Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Falun Gong work group/Archive2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ArbCom sanctions

I regret to say that, even in the short time I have paid any attention to this topic, I have seen a number of comments since I first arrived at this topic that seem to me to be fairly clearly in violation of the existing ArbCom sanctions regarding this topic. I also have a feeling, perhaps misguided, that one of the reasons some editors might stay away from this topic is the frequency of such behavior. On that basis, I have to at least ask myself whether it might not be better for the topic if sanctions as per the existing arbitration ruling were applied more frequently. Thoughts? John Carter (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, please, apply all the sanctions necessary. I have tried to bring the issue of ArbCom sanctions to light for ages now (RfC, Admin/N, NPOV/N etc)and I have not received much attention from admins whatsoever. Please see to it what sanctions should be applied and tell me your thoughts. I personally think the "POV and disruptive editing" heading is the most prominent here. I have show several solid diffs of this on the Talk:Falun Gong page. Please see to it that these be treated with the right sanctions. Colipon+(Talk) 14:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
May I ask you to tell me where I can find these diffs? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree, Arbcom sanctions should be enforced.--Edward130603 (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The correct forum for such discussions is, I think, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. John Carter (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I am willing to bring it to this place so long as you provide your guidance for us on this, John Carter. I have never done this before so may I ask for some admin assistance? Besides which you probably have a more 3rd party and "neutral" view of the article anyhow - that would be useful in balancing out my own views. Colipon+(Talk) 14:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
From the summary of ArbCom sanctions at Wikipedia:General sanctions regarding sufficient cause for sanctions to be imposed regarding Falun Gong, "Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review." I think in this case "editing restricted" refers to a block or ban of length to be determined through discussion there, possibly not being able to revert information on some pages, requirement to discuss and have approval for making any changes to articles, and some form of civility restrictions, like the other individuals listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, and that "disruptive" very likely refers to the the way that term is applied at WP:DE, and the specific terms for this particular arbitration can be found and the complete terms for artibtration in this particular instance can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong. I regret that I am not myself as familiar with this aspect of wikipedia as I could be, having I think only taken part in one or two discussions there. But, in general, indicating who has acted in violation of the arbitration, through links to the particular comments or actions made by that party if possible, and just answering any questions which arise after the request is made is generally enough. Following the format of the other requests listed on the page, and letting the party in question know that the discussion is taking place, probably through a note on that party's talk page with a link to the discussion, would probably be enough. Not knowing precisely whom anyone else might think has acted in violation of these sanctions, I'm not sure if any additional comments from me would necessarily be particularly useful, but I have got the page on my watchlist and would probably offer any comments I think appropriate should I see a discussion I know anything about taking place there. John Carter (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, ArbCom sanctions would be valuable here. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Just commenting on John Carter's first message: I myself have stayed away from this article for weeks and months on end because of the ... weird comments I could get on the talk page while seeking discussion and consensus. I believe I have seen other editors come and go with reference to similar experiences. In the end, that harms the article. PerEdman (talk) 11:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with PerEdman. I think it's important to have editors working to improve the FLG articles but it's really hard to do so with all the sniping that goes on on the Talk Pages. It almost makes one want to block the disputants in order to increase the signal-to-noise ratio. --Richard (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There are at least three admins actively involved in this page: User:Vassyana, User:John Carter and myself. I admit that after a week or so, I already have FLGF (Falun Gong Fatigue) caused by the many kilobytes of text that are posted to various FLG-related Talk Pages.

It would be bad enough if this was the only project that I worked on at Wikipedia but, in fact, I have almost 2000 pages on my watchlist and I prefer to spend my time on other projects such as those related to the Catholic Church.

As a result, I don't follow in detail each of the various edits that have been made to the FLG-related articles and I'm not able to identify whether or not any of the editors involved warrant the application of ARBCOM sanctions. I would suggest that, if you feel application of sanctions are in order, then please identify the individual, the applicable ARBCOM sanction and provide diffs to support your case. If you don't want to do so publicly, then send me or one of the other admins an email via Wikipedia mail.

