Jump to content

Talk:History of Falun Gong/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Move Completed With Clear Consensus

The previous discussion showed clear consensus over this move, please do not undo. Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Archives

Regardless, on title, I just noticed the page moves (even the previous one), did disrupt the talk archives. Is there any quick way to recover them? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. found 2 archive-pages. (> Advanced Search>Subpages>Move)Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 13:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead sentence and section

Current sentence 1 is: "Falun Gong was founded by Li Hongzhi and introduced to the public in May 1992, in Changchun, Jilin."

WP:MOS - The 1st sentence should explain what Falun Gong is and why it is notable, if practical. I should think it would be in this case. I would like to encourage a general discussion of what the lead needs to say. I think:

P1 -

  • What it is.
  • Why it is notable.
  • When founded, by whom.

P2 -

  • VERY brief core beliefs/practices/defining characteristics (if very simple, this may have already been covered in sentence 1... probably not.

P3 -

  • Current conflict/persecution globaly, with BALANCED presentation of China situation... what happened, why in condemned/opposed by FG, why done/supported by China government... VERY BRIEF.

- Sinneed 13:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

yepp, there's a lot of work to do. In addition it reads in the style of "...and theeen, and theen, and theeen." Thanks for the input. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 13:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree. The current lead section was a quick hatchet job by me, to get it away as quick as possible from the article in the previous namespace. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Contesting the legitimacy of the move to the new name

Copying this section from SilkTork talk page, where I originally posted, I think these are more relevant here.

The article Persecution of Falun Gong has met with countless attempts to rename/delete. Now Ohconfucius renamed it again, based on a hardly existent consensus on the talk page. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I am most concerned about this, because I happened to read hundreds of reports of practitioners being tortured and killed and the methods used. I have also read the secondary sources on the Persecution of Falun Gong and the article clearly satisfies notability and verifiability, per the sources listed on page, even after the heavy trim it suffered. The aspect of WP:N and WP:V was not even challenged or answered in the move request. This is why I don't think that Ohconfucius, Colipon, Seb, John Carter etc... are NOT the right persons to decide if consensus has been reached on move or not. Don't get me wrong they are most welcome to comment, but I think they are way to involved to decide if consensus has been reached or not. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Same question different format: Regarding Talk:History_of_Falun_Gong#Move Quote: "The result of the move request was page moved. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 12:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)", what makes Seb qualified to decide this? If he did not decide, who did? Where there any uninvolved assessments regarding this decision? Why is notability completely overlooked? As far as I know notability is the single criteria to decide if a page deserves to be on wikipedia--HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • And just for context, the persecution is real. This is just one very telling source [1] but there are hundreds available: [2] And even though it is real the first thing on the agenda is to sanitize references to it. [3], [4], [5], [6]. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Having observed the recent discussion and action, it appears to me that there are strong sentiments to rename the article Persecution of Falun Gong. However, I cannot see that there is a general agreement among the commentators that it should be called History of Falun Gong. I personally think that this title is inappropriate, if not deliberately misleading. It is playing fast and lose with the term history that implies the study of the human past. Not only is there no historiographical method deployed by most of the authors on the subject, but also because of the existing controversy whether events have happened like this and if so whether they have ceased now. Those who advocate such a name (i.e. History of Falun Gong) will have to ask themselves whether they are taking a specific position in that existing controversy rather than merely describing it. Mootros (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
There is one conflict-of-interest SPA here ranting about why the move shouldn't take place when there has been a clearly established consensus (although not unanimity) from the discussion above. I personally would not consider this to be a dispute in "good faith". But I will leave it to the other editors to judge. Colipon+(Talk) 22:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it should be noted that Happy himself withdrew a request to have another administrator chime in on this matter after I and others indicated that we thought there may well be grounds for such a persecution article to exist. However, in the various requests for comment, etc., the consensus was that there was a greater need and utility to having a "History" article before having a "Repression" article. It should be noted, by the way, that at the time, the editors who made the decision to make the persecution a higher priority than the basic history decision were themselves I believe almost all FG practicioners. That would place the objectivity of that decision seriously into doubt. It was even said in the discussion about the proposed move that it might make sense to create a persecution aticle if there were sufficient content directly relevant to it which could be easily spun out of the history article. But, true, the "history" in general was of greater importance than any particular incident in it. In response to the question why not just create a separate history article and leave the persecution artidle alone, I think I already answered that question above. The history takes priority. And it should be noted that the page which had been here, which was a redirect, was deleted by an uninvolved administrator prior to the move to make way for the move. On that basis, I think it reasonable to say that the move itself was of secondary importance, considering someone else had already made way for the move. I can only assume that the reason some of the others voted for a wholesale move might have included one of my own reasons, specifically, that they might have anticipated serious objections of extended duration to any attempt to place information from the persecution article into the history article, and decided to bypass such difficulties by in effect turning the tables to where they honestly probably should have been from the beginning. John Carter (talk) 01:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I stated my arguments in support of the move, and I executed the move following technical clearance in which an uninvolved Admin deleted the original History redirect, making way for the move. Every now and then within this family of articles, we have flurries of edit warring and other disruptive activity by single purpose accounts, and this time around I just didn't expect to be beaten over the head for it so hard by one of them dressed up as a conscientious objector, accusing all who opposed his disruption as 'vandals' and the like. I'm grateful for swift and decisive Admin intervention here, which certainly prevented escalation to WP:AE. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I do have Ownby and I think Chiang available, and will try to help place some material together for this article over the next few days as well. John Carter (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Page move history

