Jump to content

Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28→Archive 30

Move Beliefs and Teachings section up?

When someone searches for information about FG, they are probably more interested in what FG stands for as a spiritual movement than in the organisation's history and the details of its deplorable persecution. But currently the Beliefs and Teachings section is located after three long history sections. I suggest we move the Beliefs and Teachings section to a position directly after the introduction, and that someone beefs it up a little. What do you say? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree on the assumption on what a purported searcher would want to find, but I do agree with the sentiment that beliefs and teachings could come earlier. It's a question of where you prefer to put focus in a text. Placing history first follows chronological structure. Placing teachings first follows a different structure. The question is what is most in the spirit of Wikipedia. PerEdman (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I would say that the most important thing is establishing a context. Because Falun Gong's roots are in an ancient culture that is relatively little known in the West, and a significant part of the Chinese people are living in a Communist system that egregiously limits their access to information, most readers know almost nothing about the qigong upsurge of the 80's and 90's. This, according to several respected sinologists, is absolutely crucial information for understanding Falun Gong and its persecution as cultural phenomena. After that comes the section on beliefs and teachings, then persecution, third-party views, and FLG outside of China. What do you think? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I see no conflict between establishing context and starting the article with the beliefs of the movement. That may serve, possibly better than starting with the history lesson, to give an insight into the context of Falun Gong as well. I cannot believe that it is a significant part of any religious movement that they are being persecuted by someone else. That cannot, by its very definition, be the heart and core of a belief system (since you sort of NEED a core in order to be persecuted for it, the persecution cannot come first). Please note, then, that no-one here is suggesting that we REMOVE the references to persecution, but that we at least consider what is the most defining parts of Falun Gong. I do not believe the persecution is it. PerEdman (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The articles on Christianity and Islam begin with their beliefs and teachings. The article on Buddhism does not. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Right from the beginning, Falun Gong's teachings have commented on the surrounding cultural context, the qigong community; inevitably they go hand in hand. I would still think that we first need to explain what happened before Falun Gong, as well as referring to the debate between naturalism and supernaturalism in the Chinese scientific community (see, for example, the quote from Journal of Asian Studies), then provide a description of how Falun Gong positioned itself in this environment. However, in order to provide a comprehensive, unbiased exposition of the teachings, we really need to understand the persecution and related matters, since they are in such an essential role in Li Hongzhi's post-1999 lectures. Therefore, it could be reasonable to argue that persecution comes first, then the beliefs and teachings. Unless, of course, we want to have one section on pre-1999 teachings and another on post-1999, but that just wouldn't work, since the basic core (assimilation into Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance) has not changed at all. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Very well, then the relationship to the quigong community should also be privileged, but I maintain that the tenents of the faith should be at the top of the page, with the complexities that follow from that belief should follow after, unless a strictly chronological structure is followed, but I don't think it is. Please note that I am not now commenting on any wikipedia guideline on which structure to follow, but professional writing in general.
I must also regretfully repeat that this is not about removing text on persecution and related matters, but to focus on what is the heart of the movement, rather than focus on the problems it is involved with as a consequence in latter times. PerEdman (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it might go: below "1992 - early 1999", or under the Theoretical Background, too, possibly. Either of these could also be expanded or reduced. What are the outstanding disagreements/ideas to move forward?--Asdfg12345 22:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

permission to add Li's supernatural abilities

According to Li's biography [1], which is already on the references list, Li has many supernatural abilities, such as fly and teleport, this biography was attached to early editions of <Zhuan Fa Lun>. The following paragraph in the article cited the biography, but telling only about how many masters Li had, and ignored the most important part of the biography: what abilities Li learned from his masters.

According to the biography which appeared as an appendix to Zhuan Falun, Li Hongzhi had been taught ways of "cultivation practice" (xiulian) by several Masters of the Dao and the Buddhist schools of thought from a very young age. This biography says that he was trained by Quan Jue, the 10th Heir to the Great Law of the Buddha School, at age four. He was then trained by a Taoist master at age eight. This master left him at age twelve, and he was then trained by a master of the Great Way School with the Taoist alias of True Taoist, who came from the Changbai Mountains.

Should we at least mention these abilities from the biography? Any objections? Zixingche (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's not the place. If it's biographical, I can think of a more relevant place than this here article. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Then we shouldn't have this section at all. Telling only part of Li's biography in the Falun Gong page is inappropriate, I suggest either tell all or tell nothing. And BTW: which article? Zixingche (talk) 10:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
You're asking me to state the obvious, so it's obviously this page. I'm not suggesting it necessarily belongs there, but depends on how you go about sourcing and presenting it - the biography you are referring to has been withdrawn, and the issue of its contents have been discussed at length on the talk page (if I recall correctly). Ohconfucius (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Zixingche. Li's magical abilities are important to mention, seeing as he is such a central figure in FG. The article about Jesus states that "Over the course of his ministry, Jesus is said to have performed various miracles, including healings, exorcisms, walking on water, turning water into wine, and raising several people, such as Lazarus, from the dead". Martin Rundkvist (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Very well on the comparison, but is it mentioned in the article about Christianity? PerEdman (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Not much. There's a brief mention of miracles at the end of the section Christianity#Jesus the Christ, and a lot of discussion of the resurrection (which is a different beast, as it's critical to most views of the religion). --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that the resurrection is a different beast. It is a much larger beast, but it is nevertheless a claim of the supernatural. Will anyone agree with me that it would be reasonable to at least mention the claims of Li's supernatural abilities in the Falun Gong article, as similar claims are represented about purported abilities in other ... ah ... spiritual movements? PerEdman (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Well you know he never showed off. He teaches how people should build up virtue primarily and as a side note mentions that these can help bring forward your innate supernormal abilities. If you want to make from Li Hongzhi a David Copperfield, I think that would not be quite right, would it? If you want to mention somewhere, that he teaches that through virtue people can obtain supernormal abilities, that would be I think correct and quite factual, but also would be advertisement, don't you think? Anyway he also teaches that supernormal abilities can not be shown off. If you're interested in what he's saying, see "Why Doesn’t Your Gong Increase with Your Practice?" [2] --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Li Hongzhi's own words about Falun Gong and supernormal ability

(source: Zhuan Fa Lun)

Lecture 2, section "Transcending the Five Elements and the Three Realms", paragraph 3:

http://falundafa.org/book/eng/lecture2.html

"I have also been tested, and the detected radiation of the generated gamma rays and thermal neutrons was eighty to one hundred seventy times more than normal matter."
  • Li created a planet (Falun Gong Paradise) somewhere in Milky Way

Lecture 3, section "The Buddha School Qigong and Buddhism", paragraph 9:

http://falundafa.org/book/eng/lecture3.html

"Sakyamuni, Buddha Amitabha, and the Great Sun Tathagata each have their own paradises for saving people. In our Milky Way, there are over one hundred such paradises. Our Falun Dafa also has a Falun Paradise."
  • Li's ability to cure illnesses

Lecture 3, section "What Has Teacher Given to Practitioners?", paragraph 1:

http://falundafa.org/book/eng/lecture3.html

"Your illnesses will be cured directly by me. Those who practice at exercise sites will have my fashen to cure their illnesses."
  • Li's Fa Wheel descending from the sky to save disciples from danger

Lecture 3, section "What Has Teacher Given to Practitioners?", paragraph 15-17:

http://falundafa.org/book/eng/lecture3.html

"There are so many of these cases that they cannot be numbered. Yet no danger has occurred. Not everyone will encounter these kinds of things, but some individuals will run into them. Whether you come across them or not, I can assure you that you will not be in any danger—I can guarantee this."

Bobby fletcher (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop breaking the discussion chains with your own headers and insertions. You should respect their form, since people will easily get confused about when they were posted. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
What's your point? I say again that the Falun Gong Wikipedia article is not a forum for Li Hongzhi's opinion on what are the interesting parts of the faith, but what may be interesting to newcomers and people who seek to know more about the movement without learning it FROM the movement. As such, I believe it is important to bring up the claims of supernatural abilities in the Wikipedia article, as they are spectacular and of interest regardless of whether Li Hongzhi agrees that they are. PerEdman (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Have you read my post? I did not object for you to mention this :) and I also did tell you from where you can inform yourself better to be as close to the fact as possible :) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you refered solely to a POV source as a way to "inform" someone in a discussion about how to make a better wikipedia article, and I objected to it. Was that in any way unclear? PerEdman (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think as long as we keep in mind that these articles aren't a playground for ridiculing the practice, or promoting it, things will be fine. All that has to be done is report Li's supernatural claims within their context in Falun Gong, and certainly within the wider qigong and supernaturalist discourse in mainland China at the time. It is not about making it seem silly or funny, nor about somehow downplaying supernatural elements. These are also not the focus of what Falun Gong teaches, which I think has been repeated a couple of times. The teachings page needs significant revision anyway. Anyway, are there concrete proposals for how the page should look, for now? Alunsalt has set up a page here for proposals etc.. --Asdfg12345 02:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing

Just a heads up, but a couple of science blogs are canvassing their readers to come to this article and fight a battle:

--Calton | Talk 13:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This comment caught my eye. Gives a good depiction of what kind of people we're dealing with.
"Success in an edit war depends on how well you present your case. In most rationalist-vs-nutcase scenarios, the good-guys will present their case calmly and formally, and will base their arguments around documented Wikipedia policy. Meanwhile, the bad-guys will resort to hysteria and mudslinging. Similarly, when it comes the the article itself, the good-guys will continue to make dispassionate and encyclopedic edits, whilst the bad-guys will get more extreme and more hysterical. When it comes to arbitration, the good-guys will win.
Unfortunately, if seems as if these Falun-Gong cultists known how to play the system. If you want to win, you must outplay them. A comment such as "this article is biased nonsense" is precisely useless. Instead, you must attack it in a systematic, formal and dispassionate manner, with each point being clearly explained and based around documented Wikipedia policy. Eventually, they will slip-up and reveal themselves as the foaming lunatics they are. Once that happens, the good-guys (if sufficiently prepared) will win."
Right. How unfortunate that we Falun-Gong cultists know how to wipe the foam off our raving mouths. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 14:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Naughty naughty! While WP:CANVAS states canvassing within wikipedia should not take place, it is clearly meant to deter this type of behaviour in spirit, and could potentially get the canvasser banned from Wikipedia for good. I don't want that to happen, so I would urge Martin to take his blog entry rally cry off-line, PDQ. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Naughty yourself for attempting to persuade a person critical of Falun Gong to remove his blog post calling for support. If this were the other way around, I'm not so sure a similar cry for censorship would be approved. If the content of a wikipedia article CAN be "attacked" in a systematic, formal and dispassionate matter, with each point clearly explained and based around documented wikipedia policy, then the article can only improve as a result. The best you can do, Olaf Stephanos (I don't know you, Ohconfucius) is the very same thing. PerEdman (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. This will only work to balance the tone and factual content of this article. 99.232.18.41 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Well for starters the article is protected, so there is no worry in having a lot of angry newbies mess up the page. Other then that a call in having experienced Wikipedians edit the page, that is just great I think, since hopefully they are not all biased in one way :-) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I find the links posted above slightly funny and disturbing. It doesn't matter what you think about it Edman or 99.232.18.41, it's against the rules.--Asdfg12345 21:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wiki guidelines are guidelines for wikipedia, not for how to behave on your own blog, meaning I don't buy Ohconfucius interpretation of the "spirit" of the guidelines, at all. If a call for contributions can result in more interested, motivated and knowledgable writers joining the article, that is a good thing. If the article is instead nigh-unknown and contributed to only by a stubborn few who are more or less vocal PROPONENTS of the subject topic, the article will almost certainly become POV. If you actively do not want any writers of a different opinion, please say so instead of accusing someone of off-wiki on-wiki canvasing, which is just absurd.
There is a problem on ALL subjects where one party in a discourse are much more motivated than the other. People who love and cherish something are much more likely to want to "defend" it and give it the shiniest polish possible than people who are disinterested or even against it. This tendency conflicts greatly with the purported principles of wikipedia. Luckly, most of the time it isn't an issue because wikipedians move around from article to article and everyone is free to edit. But it does become an issue when only a chosen few have the stamina to remain on one page, babysitting it, deciding among themselves (due to shared ideals or otherwise) what goes and what does not. I am not saying that is the situation we have now - I am saying more motivated wikipedians paying attention to the article can only improve it, and I say your fear of the very same thing is extremely telling. PerEdman (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A second comment on Ohconfucius above. At first I dismissed the reference to WP:CANVAS out of hand because I remembered quite clearly that it refers only to inter-wiki mass-recipient messaging, distinguishing between friendly notices on one end of the spectrum, to disruptive canvassing for support at the other end. But since ASDFG12345 seemed to agree with the interpretation of the "spirit" of WP:CANVAS, I decided to read it again regardless.

It turns out my first interpretation was right. I even checked the talk page. Please read it before refering to it again. In fact, please read any wikipedia guidelines before trying to force it on someone else with the assumption that they haven't read it, or have already broken a rule. Remember not to trust an authority on its authority and do not try to be that authority. PerEdman (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Was it, just?? Check this out! It's pretty clear to me that, whilst not exactly stealthy in the real sense, it is pretty much covered. I don't think anyone, yourself and Martin included, is denying he's canvassing, going so far as to talk about "winning" and "losing" edit wars. Not only is this totally lacking in good faith, it is disruptive and not acceptable behaviour on wikipedia.
"Whilst not exactly stealthy in the real sense", but in some made-up sense? No, it's not covered. It's neither stealthy, nor on-wiki, it is a call for contributions and is, if we in any way see Jimbo Wales as any sort of voice for acceptable wikipedia behavior, a perfectly normal way of driving a discussion on or off wikipedia. Take another look at the WP:CANVAS talk page, go down to Overly prescriptive and follow the arguments. In other words, stop trying to bash people over the head with guidelines rather than actually argue for your opinion. PerEdman (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I want to add that I am not endorsing censorship, but a little self-restraint on his part. Dr Rundqvist is free to say on his blog what he likes about Falun Gong just like the rest of us, but what he should refrain from doing is to rally people from the outside to wikipedia with aggressive battle-talk, clearly intended to support "his side" of the argument inside wikipedia. There are plenty of biased articles here on wikipedia, and some are more zealously guarded than others. It can at times be frustrating - I know, I have been "struggling" in this series of articles for many months. However, I still don't agree with crying left and right for help like he has done, preferring to let the {{NPOV}} and {{disputed}} tags do their work, like they are supposed to. I don't disagree with the substance of MR's gripes, just the form of how he's going about it is totally up the creek. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-order?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alunsalt/Falun_Gong Rather than start a new edit war with a change, I'll point to the draft of the re-ordered FG page, which pushes beliefs up and also includes a referenced link to why its recent history is important. Opinions on POV etc welcome. It doesn't change a lot of the text. There are a few {{Fact}} tags, but some of these may be due to strange copy problems moving it into my personal folder. The only section that comes out dreadfully is is the 3rd party views which is very uncited. Alunsalt (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well done. I think that version would be a definite improvement. I might just consider not undoing the edit if you put that version in. At least not immediately. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to work on that one to reach consensus. Haven't seen it yet. Will take a look and perhaps make changes.--Asdfg12345 22:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep I made some comments there. Thanks for putting it up.--Asdfg12345; 22:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've put the re-ordered version live. Obviously it still needs work. A few comments.
I've cut the POV commentary from the link to the Xinhua site. I'd be surprised if it wasn't following the CCP party line but that's clearly a judgement on my part and I'm not being neutral if I leave it in. I realise Asdfg12345 disagrees but adding similar POV commentaries on FG links saying they are propaganda would be unacceptable, and so the same has to go here. A better label may be By Xinhua, the Official Chinese News Agency or similar and leave the reader to make a judgement about it.
The importance or otherwise of FG teaching on race, sex etc depends on where you stand. If you're a mixed-race lesbian then you're quite possibly going to have a very different view than a straight male. I've not put in information about the sexist teachings because they are not currently an issue. To do so would smack of journalism. In contrast the homosexual comments are a live issue. As I understand it FG believes homosexuality is a behaviour which should be corrected. If we describe it like that it puts in in the neighbourhood of regimes like Iran and people like Fred Phelps. In comparison the edit I've put up is very mild, but I'm happy that it could be improved.
The degree of persecution is important and belongs in the article, but if we feature it heavily in the opening then we're right back at the POV impasse, because some people would argue that any belief system that encourages suicide is a danger. I think crediting the reader with some intelligence would be a good idea. I think we should assume they can read that 66% of reported torture cases are related to Falun Gong and work out how serious the persecution is. Alunsalt (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

one thing: it isn't biased to note that the Xinhua articles about Falun Gong were those published as part of the propaganda campaign against the practice. This isn't controversial. It's widely documented and widely known. Can I please request that you read The Persecution of Falun Gong page, for some context to this issue. --Asdfg12345 02:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Falun Gong doesn't encourage suicide. What are you talking about? I strongly disagree with those edits, too. I suggest you please enumerate proposed edits and we'll discuss them. E.g.

