Talk:Falun Gong

Central teachings

First three of total four paragraphs rely on the primary source: Li Hongzhi, Zhuan Falun. So I tagged the section. I would suggest to re-source using secondary references. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Good call. I'll work on that. Homunculus (duihua) 21:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Agada, can you explain these changes?[1] I missed some primary sources in my last round of edits. I could fix those too if you pointed them out specifically. It's not super pressing, though; the presence of some primary sources, used sparingly to describe themselves, does not violate policy. You've gone and stripped them out of various sections of the article where, I believe, they were used appropriately to begin with.

In addition, you have removed all references to Zhuan Falun, even when the statements were clearly quoting Zhuan Falun, and there were other secondary sources used. Why did you feel this was necessary? You seem to believe that Wikipedia policy forbids the presence of primary sources, even when supported by others. This isn't the case.

You also requested quotations for every single item within 'teachings' where it wasn't provided in the reference. Why would you do that? I provided quotations within some of the references when they contained particularly short, quotable excerpts. Sometimes the issues are described in the course of paragraphs or several paragraphs. Sometimes I just didn't feel like adding a quote for everything. Are you going to require that every single thing in the article contains the quotation within the reference? I just don't understand what you're trying to do. If there is a particular item that you're not sure about, you can ask me on the talk page to give you a quotation.

In addition, you removed a very salient, germane image by saying it was unrelated. You also replaced an image that had been removed, noting in edit summary that removal hadn't been explained. Removal actually was explained. The image illustrated a sub-topic of Falun Gong—a 'Tuidang' protest in Hong Kong. The caption was also full of grammatical and spelling errors.

You also removed a large paragraph of densely sourced material about Falun Gong's demography in the 1990s. You said this was original synthesis. Could you explain why? This paragraph was proposed to you months ago. I asked repeatedly for your feedback on it before putting on the page. You have never explained where you think the problem is. Homunculus (duihua) 12:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Nothing pressing about changes and thank you for taking part in the clean up. I would appreciate quotation of marked sources. Could you explain on images? Would you mind posting diffs, and maybe opening separate discussion would be beneficial for clarity of discussion. AgadaUrbanit (talk)

As you are the one who made these edits, and since I have already explained my objections, I think the onus is on you to answer the questions. There is something slightly tendentious about demanding that another editor open multiple discussion threads as a prerequisite to engaging with you about your activities. There is also something tendentious about demanding that other editors provide you with quotations for 17 (!) cited statements that, to anyone familiar with the literature, would not appear the least bit controversial.Homunculus (duihua) 12:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have access for the sources, that is why I am requesting quotation for WP:V. Copy of relevant pages in the source would do. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The page of the reference should be noted as a matter of course, in the citation. Homunculus is under no obligation to provide you with a copy of the pages from the books if that is what you are suggesting. I'm not sure what scenario is being imagined, that he scan them and email them to you? That would probably violate copyright law. Verify them by buying them or going to a major library in your city.

On to the primary source policy. Here are some lines from it Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources:

Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages... A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.

I think it's a good idea to make sure this section has better sources. But deleting the line [2] "Falun Gong exercises can be practiced individually or in group settings, and can be performed for varying lengths of time in accordance with the needs and abilities of the individual practitioner." seems a bit strange, doesn't it? This is not a controversial claim (i.e., it is true of many activities.) Nor have the reasons that no primary sources be used in a section that is about Falun Gong's teachings been properly discussed. I can see the need for controversial claims or unique interpretations, but for straightforward facts like that above, what is the problem with a primary citation?

Thus, the wholesale removal of these primary sources appears to me inappropriate. And I also note AU's removal of the figures, among all these deleting actions: [3].

Numbered below are the actions I am going to take. If there are any points disputed, use the number to refer to it and explain why. No particular order.