  • 11-Apr-06 19:48, Weel (talk · contribs) created copy of main article as Persecution of Falun Gong
  • 22-Jun-06 22:55, CovenantD (talk · contribs) moved Persecution of Falun Gong to Suppression of Falun Gong ? (name that was consensused to in Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 8)
  • 13-Aug-06 13:46, Fnhddzs (talk · contribs) moved Suppression of Falun Gong to Persecution of Falun Gong over redirect ? (it is a fact, no matter what)
  • 14-Sep-06 01:19, CovenantD (talk | contribs) moved Persecution of Falun Gong to Supression of Falun Gong ? (revert)
  • 02-Dec-06 15:30, Fnhddzs (talk | contribs) m (moved Supression of Falun Gong to Persecution of Falun Gong: Supression is not English. Persecution of Falun Gong exists)
  • 03-Dec-06 01:42, Samuel Luo (talk · contribs) moved Persecution of Falun Gong to Supression of Falun Gong over redirect ? (Suppression of Falun Gong is neutral. You were reverted many times on this issue so why don't you stop it.)
  • 12-Dec-06 15:30, Fnhddzs (talk | contribs) moved Supression of Falun Gong to Persecution of Falun Gong over redirect ? (Supression is not English. Persecution of Falun Gong exists)
  • ? missing?
  • 03-Jan-07 19:04, Centrx (talk · contribs) moved Supression of Falun Gong to Suppression of Falun Gong ? (Correct spelling) (revert)
  • 16-May-07 01:17, Olaf Stephanos (talk · contribs) moved Suppression of Falun Gong to Crackdown on Falun Gong ? (revert)
  • 16-May-07 07:19, Coelacan (talk · contribs) moved Crackdown on Falun Gong to Suppression of Falun Gong over redirect ? (no consensus for previous move)
  • 06-Jun-07 15:35, Stemonitis (talk · contribs) moved Suppression of Falun Gong to Persecution of Falun Gong ? (WP:RM) (revert)
  • 22-May-08 13:11, PCPP (talk · contribs) moved Persecution of Falun Gong to Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China ? (Let's avoid the persecution vs crackdown, suppression debate) (revert)
  • 22-May-08 14:19, Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs) moved Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China to Persecution of Falun Gong over redirect ? (revert. This is crazy. There is absolutely no consensus for this, and your editing is being grilled now on the admin noticeboard page.)
  • 22-May-08 14:58, PCPP (talk | contribs) moved Persecution of Falun Gong to Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China over redirect ?
  • 22-May-08 20:19, HappyInGeneral (talk · contribs) moved Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China to Persecution of Falun Gong over redirect ? (If you would like to change the title of the page please do it according to disputed page renaming procedure.)
  • 14-May-09 23:55, Sceptre (talk · contribs) moved Persecution of Falun Gong to Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China over redirect ? (per NPOV. "Persecution" is in no way neutral.)
  • 15-May-09 03:28, HappyInGeneral (talk | contribs) moved Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China to Persecution of Falun Gong over redirect ? (See talk page over title, I will also dig up the archives)
  • 29-Jul-09 23:53, Irbisgreif (talk · contribs) moved Persecution of Falun Gong to Falun Gong Suppression in the People's Republic of China ? (The title has several POV issues. 1 - The article is about China, not a worldwide persecution. 2 - Consensus is that Suppression, not Persecution, is the correct term in this case.)
  • 30-Jul-09 00:14, HappyInGeneral (talk | contribs) moved Falun Gong Suppression in the People's Republic of China to Persecution of Falun Gong ?
  • 30-Jul-09 02:05, Irbisgreif (talk | contribs) moved Persecution of Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China to Policies of the People's Republic of China concerning Falun Gong ? (NPOV is non-negotiable, you have edit-warred a lot in the past to keep this POV title, but it has to go.)
  • 30-Jul-09 02:19, HappyInGeneral (talk | contribs) moved Policies of the People's Republic of China concerning Falun Gong to Persecution of Falun Gong over redirect ? (This is a disputed rename, if you feel that it needs to be done, do it by the proper channels)
  • 15-Oct-09 19:43, Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) moved Persecution of Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China to History of Falun Gong ? (as determined by consensus reached on the discussion page)
  • 15-Oct-09 20:04, HappyInGeneral (talk | contribs) moved History of Falun Gong to Persecution of Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China over redirect ? (I'm sorry, but I see no consensus for this on the talk page)
  • 15-Oct-09 20:15, Ohconfucius (talk | contribs) moved Persecution of Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China to History of Falun Gong over redirect ?
From the name changes which I was able to extract from the article history, and from edit summaries, it seems that it started life as Persecution of Falun Gong, and was most frequently under that title. However, it seems that consensus was never properly established for adopting the title in the first place. The history of reverts indicates there has been heavy opposition to this title, but that Falun Gong SPAs have furiously rebuffed all attempts to move it to a more neutral/suitable title, refusing all except Persecution of Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China.. Discussions took place, and some semblance of consensus was reached in June 2006, except that User:Fnhddzs, a FLG SPA active back then, intransigently said it should stay 'Persecution' "no matter what". The last discussion we had appears to have been the best attended discussion, with the most decisive result against that title and in favour of 'History'. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity could you please answer the questions from the #Post-move discussion, see copy paste here "I'm happy to see that you want to recreate the Persecution of Falun Gong, however I'm still not clear when, or why was it even necessary to "loose" it in the first place? Wouldn't it be more natural just to create the History article then move out everything not related to persecution from the persecution page to the History page? That is why I see no sense for the rename." you may answer here or above, with some else then personal attacks please. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 05:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Copying my talkpage response to HappyInGeneral's posting:

Sorry for delay in responding to this - I have been busy on and off Wikipedia. But I have been reading the thread(s), the history, the article, and the relevant guidelines and policies. There is a fair bit to read. The article has changed name various times, and was called Falun Gong, History and Timeline quite early on. There is nothing in the guidelines against the title Persecution of Falun Gong - we already have a number of such articles, see Category:Religious persecution and Category:Persecution. The questions are not if we can use such a title, it is if a) there is enough notability for such an article; b) if the title is appropriate for the current article; and c) if it helpful to have an article on the general history of Falun Gong.

My view would follow that of John Carter - the article under dispute works well as the one to be called History of Falun Gong, and that it would be appropriate to have a spin-off article - possibly using the material from the Media section onwards - to be called Persecution of Falun Gong, and there are enough reliable sources to support such an article. I will copy this over the appropriate talkpage. SilkTork *YES! 07:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I see there has been some development on John Carter's suggestion. I would support some movement on that, and will be bold enough to make a start. SilkTork *YES! 07:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
WTF?? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
You disagree that a Persecution of Falun Gong article is appropriate - or is it the crude start that you don't like? SilkTork *YES! 08:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I just don't understand what's going on... I thought we agreed to do away with the Persecution article because most of us believed that the crackdown/persecution was an integral if not the most important part of the history of FG and that there was only enough to create a half-decent article in terms of kb of text. It was thought, by all except the FLG SPAs, that the new home would enable a more comprehensive objective article on the subject to be developed; that an article with the original title would be an automatic FLG soapbox. Now, even before the dust has settled, and appearing as if it was some appeasement to the vehement protests to one very vocal FLG SPA voice, the article is born again. Are we not biting off more than we can chew? Now we have three articles with considerable duplication and overlap which need focussing and cleaning up, whereas two will already be sufficiently challenging (witness the perennial battles which surround these articles, and the issues we had with 'self immolation' article). Having said all that, I'm glad you're involved here, Steve, as we have a better chance of keeping it on the straight and narrow. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

However, as has been pointed out, there is enough material and notability for an article on the persecution of Falun Gong - and indeed, much of the History article already deals with that. The persecution material needs to be dealt with - and readers will be looking for an impartial article on such persecution. I appreciate that it will be difficult, and I'm not proposing that I make a drive by edit and leave it to others to sort out. I will roll up my sleeves and get stuck in with helping to make this and the Persecution article as neutral as possible. But whatever solution is followed will be difficult, and this particular article has had issues with the naming since conception because it is trying to do two things - deal with the overall history of the movement as well as the particular and noteworthy treatment that Falun Gong says it has received from the Chinese government, which have gained the attention of the media and of human rights organisations. We do not concern ourselves so much with if the statements made by Falun Gong are true - we simply concern ourselves with what reliable sources have reported about the statements. We present the statements, and the reporting on such statements. It is up to the readers to then make up their mind from our digest of what has been written if there is persecution or not. The title Persecution of Falun Gong is the right one according to our guidelines - WP:COMMONNAME - as that is the name by which this topic is known. The title does not confirm if there is persecution - it is intended to serve as an identifiable place where material related to the discussion can be placed and found. And clarity of that intention can be developed by the wording we use in the lead. Currently I have: "The movement has been labelled a cult and an "anti-China international movement" by the Chinese government and banned." as a starting point. I believe those statements are correct. We can then go on from there to mention that Falun Gong have made statements that the movement has been persecuted without saying ourselves that the movement is being persecuted. Does that help? SilkTork *YES! 09:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I will hold back editing either article until there is some consensus that this makes sense. SilkTork *YES! 09:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts: I believe it is appropriate to have an article on the persecution of Falun Gong in China. As a compromise, I could imagine this purpose being served by an article bearing a title like Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China or China and Falun Gong, following the example of the State Department document I linked earlier, but I don't have a problem with Persecution of Falun Gong either. There are literally hundreds of third-party news sources using the term (example: article in The Christian Century, an American mainstream Protestant source).
I sympathise with the view that such an article should not become a Falun Gong soapbox, and that this has happened to some extent. At present, the Persecution of Falun Gong article cites too many of Falun Gong's self-published sources, including sources by its various own human rights orgs and publications, and all the more troubling as there is no corresponding use of PRC primary sources.
Falun Gong and the PRC are entitled to engage in publicity campaigns online, but Wikipedia should not be instrumentalised in such a campaign, reproducing Falun Gong's or the PRC's own material. Ideally, we would apply the filter of secondary sources to all such primary sources, i.e. only draw on primary-source claims to the extent they have been referenced in secondary sources. It is the secondary sources that should determine article content and balance, not the primary sources of FG or the PRC. And if we do use primary sources, then there has to be some kind of balance between PRC sources and Falun Gong sources, depending on the credibility given to each by secondary sources.
To develop a way of moving forward in this article and the Persecution of Falun Gong article, I would propose that we strip out all material that is sourced only to PRC or FG primary sources which have not been specifically referenced by reliable third-party sources. This should be done slowly and methodically – material should not be removed until editors are agreed they can't find a third-party source referencing the material. This should allow us to get the NPOV balance right. Would this be acceptable? --JN466 13:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I am glad that both of you wish to take up the challenge of building and watching the article, and I would feel very much reassured with your involvement. However, I would be nervous at the split at this stage (but no longer vehemently opposed) to the principle, before we have a handle the overall content, that we would end up with a Content fork. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you! So I guess that there is an agreement to make the split rather then the move. Thank you! Now my only problem is that the history and archives of the persecution of Falun Gong page now is part of the history of Falun Gong page. But I guess that is a rather minor thing. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
    Oh, I'm so sorry I gave the wrong impression that I was totally in support of a split. I don't. I would repeat that I still have grave reservations, the least of all the article name. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


