Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 27

This is an archive of past discussions about Falun Gong. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Details here really need to be cleaned up

There is a huge amount of discretion needed in this article. How many people actually believe that half of all people sentenced to "hard labor" in china are members of Falun Gong? Almost ALL prison terms in China include labor as rehabilitation. China has about 1.4 billion people in it and this article says HALF of the people serving labor sentences are FALUN GONG? That doesn't just sound ridiculous, it's also patently untrue. I'm seriously tempted to start citing sources in other articles that use Alex Jones as a source to bring attention to the less than accurate nature of this article in many places. I won't, because that would be "vandalism" and I know that Alex Jones is a habitual liar. This article is based entirely on the same kinds of inaccuracies and pro-agenda propaganda.

I'm not saying their claims should be removed; I'm saying that they should be related AS claims and not AS facts. I can sight testimonies from dozens of sources that say Falun Gong is manufacturing these stories. The crazy thing about this, is I don't particularly even like the government of the PRC, I just think that allowing slanderous and libelous language to be written as fact, without FACTS being involved, more than a little counterproductive. it feds into what I feel is an agenda to drum up hatred for the PRC (and the chinese by proxy). It also has the nasty side effect of white-washing the misdeeds of Falun Gong. Beerman5000 (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Falun Gong is a joke, 99 percent of what they say are lies. 69.137.88.55 (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC0

this website is designed to present things from a neutral position. I don't like this article anymore than you do, but it seems that clearing up the outlandish claims presented in this article is going to be rather difficult since so much of what Falun Gong claims is reported as truth by biased, unsuspecting, or just plain ignorant media agents. it should be noted that I don't use the term ignorant as an insult, but the whole truth of falun gong seems to have evaded quite a few people. Telling people NOT to seek medical care or risk certain damnation is an evil thing to do indeed. What is worse, the organization is clearly only telling people not to seek medical care because they see it as a 'threat' to their business. after all, if people start listening to MD's for medical advice rather than some qi-gong guru they'd pretty much be out of work since so much of their practices could be served by any number of other excercise programs. The spiritual side and promise of eternal youth, magic powers and longevity if you truly master their disciplines are what set them apart; in short, without outlandish fictional claims that have the nasty side effect of destroying people's lives and health Falun Gong would be out of business. I can't see how the label "evil cult" would be misplaced given that understanding. yet, it is not the place of this article to place such a label; it is the place of this article to relate facts and facts without regard to intentional distortions; something that this article has soundly failed to do. Beerman5000 (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Falun Gong tells more lies than the communist government.

Take a look at the report by Falun Gong on recent earth quake in China, one article on their website claims Chinese refuse to let outside help come in in order to cover up dark secret. However, as the day article was written, there are rescue team from 13 countries in China. There are so many lies like this, it is not even funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.88.55 (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No kidding 98.240.20.14 (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I am a Falun Gong practitioner, I can tell you that I'm very sorry for the all the people who lost their lives, lost relatives or where injured because of the earth quake or because of human negligence. Could you please cite your sources? Thank you. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at report here [1], Falungong hosted a party to urge people quite communist party in the time of earthquake.Foxhunt99 (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's just a blog, and fails WP:RS. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Try: Peaceful Rally Attacked in New York City's Chinatown --Asdfg12345 03:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And that source too. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that is from Falungong news paper, of course they are going to argue they are innocent. I am not any fan of the chinese communist party, but picking a time of earthquake to have a rally like this shows some seriously lack of compassion. The Chinese government acted super fast, way better than what the US government did in Katrina. Yet, the falungong attacks the government for not responding? That is just disgusting. Even the Taiwan governemnt give Millions of dollars to Chinese government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxhunt99 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate forum for complaints about either China or Falun Gong. This is already a very active talk page; please limit yourself to discussing editorial content (that is, what material is to be included in the article, which sources to use, etc). Unless the recent earthquake is going to be a topic of this article, discussion about it should be taken elsewhere. Fuzzypeg ★ 01:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fuzzy, I'm a newbie, so please help me understand the rules. Supposed I am a reporter working for a newspaper, and I post/promote articles from that newspaper - is that a violation of Wikipedia's policy? Like self-publication? Thanks!

Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No it's not a violation of the rules, however Wikipedia does have warnings around this. Read the conflict of interest and reliable source guidelines for more info. Fuzzypeg ★ 04:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Number of external links

Ohconfucius, wasn't you who come up with the idea that we should limit the number of external links? Please let us know what do you think now about this issue, so I can start collecting links and be in an agreement on this point with you. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL states that external links should be kept to a minimum.

I also do not believe there should be a crude 'equality in number of links' criteria as to what to include. I also don't see why they should be categorised as "critical sites" and "other sites", but apparently that was the consensus. In order to avoid running foul of WP:UNDUE, the number of critical links should by rights exceed the number of those eulogising, but I won't develop this any further. I may not necessarily agree to what became of the pared down list, but for a while there was calm on those waters. However, somewhere along the way, a FG editor removed the Asia Times link as "an attack piece", which could be interpreted as "I don't agree with it". I have examined both: I consider that Rick Ross a rather comprehensive resource of press cuttings which are probably only rivalled by CESNUR; the Asia Times article should be kept because it is a long and detailed criticism of the Falun Gong phenomenon and actions which cannot be reflected in the article because of its length - All the more important seeing that most of the criticisms of FG have been relegated to a 'third party view' article.

I certainly object most strongly to your threat to inundate this article with additional links - I have no doubt in what quantities and what content these links will include. ;-) Any attempt to restore the external list to its former overpopulated state will be resisted. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would you consider things that come from me a threat? Am I your enemy? If so why? Have you ever heard of balanced according to WP:Undue? We are building an encyclopedia after all which should contain all relevant views. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I have just replaced the Rick Ross link with CESNUR. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Distortion of cited references

An accurate representation of information from references is the foundation of Wikipedia. This is not done in some cases for this article. I relate here one example: "An extra-constitutional body, the '6-10 Office' was created to 'oversee the terror campaign,'[43] ..."

There is in fact no report or any claim by a credible source for the existence of such an organization. The cited reference, an article in Forbes, mentions the "6-10 Office" as an allegation made by some Falungong "survivors." As even the Forbes article includes no other source, this claim of "extra-constitutional body" that "oversee[s] the terror campaign" cannot be independently verified. Yet, the prominent placement of the above statement in the section titled "The persecution" and its wording clearly misrepresents its claim as a fact or at the very least as the result of some reputable investigation when it could just as likely be the ravings of some cultist lunatics fabricating stories to harm the reputation of the PRC government. Statements like these border on slander, especially given the inescapable similarity of the alleged "6-10 Office," if it exists, to other infamous organizations like the Nazis Gestapo and the Soviet NKVD.

I have not read all the cited references, but I wonder how many other statements in the article are opinions from editorials or even insubstantiated sources masquerading as facts. It is hard to judge whether this article has unacceptable pro or anti-Falungong tilt, but it is not hard to find inaccuracies in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.7.239.91 (talk • contribs)

Balance

The article extensively discusses the various alleged persecutions that the Falungong practitioners have experienced under the Chinese government. However, no where in the article is the anti-government activities of the Falungong mentioned. In addition to the persistent protests that disrupt Chinese diplomatic functions throughout the world, the Falungong controls through its followers numerous media outlets that have openly and aggresively attacked the government of China, including a disruption of a joint news conference by President George Bush and President Hu Jintao. Although these are not official organizations of the Falungong, their extensive reach and their social impact should be discussed as an important factor in the Chinese government's decision to outlaw Falungong. Furthermore, the extremely hostile attitude taken by these self-proclaimed neutral media outlets toward the Chinese government, their repeated attacks and calls for the destruction of the Chinese Communist Party, and the fact that no official from Falungong has called a stop to these deeply polarizing political stances by the most influential publication associated with the Falungong at least brings to question that Falungong is a simple religious movement and not, as the Chinese government accuses, an act of sedition orchestrated by some under the guise of religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.7.239.91 (talk • contribs)

All these activities started to take place only after the Chinese Communist Party started imprisoning and torturing Falun Gong practitioners to death for their peaceful beliefs. They are also all peaceful responses. Right and wrong has not been clearer. In terms of the article, there is a lot more work to do on it. If you would like to contribute, I would suggest reading the core wikipedia policies WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR, creating an account, and drinking a bottle of good will.--Asdfg12345 22:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

After i read this unsigned post just now, i felt the strong urge to show you guys what it reminded me of: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5849499994484879153&q=ewige+jude&ei=jPY-SK-eD5zG2wLE6s3pAw&hl=en

don't get this the wrong way... i just want you guys to understand that it is not possible to just simply go ahead and torture and kill people and put them in labor camps and exterminate them. You need prejudices to justiify it, and as stupid as it sounds simple prejudices like these just now are totaly sufficiant... i mean they where sufficant for Hitler and Nero anyway.

--Hoerth (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Asdfg, actually that's incorrect. The Falun Gong undertook anti-government activities such as protests, which caused the CCP government to ban Falun Gong and begin its persecution. Intranetusa (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In China, it is every citizen's right to appeal to the government. All they did was exercise their constitutional right to appeal; they did so peacefully, seeking redress for illegal beatings and imprisonment. Do you really regard that an anti-government activity warranting a brutal persecution (which most members of the politburo at that time even, did not)?--Asdfg12345 00:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Their activities does NOT warrant a brutal persecution. Now it is a fact that the communist government did not warrant widespread persecution of the Falun Gong until after the FG organized widespread protests. The CCP persecuting random organizations that isn't a threat would be the equivalent of shooting itself in the foot. Intranetusa (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat myself:

'Just because I oppose your beliefs of supporting the Falun Gong does not mean I warrant its persecution by the CCP government.'

Intranetusa (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Intranetusa, I am in complete agreement with you on this. Asdfg's simplistic pronouncement is exactely why this article needs a POV flag. To ignore the political climate and why the crackdown happened is utterly shameful.

Here's an article that talks about the Falun Gong protest being supported and organized by senior military and intel officers in CPP, and it is in fact a political move - the aging Cultural Revolution era cadres were using Falun Gong to stage a political coup, and the prevailing powers in China's government reacted:

http://www.lastampa.it/_web/cmstp/tmplrubriche/giornalisti/grubrica.asp?ID_blog=98&ID_articolo=201&ID_sezione=437&sezione

(Section 5 on Religion) Bobby fletcher (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversiess

Someone should add controversies regarding his:

1. His anti-homosexual comments
2. His comments on how people have race gods, and interracial relationships are immoral
also claims divinity from God(s)

Intranetusa (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be original research for us to call whatever aspect of Falun Gong controversial. Mention of the subjects you raised above, as far as I am aware, is less than half a percent of the total teachings; subjects should be covered proportionally. --Asdfg12345 00:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

True, but those opinions are still expressed by the founder and the most important person of the religion, Li Hongzhi. Falun Gong as a whole and the average adherent may not be as controversial, but Li Hongzhi still portrays the characteristics of a manipulative leader. He has claimed all of the things above, and claimed he has mystical powers given to him by God. I believe he at least deserves some criticism in this section because he is still the most influential figure as the founder.

Btw, I reverted it my original edit. Plz don't delete the entire criticism section, but feel free to alter it to make it balance out as neutral and valid criticism. Intranetusa (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, you aren't allowed to add unsourced content. Secondly, the view that Li Hongzhi is a "manipulative leader" is a fringe theory in the literature on Falun Gong. That means that it is not backed up by academics who research Falun Gong, for example, two of the most prominent are David Ownby and Benjamin Penny, and neither of them subscribe to this view. It is not part of mainstream discourse of Falun Gong. It was first part of the propaganda campaign used to persecute the practice, and it has not really been picked up in the west; only among "cult-busters", who are not part of mainstream academia. In the literature, this language is mostly seen as an excuse the CCP made up to lock up and torture practitioners. There are heaps of journal articles which talk about this.

Secondly, you have put Academic views and third party views under the Controversial heading, and you have quoted the teachings of Falun Gong way out of context, disproportionate to their space within the teachings themselves, you have no sources, and you have said they are controversial without a source. The fact is, even if you find a source, these are all still fringe theories; the serious people who research Falun Gong do not use this kind of sensationalist language. You might want to look up David Ownby's new book on Falun Gong called "Falun Gong and the future of China". This is a complex topic. You may feel that you are making a valuable contribution, but you seem largely unaware of this subject based on these edits.

I am unable to undo them because I refuse to do more than one revert per day. But you have violated core wikipedia content policies such as WP:V, WP:UNDUE, WP:OR. I don't feel that this is a productive way to contribute. The pages are still 'under construction', so to speak, and I believe, like you, that what people consider to be Li's more outlandish comments be properly treated, in accordance with their space among both Falun Gong texts and third party texts. But at the moment that's not what you have done. Please read the above policies. If you have access to academic journals, I am able to provide some names of authors for your consideration. There are big problems with the edits you have made--for an example of what I mean, see here and here. I hope you will consider what I have just written.--Asdfg12345 02:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The "cult" label which you are talking about here was first used by the CCP in 1999 as an excuse for its persecution. In the first few years after the onset of the persecution, some so called cult critics repeated CCP propaganda without knowing independently studying the facts. The International community, The academic community and All major Human Rights organizations have strongly condemned such claims made by the CCP. The last statement in the intro is at best a fringe opinion and must be presented with sufficient background in the third party section. Dilip rajeev (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted certain recent changes - reasons - WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. Picking out random statements from the teachings and presenting them as "controversies" is not encyclopedic. As Asdfg pointed out it is extremely disproportionate in comparison to the space the topics occupy in the teachings. Further it is a user's OR that the statements are somehow "controversies" - not what reliable 3rd party sources have stated. Dilip rajeev (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

At this stage it's mainly this: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." -- though beyond that there are other issues remain in terms of context, quality of the sources, undue etc.. I don't think these things should be excluded, but addressed appropriately--Asdfg12345 07:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

@Asdfg12345

I have added the sources for my information - BBC and New York Times. Now there shouldn't be any reasons to delete the changes. And these are not random statements. If the pope had worked his entire life to help people, but then said "let's exterminate all the Jews," would that be a random statement that doesn't deserves attention? These statements are important because they represent the extremist views of the leader of the Falun Gong. You can't ignore the valid criticisms leveled at this guy. Intranetusa (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

see comment below. By the way, that's a vile and misleading comparison. You ought to retract it and apologise. Li Hongzhi saying that certain sexual practices are immoral, or metaphysical this or that about gods, aliens, beings in other dimensions, souls correspondings to colours, reincarnation, and whatever else, is completely different from advocating any kind of violence or hatred. You should be clear on this. There is not a single case of a Falun Gong practitioner responding to the persecution with violence. It's transparently a peaceful practice, through and through. Many practitioners have friends who are homosexual. They don't push their beliefs on people, and don't care that they are gay. These are metaphysical, not worldly concerns. There's also no concept of leaders in Falun Gong. Li founded the practice and publishes his writings and speeches on the internet; he holds definitional power, but he doesn't give orders. That's it, really. I agree with you that criticisms, valid or not, shouldn't be ignored. I thought of a good way of moving forward below.--Asdfg12345 00:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

@Dilip

Please don't play the CCP card. We all know they brutalize and oppress the Falun Gong. But just because the CCP oppresses them, doesn't mean they're not controversial. Being the victims of communist oppression doesn't give them a free ride and make them immune to criticism. Various western organizations (non-CCP of course) have branded the Falun Gong as a cult, and for good reason too. The criticisms I inputed is hardly a fringe viewpoint, many academics have leveled relevant claims that the FG is a cult. You can't blame the commies for everything.

If you read the criticisms leveled at Li Hongzhi for his statements (anti-mixed race, anti-gay, alien conspiracy), then yes he displays all the characteristics of a cult leader. These statements are probably on the level of what Scientologists believe. All I am doing is ensuing there isn't a double standard. If you want to remove all criticisms of the Falun Gong because you support them, then do the same for Scientology. Intranetusa (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

See, there is a section on 3rd party views and the "cult" label issue is discussed at length there. This is an encyclopaedic article - not about praise vs criticism. How much sense would it make to pull out a couple of quotes out of context from a Buddhist work and put it in an article on Buddhism as "controversies"? Have you read those controversial statements you talk about in the context of the teachings? For whatever info we add to the article, wiki policies require 3rd party sources and that the view being pushed is not a fringe opinion. Remember that all Falun Dafa teachings are available for anyone to read on falundafa.org - there is no comparison here with things like scientology or anything.