1. [4] Restore the primary sources here because there is nothing problematic or controversial about their use. There are no interpretive or analytical claims being made. furthermore, in most cases there is already a secondary source cited. There is really no need for another source. The primary source references could simply be deleted if necessary, but I think it would be wise to keep them for sake of completeness in referencing.
2. [5] restore these deletions. Again, there are no interpretive or synthetic claims being made with the reliable sources. The reference to faluninfo falls within our policy either, because a Falun Gong advocacy group is a reliable source on the views of Falun Gong.
3. [6] Restore the rather mundane claim about the practice of FLG's exercises. The other two parts simply do not need more than one citation. I'll remove the tags.
4. [7] these are unremarkable claims. You wish to delete ‘’The book Falun Gong is an introductory text that discusses qigong and provides illustrations and explanations of the exercises and meditation.’’ because it is cited to a primary source? That is not the purpose of the primary source policy. You have evidently misread it. It is not a problem to use primary sources to substantiate such simple statements (similarly for the next paragraph).
5. [8] similarly.
6. [9] I think there are better images we could use than this one. I’ll replace it with something that is more normal.
7. [10] This deletion was inappropriate. This has been discussed at length above. I say no more on it here. The information relates to the number of practitioners in China. There is no synthesis. It is clear representation from secondary sources. Please do not edit Wikipedia disruptively. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Done. It was a good idea to have an image in the response to suppression section (and I was about to say: get rid of the irrelevant image in the demography section, but then I realized it may have been meant as a representation that there are both old and young people who practice the religion? Unsure.), however I replaced it with a better image that is 1) in English, 2) Makes a simple and clear representation. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed following editnotice on Sathya Sai Baba page, maybe we could substitute in that message Sai Baba with Li Hongzhi/Falun Gong and utilize this message here. Just a thought. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be a great idea if we ever do have a problem with editors trying to make unique and interesting use of primary sources in this subject area. At the moment we don't seem to have that problem. As mentioned, there are cases where primary sources are no problem. Simple statements of fact that, for example, someone can do exercises with others or by themselves, or that, a certain book has illustrations and text, is a perfectly acceptable use of primary sources. Further, most of the time in the sections on Falun Gong teachings there are both primary and secondary sources provided. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the guideline on reliable sources applies by default to all pages on Wikipedia. We don't seem to have a particular problem here of primary sources being used inappropriately to cite novel, controversial, or interpretive statements. With that said, sometime in the next...oh..48 hours or so, I would be agreeable to providing page numbers for specific statements you would like clarification on. There are also statements (like the one mentioned by TSTF above) that would benefit from an added secondary source, and I can do that too. For now, other work. Homunculus (duihua) 18:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I've consulted with Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. It might be important to include quotes from Li Hongzhi /Zhuan Falun as an important and known religious source. However there is a question about the use of faluninfo/clearwisdom/clearharmony as a direct source using material published on their site rather than via secondary source coverage. There are some relevant RSN discussions I've browsed. In practice, here they are, some in articles namespace:

• faluninfo
• clearwisdom
• clearharmony

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I know. The page does include quotes from Li Hongzhi. The quotes selected are those that are also quoted in high quality secondary sources, which is why they now have both the primary and secondary sources attached to them. I did not want this section to get cluttered with in-text citations to this or that scholar; instead it is a more or less unadulterated representation of the moral precepts and understandings that all the major scholars agree compose Falun Gong's core beliefs. In select cases where the secondary sources quote Li, I incorporated some of those quotes. As to the use of faluninfo, clearwisdom, and clearharmony, I recommend that the latter two should be treated as primary sources. Faluninfo is in a slightly different category (I tend to think of it as the equivalent of the International Campaign for Tibet); it is frequently cited in academic works (so is clearwisdom, actually, but cautiously), and by NGOs, human rights groups, and governments. I'm pretty sure it's what David Ownby was referring to when he spoke of Falun Gong publications that are generally considered trustworthy in these communities. I still think that this source should be used sparingly, and in-text citations can be provided when circumstances call for it. As to the other two, Wikipedia permits the use of primary sources as sources about themselves, but they should be used with all the caveats that normally apply to primary sources. From the lists you provided, it appears that these sources almost never appear on Wikipedia pages (though there are a number of talk page links to clearwisdom). What is the value of this exercise? Homunculus (duihua) 00:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess the exercise is editing Wikipedia in accordance with WP:V. The content of the first three of total four paragraphs in the section was challenged, due to usage of primary sources. So now, when you added the secondary sources, to support the old content, it appears per policy that the WP:BURDEN lies on you, Homunculus. Please provide the quotes. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The section you cited says:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly removal should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[2] Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people; you should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups.[3]

It doesn't say anything about providing the actual quotes from the sources. Homunculus, please don't waste your time. AgadaUrbanit, if you want the quotes go to the library and get the books, or buy them, or whatever. There's no obligation for anyone to type out the quotes for you as a matter of course. If you have some particular question or reasonable dispute with a particular phrasing, that you can explain, then as a matter of collegiality and good faith I think it would be fair enough to fish the quote out from the book; this doesn't appear to be such a case. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't intend to waste my time. This section is already extremely densely sourced (arguably too much so). I've provided page numbers, as well as several quotes. I have more than fulfilled the burden of proof. If Agada is insinuating that secondary sources were inappropriately added retroactively to support primary source material, I would merely assure him that this section was originally written through extensive reference to the secondary sources; that's why it was so easy to add dozens of them when asked. I just didn't previously see the need to overload the section with dozens of refs to corroborate claims that are plainly obvious to anyone with basic knowledge of Falun Gong morality. But now I have done that, and have no more time to entertain these tendentious demands. Homunculus (duihua) 21:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Falun_Gong#Categorization edit