Persecution of Falun Gong article now created

I have made a rough cut and paste article - Persecution of Falun Gong. What needs to happen now is that material from History of Falun Gong is cut back and moved if appropriate to Persecution of Falun Gong, and both articles closely edited to ensure they are balanced. The new article is not to become a dumping ground for Falun Gong complaints about the Chinese government, but is intended to be a fair reflection of what the media are reporting about the banning of and media campaign against the movement. SilkTork *YES! 08:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to suggest starting with a /sources sub-page based on this sample: Talk:Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident/sources; for both the history and the persecution pages. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I certainly welcome involvement from neutral, third-party editors. I am also unsure about a content split at this stage. Like OhConfucius said above, part of the reason "persecution" was moved to "history" in the first place was so we can build an article that describes the history of Falun Gong, and place the persecution and related issues in a greater context for the average reader. While the persecution subject is notable, if its notability can be sufficiently placed in the greater context of Falun Gong history, then it can be easily discussed here without an article split. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the consensus that we have seen from discussions above. At this premature stage, suddenly splitting the "persecution" article again essentially undos the page move altogether.
In addition, if we choose to focus only on secondary sources in a "persecution of Falun Gong" article, we will soon find ourselves in a world of competing, opposing, and unverifiable claims from both parties - most secondary sources seem to give much the same structure. Falun Gong said this, Chinese government said this, etc. Because there is a lot of filtering that still needs to be done, it would seem illogical to begin a smaller piece of the puzzle ("persecution") before we even understand the bigger piece ("history"). If the "history" article has matured to the stage where we deem that persecution ought to be split off, we do so then, not now.
As for HappyInGeneral (talk · contribs), I am at this point unable to assume his good faith. His edits clearly reflect a conflict of interest (and have for three years now) and I do not, in any way, buy into his civil facade, such as attempts at compiling "sources". Falun Gong SPAs have a history of searching for selective sourced material that works to their benefit. If other editors would like to work together with Happy, I have no right to object. But my tolerance of these POV-pushing SPAs have exhausted a long time ago. Colipon+(Talk) 15:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Should we make a count of how many times you and some fellow editors of yours called me SPA? I am a self declared Falun Gong practitioner, always have been. Now can we please stop wasting precious space and discuss the article content? If you feel that I'm pushing a certain not notable source, please let me know about that, I can assure you I will do my best to fix the problem. Otherwise we could go ahead and theorize some more useless stuff, like the PRC with it's huge propaganda machine and campaign, does not have a single self declared Wikipedia editor on the English Wikipedia, while it has tens of thousands articles on the English facts.org.cn. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec) There are some things which you yourself do not seem to tire of repeating, and I am not about to give you a free pass, especially as I find your behaviour of late has been rather objectionable. The fact that you are a single purpose account will be repeated so long as you are an SPA (i.e. you only seriously edit/copyedit/source/expand only Falun Gong articles the majority of the time), and every time you demonstrate behaviour which we feel is in any way blinkered towards your chosen spiritual path at the expense of this encyclopaedia, including but not limited to promotion, advocacy within articles or talk pages, any disruption anywhere, personal attacks and hounding and badgering or breaches of civility and in talk pages, or in userspace. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I see lots of labels, but not one single sample, and I would prefer one for each. Otherwise I can not improve if I don't know what to improve. Right? Also I would think that it would be more appropriate and productive to do it on my talk page. What do you say? Still I wonder why can't we just all work on the /sources page. When that is done everything will be clear as day, then we can say what is WP:DUE and what is not, and uninvolved administrators will have an easy job deciding. Is that so bad? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
While we commend you for finally editing some non-FLG articles randomly correcting grammar and spelling in other articles while continuing to PoV push on FLG articles does not really lift the SPA label from you effectively. Your clear CoI is problematic. I have prodded the PoV fork you created off from this article. My only regret is that it doesn't meet the criteria for WP:SPEEDY.Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
It is refreshing that so many eyes are on my contribution list, and quite a few fellow editors noticed that I edited using WP:AWB :) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Also your recent canvassing on behalf of your PoV is of concern. Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I saw you mentioned canvas page on my talk page, but you failed to actually provide any diffs so I can figure out what you are talking about. Thanks. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Now seriously can we get back to discuss the sources not the editor? It would seem most appropriate to me. Does anyone have any thoughts on this on why we should or should not continue with labeling, in rather unsubstantiated manner, editors of WP:Bad faith? Is it just my perception, or every-time I mention the /sources page, something dramatic happens. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD launched; PoV fork is not an appropriate way to deal with consensus disagreeing with you opinion. Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Fond of Policies? Explain here

Would those who are so fond of frequently wiki-lawyering the unenlightened into eternal wisdom kindly explain to the unworthy minions how is it acceptable to override a move-protection by creating a separate article? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 20:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well it's a blatant PoV Fork, there is no question of that. The only question I have is why it was created to begin with, you know, since consensus actively opposed that title and since WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an invalid reason for a fork. Simonm223 (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Is it acceptable to override a move-protection by creating a separate article?