1. say Falun Gong is a religion in the lead

2. remove information about the persecution from the introduction

etc.. The changes you are asking for are very significant, I am sure many editors would appreciate some discussion. There's a lot to say about all the points you have mentioned above there, but I am keen to keep the discussion on specific points of how the article is proposed to change. The wider issues will develop from that. I am all for changing it, but I we ought to discuss what those changes will be. --Asdfg12345 02:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the fact that you added {{fact}} tags into the article, because all those need to solved, to have an article that is more airtight. However the rest of it I would have preferred instead of taking copy/paste a version like the reorder as you think it more relevant, to leave it some room to discuss first.
For example you say that when people search about Falun Gong their are interested more about the teaching part ... In the current context of history where a genocide is going on China against this group the Theoretical base and debate may or may not be very relevant at this point ... and so I see for example that the chronological order makes more sense. What do you think? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 02:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
For the lead section to stay neutral, I also believe that the persecution stuff and stuff about organ harvesting in the lead should go. All that should remain are the demonstration by 10,000 practitioners led to the ban. I don't believe we should be continually edit-warring over whether FG is a "spiritual practice" or "religion". I think "spiritual practice" is more acceptable - after all, nobody refers to Yoga or Qigong as 'religions'. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I just had an idea. What about lifting the "Persecution against Falun Gong" into a separate section? If it's so important, but not the heart and soul of the movement, doesn't it deserve to be treated in a separate section, rather than taking up room in the first paragraph anyone will read?
I have no opinion on whether it's a religion or a spiritual practice. PerEdman (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you believe the persecution stuff should disappear from the intro? In my view, this is the most notable thing about Falun Gong out there. Most would not know of Falun Gong in the west if it weren't for the persecution. How many pre-1999 news articles do you see about Falun Gong? It's the most notable thing in this whole story, so I think it should definitely be made clear in the introduction. It shouldn't overwhelm it though, I agree, but it should be given its due, for sure. Don't you think? --Asdfg12345 06:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree to remove the persecution and organ harvesting stuffs from the lead section, because with these stuffs the article will never be neutral. Not to mention that the organ harvesting stuffs are from a questionable source, and without any physical evidence.Zixingche (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Oconfucius about tilting the article's neutrality. Also there shouldn't be any more waring on weither Falun Gong is controversial - there are notable sources supporting this, such as this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong#Notable_Source_Declaring_Falun_Gong_.22Controversial.22

Asdfg's objection appears to be made in bad faith. Just look at the edit history and Asdfg's current POV dispute with two editors (including myself) in another article (Falun Gong and organ harvesting. All I am trying to do is add fact that is cited from accepted source, and Asdfg keeps blanking it.)

This is really shameful and I can no longer assume good faith. Anyone wish to start arbritration I will be gladly to make my case on the record. Or else show me how to start an arbritration process.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 08:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

In terms of religion / spiritual practice the reason I went for religion is that two verifiable reliable sources who are Sinologists describe Falun Gong as a religion. The references are in the article. These are 3rd party sources. What I have also done is included the fact that practitioners of Falun Gong and the CCP do not describe it as a religion. As Asdfg12345 points out there are attempts at propaganda and the best defences against this are to follow WP:V and WP:RS. Otherwise we could have a nutter come in, cite a whole load of CCP publications and turn this into an anti-FG diatribe.
Regarding the persecution, this is happening. It's a verifiable fact and belongs in the lead. I think Ohconfucius makes a good case that the ban followed a protest of 10,000 people. It puts the ban in context. I think we can even add in a reference of tens of thousands of detentions from Amnesty International. Unfortunately we cannot include references to harassment in Singapore because that would be journalism and would also violate WP:SOAP. Similarly I've tried tracking 3rd party claims of organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners and this does not seem to come from a verifiable or reliable source. It's specifically been tested and failed to be verified if you follow the references. The sources are either FG or FG-sponsored groups. There are news stories about organ harvesting in China, but I have not found a single one which argues that FG has been specifically targeted for this. The closest I've found is this story from Al Jazeera which if you read is another FG claim. Now how do we tackle this? We could briefly note that the Chinese authorities have been accused of organ harvesting and link through to Organ harvesting in China. I think including details of the allegations and the rebuttals in this article would be better, as far as WP:SOAP allows. Putting Media Representations of Falun Gong below this would follow neatly because it would then lead onto the CCP propaganda campaign and from there we can tackle FG publicity stunts.
As far as labelling links to CCP sites as propaganda this is a bad idea. We could do it. In the interests of balance we could then list all FG links as propaganda and supportive sites as FG sockpuppets. The problem I have with this is that it then turns the article into a pro/anti-FG battleground. What we should be aiming for is consensus. An edit war will not get the article into Wikipedia 1.0 or get it Featured Article status. Consensus will.
As for the edit Asdfg1235 objected to, I can't apologise without sounding sarcastic. I interpret comments like I'm happy to work on that one to reach consensus and Thanks for putting it up. as positive noises. In the future if something is disliked then phrases like I have reservations and would like to discuss it more or No there are serious problems with that edit would be more helpful. Alunsalt (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a brief note, even though I'm taking a day off Wikipedia: "Organ harvesting has been inflicted on a large number of unwilling Falun Gong practitioners at a wide variety of locations, for the purpose making available organs for transplant operations. Vital organs including hearts, kidneys, livers and corneas were systematically harvested from Falun Gong practitioners at Sujiatan [sic] Hospital, Shenyang, Liaoning Province, beginning in 2001." (Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak, 20 March 2007) ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 13:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Oconfucius, Nowak's UN report is being misquoted by Olaf and FLG in general. Here's the report, and the quoted portion is merely catalogue of allegation made by FLG:
http://falunhr.org/reports/UN2007-org/Torture-UN-07.pdf (page 60, para 40, under "allegation transmitted and government response")
As you can see, Nowak also catalogued Chinese government's refutation of Falun Gong's allegation, which Falun Gong choose not to mention.
Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing it out. I stand corrected. I did not have access to the original source at the moment, and I acted in good faith. Nevertheless, you should note that the report is found from Falun Gong Human Rights Working Group's website. Nobody's intentionally trying to hide the fact that the Chinese Government has completely denied the allegations, or that they are mentioned in this particular section of Nowak's report.
You are an interesting figure, Bobby, trying to refute the Tiananmen square massacre [3], as well as any factual basis of the alleged organ harvesting. No wonder some ET journalists suspected you are working for the Man. Well, some of them might a little trigger-happy in that regard, but your record seems pretty... surreptitious. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Olaf, Your comments on Bobby is indeed inappropriate, Bobby comes up with the original document and show us the fact that FLG wants to hide. Please, personal attack is not good anyway, and please do not judge people on assumption, otherwise I would say that I suspected you are paid by Falun Gong and financially supported by anti-China funds. Let's just talk about the topic and contribute to the article. Zixingche (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Your behavior only serves to make it obvious what sort of personal POV stake you have in this article, Olaf. Either you stand corrected or you just groundlessly attacked Bobby on an unrelated subject, because he corrected your significantly incomplete quote from a UN report. Which is it? PerEdman (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, just got a new Bugatti Veyron and a bling-bling diamond ring with my fair share of the Anti-China Funds. Darn, it's so awesome when they really start paying you. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 10:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Olaf, the reason you're going after me is becaue you have nothing to say about the facts presented. If you have any facts on your hand, show me ONE FLG-related group using the Nowak report in an unbaised fashion. They are ALL doing what you did, misquoting the catalog of allegation as proof of Nowak's support.
Really, let's see if you can come up with just ONE source to prove me wrong.
BTW, my TAM blog refers to a TAM retrospective from Columbia School of Journalism titled "The Myth of Tiananmen And the Price of a Passive Press"
http://backissues.cjrarchives.org/year/98/5/tiananmen.asp
You should read it.
Bobby fletcher (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, you just referred to the website of Falun Gong Human Rights Working Group. But surely they must be twisting and turning that information, so tell me Bob, how come you accept that PDF file as a valid source?! ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, they are mis-quoting this report just like you did. Go ahead prove me wrong. You haven't come up with one yet. Bobby fletcher (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Where are they misquoting that report? Link, please. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 08:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
For crying out loud, he already linked you to the PDF! Now is not the time to start acting stupid after acting smart for so long. PerEdman (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand what you are talking about, Per Edman. Bobby linked me to the appendix (PDF) of Nowak's original report on FGHRWG's website, and I asked for further information about where it had been misquoted. We are currently having discussions on this matter with the editors. They said that the newsletter (see below) had been relayed to Nowak before it was published, and he did not object to it. But I don't think it's a fair representation of the text. There are some complicated issues related to what kind of allegations the Special Rapporteurs agree to transmit to the governments. As far as I've been told, the allegations must be plausible in their eyes before they agree to transmit them, and the organ harvesting claims were reiterated not by one but three UN Special Rapporteurs. Nevertheless, I understand and generally agree with Bobby's concerns, but I'll get back to this issue later. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 00:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Olaf, that's a really lame excuse. Nowak also cataloged Chinese government's repudiation, does that mean he support the repudation too? This is not the only example of Epoch Times' biased journalism. They used a photo of a woman suffering from advanced breast cancer as evidence of sexual torture. If you are reall into Truth, take the photo to any encologist you trust. Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The best thing you could do is to give me links to such pictures. I can't do anything without seeing them. And please stop accusing "Falun Gong" for things like that. That's pretty close to how the racists think. The only responsibility lies on the shoulders of those individuals who have not been truthful, or whose professionalism calls for closer scrunity. "Falun Gong" is not some entity. Unfortunately, sexual torture of FLG practitioners does happen in China. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 10:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Olaf, here's the Epoch Times article in question:
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/5-10-21/33602.html
And here's the physician who reviewed the photo, unfortunately it's a blog:
http://rambodoc.wordpress.com/2007/09/17/is-the-falun-gong-going-wrong/
And I don't believe it is racist to say "Falun Gong". It's like saying "Cathololic Church" - Epoch Times NY's funding, and affiliation with various Falun Dafa associations in US is a demonstratable fact.
I don't doubt your sincerety when you say "does happen", but do you have any factual citation, and contxt of such facts?
Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Example of Falun Gong Mis-quoting Nowak

Olaf, here it is:

http://www.flghrwg.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1644&Itemid=

FLGHR did the same thing you did, cite this report not as catalog, but fact supporing the claim (paragrapn 1 & 2).

Now you owe me one example where FLG affiliates is not mis-using Nowak's report that merely catalog allegation and refutation. Time to do some homework buddy. Bobby fletcher (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Bobby, it seems you are right here. FGHRWG has misquoted Nowak, and this inaccurate information has spread to several other articles as well. That's pretty lame on their part. I am not interested in defending such unprofessionalism, and I'll definitely contact them. Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong, on the other hand, has issued a more truthlike report: "In the most recently released UN Annual Report, some investigation activities of the UN special rapporteurs on the organ harvesting atrocities and some official correspondent letters were disclosed. According to this report, on August 11, along with Nowak (special rapporteur on Torture) and Sigma Huda (Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons), Asma Jahangir, the special rapporteur on freedom of religion, questioned the Chinese Communist regime regarding the organ harvesting allegations. Below is the original appeal document." [4] All in all, even if Manfred Nowak hasn't corroborated the claims, he has stated in an interview that "the two Canadians are drawing clear conclusions. The chain of evidence they are documenting shows a coherent picture that causes concern". [5] Moreover, I haven't seen any attempts to systematically invalidate the chain of evidence. I spoke with Kilgour in October, and he was still waiting for the Chinese government's conclusive response. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Olaf, can you not cite somebody's blog? If you recall YOU were the one objecting stuff this. Anyway you even picked a peach of a blog - It is written by Canadian super FLG disciple Makina Beauregard. I'm sure you quoted a die-hard FLG disciple's personal blog "in good faith" 8-)
And did you see FLG disciple Makina Beauregard linked to another personal blog? I thought you sad some dude paying for a websit doesn't count???
Honestly, I would love to know what Epoch Times' reply is. Not once have I seen the Nowak report used fairly in Epoch/NTDTV/Sound of Hope. I have contacted them in good faith many times, and they've more or less refused to retract/correct any story. They get money from Falun Gong, and propagandize for FLG - it is a fact they are not credible (I have notable source that back this up, want to see it?)
Bobby fletcher (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I cited the blog on this talk page and did not even try to use it in the article. I seriously don't think that the Epoch Times or any of these sites are deliberately spreading fallacious or inaccurate information. I really don't. The problem is that not all of these journalists are professionals, and that's why they have occasionally made some stupid mistakes. I'm not blind to that fact, but I also know that their intentions are good. They have gotten better with time, and I wish they'll get even better and more professional in the future. I can only say that the CCP's persecution could have implications you don't take seriously at the moment, Bobby. Falun Gong practitioners are good people who have been put into an extremely challenging position. They're trying very hard to defend their own kith and kin, so perhaps you should try to understand these matters from their perspective as well. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 02:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Let me know when ET will retract/correct their mis-quote on Nowak. AFAIK these "good people" are still forsakening FLG's principle of Truthfullness and playing the ugliest kind of poitics.
"We are not professionals" was the last and only retort I ever got from ET people like Chris Jasurek and Gregory Stephens. If they are truely interested in facts, not politics, they would have retracted blatant errors.
I wish you people luck, I really do. I used to be sympathetic to FLG's cause, until one day in Chinatown some old lady cussed me out as being a "Chinese spy" when I pointed out something inaccurate in the flyer she shoved in my face.
You people are hurting your own cause when you hijack wiki page and POV it to the point facts are no longer allowed, and this page is essentially FLG promoationa material - no one will take you serioiusely.
This is my honest advise to you. Bobby fletcher (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hah. I like the cut of your jib, Alun. I just don't want you to put in unverified or highly disputed or biased information in the lead without discussion. I also don't want to say mean things or discourage you. I don't mean to send mixed messages. Sometimes if I write frankly it may seem that I am being a bit cold. You're a clever guy, in future I'll shoot straight. Anyway, I'm going to make some changes to the lead now. I will not press the 'undo' or 'revert' buttons. I wish you would discuss significant changes before making them. Besides, practitioners did not appeal at Zhongnanhai because of He Zuoxiu's article. They appealed at Zhongnanhai because when they peacefully appealed to He Zuoxiu the riot squad came, beat them and arrested them. This followed years of harassment, including having publication of the books banned, exercise sites broken up including with water cannons, etc.. You can read about it on the persecution page, if you like. What I'm saying is traceable to reliable sources (I'm pretty sure!). I will now remove the reason for the protest, and not include a longer explanation. If an explanation for the Zhongnanhai protest is demanded then we can see what to do from there. --Asdfg12345 13:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you don't want unverified material in the lead. Can you explain why you reverted religion to spiritual practice when I provided two references (one from David Ownby who you seem quite happy with) and you provided zero? I'll be honest I think that either word suffers a bit from a translation problem. Some Chinese concepts don't map neatly onto Western concepts which is why we have to use Chinese words. The reason I ask thought is because I think the principle of verifiable third party sources is important. If we allow the use of personal opinion and unreliable sources then the only defence this article has from being wrecked by people on an anti-FG spree is that so far they haven't all come at once. Alunsalt (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Alun, you are just seeing the tip of the iceberg on Asdfg's POV and DE. Check the "Falun Gong and organ harvesting" article's edit history, you'll see. I'm speaking from personal experience Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
There is an ongoing genocide aka: "Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group." going on in China right now against the group, and you want to hide it? That should be the last thing any human should do see: Genocide#Stages_of_genocide_and_efforts_to_prevent_it --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
HappyInGeneral, can i kindly ask you to stop repeating the word "genocide" unless you can provide some evidence. Zixingche (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
"Whereas the Government of the People's Republic of China has forbidden Falun Gong practitioners to practice their beliefs, and has systematically attempted to eradicate the practice and those who follow it;" [6], please click on the word eradicate; also check out what is happening in China right now: "Door-to-door Arrests" and "Rewards for Identifying Falun Gong Adherents" article dated: March 12, 2008 [7] and a reward system put in place offering up to 500-3,000 yuan (roughly USD $60-$360) for identifying Falun Gong practitioners to the authorities, see: [8]. Do you need any more proof? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
eradicate != genocide. all links you provided say nothing about genocide, please stop saying genocide. Zixingche (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
And, considering all the crimes Falun Gong people did in China (hijack satellite TV system, hijack Cable TV system, damage legal tenders etc), there is nothing wrong with the police reward to arrest these criminals. Zixingche (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
You mean communist party activities like cultural revolution shouldn't count as crime? They hijacked THE ENTIRE CHINESE CULTURE for some 20 years. FG doesn't even compare. Benjwong (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, CCP sucks, I know, but no matter how suck CCP is, or even if CCP is the suckest party in the world, it still does not make Falun Gong a good religion, still, Falun Gong is a cult, and that's nothing to do with CCP. And please, stay on topic. Zixingche (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:

Eradication may also refer to:

  • Genocide, the deliberate, systematic destruction of an ethnic, religious or national group of people

--HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It is genocide because it's a deliberate, systematic destruction of a spiritual/religious group of people as far as my edits are concerned on the article they will follow closely what the sources say. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
It says "May", which is May NOT in this cases, using the word "genocide" you are comparing CCP to Nazi, I don't like CCP but the fact is CCP isn't that evil! In fact CCP did a right thing to ban Falun Gong, unless you can come up with a source states that all Falun Gong people are killed by CCP, please stop using that word! Zixingche (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
From a quick search see here: http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=13199 [9] --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Also from wikipedia Eradication means "Eradication is the elimination or destruction of a thing or group." Which is the same as Genocide "the deliberate, systematic destruction of an ethnic, religious or national group of people", or you have a problem that in genocide this is done as a deliberate, systematic action? Take a look to "Statements of the Government of China" [10] --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
One can "eradicate" many things, such as a religion, a movement or a political party without killing anyone, while a "genocide" always means that people get killed until there are none of their kit and kin left in the world. To say that China is trying to eradicate Falun Gong would be OK with me. But to say that in addition to attempting to eradicate Falun Gong that they are also trying to kill every single practicioner, that would take quite a bit of evidence before I would agree to the wording of. 22:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Genocide (emphases mine): "While precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Article 2 of this defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
...whereas "eradicate" could mean the attempt at stopping the religious movement without any of the extreme measures above. What was it you objected to again? PerEdman (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
According to verifiable third-party reports, Falun Gong practitioners are killed; serious bodily and mental harm is systematically caused to those who are imprisoned; miserable life conditions are inflicted to such practitioners, and they are calculated to bring about the physical destruction of these individuals; and several women have been forced to abort. I don't know about the last part about transferring children, but it surely smells like genocide to me. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 08:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
"According to verifiable thrid-party reports", Olaf can you again back up your claim with some factual citation, so you are not in "good faith" mis-representing whatever you read, or Falun Gong cooked up (like the Nowak quote???).
Here's an article unflattering to the Chinese government that speaks to the fact western anti-cult experts were consulted in the Chinese government's effort to deprogam Falun Gong disciples:
http://bernie.cncfamily.com/acm/falun_gong_deprogramming.htm
Falun Gong disciples who break laws are sent to deprogramming centers via custodial detention (also known as Laogai). Cult deprogramming is a debatable subject, but what is true is disciples are only dead in the sense the sect loses hold on these people after deprogramming - with their organs intact. Bobby fletcher (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
You talk about "Falun Gong disciples who break laws", and I suspect that you're being deliberately ambiguous. The article clearly states that it's not about behaviour, it's about belief (emphasis mine): "The classical anti-cult argument is used: people are not detained for their belief, but for their behavior. This is of course a fallacious argument, as the behavior in this case consisted of taking part in the activities of a group made arbitrarily illegal." In addition, you choose to use the words "custodial detention" and "laogai" instead of the plain English "forced labor camp" or "brainwashing center". ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Olaf, these terms are not widely used, and are POV pushing on your part. The fact is deprogramming is a debatable subject, and Laogai is the proper term and it is factual that Laogai's legal basis is Custodial Detention, a western common law conecept. Please do yourself a Truthful favor - STOP POV pushing and stick to the facts. Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Moved lead discussion

After Asdf's edit, I wish to make the following changes to the intro.

  • Remove value-judgement part of Penny's views, as no other person's value judgement of FG is mentioned in the intro.
  • Reintroduce the explanation for what it was those 10,000 people were protesting against.
  • Replace the litany about how the government persecutes FG with a shorter statement that they simply do.
  • Reintroduce the following:
"Organisations such as Amnesty International have condemned the suppression of Falun Gong and similar groups as "undermining the exercise of fundamental rights."[1] Additionally there have been accusations that Falun Gong is a cult which manipulates the media.[citation needed]"

Anybody, feel free to make the suggested changes. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note, Martin, I moved this down since I even missed this, and thought others might. I considered moving mine up, but thought it would be more sensible this way. Some points on the lead changes:

  • propose having the straight info about Falun Gong itself first off, followed by scholarly interpretations. I don't think this second paragraph can get any bigger.
  • I think the Penny thing is very relevant. The persecution of Falun Gong turned Chinese society upside down, and the regime was spending a significant portion of GDP on building labor camps, paying people off, etc., and what has happened in 10 years will have a large bearing on China's future. What the Party has tried to do has destabilised Chinese society, and at that time threw into a mess many of the basic things needed for the society to develop soundly, such as an independent judiciary, etc.. All this is well backed up and widely documented in the literature. I only found Penny's remarks recently. This isn't praising Falun Gong, but appraising the situation that has arisen. Just some thoughts.
  • The persecution of Falun Gong is the biggest human rights abuse in China. I don't think there's time to waste mentioning how two organisations which advocated the practice methods were banned. The point is that after the protest, a significant fact, two months later they had the 610 office kicking down doors and putting tens of thousands into prison in the middle of the night. From that point on everything changes and the whole CCP machinery turned on Falun Gong full swing. Failing to note that there is widespread torture, that there are hundreds of thousands of practitioners now in labour camps, and that they've also been stuffed into psychiatric institutes strikes me as too inadequate. We should share thoughts on this. The organ harvesting has now been taken out the introduction. I think this is also mistaken, but don't want to seem too pushy.

We ought to move through the article methodically and nut it out section by section. This is a start. Hope it helps. --Asdfg12345 14:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Further points:

  • It's an interesting remark about Penny. I guess we can only make this on consensus. I think it's highly relevant given the context of Falun Gong, what has happened in China, and his status. He is one of the foremost scholars on Falun Gong, so his words come with serious weight. You will not finding him praising Falun Gong, but he does a lot of analysis of it. I couldn't argue a rule for this here, I just think it's useful for readers to immediately grasp the situation. If there are similar comments in Ownby and other relevant scholars, this may be a point to make. Not sure for now, eh.
  • made some comments above about the persecution remarks. I think it's a real danger to either 1) overdo it with emotive stuff, or 2) make it seem like it's not actually as severe as it is, or mince words on minor things like "ban", etc.. Mainly responded to above. It wouldn't be an issue if Falun Gong was only "banned". It's the torture, forced labour, and psychiatric abuses on a mass scale that makes it all rather shocking and notable.
The intro now contains a brief discussion of what FG really is. Three scholars are quoted on the subject. Alun and I have repeatedly tried to insert a sentence to the effect that additionally, many people regard FG as a "destructive" or "pernicious" cult. I have referenced this with a Time Magazine piece headed "Spiritual Society or Evil Cult?". This article indicates clearly that viewing FG as an evil cult is not uncommon. I chose a less damning word than "evil", preferring to say "pernicious". This is in the context of a discussion about what FG is, and I do not suggest that the article should state as a fact that it is an evil cult.
I'm putting this back again, and, as it is referenced to a reputable source, I do not expect it to get deleted.
Martin Rundkvist (talk) 08:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you kidding me, Martin, or don't you really know what "pernicious" means? It has a really archaic sense to it, as if Falun Gong was the incarnation of some archaic evil. It's extremely dehumanizing. The word "evil cult", xiejiao, is originally uttered by Jiang Zemin (he said it in France after the persecution started). Actually, the literal meaning of the Chinese term is "heretical religion". We should stick to what the sources say, not invent some new expressions based on our preferences, see Wikipedia:No original research. And it is explicitly forbidden to state "many/some people think..." or anything like that, have another look at Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words#Other problems. The correct form is: X says Y in Z. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
This may be a problem in that we don't all speak the same variant of English. I learned English in the UK where pernicious means seriously harmful rather than evil. I know it has an archaic meaning of evil, and that American English is in some ways archaic viewed from the UK. While I think Martin's description is milder I can see how many people wouldn't. Reluctantly I agree with Olaf Stephanos and say we should go back to the source which is evil. I think that's overly harsh but Olaf is right, attempting to ameliorate the term is probably POV. Alunsalt (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Olaf Stephanos, your word association is not the absolute truth, but luckily there are many useful synonyms for pernicious that we can use instead... unless it turns out, of course, that you can find fault with all of them. Instead of repeating your argument against weasel words, might I ask you to provide coherent arguments against the actually listed sources? PerEdman (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
If z=valid by {WP:V,WP:NOR,WP:NPOV} then get x (z); get y (z); print x," says ",y," in ",z; verify x,y (z).
That should be pretty straightforward. We can report what reliable, verifiable sources have said, precisely and only that, also on the level of individual words. Who, what, where. No generalizations, no elaborations, no original research. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 00:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
And since the injected text is now V, NOR and NPOV, we could simply restructure the text to correspond to the Olaf Accepted format, and we'll be hunky-dory. Perfect. Unless, of course, you want to apply your formula (including NPOV, of course) to the rest of the article as well, right away. You'd have to do it yourself since I can't and wouldn't edit the article. PerEdman (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The statement in the lead:

"Additionally there have been accusations that Falun Gong is a pernicious cult.[2]

MRun wrote:

"Time Mag piece documents clearly that some people think FG is an "evil cult""

The time article is small enough and I have read it a couple of times already, can you please show me who are those some people portrayed in the article who think FG is an "evil cult""? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Also please note that the word "pernicious" can not be found in the source and the "evil cult" sequence is a question, is not a statement. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I've found two secondary sources which refer to FG as an undesirable cult or sect. I hope that helps clear up that problem, but if we need a third we can pull in Randi. Additionally it turns out Benjamin Penny thinks Falun Gong is a religion as far as western understanding goes. We now have three Sinologists who say it's a religion: Haar, Ownby and Penny. Hopefully we can now move on to improving other parts of the article. I'd rather not have to cite literature supportive of the Falun Gong in triplicate, but if that's what they other editors feel it needs then that's what I'll do. I'm just concerned that if we do stick to a triple-cite rule and WP:RS then we'll have very little on FG beliefs and masses on its fight against the Chinese government, which I think would be misrepresenting the FG and playing into the Chinese government hands. Alunsalt (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's a problem mentioning how Falun Gong is understood by various sinologists, the practitioners themselves, the Chinese government, anti-"cult" warriors, and so forth. The real key issue is to mention how differently it is conceived, depending on the vantage point. There's no consensus at all, so to say. Why it's not a religion in everybody's eyes, and what definition of "religion" is being used when it's categorized as such - these are important questions that shouldn't be neglected. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello the intro is getting long ... I think we should summarize in equal parts.

  1. about the practice, what are the core teachings
  2. about the persecution
  3. about third party views: critics and support

Do you think 3 paragraph's would be enough? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's get rid of Penny's value judgement, re: "important phenomenon". Those words don't really mean anything. Is it praise? Is it cricitism? What does he mean, concretely? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

We can mention the varying views on Falun Gong in the lead, but there is something called WP:DUE. I think the only mainstream person, no longer around, who says Falun Gong is a cult is Singer. You might also note that as far as I know, she never said a bad word against the persecution. It is terribly unfortunate that those who attack Falun Gong also have a tendency to downplay the nasty things happening to them in China. The other people I am aware of who deride Falun Gong are not sinologists or other relevant experts, but are downright doubtful, such as Patsy Rahn, a failed soap actress who wrote some negative things about FLG as an undergrad (surprise: she also says there is no persecution). I would say the difficulty in representing these views in a simple way should mean the introduction becomes extremely plain and only provides a broad outline, rather than specific comments. I would not, for instance, generally think Livia Kohn's remarks are all that appropriate for an introduction. But when fringe views are being so far elevated, there seems no choice. A few notes:

  • Please do not re-characterise Falun Gong as a religious practice in the second sentence. It is fine to provide third party commentary, but definitional power belongs to the subject. If it were not so, articles would be a mess, where you have competing and contested views vying to identify right from the start—they can actually only comment and analyse.
  • Please do not remove the small amount of wording which makes clear the extent of what is happening in China. There's no reason for this. It's the biggest human rights abuse in China, shown clearly by the facts. The lead should point out the main things associated with the subject.
  • Please do not remove Penny's characterisation of Falun Gong as a very important phenomena. There were over 70million practitioners in China at the peak of Falun Gong's popularity. The persecution has turned the whole society upside down. Falun Gong is now the largest dissident group outside and inside China. I can think of three high-level China scholars who have made this point about the importance of Falun Gong: Penny, Ownby, Arthur Waldron. There may be more.
  • Minority views such as Singers should not even be accorded a place in the introduction. I know deleting it will just cause indignance, so I have refrained from doing so, but I would urge everyone to read WP:DUE, and just think about the source situation here. You've got China scholars saying one thing, and a fringe group of "cult busters" and partisan sceptics, many with no academic credentials, who are not engaging in analysis or research, but merely rhetoric, on the other. I qualify that Singer's purported phone calls from 40 anonymous people is the most substantial thing I've seen. But this is saying something, because that's not substantial at all.--Asdfg12345 13:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
definitional power belongs to the subject Can you point me to the Wikipedia policy that says this? WP:RS says that we should go for third party sources, which presumably explains why the O.J._Simpson entry starts the way it does. The source asdfg12345 briefly cited also calls Falun Gong a religion. The reason this is important is that secondary sources are needed if we want to gain GA status. Without GA status the distribution of this article will be limited. Personally I think deleting citations is probably a bad idea. Can asdfg12345 or anyone else explain under what situations deleting verifiable secondary sources is a good idea? We have the further problem that the Chinese Government has declared itself the authority on Buddhism over the Dalai Lama. If they do the same with Falun Gong does that mean they get the self-definition?
Without WP:RS then we're into an edit war between FG and the Chinese government. For instance I can point you to hundreds of pages which say Falun Gong is an evil cult. The reason I don't think they belong in the article is WP:RS. Wikipedia policy is a good idea on this occasion.
If the intro is such a problem I leave that to others to balance and I'll move onto the beliefs. Alunsalt (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
My apologies, the reference I thought was deleted was on another line. Doh! I'll leave it to asdfg or someone else to reframe it as best they can. Alunsalt (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Check out WP:ID. This also strikes me as making the most sense. It's not a question that Falun Gong is a spiritual practice, but there are clearly disagreements that it is religious. This is a matter of terminology and it needs some explanation. Or, we can just drop this, and call it a "high-level cultivation practice" as it says on falundafa.org. I think "spiritual practice" which appears in plenty of sources also and is quite neutral, should just stay.