In the 'classification' section, I saw that an editor removed[11] a discussion of whether falungong meets the definition of a 'sect.' The edit summary suggested content violated WP:PARAPHRASE, but I don't see how. WP:PARAPHRASE is meant to prevent subtle copyright violations that take the form of very close paraphrasing. The deleted content didn't seem to have that problem. It was unsourced, but sources could easily be found and added. On a related note, I think this section could also use an expanded discussion of the 'religion' classification, especially in terms of the Chinese conceptualisation of religion (I think Penny and Ownby have written on this. I'll try to find what I'm thinking of).—Zujine|talk 05:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

For "sect" classification, you can cite to Porter. Ownby had a 2003 article in Nova Religio that similarly explained why Falun Gong (as well as some historical redemptive societies) don't meet the definition of a sect or sectarian movement. For the religion issue, as you know Penny's latest book discussed the classification both in explicit and indirect terms. This testimony[12] by David Ownby on the definition of religion in Chinese society might also be close to what you're looking for. I'm not sure where the Ian Johnson quote originally came from, or if it's necessary. But if you have it, you may want to check his book Wild Grass for something similar. Finally, Danny Schechter provides a poignant rebuttal to some of these classifications, though he's operating at the level of dissecting journalistic and popular discourse, not sociological definitions. Good luck. Homunculus (duihua) 16:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The content removed was unsourced. I've tried to look for the Ian Johnson quote and failed to find secondary reliable sources. I would appreciate if the new material per Ownby would be posted on this talk page first. It could be a good sign of collaboration. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Agada, you might want to consider that, instead of removing anything that doesn't have a source, you can add a request for citation. If a citation is not provided in a reasonable period of time, then it may be appropriate to remove the material. This of course doesn't apply to material that clearly violates policy, such as WP:BLP. Try not to overdo it, of course. It's not that every single sentence needs a citation (see WP:Citation overkill). In this case, I think it's fair to challenge the material, particularly the part that quotes Johnson. I asked Zujine to check Ian Johnson's book Wild Grass to see if the quote, or something similar, is contained therein. If we cannot find something that more directly cites this quote to Johnson, I suggest leaving it out per WP:V.Homunculus (duihua) 00:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I was actually hoping to explain why falungong doesn't generally self-identify as a religion (not why the government doesn't consider it as such), but the Ownby testimony might still be of some use. I think I know where to find what I'm looking for.—Zujine|talk 14:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Please take a look. I expanded a little on the various forms of classification as a cultivation practice, religion, and sect. Hopefully the language and descriptions are still accessible to average readers. I also trimmed and moved the paragraph from Craig Burgdoff, as it didn't belong in this section (and some of it was actually already repeated elsewhere).—Zujine|talk 21:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks quite good, though I don't consider myself a good judge of accessibility. I was doing some of my own readings on this from old journal articles, and was wondering whether it would be possible or desirable to elaborate on the idea that, if Falun Gong had openly identified as a religion in the 1990s, it would have been immediately suppressed because the party only recognizes the five officially sanctioned religions. Ian Johnson did an article about this topic, but it's also discussed by Ownby, Penny, et al. This was actually one of the original sources of contention with the party-state in the mid-1990s: some people criticized Falun Gong because it clearly had theological and religious elements, but "hid" behind the mantle of qigong in order to gain official acceptance. It's kind of a silly debate to me, particularly since qigong itself was originally a deeply religious practice, and was only reclassified under Communism as a branch of Chinese medicine rather than religious exercise. But regardless of the merits of the argument, it is important in understanding the point of view of Falun Gong's earliest critics. Maybe there's another article that would be better suited for this. I'm not sure. Homunculus (duihua) 03:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• I deleted a sentence that was added to categorisation that said "According to Gallagher-Ashcraft Falun Gong movement is an assaulted nonviolent millennial group in China." This was inserted in the middle of a discussion of whether falungong meets the definition of a religion, and it does not belong there. I tried finding another place for it, but it didn't seem to fit. "Assaulted nonviolent millennial group" is not really a category of classification. It is a just a collection of adjectives. Ethan Gutmann likes to call falungong a "Buddhist revival movement," and I'm sure many other scholars have their own terms, but I think we should keep this section focused on broad categories of classification. I feel similarly about "new religious syncretism," but decided to keep it, since it is used by at least two different scholars.
• On the importance of the qigong / religion debate in 1990s China, I don't think that belongs in this section either. It seems more fitting in a 'history,' if anywhere. Would it be possible to explain this issue sufficiently in a sentence or two?—Zujine|talk 14:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Death toll