--Richard (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm suffering wiki-induced FLGF too!--Asdfg12345 21:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Portal colour scheme

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think I can guess why that colour scheme was chosen, but do any of the rest of you think that the colours at Portal:Falun Gong are maybe a little non-user-friendly, and can any of you think of any perhaps milder colours with which to substitute them? I'm thinking in particular the background of the article selections might benefit from changing. John Carter (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agree! This hurts anyone eyes. I will just just boldly change it through several other versions, then you guys can decide Seb az86556 (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC) (this might take a while... the colors are set somewhere else....)Seb az86556 (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Check Portal:Falun Gong/box-header. You'll probably have to use one of the hex codes from Web colors to indicate whichever color you do want, though. John Carter (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah... that's what I was looking for! I'm thinking of changing it to the same theme as for the infobox... makes for consistency. Seb az86556 (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

ok... we are now in sync w/ Template:Falun Gong Seb az86556 (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Go with ecru. It'll never do you wrong. PerEdman (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Something other than a white background to both the main portal and the text sections would probably be a good idea, to keep them from kind of blending into each other. John Carter (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Changed to a very light orange-ish. Seb az86556 (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Haha! Gives a very Clearwisdom feel, in my opinion. ;) Colipon+(Talk) 00:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I was holding out for ecru but this is very nice too. PerEdman (talk) 09:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jennifer Zeng and Witnessing History

As some of you may already know, I recently created the new article above. There seems to be, basically, only one additional refernce available for the article, and that is the information in the book. So, if any of you have either read the book, or own a copy of it, please feel free to add any other relevant information to the article. Personally, I think the article probably works best if it is also a redirect of the book, but am myself far less than well aware of how to structure an article that is intended to serve as both a biography and an article about an autobiographical book. John Carter (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

David Kilgour

Eyes on David Kilgour please. Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and David Matas too please.Simonm223 (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
You mean to put them on our watch list? I already have it, but that is a good idea. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I did mean keeping them on people's watchlists. So that the PoV stuff we've been working since July to excise doesn't slip back in through them.Simonm223 (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Keeping track of diffs

I made a page for storing diffs on whatever; like things that are getting deleted that might be useful to refer to later, or objectionable edits, or anything else. Anyone can use it.--Asdfg12345 20:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wang Xia proposed for deletion

This unreferenced sub-stub contains no references, and thus no clear evidence of personal notability, and, based on the existing content, may well be at best dubiously qualified for a separate article as per WP:BIO1E. Anyone who can provide references, specifically anything that asserts the specific notability of the individual involved, is more than encouraged to do so. I would in any event ask that no one remove the tag for a day or so, to let us see how and if the "article alerts" function I recently added to the project page works. John Carter (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I support deletion unless the information in the article can be supported with good sources. As an inclusionist I find the notability aspect unimportant. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
added Prod2 Seb az86556 (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
This is one of the worst articles I have ever seen. Please delete it as soon as possible. Colipon+(Talk) 15:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

CIPFG: Reliable?

Citing this discussion I think it may be appropriate to discuss the reliability of sources like the CIPFG (Coalition to investigate the persecution of Falun Gong). Falun Gong borrows a lot of letigimacy from this group and it is also often cited as a "Reliable source" in these articles. But the group looks like it was originally established by FLG themselves. Colipon+(Talk) 14:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence of Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong says the group was established by the Falun Dafa Association. This looks to me like a group which might have very serious questions about any independence from Falun Gong. John Carter (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this article necessary?

Eutelsat-NTDTV censorship controversy, about Falun Gong media network NTDTV being censored in France. I believe this entire article was written by Olaf. Is it notable enough? Colipon+(Talk) 14:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"Censored" in France? That seems very odd. And.. what the hell? Reference number 2 consists solely of completely unsourced PDF-file with a conversation in Chinese and English, linked off the Reporters sans Frontieres webpage. This smells fishy to me. / PerEdman 14:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Somewhat beside the point but as someone employed in technical troubleshooting and support, I cannot take seriously a bureaucrat's complaint that "It's time to end this absurd posturing and let NTDTV get back on the air. [...] We expect Eutelsat to stop hiding behind technical mumbo-jumbo and let this broadcaster operate freely." Apparently Eutelsat have even referred prospective customers TO THEIR OWN COMPETITORS and some people still sit in fancy chairs claiming that Eutelsat are censoring one of their existing clients. This is conspiracy-theory material as far as I can see and should be deleted for that reason. Possibly the reports by Reporters Sans Frontieres could be used in one of the other articles, such as NTDTV. / PerEdman 14:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I just removed that entire 'phone transcript'. This may well qualify as an AfD. Colipon+(Talk) 14:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Could easily move it into NTDTV and shorten it to about a paragraph. Colipon+(Talk) 14:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
No disagreement that it could potentially be merged to NTDTV. Reporters Without Borders seems at least a marginally reliable source, and it is indicated that the transcript is from their website, so it might qualify as reliable. Maybe. And it already is about a paragraph in the NTDTV page, so I personally can't see any real reservations at this time about proposing a merger. John Carter (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
PLEASE do so. I read the lede. The whole tone is that of an anchorman on the evening news. Wiki's supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Cut it down and merge it into NTDTV Seb az86556 (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
whoops, didn't even see that section. cool. just redirect it... unless you find a sentence or two worth keeping. Let's get to work. Seb az86556 (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Anyone opposed to a bold redirect? Colipon+(Talk) 15:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I would hesitate to do so myself, and have listed the merge on the Wikipedia:Proposed mergers page. I tend to think that there won't be any real problems if we followed procedures to ensure that there was no rush to judgement or anything. John Carter (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Opposition would come from the one person who wrote it. The page gets an average of 4 hits per day worldwide. [1] Seb az86556 (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Although I would not be opposed to waiting, we should be ensuring that some of these obviously POV things get managed with efficiency. A lot of work can slow down to a snail's pace when it is totally unecessary. Speaking of which that "Criticism" debate is still going on... Colipon+(Talk) 15:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Any of the four daily users could also oppose the deletion, I suppose. Good that it's been notified, I'm perfectly fine with letting this go through WP:PM in due time. / PerEdman 15:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
(It kinda makes me wonder how many more of these spin-offs are floating around out there undetected....Seb az86556 (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC))
A good question. You can always hit the "what links here" link in the toolbox to look for any such articles. John Carter (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
If they contain FG-wikilinks, that is. But if they don't, I wonder who'd find them? / PerEdman 15:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Just condence it if necessary and put it on the NTD page; presumably no reliable and notable information will be lost, but just appear on another page. This'd make sense, right,--Asdfg12345 16:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd support a merge with the page for the TV channel and removal of material not appropriate for an encyclopedia.Simonm223 (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Asdfg12345, would you do the honors? You're certainly more knowledgeable of NTD than I am. / PerEdman 22:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Asdfg12345, you may go ahead with condensing and merging Eutelsat-NTDTV censorship controversy into the NTDTV as we are unanimous. / PerEdman 19:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible expansion of scope of group