I also share your great hesitancy in deleting verifiable sources. You must admit that difficulties will inevitably arise, on the other hand, if every verifiable source gets its say in the lead. These are complex issues that have to be resolved through discussion, consensus, and some understanding—or at least sincere attempt to understand—the subject. For example, I think fringe and minority views should not be given a prominent position, as they are now in the lead. The apparent controversy around Falun Gong comes from one main source: the persecution and the CCP's massive international propaganda campaign to vilify practitioners. This is basically the root of it. Without this, Falun Gong would not really be heard of too much in the West, and practitioners would just keep quietly doing their exercises and reading their books. Everything changed after July 99, and then you've got "cult-busters" jumping on the bandwagon. Falun Gong is a set of free teachings and exercises, and it's as simple as this. Real scholars are clear on this point, whereas the more sensationalist type figures make something out of nothing from aspects of Falun Gong's teachings, and share their unfounded opinions on whatever they like. Anyway, some issues.

I might also make a remark on the beliefs: it's not conceivable to expound on the beliefs of Falun Gong without close, and majority reference to the teachings themselves, even though it is a primary source. Primary sources are quite okay in articles about themselves. --Asdfg12345 01:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the link you mean is this one as WP:ID is (confusingly) about Indonesia. Having read that I'm happy with that line of argument, but it's not really my problem any more. Alunsalt (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

whoops, sorry, thanks! --Asdfg12345 10:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this a valid source?

The following sentence in the article:

In 1994 Falun Gong was also being taught at the Chinese consulate in New York, as part of the Party's "cultural propaganda to the West" alongside Chinese silk and cooking.

referenced to this link Media and Internet Censorship in China, the referenced link is nothing but a program description, and the guest of the program is a spokesperson for Falun Gong, I don't think this is a valid source. Zixingche (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You can listen to the program, I'm pretty sure. That radio program is among the most respected in Australia; Philip Adams is an A-list intellectual. Erping Zhang was talking about his experience in the New York consulate in 1994. It isn't made up, it's actually in quite a number of reliable sources that the CCP either tacitly or directly supported Falun Gong for several years, until it got too big.--Asdfg12345 14:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't listen to the program, there is not link to play the program, and considering who Zhang Erping is, I still do not believe this is a valid source. Zixingche (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
And as you said, there are quite a number of reliable sources, would you please provide a better source?Zixingche (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

We need more on beliefs

If you look at the other pages on Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Taoism, and less so Buddhism then the thing they all push up at the front are the beliefs, teachings and practices. If you look at where this article was a week ago then it was politics first. That's a serious problem, especially when you look at the poverty of the Beliefs section in this article.

Basically I can read that the teachings are in a couple of books. There's a bit of Fa, and xinxing. I know there's a Teachings of Falun Gong page, but to some extent that looks like a POV-fork. If you wanted to portray FG as primarily an anti-CCP sect, the current article would be a good starting point. I appreciate the actions of the CCP are a major influence on FG, but they're not the defining influence are they? If someone asked you "Why practice Falun Gong?" would your answer be:

  • Because it promotes health, happiness and well-being.

or

  • Because the Chinese Communist Party doesn't want us to!

I think I made a mistake leaving Beliefs and Teachings in section 2. It should be section 1.

Including more information on beliefs doesn't automatically mean Teachings of Falun Gong gets deleted, though I think it may have WP:RS problems. What it does it it helps explain why Falun Gong matters. More on the beliefs will also reduce the impact of sections like homophobia which I know some editors are unhappy with by putting it in its wider context. That I think would be a more positive step than deleting anything anyone doesn't like. If the sections are written well then they could be seeds for further more discursive pages.

Right now the article is more about the politics surround Falun Gong rather than Falun Gong itself and I think that is be a major hurdle between the current article and GA status. If this article doesn't get GA or 1.0 status then it will not be going out on the DVD versions of Wikipedia.

So I propose we expand Beliefs and move Origins down below it so it sits with the history sections. But I haven't done it because I think this is where FG practioners can make a really positive contribution in moving this article forward. Alunsalt (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Origins and theoretical context must come first. They are extremely crucial information for providing a basic idea of what ontological area we're talking about, what happened before Falun Gong, and why certain matters are brought up in the teachings. Otherwise, it could seem like some random guy just invented a really weird story out of nowhere. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that they must come first, though I agree they are crucial information. Look at other articles on similar subjects; I am certain you will have a hard time leading a similar argument for comparable movements. That is, if you even believe there is such a thing as a movement comparable to Falun Gong. PerEdman (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, this could be another mistake on my part. I was thinking of 'Origins' in a chronological sense which is why I suggested moving it below Beliefs so it ran onto the history section. If we're talking about 'Origins' as in 'What were the roots of Falun Gong?' then I can see that it could be early. In fact it probably needs to be within the Beliefs section so you get:
  • 1 Beliefs and Teachings
  • 1.1 Origins
  • 1.2 The Theoretical Context of Qigong
  • 1.3 Zhuan Falun, the Main Book of Falun Gong
etc...
Does this sound better? I notice Christianity doesn't start with its origins as a Jewish cult, but Christianity likes to be seen as something distinct from Judaism, while Falun Gong, unless I'm mistaken emphasises continuity with traditional Chinese beliefs.
...though we shouldn't knock random guys inventing really weird stories out of nowhere. It worked for many ancient religions ;) Alunsalt (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Even if the article was written in a strictly chronological order, the roots of Falun Gong would probably still come first (it didn't begin before it began, did it?) excepting the Intro, since that is intended not as the beginning of the text itself but an abstract of the rest of the text. Now, I don't actually suggest a chronological order - I suggest putting the defining characteristics of Falun Gong, the core, important part of the belief, as far up as possible. Its current persecution is definitly the most acute issue at the moment, but it cannot be the most important characteristic of Falun Gong. PerEdman (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Alunsalt, do you know what "making/becoming saint" means? I'm suprised this is not mentioned in an article about Falun Gong. Some of this stuff FLG teaches are borrowed from old time Chinese folk religon/mystics about eternal life.
This notion was mentioned in a series on FLG, written by journalist Francesco Sisci:
http://atimes.com/china/CA30Ad01.html
It appears the aging Cultural Revolution era CCP cadres were using FLG as a political tool to attempt to regain their clout. It was refered to as "making saint" period for these old party hands that didn't want to let go, used the movement to mobiliz and resist transfer of power within the party. Bobby fletcher (talk) 07:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Alunsalt, perhaps that's because the Gong is essentially a political movement attempted/attempting to overturn the Chinese government. All those bull-excretion about spiritual/religious elements is just camouflage.
Edit wars are amazing, watching common sense die is entertaining as well.154.5.61.233 (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
154.5.61.233 To my understanding you are able to speak Chinese and your English is much better than mine, may I suggest you to create a account and join us? We really need some good editors to contribute to this article, as the current content of the article is totally a joke. Zixingche (talk) 09:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Number of followers

Some extraordinary claims are being made on this page re numbers of followers. This page from CENSUR says the Chinese state only estimate 2 million. --Simon D M (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times mentioned a figure of 70 million in at least two articles, both released 27th of April, 1999 - one of them written by Seth Faison and another by Joseph Kahn, who professed that "Beijing puts the tally of ... followers at 70 million". Renee Schoof, writing for the Associated Press (26th of April, 1999), mentioned a figure of "at least 70 million, according to the State Sports Administration". Note that this is before the persecution officially started. They're systematically trying to downplay the influence of Falun Gong in the Chinese society. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Please cite the source Olaf. Is NYT refering to some FLG representation, or you are again, misquoting? After the giant "good faith" mis-quote of Nowak, I must insist you be more careful, and cite your claims. Bobby fletcher (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Olaf, you also have to be clear on what the article is saying, eg are we talking now or in the movements heyday? Are we talking members or people who have ever practised FG? --Simon D M (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
See here: [11] "Beijing puts the tally of his followers at 70 million." --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
With such widely varying figures being touted, maybe we shouldn't be relying on newspaper articles, but look to academic analyses that don't just pluck figures unquestioningly from other reports. --Simon D M (talk) 10:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The best we can do is say what the Sports Administration said. There's no way to measure how many practitioners there really are, since there is no official or central thing counting people or like, doing anything I guess. --Asdfg12345 11:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If there are a range of estimates, the best we can do is reflect that. Contesting Media Power: Alternative Media in a Networked World by Nick Couldry & James Curran p222 states: "The Chinese government, upon the banning of the movement in 1999, claimed only 2 million Falun Gong members." I think we have to be careful about passing on unsupportable claims as fact. Even if there are only 55 million adherents, that would be more than the number of Sikhs, Jews, Bahais, Confucianists, Jains and Shintoists combined, and FG would rank 5th among the world's major religious groups. --Simon D M (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

They did the survey and that's what they found. There were Falun Gong exercise sites all over China. I hear you could not take two steps in China without seeing a practice site. The 2 million was a cynical attempt to downplay Falun Gong's significance. You are right when you suggest this would make Falun Gong a major thing. It is a major thing. I understand you may be incredulous, but we report what the sources say, and it's widely known (and in reliable sources somewhere) that the 2 million is a fabrication for political purposes. This can be explained later, but up front things should just be reported. This figure comes from the CCP itself.--Asdfg12345 14:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything incredible, Sathya Sai Baba advocates also claim 60 million adherents. Sure the 2 million could be political, but so equally could the 70 million and the 100 million. If we should be reporting anything in the face of such huge discrepancy, it should be the range of estimates as in this section. --Simon D M (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I proposed we add cite a notable source on this. Here's what US congressional research service Asian affiars specialist Dr. Thomas Lum wrote in 2006:
http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/RL33437.pdf
"During the mid-1990s, Falun Gong acquired a large and diverse following, with estimates ranging from 3 to 70 million members, including several thousand practitioners in the United States." (page CRS-2)
"There are an estimated several thousand Falun Gong practitioners in the United States and similarly large numbers of adherents in other countries with large ethnic Chinese populations." (page CRS-8)
Bobby fletcher (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There was not really any political imperatives surrounding the representation of Falun Gong pre-1999. I don't see why that central figure, first reported and only cut down post-persecution for obvious political reasons, shouldn't be in the lead. Or maybe that's not what you're saying. I wouldn't look to exclude a range of estimates backed up with their explanations in the article, and that's what we should do. --Asdfg12345 02:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

3rd Party Views

What is the justification for hiving off 3rd party views into a spin-out page? This is highly irregular as the main article should be based around 3rd party material if it is available, not self-published material. --Simon D M (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a good question, Simon. We were pondering the same thing when it was decided that the main article will be split into parts. Originally we had only one article that started getting longer and longer and... then some administrators stepped in, so we had to think of how to divide the material. "Third-party views" was created for the stuff that couldn't fit into "history", "teachings", "outside of China" or "persecution" (or "criticism and controversies", which was later removed because it was a POV fork created by a couple of original researchers who were forever banned last summer). ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not agree with you Olaf.
Simon, please change it, you have my vote, but be prepared for a war. The purpose of this is clear. Until recent addition of the Qubec Court decision (even notable source fully source and discussed in Talk where hacked up by FLG editor Asdfg) and, it was POV'd into a FLG promotional material. This MO has been time and again demonstrated by these editors, as my personal experience dictate I can no longer assume good faith, lord knows I've tried. Bobby fletcher (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Bobby fletcher (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying that I'm in favor of the current division. Do you have a better idea, Charles? We can't go back to having one long article, because it's against the guidelines. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
You honestly don't see a problem when a bunch of FLG disciples guarding a page on Falun Gong, and 3rd party section contains only pro-FLG stuff while all criticism are religated to another page? You all just hope others wouldn't bother to click-thru? This page and all the edit war just because somebody want to add a fact y'all don't like now this article POV'd to the most shameful degree.
Bobby fletcher (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, as long as the criticism is well-sourced and not forcibly pushed into the lead section (like you were trying to do), I don't see a problem there. I have repeatedly suggested that we should rewrite the lead section based on the lowest common denominator. It's the only way to prevent an arms race there. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Since you brought it up, let's take a look what happened:
1) You FLG disciple editors objected to the term "controversial" and started warring/blanking Martin; 2) When I cited a notable source from Qubec Superior Court declaring FLG controversial, I first placed the in Talk, then in the sandbox, before I placed it in the article (giving you ample opportunity to shape it) - it still got blanked and hacked up; 3) I didn't object to reasonable edit(move to 3rd party view), only objected to the blanking by Fkndz and "simplified" to almost nothing in detail body by Asdfg.
Do you understand why it is so lame to "simplify" detailed body to enforce your POV? I only quotes the 2-3 most relevant lines. My god if you people realy are that uncomfortable with "rotating wheel in the stomach", may I suggest you are in the wrong religion/movement/spiritual practice/whatever? It's a FACT from NOTABLE SOURCE!!!
Bobby fletcher (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
No, we're in the right religion/movement/spiritual practice/whatever, thank you. You inserted an indented quote into the lead section. Don't try to avoid that. There are plenty of reasons to argue that scientific research is more important than an individual court statement, especially now that the case is still in appeal. Of course, it's still a valid source from Wikipedia's perspective, but you won't insert it wherever you please. I temporarily moved it into the 3rd party section, and eventually we should organize it under an appropriate header in a relevant daughter article. The lead section's only purpose is to establish a context and provide a brief summary. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 01:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see 3), I did not object to the move; I left your edit in place. I only objected to the blanking and hacking. How about this? You put Justice Rousseau's quotes in the article. If you don't I'll take it that you either 1) don't want in the article, 2) can not do a better job. Bobby fletcher (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Olaf, POV forking is unwiki WP:POVFORK. When you lump facts you don't like into click-thru (and hope people don't see it), only keep the FLG praises and promotional material, it is POVFORK.
Bobby fletcher (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue I was initially raising is that 3rd party views should not be relegated to a spin-off page if they are reliable and verifiable. If you are saying that this page is covering miscellaneous topics only that are not suitable for the main page, then the title is wrong. The 3rd party section should have a neutral summary of the contents of the spin-off page, not be of an opposing POV. Critical coverage should not be relegated wholesale to another page, especially if the title does not reflect that. The lead of the main article should be in accord with WP:LEAD and refer to controversy if it is significant, but not be dominated by it. Let's also stick to discussion of the edits and lay off the personal sniping, however tempted/provoked we might feel. --Simon D M (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Simon, WP:POVFORK is what happened. This section used to be called "Criticism", but that was too POV so it got changed to 3rd party view, and eventually the gang of self-admitted FLG disciple editors (some I suspect even work for FLG-funded newspaper Epoch Times) pushed anything they don't like out of the main article. This is my personal experience, if you want to see example I'd be glad to produce diffs to substantiate why I can no longer WP:AGF. Bobby fletcher (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Simon, your "controversey" comment is worth a look. The term "controversey" was repeatedly blanked out of this article, even after notable source was discussed in Talk, placed in sandbox, then moved to the article - it still got blanked by editor Fkndz and details in discussion body "simpilified"/hacked to POV by editor Asdfg (Olaf moved it to 3rd pt vw, which I did not object.) Check the 2 disputes near the top of talk, which neither editors Fnhddz and Asdfg had responded.
I know at least one of them is around, Asdfg was busy blanking another fact. Bobby fletcher (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking forward, the 3rd party page currently contains just the controversial stuff. I think 'controversy' is a fair term, right or wrong there is no doubt that FG is controversial, at the very least in PRC. 'Controversy' is better than 'criticism' because almost every criticism on the page is matched by an opposing view. Whatever term is used, the page needs to be renamed and the corresponding section in the main article needs to be renamed and filled with a neutral summary of the 'controversies'. --Simon D M (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that the title used for this section be "Competing representations of Falun Gong" or just "Competing representations". There are a number of reasons for this. Quickly and simply, I think it's more neutral and descriptive. --Asdfg12345 03:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I vote for "controversy". This term is also factual, as it has notable source making such declaration, per Qubec Superior Court. Bobby fletcher (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The term "controversy" is not neutral in an article name; it's already highlighting the alleged "controversial" nature of Falun Gong, and we must strive for 100 % non-partisan naming conventions. That's why I vote against. In my opinion, "Competing representations of Falun Gong" is the best suggestion so far, but I'd still like to hear other ideas. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 00:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's look for consensus rather than take a vote. Section titles includings the term 'controversy' are extremely common in the WP article space - I've never heard it objected to. 'Competing representations' only occurs once in the whole article space, on Li's page, and seems like too broad a category to really be useful. I don't see how something can be persecuted without being controversial. FG is even listed in Wikipedia:List of controversial issues. --Simon D M (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Reasoning with religious fanatics is hopeless, people. It's not worth it. Just tell yourself "I do not give a fuck about it" and be merry. Preserve your brain cells for greater things such as the advancement of scientific technology and future generations. They will die out eventually, it's not Middle Ages anymore. --154.5.61.233 (talk) 06:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess the main thing is that, ironically, it is arguable that Falun Gong is uncontroversial. It's a simple meditation and spiritual practice. There are competing representations of it, though, as in, Falun Gong representing itself as uncontroversial and a cultivation system, journalists or others representing it as controversial, good, bad, silly, etc., and the CCP representing it as whatever hate speech they cook up. The key factor is that "competing representations" makes controversy itself a representation, it does not imply it. I wonder if this point is clear. We want an academic standard treatment of this issue. The article title itself should not reflect a bias or a predilection toward one view, but be able to encompass various views. "Competing representations" is broad, as you say, and it will be able to negotiate all the different, competing, views on Falun Gong. Naming it controversial from the start already gives credit to one set of views, and we should try to avoid this per WP:NPOV. (I just highlighted and wrote over the anon IP useless commentary)--Asdfg12345 10:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that even the question of whether FG is controversial or not is controversial  :) --Simon D M (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Useless or not, it is not up to you, nor can you delete comments just because you don't like it. You have just proved that you don't like freedom of speech for your opponents. I bet you learned that from the CCP? Kind of irony isn't it? Reminds me what Israel is doing to Arabs. --154.5.61.233 (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Hear, hear, the wailing of the anonymous IP in the wind. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Moved content to Qigong article

The debate between what can be called "naturalist" and "supernaturalist" schools of qigong theory has produced a considerable literature.[citation needed] Scholar Xu Jian analysed the intellectual debate, which involved both scientific research on qigong and the prevailing revival of nationalistic traditional beliefs and values.