The page History of Falun Gong was recently move-protected due to a naming dispute. The opposing side has resorted to creating a separate article with their favored title. Is this acceptable? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 20:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Simonm223 (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
For any new editor that is reviewing, please see previous discussion at #Move. My summary is that to create a new article History of Falun Gong, there is no need to move the page from the notable topic of Persecution of Falun Gong, it is enough simply to create a new one. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
The only thing I would see fit to mention is that both of these pages fall within the scope of the arbitration regarding Falun Gong, and that disruptive edits are grounds for some sort of action. One, basically sole, editor, who is a self-described practitioner of Falun Gong, has said the move was unnecessary. From previous RfC discussions, including some input from uninvolved administrators, there was a fairly clear, if not unanimous agreement that the page should in fact be moved. Therefore, I think there may be a reasonable question as to whether this action might qualify as disruptive, as it seems to go against the fairly clear consensus of editors who do not have a self-admitted allegiance to Falun Gong that the page should be moved. John Carter (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Regarding consensus, I don't know why you say that there is a consensus on removing/renaming/diluting a notable topic from Wikipedia. If you look here and here, I would say that there is no such consensus, now is there? Also you might note that I'm not alone opposing this move.
  • Regarding self-admitted allegiance, you can call me honest there. Still you are right that no one else declared any allegiance, but judging on their edits allegiance can be determined. Self-admitted allegiance is not an issue on Wikipedia, since everybody has at-least some interest in some topic, and I think I did show that I am available to discuss things rationally per source and with Wikipedia's best interest in mind, as far as I'm concerned, that is all that matters. If you object to that please show me which one of my actions don't follow Wikipedia's best interest. BTW, please consider that these pages are for discussing article content not editor behavior. For discussing editor behavior, I welcome you to do that on my talk page. I can assure you I will listen to you. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Just to show case this a little further our last 2 comments where 320 words, that is 70 seconds of silent reading, wasted, because they are irrelevant for this RfC. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
It is slightly less unacceptable as it wasn't HappyInGeneral who re-created the article. However, I very much suspect that he was merely beaten to it by someone else, whose good faith I do not question. Had it been Happy's action, I would have definitely put it into the disruptive category. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussing content: cleaning up the primary sources

HappyInGeneral, are you okay with stripping out primary source material and/or replacing such material with third-party-sourced material in this article and Persecution of Falun Gong? --JN466 15:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't see why not Jayen466. Could you please give concrete examples of "stripping out primary source material" which needs to be removed or replaced? I'm not saying that there are not any, but it's good to have a starting point in our discussion. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I thought we could go through the references one by one and identify primary sources. Looking at the part of the article backed up by that primary source, we would then either –
      • re-source that content to a 3rd-party source saying the same,
      • add a citation to a 3rd-party source explicitly referencing that specific primary source (so it would be okay to cite a specific Xinhua report referenced in other newspapers, or a Falun Gong source referenced in academic books)
      • find a 3rd-party source that says something similar, and revise article content to what that source says, or
      • if no 3rd-party source can be found that references that primary source or makes the same or a similar statement, then take the article content cited to the primary source out.
    • In my experience, editors are much more likely to consider an article on a prominent, contentious topic NPOV-compliant if, looking at the references, they do not see a large number of self-published sources. (That is not to say that we can't make occasional exceptions where all editors are agreed that some primary-sourced information is uncontentious and adds value.)
    • At the moment, primary sources (meaning here sources not published by a 3rd party) among the 118 refs present overall appear to include references 1, 2 (I think), 10, 11, 15?, 24, 29, 34, 39, 40, 42, 50, 51, 53, 59, 61, 62, 63, 65, 75, 77, 80, 81, 84, 93, 94, 95, 99, 112?, 114, 115, 116, 117. If I have missed or misidentified any, please point that out; otherwise I suggest we deal with those in the sequence in which they occur.
    • Note that ref 15 only says "p. 66" and refs 35, 52 and 100 begins with "ibid."; it's not clear what this "ibid" relates to. The book title of ref 82 is wrong (see Talk:Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident#Square_closed_off.3F). --JN466 16:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Sounds excellent, I agree 100%! As I see it, it will take some time, but I will definitely start working on it. First step, we should probably tag the text in the article in comments < ! -- -- >, do you have a proposal on what standard template, or other method to use? Plus, at every step I'm planning to update the /sources page to keep a list of all sources in a very readable format. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Ref 1

  • A Chronicle of Major Historic Events during the Introduction of Falun Dafa to the Public
    • I could offer this to replace the primary source. It is less precise, but more reliably published. Does anyone have anything better? --JN466 20:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
      • How about this one? Quote: "Unlike many other qigong practices around at the time, Li Hongzhi was not secretive in sharing Falun Gong; he held mass lectures with low fees. He founded the Falun Xiulian Dafa Research Society (Falun gong yanjiuhui) in 1993, along with Li Chang, Wang Zhiwen, and Yu Changxin (Tong 2002a: 640), “which would coordinate the organizational infrastructure of Falun gong and translate his works into different languages” (Bruseker 2000: 60). The Falun Xiulian Dafa Research Society was accredited and established as direct branch affiliate (zhishu gongpai) of the Chinese Qigong Research Society that same year with the title of Falun Gong Research Branch Society (Falun gong yanjiu fenhui) (Bruseker 2000: 61; Tong 2002a: 640)." It gives more context on Falun Gong. And it is a PDF not flash. Still I don't object to keep both. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Looks to me like the two complement each other. Porter's dissertation is also published in book form: [7] I propose we should rather cite the book than the dissertation. The book's publisher is only one step up from self-publishing, but I think it will do. Ownby and others reference Porter, and Porter has published at least one article on Falun Gong in Nova Religio, a peer-reviewed journal. Propose we rewrite the present material in line with these two sources. Any objections? --JN466 18:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
          • I agree with using the book and you do give a good reason for it, because this way it has a publisher. However if it's free alternative is available, I would rather quote that. Plus PDF and web pages make it easy to search, copy/paste quotes, and also for people with vision problems, who tend to use screen readers. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done --JN466 21:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ref 2