For instance look at the summary of the 3rd party views section - a random statement by a judge has been pulled out and used as summary for an entire article.

There are many positive statments made too - why not use anyone of them instead? For instance a Resolution passed by the Massachusetts House of Representatives states:

" the great compassion and tolerance demonstrated by Falun Dafa practitioners in upholding the principles of their practice under the most severe environment had touched the hearts of people throughout the city, state, nation and world"

.. why not use that instead of that particular statement of a judge? We cant use either as summarry because this is an encyclopeadia - not a tabloid .

We have to present things in an encyclopeadic manner - not like "hey this line sounds controversial to me.. let me add it to the article with my own commentary." Editing in such a manner borders on vandalism.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A side note, when checking one of the citation's from Li Hongzhi with google this is what showed up: [2] It's quite interesting to see how people like to come up with something and then attribute it to Li Hongzhi, sometimes it's just plainly out of the context and sometimes they write their own. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

@Dilip rajeev It's interesting you mention encyclopedia, because all you've done is throw lavish praises on this organization and its founder. What you're doing is turning this encyclopedia article into a support group. That is in direct violation of wikipedia policies.

Furthermore you said: "The sources you talk about do not support the content you are trying to add. See talk discussion. Using TW" If you even bothered to go to the links I provided, you would've seen that I took the information directly from BBC and the NY Times. Intranetusa (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

@Happy in General, I went to the link you provided, and it does say the Li Hongzhi said it. Read my sources in the NY Times article and BBC. Li Honzhi's statements are DIRECTLY QUOTED from various speeches he's given. I've cited all of my sources in order to support valid criticisms. Turning this article into a FG praise group is against the entire point of an encyclopedia article. Intranetusa (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Intranetusa, I'm sorry perhaps I did not give all the details:

All teachings of Li Hongzhi are online either on ClearWisdom.net, either on FalunDafa.org and thus indexed by google.
So when you quote him and the text of the quote can be found only on Rick Ross [3] that means that it is not a quote from Li Hongzhi but just a quote from Rick Ross's website, even if the article posted on Rick Ross's website claims that it is Li Hongzhi's.

Best --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Happy in genearl.

1. I did not get the information from Rick Ross's website. I don't even know who Rick Ross is. Go to my link provided

and see the source.

2. Furthermore, his quotes are from lectures and interviews he has given. Considering the comments

portray him in a negative light, they are obviously not going to be on his own website.

3. Websites that support him would not have anything that portrays him in a negative light or have

anything controversial. Go to the Scientology website and see for yourself. Intranetusa (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggested approach for 'controversial' teachings

I think I thought of a good idea to approach this issue. We should make a section about this in the teachings page. The commentary of news organisations and scholars can be added, around these aspects of the teachings that have attracted particular attention, derision, or whatever (sexuality, race, aliens). I think this would be a good way to approach it for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, this is not much related to the question of whether Falun Gong is a cult, I don't think. It may depend how you define that word, but I think when you say the word cult you are talking about someone ripping people off money, depriving them of their freedom, deceiving them, basically doing bad things to people, more or less. Falun Gong has nothing to do with this. Li Hongzhi publishes his writing on the internet and anyone who wants to can read it and believe it or not. The exercises are also freely practiced. Objectively, it's a set of exercises with a spiritual component; no membership, no heirarchy, no organisation, no money, everything voluntary.

Secondly, two things: generally, the field of 'cultic studies' is not part of mainstream academia. It's very much looked down upon, and real scholars don't do that work. The whole discipline is fringe. Also, the view that Falun Gong is a cult is even more fringe in Falun Gong literature. I am not talking about 1000 word newspaper articles that go for vague and sensationalist remarks, or outright ill-intentioned distortions to make a splash, but studies of Falun Gong from academics who have made it their job to research the issue. This is simply not how they approach the problem. David Ownby says it was a red herring from the beginning.

The other side to the cultic issue, of course, is that it's part of the propaganda campaign, and not to mention this in the same breath is an omission. And I am not just talking about the CCP, but western academics become implicated in the CCP's brutal policies when they engage in this discourse (if you read the 'cult label as a tool of margianilisation' on other pages you will see what I mean)/ The apparently controversial nature of some of Li's teachings can naturally be separated from the supposed cultic nature of Falun Gong, without any loss of meaning. Li has even talked about the alien subject in a Time interview, but that doesn't mean he does bad things to people or tries to harm others with underhanded means. The cultic question is one of particular behavioural or other things that people do--on this, no one has anything on Falun Gong, because all the people that practice it do is perform exercises and read books; they don't pay any money, they don't cut themself from society, they hold down their jobs, live in nuclear families, etc. etc.. The teaching question is simply about what Li has said, and how people have reacted to it. I agree that it needs attention, but you will notice that these pages are chronically neglected, and no one has consistently put in a lot of time to make a comprehensive go at them.

Okay, that's my concrete suggestion then a bit of a longwinded explanation of the thinking behind it. If anyone feels they can't take some of those specific points at face value, let me know and I might be able to refer to a good source. Just one more practical suggestion. I appreciate Intranetusa's going to the trouble, but I got the feeling that a lot of that was just c&p from the BBC or NYT. We can't do that. In particular, if it wasn't, it needs to be in a neutral and plainly descriptive tone. We don't put aspersions and value judgements into sentences, as journalists often have wont to do. Journalists can write in a smarmy, self-important way, make wise-cracks, and dish out vague ridicule etc., as long as their editors okay it. But as an encyclopedia, we have to keep a passive, neutral voice. So this would be introducing the idea that Li has made these statements and how people have reacted. By the way, just a quick point, if some have directly linked controversial teachings with the cultic claim, that should also be addressed. The things I said before were more overall points. I'm saying that the cultic issue and the controversial teachings issue are sufficiently separate to deal with separately on wiki, but if some newspapers want to make that link, it can be mentioned--also though that x,y and z scholars do not agree, perhaps.

I can't do anything more on this for about another 5 days, then I would love to help construct this section. I think it's an important addition, to survey the field here and present a couple of hundred word summary.--Asdfg12345 00:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The page is locked, but no one has engaged with this discussion. Martin, this is forming part of a pattern of behaviour for you on these pages. I find it troubling. I believe the disputed texts should be removed to make room for discussion. This kind of nasty edit bickering is so counterproductive in so many ways. I think the original idea contains elements of legitimacy, but the execution was hasty, to say the least. In fact, I've just looked at the offending text and it's blatant copy and paste. This is copyright violation. I'm leaving a note on the admin's page, and I've just put a tag and note below. I assume you are all adults, I think you should behave that way and be prepared, together, to discuss the changes on the page and the best way to approach this subject. For now I'm informing the admin who locked it of the copyright violations, which should duly be removed, and would like to encourage intelligent discussion. Just a note, NYT's comments on the teachings are interesting, but the fact is that scholars are considered more reliable sources; even if it were not repeating verbatim, giving so much weight to one article and its views violates WP:UNDUE. I gave a suggestion for how to approach this, above. --Asdfg12345 08:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Li Hongzhi publishes his writing on the internet and anyone who wants to can read it and believe it or not. The exercises are also freely practiced. Objectively, it's a set of exercises with a spiritual component; no membership, no heirarchy, no organisation, no money, everything voluntary."

Then I'd like to know how Li Hongzhi was able to afford million dollar mansions in New York. The FG may not be a cult in general, *but its founder, Li, has benefited monetarily and politically from the organization. Couple that with his fringe viewpoints would *make him a cult leader. And the FG does have a basic organization - the FG funded and created the NTDTV news organization.

"In fact, I've just looked at the offending text and it's blatant copy and paste. This is copyright violation."

Yes, I only C&Ped as a temporary solution. My intention was to create a criticism section in the FG page. This just means I will *have to summarize the criticisms so it no longer in copyright violation.

"And I am not just talking about the CCP, but western academics become implicated in the CCP's brutal policies when they engage in this discourse (if you read the 'cult label as a tool of margianilisation' on other pages you will see what I mean)"

Are you suggesting anyone who thinks the FG is a cult is in league with the brutal communist oppression? Or do you mean others *suggest that?

"The apparently controversial nature of some of Li's teachings...but that doesn't mean he does bad things to people or tries to harm others with underhanded means."

So you have no problem with him calling gays and mixed-race people the tools of the devil? The problem is that that type of hate *speech is the same as those given by Hitler during his rise to power - and ironic too because everyone said Hitler's speeches were *harmless and would never act *out his hatred. Li Hongzhi's hate speech is what breeds genocidal maniacs when they come into power.

Intranetusa (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your comments. I would not like to get into an argument with you, so please let me know if you feel I have adopted a standoffish or combative tone. I would just like to explain my understanding to you. I'm not aware of a million dollar mansion in NY. I saw a photo once, a news crew was interviewing him in a fairly average looking apartment in Flushing. In 1999 WSJ ran an article about how he apparently got a $500,000 house in Manhattan, but a pracititioner in the U.S. had bought it for him and tricked his wife, who didn't understand english, into signing the deed. They refused it and he took the house back. I don't know where he lives now; maybe he lives in a big mansion with a big car and eats out every night? I don't know, and I guess I don't really care. He sold millions of books and audiotapes in China, there's royalties involved in that, as you might imagine. I'm making a bit of a rhetorical point here; if you read the persecution page, or read Ian Johnson's and others' comments, Li didn't end up making much despite all that in China. The books were all banned in '96, which is when it really took off in popularity. All the stuff after that was bootleg, and he said that's fine in his lectures. People even hand copied them for the poor farmers, he said that's fine, it's the same. He lives on royalties from book sales etc. though. Plenty of people make a living from writing books. I assume you do not have a problem with the vocation of authorship, but merely that his book treats spiritual subjects, and alleges things that you do not believe to be true. I'd only say again that this isn't again any laws, and people can write what they want. If it doesn't harm others, that should be allowed. People write about fairy tales and trolls and magical things all the time. As far as you are concerned, Li's works are no more than that, right? They are at least as benign. It certainly doesn't make him a cult leader. But I'm still not clear on precisely what you mean by that. Before using the term again, please define what you mean by it as clearly as you can. Just as a personal note, for myself, I would not issue such harsh criticisms and write as though I knew a subject well unless I had really looked into it. I assume you haven't read the core book of Falun Gong, Zhuan Falun, or really tried to look into it. You have seen some of these apparently controversial teachings, then what some news articles have said. Is that what 100 million people in China got up early every morning for to do exercises? I'd say that if you want to understand the topic you might consider reading the book for yourself and seeing what it's on about. Perhaps at the moment you have formed hasty judgements based on limited information. Anyway, I think this point is just too simple, if he wanted money he could get it easily, why wouldn't he just ask everyone to give me $1 or $10, heck, why not $100?? Why wouldn't he just post on the internet his bank account and ask for donations, watch the money flow in! If he was keen for money, why not just do that? It'd be much simpler. The books are all on the internet for free download, anyway.

Falun Gong practitioners founded NTDTV, Falun Gong didn't found NTDTV. A Falun Gong practitioner in Berlin has no connection to a Falun Gong practitioner in Argentina. You can be on an island and practice Falun Gong all the same. You just do the exercises and read the books, that's practicing Falun Gong. Some practitioners got together in different places and did these things in response to the persecution. Those are their individual actions. The extent of the organisation you will find is on falundafa.org, where people can put their locations, phone numbers and names. So if I move somewhere, I can email the website and tell them I do the exercises at this certain park at this time each week, and read the book at this time, and they can load it on there, so when other people visit the website they will know there is a practice on and such and such time at X place, and a phone number to contact. It's as simple as that really. Activities like protests against the persecution are funded and organised on a local level also, just whatever people can come up with. Call it an organisation if you like, but there's no one in charge, and people just do things as they see fit, discussing it locally and doing it locally. There are no orders or heirarchy involved. There's certainly no money changing hands, that's stipulated clearly in Zhuan Falun.

I wonder if you read the sections I had hyperlinked above; these outline some of the scholarly work about the cult label and how it has been used to margianilise and persecute Falun Gong practitioners in China. I would direct you there to see what I mean. To answer directly, I was saying others have said that, you'll see what I mean on the respective pages. I would find it helpful whether you indicated to me whether you had read those sections or not. At least then I wouldn't bother you by suggesting it again.

Final point. He never said that homosexuals and mixed-race people are the tool of the devil. I see that you feel quite hostile on this point. Despite that, I think it's important to be respectful of other people, and at least maintain a civil tone. I can tell you that Falun Gong is founded on moral teachings, of truthfulness, compassion, and forbearance. It is about giving up attachments and looking within oneself when coming across difficulties. It is a deeply moral practice, before whatever else. As I say, the questions of homosexuality and mixed-race are metaphysical. He is claiming that modern values are mixed up, that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is immoral. He's allowed to think that, isn't he? People are allowed to believe it, aren't they? Have they done wrong by virtue of that? There is no ill-will or hatred towards any group, don't get confused. The practice is about treating all sentient beings with compassion, no matter what race, sexual orientation, religious belief. Several close friends who I see regularly are homosexual. If Li taught me to hate them, do you think I would be such close friends with them? Why would I hang out with them? Why wouldn't I cut them off, if that's how I felt? Also, heaps of Chinese and westerns are married, for example, among Falun Gong practitioners. There's no big deal. Where's the hatred? As I say, these are metaphysical positions, not worldly passions. There's an enourmous difference. I can't really do anything if you don't want to find out anything further, and have just stubbornly adopted a set of views based on a small amount of information. You should know that Falun Gong is a peaceful practice being unfairly persecuted. That much you should be able to take at face value, notwithstanding your disagreement with some of Li's comments.

I read your comment below. Can I please request that you address the long note I wrote previously, about how this topic of controversial teachings might be approached. Declaring that you will simply paraphrase the disputed text and reinsert it... I mean, we are supposed to work together and talk about how to approach the subject, and reach a consensus. But just declaring what you're going to do does not seem to be doing that, do you know what I mean? Please let me know if you think I am saying something unreasonable here. I don't want to repeat how I think it should be approached, as it's all in the discussion above. I hope you could read it again and let me know what you think. As a suggestion, you may consider weighing up the merits of it, and explaining the reasoning behind your thinking, as I have tried to do for you. If you would like me to substantiate any of my remarks with references to sources, I would be happy to do so. I thought about that long remark before I wrote it, I didn't just make up any old thing. Sorry this note has ended up quite long. I wanted to address your concerns as best I could. I am interested to work cooperatively, rather than combatively. I hope this has been of some benefit. Thanks.--Asdfg12345 21:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the response. Your response length is fine, and I'll try to address your concerns. I too wish to solve this issue cooperatively and prevent an edit war or NOI conflict. My responses to your comments and my thoughts on the subject is such:

"Li didn't end up making much despite all that in China...people even hand copied them for the poor farmers, he said that's fine, it's the same."

Why did Mao Zedong hand out his little red book for free? Was he trying to profit as well? Li supporting the handing out of free books just means he is able to spread his ideology faster, increasing support and power for his movement. In the end, Li is a powerful man with a large following, many zealous supporters, and a comfortable home in the states.

"Is that what 100 million people in China got up early every morning for to do exercises? I'd say that if you want to understand the topic you might consider reading the book for yourself and seeing what it's on about. Perhaps at the moment you have formed hasty judgements based on limited information."

First, they're not all Falun Gong followers. Second, they're practicing FG, they're qigong and taichi, martial arts exercises that dates back thousands of years. Just because Li Hongzhi copied ideas from other religions and practices and injected them into FG doesn't give him monopoly over them. As for my limited information, that may be true, but the same applies for you as well. You don't learn about criticisms and conflicting thoughts if all you read is pro-FG books that support the practice - that would be just preaching to the choir.

"I'd only say again that this isn't again any laws, and people can write what they want. If it doesn't harm others, that should be allowed. People write about fairy tales and trolls and magical things all the time. As far as you are concerned, Li's works are no more than that, right? They are at least as benign."

Of course, he can write whatever he want. But when he tries pass off intolerance and fictional tales as a religious movement, and then guise it under elements copied from eastern religions...that's called a cult. Of course, Li Hongzhi, like L Ron Hubbard, can write and say whatever he wants because it's their right to do so. But the public does deserve to know their fringe viewpoints bordering on cultism.