OK, I know that this is maybe more than a bit premature, considering how new this group is. But I do believe that the topic with which this group works, Falun Gong, is what many might call a subtopic of a broader subject, which does not yet have any sort of dedicated group working with it, Qigong. There are a number of articles which to some degree or another relate to that general, broader subject, including Qigong itself, Quan Chi Chi Gong, Zhong Gong, Zhang Hongbao, and others. What would the rest of you think of expanding the scope of this group to include such articles, and, possibly, all articles within the Category:Qigong and its subcategories, within which all these articles could reasonably be placed? John Carter (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The Qigong article is in deperate need of improvement. But the others are not as relevant. Zhong Gong basically disappeared off the earth after its founder died in a car accident. Colipon+(Talk) 16:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps in a few months when this project has fleshed out and stabilized. For now, I don't feel the need to widen the scope to qigong as a whole, but I can see how it would be useful in the future. / PerEdman 17:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that they are closely related. Zhong Gong was supposedly an even bigger movement that FG, but is lesser known for reasons we all know, but does not make it any less important in the scheme of things. I am responsible for the Zhong Gong and Zhang Hongbao articles, but my efforts to flesh them out are hampered by the lack of English sources. I have previously asked for assistance, but nobody helped - maybe I didn't ask in the right place. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Once these Falun Gong articles are improved to a reasonable level I'd be happy to assist over at Zhong Gong, as long as I have time. One of the most notable, primary differences between FLG and other "Gong"s is that Falun Gong does not accept criticism. It seeks a "right of reply" to every single group that criticizes it in one way or another. This is, in my view, an extremely important distinction that deserve thorough analysis and due weight on these articles. Another difference is its theological and other quasi-religious teachings. Colipon+(Talk) 03:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm really not that well-read in areas of religious groups - there are too many of them - but in what way is this non-acceptance of criticism unique to Falun Gong? Does any small religious group accept criticism? I'm sure there are those who ignore it, but to accept it would sort of clash with dogmatic opinion, wouldn't it? / PerEdman 22:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I phrased that wrongly. Falun Gong goes out of its way to rebuke criticism, labelling some kind of charge against any group that speaks against it. It does this even more so than Scientology, arguably. This is actually one of the reasons that led to the crackdown - that He Zuoxiu criticized Falun Gong on a BTV interview and in a magazine column, and that the government refused to condemn He Zuoxiu, so now the government also becomes part of the FLG line of fire. Same with American Anti-Cult movement, of course. Once it issued critiques of Falun Gong, it was also attacked by Falun Gong and linked with the CCP propaganda campaign in an all-out effort to "refute" criticism. I dare say much the same pattern has transpired itself on Wikipedia in the last two years. Colipon+(Talk) 23:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
My socialist political stance was brought up by pro-flg editors very briefly with the implication being that I was pro-PRC on this issue. The fact that I am frequently critical of PRC and refute the claimed "socialism" of the government regularly was overlooked.Simonm223 (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Just remember that Falun Gong was born of the PRC system. It and the PRC are a perfect fit for each other. It was initially promoted until it turned political, then PRC attempted to crush it, making it even more powerful in some senses. Its methods for disseminating information, its obsession with opacity and its sensitivity to criticism, mirror the PRC regime totally. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes. The propaganda as well. All quite similar to CCP techniques. It even uses some of the same charges from the CCP back at the party, calling the party a "Cult" (source:Nine Commentaries). Colipon+(Talk) 03:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

wow, guys. Please see WP:NOTFORUM.--Asdfg12345 05:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