I think this is the version published by Zhuan Falun before 1999. These account are critically analyzed in works of Ownby and Benjamin Penny. Colipon+(Talk) 18:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Is the article content we have cited to this also citable to Ownby et al.? --JN466 18:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know for sure. Ownby merely tries to analyze Falun Gong's description of their founder and compares this biography to that given by the Chinese gov't, and other competing accounts. But I think it's generally acceptable to just cite Zhuan Falun, 1996. Colipon+(Talk) 18:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, to my eyes this source is an example of hagiography. Here is what is currently sourced to it:
  • Li claimed numerous supernatural feats, including invisibility, levitation, and weather modification, and purportedly offered "salvation to all sentient beings".
  • In his spiritual biography in early versions of Zhuan Falun, Li Hongzhi claims that he was taught ways of "cultivation practice" (xiulian) by several masters of the Dao and Buddhist schools of thought, including Quan Jue, the 10th Heir to the Great Law of the Buddha School, a Taoist master from age eight to twelve, and a master of the Great Way School with the Taoist alias of True Taoist from the Changbai Mountains. Li also claimed numerous supernatural feats, including invisibility, levitation, and weather modification.
  • the system was tested extensively before its introduction, between 1989 and 1992, according to early versions of Zhuan Falun.
Among these are some remarkable claims; I would expect they have been commented upon by citable third-party sources. --JN466 19:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Of course. There are two books I've read which have commented on this version of Li's biography. Ownby's "Falun Gong and the Future of China" and Benjamin Penny's "A Biography of Li Hongzhi". Colipon+(Talk) 19:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ownby comments on and quotes from the biography several times. I propose we rewrite our passages according to the points Ownby highlights. Incidentally, Ownby (page 82) says Li's training with Quan Jue, according to the official biography, took place from ages 4 to 12, not 8 to 12. More on the biography on pp. 117–118, for example. We can retain the biography as a secondary citation for the material though; readers may be interested. --JN466 19:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't quite understand your concern, exactly. Do you mean that we need to cite a reliable, secondary source to verify the information? It is fine for Wikipedia to take from primary sources, such as Zhuan Falun, as long as there is no original research involved. Colipon+(Talk) 19:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
We shouldn't cite from primary sources, unless these primary sources have been discussed in third-party sources. WP:DUE weight of primary sources is established by their appearance in secondary sources. In this case, there is no problem, as the biography is discussed in third-party sources. But we should take our lead from Ownby (and any other sources commenting upon this material) in terms of how to present it. For example, Ownby makes the point that such hagiographies are typical in Qigong, and that the accuracy of the account is contested by Chinese state sources (p. 83), who say they undertook research, interviewing his childhood friends etc. and found many discrepancies. That too should be in the article, and at present there is no sign of it. --JN466 19:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I see what you mean. That's a good idea. Colipon+(Talk) 19:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Since we are on this subject, a question: once we report in Wikipedia based on the secondary source, do you think as a general principle it is still a good practice to quote, as an additional source, the primary source? I think that would add an additional layer beneficial for WP:Verifiability. Once accepted this should be valid for PRC related and Falun Gong related primary sources. What do you think? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, like I said above, if the primary source is online, it makes sense to add a second cite to the primary source itself. Also, if a primary source is referred to in a secondary source, it may sometimes be permissible to extract further content directly from that primary source. Cf. WP:WELLKNOWN. --JN466 20:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
    • How accurately he was quoted doesn't really matter, IMHO, because it's often unintelligible or utterly fantastic that that was also subject to much commentary. In addition, that suggestion seems to be a way which will be used in future to sidestep the requirement to remove all primary sourced material, as you suggested. I'll remind you that is how we got here today. Of course, all those fantastic claims are a cinch to source in secondary material, whether mass media or academic. The biography was the source of much ridicule for Li Hongzhi in the mainstream press that I suspect it contributed to Li removing it from Zhuan Falun. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I have some concerns about including much material from the now-retracted biograpnh. But if such material is to be included, I think it might be relevant to say that at least one leading scholar, Ownby, ascribes much of the content of that source to accepted exaggeration, similar to that of the various stories in the infancy gospels of Jesus, and that the Chinese government has specifically stated that they have no records of these teachers having ever existed. John Carter (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I think we are all agreed that we shouldn't go into more detail than Ownby with this hagiography, just give a brief summary of Ownby's points. --JN466 18:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Just to clarify, Ownby and the primary source agreed about Li's studies having begun at age 4: our article was at variance with both Ownby and the hagiography. Now fixed. --JN466 21:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced what was Ref. 10 with Ownby and Chang, who cover this ground. --JN466 23:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Reference 21

Right now all it says is "p. 66". What is this reference? Colipon+(Talk) 00:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Zhouhuo rumo

Thanks to Colipon for finding the correct translation. I had been racking my brains for that and eventually used the Google translator, which got it wrong! Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I was actually initially unsure about whether or not that was what you were trying to get at, but I guess it all worked out. Colipon+(Talk) 11:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The source only had the pinyin without the accent and no chinese, but you were spot on. I don't think there are any ambiguities. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