Now, I very well realize the most FG do not support his fringe views - just like how many Scientologists don't follow Hubbard's ideas of DC-8 space aliens, or Jews following the extremist portions of the Torah. But that just means the religion as a whole has become legitimate, but the founder is still a manipulative cult leader. Those under his direct influence and continue to follow him would be within the boundaries of a cult.

"scholarly work about the cult label and how it has been used to margianilise and persecute Falun Gong practitioners in China."

Again, you're basically saying that because we call it a cult, we're justifying its persecution. Quite the contrary. I believe Li Hongzhi is a cult leader, and the FG may be a cult. However, the CCP oppression is still unjustified and they deserve civil rights. CCP oppression isn't a justification in saying that the FG should be immune from criticism.

"I can tell you that Falun Gong is founded on moral teachings, of truthfulness, compassion, and forbearance."

Of course it does. So does Scientology. But does that make up for Scientology's crazy rants by its founder? Islam and Christianity also teaches love and truth - but does that stop fringe elements from going on jihads and crusades? The Falun Gong has compassion and forbearance because it's essentially a melding of Buddhist, Confucianist, Taoist, etc teachings. The problem here is that Li Hongzhi, basically just copied the ideas of other religions, combined them into Falun Gong, and is now profiting from it. What's worse is his cult rantings of intolerance and hatred.

In his references to mixed race individuals and homosexuality, Li makes reference to them being the spawn of a period of the end of the world. So yes, he is basically saying they are devil-spawns responsible for the collapse of society. If you read the quotes in the link I have provided, it specifically references his argument of how each race has their own race gods, and that interracial marriage creates children that will go to hell "without his intervention." If you still doubt Li said this, you can google it and come up with numerous results.

"I can't really do anything if you don't want to find out anything further, and have just stubbornly adopted a set of views based on a small amount of information. You should know that Falun Gong is a peaceful practice being unfairly persecuted."

And you seem to stubbornly defends Li and his cult status. Learning about something does not mean blindly believing and supporting all of its elements. And again, you're bringing up the CCP oppression as if it's the result of our criticism, so I'll reiterate my position. Like it or not, Li Honzhi is a cult leader. Nonetheless, even cult leaders and his followers deserve civil rights and the CCP crackdown is unjustified.

In the end, what I'm proposing is fairness. If an organization is controversial, yet the page contains only positive articles that support it, would be POV. The current controversies section is obviously insufficient and seems edited by those who want to hide the criticisms. All I'm saying is have a section that documents controversies on its founder - such as Li's cult like status and his intolerant remarks.

I don't believe that's too much to ask. I'll reorganize the proposed section and post it here. We can later discuss what to include and/or omit. I'll work with you and others here to resolve this issue.

Thanks Intranetusa (talk) 02:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I will just write here what corresponds to the article. I won't respond to your comments about Falun Gong, but I will address those on your user talk page. Here we can keep it very business-like and professional (you should read that page, it's very good). Okay, well I will just put these in point form

the view that Falun Gong is a cult is not mainstream. It's a fringe view. I say this because it is not the way academics who research Falun Gong approach it, they disagree, and others say it is just a political label", e.g.: "By applying the label and embracing theories that posit passive followers under the mental control of a dangerous leader, the government can aggressively destroy the group, all the while claiming to be protecting religious freedom. In this respect, the Western Anti-Cult Movement has served, unwittingly or not, as a lackey in the party's efforts to maintain its political dominance." -- overall, the fringe view aspect means that we do not mention it as though it is a mainstream view; we say that certain people have this view, and this is how mainstream people think of it. I suggested you read a few sections on those other pages, to see what I mean. Basically, the label was first used to try to give ground to a baseless persecution of the practice, and later it was taken up outside China by some "cult-busters". They don't have academic credentials, and their views aren't part of mainstream academia on Falun Gong.
the teachings you point out (about sexuality, races, aliens, not sure what else) form between .5% and 1% of the teachings. I estimate that there are about 1500 pages of Li Hongzhi's teachings on the internet, and I estimate that between 5 and 10 of them deal with these topics. So in Falun Gong texts, these aren't any kind of focus, they seem to be mentioned in passing more-or-less. They aren't defining characteristics of what Falun Gong teaches. In normal circumstances, since wikipedia can't cover everything, minor things would just not be mentioned in wikipedia articles, because there would be no point, given the hundreds of topics covered in all the lectures, to pick out a few certain ones, however,
because these things have attracted criticism or attention, we can mention them in that context. This still goes with caveats, such as they are not definitive aspects of Falun Gong, that mainstream scholars do not find these important aspects of Falun Gong teachings and do not think Falun Gong is focused on these topics. There are sources for all those points. It also means we don't accord undue space or emphasis to these, thereby misrepresenting the general body of scholarly literature, and Falun Gong. I would suggest having an "Eccentric or controversial teachings" section on the teachings page, or having a "Miscellaneous teachings" section on the teachings page, where these things might be covered in a couple of hundred words. I might even be able to do that within the next 12-14 hours.
A final point; I will look at the NYT source again more closely, but unless it says that these are controversial, or specifically describes them in a certain way, we can't simply quote what they say and put it in the controversial section--do you know what I mean? I mean that it's original research to do that. Unless a source said X we can't say or make out that a source said X. So if all the NYT article did is give an imaginative depiction of these elements of the teachings that you find controversial, it's kinda useless, because it doesn't support them being controversial, it just refers to them. --Asdfg12345 02:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I was just trying to do this now, but I got stuck. The proposition I made earlier doesn't make sense, and I think there is some policy against channeling POVs through names for sections. Calling it "controversial and eccentric teachings" doesn't make sense, because why not have a section called "good and fun teachings" ?? People reading it would be like "uhh... what is this?", and I think this concept is similar. I read the whole article, and I can see where you get some of your ideas. I mean, it's an interesting take on the thing. The guy obviously think he's got Falun Gong figured out after he downloaded a few of the books off the internet and flipped through them, pulling out the parts he thought were sensational. That's his busines, I guess. Here, we are supposed to present things like an encyclopedia. We don't go in for sensationalist angles, we can't. Smith doesn't seem to say too much concrete about Falun Gong that isn't already covered by Falun Gong itself. Most of the things he refers to are in the teachings, but as I say they come to probably less than one percent. It would be misleading and misrepresentative to give a big airing to one article, and this author's views, on Falun Gong. If he built an argument or said something coherent, I think we'd be able to make use of it. In particular, if there were a few that said similar things, like "Falun Gong is a cult because of ..." or "The teachings of Falun Gong are controversial because aliens don't exist and blah ..." -- perhaps that would be useful. Because then we could report that so and so have said they disagree with Li's theories about aliens, or whatever. In particular, we can't say anything sources don't say, so having a section "controversial teachings" is definitely out--it would be original research. At the moment, it's like we have nothing to go on. He's just repeated some of Li's ideas that he's taken a fancy to, but not added much apart. I just don't know what we are suppoed to take from that. --Asdfg12345 15:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

copyvio on page

Resolved

– Copyvio removed. El_C 09:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Explanation for requesting edit of protected article: copyvio, the text in question, is copy and paste from NYT. There is also a copy and paste from a BBC kind of blog, not a reliable source anyway, also c&p job, violating copyright. The text should be removed.--Asdfg12345 08:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC) The URLs to compare the text to are those added as references. Admin should also consider removing the final paragraph of the lede, added by the same user who introduced the copyright violations, until editors can discuss the article together and reach a consensus. The second point is merely advisory, the first has to be done per WP:COPYVIO.--Asdfg12345 08:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. El_C 09:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I will summarize the criticisms so it no longer in copyright violation when this issue is resolved. Intranetusa (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In the last paragraph above I responded to this. Just briefly again, I request that you consider my long, original note about how to approach the subject above. Please let me know what you think of that approach. --Asdfg12345 21:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

So you're basically saying that just because 1% of Li's teachings is controversial, we should completely ignore it because 99% of his teachings aren't controversial? That's a bit ridiculous. Why did the media focus so much attention on Mel Gibson's anti-Jew rant when 99% of his other statements have been perfectly non-controversial?

I suggest you take a look at Mel Gibson's article. There is a detailed section regarding his 'controversies' - and what he and Li has said is basically the same in relation to inciting hatred.

And the view of the Falun Gong's Li Hongzhi being a cult leader is hardly a fringe view. You claim that most academics does not consider Li Hongzhi a cult leader...what is this mainstream academia you're referring to? Most academic studies on the Falun Gong has been the health benefits related to the qigong and exercise practices that it copied from Tai Chi, Buddhism, etc. There has never been 'mainstream' acceptance of Li Hongzhi as you claim.

And again, you're basically accusing those who don't accept Li and the FG as promoting the communist oppression of the Falun Gong. Perhaps you should take a look at the Scientology article.

All in all, I feel that the only way to solve this is to put the controversies on the Li Hongzhi page instead of the main Falun Gong page. I will put the main controversies on his page, and link it to here.

Intranetusa (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to copy over your other statement, since it's repeated here. I apologise if I have not explained clearly. For us to say that Li's teaching about X or Y is controversial, we need to quote a source that says that. We cannot pick which teachings we think are controversial, and then say that. It doesn't matter about Mel Gibson. I actually think the best way to do this is to have a section on the teachings page called "Miscellaneous teachings", and note these teachings, and alongside nothing them, raise that some have called them controversial. But so far you have not provided any source saying that Li's teachings are controversial, you have just presented what you think are his controversial teachings; that's called original research.

The cult thing is a total fringe view. I can give you can example: I've got 50 academic articles on my computer right in front of me, which is nearly the entirety of the scholarly literature done on Falun Gong, and I know just one of them calls Falun Gong a cult like you say. And the person who wrote that is not even an academic, she was a failed soap opera actress and an undergrad when she wrote it, submitting it to a cultic studies "journal", which has no academic affiliation. I.e. it's useless and doesn't count. The rest of them don't use this language. Another example is that David Ownby is the foremost scholar on Falun Gong, and he says the word was a red herring; another example is that Ian Johnson who won the pulitzer for writing on Falun Gong says it's wrong; another example is Benjamin Penny, another prominent sinologist whose done work on Falun Gong, does not say Falun Gong is a cult; another example is Barend ter Haar who does not say Falun Gong is a cult--do you need more? Websites promoting these views don't count as reliable sources, such as the BBC blog type thing.

Let me be clear about what I'm saying re the persecution. I am not necessarily saying that those who use this language to refer to Falun Gong agree with harming practitioners for their beliefs. I am saying that this is the language used to vilify and murder Falun Gong practitioners, and whether you like it or not, it helps the CCP to margianalise and kill them. They (the CCP) want everyone to mistrust Falun Gong and think it's a cult, because they know that we have a tougher time sympathising with a cult than we do with a gentle meditation practice. This is a simple fact. That's all I meant.

Again, I'd just reiterate the need for you to examine the core wikipedia policies about original research, verifiability, and the neutral point of view. The idea of putting forward things that reliable sources have said about a subject isn't wrong, and I am not just stubbornly resisting this idea, but the manner it's been presented in so far violates the policy on original research, and apart from that it gives strong prominence to fringe views. What do you think?--Asdfg12345 01:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I'm focusing on the fact that the leader being a cult leader, and not FG as a whole. Falun Gong has become an accepted mainstream religion because the core elements of is basically Buddhism, Taoism, Qi Gong practices, etc...those have been around for thousands of years so it's not controversial.

Scientology is considered by many to be a fringe religious group. Now, famous celebrities from Tom Cruise to Will Smith have become members of that religion. 10 years from now, the idea that Scientology's founder is a cult leader will also be a "fringe view" and Scientology will become an acceptable mainstream religion. Should we delete all criticisms from the Scientology page or replace them with quasi-critics that pull their punches? Perhaps it is WP:OR, but deleting them without working to improve it and keep the article as it is only serves to make the entire page very single sidedly WP:POV. What do you think? Intranetusa (talk) 06:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, what is the purpose of the 'Ideological and social context' portion? Quotes in that section such as "a worldwide backlash against capitalist modernity and a testimony to the importance of meaning" is a bit far fetched.

Also, all of the criticisms and FG idealology seems to be directly quoted from the sources. You've taken up issue with me for the same reason - WP:OR. Redress the numerous problems before you revert my edits again. Intranetusa (talk) 07:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's the right idea. You are introducing highly contested, highly disputed edits without even discussing it properly. There is a policy called WP:UNDUE, which I have indicated several times. Please read it carefully. The fact is that scholars, who are the highest quality sources on this topic, do not subscribe to these sensationalist interpretations. Nor should we approach this like a tabloid exposé. I believe we should report what sources have said about this topic, in proportion to the quality of the source, the depth of reporting, and the overall context. I am definitely not suggesting excluding the stuff about sexuality, aliens, and so on. I've read a lot of news articles on Falun Gong, and sometimes journalists mention these. I understand that because of that, we should also say that journalists have picked up on these things. I think that should happen on the Teachings page, to explain these different views. I'm working on that now. We could work together, if you like. I think that would be nice. At the moment I am finding this odd, changing a section title to add in "controversies" with a link to a giant section on the Li Hongzhi page.. it's just taking things way out of proportion. To give you an example of the converse, what if we changed the section to "Academic attention and praise" -- how would that be? Then we have a section praising Li Hongzhi and saying how great Falun Gong is. There would be plenty of material to dig up from proclamations, books, articles. But it would be silly to do that. Also, you claim that the pages currently praise Falun Gong, could you please point out where? I was under the impression that this page, and others, are leaning more toward analysis. The section put in there is from a world-class scholar. That kind of thing carries a lot of weight, and those are the kind of sources we should be seeking out. Not to the exclusion of journalists, but in proportion. Anyway, I reckon these issues are best addressed on the teachings page; to present these views in the context of the teachings, note that journalists have found them eccentric and peculiar, note that scholars have urged taking a more historical or cultural perspective, and then note what Falun Gong have said in response. Giving the different views on this just seems like a more mature way to approach it, what do you think?--Asdfg12345 09:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This article remains POV pushed, forked, biased in favor of FLG

I am in complete agreement with editor Intranetusa, as well as other editors who have come here to voice their dissatisfactions. Falun Gong editors have blocked all critical discussion, marginalized facts in myrid of ways (blanking, removing from summary and hiding stuff in middle of article, hacking up others edit, taking turn in an organized way to undo stuff they don't like.) And removing POV flag is a joke! Bobby fletcher (talk) 06:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please be more specific about the particular bias(es?) you believe are on the page at the moment, and some ideas for how it may be improved. I don't object to the POV flag per se, but it is not enough to simply have a flag. We should figure out how to work together to improve the article, if there are problems with it. If you believe there are unaddressed issues in the above discussion between myself and intranetusa, you could take them up here and we can talk them through. Let's drop the personal accusations and talk intelligently about the article. We're building an encyclopedia, not battling one another. --Asdfg12345 08:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Example 1: Factual quotation from Canadia Superior Court Justice, a notable source, on specific instances of Falun Gong's teaching that is controlverisal (rejection of science, promis of supernatural, wheel in the somach, etc.) has been blanked by FLG editors in order to push a POV.

Fix this and we'll talk example 2.

I'm not the only one who thinks this page is FLG promotional material. Bobby fletcher (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Bobby, that was from a primary source, and that case is in appeal. It makes the source inadmissible, that's why it was removed. You could look up the use of primary sources if you like. It is standard practice to discuss how to improve the page and to talk about what could be improved before adding a POV flag. What I mean is, you don't put the flag there and then justify it. The flag should be a result of unresolved discussion. anyway... I don't think it helps to make vague or unfriendly remarks, we should just try to cooperate and act like grown ups. What else is on your mind?--Asdfg12345 00:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. the statement from Justice Russeau has nothing to do with weither the case is being appealed or not. Is the appeal about this notable statement? She said the movment is controlversial, and stated the specific nature of controlversey. It is notable fact. DE against it in order to maintain a POV in this article is wrong. I can't make it any more clear, this edit is good and should stand. Let's go to Arb. Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a primary source
The case is in appeal; her comment was part of the decision which is now in appeal
Aside from this source in particular, the introduction should be as neutral as possible, and just because you dig up some sources it doesn't mean you can define Falun Gong as they say. That reliable sources have said things is fine; they should be covered in the body of the article.--Asdfg12345 01:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. 1) so what, it is cited from a notable source. 2) The fact the case is in appeal has NOTHING to do with the notable opinion expressed by Qubec Superior court justice. Even if FLG wong (which FLG didn't) this quote would still be relevant and notable to the fact. 3) Notable sources were provided to prove the fact - not one of the 4 links are blog as you have misrepresented. Check it again - one of them is from Encyclopedia of Brittancia, and another is from David Kilgour's site. Bobby fletcher (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Shortening Academic attention segment?