“Taking 'discourse' in its contemporary sense as referring to forms of representation that generate specific cultural and historical fields of meaning, we can describe one such discourse as rational and scientific and the other as psychosomatic and metaphysical. Each strives to establish its own order of power and knowledge, its own 'truth' about the 'reality' of qigong, although they differ drastically in their explanation of many of its phenomena.”[3]

At the center of the debate is whether and how qigong can bring forth “supernormal abilities” (teyi gongneng 特異功能).

“The psychosomatic discourse emphasizes the inexplicable power of qigong and relishes its occult workings, whereas the rational discourse strives to demystify many of its phenomena and to situate it strictly in the knowledge of modern science."[3]

The Chinese government has generally tried to encourage qigong as a science and discourage religious or supernatural elements. However, the category of science in China tends to include things that are generally not considered scientific in the West, including qigong and traditional Chinese medicine.[citation needed]

David Aikman wrote that unlike in America, where many may believe that qigong is a socially neutral, subjective, New Age-style concept incapable of scientific proof, much of China's scientific establishment believes in the existence of Qi. Controlled experiments[citation needed] by the Chinese Academy of Sciences in the late 1970s and early 1980s concluded that qi, when emitted by a qigong expert, "actually constitutes measurable infrared electromagnetic waves and causes chemical changes in static water through mental concentration."[4]

Theories about the cultivation of elixir (dan), "placement of the mysterious pass" (xuanguan shewei), among others, are also found in ancient Chinese texts such as The Book of Elixir (Dan Jing), Daoist Canon (Tao Zang) and Guide to Nature and Longevity (Xingming Guizhi). Falun Gong's teachings tap into a wide array of phenomena and cultural heritage that has been debated for ages. However, the definitions of many of the terms used differ somewhat from Buddhist and Daoist traditions.[citation needed]

The above has been moved and will be replaced by new content from the Third Parties page. Give me a few minutes to tidy all this up. --Simon D M (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you have made a mistake here. I don't think this should be moved. Some of it might be appropriate to move, but this context is really needed in terms of Falun Gong. Whoever slapped the fact tags there went overboard, it's all in the sources first cited, they are just not cited repeatedly. Falun Gong is tapping directly into the supernaturalist discourse of qigong, and I don't think we can assume that people are going to read the Qigong article as a primer to the Falun Gong one. I would hope the Falun Gong article has a self-contained contextualisation, and I fear this is being eroded by moving all this content. I haven't seen the page yet, so I can't say what it looks like in the end, but a lot of this provides very important context, which the more general stuff from Ownby and I think Johnson did not exactly do.

I would suggest, actually, a synthesis of the two versions, where a reduced version of this theoretical stuff plus a reduced version of the more straight historical stuff is used to contextualise Falun Gong. We ought to discuss how much it is reduced etc., but some of this above is really crucial in my view.--Asdfg12345 03:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The expanded versions of each would appear on the qigong page.--Asdfg12345 03:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've got no problem at all with a much reduced summary that refers back to the qigong page. Incidentally, the expanded material greatly improves the qigong page which was at a very basic level and still needs a lot of improvement. --Simon D M (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the shuffling around was certainly helpful, and will allow much more concision and directness in addressing the Falun Gong specific stuff. The punchier, cleaner, and more to the point all that is the better. A good context is still necessary, but it was swimming in background, which you have really helped to fix. Thanks.--Asdfg12345 10:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Li Hongzhi states in Falun Buddha Fa Lecture in Europe:

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

Plan to move from POV to GA

I'm back here for a little while. I've been having a bit of think about how to try and move this forward and about where I've been making making mistakes. One mistake I think has been trying to work on this piecemeal. It's not so much a matter of whether this article is biased for or against Falun Gong, it's also about the wider Wikipedia. I'll be open so that no-one feels I'm ambushing them. I think this entry is heavily biased in favour of Falun Gong - but that the wider context is biased against it. Even in the article while I think most of the bias is towards Falun Gong, there are bits which work against it and I can see that tackling the bias bit by bit would make the Falun Gong practitioners feel that they're in a battle, so naturally they'll defend their position.

I was going to try and write an NPOV compromise but I've given that up as a bad job too. If people here don't buy into the philosophy behind it then it could be the best article in the world and it would be hacked away from both sides. I can assure you it wouldn't be the best article in the world and I'd encourage correcting it, but then why write it in the first place when you all can do better? So this is a long post explaining notes in my sandbox.

Good Article status should be the goal

Well duh! Everyone agrees with that. I'm assuming no-one is deliberately making a bad article. Even if you are that anti-social there'd be better pages to vandalise. What I mean is that its better that the article gets GA status than perfectly reflecting your view. Perfection with so many people here will not happen. GA status could.

As an example right now all the points have counter-points and rebuttals from the Falun Gong believers. Critical points are edited and ameliorated. The result is not a Good Article. It's an NPOV banner. Wikipedia has a reputation for having colonies of nutters and someone reading the article and seeing the comprehensive put down of opposing views will get that opinion of Falun Gong. The average wikipedia reader is not stupid. Ok some are, but are these really the sort of people you want to win over? Neither side has to accept this plan, but if you don't come up with an alternative then both sides lose. The sceptics will not get their opinions read and Falun Gong will be discredited as long as the NPOV sign stays.

So here's a link to the draft in the sandbox and a description of what I think is important.

We possible we should abandon the pro and anti stance in the article

Start with a look at the links. I'll have to ask for some forbearance from Asdfg12345 because I'll use a couple of his edits as examples. One was that he felt that links should be balanced between pro and anti. This doesn't work. For the sake of argument let's assume James Randi was listed as a link. Now if he changes his mind about Falun Gong and decides its all positive what do we do? Kick him and another pro- link out to maintain balance? Surely if his expertise is noteworthy when he's anti- Falun Gong then it's still noteworthy if he changes his mind. I can see why Asdfg12345 is keen on balance. I agree with the aim but in practice it doesn't work and it only helps us think of the article as adversarial.

This came to me when I thought to put Epoch Times in. I think it's a relevant link for people wanting to find out about Falun Gong. Does that mean I have to get a token anti- link for NPOV? The way I'm looking at it is "Is the article better with the Epoch Times link in?" The answer is yes. It should go in.

What I have done is suggest Falun Dafa goes at the top of the list. If there's just one external link on the page it should be this one. The others go in alphabetical order. I know there's a lot of national Falun Dafa sites and I'm not saying they should all be included, but I think there are a few more Falun Gong sites which should be listed than are currently.

Lets not count exactly, but last words should be balanced

The other big issue is that the Falun Gong believers are very good at getting a last word on the end of anything critical. I can see why, without implying anything sinister. FG practioners are going to know their subject but again it's unworkable in the long term. If you are thinking one side versus the other then any right you're claiming for yourself has to also go to the opposition. We cannot have both Falun Gong practioners, skeptics and Chinese government supporters all having the last word on every article. This is somewhere where there'll have to be some give and take. I'll concede in some cases it does make obvious sense for one side to have the last word and I'll give a couple of examples.

Regarding the homophobia claims. I think they should go in, with citations from the papers raising the issue, and one of the nastier quotes from Li Hongzhi rather than the 'dark state of mind'. Now I realise I'm picking on Asdfg12345 again. He's said homophobia has little to do with Falun Gong. I checked the speeches starting from the beginning and by the time I'd got to 1999 I'd found dozens including a string of speeches where Li Hongzhi had raise the issue. It was late and I was disillusioned so I stopped there. I was a bit disappointed to find that Asdfg12345 was so emphatically wrong. I've since gone back and looks at the 2000 onwards speeches. It's like turning off a switch - the homophobia disappear. Then you get to the 'treat homosexuals as sentient beings' quote. I wouldn't say it was a full 180º turnaround, but it seems to be past 90º. In that instance I think it would make far more sense for the FG comment to go at the end. That way we can see where the claim came from, and why FG practitioners today wouldn't recognise homophobia as a feature of Falun Gong.

On the other side there was the Canadian case against Falun Gong practitioners which said that they do not react well to criticism. And the reaction was: "Please show the court page instead of placing your personal libels on math department http://www.math.mcgill.ca/triples. I would write to the department to disclose your abusing schools' resource." from fnhddzs. Irony is alive and well and living in Quebec.

In this instance I'd suggest not too graphically explaining what the allegations against Falun Gong were and make clear that the allegations (as best as I can tell from the court report) were groundless, but in this case end with the observation that Falun Gong does not react well to criticism. An FG rebuttal at the end really wouldn't help the cause.

Alun, could you read the case decision again? The suit was brought against a Chinese community paper by FLG disciples, and FLG lost the case with the judge citing free speech protection and FLG being a controversial movement. Bobby fletcher (talk) 07:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

One help with balance could also be the model X then Y. Not X then Y then X again. Whichever way you load it, it'll look unbalanced. It's a judgement call as to which claim goes first, but top 'n' tailing arguments is a bad idea.

Falun Gong should be treated as a religion for Wikipedia purposes

That means it gets kid gloves, which I know will annoy Dawkins atheists, but that's Wikipedia convention. I also know the term religion annoys FG practitioners. The reason I'm saying it goes in the religion category is based on the ethnographies. It's not perfect because 'religion' is a western concept. On the other hand this is an anglophone encyclopaedia for a largely Western audience. This also has other implications.

The primary focus of this article should be the belief. I think the Chinese government's banning of the Falun Gong also has to go in this article, but first and foremost when you practice Falun Gong I'm assuming you're doing this for some spiritual benefit rather than to smash the Communist Party. I've cobbled together a belief section in the sandbox and I fully expect the Falun Gong practitioners to say it's awful, and they'll be right. It's a cut 'n' paste job of what I thought were highlights from the Beliefs and Teaching of Falun Gong page. Now I'll be open about this. I think the Beliefs page should be deleted. What I think should go in its place are pages about beliefs. What are the details of the five practices? They should at least have a page of their own or, if there's the material, a page each of their own. Fa rectification might need a page. The relationship between the two major books needs to be explained and I'm sure that the Falun Gong practioners can come up with more.

If you look at all the other beliefs pages then they have separate pages, plural, for their beliefs. One page looks a bit weak, especially when there's more on the suppression. I'm not belittling that, but perhaps pages showing how Falun Gong is something similar to Tai-Chi rather than Heaven's Gate would show why the suppression is unjust. At the moment ignoring the main article I'd say there's a 2:4 split in the articles listed on the right as Falun Gong articles in favour of the Faluns Gong's fight with the Chinese government. Is it really true that fighting the Chinese government is twice as important as the beliefs and practices to a typical Falun Gong practioner?

All points are good and well spoken. Even the fight with the Chinese government is based on a policy and not with the government itself. The beliefs should be emphasized and the fight left out of the picture. Then the reader can get an understanding about FG beliefs that is not clouded with the politics of China, that issue should be addressed elsewhere and not dragged into every section of the article.208.242.58.125 (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Additional information

After the beliefs section there's the history. That's going to need balance. I accept that Falun Gong may have been protesting about beating in Tianjin, but they didn't turn up there on a whim, and there needs to be a mention of He Zuoxiu's article too.

I've not filled out the propaganda section at all. I'm really not keen on trawling the web to read the two sides presenting themselves in the worst light. I'm sure everyone has their own favourite examples.

Outside mainland China

This reiterates that the Falun Gong are in a struggle against the Chinese government. If that's all there is to this section it can be deleted. It's redundant as we can cover the issues in the other sections.

Instead what can be said about internationalisation of Falun Gong? Why forty languages for translation? How did it spread? Which countries has it been particularly successful in and why? I know this could sound like a pro-FG section, but as I see it it's about information which is lacking elsewhere in the article and could be useful if the reader lives outside China but wants to know more. And let's face it, if they're reading Wikipedia they're very likely outside China.

How to move on

First off is there anything in the plan above which is unacceptable at a general level? For instance is there anyone that cannot agree to last words sometimes not belonging to Falun Gong? Is the treatment of it as a religious belief flatly unacceptable? There's no point hammering out details if the foundations aren't agreed.

After that I suggest that people work on material together and then see how they can integrate it. At this stage you may want the help of a mediator. I'd suggest contacting WP:MEDCAB at this stage. I wouldn't suggest me as there's an RFC out against me, so I may be a nasty person with a secret agenda.

If you do want to argue details you can pick at intro (text below). It's an attempt to make an NPOV intro. I know it leaves some statements unchallenged but it's an overview of what the article's about. It's the first word not the last.

Falun Gong or Falun Dafa is a spiritual practice introduced to the public in China by Li Hongzhi （李洪志） in 1992.[1] It has five sets of meditation exercises and seeks to develop practitioners' hearts and character according to the principles of Truthfulness, Compassion, and Forbearance (真，善，忍）articulated in the main books Falun Gong （法輪功）and Zhuan Falun （轉法輪）.[2][3] The teachings deal with issues such as "cultivation of virtue and character", "moral standards for different levels", and "salvation of all sentient beings." The books have been translated into over 40 languages.
Followers of Falun Gong do not consider the practice a religion. Instead they see the roots of the practice as scientific, though the traditional Chinese concept of science includes practices and methods not usually included in the Western concept of science. Sinologists have argued that its heavy emphasis on morality means that Falun Gong is better understood in the West as as religion.[4].[5] However the term religion is a modern import into China and its use is often associated with a political agenda.[1]
In April 1999, a silent rally of 10,000 Beijing practitioners protested at the Chinese Communist Party headquarters at Zhongnanhai[6] against a critical article written about Falun Gong.[7] In an attempt to eliminate a political threat[8], the Chinese government then began large-scale violent persecution of the practice in mainland China.[9] Amnesty International has condemned the suppression of Falun Gong and similar groups as "undermining the exercise of fundamental rights."[10] However the Chinese goverment has argued that Falun Gong is an 'evil cult'.[11]
The number of practitioners is not known and estimates vary from two million according to the Chinese government to a hundred million according to Li Hongzhi.