move protection

I think the move protection on this article can be lifted. I feel it unlikely anyone would want to engage in a move-war, as the dispute was really because someone wanted to keep this article as 'persecution of Falun Gong'. Now, that article has risen from the ashes like a phoenix. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This is really something... I have an idea. Why not just make the page about Falun Gong in mainland China before the persecution? Then it could go into more depth on the issues this article mostly covers. It would be a logical delineation. At the moment it's obvious that much of the information about Tianjin, the development of Falun Gong etc. is pulled from only a few sources, whereas there are is a far greater range of sources and differing narratives--obviously violates NPOV. The level of selective use of sources is the highest I've seen on these pages since the reign of Samuel and Tomananda. I understand that the point of this page originally was so the persecution page could be deleted. Since that's not going to happen, it may be easier just to somehow have a page that can be dedicated to Falun Gong in China before the persecution. An idea. At the moment there is overlap between this and the main page, and also between this and the persecution page (kinda, but it's not clear, like, half this stuff should be on the persecution page, essentially). Anyway, just some thoughts for now. I'll keep reading. --Asdfg12345 23:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Actually, there's a more diverse sourcing here than there ever has been, although it doesn't mean it can't be even more diverse. This article is a spinoff, and is back in the growth phase. I think our only concern here needs be that the stuff is conforms to the basic policies of WP:A, WP:V and WP:RS for the time being. The trouble when adding sources, one at a time, is that you need to milk a source for all you've got before moving onto the next. If we accept that it may swing from one WP:UNDUE to another, without being in overt breach of WP:NPOV, we can keep adding stuff to prune it away into a coherent picture later. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The narrative that has been cobbled together, and which dominates this page and is obvious on the main page, appears to be mostly from Ostergaard and Palmer. Then other sources are interspersed, giving the impression that they favor that discourse. That's problematic in itself. There are many other writers on this than just those two. The full range of discussion on Falun Gong in the early days needs to be included. I would suggest that Ownby makes an important contribution to the discussion; Yuezhi Zhao does, too, and there is some stuff in Schechter (but of the same standard). Ostergaard draws his stuff mainly from CCP sources. The "four points" he cites as part of Falun Gong's demands are what really makes me wonder about the guy. I have no clue where he got them; they're false. It throws into question his knowledge of the subject altogether. But anyway, the very least that needs to be done is make clear that there are different narratives. And the persecution stuff can be moved back to the persecution page. About your comment, I'm not sure what you mean--but we do need to add more sources. We're not trying to come up with a totalising narrative of "the truth" of Falun Gong here, either inside or outside China. The point is to show what the sources on offer say. By the way, can you please provide the full quote your using for that Ostergaard sentence, I can't seem to access it. You know, the propaganda and pawns one. And please any references he attributes that to. His commentary is close to seven years old now, too, which is something to keep in mind. And it seems to be the fellow's only input into the topic. I suggest that Ownby's analysis in Falun Gong and the future of China play more of a guiding role in how things are framed, given his prominence, and the recentness and thoroughness of the research. That is the most mainstream narrative. Schechter comes in on a slightly Falun Gong friendly fringe, whereas Palmer, and particularly Ostergaard, take a directly hostile approach--all should be included, but these more boundary interpretations shouldn't get pride of place. The differing narratives should also be included. The enthusiasm with which Palmer has been used isn't lost on me, either...--Asdfg12345 01:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Piecing together the whole significant history about the FLG is detective work. There's no one source which is comprehensive. Palmer and Ostergaard were two of the more comprehensive sources which I dug up just be searching 'Falun Gong' in Googlebooks. The subject hasn't changed so much in the seven years since Ostergaard wrote his piece. Anyhow, these academics go around citing each other in rather circuitous fashion anyhow - I often see references to works 2000 and earlier, so I don't quite see how age would invalidate Ostergaard. I just love the way you find excuses to exclude stuff which is patently not favourable to FLG. The fact is that it is a published work and undoubtedly peer reviewed, which makes it good enough for citing. Yes, Ownby is an authority, but not the only one. I also like the way you praise Ownby's work as being "well researched" - use in the way above can only have one implication. There's really no reason to privilege Zhao over Palmer, Kavan, Ostergaard or Chiang, or any others, as all are accredited and upright academics whose works are peer reviewed, and they all have their role to play in helping us fill in the gaps in our knowledge. Schechter... well, been there, done that! I've read all I could read which was on preview in Googlebooks, and was not the least bit impressed. I had misgivings before with the snippets and selective quotes, but his book is a wheeze. Totally over the top on the rhetoric, emotionally highly-charged and thin on facts. I doubt there's much which can be used here. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
sorry I didn't respond to this. My main issue with Ostergaard is the false information he has included, overreliance on CCP sources, and the extreme, shall we say unique, interpretation he presents of the whole phenomenon. My other point was that this appears to be his only input into the topic, and someone like Ownby is far more reliable. By "well researched" I mean having got to grips with the breadth of information and discourse available on Falun Gong, and fieldwork. Ostergaard seems to mostly regurgitate CCP propaganda. Anyway, I'm not making any wider points. I agree that there is no reason to exclude it from the page. Similarly, I fail to understand the reason for excluding Schechter either. He's biased. Like Ostergaard.--Asdfg12345 14:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree, particularly as Chiang received numerous favorable reviews at the time of publication and Ownby, in his own book, as I recall literally praised Palmer's book. I don't have it with me now, but I can try to find the quotations later. John Carter (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! That will help. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Hoping that this will save John the trouble of copying the passages out, and enable other editors to verify for themselves how Ownby views Palmer, here are a couple of pages where Ownby comments on Palmer's "Qigong Fever": [8][9][10] There are lots more references to Palmer in the book, which you can search for in google books, but these three speak most directly to Ownby's evaluation and indeed use of Palmer. --JN466 19:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much, I'll take a look. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Jayen. Palmer is "brilliant" and "the most substantial", while Schechter is "partisan rather than strictly objective". Confirms what I have been thinking all along. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
In my view, Schechter is not worth citing, and I think most Falun Gong academics would agree with me. Just read his book. Falun Gong seems to like borrowing legitimacy from him though. On a different note, it's a bit unexpected that Human Rights Watch provides a much more objective narrative to the Falun Gong story than many academic sources out there. The entire report basically criticized the Chinese government, but it was great in that it maintained the tone of "The Chinese government is wrong, but that doesn't make Falun Gong right". As expected, asdfg has removed the material from Human Rights Watch that is not favourable towards Falun Gong over at the main article. Colipon+(Talk) 18:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Didn't see the chat here. Schechter gives a pro-Falun Gong perspective; that doesn't mean we can't use him. There's some really horrible anti-Falun Gong stuff you guys have dredged up here, I'm not calling for that to be avoided unless it doesn't meet reliability. Schechter ticks all the boxes of a reliable source, it's just that he decided on the apologetics approach for his book. Not a huge deal. HRW is an expert on the HR abuses, not on the teachings. There's no need to interpret everything through a prism of either attacking of praising Falun Gong, which is a troubling tendency I'm finding. --Asdfg12345 13:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  • No, sorry. That's a typical cherry-picking argumentation, which I don't subscribe to in th slightest. I stated my objection to Schechter above as a source that is so full of pro-FLG rhetoric and emotional language and light on fact, and that's when you know what it is. When you don't, it's easy to conflate. Most of the time, the propensity to fact is well below the radar. Ownby doesn't place any great reliance on him, and I don't see why we should either. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by the part "that's when you know it is. When you don't, it's easy to conflate." I'm don't understand what grounds there are for excluding a source based on the fact that it uses pro-X language or emotional language? Many journalists use emotional sort of language. And some of the other sources use strongly pro-X language. Unless I misunderstand, the stated reason for wanting to exclude Schechter is because of the point of view he is making? This isn't part WP:V, as far as I understand. Could you point out something to me in the policy, explicitly, like, give me the excerpts and an explanation, of why Schechter should be excluded? I ask because I could grab several sources you have used and change the word "pro" to "anti" in your statement above, and say the exact same thing. Thanks.--Asdfg12345 13:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  • As mentioned above, I'm interested in fact, and it's often difficult to distinguish fact from opinion in Schechter's piece. I'm not arguing WP:V as such. Opinions are OK too only when presented with due weight. In essence, what I'm saying is that since most experts, including Ownby, place limited reliance on him, we should do likewise. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how Schechter presents any more opinion than other authors. Ostergaard for example, that's chock full of opinion. Same with Ownby. I think there are two aspects: the facts (or version of facts, or "narrative") they bring to the table, then the opinions they dish out. For someone like Schechter, I don't think it's significant that he makes some positive remarks here or there--we needn't quote him on that. But he presents a different narrative of certain other things--for example the lead up to the persecution. Schechter's portrayal of this is good to contrast with other researchers. Ultimately I think we should be reasonable, intelligent, and selective, in any sources. This doesn't come under a particular policy, it comes under WP:IAR. In this context, there's stuff from Schechter that I wouldn't consider suitable and wouldn't try to include (like I'm not sure, some chummy remarks about Li Hongzhi, or something). Anyway, the guy is established as a political commentator and author. If you or others still think we shouldn't use him, then let's take it to the RS board and see what others think. I think that would be the most efficient way of dealing with these disputes--it's what Vassyanna (can never spell that guy's name right) recommended to us at the start, if I recall correctly). Anyone, one thing I'm going to do soon is fix up the persecution page. It's been gutted because it was originally being shipped over here piecemeal. The page had an enormous amount of research on it. I haven't read through the recent version, but I will tomorrow. I'll read through the current version, then an older version, then write down my thoughts as I go (then paste them on the talk), then finally make some changes. That should take a couple of hours. Wiki's hard work, right?!--Asdfg12345 14:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Falun Gong as a Homeopathic practice

One of the main reasons that the CCP banned the Falun Gong movement was due to its homeopathic nature and the reckless endangerment of life caused by such, not, as the page suggests, for political reasons. Just like homeopathic medicines, Falun Gong, is childish superstition and a belief in the supernatural that takes advantage of the fear of dying, further to this, Falun Gong teachings manipulate and effectively brainwash its practitioners in a manner which can only be attributed as psychological abuse, especially in the case of children (who under instruction from their parents unwittingly participate in self mutilation and self immolation). To this end, Falun Gong can only be seen as a gross misconduct of Human Rights and its leader Li HongZi should be brought to justice as the criminal and con-man that he is. I am highly dissapointed at the lack of neutrality within this article, remember, science is absolute, science is objective, science is truely neutral and Falun Gong is an unscientific practice which discourages the use of medicines, even in life threatening situations. There is no reason beyond utter ignorance and greed that Falun Gong should be allowed to exist. Anon259999 (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Quoting to the National Review: "Matters were even worse in China, where it was credibly charged that prisoners — perhaps practitioners of Falun Gong — were executed and their organs sold. ". Now tell me do you honestly believe that the CCP with it's "moral' backbone wanted to protect it's people? If you ask me all that you say here is a pure reflection of the propaganda made up by it to somehow justify it's genocide. But then again this is Wikipedia, so read on about WP:TRUTH. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

do you believe everything the Falun Dafa says? The CCP is a reflection of it's people, if that were the case, why would the CCP target one minority group in a country consisting of thousands of minorities? The entire chinese race is made up of thousands of ethnic groups, I myself have Urghyr and Muslim family, Han and Man bloodlines... the CCP may be inefficient and wasteful, it may lack common sense, and it may be out of touch with it's people, but the truth of the matter still remains that Falun Gong practitioners condone and perform self-mutilation, their photos and others have been appropriated by the Falun Dafa corporation to con gullible westerners such as yourself. Please learn more about a culture before you attempt to slander it. Anon259999 (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Furthermore, it's not genocide. They are neither a race, nor a religion. They are a cult. Just like the church scientology, just like the "God hates fags" WBC. Anon259999 (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoa... I never thought the day would come that I'd be on HiG's side. Anon, dude, you're extremely close to crossing some serious civility-borders here. Knock it off with your accusations of "slander" and this yadayada about "science is absolute". (First informal warning) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Purpose of this article?