Compared to the rest of the article, which is very well sourced, the second and third paragraph of the "Academic attention" segment are all sourced to one specific website (http://website.leidenuniv.nl/~haarbjter/falun.htm) maintained by one of the persons mentioned as sources in these two paragraphs, Barend ter Haar. I hope to be proven wrong, but I cannot see how this page lives up to being a reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For further reading, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If there are more reputable sources for a listing of academic attention and, even more significantly, what those studies have found or resulted in, I believe such sources would be much more beneficial to the article as a whole. If not, I believe the second and third paragraphs should be shortened into a single, smaller paragraph that does not so much as the current text simply repeat what the website says on the first page. Please be wary that you do not engage in too much original research for finding such references, but rather shorten the text into something that can be clearly and reputably sourced. Thank you. PerEdman (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

What's missing are the numbers above the lines; someone didn't bother to put them in. The notes there are just summaries of what those academics have written, actually. The references to the articles are on the academic page. I haven't look at that page in over a year. It would probably take 10 minutes to find the sources and put those references in--I mean, the summary statements of what different academics have written--do you think this would be a good idea, or better to shorten it? About the ter Haar, this is a good point. I understood there was some provision for self-published sources in certain circumstances, though: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" -- this guy is a China scholar, and this is the website he keeps. Since he's not saying anything particularly unusual, and is a recognised expert, I'd be inclined to let it slide. Thoughts?--Asdfg12345 17:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not what is missing. Accurate references for the specific claims inside the Academic Attention segment is missing wholesale, and instead a blanket reference to Bared ter Haars webpage is made, a webpage that is in itself a collection of third party sources. How would "the numbers above the lines" (do you mean superscript references?) alleviate the issue of all these claims referring to a single, collating, private webpage? At least the Patricia M. Thornton reference was an outside, peer reviewed, direct reference with page numbers which brought something OTHER than Barend Ter Haar's webpage to the segment. That's why I'm keeping that reference in the academic attention section.

If it takes "10 minutes to find the sources", then fix the references or the text has no right to be there. That's how wikipedia works. There is no excuse for keeping unsourced claims, at all. If Barnend Ter Haar is only republishing material that was previously published, then a reference to the journal where the original publication was made, is the very least we can ask for. And that's me making a provision for the possibility that this may be the case with Barend Ter Haar - I have really not seen any reason to believe that the provision is correct.

What Barend Ter Haar says is not in question - it is the references he is making to other scholars, as well as the fact that his own personal webpage is used as a source for his claims, making it self-published. PerEdman (talk) 10:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

We have more in common than you may realise. Let me find all references for the academic section now, I'll try to be thorough. The excuse for keeping around unreferenced claims is that there is an actural reference, or they're true, but just no one has gone to the trouble to put them in. There are stacks of unreferenced articles in wiki, I think they're great! It's just that when it is something like this, we should be more precise--I agree with you there. The criteria just seems to be whether there is any editor who actually comes along and does something about it. Let me look at it now. --Asdfg12345 04:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

I'm planning to remove the POV tag, please provide reason to keep it. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree - I'm disputing POV, POV fork, something other editors has also disputed. Give everyone two weeks to respond. Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you please provide something concrete? Thank You --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

See above. Bobby fletcher (talk) 23:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

See below. Bobby fletcher (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

RfC - Four notable sources BLANKED by editor ASDFG12345

Editor Asdfg12345 blanked a one-word insert that is proven with 4 notable sources proving the fact:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&diff=222376270&oldid=222213587

Note the rationale for the BLANKING was "you reference google blogs??".

However, none of the four notable sources are "google blogs" or even blogs at all. One of them is even from a source he has used intensely:

1) Encyclopedia Brittianica, a famous print encyclopedia - http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9218425/Falun-Gong "controversial Chinese spiritual movement founded by Li Hongzhi in 1992"

2) BeliefNet, the net’s largest online site for spirituality; operated by Steven Waldman, former national editor of US News & World Report: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/73/story_7310_1.html "beliefs and origins of this controversial movement"

3) About .com, an encyclopedia operated by New York Times: http://altreligion.about .com/cs/falungong/ "Falun Dafa, controversial Chinese sect"

4) BLOODY HARVEST, a Falun Gong sponsored site for the Kilgour'r report, a source used by Asdfg12345 himself extensively in another FLG realted article: http://organharvestinvestigation.net/media/falun_gong_practitioners_speak.htm "Practitioners of Falun Gong, a controversial Chinese religion, will hold a news conference"

I hereby Request for Comment on this edit made by Asdfg12345.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note Bobby the tag at the top of this page asking editors to discuss large or controversial changes before making them. These pages are also supposed to be on probation. You are introducing a highly contentious edit here. I could cite thousands of newspaper articles and other websites that do not say Falun Gong is controversial, or say that Falun Gong is a "spiritual movement" or "spiritual practice" or something of the like. The introduction should be totally demilitarised. Defining Falun Gong as controversial upfront, without qualifying that as the view of such and such is completely non-neutral. The article is essentially about Falun Gong; wikipedia identity conventions urge identifying articles as the subjects identify themselves.

I'm a bit surprised you would actually seek to insert this, in fact. I think it's quite unsophisticated. Do you want a serious treatment of the subject? I think we should be aiming to create a space on wikipedia for sources of a high-quality, to relay their interpretations and analyses of Falun Gong. Not to colour things one way or another from the start. The vast, vast majority of writing on Falun Gong does not characterise Falun Gong as controversial--even though these views are around, and ought to be discussed in the body of the article. I proposed a section entitled "Competing representations of Falun Gong" a while ago, and if there was any more you could find on this controversial idea, it would be a great forum for it. That is, if we could assemble a good amount of material from high-quality sources about how and in what way Falun Gong is controversial, that would be more intelligent than a mere assertion. And while I am aware that there is such discussion, there is far, far more material on how Falun Gong is a spiritual practice. It is just the default way of referring to Falun Gong, though discussion of the competing representations of Falun Gong should also be included in the article.--Asdfg12345 07:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like we have a POV disput here. This recurring disput is reason enough for the POV flag to go back. Bobby fletcher (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read the RfC again, Asdfg12345. It is about you blanking notable sources. The fact these notable sources have made similiar statement is not controlversial - it is a FACT. But you have once again demonstrated your POV pushing by blanking facts you don't like.

You have on multiple occasion demonstrated your MO to "improve" the article by blanking facts you don't like. You could have changed wording, added other citations (you claim to have thousands, can you find 4 notables?), moved it in more apporpriate place - BUT YOU CHOOSE TO BLANK.

This ain't the first time you've done it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bobby_fletcher#Editor_Asdfg12345.27s_blanking_of_facts_from_notable_source

I gave up building the list half way thru. Bobby fletcher (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: I think the NPOV tag should remain until the problems in question has been solved by both sides. I've rephrased the "controversial" to "regarded by some to be controversial".--PCPP (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Bobby, please engage with the points I raised in the paragraph above. It is no good just throwing your arms up in the air and getting into the personal attacks. Do you think I'm being unreasonable? Am I making up excuses and trying to throw up roadblocks? I think I actually have legitimate points, and you have to address them.--Asdfg12345 23:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The point is, again, Justice Russeau's statement on aspects of Falun Gong's teaching being controversial should not be removed, because it is notable fact relevant to the article. The fact Falun Gong lost the case and appealed has nothing to do with this statement. Yes, I believe you are being unreasonable, see the list of blanking cited above. You even blanked THE Encyclopedia Brittanica. Bobby fletcher (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

But I wrote about that above--it's a primary source, the case is in appeal, and the introduction should be demilitarised and not seek to define the subject as controversial from the start, but these things should be explored in a relevant section. It would be like me finding four sources that say Falun Gong makes people friendlier, and putting that in the lede. How appropriate would that be? Or finding four sources that say that Falun Dafa practitioners are righteous and brave? Doesn't make sense, does it. Then if you blanked it I could complain about how you're so naughty. Please let's discuss it in a more serious way. --Asdfg12345 01:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Two more things:

POV tag needs to be substantiated really soon or it goes
Added to the sentence that some analysts think Falun Gong is controversial, would it then also be appropriate to say that others think it makes people friendlier, or some other praise?--Asdfg12345 01:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There you go with your personal attack and "if" - do you have any facts to back up your accusation of what I might do? I've demonstrated your track record with a list of blanking. Summary is what it is by definition - I only added one word. And even if it is your contention it should not be in the lead (which I disput), your behavior in blanking the notable facts and pretent they are "Google blogs" is wrong - this is yet another instance of you choosing to "improve" the article not by good faith editing, but blanking facts you don't like to enforce a POV and an obvious agenda (knowing your affiliations.)

As to the notable statement by Justice Rousseau, don't mix it up in the same discussion. Some editors removed it from the summary and then hacked it up even when it is in the middle of the article where details should be.

I continue to insist it is inappropraite to remove the POV flag, when there are so many editors diputing - PCPP, Intranetusa, Alum Salt, Martin... This is just a short of of recent disputes that has remain unresolved. See the talk page contents above.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you had me cracking up with that Xinhua stuff. I'm just asking you to please explain what dispute we have been unable to resolve re the POV tag. It does not work to put it there then try to justify it, or refer to nothing. That in itself creates a disagreement, quite a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you do not identify something, I'm going to remove it.--Asdfg12345 23:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've actually removed it now. I have never meant to personally attack you or be uncivil. I'm finding it difficult to get out of an oppositional mentality, where you are on one side and I am on the other. To do that successfully will actually require both of us to put in an effort. I can start by apologising for accusing you of using google blogs; I only glanced at one of the URLs and that's where I thought it was sourced to. It seems the introduction is a bit better now. How do you see the page being improved from here?--Asdfg12345 23:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I disagree with your most recent BLANKING:

1) You waited a grand total of 6 seconds to remove the POV flag - again while there are numerous disputes in the talk page. The continued objection of POV fork where citical discussion of Falun Gong is relegated to another page and given no prominence in this page remains. Please put the POV flag is back in.

2) Xinhua is a notable source. Please put it back.

3) The dispute with Justice Rousseau's statement remain unresolved. I've challanged all your concerns, and one of the most telling fact is while statemen 39 was preserved, you BLANKED statement 40 in order to minimize/trivialize the notable statement. I find that utterly unacceptable as a tactic to skew a POV.

You can apologize all you want, but your action shows you remain unrepentant about blankning notable facts you don't like in order to enforce a POV. This flag needs to stay in order to highlight the disputes.

That's just my objections. There are other editors who has objected to other parts of the article. See Talk above.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Xinhua propaganda is inadmissible. Read WP:RS. Justice Rousseau primary source, case in appeal, read WP:RS. On this Rousseau issue though, perhaps we should get more opinions. If you cast your mind back, even confucius opposed it. That must tell you something. I feel that my time is being wasted if I repeat the same points to you about basic issues to do with verifiability and reliable sources. And putting one liners like that at the end of the lede, sourced from Xinhua, I don't know how you can expect that be taken seriously. Please become familiar with wikipedia policies and there won't be any problems. Ownby is also the foremost scholar on Falun Gong in the world, and wikipedia should reflect mainstream scholarship on the subjects it carries. I assume you knew that.--Asdfg12345 09:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And Epoch Times propaganda is not? Read the Admin's opinion, what part of "Xinhua news agency is a perfectly reliable source on the statements of Chinese government officials" from the admin don't you understand?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong#Asdfg12345_Please_put_the_PRC_government_sourcyou_BLANKED_BACK

Bobby fletcher (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Comprehensive Look

I am impressed that Falun Gong practitioners have extended their marketing, a less charged term for propaganda, to the English Wikipedia. The entire article is now devoid of any sort of statement that can be taken with a hint of criticism towards Falun Gong, and any statement that seems to portray Falun Gong in a negative light has a refuting clause thereafter. I find this utterly sad, but by far one of the best attempts on Wikipedia to mask NPOV. Even in the "Academic attention" section on the article, critical analysis of Falun Gong is scant and misinformed, and only select studies are shown with little regard to the overwhelming trend, that, in the very least, Falun Gong is a controversial movement. What we end up having is a subtly biased article that shields most of Wikipedia's audience from the truth about Falun Gong.

What is interesting, however, is that on the Chinese version of Wikipedia, which is systematically biased in favour of anti-Communist views due to its block on mainland China, examines Falun Gong from a much more neutral light than the article on the English Wikipedia. For example, there is an entire section, written in traditional Chinese, discussing the political elements of the Falun Gong movement. The dominant pattern on the English Wikipedia has been to "compromise" based solely on requests made by Falun Gong-practicing editors and to systematically and gradually erode any negative views of Falun Gong in the article whenever and wherever possible. The persistence of Falun Gong-praciticing editors have long discouraged any neutral-minded editors from persisting in their cause to present a neutral view, and the ease to dismissing anything negative as "CPC propaganda" while unquestionably adhering to favourable views of Falun Gong has led to the ultimate product of another piece of Falun Gong marketing material found right here in the article today.

I myself have grown tired of trying to present a NPOV with regards to this article, or the article on Li Hongzhi. But in all honesty I am saddened, but not surprised, that the innate systemic behaviors of Falun Gong members have flagrantly invaded on neutrality grounds on Wikipedia and have embedded a spirit of pseudo-religious marketing. As a tireless Wikipedia contributor, I am discouraged and insulted from these developments. Colipon+(T) 20:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

That is interesting to read, but it is not very specific. Can you provide some references to specific things that aren't in the article that should be? (Please forgive me if I am not familiar with some of the history here.) -Wookipedian (talk) 05:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, try to mention that Li Hongzhi considers homosexuality as evil as murder, or his business with aliens, walking through walls or any other stuff (sourced, of course) that doesn't suit the sentinels watching this space. Hexmaster (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I had a quote taken from the New York Times which they reported as being a direct quote from Li Hongzhi, addressing followers in Australia, but as it had to do with Mr. Li's views on race (that children of interracial marriages only get into heaven through the good graces of Mr. Li) it was deleted without comment or discussion from the sub-page on their teachings. I'm giving the deleters until the end of today to provide a justification for the deletion and then the quote is going back in... but they will probably just delete it again. FLG is very activist and has a vested interest in disseminating anti-chinese propaghanda, not a neutral look at their religion.Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

So - did you get past the FG censorship or not? I haven't even looked... This have to be one of the worst articles in all of Wikipedia. Hexmaster (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

They take great advantage of people who have little knowledge of the subject, advance their agenda through media, notably the internet (which would explain the Wikipedia patrols and reverts), and have received numerous awards from clueless municipal authorities and NGOs. They also ride on anti-China hysteria and exploit the current regime's bad human rights record to advance their own goals. What can I say, they are geniuses at their marketing - and their not-so-subtle agenda-pushing on Wikipedia has certainly been successful. Can something be done to this article? Not very likely. Most people have just given up. Is this justified or right? No. Colipon+(T) 04:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The English language version of this article seems to highlight Falun Gong in an unfairly positive light. Even at the start, it's referred to as a 'spiritual practice' when it is considered a religion by some (and a cult by others) - little to no mention of this is made in the article. This seems to be consistent with the way FG is described to the public as a form of exercises and meditation - any elements of FG practice or beliefs which would be regarded as unsavoury in the Western world (such as the views on homosexuality as amoral behaviour, although I did check the article on Christianity and found no mention either, which seems odd) are eliminated or toned down.

A search of the article for the word 'cult' turned up a first mention in the "Persecution" section, stating that the Chinese government had branded FG as such (note that "branded" in this context is kind of a weasel word). The next hit, in the "Reception" section is of interest, but completely fails to mention any of the reasons why those people consider FG to be a cult. Why is the "Persection" section seven times longer than the "Reception" section? That in itself indicates some bias in the article's current state.

Finally, I have to agree with a previous editor who mentioned that the Chinese language version of the article is much fairer and balanced than the English language one. It discusses some important issues which are completely omitted in the English version.