How is "Wikipedia not a forum" relevant to the discussion above, about the relationship between the CCP and Falun Gong, the Anti-Cult Movement and the response of Falun Gong? This is the project talk page, it is exactly the right page to discuss such things: "talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles". / PerEdman 10:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I think we should try to curb the level of vilification of Falun Gong expressed on these talk pages. It gets a little out of hand at times. Let's just refer to sources where appropriate, keep our comments directly related to the content or proposed content of the article, and keep our pet theories out of it. Equating a group of peaceful meditators with a totalitarian regime that murders people for their beliefs is absurd. Let's just talk about sources and policy and leave our own theories at the door. It will create a more professional atmosphere. That's all I have to say on the matter.--Asdfg12345 16:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't precisely know what you mean? Aside from personal experience, there is documented proof (such as the Quebec documentary that I found the Ombudsman's Report on) of the FLG defaming people who criticise it. EG: Crescent Chau accused of being an agent of the PRC, FLG picketing newsstands selling his newspapers.
In the interest of neutrality we have actually deliberately avoided villifying the FLG.Simonm223 (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Asdfg12345, What on earth are you talking about? What "vilification" is it you are seeing? Where? These are the TALK pages. Sources are required for the topic page itself, not for putting an idea forward in discussions among peers. If that was required, I could have you banned for accusing people of "vilification" without a notable third-party source, wouldn't I? :) / PerEdman 19:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Scope of project

The question was recently asked how many spin-off articles there are about Falun Gong, or focused on Falun Gong. The category page should of course list all of them, but I don't think it does. A search for "Falun Gong" finds a few more, as will a "What links here?" click from the [Falun Gong] article. We need to discuss which articles are clearly of FG interest, which are borderline and which are not.

What do you think of the following articles (use numbering for comments):

  1. Re-education through labor heavily features to "Falun Gong adherents" being detained under such circumstances.
  2. The Zeng_Qinghong article features an unsourced paragraph on his involvement in the persecution of Falun Gong.
  3. The article on evil features Falun Gong as an example under a sub-heading.
  4. The article Human_rights_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Falun_Gong features a section on Falun Gong.

Please continue searching and discussing. / PerEdman 15:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Of these, I'm not sure how many should be considered within the scope of the group, unless the group expands to include articles relating to the government's Falun Gong repression. The "evil cult" link is I believe completely excessive in the evil article, and could reasonably be deleted as WP:UNDUE and too focused on a argumentative application of the word toward a political opponent. The other question, regarding possibly a subcategory regarding oppression of Falun Gong in China, is one to which I would not be opposed, but am not myself in a position to decide. I might tag the paragraph in the Zeng Qinghong article as unreferenced in any event. That article in general needs a lot of help. John Carter (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I was in the process of writing a longer list when thunder struck and I decided to shut down my computer. Now I'm out of my flow, so I'll encourage anyone to look for other articles that might touch on the scope of this project. / PerEdman 17:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
ASDFG is following up on stuff that might present PRC opinion rather than FLG opinion.Simonm223 (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Of course, we don't want any content to present any opinion over any other. John Carter (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Pardon? / PerEdman 22:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, the statement above about how someone is searching for articles presenting the Chinese government's opinion rather than the Falun Gong opinion seems to indicate that it is an either/or scenario, which it isn't necessarily. Neither the Chinese government nor Falun Gong can be seen as being entirely neutral in this matter. Ideally, any article should probably present both stated opinions, to the extent that they are verifiable. Xinhua is pretty much a reliable source for the Chinese government's opinion, and at times more. I'm not sure how to define whether something is "Falun Gong"'s opinion (whatever that might mean) but if there is a statement from Li, for instance, about how the government is misrepresenting things or whatever, that might reasonably be included as well. John Carter (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I understand and agree. Ideally, any article should have a much heavier focus on secondary, independent sources than the FG articles do at the current time. That would also save us from many of the current notability discussions, I think. / PerEdman 22:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights Torch Relay

There's some discussion on Talk:Human Rights Torch Relay for a merger with CIPFG. Any input would be appreciated. Colipon+(Talk) 01:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