This isn't a quick fix, but looking at the edit history I don't think you'll get a consensus and solve the NPOV problem with a couple of quick edits. I hope this is a help and if it's not then I apologise for stirring everyone up again. Here's the link again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alunsalt (talk • contribs)

  • Aaaah, breath of fresh air! You are admirably the first editor in a long time who appears to be working this project from a non-partisan perspective. I agree in essence with each of the main points. Another change which I feel needs making is that the article title 'Persecution of Falun Gong' is non-neutral, and needs to be renamed 'Suppression of Falun Gong'. The most common description in the mainstream press is "clampdown", "suppression" or "alleged persecution", with FG exclusively using "persecution", as if it was de facto and divine given; some human rights groups occasionally also allege "persecution". Much of the more detailed allegations of maltreatment and torture and associated graphic images of people who may or may not have been torture victims are sourced only from WP:SPS or primary sources (directly from FG) and should be deleted. Some practitioners came around and renamed the article "persecution", without any significant discussion, and have resisted attempts to change it back. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Love your work, Alun. For about two or three weeks starting now I won't be able to access wikipedia, but after that, I would gladly join this effort. I am in broad agreement about what you are saying. You made a lot of disclaimers, which is good, because there are many points I would take you to task on. You indicate that these should all be worked out as details, which is useful.
I can't give a comprehensive response to all that you've said right now, because of time constraints. I mostly came on to put a wikibreak tag on my page. I'm happy to see where it goes and help as I can when I get back. I am 'for' the general movement here. I am biased toward Falun Gong, I know that, and do not shy away from admitting it. I think Falun Gong is a good thing, it's as simple as that. At the same time, I am serious about constructing high-level encyclopedic quality articles on the subject. I would not bother investing time in trying to dish out pro-Falun Gong propaganda on wikipedia. No one would buy it, anyway. My primary concern is that the articles are neutral. I have read and am familiar with nearly all the academic literature on Falun Gong, and I nearly always back up what I say with high-level sources, and I make a strong effort to adhere strictly to wikipedia rules. I have backed out of disputes numerous times when I am outgunned, outclassed, or outsourced. I am aware of my bias, but above all am serious about making good, neutral articles. A few miscellaneous points, some thoughts, some responses:
  • I think the general movement in this article should be to treat Falun Gong in its cultural and historical context. This is the best way the subject is going to be properly understood and dealt with. There is some of this already, can do with more. Primarly this is two things: the ontological context (i.e., cultivation practice, qigong, theories of supernormal abilities, multiple dimensions, the divine nature of the universe, the unity between matter and spirit, etc.) and the historical/cultural context (the qigong boom of the 80s and 90s, cultivation practice as passed down through history, the qigong and cultivation discourse of the time). There is quite some material on this, already, and its presence may be strengthened by adding it more to the lead, I think. (David Ownby, probably the foremost expert on Falun Gong in the world, has recently published a book on Falun Gong. If you have a serious interest in this subject, I'd say you should read it.) Actually, you should actually read Zhuan Falun, or listen to the lectures, if you want to get a grip for yourself on what Falun Gong is about.
  • I agree about having much more on the teachings of Falun Gong. This is important. It's just a matter of someone doing it. And 1) I have not had much time, plus, worse, 2) I have not used my time well. Going forward, I would certainly like to see more of this. The persecution emphasis comes about I guess because it's such a huge and prominent thing.
  • You are right that I do not consider Falun Gong homophobic. I have a number of homosexual friends, who I get along very well with. Falun Gong's stake in it is metaphysical, not social. That homosexuals want to have equal marriage rights does not worry me, for example. I never meant to misrepresent anything to you, and whatever I have said has simply expressed my own perceptions. I think I said it was "mentioned two or three times", well, this is obviously wrong if you have actually searched and found a dozen independent instances. I just said that off the top of my head, because I could remember a couple of questions in I think it was the Switzerland conference. Apart from the Switzerland conference I am not too sure what there was. I remembered the LA "treat them as sentient beings", too. You may take from this that I do not actually consider it too important, and neither do practitioners in general. My previous affirmation still stands, an empirical measure of the significance of the subject in the teachings: it would not fill up 5 or 10 full pages, and while there are over 1000 pages of teachings, that's like less than one percent. When treating the teachings of Falun Gong in and of themselves, homosexuality should be put in its proper context. Some journalists and others have criticised Falun Gong for it though, so that should also be aired somewhere (whatever will replace the third-party page, maybe?), and yes, I think it should also be responded to by Falun Gong or sympathisers, which is my next point:
  • That criticism of Falun Gong has followed the form of thesis-antithesis. i.e.: someone is criticising Falun Gong, then Falun Gong or other defends it. This seems to me a fairly natural way of laying out the debate. Falun Gong or others would not be defending Falun Gong if it were not criticised; their argumentation is more-or-less a response to the criticism. You did not have Falun Gong or others pre-1999 arguing how Falun Gong is not a cult, because the CCP was not persecuting them and concocting propaganda. After 1999, you have a stack of this defence discourse. That's just a small point. Top-and-tailing it is not fair, you are right. Note also that mainstream academics on Falun Gong engage in analysis and discussion, rather than sensationalist "exposure" pieces; this is an e.g. of mainstream vs fringe views.
  • I like the ideas about how the overseas stuff should be treated. One thing to note here is that most of this is post-1999, and mostly response to persecution. I.e., the parades, public events, media outlets, websites, non-profit organisations, and so on, set up by practitioners, are all a post-1999 phenomenon, a response to the persecution. You would not see any of this otherwise, and you'd only hear about Falun Gong because you saw them exercising in the local park; it's fundamentally an inward-looking discipline. The overseas page now sucks because it is basically a chronicle of overseas persecution/response, so it's lame. It needs to be more theme-based, and select good examples from a few places to illustrate the different themes. Falun Gong is also one of the largest and most sustained dissident groups from mainland China, throughout the whole history of the CCP. This is a big deal.
  • I don't think a mediator is necessary? It's ironic you would suggest it, because I understand that mediators are basically in cases where there are two disputing parties, which is just what you have signaled should be put a stop to! It don't think it's needed. I want the pages to be great, neutral, and pass community review to become featured. I think the subject deserves it. I also acknowledge that I will have to budge in my own conceptions for this to happen. As of yet, if there are no indications that getting a neutral set of pages is going to be all out warfare, then I don't think mediation is appropriate or necessary. I welcome change to the articles, and a good dose of neutral outside opinion.
  • A final thing in response to confucius. The definition for persecution is: "the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another group or individual" (wikipedia) or "A program or campaign to subjugate or eliminate a specific group of people, often based on race, religion, sexuality, or social beliefs." (wiktionary). Isn't that what's happening to Falun Gong in China? is it biased to say that? Disqualifying the pictures of tortured people or protesting in Tiananmen getting beaten down is a surprising move. I don't know if it's because you are saying they are faked or what? On the Behind the Red Wall documentary, there is video footage of Tan Yongjie, pictured here at a doctors surgery, with the doctor talking about his burns. It's not like these pictures are made up, or the fact of the persecution is actually in question, is it? Do you really question that practitioners are being rounded up and jailed, put into forced labour camps, and tortured? Gao Rongrong's pic is also on an Amnesty factsheet. These qualify under fair use, and are used to illustrate the article. Personally, I think it's like trying to delete pictures from the holocaust or Rwandan genocide article, saying they are biased. I would just say: "oh, come on now."
  • The big problem with this article on Falun Gong is one of credibility as so many of the abuse claims put forward by the Falun Gong organization are not only unverifiable in nature, only partially verifiable or only verifiable as fabrications such as the pictures of "abuse victims" that were debunked by a reviewing MD, but their claims otherwise strain the mind to be believable for anyone intimately familiar with China. For instance, the Rhombus Disease Hospital in Shenyang that Falun has claimed to be historically used to cut Falun Gong members up for their organs and dispose of their bodies to the magnitude of thousands of people happens to be and has always been in an unguarded very public place, and is itself an unguarded public hopsital that anyone can walk into all located in a densely populated portion of China. For what they claimed to have happened without anyone knowing or reporting on it other than Falun Gong members and would require a rather harsh stretch of the imagination. The problem is that most people outside of China have no idea what life inside China is really like, or for that matter what the level of individual freedom inside China is really like, so it is easy for them to make uneducated assumptions; problems exist in China, but I'd hardly correlate them to Orwellian proportions. If you'd like to argue with me about it, then I'd suggest you do your homework, as I grew up in Beijing and half of my family still lives in the Shenyang area. Giving deference to Falun Gong for relating things in a truthful manner when they make such outlandish claims is like accepting the words of Alex Jones as a respectable source of journalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beerman5000 (talk • contribs)
This is where I naturally come to better understand the controversy surrounding FG and organ transplantation. The 'debunking' of pictures that you mention doesn't appear in this article or in the organ harvesting article. If it's true, then it needs to be added. Fuzzypeg★ 01:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What I would like to see is neutral language that is a simple necessity of a neutral non-biased article. One cannot state something as fact when it is unproven to be fact and may very well be utterly untrue and thus propagate rather harmful falsehoods. Beerman5000 (talk) 08:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This line is quite biased in its approach: "In an attempt to eliminate a political threat[8], the Chinese government then began large-scale violent persecution of the practice in mainland China.[9]" It alleges violence of which there is no proof and alleges that the government merely saw the religion as a political threat when according to them it was banned for being a form of social fraud in which the founders sought money and power from followers at the expense of their followers. Both mentions of violence are unverifiable except by Falun Gong sources. This is still just re-voicing propaganda. An argument could be made for repressing it as a religion, but not for any "large-scale violent persecution" of which there is NO record other than what is said by Falun Gong members themselves. If any personal epithets were at all useful in relating my experiences with Falun Gong, I'd relate them now, but personal stories of unverifiable nature are NOT useful; so, why do so many people here feel that just because claims are levied somewhere online or in some publication they must be related as the "Gospel" truth when Falun Gong has such a highly questionable ability to relate the truth? Beerman5000 (talk) 08:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I've seen photos of FG protesters being beaten by plain-clothes police. It seems fairly well established that a huge (huge) number of FG practitioners are held in prisons in China; are you suggesting that China didn't use any violence in detaining any of them? And Amnesty International deal with plenty of individual cases of torture victims from Chinese jails, quite a number of them FG. You're saying Amnesty International just make all this up? Sorry, I don't mean to make this sound accusatory. But what are you saying? Fuzzypeg★ 01:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This is misleading. There is no reliable source making these statements about those photos. This all comes from blogs and rumours. I suggest anyone who wants to read about this for sure go read the Kilgour Matas report, and I'll copy a line here because they respond to these photograph concerns. Actually, it's not long and I'm going to copy the whole thing here. Usually I don't respond to this kind of nonsense. Most people who peddle this rubbish aren't going to change their minds about this persecution and the reality of it anyway; they have dug in and chosen their side, and they'll say the sky is yellow as long as you say it's blue because you're "the enemy". I copy here the relevant section--Asdfg12345 03:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

29) Corpses with missing organs

FROM http://organharvestinvestigation.net/report0701/report20070131.htm#_Toc160145141

A number of family members of Falun Gong practitioners who died in detention reported seeing the corpses of their loved ones with surgical incisions and body parts missing. The authorities gave no coherent explanation for these mutilated corpses. Again the evidence about these mutilated corpses is attached as an appendix to this report.

We have only a few instances of such mutilated corpses. We have no official explanation why they were mutilated. Their mutilation is consistent with organ harvesting.

In the first version of our report, appendix twelve had a photo of a person with stitches after his body was cut open to remove organs. One comment we received back is that the stitches the photos show are consistent with an autopsy.

We observe that organs may indeed be removed for autopsies in order to determine the cause of death. A corpse which has been autopsied may well have stitches similar to those shown in the photo. Outside of China, except for organ donors, that is likely the reason why organs would be removed from a corpse. Similarly, outside of China, when people are blood tested, typically, the test is done for their own health. However, the suggestion that Falun Gong practitioners who are tortured to the point of death are blood tested for their health or that practitioners who are tortured to death are autopsied to determine the cause of death belies the torture experience.

The corpse whose photo we reproduced was that of Wang Bin. Beatings caused the artery in Mr. Wang's neck and major blood vessels to break. As a result, his tonsils were injured, his lymph nodes were crushed, and several bones were fractured. He had cigarette burns on the backs of his hands and inside his nostrils. There were bruises all over his body. Even though he was already close to death, he was tortured again at night. He finally lost consciousness. On the night of October 4, 2000, Mr. Wang died from his injuries.

The purpose of an autopsy report is to determine the cause of death when the cause is otherwise unknown. But in the case of Wang Bin, the cause of death was known before his organs were removed. The suggestion that Wang Bin would be autopsied to determine the cause of death after he was tortured to death is not plausible. There was no indication that the family of Wang Bin was asked for consent before the organs of the victim were removed nor provided an autopsy report afterwards. The suggestion of an autopsy is not a tenable explanation for the stitches on Wang Bin's body.

ENDS

Anyway, I'm wary of little talk and no action, so I'll stop here, wish you all best of luck in engaging with this complex topic, and rejoin sometime in two weeks to see what great stuff you have cooked up.--Asdfg12345 13:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The following articles, among others, are found on Wikipedia: Persecution of Jews, Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Muslims, Persecution_of_Bahá'ís, Persecution of Hindus, Persecution of Atheists, Persecution of Zoroastrians, Persecution of Rastafari, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses, Persecution of Germanic Pagans, Persecution of Buddhists, and Persecution of Wiccans. Before we can consider changing the article name, you'll have to explain why we should stray from these naming conventions. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 13:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:Title#Controversial names currently states: "Generally, an article's title should not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles." 'Persecution' can be correct by the dictionary and still POV. Many new religious movements could be called cults based on dictionary definitions, but calling them that in titles would be POV. WP:NPOV currently states: "The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints." 'Persecution' endorses a viewpoint, however justified that viewpoint may be. --Simon D M (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
On the related subject of saying what FG is: The term new religious movement seems to be commonly used by academics with reference to Falun Gong. Of course, many new religious movements object to being called religious, often preferring to be called spiritual paths or cultivations systems or some other term that only covers a part of the subject. --Simon D M (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
RE: balance, there needs to be some I'm sure, but for many non-adherents the suppression will be more notable than the beliefs. But as things stand there is too little on beliefs and practices on the main page, too much on the suppression, and too little on the criticisms of FG. --Simon D M (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
If there has been historical development on the issue of homophobia, that should find mention on one of the pages. --Simon D M (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way, Falun Gong's organ harveting allegation has been discredited by multiple undercover investigations:
US State Dept:
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&amp;m=April&x=20060416141157uhyggep0.5443231&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html
http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/RL33437.pdf (section CRS-7)
Chinese dissident Harry Wu:
http://www.cicus.org/info_eng/artshow.asp?ID=6491
http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20060806_1.htm
An expose from the Ottawa Citizen:
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/observer/story.html?id=2c15d2f0-f0ab-4da9-991a-23e4094de949&p=3 (page 3, 4)
Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Where/How to edit?

With a bit more thought then I propose we work in three phases.

Phase 1

We set up an article skeleton in a neutral sandbox. It could go in mine, but I'm wary of making it look like I'm the arbiter of what is or isn't neutral. Shared space would be better. Would a sub-page below Talk avoid auto-deletion?

For this phase we all add in the material we think should be in the article - without deleting anyone else's opinions. So for example under Outside mainland China OhConfucius can put in a sub heading with his name on it. If I want to contribute to that section too then I put in a subheading with my name on it, and work under my sub-heading without touching his. I realise that this will make the draft article MASSIVE and very repetitive, but it will also lay out what we're discussing.

Phase 2

I'd expect we'll find that the material will fall into three categories.

  • Uncontroversial material

That can go in without a problem. It may need copy editing but that's all.

  • Material where there is more than one opinion to be represented.

When we see what other people have written we'll want to compile the opinions and re-write them in the light of other opinions. Sometimes it'll be easy to say what is X and what is Y in the X then Y model. Sometimes it won't and we'll just have to barter over who is X and Y in that case. I'll also add the clarification this will have to be X then Y - not Y's opinion of X then Y.