Destynova (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There is some discussion of this above, here: [4]. So, if the article just had a whole lot of stuff about how dumb Falun Gong belief's are, that would make everything okay? I'm not sure I get the problem. The specific things about the teachings seem to be details; you could just change them for anything for wikipedia purposes, like, Li said that blue flowers are better than red ones on Tuesdays, and that practitioners should always wash their hands twice before eating, not once. You know, just anything--how would such details be relevant? I know the answer: if they appear in reliable sources, then they should be mentioned in proportion to their representation in such sources. Which brings me to the point: academics which have studied Falun Gong don't latch onto things like this and say this is what Falun Gong is all about, they seek to understand such remarks in their wider context. Read Ownby's recent book, for example. The encyclopedia isn't a tabloid. What I'm annoyed is that people on "my side" have removed explanations of such things from the teachings page, and I'm going to restore them right now.--Asdfg12345 04:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Homophobic Rhetorics

criticism sections seems to being continously removed by Falun Gong members.

Some scholars such as Philip Cunningham at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok have criticized Falun Gong teachings as deeply illiberal and homophobic and described it as "looks like a cult, smells like a cult and by any reasonable definition is a cult"^[1]. Rick Ross, an American expert on cults have described Li Hongzhi, the funder of Falun Gong as someone who "doesn’t recognize everyone’s human rights, or even their right to be 'human'"^[2]" Falun Gong also lists "Homosexuality, licentious desires" as one of the "world's ten evils".^[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.189.70 (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Rick Ross, waging his religiously motivated battle outside the academia, is not an "expert on cults" in the eyes of any genuine scholar, and Falun Gong has never restricted anybody's rights to do what they will; it seems you're talking about thought crimes. Traditionalist views on certain issues are not "cultish" per se, except in the double-speak of militant secularists and other fundamentalists. A 'cult' is defined by how it operates--otherwise the term loses it meaning and becomes an ideological club against perceived 'heresy'--and Falun Gong does not operate like a 'cult'. Read this post, please, and then we can discuss, if you feel it's necessary.

However, I agree that in the Teachings of Falun Gong article we need to find some room for covering these issues. They should be contextualised appropriately, and their relative weight in the corpus of teachings should be apparent to any reader. Also, if the reader gets the impression that Falun Gong would be pushing any societal agenda against homosexuals or mixed-race marriages (the latter being very common even among practitioners), we would be misleading them to believe in falsehoods. As the topic is so sensitive, and well-documented physical violence, structural discrimination and other forms of persecution are involved, we must meticulously adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, keeping any kind of ideological struggle away from these pages. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is it religious motivated just because he's Jewish?99.244.189.150 (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It's laughable that Olaf, who personally practices FLG, deciding what is and isn't a scholar. Got any evidence that Ross is not an expert on cults? He is considered an expert witness on cults by the US High Court [5].--PCPP (talk) 04:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Olaf, stop typing so damn much and show me and the OP how much you agree by adding the information yourself, in what you believe to be the proper context. Currently the article is giving readers the impression that Falun Gong has no opinion on homosexuals at all, which is clearly false. Please, go ahead and correct that little issue, would you? PerEdman (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually Falun Gong is not forcing it's views on anyone, not even on practitioners, so why would you insist to make a big case out of this when it's not. Wikipedia is not a tabloid see: WP:UNDUE --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversial

Controversial. Adjective. Earliest noted usage in 1583. Means something of, relating to or arousing controversy. It can also mean something that is given to controversy, such as a humour or temperament. I use the word in the first meaning.

Controversy. Noun. Dated 14th century. A discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views. A dispute.

Now, as many of you have noticed, this is a humongous talk page. Just look at it. And this is not the only place in the world where a similar discussion is taking place. We aren't in agreement. We aren't all holding the same views of Falun Gong. In fact, we have very much opposing views of the movement, the training regime, the philosophy and strangest of all - we the wikipedians even disagree on whether or not we disagree about Falun Gong.

But it's obvious. We do disagree. We are in dispute. We have a controversy and that controversy is about a subject that relates to or arouses that controversy. That's what controversial means. That's what Falun Gong is.

So why do I add the word to the introduction when I know that there is a sentinel or three just waiting to revert any such edit? Well, partly because I care about Wikipedia and partially because I want it blindingly obvious what a crying shame this article is. Carry on. PerEdman (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I copy this response here from Olaf, which I think sums up the problem with this well enough. The last link given is relevant.--Asdfg12345 06:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg12345 and HappyInGeneral are right, in my opinion. Falun Gong per se cannot be defined as "controversial". We don't define qigong as "controversial", even though it's very much controversial in the eyes of James Randi and others. Nor is ISKCON defined as "controversial" in the article's lead section, even though E. Burke Rochford, Jr.'s book Hare Krishna in America begins with the words "Few social issues have been more controversial over the past decade than the growth and expansion of the new religions in America." Defining a phenomenon as "controversial" is already implying a stance; it is not a neutral word, because anything can be seen controversial, including the theory of evolution, George W. Bush, or impressionist art. Shall we define GWB as "a controversial American president"? Or impressionism as "a controversial art movement"? Or heterosexual marriage as "a controversial social institution"? See Wikipedia:No weasel words. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 10:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, please do not rehash select parts of an old discussion, it is hardly objective or convincing. There is controversy over Falun Gong, therefore it is controversial. This is what the word controversial means and stating this implies no stance what so ever.

If all you wanted to say was "controversial is a weasel word", you could do that without the huge quote. As you know, the article defines the term "weasel words" as "words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources". Since verifiable sources have been given for the word, only to be blanked by you, it does not apply. PerEdman (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

@PerEdman: I understand your reasoning - but i find it to be aahhmmm... how shall i say this "controversial" (-: Cause if we go by your logic - than one of the MOST controversial groups would undoutably be the jewish religion. As at all times they have faced harsh persecution and countless people opposing, disagreeing, de-valueing or even plainly attacking them. So seen from such a perspective - maybe they could actually be called "controversial". But it would be even more controversial to call them that, wouldn't it? --Hoerth (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hoerth, Please bring this up on the talk page for Judaism; I'm sure the discussion will be more welcome there that it is here. If you have any questions about the data driving my logic, you are more than welcome to ask. PerEdman (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Immediately cease groundlessly undoing edits to the article without discussing the subject with the intent of reaching a consensus. I will naturally not revert your revisions as that would only serve to indicate that I was not interested in discussing the issue. PerEdman (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Your comments came after the edit, and I assumed you were not interested in discussion. When I saw the comments I responded, and the edit conflict happened. I wouldn't simply revert and not say anything; I thought it was the other way around. Here's my response. I won't revert more than once a day, but it shouldn't be necessary anyway. Please consider.

The quote I introduced was relevant. It is the same argument and it ended last time there. If there is more to say, please add it on. There's no sense dismissing it because it's six months old, it's the same set of ideas. I was going to elaborate myself but thought it wasn't necessary. The start of any article could start with "controversial."

Let's do an experiment. Should all articles be like this:

Christianity (from the word Xριστός "Christ") is a controversial monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in the New Testament.

Physics (Greek: physis – φύσις meaning "nature") is the controversial natural science which examines basic concepts such as energy, force, and spacetime and all that derives from these, such as mass, charge, matter and its motion.

The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were controversial nuclear attacks near the end of World War II against the Empire of Japan by the United States at the executive order of U.S. President Harry S. Truman on August 6 and 9, 1945.

Directly defining the subject as "controversial" is at once a weasel word, vague, and non-neutral. And the above three are just simple examples of what leads would look like in a world where that kind of language was the order of the day.--Asdfg12345 19:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, This talk section was created at 18:51, 8 March 2009. You made your second revert with reference to talk page at 05:54, 9 March 2009, i.e. 11 hours later. You then made a third revert at 18:53, 10 March 2009, still without going to the talk page, even though you yourself had referred to it. You are clearly reflexively undoing edits to the article. You did simply revert and not say anything.

You reprinted a post from an old discussion rather than discuss with me, your entire point being that controversial is a "weasel word", even though sources have been provided and blanked for the word and it can therefore by definition not be a weasel term. The discussion did not end due to any argument put forth in the quoted text and no consensus was reached, yet you continued to erase the word from the article.

Your incomprehensible examples bear little to no relevance. How is Falun Gong like an atomic bombing of Japan? How is Falun Gong like Christianity? How is Falun Gong like Physics? Oddly enough, the Wikipedia article on controversy currently states: "Christianity today is still considered controversial by leading authorities in psychiatry and communism, as in Red China." Funny, that. PerEdman (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

True, but not in the lead (although technically speaking that article is not very well organized, so it's hard to say). That would not make a good entry for an encyclopedia, because it would be too judgmental :) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what does this comment refer to? PerEdman (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It refered to your previous quote where you said: ""Wikipedia article on controversy currently states "Christianity today is still considered controversial by leading authorities in psychiatry and communism, as in Red China." Funny, that. "" --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW thank you for the who, and the which tags with references that you just put up. That is constructive. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The thanks should go to Asdfg12345 who put me in the mind of weasel words. Finding unsourced statements is one of the most basic duties of wikipedians and one we can almost always engage in even in articles whose subjects we know little about. It almost always makes for a better article, at least once the tags have been answered. :) PerEdman (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

PerEdman, if there is a discussion on the talk page on something, I will take it up. I'm not interested in reverting and ignoring discussion. Just wanted to make that point quickly. I will be away for close to a week, and can then fill in those references and things when I get back, unless someone else does it. The "alleged" seemed silly, since the whole thing is extremely well documented; and the nationwide crackdown thing can be referenced directly to Forbes. anyway, got to go. Please don't think I'm a bad guy or trying to be problematic, or whatever. You don't need to question my intentions or get personal, either. There could be some misunderstanding. If you want a more scrupulously referenced article, that's great. The point of the examples is to show how any subject can be labelled as "controversial" and its exactly the same principle here. In particular, in this case the "controversy" is related to the persecution and all that has happened since, and this is the context. A final note also, I forgot to ask, what do you mean about Falun Gong having a "training regime"?--Asdfg12345 01:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, You can't insist that you never do something that you just did. You did not bring it up, you reverted instantly. There was nothing preventing you yourself from adding it to the talk page yourself either, or to the older discussion.

Second point, as you know unsourced claims should not stand. If no-one comes forward with sources, the statements will be removed. Don't hold that against me, it's in the guidelines. PerEdman (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

also, about the examples, the point is sort of this: anything, anywhere, ever has different points of view, but to directly characterise a particular topic as "controversial" does nothing to inform the reader of the topic. All those articles above can be changed like that, and I've no doubt that sources could be found for the terms. The point is that it would not be informative or helpful, and the same principle applies here. It is not a neutral statement, it certainly implies a stance. The other examples are given to illuminate the silliness of doing it in this case--how is Falun Gong different from any other randomly selected topic? I could find a source that says Falun Gong is "healthy", so will the article start with "Falun Gong is a controversial, healthy spiritual discipline...." ? --Asdfg12345 01:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And finally finally, the term “weasel word" emcompasses more than just not having a source, as I understand it, but also includes specious language that appears to say something but doesn't, appears to be neutral but is a judgement, and so on. You can get the idea from "weasel", right? It is sneaky, it sneaks in--that's the feeling I get. I read the policy and thought to myself that it includes more than just on that page, it's about the spirit of the term and its meaning. If you have a different interpretation or understanding on the spirit or meaning of the weasel word policy--and I do believe it's different from just WP:V, (or why would there not be just WP:V?)--no matter: why not put a sentence somewhere that "The (source) characterises Falun Gong as "controversial."" -- this would solve both problems, right? Now really got to scram!--Asdfg12345 02:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, I see there were some things here I had not commented on.

You can call qigong exercises healthy. All you'd need are a few verifiable, reliable, third-party reputable sources for the claim. It would certainly be informative and helpful, very much like the article's current focus on the persecution of Falun Gong in China would be a significant fact about the exercises. As for your opinion that my opinion is silly, that's just not relevant to the massive controversies, imprisonments and unlawful seizures of property or the effectiveness of Falun Gong stretching, meditation and breathing exercises on well-known illnesses. Sources are.

Am I to understand that you would now accept reputable sources for the controversy surrounding Falun Gong? You have never accepted the NY Times or Encyclopedia Britannica on the subject before, so what's changed?

Finally, the meaning of weasel words in the context of wikipedia is very well laid out on the wikipedia page on the subject, which you yourself linked to. Do read it some time. There is no reason for me to discuss it unless you have a specific complaint or criticism. As a clue, however, the definition is not sneaky, it sneaks in--it's the feeling you get. :) PerEdman (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, I am not "characterizing" Falun Gong as controversial. NOTHING is controversial in itself, it only becomes controversial when it is of, relating to or arousing controversy. Falun Gong has aroused controversy. This is no judgement, it is a statement of fact. The same is true of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which are both actions that have given rise to significant controversy and both can, for this factual reason, be called controversial.

You have yourself in the past argued for the focus of the FG article to be on the conflict between the PRC and FG and the persecution of FG. I will not speculate on your reasons for this, but I want you to know that I agree with you, and it is because I agree with this that I believe it is a significant fact about Falun Gong that there is such severe controversy surrounding Falun Gong and the PRC that it has even lead to torture, imprisonment and persecution. Therefore, the significant fact of Falun Gongs controversialty must be mentioned very near the start of the article

The examples did not show that "controversial" can be put into any context, as at least two of the three examples appeared to be completely without merit. All you proved was that you can put the word 'controversial' into any context. I can do the same with 'spiritual'. It is not until we can provide either sources or come to a consensus on a well-known fact that it should be put into the article. I believe there is grounds for this with "controversial", as I believe it is obvious that there are many controversies surrounding Falun Gong, most significantly the ones between the PRC and the FD movement. PerEdman (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand your point. My question regarding this reasoning is how can we put the controversial notions into the correct context. I'm asking this because you said quote: "I believe it is a significant fact about Falun Gong that there is such severe controversy surrounding Falun Gong and the PRC that it has even lead to torture, imprisonment and persecution." in which case you agree that the PRC is doing torture, imprisonment and persecution. Based on this agreement I think that you will also agree, that when these acts (genocide) are done by a state they always go hand in hand with massive vicious propaganda, to justify somehow the unjustifiable. In this case the proper context of the PRC generated controversy would be simply to state that it's an authoritarian state doing what it wants. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

HiG: You quoted me correctly so I hardly have to repeat myself. It does not matter, though as there is no rule saying that you must ascribe to one certain opinion in order to edit a certain article. In fact, the less opinionated you are on the subject, the better.

I cannot agree to a wording such as "the proper context of the PRC generated controversy would be simply to state that it's an authoritarian state doing what it wants." as I'm sure you realize in the context of wikipedia. Proper is normative, non-verifiable, PRC generated misses the point of the neutral use of the descriptive word 'controversial' and doing what it wants is speculative and non-verifiable. Wikipedia is hardly the place to speculate on the unspoken motives of political or spiritual enemies. If you are capable of producing reputable, verifiable sources despite my misgivings, I would gladly accept them.

I observe that Falun Gong is controversial -- of, relating to or arousing controversy -- as I observe that the PRC is persecuting FG. Please note that "arousing" here does not imply the first person causing or taking an active part, it refers to (re)actions of a third party. Let's stick to reproducing the verifiable facts. PerEdman (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] I think that the summary of what you said above is: "Let's stick to reproducing the verifiable facts." To this I can easily agree! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just put the sentence back that was removed at some point, after Penny et al.： "The Encyclopedia Britannica characterizes Falun Gong as "controversial."" -- problem solved.--Asdfg12345 17:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I concurr. Now the only question is... in what section? :) PerEdman (talk) 11:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

My quick thought at the moment is that the academic section should be changed to "Reception" or something similarly useful and descriptive, and then this should go there. My reasoning is that sections should not be determined per type of source, but theme. That's the only way it makes sense, right? Or we'd have "Newspaper responses", and blah blah, instead of theme based responses. The theme approach is far more sensible, and we can put all the reception stuff in one section. If this idea gets the green light, we can just do it that way. Watcha reckon?--Asdfg12345 05:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that there has been have endless discussions on whether or not Falun Gong is controversial here makes it controversial. The fact that the Chinese Government, one of the most powerful nations in the world has banned them makes it controversial. When the Roman Empire banned Christianity, that made Christianity controversial, at least until Constantine. And reliable sources saying that Falun Gong is controversial are there. --Ilivetocomment (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. There is still obvious controversy, much of which is already being described in the article: The allegations of organ harvesting, the protests against He Zuoxiu, the claims of Li Hongzhis supernatural abilities, the opinion on homosexuality, the opinions expressed about mixed marriages and of course the most significantly argued point of all: The persecution of Falun Gong by the PRC. This persecution is fact, repeated throughout the article, and that persecution is in itself a controversy between the PRC and Falun Gong. Therefore, "controversial" is exactly the kind of word that should be used in the lede, followed by a description of these controversies throughout the article, something that is already present. PerEdman (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This should be attributed to a source (like britanica or some other) and put somewhere, possibly in the lede. I don't know what the whole discussion was about; let's just attribute it and put it in.--Asdfg12345 08:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we call NASA and every corporation a Cybersect?