By my reckoning of the discussion going on and the extremely weak content of the HRTR article, I have chosen to take this suggested merger as my first attempt at merging two articles myself. The content of the HRTR article has been merged into the CIPFG article but not properly cleaned as of yet. Any double redirects have been resolved, including one named HRTR which I suggest should be shortlisted for deletion. / PerEdman 00:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Falun Gong

Is this not premature, given that discussion surrounding the merit of that move is still taking place? --Asdfg12345 05:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving content into the main article is in no way hindered by renaming the "Academic views of Falun Gong" (Edit: Isn't that the title? This is too confusing. MOVE IT ALREADY.) article into anything else - its contents are not being changed by the move/rename. / PerEdman 19:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger of organ harvesting articles

Please note that there is a proposal to merge Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China‎ into Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China (discuss). Ohconfucius (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have put the subject on the NPOV noticeboard as well, here: Organ harvesting in China: Weight given to Falun Gong victims. / PerEdman 18:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Dilip rajeev enforcement case

Kindly note that an Enforcement case has just been filed against Dilip rajeev here over his editing at the Falun Gong family of articles and elsewhere. Please note that this is a permalink; any commenting should be done only after clicking on the 'Project page' tab. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

FG organ harvesting poll now open

A poll has been created on whether Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China‎ is a standalone topic, or should it be merged to Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China? Please go to talk:Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China/FG poll. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Starting Over

I note once again that there are comments on the main Talk:Falun Gong page about repeated disruptive editing. I just want to tell everyone that I think that this is getting way out of hand. Probably the best thing to do is just, basically, start over. I am myself most of the way through the Ownby book, and have downloaded pretty much every article on Falun Gong I could find on JSTOR. I think we would all be better served if we were to basically stop trying to change content based on previous matters and just try to develop new articles and the existing articles by going back to the sources and adding what those sources say, whether we necessarily agree with them personally or not.
Like it or not, people, and I am saying this particularly to those Falun Gong practicioners out there, it has not gone unnoticed that our content seems to most recently been edited disproportionately by FG practicioners, and that the content might be what some call biased. That does not help wikipedia, nor does it really help Falun Gong if our content can be said, not unreasonably, to not live up to objective standards. Wellesley College here notes that the article i "disputed", and this page notes a disproportionate amount of editing by "falun-gongist"s and regular references to SPS. I myself am a practicing Roman Catholic, and I know that attempts to suppress negative infomation or deemphasize it and overemphasize positive information in our content, like regarding Catholic sex abuse cases, will only serve to make it easier for those who have their own differing objectives to discount our material. If our content presents the information fairly and objectively, on the other hand, it becomes that much harder for opponents to write it off.
So I'm asking everyone involved to try to find at least one source, particularly those from academic journals or published books by independent publishers, and mine them for all the information we can get out of them. If we do that, not only will the content be improved, but it will also be harder for opponents to Falun Gong to write off our content as biased, and thus probably do a better job of helping us give to the world the complete, objective, balanced picture of Falun Gong and its more recent troubles.
Were we to do so, I think the conflicts over "favored" content would diminish, and we would do a much better, more effective job of giving the world the complete truth about this subject and its recent problems. John Carter (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly optimistic, to be honest. The reason I say this is because the articles are showing real improvement. I think the Falun Gong practitioners editing the article are now aware that their actions are being watched carefully by the terms of the arbitration and the articles' probation and therefore being a lot more prudent about their actions. Their disruptive edits are generally reverted by third-party editors quite quickly. I think the state of the Falun Gong article as it stands still needs improvement, but is much better than before. Colipon+(Talk) 20:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I actually quite like the sound of what John says. The article is so full of historical baggage that perhaps we really ought to purge everything except the references, and reconstruct an article from scratch... IMHO, the situation is by no means all bad, or as bad as it has been. If the current situation deteriorates once again, let's seriously consider wiping the slate clean as an option. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Activism

Just so everyone is aware... this might be interesting to read. Colipon+(Talk) 21:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Status

First, I do believe that the status of our content at present really is not particularly good. I do note that the Washington Examiner cited us as a source for their article "Falun Dafa on the National Mall" (twice in the same article, actually), which is good.

Unfortunately, I tend to think that even the main article, with the revisions recently made, is still probably too long. As a starting point for maybe further discussion of editing the article, I think existing guidelines say that the lede section of an article should be three to five normal paragraphs. I personally think that the same rule could reasonably be applied to content in main articles, with the relevant sections devoted to subarticle topics being three to five paragraph long summaries of the subtopic, and the remainder of the material in the relevant subarticle.

I also have concerns about the weakness of some of the content in general. I note that there are at least a few somewhat serious issues which seem possibly inadequately covered, such as criticism of FG for its opposition to homosexuality, which even proved to be the reason some people tried to withdraw their "nomination" of him for the Nobel Peace Prize, and a few other matters.