I'm interested in what the purpose of this article is, and what's unique about it; at the moment it duplicates much of the information on other pages, while some of the it is irrelevant to the subject. Actually, looking at it again now, it basically seems like a counter-narrative. It has all the elements of what a normal article on Falun Gong would have, except it goes into a lot of detail on negative interpretations, and includes some, what might be termed, tangential or irrelevant information (like "Qigong and health??") Before talking about any specifics, it would be good to understand how where this article fits into the wider scheme of presenting Falun Gong on wikipedia, and how it wouldn't either duplicate information from the pages where all the information is drawn from (i.e., main page, persecution page), or if it didn't duplicate that information, just present completely different information on the same issues that were covered there, which would also limit its usefulness for the reader. That's my first question. The corollary question is: why not just name this page "Falun Gong in Mainland China" or something similar, maybe "History of Falun Gong, 1992-1999," and then shift the other information to where it belongs. Some of the thinking here would be helpful. I know a lot of work has gone into this, and I don't mean to discount that. Trying to get an understanding of how this doesn't do the same job that other pages do?--Asdfg12345 13:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Since the article's demerger from Persecution, I have added quite a lot of material from a number of scholarly sources to bulk up the article. What I would like to see is some sort of proper timeline. There is (or ought to be) minimal duplication with 'Persecution' because the content was simply split by copy and paste. Like for most other subjects, the main FLG article should always be just a summary of all the details coming from the subsidiary articles. That summarisation work remains to be done, and I did not want to do it until this article was complete. As for it being a counter-narrative, perhaps you are correct in how this has evolved. I believe it is more a reflection of the shortcomings of the main FLG article than a deliberate forking of content, because full use had not been made of scholarly sources, for whatever reason. I am OK with renaming this article 'Falun Gong in Mainland China', which is largely where this content falls, but that was not the intention when this page was created. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
My vision was that "persecution" would fall under this article but since some editors decided to spin that out again I would suggest that persecution be given summary treatment here, pending more detailed coverage in its own article. I am opposed to changing the title to "Falun Gong in mainland China". The events described in this article are supposed to serve as a chronology for how Falun Gong came to be, what has happened since its founding, and how it's emerged to become what it is today. There is no better title for that than "history". Colipon+(Talk) 02:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I can understand these explanations a bit. Colipon, I'm not sure I get something, though: the "history" of Falun Gong is about the whole thing. The history includes its origins, the persecution, its growth outside mainland China, and so forth. But there is already a page on the persecution, and there's already a page on outside mainland China. It's unclear how a separate page would be able to include all the content from three other pages without getting too repetitive. I can buy the idea that it's supposed to summarise other content (though it's not quite doing that now with the persecution section, for example), but I don't know how what you are envisaging is different from the main article. Basically, the main article should do all the things you say, and then spin off into all the different ones. We shouldn't have two articles that spin into different ones, as far as I understand it. If we made this "Falun Gong in mainland China," there would be a neat break up between all the things covered. It would also mean there was a chance to present a full narrative of each thing. At the moment we have this page which is trying to be all things to all people, neither fish nor fowl. I think if we called it mainland China, it would free us up a bit to get some clarity as to what's going on. I'm a little scared to start editing this one at the moment given its ambiguous status. But it's not quite adding up. How can we resolve this? --Asdfg12345 14:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Another thing is, to be frank, we have a hard enough time agreeing on things now. If we are talking about splitting an explanation of the lead-up to the persecution and the persecution across three pages, that's three places that things either need to be debated, or updated. Right now I'd like to move what we have on this here to the persecution page (only part of the lead-up need be there, basically, that some stuff went down and then it all began) so we can work on it in one place. Don't really want to cut anybody's lunch though, so I'd like to hold back on that until we figure it out together. But yeah, I think it will streamline our efforts if we can have this about inside mainland China.--Asdfg12345 14:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, in their earnest to keep the new 'persecution' article, nobody bought that argument when we were trying to discuss the renaming/AfD. So I guess we're in a limbo, as they say... Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Or, in their earnestness to delete the persecution article? Whatever the case, if we can agree now then it's done. We'll see what Colipon says. He may simply agree and we can move ahead. Or he may have a convincing argument. Or we can take it to a wider forum. At the moment yeah, its' very limbo-like, so hopefully we can resolve that ASAP. --Asdfg12345 11:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, my edit wasn't supposed to be "destructive." Apologies for any broken links. I'll look next time. To mean we're not working on two chunks of identical text, can I move the persecution stuff from this page onto the persecution page tomorrow?--Asdfg12345 11:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Final thing: I see you restored the cult label here. It's on the main page as well, though. I don't understand why we want fairly identical text in two places? By the way, there's something else I want to do. It's to muster the sources that talk about the cult label, and find out which ones talk about it in the context of the propaganda campaign/persecution, and those that talk about it outside that context. What I believe we'll find is that the majority of sources talk about it in the context of the media campaign. In my understanding, this means that when we treat it in wikipedia, it should also be placed in the context of the media campaign--since that is reflecting the reliable sources on the topic. The first point is to actually establish that this is the case, however. Since there aren't that many sources on it anyway though, it shouldn't be too hard to find this out one way or another. Please advise if you disagree with that in principle.--Asdfg12345 11:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, the Palmer addendum to the cult part is a kind of original research. Does he talk about the word cult or how Falun Gong is or isn't a cult? As far as I know, in that context he doesn't. He doesn't relate those words to that discourse, does he? If he doesn't, then it's a kind of synthesis to put it there, since it posits that the terms he uses to describe Falun Gong are related to the cult theory. Also, it's kinda surprising too—it should be clear by now that this term is only meaningful in describing the organisation of a group, not in describing its teachings. Anyway, since I don't think what I'm saying is controversial I'm just going to delete that.

uypdate: I thought I had pressed enter there. Anyway, I saw it was expanded. I think the same applies: if they do not connect these descriptions to the cult label, then it's not relevant here. Excuse my saying this, but the section is not a chance to drag out whatever odd and negative descriptions we can dig up for Falun Gong. It's specifically about how the cult term was used. Anyway, the other thing was the persecution section. I don't know why we are pretending like this word doesn't exist or trying to change it to something else. We already agree that, just like with anything, it's possible to use other terms in prose to prevent things from getting monotonous. But to sanitise the articles of the term? Do we need to continually bicker on this point? There's a page called "The Persecution of Falun Gong." If the wikipedia community thinks that this term is wrong, it needs to be resolved through other channels. For us, for now, I think we should just treat it like any other word, and not avoid it, and not overuse it. Please let me know if what I'm saying isn't reasonable or whatever.--Asdfg12345 14:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

About the sections and organisation

[sorry, not sure if I should just keep writing in paragraphs above or start a new section to discuss this] I moved the material about health onto the Qigong page, where I believe it belongs. There was nothing in the text itself linking it to either Falun Gong or the protests. If there is one source that does this (like Palmer, but I read those parts and didn't really see this argument being advanced), that's still not much, because we are talking about the way the whole thing is framed. In particular, having a section called Qigong effect on health, then the Tianjin and other stuff in there seems to make even less sense. I mentioned this earlier--wondering what was up with that. Anyway, it is fairly confusing. So the point is because there is nothing linking these things, I don't see how it belongs here. If there was (like, what is the point here? That qigong makes people go crazy and then they protest?! lol) then it would need to be explicit, sourced, and also in conformance with WP:DUE. Whatever the case, it's good info, just needs to be placed properly. and I changed that section name to reflect the actual content of it and the role it plays within the page. Having this whole narrative of Falun Gong in China and the lead up to the persecution is good. It's extremely biased at the moment, however, an extremely anti-Falun Gong text, but anyway, that can be fixed. It's good to see this work being put in at least, and an attempt to present a cohesive narrative. So I hope for my efforts to advance that. Please point out any errors.--Asdfg12345 14:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Tantamount to Vandalism