Regarding this edit [6], can we call NASA and every corporation a Cybersect: "due to the group's reliance on the internet for text distribution, recruitment and information-sharing among adherents." --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely NOT. Science is NOT a belief system. On the other hand, something like FLG IS. Children of the dragon (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think User:HappyInGeneral was pointing out that such a definition could be applied to almost any organization or group. The term "recruitment" in no sense applies to Falun Gong - since there is no concept of membership or anything of the sort in the first place. The rest of the definition would apply to almost any group. "Text-distribution" and "information sharing" - who does not use the internet for information sharing in 2009 A.D.? By text-distribution - is it that all material is made available free of cost on falundafa.org website that the author is referring to?

This definition could be applied to almost any group - Computer Scientists, Lay Buddhists, Homeopaths, Doctors, Engineers, - any group you can think of.

And the argument that "science" is not belief and everything outside narrow fields of research in mainstream science is belief, I think, is quite fallacious. Scientific theories are but models we use to gain insight into a set of natural phenomenon. The word theory and the word theater share the same Greek root - theoria - meaning to see, an insight. Thats what theories are - models that help us gain an insight into a set of phenomenon - not pictures of absolute reality - not even an abstraction of reality, but mere models that that help us gain insight into phenomenon - models which are continually displaced by better models which encompass a superset of phenomenon. By making something out of science that it is not - an absolute picture of reality everything outside of whose framework or fields of research is but "belief" - we are doing it a great disservice and downgrading science from an approach to exploring and understanding reality to a personal belief system. There are different approaches to understanding reality - the path taken by present day western science is but one of those. To give an example that comes to mind - Goethean science - we may think of it as another approach, one which lays more emphasis on a direct understanding of reality through higher faculties of objective perception, which Goethe believed was latent in the human, than through axiomatic reasoning on physical measurements. The Buddhists and Daoists traditions take yet another approach to understanding nature - which is as scientific and an equally valid method, if not a more direct and faster one, of objectively understanding physical reality, as our modern science is. In fact, study of qi gong related phenomenon, which many westerners would simply dismiss as "unscientific" or "supernatural", even till 10 years back, was a field of active scientific research in China. I remember reading of an experiment conducted in Princeton University where they found humans consciously willing the outcome of a phenomenon considered purely random in quantum physics( think of it as a quantum coin-toss), had a statistically measurable and significant impact on its outcome. Even scientific notions we come to accept since high school as plain truths - for instance that memory, personality are all associated with the brain are contradicted by evidence emerging in recent research[7]. Not just in in patients who have undergone hemispherectomy, even in those who have survived gunshots through the brain, the personality, memory, likes, dislikes, all, "unbelievably"(as the Scientific American puts it), remain intact upon recovery. There are many such interesting phenomenon scientifically observed, some in controlled experiments some otherwise, which are quite difficult, if not impossible, to explain within the framework of present day science. But that does not mean these observed phenomenon are all "beliefs" and "superstitions" to be ignored but only that scientific models, as of 2009 A.D., are inadequate and not capable of encompassing these phenomenon - just as 18th century physics didn't encompass(and could not have explained) quantum or relativistic phenomenon. Not related, and am digressing quite a bit here from our original topic, but thought would share, while on the topic of "out of the mainstream framework phenomenon", as I hope some of you may find it interesting, as I myself did, these videos I saw a while back on youtube:[8][9]

Dilip rajeev (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ummm. Falun Gong is quite probably a cybersect cause of this wikipedia definition; "Cybersectarianism refers to the phenomenon of new religious movements that rely primarily on the internet for text distribution, recruitment and information-sharing among adherents." If you don't want to call Falun Gong a religion, fine. But you can't deny that Falun Gong is based on a set of concepts and exercises that all Falun Gong practitioners agree with as a whole. It's a new movement that started a couple decades ago. The Falun Gong community is also united through the Internet. Li's writings are mostly spread using the Internet and most communication between Falun Gong practitioners occurs though the Internet. Falun Gong uses the Internet to contact their adherents in mainland China and also filters as much news as they can slip past the Great Firewall. The definition applies pretty well to Falun Gong, I think. --Ilivetocomment (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If you ask me the concept of cybersect is odd to begin with. It might have had traction before, maybe because it sounds like an old Science Fiction term, but now the internet is widespread. In 2009 let's be serious, show me one organization that is not using the internet. Plus there are reasons why Falun Gong is called a spiritual practice. As far as I know that is because religions contain stuff which Falun Gong is not, like there is no membership, anyone is free to come and go as he likes, no fees, etc... As for it being a sect, for that it would need to have a "parent" which again it does not have, see from wikipedia article: "in modern culture can refer to any organization that breaks away from a larger one to follow a different set of rules and principles" + it's not a desirable term because: "The term is mostly used in a malicious way and would suggest the broken-off group was following a more negative path than the original." quote from the sect article. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference. Falun Gong's entire community relies on the Internet, unlike most organizations who just have informal websites where you can see what it's all about and send emails. All of Mr. Li's writing are distributed largely through the Internet. If there was no Internet, Falun Gong's community of practitioners would be nowhere near as organized as they are. Organizations like Wal-Mart, The United Nations, and yes, the CCP may have a Internet presence but their current form doesn't depend on it and can survive without it. And plus, all the major religions all don't have membership either, you don't have to pay to believe in Jesus Christ or Allah and you can go to church or mosque whenever they're open. Falun Gong can be called a sect because they are based on a form of Qigong which could be considered its parent movement. And the statement "Although in the past it was mostly used to refer to religious groups, it has since expanded and in modern culture can refer to any organization that breaks away from a larger one to follow a different set of rules and principles. The term is mostly used in a malicious way and would suggest the broken-off group was following a more negative path than the original." is not sourced and it is almost certainly a POV of the writer. I looked up the definition on Google, from here: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=sect and it said a sect is either a subdivision of a larger religious group or a dissenting clique, either of which can fit Falun Gong. Religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny. --Ilivetocomment (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A few points.

"Falun Gong's entire community relies on the Internet", I disagree.
"All of Mr. Li's writing are distributed largely through the Internet.", so is the constitution and lots of other billion of pages + the Falun Dafa teachings are also published, see here [10] for example.
Nobody would be as well organized without the internet or without phones or telegraphs.
Qigong is not a religion of it's own, Falun Gong can not be a sect of qigong.
etc...

I think we can agree that we have different POV's and that wikipedia is not WP:SOAP. Here we have WP:V & WP:RS so let's stick to sources and not to WP:OR. PS: sorry for the late response, I was out of town. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

np with the late response, I didnt even notice neways. I check this place about once every couple days so no harm done. And my keyboard is f*cked up so that quote comes up like this: È. Anyways, to the point.

A few more points.

"Falun Gong's entire community relies on the Internet", I disagree. They rely almost solely on the Internet to get information in and out of China thanks to wiretapping and unless I am wrong, most Falun Gong practitioners live in China. Also the overseas community communicates mainly through the Internet, unlike a lot of other organizations.
"All of Mr. Li's writing are distributed largely through the Internet.", so is the constitution and lots of other billion of pages + the Falun Dafa teachings are also published, see here [11] for example. LiÈs writings are current, and when they come out the main means of distribution is through the Internet. The US Constitution is generally found in books since it was written about 200 years ago. The books are published also, but much fewer people see it that way. Not so current writings were probably put into the Internet today and not back then.
Nobody would be as well organized without the internet or without phones or telegraphs. Falun Gong puts special reliance on the Internet to communicate.
Qigong is not a religion of it's own, Falun Gong can not be a sect of qigong. Call it a branch of qigong then, it meets the definition near enuff.
etc... Plus it says in the Wiki Cybersect page that Falun Gong is a cybersect.

--Ilivetocomment (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Answers:

"Falun Gong's entire community relies on the Internet" for communication in 2009 everybody rely on internet, because it's more efficient. Do you have any studies to point otherwise? Does even your common sense say otherwise?
"200 years ago" there was no internet, so you are right, the US Constitution was first published in books. My mistake, I live in Romania, our constitution changed recently and I did not get a published hard copy, I got it from the internet, just as I read recently the US Constitution on the internet, so on.
"Falun Gong puts special reliance on the Internet to communicate." and who does not? Again we are in 2009.
"Plus it says in the Wiki Cybersect page that Falun Gong is a cybersect", so it's fine to quote the cybersect wiki page, but not the sect page? See Google Battle [12] return 2.7k vs. 33400k and tell me which one is more relevant. Or in Wikipedia context: [13]

Do you really live just to comment? Please see WP:NOT. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Quote the cybersect page because we are calling Falun Gong cybersect not sect. I'm just trying to disprove you saying that everyone is cybersect so it has no relevance. I will get back to the other stuff l8r. --Ilivetocomment (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

And the reason you are calling Falun Gong and not everything else a cybersect is? My point is this term does not really makes sense. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Because not everything else falls under the definition, of course. Please read the Cybersect page before making any further claims to the effect that "if falun gong is a cybersect then so is everything else". PerEdman (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(the North-American Space Administration is not new, not religious and not a movement. Nor does it rely primarily on the internet, not for text distribution nor for recruitment or information-sharing. I'm not even sure NASA has adherents, but it does have employees and fans, I guess.) PerEdman (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the chinese government, world of warcraft players are a dangerous sect. Have you seen their ban on skeleton characters. Online gamers also unite on the internet. They actually had meetings to do discuss how to properly deal with these negative influence on society. Benjwong (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That article doesn't say that the chinese government called it a sect, and it comments that it could also be caused by Blizzard failing to bribe the correct guys in the Chinese government. So, it wouldn't be relevant to this particular discussion. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You have been led astray, Ilivetocomment, and Happy In General, you have led hir astray. The definition of a cybersect was "Cybersectarianism refers to the phenomenon of new religious movements that rely primarily on the internet for text distribution, recruitment and information-sharing among adherents." and yet you have led the current discussion onto the claim that "Falun Gong's entire community relies on the Internet" which is never claimed in the definition. It is my opinion that the definition and appliance of "cybersect" is indeed relevant to Falun Gong and if you do not like the definition of a word, that is still no reason to deny others the usage of these words. Remember - again - that Wikipedia is not a reflection of your beliefs, it is a communal encyclopedia.

Why "everyone else" is not called cybersect was indicated to you in the very first comment. Please do not ignore such information because it is convenient to do so as repetition will only bore people to leave. PerEdman (talk) 09:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"Cybersectarianism refers to the phenomenon of new religious movements that rely primarily on the internet for text distribution, recruitment and information-sharing among adherents." What is your source saying, that this is the case for Falun Gong? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The definition says "primarily", not "entirely". There is a world of difference. PerEdman (talk) 12:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

What is your WP:RS for saying that Falun Gong relies "primarily" on the internet? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Aside from Patricia M. Thornton, Barent ter Haar also mentions it[14]

The Falun Gong is also a new kind of social phenomenon // namely the virtual movements that come into being quite rapidly due to modern means of communication such as handies (GSM, mobile telephones and what not) and the Internet (WWW, e-mail, WAP etc.). It is typically a city phenomenon and the traditional word of mouth so important in China, where official channels of information are always under state supervision, is now assisted by large scale e-communication in particular.

This is however from Barent ter Haar's personal webpage and could be criticized on that ground. PerEdman (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) This does not state how Falun Gong is different by the Underground Christian Churches for example or by any popular football team, or by ... well anything these days. Who is not using cell phones, who is not using email? So on this ground (nothing) you find it's somehow OK to call Falun Gong a cybersect? Out of which the sect part is what bothering me the most, because it has "pejorative connotations", quoting the sect article. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Improving the entire article

I'm interested in looking at ways we can correct the article to make it more neutral. First what needs to happen is to identify what is wrong with it as it stands, if anything, and then do what needs to be done to fix it. I like it less that people think it's pro-Falun Gong than you do. There's a clause called WP:UNDUE though, which I think is a factor here. This talk page isn't the place to debate the topic though. Check out Faluninfo's recent report, if you like, for the year 2008: http://faluninfo.net/article/846/?cid=84. Despite it being a Falun Gong source, I suggest scrutinising it carefully, since it is clearly at a professional standard, and these organisations set up by practitioners to investigate the persecution are acknowledged as legitimate and thorough by independent groups (I have a source for that. David Ownby mentions it several times in his recent book). I　might just add that everything in this article should be traced back to verifiable sources and should be scrupulously referenced. One side benefit of my demanding this is also to avoid what you complain about--like there is something wrong with the article just because it has this information. If it's in reliable sources, it can be talked about to include here. That's not any individuals fault, so it's a poor point of complaint, if you know what I mean. Neutrality is a methodology, not an objective. If you respond, please take up from the first sentence I wrote here, since that's the most important, and while we could discuss the other issues all day, we can make real progress on the concrete issue at hand if we work together.--Asdfg12345 04:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, Glad to see you come around to my way of thinking, he he. But this topic, "how to improve the article", deserves a heading of its own. I hope you forgive me, Asdfg12345 and Dilip rajeev for moving your comment for that reason.

The first thing to remember is that the current version of the article is totally expendable. I don't mean that we should throw everything out, I just mean to say that it would not really do any harm to remove any part of the article. The sources would still be there. I think the next step, the easiest step, would be to start removing things from the article. Entire paragraphs, entire explanations of concepts, and rather link these to already-existing articles on these subjects. For example the excellent information about 6-10 I am sure can be incorporated into some other article on PRC or Chinese Governmental structure or something like that. It is relevant to the FG article, but it doesn't help the FG article to have all that ... data ... inside it, making it hard to read, hard to overview, hard to understand with all these shoots going off in all directions inside it.

The tree of the article needs to be cultivated and pruned. Fewer branches, thicker bole. Less flowery, more robust. This is supposed to be a solid oak to rest on, not a multicolored garden that drags the eye in all directions at once.

Even though we read one article by a Falun Gong or PRC source and we believe it to be professional or verifiable, it would still be a very bad idea to link to the article as it opens you up to criticism of bias. It is not about what the article mentions that we can verify, but about what it does not mention that we thus cannot verify. Therefore it is always better to find a reference as close to the source as possible, rather than tether sweeping statements in Falun Gong-sourced collected material. In my opinion, that is. PerEdman (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi PerEdman. Can you please be more specific about what you mean? I don't believe there is much information about the 610 office in this article, aside from the odd mention. What you say sounds reasonable, I just don't know what you mean by it?--Asdfg12345 13:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Cut. It. Down. Focus on the most important parts. Even though the 6-10 office text is short, it is certainly one of the thinnest branches that makes the article look bushy. PerEdman (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

the 610 office is the agency inside China that has run the whole persecution. None of the rest of the notes about the persecution would be possible without the 610 office; the persecution itself is predicated on the 610 office. And most people wouldn't have even heard of Falun Gong if it weren't for the persecution.--Asdfg12345 14:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I was concerned about the statement from a book review by Philip Cunningham being used in the Academic Views section. WP:RS tells us :"Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." The article[15] is clearly no academic study and my reservations on using the source is strengthened by the fact that its view conflicts with mainstream scholarship and well as that of the book it is reviewing. For now, am removing the particular line. If any of you think, the source does indeed meet WP:RS, is academic and worthy of inclusion, please share your perspective. Dilip rajeev (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have commented on this as well. At least I think I have. PerEdman (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry, my comment was directed at the section "Academic attention" contained links to a single webpage by one Barend ter Haar, which collects non-academic materials and academic materials alike. PerEdman (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Dilip, WP:RS is the guideline, WP:V is the policy. JapanTimes is a valid source as it is a mainstream newspaper, see WP:SOURCES. Cunningham's view is not included as an academic source, but as a respected newspaper: "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications (WP:SOURCES). In other words, you cannot remove it just because it is not a peer-reviewed publication. However, see also "Statements of Opinion" in WP:RS [16]

For now, and until you have presented further arguments, adding material back. PerEdman (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Buddy, this is an academic topic. And academic sources,a ccording to wikipedia, ought to be given a much higher priority over a newspaper book review. The claim in makes conflicts with that of mainstream scholarship. I have pointed out earlier problems in using newspaper articles as a source for academic topics. Such a claim, made has to be supported by a study. A book review published in a newspaper is but a book review - not in anyway an academic source. If we are to cherry pick statements from book reviews and give them undue weightage like this - then we'd soon turn this article into an opinion piece.