I personally have in the past few weeks gotten together a slew of magazine and newspaper articles, and have very good reason to believe that we could reasonably make a dozen or two fairly good and useful articles on additional subjects, including criticism (good and bad), books and other media relevant to FG, biographies and articles on relevant companies, and even a few articles on FG in specific countries. Unfortunately, even if I were to create these articles, I have reservations about the input of others. Some years ago now I indicated that there is a great deal of content relevant to Jennifer Zeng in her book Witnessing History, which should be included in the article, but that I myself did not have access to the book, and asked others to do so. I know that we at least had one FG practicioner in Australia, Zeng's home, and thought it likely that that individual could get the book. To date, bowever, I don't see any real evidence that anyone has done so. It is this apparent lack of interest in even some of these significant subtopics which causes me to wonder whether anyone else would be interested or willing to assist on such articles, even if I created them with all the information I found.

Also, I think that there is a bit of a problem in general with, maybe, some editors being perhaps interested only in Falun Gong. So far as I can tell, pretty much every one of the major religious groups, particularly those which have developed outside China, have been subject to some degree of persecution. I personally think it might make sense, and maybe help some editors get a slightly broader experience here, if we might make a subproject of WikiProject Religion devoted specifically to religion in China. This would include Christianity, Falun Gong, and Tibetan Buddhism, all of which have complained of significant persecution, as well as other faith traditions in China and its history. I think the history of religion in China is directly relevant, and that there is some good reason to think that the sources about FG would include information for these broader topics as well. Would anyone here be interested in maybe taking part in such a group?

Also, finally, I think that we really need to have some people actually read and try to develop content from the relevant books on FG. Some of them might very well contain significant material which could be used as one of the required sources to establish notability on related individuals. Even if the content to each person were not particularly lengthy, we could still establish an article like Martyrs of Cordova on such subjects. Would anyone have an interest in reading the relevant independent books on FG, and trying to see what material from them can be used to establish content here? John Carter (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, based on a review of the news articles I've seen in the databanks I've consulted to date, there seem to me to be about 6 dozen topics which meet minimum general notability requirements which we don't yet cover. And those databanks don't include the major news networks or organizations, the Falun Gong related media, or the books which have discussed the subject. There are several books, like Buruma's Bad Elements, Johnson Wild Grass, and The Corpse Walker by someone whose name I've forgotten, which include descriptions of people which would help establish their notability. These include articles on specific people, Falun Gong in countries or areas, related media entities, significant events in the history of FG, etc. I really think it would be in the subject's best interests if we did have people seriously review the existing books which deal with the subjects. If they find certain specific subjects in those books which are discussed significantly enough for that source to qualify as one of the sources to establish notability, I could check to see if I could find in the databanks any other articles about that subject. That will include a lot of Xinhua content, and some other less than necessarily optimum sources, but we might be able to develop the amount and quality of the related content. John Carter (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The Corpse Walker is also already cited on the main article. So is Wild Grass. Your idea of creating articles on the people in these stories is interesting, and not one I had considered before. I've generally thought of these accounts as being valuable for their representative nature; they help illuminate general trends in suppression and resistance efforts. But I'm definitely not opposed to the idea of making these pages on individuals. Chen Zexiu, the main subject of Johnson's reporting, would be the easiest. The old women featured in Liao Yiwu's account would be more difficult, and there's also a chance he used pseudo names for them. But try it, if you're game.Homunculus (duihua) 14:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Where to place material regarding "cult" accusation & other questions

Believe it or not, I think I am just about done reading all the articles I have printed out regarding this subject, and hope to do some actual content development as soon as I am done. I figure that should be by the end of the week. I myself might not believe that until I actually am finished with them all though. When I am done, I figure to not only start developing some content based on that material, which is about a milkcrate full, and also add a list of articles which I think have sufficient notability to have separate articles to the main project page.

I do however have a few questions. One of these deals with what seems to me to be one of the most prominent subjects about this group, the question of whether it is or is not a religion, cult, or whatever. I have seen at least one academic journal article which describes it as an NRM with cult-like properties, that today, and other articles which say things of roughly equivalent nature. Unfortunately, I am myself far from sure where to place such material. I think a separate article is probably called for, but I have no clear idea what to call it. Any ideas?