These drive-by mass reverts that have been happening to FLG articles recently, disrupting the work of many editors, is nothing more than vandalism and will be treated as such. Simonm223 (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

By which standard/policy/common sense? Reverting chunks of texts without any explanation on how that improves this Encyclopedia can be easily considered destructive editing. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Consider it as you will but what ASDFG has been doing is vandalism, plain and simple. Vandalism need not be random and his systematic deletion of edits he doesn't like, regardless of the source is not appropirate. I am through wasting time arguing with him on talk pages. He's a vandal and reverting vandalism is what the revert function is for. Simonm223 (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Simon, you're expected to engaged in the arguments I've raised for the edits I've made. It's not that any deletion of any material is automatically vandalism. If the material was misplaced, and you can muster an argument, then you can delete it, right? It's the same principle. And I have advanced arguments for all the edits I've made. I make sure I do this. You are expected to engage with those arguments, rather than just revert the edits and call me a vandal. I'm going to restore the changes I made with the expectation that you actually engage in a debate. This is what wikipedia requires of us. And this time, I'll let you take the initiative. I'm not going to rehash all the stuff I already wrote about the changes. It's up to you to respond to what I've already said, in edit summaries and on this page (above, I believe). Please let me know if there's something mistaken in this approach. --Asdfg12345 01:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

  • You never explained why you thought it was "misplaced". These are citations about Falun Gong's belief set and how it is viewed by the outside world respected academics. They certainly go some way to show that the "cult" accusations, however flimsy, have some foundation in a apocalyptic and moralistic philosophy so common among recognised cults. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • As a side, what you're doing is not "discussing" - it is commenting on a "fait accompli" while you create it. That's similar to writing the legal opinion for a death sentence while at the same time pulling the trigger... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, you are admitting to an original synthesis. I'm asking you to justify those terms of description as related to the cult label in the words of those academics. It doesn't work for you to make that bridge yourself. Those are comments about the teachings; you are relating them to the cult label. Unless those people did so when they made those comments, they don't belong in that section. Seb: I'm not sure what you mean. People are supposed to engage in discussion. but we don't have to wait until we've had a long discussion to make changes to the article. We can discuss, change, discuss, etc. It's a dynamic process. Confucius, can you please present evidence that Ownby and Palmer wrote the remarks about their views of the teachings in the context of describing Falun Gong as a cult, or as you said, adding some putative foundation to the cult label. And let's be clear: the question of "cult or not" is not a question of beliefs, it's a question or organisation and structure, and concrete actions. Christian teachings have apocalyptic and moralistic elements--is christianity a cult? Anyway, the material needs to be justified. I won't delete it for now. Waiting for a response to my concerns.--Asdfg12345 08:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the rebuttal to your last point is easy: Wikipedia has a long article Criticism of Christianity and I'm sure there's more in other places. Since you (and others) where so opposed to a similar article with regards to Falun Gong, any criticism will have to be in one of the existing articles. If you don't like that idea, I'm sure the regular contributors will interestedly re-open the discussion on an article called "Criticism of Falun Gong". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm finding it quite confusing that you are not responding to what I'm saying at all... I asked very specifically for information in the sources in question about how what they remark about Falun Gong's allegedly apocalyptic and moralistic beliefs is related to the cult issue. It's a very simple requirement. If the sources do not make this explicit connection, we cannot include it here as an original synthesis. Please show evidence of the connection or I will remove it again. This has nothing to do with an article about "Criticism of Falun Gong." --Asdfg12345 12:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying.--Asdfg12345 23:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Please respond to the concerns raised

This is kinda frustrating, to be honest. I wrote a bunch of reasons for why the "qigong and health" section doesn't make sense to be here, yet none of them were addressed, and instead I'm accused of being a partisan editor and the material is reinstated. How is this working together? This is really hard for me to understand. It's not fair to behave that way. You have to answer the concerns that I raise, rather than just play bully with the revert button. Please address the concerns I raise about the material. I've already written the dispute so I'm not going to write it again. Please respond above. If something is not clear, I'm happy to explain it.--Asdfg12345 08:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I did not reinstate all the material you deleted as not all of it was relevant. I'm not assuming bad faith on your part, but just that perhaps you and I interpret the scope of the article differently. FLG holds He Zuoxiu as an agent provocateur when in fact his scepticism (and writings) was long-standing although his views were sidelined under the 'Three Noes' policy. Practitioners' demonstrations against his 'slanders' were misguided shows of strength which incurred the wrath of the supreme rulers. I believe the section is important because there were indeed concerns over health even in light of Falun Gong's denials, and that they were not just contrived, as FLG appear to constantly allege. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
    • The section appears to be a coatrack. Most of the information there is not related to Falun Gong. The sentence about health benefits is. Then the final sentence is. Most of that information is about qigong in general. General information has been wedged between information about Falun Gong, giving a misleading impression to the reader. And there's no reason this should be a section where the subsection is the Tianjin protest--what impression is being given by that? Do we have a series of reliable sources attesting to a connection between concerns over the health impacts of qigong and the Tianjin protest? I'm not sure I understand this. And please, let's just address the issues at hand and stop with the sniping.--Asdfg12345 12:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm too close to the article. I will look at it again in the cold light of day, perhaps in a day or two as I only put some of the stuff there today. I thought the connection was pretty obvious and direct, without any synthesis being involved. He Zuoxiu's article was about the reasons he does not endorse Falun Gong - one of the prime reasons he alleged was that one of his students suffered qigong deviation as a result of Falun Gong. FLG practitioners then protested 'slander', and FLG denied they were practitioners. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 12:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

What you say is correct, but how is that related to all the info about Zouhuorumo etc.? Not related. That stuff is just in there, looking like it's related to Falun Gong. He Zuoxiu is a classic crusader against any qigong or stuff like that. He also supports the persecution.--Asdfg12345 23:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Here you are arguing that the subjects are not related, yet you happily use the argumentation from the other direction to justify keeping the relationship between Zuoxiu and Luo Gan. Falun Gong claimed to be the largest qigong practice – the figure 100 million (if it is to be believed) is in effect 10 percent of the Chinese population, yet is miraculously totally immune from any effects of (and the debate surrounding) Zouhuorumo is really pushing the boat out, IMHO. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The disputes are actually quite different, because one has a source and the other doesn't. What you are suggesting is your own synthesis--an original synthesis. What I'm saying is just a note from an actual source we have already--Ethan Gutmann. Noah Porter makes the same point, and so does Zhao Yuezhi. But you don't have a source for what you are saying, which makes it a synthesis. There are actual two issues: the first is no source about the health stuff directly related to Falun Gong, and the second is relating this to the protests. There are two original syntheses you are making. At the risk of sounding patronising, please carefully read the policy about original research. It talks about this clearly. It's really not a hard concept to grasp. If you had a source for your claim, I would only suggest it be placed in accordance with WP:DUE. But you don't have a source for either of those points, which makes the whole thing a coatrack and synthesis. You're right that you're too close to the page. This is turning into an anti-Falun Gong crusade.--Asdfg12345 02:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you please respond to this? I've been away four days. For the Palmer/Ownby thing, you left it there. And for this, no response. --Asdfg12345 23:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Falun_Gong/Archive_3&oldid=1136796931"