Dilip rajeev (talk)

Stance on homosexuality must be mentioned

Talking to homosexual friends, the defamation of homosexuality within the teachings of Li Hongzhi ar every important to represent in an article about Falun Gong as it represents a subject of public interest to someone who comes to this article to find out more about what Falun Gong is, what it stands for, what actions are taken by its practicioners.

Regardless of what you personally, dear reader, believe about representing Li Hongzhis opinions on homosexuality, you can also choose to view this as a way of moderating the reactions that could result either from withholding the stance on homosexuality, and to explain to any newcomer to the article that Falun Gong does not proactively seek to prevent homosexual people from living their own lives.

The subject, however, must be included. As per my humble opinion, of course. If no one else adds the topic to the article before I have the time and energy for it, I will do so myself. PerEdman (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering Li Hongzhi himself describes homosexuality as evil as e.g. murder (Zhuan Falun, lecture one), it would merit at least a mention. Hexmaster (talk) 07:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the issue should be mentioned. However, I would like to make a point about Falun Gong's teachings: Li Hongzhi does not equate homosexuality with murder. In Zhuan Falun, he lists things he considers humankind's vices. As you said, it is important to note that Falun Gong does not promote an anti-homosexual agenda in society, and has never done that. We need to find a way to present this in the article. According to my understanding, in Falun Gong metaphysics, the criterion for a person's "salvation" is his or her attitude towards the persecution. Taken out of context, Falun Gong's conservative stance on how a cultivator should act – i.e. respecting traditional virtues and values – will inevitably cause misunderstandings, because people tend to rely on stereotypes. We need to take the entire corpus of teachings into account; for instance, the following quote (lecture in Los Angeles, 2006):

Disciple asks: How can we save homosexuals more effectively?

Teacher: They are sentient beings, so save them just like the other ordinary sentient beings. Save them if you can, and treat them just like anyone else. The more you regard them as a special group, the less you will be able to save them. Just save them as you would any other persons. Save them if you can. If you can't, then you can't.

Of course, here we must explain what is meant by 'saving people'. Another common misinterpretation is that it means converting them to Falun Gong, while it has nothing to do with changing their spiritual beliefs. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 12:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Olaf, please see my previous comment above. If you have considerations on how to "best" publicize Falun Gong's stance towards homosexuals, you are entirely free to formulate the passage, before someone else does. Go right ahead. PerEdman (talk) 12:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought there was something about this on the teachings page? I don't see the notability here. I believe the term appears twice in Zhuan Falun, among other things that are seen as immoral, and a smattering of other mentions in the thousands of pages of conference transcripts. It must be something less than 1% of the total body of teachings. I guess it warrants a cursory mention, to establish the context of traditional morality that Falun Gong is approaching things with. I just checked the teachings page and there is nothing there--I suggest some notes on it there.--Asdfg12345 14:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It may not be very important to you, Asdfg, or to Li Hongzhi, but it can be ever so important to the people who are likened to murderers and rapists themselves. If it only a smatterling, or even unimportant, or very especially if the claim is simply not true, then this too must be presented in the article so that the reader can satisfy him- or herself that Falun Gong is not indeed trying to hide this opinion, or that it harbors any secret hatreds against homosexuals.

As you must know, similar opinions expressed towards homosexuals, infidels, respectless children and so forth, constitute only a very small percentage also of sacred texts belonging to the large religions, and still these small segments have caused much controversy, even violence. It is only for the best to be open and honest about these things, rather than secretive or denigrating. PerEdman (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we ought not pull out a few lines from 2000+ pages and interpret it through the prism of our own notions. What is said, in my understanding, is that there are certain actions which engender karma and so is ultimately harmful for the those engaging in such actions. There is no hatred against anyone here! Practitioners do not hold any negativity against even have those who have tortured them - and despite all the persecution, they have only used the most peaceful and kind means to help the persecutors understand and to counter the persecution. Remember among these are people who have suffered handicaps as a result of the tortures or even have lost family members. Ownby writes: "violence of any sort is so alien to Falun Gong."

Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That is no argument at all. If we cannot pull a few lines from any of the 2000+ pages, then we might as well not mention the writings at all. In the case of apparent racism and apparent homophobia, it is vital to be transparent on these matters. Being obscure only leads to speculation.

I'm still waiting for someone to write about this. It may not be important to you, but it can be very important to people who ARE gay or come from mixed ethnicities to know that, as you say, Falun Gong pratitions "do not hold any negativity" against them, or against torturers. (Why the comparison to torturers, by the way???) PerEdman (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not comparing them to torturers - how did you come up with that twisted interpretation?!!! Did you miss the "even to" part? If I say that guy is so good he wont hit back even if you hit him let alone go attack someone innocent for no reason - am I comparing the innocent guy to the attacker? What kind of logic is that? Homosexuals are as welcome to practice cultivation as anybody else - but just as a person would have to gradually give up smoking, drinking, promiscuous behavior, drug abuse, jealousy, greed, lust, anger, hatred etc. - he would have to give up his homosexual behavior as well as he progresses in practice. Everyone makes his own choices and whether a person wants to change any aspect of himself is completely the person's own choice. Practitioners absolutely do not discriminate against anyone.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying you harbor any hatred, I am saying that Falun Gong and Li Hongzhi's stance on homosexuality must be mentioned in the article. You brought up hatred, and torturers: "Practitioners do not hold any negativity against even have those who have tortured them". If you, in response to my request, feel you need to state that "Practitioners do not hold any negativity against even have those who have tortured them", well, then I am suddenly confused, because I was not asking about torturers or hatred. That is how I came to make my "twisted" interpretation.

Again I am confused that you bring up homosexual behavior as if it were a bad habit or negative emotion one can just "give up". Is that, perhaps, the view of Falun Gong, that being homosexual is like smoke, drink, be promiscous, abuse drigs, being jeolous, gready, lustful, angry or full of hatred? I could add that to the wikipedia text right now, if you could tell me what source we can use.

As for sources, here is my own: "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."[17] PerEdman (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a big deal to mention this. People have complained about Falun Gong's apparently conservative stance on these things, I'm sure. Just mention their criticism then mention the 'stance' of Falun Gong from faluninfo.net. If this isn't done by the 6th or 7th, I'll do it then.--Asdfg12345 17:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Rick Ross does NOT qualify as a source

Rick Ross's comments come from his personal website [18], and personal sites, by definition, only qualify as sources under strict conditions (see [19]). Ross is not recognised as a "cult expert" by any scientific authority, and his writings have never been published in academic journals; in addition, he has directly cooperated with the Chinese persecutors of Falun Gong, spoken in their seminars in China, and received money from them. (Isn't it curious how five most recent articles on his site seek to "expose" Dalai Lama?) Ross is nearly a stereotypical example of someone whose comments have no place in Wikipedia, except in an article about Rick Ross himself. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 12:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he does and attempting to miscredit him by repeating the unsourced claim that he is "in bed with the CCP" in multiple edit-comments does not make him any less of an expert witness on cults, plus it miscredits YOU. If you were to remove Rick Ross from the list of viable sources, then we must also remove all references made to Barent ter Haar, whose personal webpage acts as a repository for various claims made throughout the article.

I find it perfectly abhorrent how you choose to source some of the claims you make above, but you choose not to source the claim that Ross has "directly cooperated with the Chinese persecutors of Falun Gong, spoken in their seminars in China, and received money from them".

This article is not about Rick Ross, it is about Falun Gong. Therefore an expert on religious cults is a valid source. Now... if you were to add that segment on the attitudes towards homosexuality, you may gain some repute for constructivism, rather than this horrible defamation of valid sources. PerEdman (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

PerEdman, you did not present any external argument that would support Rick Ross's inclusion in this article — whereas Barent ter Haar is Professor, Research Fellow, and Chair of Sinological Institute at Leiden University. "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." [20] What "reliable third-party publication" has published Rick Ross's work? Who in the Academia considers him as an "expert on religious cults"? Please start by giving me even one such reference. Then we can discuss.

Forgive me for not providing you a source about Ross's cooperation with the CCP. Here it is. "The following paper was presented by Rick Ross at the January 2009 International Forum on Cultic Studies [in Shenzhen] sponsored by the the Centre for the Study of Destructive Cults in China and published by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences." ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 13:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Olaf, You did not present any source about Ross's cooperation with the CCP, instead you hand me a paper presented at a school in China? I'm sorry, that's just not sufficient for the slanderous accusations you are making from excluding a source from a wikipedia article. For information on Rick Ross, I would direct you primarily to the wikipedia page on the man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Ross_(consultant) - Speaking of which, the Rick A Ross institute, would you consider that to be a self-published page of such a magnitude that you would find it an acceptable source, even if it were ... critical?

The material quoted from Barent ter Haar's webpage is not all written by himself, but it is referenced from this Wikipedia page to Barent ter Haar's own webspace, which still makes it inappropriate. That ter Haar's own material is quoted from there is just perfect. Just as Rick Ross should be quoted from his own webpage, when he is making his opinion known. PerEdman (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

PerEdman, Ross obviously doesn't qualify as a reliable source, Olaf has enumerated reasons. The views he holds are also clearly minority, and often (and particularly in the case of Ross) indistinguishable from those of the CCP. I know you want to get some dirt on Falun Gong, but you'll need to dig a bit deeper, I think. If there's something out there in peer-reviewed journals, it must be waiting for you to find it.--Asdfg12345 14:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg, Ross obviously does qualify as a reliable source and baseless slander of an academic source included under an "academic attention" section is just inexcusable. This article is about Falun Gong and the section is about academic attention, of course academic attention, positive and negative, should be in this section of this article. Though as we both know, the real heading should be another, one that is mysteriously missing from the article. I want you and Olaf to stop trying to put dirt up on ANYONE who adds a speck of criticism to this page. Rick Ross is one such example. Cunningham is another one. I suppose that is also what you are trying to do to me when you say I know you want to get some dirt on Falun Gong as you cannot possibly know any such thing. And besides - how can Rick Ross's opinion in any way, shape or form be construed as "dirt" on the movement he harbors this opinion towards? It cannot, as the opinion is his.

I think you might be rather be thinking about my opinion that Li Hongzis opinion of homosexuals should be included in the article? I might agree that's a bit dirty but believe, just as Olaf seems to do, that it can still be done in an apropriate manner.

If you have anything RELEVANT against Rick Ross as a source, I suggest you bring it up immediately. Slander is not a valid reason to keep criticism out of a Wikipedia article. PerEdman (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

PerEdman, Ross has no academic qualifications. I agree what you say about positive and negative is the same in terms of reporting academic attention, as in, we don't pick things based on what they say, only who says it. That's the reason there is resistance to Ross. He runs his own website and makes money from advertising himself as an expert. He attends CCP conferences and speaks at them, and uses the same language as the CCP in talking about Falun Gong. His stuff is self-published, and he does not appear in peer-reviewed journals. He's operating outside the academia in his work. You may also know that he's has been convicted for kidnapping, a highly controversial figure, honestly. He himself is not a reliable source, and is promoting a definitively fringe view of Falun Gong.The cult label should be treated on these pages in the terms in which it is treated in the reliable sources. Apart from this view (that the cult label was a red herring, objectively inaccurate and merely politically expedient), there may be others. That is called a fringe view. Find a good academic on it who gives some analysis with a negative slant and let's use that, at least it will be admissible. I didn't delete the Cunningham reference; don't confuse me with Dilip, please.--Asdfg12345 21:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have any relevant criticism of Rick Ross, I suggest you add them to the wikipage on the person, rather than repeatedly delete any references to the man on the Falun Gong wikipage. You have no sources for your claims, and you are making all this speculation only on the grounds of Rick Ross's statements about Falun Gong. You even went so far as to claim that I am looking for "dirt" on Falun Gong by refusing to have Rick Ross statement about Falun Gong removed from the Falun Gong webpage. You are not being objective here, Asdfg.

Then you say "Find a good academic on it who gives some analysis with a negative slant and let's use that, at least it will be admissible." and again you are obviously misconstruing me. I am not looking for "a negative slant". I am looking to have critical sources included in this wikipedia article, and I am being hindered by smear campaigns, repeated reverts, major edits marked as minor, and rule-page bashing. PerEdman (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

We have referred to several Wikipedia policies that do not allow Rick Ross's inclusion into the article. Either you present your argument in a similar fashion, or you don't edit. It's quite simple. Take a look at this arbitration case. [21] There is nothing wrong with the behaviour of those who try to stop illicit edits on the basis of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I have been consistent with the approach I've taken on this article, and I've never been criticised by the arbitration committee. On the other hand, people who have not been able to justify their controversial edits through what you call "rule-page bashing" have been banned indefinitely before. You have not answered to any of our concerns about Rick Ross, and I know you really can't, because he does not have even low-ranking academic credentials, and he hasn't been published by any reputable outsiders. He is not a "critical source"; he's just "critical", and not doing a very good job at that, either. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 07:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Olaf,

What is wrong is referencing the article without being specific in your criticism. Combine this with slander of the source, and you lose any credibiltiy. In this thread, you have only referenced WP:V, self-published section. I would look closer at guideline WP:RS which allows, among other things: "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" - this is Rick Ross. He is not sourced as an academic source, he is sourced as an expert in his field. To dismiss him from this based on accusations of illegal behavior would be original research ( Wikipedia:No_original_research ). I would also contest the implicit claim that CultNews is Rick Ross's personal webpage. It is the webpage of an organization he has created, that much is true, but it is not a self-published personal webpage in the meaning implied in policy WP:V. The concept being similar to using the FalunDafa.org webpage as a source for Li Hongzhi's statements, opinions and actions (covered under WP:SELFPUB ).

WP:RS also states "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources." and "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."

Relevant to this article, this means that Wikipedia articles should be based more on secondary sources such as Cunninham, Ross and Thornton than FalunDafa.org and Clearwisdom.net which are primary sources. And because we are talking about Ross's opinion, it is also relevant to point out that WP:RS states "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact.", which is also relevant to the NYT source to Li Hongzhi's comments on interracial children.

For these reasons to Rick Ross's benefit and the lack of relevant criticism against him as a source, I restore the quotation to the article.PerEdman (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This is getting a bit silly. Please just respond to this: he does not have even low-ranking academic credentials, and he hasn't been published by any reputable outsiders -- what do you say?--Asdfg12345 17:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I repeat Asdfg's request. "[...] whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". What are these "reliable third-party publications" in Ross's case? How many more times do we have to reiterate this?

On a side note, I am majoring in the "relevant field" (religious studies). I have never seen a reference to Rick Ross's work in anything I've studied; likewise, I've never heard anybody in my field call him an "expert". I'm not saying that Rick Ross wouldn't make good study material — anthropologists have studied all kinds of human behaviour from quirky tribal rites to karaoke bars — but suggesting that his work has any value as a secondary source is not only misguided; it is preposterous. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Racism and Racial Segregation

I've seen quotes from Li Hongzhi where he has said that children of mixed 'race' are "unclean" and where he has stated that the after-life is racially segregated. I have also heard second hand accounts stating that he has further said that the racially segregated after-life is ranked with better post-death fates for certain ethnicities. I edit from work and most sites about ARGs are blocked so I can't effectively search for the quote. Could somebody lend a hand?Simonm223 (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere is any term with any connotation as "unclean" or anything even remotely carrying such connotation used. I am sure you would seen this claim made in some CCP related website - they can't find anything wrong with Falun Gong - so they resort to ridiculous misrepresentations, like these, to bolster their propaganda campaign.

Buddhists traditions and Daoist traditions ( and many Indian traditions as well ) have a world-view in which a hierarchy of dimensions are present - systems or ordering in a plane, never arising coincidentally, but as a natural, physical consequence of a deeper, higher dimensional ordering. All that is said, in passing, is that the ordering of this plane of the cosmos has to do with how more microcosmic, higher dimensional planes are ordered - and racial ordering here, as well, exists not by mere chance. Many inter-racial people practice cultivation - So Very Many. What is mentioned in the teachings is that mixing of races, on this scale, is a fairly recent phenomenon. It is also said that mixed race people can practice cultivation all the same, and it is said, very clearly, that it is neither their fault nor their parents' - but just has got to do with chaotic cosmic phenomenon beyond their control. Interracial marriages are, in fact, not uncommon among practitioners .