  • Contradictory Material

The Propaganda section will produce plenty of this, because someone's going to say "Claim A isn't propaganda! It's a fact!" We'll probably be questioning WP:SPS and WP:RS a lot. I've no easy solution to that.

In this phase it also makes sense to look at the headings. For example I'd be amazed if "Propaganda" was ok with with everyone

A lot of this discussion is not going to be easy. That's why I suggest bringing in a mediator at this stage. I wholeheartedly agree with asdfg12345 that in the long term this is not a good idea. Right now though we've got a discussion with a lot of history and we're human. Even if everyone is working with the best intentions divisions aren't going to magically disappear by turning a new leaf. Someone with experience of mediating would be a big help in this phase.

Phase 3

With the bulk of the article done we now look at the introduction, We make it fairly minimal if we can and have it mention what is in the article below, not present things as conclusion. Again this may need a mediator.

With the main article ready we then need to discuss what the satellite articles are going to be and how they'll be arranged. The page doesn't exist in isolation and we'll need to look hard at how the various Falun Gong and Qijong pages relate to each other.

The current article

My only plans for this for now would be to leave it, as it's going to be wiped if we have a new article to put in. I know that means leaving a bad article up for a few more weeks, but I can't see a simple solution to that.

Equally this will be a discussion about the article not about the truth or otherwise about Falun Gong. Just because someone follows Falun Gong that won't rule them out of the discussion any more than being a Catholic rules you out of editing the Catholic pages. I'm not interested in 'enlightening' Falun Gong practioners or showing them the error of their ways. There might be a problem for bias to look out for in some situations, but if we're serious about improving coverage of the beliefs then it's a huge asset for many more.

It's also not about blaming any people for the current article. One of the things which is visible in the archives is that people were doing what they thought would make the article better. It's a collective problem that the process has run into a dead-end.

If some people have a serious problem with this model then I'm not offended, there may be a better way of doing this. This way is not quick but is it workable? Alun Salt (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's Go

I've been waiting for the barrage of comments, but the lack of it suggests to me that we may have a relatively uncontentious way forward. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

uhh? I would encourage others than myself to take the lead in this process. I think Alun's ideas are pretty good. "Propaganda" of course wouldn't be the best section heading—which purported propaganda is it referring to? The vilification against Falun Gong, or Falun Gong's response? I think the CCP stuff has plenty on it and can just go in the persecution article. There is some literature on Falun Gong's discursive media and publicity strategies, how it attempts to represent itself. I think this would be a good section in the Overseas page. There's stuff written in journals, books, and newspaper articles about all the websites, media networks, and so on, practitioners have set up to transmit their message. Assembling all this would make an interesting narrative.
For now, can we clearly identify what the issues are with the current version, and then share on strategies for improving them, then set in motion a concrete process for actually doing so? This seems to tie in a bit with what Mr Salt has already said, though I think it would help now to talk directly about the article, and identify: where it falls short, what we'll do to improve those aspects, and how we are going to do that. Is this a good direction?
one more thing, quickly, is that the main article is, apart from a few sections, almost a feeder of all the daughter articles. It introduces and links to them, which are all aspects of the Falun Gong article series. I would say on the main page there should be some more care to explain more on Falun Gong in itself, i.e., it's teachings, context, then follow with the daughter article blurbs and links. To get to this point effectively though, the daughter articles themselves need to be clear and good. Three daughter articles so far stand out as needing significant improvements/overhauls:
  • Teachings page
  • Overseas page
  • Competing representations (or whatever it will be) page
Work on the main article therefore might be across these sections, also related to the above:
  • getting the lead simple, introductive, interesting
  • more on the context of Falun Gong, as this doesn't belong to any daughter article and needs to be here
  • more on the teachings, where the teachings section on the main page, while still linked like any other daughter article, is accorded significantly more text to introduce itself
There could be more, important stuff to do though, and as I say, I may be better placed by not taking a lead, this is just my 2 cents right here.--Asdfg12345 05:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
There's now an article listed at Talk:Falun_Gong/sandbox. I've suggested a target date for the end of April for everyone to contribute, which allows for Wikibreaks, re-thinks etc. If it turns out there's a mad rush at the end of April, we can just extend Phase One a bit. I've put in sample entries in each of the sections so you can see which are mine. Feel free to place your proposals above or below them and disagree vehemently with me if you wish, but in your own section so we're not tripping over each other's edits. I realise a month isn't quick, but at least this way we're not dropping a surprise deadline on anyone. Alun Salt (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Important phenomenon

Asdfg, you have now reinstated the quotation about FG being an "important phenomenon". I have pointed out repeatedly that those words are empty praise, meaning approximately "really cool" or "frickin' awesome". I am now taking the quotation out yet again. If you must have a quotation from Penny there, then please find one where he says something concrete and substantive, such as "the fastest-growing religion" or "the dominant form of qi gong in the media". If, indeed, he has said something along those lines. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 11:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Benjamin Penny, a noted sinologist, claims that Falun Gong is one of the most important phenomena to come out of China in recent years. A WP editor claims this is not a concrete or substantive fact, but merely an opinion, or perhaps they're claiming that it is not clear enough what his statement is about. Either way, they believe it is thus unworthy of inclusion in the article.
My first observation is that Penny's statement wasn't properly cited. Look in reference 6 for the exact quote.
My second observation is that the editor in question needs to make clear whether they're arguing against including this statement on the basis that it is merely opinion, or on the basis that it is unclear or simply a form of praise.
If this statement can be cited, then of course it's a "concrete" and "substantive" fact. The substantive fact being that Penny said it, not necessarily that what he said is true. But that's fine. It may have been only George Bush's "opinion" that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but that opinion came from a major spokesperson who was supposed to be well informed regarding those issues, so the article on the Iraq War quotes his opinion. Pretty much everything in wikipedia comes down to opinion (for instance it is just the opinion of a bunch of physicists that the speed of light is constant with respect to any observer); the reason that any of these opinions are valuable to the reader is that the sources are made clear, so the reader can decide who they agree with. I can't see why citing an opinion would be seen as a problem, unless someone has misinterpreted the verifiability policy.
If the argument is that it's unclear, or simply a form of praise, that doesn't make sense to me. If it were praise (nothing to suggest that it is, though), it's praise by a noted sinologist, which makes it worthy of inclusion. What he's actually saying though is simply that of the various phenomena emerging from China in the last ten years (presumably ranked against other phenomena like bird flu, or that bizarre fascination with Louis Vuitton handbags), Falun Gong is fairly important. Big on the "newsworthy" scale. Likely to rock our world. Something like that.
If Penny's statement had been impossible to make sense of, I would possibly agree with its removal, although I would first check the source to see whether any vital context was missing. However this is plain English, and all the context necessary to understand it is supplied. He's a sinologist. He thinks Falun Gong is an important phenomenon. He doesn't say it's frickin' cool. That's not what "important" means.
If you still disagree with that statement's inclusion, then please clearly explain which WP policy you're basing your claim on. Cheers, Fuzzypeg★ 04:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Nobody, sinologist or otherwise, is suggesting that FG is too unimportant to warrant an article in Wikipedia. So the article isn't improved by quoting people who say it's important. It's just redundant information. You might as well quote every single Chinese politician who has deemed FG important enough to mention in a speech. Please revert your edit. I'll wait a few days. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 08:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand why you bring up notability policy, which allows articles to be written about quite obscure and unimportant subjects. The fact that FG has an article in no way makes the quoted statement redundant. The reader cannot imply that FG is one of the most important phenomena arising in China in the 1990s, simply from the fact that it has an article in Wikipedia. Oh, and if a Chinese politician had said the same thing as Perry, that would definitely be worth quoting, and I'm sure that politician would be in prison by now!
Enough of these non-sequiturs. As I've already asked, please clearly explain why this is an unsuitable quote to include in the article and which Wikipedia policy you're basing your argument on. We can only have a reasonable debate about this once you explain what your actual position is and stick to it. Last week your argument was that "important" was synonymous with "frickin' cool", and this week you've changed tack entirely, saying that because FG has a WP article the quote doesn't add any new information. Rather than answer any of my points from my previous post, you've advanced a new, equally bizarre argument. Please choose your argument(s), explain them clearly, and stick to them, and we can start to debate their merits.
Thanks, Fuzzypeg★ 02:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the important phenomenon bit by Penny. The sentence is irrelevant. Intranetusa (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Notable Sources supporting FLG "Controversial Religious Movement" description

Can we use it now? WSJ here, has said "religious movement":

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120767826129498577.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

You can find many instances of such from notable sources. It should be acceptable in wiki.

In conjunction with other notable sources declaring FLG "controversial movement", such description should be okay, per wikipedia policy. Matt, unless you object... Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Are there any drafts in the works?

Hello, I just got my hands on some free time, I did not read everything on the talk page just yet, so I would like to know if there are any drafts in the works, on the Category:Falun_Gong pages. Thank You --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ohconfucius, in the mean time I read today the talk page. Good work Alun, this opens up for a really civilized way of doing things :) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Disputing TheZirk's blanking of fact from notable source

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&diff=205082733&oldid=204143956

This fact from notable source has been discussed, please check the talk archive first before blanking Bobby fletcher (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The given link doesn't work. would this link be more reliable? Or is there another reliable site where this judgement is quoted? Fuzzypeg★ 00:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I see you've already changed the link. Sorry. And that's probably the safest way to ensure the link doesn't go out of date, to simply link to the search page. Well done. Fuzzypeg★ 00:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Not very appropriate or relevant, IMHO. There's more about the judge's view that the movement or followers do not accept criticism well than the case itself. The title is also dubious from a NPOV standpoint: a heading saying 'controversy' and text saying a judge believes it is controversial. Big deal. Tell us something new? Clearly inappropriate here, regardless of whether a reliable source is available for that comment - a case of an editor trying to make a point here, methinks. Come back when you have something pertinent to say. Reverting for now. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
There is editorial disagreement here, true; but that doesn't necessarily mean that Bobby Fletcher is trying to push his view and you are not, Ohconfucious. You may not agree with the judge's decision, but the fact is it is a judgement based on measured evaluation of evidence, made in the supreme court of Canada and setting a legal precedent for Canada. Remember that a judge's job is to sift the evidence and make dispassionate judgements. It's their profession. Statements like that are not made lightly, and carry a lot of weight, as much as, say, Penny's statement that Falun Gong is one of the most important phenomena to arise in China in the 1990s. The statement is clearly attributed, so readers can decide for themselves whether it's simply a reflection of the judge's own biases.
Perhaps it doesn't require its own heading, but I believe the statement should remain somewhere in the article. Fuzzypeg★ 00:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not disputing the validity or the credibility of the quote, or its sourcing. Whether I personally agree with it or not is neither here nor there. The problem as I saw it, and stated above, was that the paragraph is not pertinent. There's nothing about the case, except that the judge said FG is a controversial movement. A supreme court justice's opinion may be important, but this comment is not exactly cited in a context which allows us to understand it for what it is. I'm sorry, I still don't see why it should belong. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've now read the case. You asserted that it is ground-breaking, but I cannot find any sources to back your claim up. AFAICT, the case was a set up by 232 Canadian FG practitioners as a sort of 'class action libel' case against a small-run Chinese newspaper whose persistently critical views and articles offended them. They succeeded in taking it all the way to the superior court. The case was summarised by the judge as" as to the effectiveness of a class action in the context of collective defamation, as opposed to its availability, there is no certainty
[...]
"The evidence is not sufficient to allow the Court to come to the conclusion that the contents of the impugned articles... are false, grossly inaccurate, published to incite hatred and derision in Canada or persecution in the People's Republic of China"
or in plain English: "The court rejected the plaintiffs claim of class action, and stated that there was insufficient evidence that the journal had published false and grossly inaccurate articles in order to incite hatred and derision of Falun Gong practitioners"
I still doubt the case is worth citing. The source document is a primary source, and although it may have picked up coverage, but there are no secondary sources I could find. If include this apparently minor civil case, there could be endless edit wars over the Truthful, Compassionate, and Forbearant (sic) behaviour of FG practitioners in this case and also further afield in their attempts to silence the movement's critics. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ohconfucius Please Don't 'blank' or DE fact from notable source

As you can see, more than one editor disagree with you. BTW There are plenty of secondary soruce:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=La+Presse+Chau&spell=1

I question why you are using Google HK and the case title instead of how this news would be reported? Look like you are trying not to find news about it. If you noticed all the Falun Gong media made a huge fuss over this case. I didn't think you are insinuating Epoch Times is not reliable source? Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Kindly do your homework before you accuse me of blanking fact from a notable source. I did find mentions of the case. On a more precise search, I found 28 unique Ghits: the only secondary sources appear to be Clearwisdom and Epoch Times, neither of which I consider reliable sources. What is more, I found no direct reference to the judge's statement as to the "controversial movement", even in the two abovementioned (hardly surprising, though, as FG don't like criticism). Notwithstanding, I still completely challenge the relevance of the "fact" you posted, as previously explained. Just because something exists and can be cited doesn't mean it Should be cited -certainly if it fails the relevance test. It's up to you to find a primary source and a rationale for inclusion. So far, you do not appear to have, so reverting for now. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
What, prey tell, is the "relevance test"? And why do we need secondary sources when the primary source is perfectly reliable itself? Perhaps you could point us to the WP policies or guidelines regarding these. Thanks, Fuzzypeg★ 02:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Discussion with Ohconfucius copied from User talk:Fuzzypeg and User talk:Ohconfucius

OK, I've now read the case. You asserted that it is ground-breaking, but I cannot find any sources to back your claim up. AFAICT, the case was a set up by 232 Canadian FG practitioners as a sort of 'class action libel' case against a small-run Chinese newspaper whose persistently critical views and articles offended them. They succeeded in taking it all the way to the supreme court. The case was summarised by the judge as" as to the effectiveness of a class action in the context of collective defamation, as opposed to its availability, there is no certainty [...] "The evidence is not sufficient to allow the Court to come to the conclusion that the contents of the impugned articles... are false, grossly inaccurate, published to incite hatred and derision in Canada or persecution in the People's Republic of China"

or in plain English: "The court rejected the plaintiffs claim of class action, and stated that there was insufficient evidence that the journal had published false and grossly inaccurate articles in order to incite hatred and derision of Falun Gong practitioners"