The question remains as to how many Falun Gong practitioners were persecuted to death. I have a gut feeling that the number is around 800-1000 from July 1999 until now. Also, the claim that half of all people sentenced to reeducation through labor are FLG practitioners are without solid evidence. Why are there so few sympathizers of the FLG movement inside mainland China from the Tiananmen incident in 2001 to the Bo Xilai incident this year? I wonder that given all the people released from RTL throughout the years, the number of sympathizers should ideally be quite high, especially in today's Weibo/Twitter era. Yet even mainstream dissidents in China have rarely spoken out on behalf of the FLG movement. The fact that there is a dramatic reduction in the number of FLG practitioners in mainland China might not pinpoint to an actual reduction. It could be that there is only a dramatic reduction in the number of FLG practitioners in PUBLIC in mainland China. For people accusing of me of trying to whitewash a crime, well, I am not defending the CPC persecution of FLG or any of its other crimes. For this matter, I am only trying to objectively determine the true death toll related to FLG in China. It is just too obvious that the 5-figures number is wrong. Now I am throwing into doubt the 4-figures number. Is it possible to find ANY source out there that agrees with my number? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.24.47 (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment, though I must advise that Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion on one's personal feelings about an issue. I checked through the paragraph in the article that cites these numbers, and found that the wrong state department report was referenced. I've fixed that, added some additional references (including one that presents a more conservative ratio), and also added quotations within those references that you can refer to if you wish to do your own reading (you can view them at the bottom of the page). If you come across other reliable sources publishing different estimates, you're welcome to introduce those to give a more complete picture. On the death toll, the section already appears to describe a full spectrum of estimates given by experts on the subject, though if you can find more (from reliable sources, such as books, journal articles, human rights reports, etc), please share.Homunculus (duihua) 14:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think briefly stating an interest or perspective on the topic amounts to using the page as a forum. He was probably just trying to ease in with an introduction. Consider WP:DONTBITE... On the specific content issue, I believe any five number figures are possible death tolls as a result of the alleged organ removal; the claimed deaths from conventional means I believe are four figures. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Did I bite? I don't think so. I thought that was a friendly proviso that, while editor is welcome to contribute reliable source content, this is not the place to discuss "gut feelings" and ask others to find sources to substantiate said gut feelings. In any case, I apologize to the user if I was not sufficiently inviting. And on another note, I am reminded again that the section on persecution is the weakest in the article, and could use 1) a rewrite to summarize and better prioritize information, and 2) additional scrutiny to ensure that sources are good, information presented in a fair and detached way, etc. Homunculus (duihua) 19:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

One Change to Page, One Question re: Organ Harvesting

First, I added the Falun Gong portal at the bottom; I don't know why it wouldn't be there and many of those pages are not referenced elsewhere in this article. If someone reverts, please explain, I'd like to understand the reasoning so I do not make the same mistake again. Second, I came to this page for information about the claims of organ harvesting, one of the most important issues surrounding this organization, true or not. It is the main topic of many of the external references and covered in other articles on WP not linked to from this one, but not mentioned here. Why not? Also, after posting this, will I be banned from entering the PRC? 65.217.137.4 (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've edited these pages for a while so I might answer for now. 1) Good. Not sure why it wasn't there. 2) Why is there no organ harvesting information? I don't know. That is extremely strange. There should be information about it on the page for the reasons you state. I haven't looked at this page closely recently because it's kind of stable and well-sourced, but you've pointed out one major omission. We should fix it. See the Kilgour-Matas report page for information on that topic. 3) It's highly unlikely. I think the government has other things keeping it busy at the moment. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I hope so! I added a section on organ harvesting, might be a bit long, bounce between UK to American English, and some of the links may not work because of their age how it was cobbled together, but I don't have any more time this morning. I think it's pretty balanced though. There was a section here until August or so of 2009 that was removed under vague circumstances, but this topic is certainly a major point of notability for the Falun Gong, at least in the West. 65.217.137.4 (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

If I get a moment in the next couple of days I would revise it to probably just one paragraph and simplify what is presented here (i.e. the way it came to the public, the details of the rebuttals/denials, and so forth can probably be curtailed.) I think on this page it would be enough to have a statement which says that there have been these allegations, here is what they are, and they are contested. Then people can read the other page for more information. Although the Falun Gong do make a lot of noise about these allegations, I have not seen evidence showing that it is a major point of notability of the group in the West. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)