Also, I note up front that at least a few of the possible articles may qualify under WP:1E. Maybe. The primary question there is about exactly how one defines "one event." If, for instance, we have a subject who has been noted in sources for the separate topics of arrest, trial, and conviction, and maybe release, would such subjects qualify under 1E? There might be questions about whether they necessarily have sufficient content for separate articles as well, and many might be grouped into a list type article as proposed above. However, I would welcome any responses. John Carter (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this until now. Based on your comments here and on the main talk page concerning James Tong's work and Nova Religio articles, I'm a tad worried that you have not thoroughly read the article in its current form. As I mentioned in a reply to your previous comment, the article already draws quite a lot on Tong's recent works, along with seven or eight Nova Religio articles, but you didn't seem to be aware of this. In this case, you are referring to the observations of Cheris Shun-ching Chan about Falun Gong as NRM with "cult-like" characteristics. That, too, is already in the article in a section on categorization. Further discussion of the 'cult' term is found in 'controversies.' That is also where you would find information on the controversy around Falun Gong's socially conservative views (answering to your comment above). I am not trying to deter you here, but the article now is actually very thorough, and more stable than it has ever been in memory. It would be unfortunate if we had to rehash new discussions on due weight and neutrality each time a new editor reads these articles.
To more specifically address your question on the creation of new pages, I agree that there are some addition pages that could be built. The April 25th demonstration, for instance. But I think the proposals would need to be evaluated on an individual basis. I would be interested to hear your ideas. Homunculus (duihua) 14:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
ps, I realize my tone here may come across as dismissive. That's not my intent. I think there may be merit in some of these ideas, but just want to ensure that we don't go one step forward and two steps back. Homunculus (duihua) 14:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry about the tone, it wasn't perceived negatively. Actually, I think that there may well be other opinions worth mentioning. There seem to be questions about whether the FG qualifies as a religion itsself (they say it doesn't, others make mention that they see it might). If it is a religious group, then there is the question about what kind of religious group it might be. Is it a specific syncretism of Taoism and Buddhism, or is it perhaps a variation on Chinese folk religion, which seems to be the "main" type of faith in China? That belief system is itself, basically, a syncretism of Taoism and Buddhism, but it might be more useful to link to that specific article, as it might provide a bit more relevant information. And there is the question of FG being influenced, according to others, by Confucianism (which may or may not already be included in Taoist, I dunno) and some "New Age" type beliefs, like the aliens Li mentioned in Time. At least one source refers to some apparently early comments made by Buddhists in China to the effect that FG is not Buddhist. That would, of course, be true if it were syncretic, but it might also be worth mentioning in its own right. There are also comments which I think are rather questionably objective by Michael Fu Tieshan and others about how FG is not a religion, and the specific reasons they give. I myself think that the "controversy" about FG's status as a religion, sect, and/or cult, and the reasons given for each opinion, may be worthy of a separate article.
Regarding the other additional individual articles, they include:
  • the Zhongnanhai incident, the big TV takeover incident, and maybe a few other early incidents in the PRC
  • the individual related books regarding the subject which have received sufficient reviews/discussion for possibly a separate article each
  • Charles Lee and his fiance both of whom received rather extensive coverage in the US about his imprisonment, as well as other present and former prisoners who have received some significant international coverage,
  • the Belinda Pang schism, which received a fair bit of local attention at the time,
  • individual articles on FG in Hong Kong, Australia, Canada, the US, and maybe elsewhere,
  • Radio Era Baru, which apparently got closed with the help of the Chinese government
  • a few FG artists in Canada and Australia, and, maybe, some art shows which have received coverage, Erping Zhang reportedly the second most important figure in the movement, a former Olympic medal winner in Australia who still doesn't have a separate article, the Human Rights Torch Relay, which is discussed in about 100 articles I know of, maybe an article about the "Beyond the Limits of Forbearance" statement by Li, the Nine Commentaries and the "Quit the CCP" activity it seems to have prompted, some TV and other productions, including the CBC documentary that got pulled the day it is scheduled to be shown, and others.
My biggest concern regarding a lot of these is regarding instances when Xinhua or maybe FG related media seem to be almost the exclusive source of information. There have been at least a few people who have been discussed by Xinhua in particular in separate articles about being picked up, tried, sentenced, and, in some instances, recanting later. There may be similar one-sided coverage from FG related media. I think such articles sourced primarily from one side might be particularly problematic, but there do seem to be at least a few of them.
However, I would note once again that they all those being considered do seem to meet general notability guidelines. In the case of some of the biographies, there may not be a lot of specific information about the lives of the individuals away from the "incidents". In such cases, they might all be merged into a joint article. John Carter (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