I still doubt the case is worth citing. The source document is a primary source, and although it may have picked up coverage, but there are no secondary sources I could find. If include this apparently minor civil case, there could be endless edit wars over the Truthful, Compassionate, and Forbearant (sic) behaviour of FG practitioners, attempting to silence the movement's critics. I'll leave it for you to decide whether that's desirable. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you said "You asserted that it is ground-breaking". Where did I assert this?
Now regarding whether we do or don't include this reference, your argument seems to be that it is only a relatively minor case, and leaving it in will only promote edit warring, as other minor cases are added to the article. If I've misunderstood you, then please correct me.
My response to this would be that while the case itself is relatively minor, it prompted the judge to make a broadly-stated comment about Falun Gong in general. The text quoted in the article refers not to the specific civil action, but to the Judge's summary of the Falun Gong movement in general. This quote is interesting, because it is an appraisal from an independent westerner who is (or should be) dispassionate and informed, and it is valuable, because it is one of the few distinctly negative appraisals from someone who (frankly) doesn't work for the Chinese government. I think it provides a valuable point of balance. Any sane person is going to waqnt to find better information than the rantings of the Chinese government, but once you take those out of the picture you're left with a very idealistic depiction of a movement without flaws. Statements like this judge's one, from independent sources, help balance that picture out and give the reader some sense of context. They understand that FG may be flawed (depending on the one's perspective), and if so those flaws largely come down to the fact that it promotes mysticism, and that it has a tendency not to accept criticism.
A little bit of bland criticism like that shows up China's extreme criticism for what it really is. It provides an independent perspective. Fuzzypeg★ 06:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You said "setting a legal precedent for Canada" which is pretty ground-breaking. But again, I have found no sources to back it up. By your own apparent admission, it is indeed a pretty minor case. As to summarising my reasoning, you missed the bit about it coming only from a primary source, as far as the comment is specifically concerned ;-). Your interpretation about the judge's comment about it being a "useful and interesting" general statement provided to give balance (third paragraph), relying only on a primary source and in the absence of a reliably published commentary to that effect, appears to me to be original research. I am arguing that, without context of the legal case and the deliberations of the judge, the stand-alone comment lacks pertinence. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
If you think that legal precedents are "ground breaking" that's your words, not mine. I don't see them as ground breaking; any supreme court ruling is seen as a legal precedent, that's just the way it works.
My wording was "relatively minor", which is a relative statement. I didn't call it a "pretty minor case". My intention was to say that the importance of that particular civil case between the FG practitioners and the newspaper was of relatively minor interest to the article, since the article already describes plenty of more extreme examples of mistreatment and misrepresentation of FG practitioners; the comments of the judge regarding FG in general are more important, though, since they fill an under-represented gap in the article: independent criticism of FG.
I didn't miss your statement about secondary sources, I just didn't realise you were expressing that you have a problem with primary research. Primary research is fine in WP. A secondary source that summarises this and other cases would have the added bonus of providing the information more succinctly as well as giving extra contextual information, but until such a secondary source is found, a primary source is just fine.
My comments about why I think this information is useful to readers are not original research, at least not as Wikipedia terms it. If I was adding those thoughts to the article then it would be OR, but this is merely discussion about the article. By your reasoning, everything on these talk pages could be called OR and ignored, and we'd have constant edit warring because there would never be any meaningful editorial discussion. Editorial discussion is not OR. If you don't agree with something I say it's because you simply don't agree, not because it's OR.
If you think more needs to be mentioned about the trial for the information to be "pertinent" then we can mention a little more about the trial. All that needs to be said is that it was in the context of a case claiming defamation against FG practitioners.
Oh, and I'm copying this to the article talk page, since other editors might have an opinion. Fuzzypeg★ 02:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest the quote belongs either in the "Outside mainland China" section, or the Third-party views on Falun Gong article. Fuzzypeg★ 02:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I just don't see how the judge's statement (paragraph 40 of the judgement) relates to the topic in question. Why we should have a statement by a judge, cited out of context, saying that Falun Gong "is a controversial movement, which does not accept criticism" should be inserted? Just because there is no independent criticism which could be cited does not appear to be a good reason. The movement is controversial and opinions are extremely polarised. The fact remains that this case was reported nowhere, AFAICT, except for Epoch Times. If you really looked hard, you will find plenty more relevant criticism elsewhere without resorting to putting in stuff which is problematic. I have found relevant criticism in some of the articles Ian Johnson has written, and I am sure there is more. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you leave other people's edit alone, until the dispute is resolved? Obviousley, more than one editors disagrees with you, but you keep blanking the fact from the article. There are other ways to improve the article besides blanking. You say there are more relevant criticism but I don't see you using them to replace what you deleted.
Also can you find ONE place in the wiki that followed up on the brief mentioning of this decision in the lead? Detailed discussion of this case is necessary to back up the summary in the lead. And everything quoted is relevant to Falun Gong's controversial nature. As this wiki is not FLG promotional material, facts like this should be allowed.
I'm going to revert your blanking, until we can come to an agreement, or have the dispute arb'd - please do not DE other's good faith edit of notable facts until we reach a resolution.
I disagree with your challange - what now, should we go to arb?
BTW, I tried to add an article from Asia Times by Italian journalist Francisco Scici, but it was blanked too - citing something you said which you never responded to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_25#STRONGLY_Disput_Asdfg.27s_.27blanking.27_of_notable_source_with_invalid_rationale
Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, why don't we try and find some other opinions? The statement which you keep on reinserting is not only irrelevant, but as it stands grossly misrepresents the judgement, which is about a class-action libel case brought by FG practitioners against a small-circulation Chinese journal in Canada. You are trying to score a point about the controversy of the movement by using a court ruling, and using it completely out of context. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Ohconfucius, how about you add some of the critique by Ian Johnson that you mentioned. Hopefully that would make this court ruling redundant and we could drop this argument. You talk about opinions being extremely polarised regarding this controversial subject — that's precisely why I feel an independent and highly reputable source such as a supreme court judge is so worth including. But if there's some good summary discussion by Ian Johnson then I'd be happy to go with that. Fuzzypeg★ 05:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Ohconfucius, I must again ask you to not DE other editor's goodfaith edit until your disagreement with multiple editors is resolved. The quoted portion of the judgement is never meant to reflect the case itself - it is meant as a notable source declaring Falun Gong controversial - because some other editors disputed the characterization of "controversial", hence the need for such fact to be cited. Also, this case was mentioned in the lead, naturally a discussion of the summary item is appropriate in the body of the article, therefor relevant.
BTW, if you are not aware of some other people's representation of what you said, I'm going to put the cited links back in.Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The way you keep on reverting me, completely ignoring my arguments, makes me suspect that good faith may not figure very highly on your agenda. I don't think there's any contention FG are controversial, but we just don't need irrelevant and out-of-context citations here. This article is crap enough as it is. Although I still do not believe the paragraph belongs, I have now put the text into a relevant context, I hope there is no more argument on this point. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I can say the same thing about you - TWO editors disagrees with your blanking, yet you keep doing it. And none of the suggestions made to you was acceptable (move the fact, replace it with another fact). And even now your edit has removed the quote that speaks about why the judge thought FLG was controversial.
If Falun Gong's controversial nature is such a widely accepted fact, why has there been so much problem with it getting removed in the article? At one point all critical facts were POV Forked to another article, and this wiki became FLG promotional material. Bobby fletcher (talk) 02:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Read my lips: "If you find something relevant and within context, I'll buy it". It's neither, so stop trying to push it like it is. I just changed it to make it relevant - I don't think I removed very much that was relevant. The judge didn't award against FG practitioners for being controversial or for "teachings promise supernatural and healing powers, purification with a wheel in the stomach, and reject science". The comment was made en passant. For the hive of activity this article has been, it's suddenly gone all quiet. Could all the action be over at 2008 Tibetan unrest or 2008 Olympic Torch relay? I'll have you know that two people (over one) hardly counts as a majority, and certainly isn't consensus as far as it's know on wikipedia, so will you kindly stop your 'holier than thou' attitude. I welcome other comments. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Two people is more than one. Also you read the decision wrong. According to [26], [30] the silent plaintiff were dismissed as a class:
[26] accordingly, the class action should go ahead on that basis
[30] Accordingly, these 220 silent petitioners have not discharged their burden of proof and their claim shall be dismissed.
BTW, no one ignored your argument - let me repeat agin - this fact is notable, relevant to the article "Falun Gong", and is made in the context of other editors blanking the the "controversial" edit on the basis of non-notability.
Your arguments were ddressed - you simply choose to ignore them. Bobby fletcher (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
So what if it's en-passant? Even if FLG won, the judge's NOTABLE STATEMENTS re FLG's controversial nature, and her noting controversial aspects of FLG's teachings would still be relevant to this article. Get it thru your head - the lawsuit and who won is never the point. Bobby fletcher (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

My own analysis

As an American with no connection to either China or Buddhism, I came across Falun Gong when going through a search for truth, that included looking at many spiritual beliefs, and what I came across makes me believe that almost every article on new-age religions such as Scientology sides with the religion rather than what the religion actually represents. I did see many pamphlets from Falun itself that posits the founder of Falun with Buddha himself, which the founder is now denying. The articles here are some of the most vehemently pro-falun that I have ever encountered and whitewashes everything that has been said about the religion. I believe that a major rewrite is in order. EgraS (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This article was hijacked by Falun Gong disciples and I suspect also reporters of FLG newspaper Epoch Times, and turned into Falun Gong promotional matierial. Those of us who simply wanted to add facts otherwise where blanked, incessantly challanged, some even arbed to death. Trust me this is not over. They are quiet now because the FLG editors probably emailed eachother to lay low, wait out the impartial editors who have come here, and after Martin, Alum, etc., are gone - they'll come back and hack it up again.
Just look at the history of this Wiki you'll see what I'm talking about. Bobby fletcher (talk) 03:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll do some additional research on all the claims in this article and play my part. EgraS (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Just so you know what you are getting yourself into, check the 2 most recent talk archives. The Epoch Times reporter I suspect is the coordinator in "defending" these Falun Gong wikis. He's Australian, and just happen to disappear from Wikipedia while the Olympic torch go thru Australia? IMHO it's not a coincidence. These FLG disciples/editors is known to tag-team stuff they don't like, and a single editor only has 3 revert (else it's WP violation and arb, look at top of talk.)
Also, check the rewrite section and sandbox Alunm started. Bobby fletcher (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As an editor who came to the FG articles fairly randomly (I was looking for more info on FG), I'm not interested in taking anybody's side. I'm just interested in being able to read a balanced article that contains the major relevant information. I've been very sad to see the state of the discussions here. This is not the climate of friendly collaboration that WP is trying to create. Both sides seem eager and willing to descend into sniping about each other rather than just discussing the material in question. Wikipedia actually has guidelines to deal with most editorial disputes, which should allow us to avoid these personal accusations. Certainly I don't believe such accusations help anything. Do we really expect an editor to say "You got me. I'm a fanatical FG member who's plotting to subvert Wikipedia to spread our lies. Sorry, my mistake" or "That's right, I'm a Chinese agent employed to subvert the Wikipedia to spread our lies. Sorry, I'll stop doing that"? No.

Lets not worry about each other's motivations, lets stop these accusations. If someone's going against WP guidelines then it doesn't really matter why they're doing so. They will be demonstrably wrong and if they try to persist they'll look like a WP:DICK, not to mention that they'll feel like a dick too. However if we focus on the article content and keep personal snipes out of it, then we can hopefully regain a little of that pleasure that good writing and good debate should bring. Fuzzypeg★ 22:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

100% in agreement with you :) This attitude is very much needed! Please stay some more! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay Fuzzy, here're the facts about the DE editor Asdfg has made:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bobby_fletcher#Editor_Asdfg12345.27s_blanking_of_facts_from_notable_source —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby fletcher (talk • contribs) 05:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Springs

According to this article, and this one too, Falun Gong practitioners are in the process of building a large temple complex in upstate New York. I don't know if these sources are good enough to be used in the article, but it seems that some mention of this place would be beneficial to the article. What do you guys think? Strellson (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are some more factual citations on the Cuddebackville Falun Gong compound. Acccording to a reporter, two deaths have occured in recently months. I have citation for the construction accident, if anyone can find the citation for the other (a practioner appearantly died from refusal of medical care) please post and help edit these facts in:

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080506/NEWS/805060313/-1/NEWS

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080219/NEWS/802190319

Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

15/5 rem paragraph from lead, yes/no?

I removed the paragraph from the lead because I thought it was extraneous detail, and that the lead should be a summary of the article, and that it was getting into the detail of nutting out what people think and why in too much space. there are four paragraphs, max, to explain the key issues about Falun Gong. Aside from this, Singer is a very controversial figure and her theories, I'm not talking her musings on Falun Gong here, are highly contested and not accepted among many scholars. Further, when it comes to Falun Gong she's a nobody, and her views are decisively fringe and radical. there are no mainstream academics and researchers of Falun Gong who support them, at all. I didn't consider so much that I was removing criticism, because the paragraph contained as much praise as criticism, but moving extraneous information to the appropriate section. There's a huge amount more to this topic than this, and spending that many words on it just seems odd. Mrund, let's hear your justification, and others may be interested to discuss also. --Asdfg12345 13:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't really see why scholarly views and scholarly views alone should feature in the lead section. If so, I think some of the text in the passage inserted by MRund would be relevant as anything else. Specifically, I believe that the lead should state what FG is, where it came from, that it was banned by the Chinese Govt following a large-scale demonstration in 1999. I know it may be problematic, but I think that because they are markedly different, there should also be a summary of the varying types of views from the different classes of third parties, namely mass-media, sinologists, "cult-ologists". Ohconfucius (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Concerning specific text in the lead, I believe "Two months later, the Chinese government began a large-scale persecution, including widespread propaganda, torture, illegal imprisonment, forced labour, and psychiatric abuses." is too "in your face" and should be considerably abridged for the lead. The statement is much too emotive, and too much a composite to be adequately attributed here in the lead. I would certainly remove the more subjective "large-scale persecution" and "widespread propaganda". We can substitute this whole sentence with a mention of allegations of torture and other HR abuses, and referenced to Amnesty or HRIC. I believe that for brevity and a cleaner start to the article, "Falun Gong comprise 66% of all reported torture cases in China, and at least half of the labour camp population" could be removed from the lead altogether. Even if we cannot agree to remove, I don't see that we need 7 references seeing as the comment came from the UN (if memory serves), so that one citation alone should suffice. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The lead already states what Falun Gong is and where it came from and that it the persecution started after the Zhongnanhai appeal.
  • I don't see how that sentence is emotive. Itis a description of the actions taken by the Chinese authorities against Falun Gong practitioners. Of course it can easily be attributed, either one reference for each point, or a bunch of references at the end. There are innumerable references for each of these points, as you would know. Was the persecution not large scale, the propaganda not widespread? Actually, according to countless sources and most that discuss the persecution in any depth, it was both these things. I don't believe these are subjective terms. All media was used to vilify Falun Gong, the whole police force was mobilised against practitioners, even the army was involved in some aspects, and a special, extra-constitutional agency was set up specifically for it. They had mass book burnings in the streets, constant news bulletins with "new findings" about the "cultic nature" of Falun Gong, stop work meetings, and so on--can we say that something encompassing every aspect of Chinese society wasn't widespread and large scale? In these circumstances, they are not subjective descriptors, like "horrible" or "vicious", or what have you.
  • The two facts you mention, 66% and majority forced labour, are key facts in this whole thing. It's terribly significant that Falun Gong alone are 66% of reported torture cases, when the next group down is something like 7%. And that Falun Gong alone are more than half the entire labour camp population, when the rest consist of a multitude of other groups. These are obviously very significant pieces of information.
  • 7 citations is obviously overkill, 66% is from UN, two thirds is from US State dept., and both those sources also testify to the psychiatric and other things. I don't mind on this point.
  • Related to this, and something else to consider which I am sure we agree on: the persecution of Falun Gong is the primary aspect of Falun Gong's notability. There is no question of that.
  • The reason views such as those of Singers are not accorded much space is because they are fringe and radical views. They should be outlined in the appropriate section, but they do not constitute the majority of, or the mainstream discussion or perspective on Falun Gong.
  • I think the lede should actually be something like this: it should have a paragraph or half a paragraph for each topic Falun Gong involves across these pages, more or less. So that introductory paragraph, which also serves for the teachings, then a paragraph of the persecution, a paragraph Falun Gong outside mainland (something quite important and entirely overlooked so far. But don't worry, Ownby and Porter have done good studies, and Ownby presents demographics and analyses, explanation of the form Falun gong practice currently takes, (like on average they spend 13 hours per week on their activities, they are in this or that income bracket, whatever) etc.), and somewhere in there if there are miscellaneous details we could add them in--this might include also a mention of the qigong historical context. I understand that this part could be hard to do because these pages are still so much up in the air and many things still need to be nailed down. A whole lot needs to be straightened out here, across nearly all the pages. I think the lead will have to be an outline of the topic and a quick explanation of the key information covered across the wiki articles. But since we aren't even at that point, in the end it does not really seem to make sense to talk much about the lead and how we should do it, because it's going to change in the end anyway. For now, I'm happy if other editors are happy, and we can cross that bridge when we come to it.--Asdfg12345 06:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ "The crackdown on Falun Gong and other so-called "heretical organizations"". Amnesty International. 2000-03-23. Retrieved 2007-08-16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ "Spiritual Society or Evil Cult?", Time Magazine On-Line, retrieved March 10, 2008
  3. ^ a b Xu Jian, "Body, Discourse and the Cultural Politics of Contemporary Chinese Qigong", The Journal of Asian Studies 58 (4 November 1999
  4. ^ The Hindu culture refers to this as Prana, the Japanese culture uses the character ki, and the Hawaiian culture calls it mana. David Aikman, American Spectator, March 2000, Vol. 33, Issue 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_26&oldid=1278582258"