. While I do not personally oppose the inclusion of the subject matter as long as it's handled accurately, other editors have discussed its significance, and I would also like to see authoritative Falun Gong scholars mentioning the mixed race issue as a notable controversy. I'm not talking specifically about this case, but in general terms, if we wish to have a stable article in the future, we ought to take care that the isolated views and opinions of individual authors or journalists are not given disproportionate weight. So much has been said and written about Falun Gong; it simply would not work if we littered the page with quotes and analysis and views from anyone and everyone, necessitating massive quantities of inline citations and point, counterpoint, counter-counterpoint arguments. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 14:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

1RR/week restriction

Under the authority of WP:ARBFLG#Discretionary sanctions, pending final disposition of a related AE request, this article is placed under a 1RR/week restriction. All editors are restricted to one revert per rolling 168 hour period, excluding reverts of IP edits and clear vandalism. Violations of this restriction will be dealt with by escalating blocks, starting at 24 hours. T. Canens (talk) 08:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)