One last PS. It might help if we came up with a possible "baseline requirement" for being included in Category:Critics of Falun Gong. Obviously, all the major PRC government figures who have criticized FG would qualify, but categorization as such might not be particularly useful. Fu Tieshan might qualify, based on his statements, but he might be counted basically like other government figures. And others, like the China Anti-Cult Association, are also clearly critics of Falun Gong, but maybe not exclusively enough to merit such a specific category. Any ideas? John Carter (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Regarding the classification of Falun Gong as religion (or whatever), there is some ambiguity that will probably never be resolved, but among scholars of Chinese religion and history, it is most frequently classified as a system of qigong (itself an ambiguous term, referring to ancient practices appropriated for a modern age), or as a system of cultivation (xiulian) in the tradition of Buddhist and Daoist practice. I'm not sure where it fits within folk practices; Chinese folk religious beliefs inform so many aspects of religious and cultural experience in China, and no doubt are reflected in some aspects of Falun Gong's cosmology, but I'm not sure if it would be rightly classified as a form of Chines folk religion. Anyways, the best we can do here is to provide a section on categorization that contains a summary of the main scholarly views on this. I think I attempted to do this in my last pass, and it's pretty good, but could probably be supplemented. As I've mentioned elsewhere, however, I hope the page doesn't become like a literature review; we should represent the major scholarly views, but also need to make sure that it is clear, concise, and helpful to readers. Regarding the Chinese Buddhist Association, I think Penny has an article about this. It's an interesting topic, and is also already mentioned in the article (under controversies). It's notable to me that the Buddhist Association, which answers to the Communist Party, began its critiques of Falun Gong only in the latter half of 1996, after FG withdrew from the state-run Qigong Research Society. That is to say, the Buddhist Association's criticism of Falun Gong (which centered on claims that Li Hongzhi misinterpreted some Buddhist scriptures, and took issue with lay Buddhist converting to Falun Gong) was part of a trend on the part of the CCP to begin suppressing Falun Gong, and qigong more generally. In other words, it's debatable whether their criticisms were really of a theological nature or a political one. Now, to the topics you suggest might merit their own articles, there are a couple that strike me as being of a higher order of notability: The Zhongnanhai demonstration on April 25, Charles Lee, and the "quit CCP" movement (I would advise using the Chinese term and calling it the "Tuidang movement," like the "Weiquan movement"). At least those are the ones that interest me somewhat more, and I would be willing to work on them. Articles on books are good. Articles on Falun Gong within particular countries could also be helpful. I'm currently working on the Falun Gong outside China page, and if we don't make separate articles on different countries, we could include some of that content in that page. There was another editor who's done a fair bit of work on these pages in the last while, and they had previously volunteered to help condense some things on the main page (ie. the lede), so I'll check in and see if they want to get involved here too.Homunculus (duihua) 16:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The first draft of the list of articles (and it is still a first draft - I still am not finished reading everything I pulled up) includes, get ready: 5 March radio hijacking, 25 April demonstration, Abyss - The Nature of Cults, Belinda Pang schism, Beyond the Red Wall, Bill Xia, Charles Lee, Chen Guo, Chen Yonglin, Chu O-ming, Cisco suit, Cuiying Zhang, David Kilgour, David Matas, Dynamic Internet Technology/DynaWeb. Erping Zhang, Falun Gong in Australia, Falun Gong in Canada, Falun Gong in Hong Kong, Falun Gong in the United States, Falun Gong: The End of Days, Falun Gong's Challenge to China (book), Falun Gong's Challenge to China (video), Freegate, Gang Chen, Golden Shield, Hao Huijun, Human Rights Torch, Jan Becker, Jane Dai, Kan Hang-Cheung, Kunlun Zhang, Levi Browde, Liu Chengjun, Liu Feng, Liu Yunfang, Ming Xia, Oracle Bones, Peter Yuan Li, Power of the Wheel, Qigong Fever, Qiu Defeng, Radio Era Baru, Revenge of the Forbidden City, Sherry Zhang, South of the Clouds, Szeto Wah, Tang Jitiang, Theresa Chu, Tien Chiu-chin, Uncompromising Courage, Wang Jingdong, Witnessing History, World Falun Gong Day, Xueling Zhang, Yeong Ching Foo, and Zhen Shan Ren art exhibit. I think they all meet minimum general notability requirements, like I said earlier, although I have yet to necessarily check the specific sources, like journals and annuals, about all of them, particularly those which might be, like art exhibits, primiarly sourced in somewhat specialized sources. And, yeah, maybe in a day or two, I sincerely hope, I will have a bit better of an idea of what others might exist. I will try to add them to the list when I do finish. John Carter (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Yiikes, that's ambitious. I'll help wherever I can. In the meantime I'll work on the Falun Gong outside mainland China, and will create a page on the Tuidang movement. I'm sure there are plenty of other things that are at least as notable, but this is certainly enough to start. By the way, I think the March 5 event you're referring to was tapping into television broadcasts. Ethan's Gutmann's piece "into thin airwaves" is the most detailed and lively account of the event you are likely to find. Homunculus (duihua) 22:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion/Falun_Gong_work_group/Archive2&oldid=1137367277"