Dilip rajeev (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong is not racist. Spit out the bait you accidentally swallowed. I've been practicing for eight years, and I've noticed that mixed-race marriages among practitioners (esp. Caucasians <-> Chinese) seem to be more common than in population at large. I have never heard a practitioner utter a racist slur. Moreover, I've seen hundreds of practitioners of mixed-race origin.

For more information, take a look at the following accurate description of Falun Gong's "stance" in these controversial issues [22]:

Knowing the democratic West to be a tolerant, pluralistic, and diverse place, Chinese authorities have sought to brand Falun Gong as contrary to these basic values. In a word, they’ve sought to cast it as “intolerant.” Several journalists have taken the bait.

The characterization is patently misleading, and rests solely upon an outsider’s uninformed interpretation of doctrine. It’s found to be at odds with lived practice.

Consider the first of the two major issues Chinese authorities cite: an alleged intolerance of homosexuality. (We can’t help but note the irony of China’s communist rulers having until recently banned homosexuality, labeling it a mental disorder.)

Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are welcomed by the practice just like anyone else, and not accorded any different treatment. Whether they continue to live that lifestyle, or self-identify with that term, is solely a personal choice and not something anyone in Falun Gong would force upon the individual. Central to Falun Gong is the making of one’s own decisions.

Falun Gong’s teachings do suggest that certain behaviors, including homosexuality, generate more karma than others or are not conducive to certain aspirations in the practice. But this it is left at the level of teaching, and not a creed or regulation. How one understands a given teaching, and to what extent he or she applies it, is always a personal matter.

A second, related point that must be emphasized is that Falun Gong’s teachings on this and other matters do not equate to a “position statement” or “stance” on some social issue. They are intended solely for the individual aspirant, and to be applied to his or her own life; they are not meant to be applied to others, much less non-practitioners. Falun Gong does not have any position on what other people should or shouldn’t do with their lives. It simply offers its teachings on personal change to whomever is interested in its path to spiritual growth.

What holds true for homosexuality holds true for interracial marriage, if not more so. Falun Gong’s teachings have little to say about the matter. What several journalists have picked up on, prompted by Chinese state media intimations, is the presence of one passage in one book where Falun Gong’s founder mentions the issue in passing.

Regrettably the said journalists didn’t temper their own, outsider’s reading of that passage with investigation or evidence. They failed to check with any living, actual persons who do Falun Gong, preferring, seemingly, to not let a sensational reading of the passage be spoiled by evidence to the contrary.

Had they looked into the matter, they would have found their assumptions to be just that, assumptions. Many who practice Falun Gong have married individuals of a different race after taking up the practice. Of the 14 individuals who make up the Information Center’s staff, fully 4 fall into this category. If Falun Gong teaches racial segregation, it’s doing a poor job of it.

If the practice does not breed racial intolerance in the life of the individual, one might readily imagine how much less so it translates into a general “stance” on interracial marriage in society.

The two most frequently cited forms of “intolerance” end up suggesting, upon closer examination, just the opposite. Indeed, if anything, it would seem that something in Falun Gong is instead conducive to greater tolerance.

✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Essays on Falun Gong practice aside the truth is that I have read quotes from Li Hongzhi on the issue of racial segregation, as I said previously, I just can't find them right now. Please next time you don't have the information I requested it would be sufficient for you to say that you don't believe you have ever read such material. Furthermore please refrain from making personal attacks when you speak to me. It is unwelcome and inappropriate. Thank you very much. Simonm223 (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Found the quote. It was in the new york times in 2000 and was a quote of a statement made by Li Hongzhi in an interview in 1999. I have added the appropriate quote to the "Teachings of Falun Gong" page and will add balancing comments in order to maintain neutrality. As this is a direct quote taken from a source that IIRC does meet Wikipedia's reference standards I ask that it not be removed. I will endeavor to make sure the presentation is neutral.Simonm223 (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Simonm223, we're going to need a date reference ... wait, I just realized this is talk about different wikipage. Going to that Talk page now. PerEdman (talk) 09:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Academic analysis - Ownby, Schechter, etc. never mention anything to such an effect - and these works carry extensive analysis of the Teachings. They don't find anything suggestive of any form of racism or segregation. For a tabloid or a newspaper, such mis-characterization does not count for much. But for an encyclopaedic article, which ought to be of high enough quality to serve as an academic source, such far-fetched claims, unless supported by mainstream academia, in my opinion, are to be avoided. What is said in the teachings has to be understood in the context of over 2000 pages of teachings. If the teachings present, like many Indian and Chinese Traditions, a world-view of a Cosmic Ordering in which is present a hierarchy of material dimensions, and organization in this material dimension arising as a natural consequence of how the system is organized in higher, more microcosmic dimensions, and the teachings, in passing, mention something about racial ordering ( something that occupies just a para or so in over 2000 pages of the teachings ) in this plane arising as a natural consequence of a higher ordering - it has to be presented in the appropriate context - and not be exaggerated and presented in a distorted, out of context and misleading manner. A journalist might do this - sensationalism is part of his job, and he is no position to analyze things in a scholarly manner or to make an academic statement on the issue. But a true Scholar won't - as is evidenced by that prominent scholarly studies of the teachings do not make any such claims.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

In australia in 1999 Li Hongzhi told followers of his religion that children of interracial ancestry could only get into heaven through his graces. He said that there were separate heavens segregated by colour. How is this not racism?Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Dilip, The New York Times does reach wikipedia's reference standards. That Ownby and Schechter do, too, is not a reason to not allow the NYT as a valid source. The quotation may therefore be included in context. PerEdman (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, "is not an indescriminate collection of information". What is presented in the NYT article is but a particular journalist's characterization - who is by no means an expert on the topic. For outrageous claims like these - like that it is said mixed-race people are all "spawn" of this period ( which is a ridiculously misleading representation) - which completely conflicts with what academics say about Falun Gong; and is not supported by scholarly sources and also , by no means, the original source - we must exercise great caution, lest we end up misleading the reader. Highest quality scholarship available on the topic all tell us Falun Gong is a peaceful form of self-belief - what does a particular journalist's sensationalist comments count for, in the face of all that academic analysis?

"Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred to provide proper context, where available." - WP:RS .. This article obviously is not a study.. The claim made by the journalist is not even a study, is quite far-fetched and the tone of writing is very misleading as well. Remember, a journalist is no position to pass scholarly comments on the topic. We cannot include every journalist's interpretation and comments in an encyclopaedic article. Further the article, written in 2000 could easily have been influenced by CCP propaganda, which had then infiltrated many western news agencies, according to analysts like Schechter.

"Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text."..."For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. For example, news reports often fail to adequately report methodology, errors, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment."..."An individual extremist or fringe source[this is not a fringe source but the claim made is obviously a fringe theory] may be entirely excluded if there is no independent evidence that it is prominent enough for mention. Fringe and extremist sources must not be used to obscure or describe the mainstream view, nor used to indicate a fringe theory's level of acceptance." - WP:RS

Considering these wiki-policies, and the completely non-academic tone of the content being added, I am of the firm opinion that such sensationalist material ought not be added in without context. For the reasons I adumbrate here, I am keeping it out of the article for now.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Dilip the article in question was not a "journalist's characterization". It was a direct quote of statements made by Li Hongzhi.Simonm223 (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

See.. the article ended up misleading you as well. It is not a direct quote. Nor is it even a paraphrase. Using terminology, never found in the teachings like "spawn of" - if anything, it is a very biased and intentional/sensationalist mis-characterization. You may verify this for yourself. The lectures are available online. Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because Mr. Li didn't write it down in Zhuan Falun doesn't mean it isn't part of what he taught when he said those things to his followers in australia in 1999. PS: If conversation must continue on this subject can we please do so in Talk:Teachings of Falun Gong?Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The 1999 Lecture in Australia is available on FalunDafa.org as well. You may go through the lecture and verify for yourself.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Dilip, I am afraid Wikipedia cannot possible accept the word of a FalunDafa.org webpage instead of the New York Times, on the word of Li Hongzhi during an interview and I am sure you can understand why. PerEdman (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] To make things easier. Here are the articles: [23] and here is the lecture from Australia taught on 1999: [24]. People who practice Falun Dafa, will read these articles, they will not consider any writing as being genuine even if another practitioner would give it to them, not to mention if it just happened to appear in a newspaper. So for what the teachings are this is the only reliable source. Is there a thread open on this subject on the Teachings page? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

HIG, I am sure you too can see the problem of using a Falun Dafa webpage in place of a New York Times article for sourcing controversial statements made by Li Hongzhi. PerEdman (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

PerEdman, it is not using nyt as a source that I have a problem with. but the non-contextual manner in which the material is currently presented. We need to keep in mind that the source is a newspaper article. WP:RS itself tells us: "Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context".

Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Dilip rajeev, Please read MORE of the text in WP:RS, for example the part about allowing even for opinion pieces. Or even the start of the paragraph you chose to quote so selectively:

For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. For example, news reports often fail to adequately report methodology, errors, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment. -WP:RS

There will never be a complete context inside the wikipedia article itself - that is why we have references; so we do not have to reproduce everything on wikipedia. A wiki page cannot tell people what to believe, but it can show them the sources so that people can make up their own minds.

Nor can you read WP: guidelines as you read a holy writ. Just because WP:RS makes the reservation that newspapers can misrepresent results or report discoveries (this about scientific discoveries, nb) does not mean that you can just quote that part, out of context, as an argument against the quotation presented by Simonm223.

If you believe context is missing, add context but do it in the wikipedia spirit, and please don't just remove the claim. PerEdman (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times article is explicitly referring to the Australian lecture in 1999, therefore it is the stated original source. Apart from what is available on falundafa.org, Falun Dafa does not have any additional lectures. Every interpretation has been made on the basis of these same lectures, transcribed word-for-word from Li Hongzhi's speech. PerEdman seems confused about "the word of Li Hongzhi during an interview"; this is not what the New York Times article is talking about. If there is an obvious discrepancy between the lectures and any derivative sources, which one do you think is correct? And if we choose to include such text from a derivative source, how should we articulate this discrepancy in the Wikipedia article? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 07:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Olaf, Simonm223 was not talking about the content of the lecture itself. I will assume you missed it, so here's a quote: "Found the quote. It was in the new york times in 2000 and was a quote of a statement made by Li Hongzhi in an interview in 1999.", to which he also attached a publication date and in the article, a link. Yes, the article refers to a lecture in Australia, but the quote was not from the lecture, it was from an interview in connection with the lecture. This is also obvious from reading the NYT article. I do not believe the interview is a part of the lecture, or listed on the Falun Dafa webpage.

In the hypothetical event that we have two sources and only two sources that are both reliable and relevant for an event, then both sources can be given exposure. WP:Undue, remember. "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."

In this specific event however, we have the NYT source.[25]

In an interview last year, he said each race has its own paradise, and he later told followers in Australia that, The yellow people, the white people, and the black people have corresponding races in heaven. As a result, he said, interracial children have no place in heaven without his intervention.

For what valid reason should this interview source be left out or ignored for the benefit of a Falun Dafa webpage's claim that Li Hongzhi has only ever said what is listed on their webpage? PerEdman (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an obscure point. Why don't we just have some language like "Journalists have criticised as overly conservative Li's remarks on topics such as interracial marriage and homosexuality; Falun Gong claims that Li's speeches have often been taken out of context and misunderstood." -- the references there would be faluninfo.net, and the NYT source. This would be broadly summing up their arguments and presenting them in a simple way for the reader. What are the thoughts about this kind of approach? Given the enormous amount of different, actually notable things on this topic--and for example, the fact that many of the books and journal articles on the subject don't even mention these contentions at all (Ownby's recent, for example)--I'd have a bit of a hard time understanding why such an obscure point of contention would be given much more than a sentence.--Asdfg12345 17:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Require More Information Regarding FLG's Belief/Teachings Regarding Modern Science and Medicine

This has NOT been elaborated enough in the article itself. As a scientist I would like to know more about the stance of FLG on modern science and medicine. Children of the dragon (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Olaf's comments to User:Intranetusa

In my view, the way some of you are applying the 'cult' label is yet another obfuscation of the word's meaning. Talking about aliens, mixed-race marriages or homosexuality has no relation to whether Falun Gong is a 'cult' or not. You could shout "Heresy! Heterodoxy! Feudal superstition!" all over the place, just because you disagree with Li Hongzhi's teachings. But that does not make Falun Gong a 'cult' or Li Hongzhi a 'cult leader'. However, I'm aware of how such words are powerful tools in positioning Falun Gong practitioners--or anyone, for that matter--outside the borders of rationality and normalcy. Thus "cult members" is just another way of saying "inferior subjects", whose autonomous will is not on the level of an ordinary citizen. More severe control measures then seem acceptable and justified, and the outsider's "rational" view becomes the standard by which to judge what "they" really are all about. "Now, stay put while the doctor administers his cure!"

But whether something deserves to be called a 'cult' is a matter of its operational structure. Falun Gong is not operating like a cult, which has been verified by all those who have done serious research on the movement. Practitioners know that perfectly well: they know such labels have absolutely nothing to do with their experiences. Those who choose to use this word in labeling Falun Gong are merely drawing a line of demarcation between 'us' and 'them', 'purity' and 'danger', 'center' and 'margin', while paying no attention to the accuracy of such concepts. Because they think Falun Gong is stupid and its practitioners are alienated from what is real, they couldn't care less if people assume, for example, that Falun Gong is an "organization", with a tight grip on the sheepish "cult members", whose money is going up a pyramid structure to the hands of a callous, calculating and charismatic "cult leader".

Falun Gong is completely open for people to come in or leave. You don't have to pay for anything. You either take responsibility for your own cultivation or you don't, or you start working against the persecution or not, but nobody's ever going to order you to do something. You never join any organization; the practice itself is about as informal as when you go play pétanque with your friends in a park. True, Falun Gong can be called dissidence, at least in relation to the dominant scientific paradigm. But we must keep in mind that China's so-called qigong boom was widely perceived as a paradigm shift--a new form of science--and therefore it's totally understandable why so many qigong enthusiasts, including many Falun Gong practitioners, are highly educated, as proven by fieldwork. True qigong's effects are perfectly tangible and real; the discrepancy that exists between the views of materialist science and the phenomenology of qigong is a blatant farce. And judging by its pre-1999 popularity and the number of awards it received in China, Falun Gong is the most renowned qigong practice in history. That is why it was banned; it was too genuine, intertextual and deeply-rooted for the Communist leaders, as it created a meaningful existence outside of the Party framework. Taking into account what took place in China in the 1980s and 90s, the pop culture definition of qigong as just another "breathing exercise" is a form of revisionist history, an ideologically loaded concept that aims at neutralizing and diluting its essence. China's qigong boom came to an abrupt end because of political repression; qigong was never conclusively proven false or irreal, but the leading ideologies of the scientific establishment have swept it under the carpet, along with a myriad of other anomalous phenomena that call into question the legacy of the Western Enlightenment. This is nothing new, but its implications are sometimes forgotten.

In this way, deliberate obfuscation of the 'cult' label is, in itself, a tool of ideological struggle, not infrequently linked to militant secularism, scientism, or, ironically, even religious fundamentalism. It postulates a "closed" reality, a fixed set of metaphysical axioms, and seeks to crush its perceived adversaries by the way of social exclusion, even if it has to prostitute language itself: it doesn't matter if apples become oranges or war becomes peace. Of course, many people slap labels without any profound idea of what they're doing, but in this matter, they are, unwittingly or not, serving as lackeys of those who would rather see "heresy" weeded out to pave the way for a Brave New World. Talk about yet another Hegelian nightmare! It is heartbreaking to see how the 20th Century couldn't teach us very much. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 07:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

bunch of wikilaywering that has nothing to do with the case. The edit actually was reviewed by multiple administrators, please read their decision that the edit should stay. Bobby fletcher (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The edit? Wikilawyering? Why, I just said what is inherently true. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 05:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please cite some wiki rule on "inherently true". It's neither a reliable or notable source is it? Bobby fletcher (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

[1] ttp://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fb20010130a1.html

[2] ttp://www.cultnews.com/?p=2092

[3] ttp://falundafa.org/book/eng/HongYinVB.htm#_Toc110877614

[1]

[2]

[3]